P-ISSN: 2790-6795 Annals of Human and Social Sciences Apr-June 2024,Vol. 5, No.

2 (S)
O-ISSN:2790-6809 http://doi.org/10.35484/ahss.2024(5-II-S)37 [393-404]

RESEARCH PAPER
Academic Performance of Students with Hearing Impairments: A Study in
Post-Primary Special Education
1Dr. Asma Kanwal* 2 Dr. Rukhsana Bashir and 3 Sana Qaisar
1. Lecturer, Department of Special Education, University of Education, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan
2. Assistant Professor, Institute of Special Education, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Punjab,
Pakistan
3. PhD Scholar, Institute of Special Education, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan
Corresponding Author [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The study investigates the academic achievement of students with hearing impairments in
English, Urdu, and Mathematics after completing a five-year primary special education
program in Punjab's public sector. Students with hearing impairments often face academic
challenges, highlighting the need for evaluations to guide targeted educational
interventions. A descriptive cross-sectional design with a quantitative approach was used.
A sample of 56 students, selected through simple random sampling, was assessed using
curriculum-aligned tests in English, Urdu, and Mathematics. Data were analyzed using
descriptive and inferential techniques, with scores categorized into below average, average,
and above-average levels. Most students scored below average in reading, writing, and
numeracy. A significant gender difference was found in the Urdu Written Test (p = .013). No
significant differences were noted for other demographic variables. Educational institutions
should implement tailored interventions to address the specific needs of students with
hearing impairments to improve their academic outcomes.

Academic Performance, Assessment, Post-Primary Special Education, Students with

Keywords: Hearing Impairment
Introduction

This study undertakes a critical evaluation of product of primary special education

program for students with hearing impairments. By analyzing the academic achievement
levels of these students post-program completion, the study seeks to deliver valued
intuitions about the potentials and needs of existing educational mediations. Such
comprehensions are crucial for enlightening research-based practices & policies geared
towards enhancing educational outcomes for students with hearing impairments.
Eventually, the findings of this study hold significant implications for driving positive
change in the provision of educational services to facilitate the academic success and holistic
development of students with hearing impairments

Literature Review

The global demand for education as a test of one's competence and ability to perform
fully in the current highly innovative society has compelled a quest for the highest levels of
learning anywhere. Nevertheless, within academic circles, deaf students tend to
underperform academically more often than not. This trend is influenced by various factors.
In Kenya, for example; there are negative community attitudes towards the deaf; learners
with special educational needs have not been properly catered for in the curriculum; while
teachers are incompetent in sign language. Lack of adequate teaching and learning
resources is another big challenge in many special education schools (Mwanyuma, 2016).
 Annals of Human and Social Sciences (AHSS) April-June ,2024 Vol 5,Issue 2 (Special Issue)

In academic success, motivation is crucial. In order for students to achieve their

academic goals, they must be motivated and actively involved in classroom activities. Deaf
and hard of hearing students generally exhibit lower motivation and poorer academic
achievement compared to their hearing counterparts. With high demands from the parents
and teachers who are also involved in teaching process; deaf students can be motivated to
learn better which may result into better academic performance (Mahmutovic et al., 2020).

In the past, reports have been given of how deaf students do not make reading
progress commensurate with their age, getting stuck at “fourth-grade ceiling” frequently.
Nevertheless, there are certain developments like newborn hearing screenings done on
large scale and advancements in hearing technology that may imply reflection upon this
yardstick. It was found out that some deaf students now score average points in
standardized reading tests thereby exceeding the so-called fourth-grade level (Mayer et al.,
2021).

Language skills and literacy in deaf children can be improved through early
identification and intervention, which usually occurs through the use of hearing devices and
sign language (Ching et al., 2017; Ganek et al., 2012; Ruben, 2017). Literacy is essential for
success in education and employment. Reading and writing skills start at an early age and
continue to develop with formal school learning, social interactions as well as recreational
activities (Lederberg et al., 2013; Luckner et al., 2005). Lack of these skills can result in
academic failure, job seeking difficulties, and social maladjustment (Moats, 2000).

During the last forty years or so several studies have shown that deaf children
generally perform much worse than their hearing peers in reading comprehension, literacy
skills, overall educational achievements hence diminishing their opportunities for
postsecondary education enrollment (Qi & Mitchell, 2012; Garberoglio et al., 2014). There
are reports indicating that many deaf students in America read below the level of fourth
grade even at the time of their graduation completing high school while only a few manage
to go beyond seventh grade performance levels (Cawthon, 2004). In comparison with other
subjects such as math Deaf students perform at a fifth or sixth-grade level in high school
(Pagliaro & Ansell, 2002; Traxler, 2000).

