How to Adapt and Accommodate in Inclusive English Classrooms for Undergraduate Students with and without Hearing Impairment
Conference:
ECER 2016
Format:
Paper

Session Information

04 SES 09 B, Transition to Higher Education and Employment

Paper Session

Time:
2016-08-25
13:30-15:00
Room:
OB-H0.12
Chair:
Gottfried Biewer

Contribution

In inclusive classrooms, teaching English as a second language to students with and without hearing impairment has been a challenge, especially, in higher education (Lang, 2002). Some problems have been found for both groups of students.  First, students with hearing impairment may develop English skills at a slower rate than hearing students (Andrews, Leigh, & Weiner, 2004; Gearheart, Weishahn, & Gearheart, 1996; Luckner & Friend, 2006). Second, due to the difficulty in communicating and underdeveloped speech and language skills, students with hearing impairment may have fewer social interactions with hearing students so students with hearing impairment tend to have fewer friends and are at risk for loneliness (Hallahan & Kauffman, 2003; Luckner & Friend, 2006; Moores, 2001).  In addition, a number of studies have suggested that students with hearing impairment, especially in higher education classrooms, may not be able to actively participate in class activities due to the teaching pace, the number of speakers involved, and language differences (Foster, Long, & Snell, 1999). 

In Thailand, students with hearing impairment use Thai sign language as their first language (Dangsaart et all, 2008), learning English as a foreign language is thus one of the big challenges in higher education study (Deaf port project, 2008).  The preliminary studied by Suthipiyapathra, Vibulphol, and Prongsantia (2015) found that inclusive classrooms gave the opportunity for students with and without hearing impairment to make new friends and learned to adjust themselves with people who are different from them.  However, students with hearing impairment and hearing students didn’t often interact with each other.  In addition, students with hearing impairment didn’t get much involved in classroom activities, especially, listening and speaking activities.

Thus, this study aimed to develop an English instructional model to enhance English learning achievement, social skills, and learning engagement of undergraduate students with and without hearing impairment in inclusive classrooms.

In inclusive classrooms which include students with and without hearing impairment, a “one-size-fits-all” approach in which all students receive the same instruction may not work effectively (Haager & Klingner, 2005).  This study therefore proposes an instructional model that integrates the principles of the Differentiated Instruction (DI) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approaches to respond to the diverse needs of the learners in inclusive English as a second language classrooms.  According to Udvari-Solner, Villa, and Thousand (2005), Differentiated Instruction (DI) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) are well suited with each other because Universal Design for Learning is “a systematic decision- making method for differentiation” (p.138).  To elaborate, Differentiated Instruction (DI) allows the teacher to differentiate elements of a curriculum (content, process, and product) in order to engage and maximize the learning potential of each student (Tomlinson et al., 2003) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) provides each learner equal opportunities to learn and support the different learning needs of the diverse students in inclusive classrooms by using flexible instructional materials, teaching methods, and assessment (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2003; Udvari-Solner, Villa, & Thousand, 2005). The integration of these two approaches will therefore complement each other to serve the needs of the learners in inclusive classrooms. 

Method

In this study, the English instructional model was developed based on the Differentiated Instruction (DI) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approaches to adapt the instruction and accommodate undergraduate students with and without hearing impairment in inclusive classrooms. Findings from Suthipiyapathra, Vibulphol, and Prongsantia (2015) which analyzed the situations of inclusive English classrooms for undergraduate students in Thailand were used to guide the design of this instructional model. The instructional model was implemented in one English foundation classroom in one Thai university, which provided inclusive classrooms for students with and without hearing impairment, over the course of a semester in 2015. The participants were selected using a convenient sampling method. The students were informed of the objectives of the study and aware that their participation in the study was voluntary and their identity would be kept confidential. A total of 54 students participated in the study—four of them were students with hearing impairment. In this instructional model, a Thai sign language interpreter and a note-taker were provided during the instructional activities to accommodation for students with hearing impairment. To provide adaptation for hearing students and students with hearing impairment, the content, process, and product of the course were differentiated. Course content was provided using multiple means of representation. The instructional process included multiple means of engagement by adjusting the levels of challenge of listening, reading, speaking and writing tasks. Lastly, the product—learning outcomes were presented using multiple means of expression. The effect of instruction on students’ English learning achievement, social skills, and learning engagement were investigated using tests, questionnaires, learning logs, and semi-structured interview. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used for the purpose of triangulation for evaluation. Descriptive statistics--mean, percentage, standard deviation (SD), paired t-test, and correlations were applied for quantitative data. Coding, memoing, and developing category were involved to organize the data for content analysis (Johnson & Christensen, 2004).

Expected Outcomes

The findings provided support that this instructional model was effective and could be used in inclusive English classrooms for undergraduate students. First, the results from the English learning achievement tests before and after the instruction showed improvements in the English skills of both groups of the students but with some variation in each language skill. Second, the students’ social skills were enhanced significantly over the course of the instruction. The results from questionnaires, learning logs, and semi-structured interviewed showed that both groups of students were willing to share their ideas and feelings during group discussions, tended to offer help to other group members, share learning materials and information, and encourage other group members to participate and collaborate during group discussion. Last, the students’ engagement in instructional activities were enhanced. The students worked actively with other students on the assigned task during the class activities and outside the class. They also tried to connect, compare, and associate similarities and differences between what they have learned and what they already knew or studied in other classes.

References

Andrews, J., Leigh, I., & Weiner, M. (2004). Deaf people: Evolving perspectives from psychology, education, and sociology. Boston: Pearson Education. Dangsaart, S., Naruedomkul, K., Cercone, N., & Sirinavakul, B. (2007). Intelligent Thai text-Thai sign translation for language learning. Computers & Education, 51(2008), 1125-1141. Deaf Port Project. (2008). Analysis of needs, constraints, practices, and challenges to the deaf and hearing-impaired learners of language: Education and culture DG, Lifelong learning program. Foster, S., Long, G., & Snell, K. (1999). Inclusive instruction and learning for deaf students in postsecondary education. Journal of Deaf studies and Deaf education, 4(3), 225-235. Gearheart, B., Weishahn, M., & Gearheart, C. (1996). The exceptional student in the regular classroom (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Haager, D., & Klingner, J. (2005). Differentiating instruction in inclusive classrooms: The special educator's guide. Boston: Pearson Education. Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation (pp. 1-24): National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Hallahan, D., & Kauffman, J. (2003). Exceptional learners: Introduction to special education (9th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Boston: Pearson Education. Lang, H. (2002). Higher education for deaf students: Research priorities in the new millennium. Journal of Deaf studies and Deaf education, 7(4), 267-280. Luckner, J., & Friend, M. (2006). Students with deafness and hearing loss. In M. Friend (Ed.), Special education: Contemporary perspectives for school professionals. Boston: Pearson Education. Moores, D. (2001). Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles, and practices (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Suthipiyapathra, S., Vibulphol, J., & Prongsantia, S. (2015). Learning Experiences of Hearing Impaired Students in Inclusive English Classrooms. Paper presented at the The 35th Thailand TESOL International Conference Proceedings 2015. Tomlinson, C., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C., Moon, T., Brimijoin, K., . . . Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Educationof the Gifted, 27(2/3), 119-145. Udvari-Solner, A., Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (2005). Access to the general education curriculum for all: The universal design process. In R. Villa & J. Thousand (Eds.), Creating an inclusive school (pp. 134-154). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Author Information

Samorn Suthipiyapathra (presenting / submitting)
Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University
English
Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University
Chulalongkorn University
Curriculum and Instruction
Bangkok
Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University
NAKHONRATCHASIMA

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.