However, there are positive developments. Some studies have shown that many deaf
students achieve levels of average / above-average in mainstream classrooms, especially
those using cochlear implants, who often perform comparably to their hearing peers (Antia
et al., 2009; Spencer et al., 2004). Additionally, in deaf children English literacy with their
sign language skills is progressively correlated. Proficiency in American Sign Language
(ASL) supports reading skills, indicating that knowledge of any language can facilitate the
learning to read with skillfully, even if it is different from the printed language (Goldin-
Meadow & Mayberry, 2001).

Early acquisition and high proficiency in ASL with enhanced reading expertise are
strongly interrelated in children and adults with deafness (Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2008;
Freel et al., 2011). Despite some debates over the best early intervention methods, evidence
suggests that bilingual approaches incorporating sign language support literacy
development in deaf children (Fitzpatrick et al., 2013; Hermans et al., 2008).

The achievement gap between deaf and hearing students remains significant, often
due to differences in opportunities to learn and delays in language acquisition (Schick et al.,
2007). Deaf students frequently receive instruction in sign language or other visual
communication modes, making standardized testing in English challenging (Mitchell, 2004).
Full participation in classroom activities, leading to academic and social challenges can be
hindere by the lack of age-appropriate literacy skills (Kelly et al., 2003; Pagliaro & Kritzer,
2005). An exemplar change in education of deaf is necessary to address these issues via
concentrating on the features shared by efficacious readers with deafness mainly on sign
394
 Annals of Human and Social Sciences (AHSS) April-June ,2024 Vol 5,Issue 2 (Special Issue)

language fluency. Evidence-based practices can improve educational outcomes for deaf
children with the collaborative provisions among parents, educators, and professionals
(Hrastinski & Wilbur, 2016). To ensure practicality of this shift is crucial that deaf and hard-
of-hearing students can achieve their full potential and succeed in academic and
professional environments.

Material and Methods

The researchers followed quantitative research design with descriptive in nature to

conduct the investigation of phenomenon.

SWHIs who completed a five-year primary special education program in Punjab,

Pakistan were constitute the population of the study.

A group of sixth-grade SWHIs (n = 56) were selected by using simple random

sampling technique from public special education institutes.

Tests of English, Urdu, and Mathematics were designed by following Punjab's

educational standards. Objective and subjective items were included to assess literacy skills.
The penal of field experts was contacted to ensure rigorous validation of the tools.

Tests were administered in a conducive environment to ensure appropriate

arrangements for seating, lighting, and materials. Total communication methods were used
to provide instructions. Tests were conducted during a scheduled time, and
accommodations were made for students who required additional time.

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the academic performance of SWHIs

across different tests. Inferential techniques, such as t-tests and ANOVA, were employed to
analyze differences in performance based on demographic variables.

Consent was obtained from institute heads/principals prior to test administration.

Students were informed about the tests in advance, and efforts were made to build rapport
with them. The test environment was free from distractions, and measures were taken to
prevent cheating. Ethical guidelines were strictly followed at each step of the study.

Results and Discussion

Table 1
Demographic Variables of SWHIs
Frequency Percentage
Variable Description
(n) (%)
Special Education School n = 32 57.1 %
Institute
Special Education Centre n = 24 42.9 %
Zone No. I n = 14 25.0 %
Zone of Punjab Zone No. II n = 18 32.1 %
Province Zone No. III n = 11 19.6 %
Zone No. IV n = 13 23.2 %
Male n = 37 66.1 %
Gender
Female n = 19 33.9 %
Below than 11 years n = 06 10.7 %
Age Among 11-12 years n = 15 26.8 %
Above than 12 years n = 35 62.5 %
Mild Degree of Hearing Loss n = 05 8.9 %
Degree of HL Moderate Degree of Hearing Loss n = 12 21.4 %
Severe Degree of Hearing Loss n = 19 33.9 %

395
 Annals of Human and Social Sciences (AHSS) April-June ,2024 Vol 5,Issue 2 (Special Issue)

Profound Degree of Hearing Loss n = 20 35.7 %

Before Language Acquisition n = 38 67.9 %
Onset of HL
After Language Acquisition n = 18 32.1%
Listening Device in Hearing-Aid n = 31 55.4 %
Use of Students Implantation in Cochlea n = 03 5.4 %
with HL None n = 22 39.3 %
Low n = 16 28.6 %
Socio-Economic Middle n = 26 46.4 %
Background Upper n = 14 25.0 %
Overall n = 56 100.0 %
Table 1 represents that the study included 56 participants, all representing different
demographic aspects of severe to profoundly deaf students. Among them, 57.1% attended
special schools, and 42.9% attended special centers. Their distribution across zones was:
25.0% in Zone I, 32.1% in Zone II, 19.6% in Zone III, and 23.2% in Zone IV. Gender
distribution was 66.1% male and 33.9% female. Regarding age, 10.7% were below 11,
26.8% between 11 and 12, and 62.5% above 12. Hearing loss severity varied, with 8.9%
mild, 21.4% moderate, 33.9% severe, and 35.7% profound. Most (67.9%) had pre-lingual
hearing loss, and 32.1% post-lingual. Hearing aids were used by 55.4%, cochlear implants
by 5.4%, and 39.3% used no listening device. Socio-economic status was split: 28.6% low,
46.4% middle, and 25.0% high.

Table 2
Grading Criteria for Performance Tests
Grading Criteria to Performance in All Tests
Below Average 41% - 69%
Average 0% - 40%
Above Average 70% - 100%
Table 2 outlines the grading criteria for performance tests used to evaluate students'
achievement. Scores falling between 0% and 40% are categorized as "Below Average," while
scores ranging from 41% to 69% are deemed "Average." Scores from 70% to 100% fall
under the category of "Above Average."

Table 3
SWHIs' Post-Primary Academic Achievement
Frequency Percentage
Variable Description
(n) (%)
Below Average 45 80.4
English written Test Average 09 16.1
High 02 3.6
English Reading Comprehension Below Average 54 96.4
Test Average 02 3.6
Below Average 49 87.5
Urdu Written Test
Average 07 12.5
Urdu Reading Comprehension
Below Average 56 100.0
Test
Below Average 45 80.4
Average 09 16.1
Mathematical Test
High 02 3.6
Overall 56 100.0
Table 3 displays the academic achievement scores of 56 SWHIs who completed their
primary special school education. In written test of English, 80.4% students achieved below
average, students (16.1%) achieved average level, and other (3.6%) scored high. For English
reading comprehension, 96.4% students’ achieved levels were below average, while only
students (3.6%) achieved average level. In the Urdu written examination, 87.5% students

396
 Annals of Human and Social Sciences (AHSS) April-June ,2024 Vol 5,Issue 2 (Special Issue)

stood at below average, while 12.5% students achieved average scores. In Urdu reading
comprehension examination, all students’ (100%) achieved levels were below average. In
the mathematical assessment, 80.4% students’ achieved levels were below average,
students (16.1%) stood at average level, while 3.6% students achieved high.

Table 4
Gender-Based T-Tests on SWHIs' Achievement Scores after Primary School
95% CI of the
Independent Sig. (two- M Std. discrepancy
F Sig. t df
Samples Test tailed) Difference Error Lower Upper
Bound Bound
English-Written 2.889 .095 .787 54 .435 .11238 .14280 -.17392 .39867
Test .892 50.064 .377 .11238 .12597 -.14063 .36538
English-Reading 4.711 .034 1.023 54 .311 .05405 .05283 -.05186 .15997
Comprehension
Test 1.434 36.000 .160 .05405 .03769 -.02238 .13049
6.569 .013 1.167 54 .248 .10953 .09388 -.07868 .29775
Urdu Written-Test
1.354 52.103 .182 .10953 .08090 -.05279 .27185
Mathematical-Test 2.889 .095 .787 54 .435 .11238 .14280 -.17392 .39867
.892 50.064 .377 .11238 .12597 -.14063 .36538
a. t cannot be computed because the SDs of both groups are 0.

Table 4 presents the results of gender-based t-tests on SWHIs' post-primary school

performance test scores show no significant gender differences in English Written, Reading
Comprehension, and Mathematical tests (p > .5). However, a significant difference emerges
in the Urdu Written Test (p = .013), indicating varying performance between genders.

Table 5
T-Test on SWHIs' Achievement by Institute Type in Basic Academic Skills
Standard 95% CI of the
Independent Sig. (two- M error of the discrepancy
F Sig. t Df
Samples Test tailed) Difference mean Lower Upper
difference Bound Bound
English-Written .712 .402 .303 54 .763 .04167 .13729 -.23358 .31691
Test .317 53.977 .752 .04167 .13135 -.22167 .30500
English-Reading 7.085 .010 1.242 54 .220 .06250 .05032 -.03838 .16338
Comprehension
1.438 31.000 .161 .06250 .04348 -.02617 .15117
Test
Urdu-Written .000 1.000 .000 54 1.000 .00000 .09094 -.18233 .18233
Test .000 49.552 1.000 .00000 .09101 -.18285 .18285
Mathematical 1.799 .185 -.762 54 .449 -.10417 .13667 -.37818 .16984
Test -.745 45.123 .460 -.10417 .13977 -.38566 .17733
Table 5 summarizes t-tests comparing SWHIs' academic performance in basic skills
between schools and centers. For English Written, Reading Comprehension, Urdu Written,
and Mathematical tests, no significant differences were found between the two types of
institutes (all p > .05).

Table 6
T-Test on SWHIs' Academic Achievement by Onset of Hearing Loss in Basic Skills
Standard 95% CI of the
error of the discrepancy
Independent Sig. (two- M mean Lower Upper
Samples Test F Sig. t df tailed) Difference difference Bound Bound
English-Written .001 .971 .100 54 .920 .01462 .14558 -.27726 .30650
Test .096 30.280 .924 .01462 .15169 -.29506 .32430
English-Reading 1.174 .283 -.542 54 .590 -.02924 .05393 -.13736 .07888
Comprehension
-.476 24.909 .638 -.02924 .06147 -.15587 .09739
Test

397
 Annals of Human and Social Sciences (AHSS) April-June ,2024 Vol 5,Issue 2 (Special Issue)

Urdu-Written .185 .669 .212 54 .833 .02047 .09633 -.17265 .21359

Test .217 35.295 .829 .02047 .09433 -.17097 .21191
Mathematical 7.192 .010 1.242 54 .219 .17836 .14356 -.10946 .46618
Test 1.496 51.878 .141 .17836 .11922 -.06088 .41761
Table 6 displays results from independent t-tests on the basis of onset of hearing
impairment in SWHIs, assessing their academic achievement in basic skills post-primary
education. Findings reveal no significant differences between pre-lingual and post-lingual
groups in English and Urdu Written as well as in Reading Comprehension tests (all p > .05).
Though, a notable difference was witnessed in Mathematical Test (p = .219), although there
is some uncertainty representing by the confidence interval.

Table 7
Zone-Wise (ANOVA) on SWHIs' Academic Achievement in Basic Skills
Sum of
ANOVA (Zone) squared df M Square F Sig.
differences
Intergroup 0.545 03 0.182 0.704 0.554
English Written Test Intragroup 13.437 52 0.258
Overall 13.982 55
Intergroup 0.075 03 0.025 0.702 0.555
English Reading
Intragroup 1.854 52 0.036
Comprehension Test
Overall 1.929 55
Intergroup 0.314 03 0.105 0.936 0.430
Urdu Written Test Intragroup 5.811 52 0.112
Overall 6.125 55
Intergroup 0.597 03 0.199 0.774 0.514
Mathematical Test Intragroup 13.385 52 0.257
Overall 13.982 55
Table 7 presents the results from Zone-based (ANOVA) conducted on SWHIs in
terms of evaluation of their academic accomplishment in basic skills post-primary
education. Findings indicate no significant differences were prevalent among zones for all
basic literacy and numeracy tests (all p > .05).

Table 8
Age-Wise ANOVA on SWHIs' Academic Achievement in Basic Skills
ANOVA (Age)
Sum of squared
Variables df M Square F Sig.
differences
Intergroup 0.273 02 0.136 0.527 0.593
English-Written Test Intragroup 13.710 53 0.259
Overall 13.982 55
Intergroup 0.043 02 0.021 0.602 0.551
English-Reading
Intragroup 1.886 53 0.036
Comprehension Test
Overall 1.929 55
Intergroup 0.106 02 0.053 0.466 0.630
Urdu-Written Test Intragroup 6.019 53 0.114
Overall 6.125 55
Intergroup 0.439 02 0.220 0.860 0.429
Mathematical Test Intragroup 13.543 53 0.256
Overall 13.982 55
Table 8 displays results from the Age-wise ANOVA conducted on SWHIs' basic Skills.
Findings indicate non-significant variances were found in basic skills levels for all tested
skills on the basis of age (all p > .05).

Table 9
ANOVA on SWHIs' Academic Achievement by Level of Hearing Loss in Basic Skills
Sum of squared
ANOVA (Level of Hearing Loss) df M Square F Sig.
differences
Intergroup 0.824 03 0.275 1.086 0.363
English-Written
Intragroup 13.158 52 0.253
Test
Overall 13.982 55
398
 Annals of Human and Social Sciences (AHSS) April-June ,2024 Vol 5,Issue 2 (Special Issue)

English-Reading Intergroup 0.181 03 0.060 1.797 0.159

Comprehension Intragroup 1.747 52 0.034
Test Overall 1.929 55
Intergroup 0.419 03 0.140 1.272 0.294
Urdu-Written
Intragroup 5.706 52 0.110
Test
Overall 6.125 55
Intergroup 0.806 03 0.269 1.060 0.374
Mathematical
Intragroup 13.176 52 0.253
Test
Overall 13.982 55
Table 9 summarizes the ANOVA conducted on SWHIs' levels of academic
achievement on the basis of their hearing loss level. Results indicate no significant
differences in achievement levels across all tested skills: English Written, Reading
Comprehension, Urdu Written, and Mathematical tests (all p > .05).

Table 10
ANOVA on SWHIs' Academic Achievement by Type of Assistive Listening Device
Sum of
ANOVA (Assistive Auditory/Listening Device Used by
squared df M Square F Sig.
SWHIs)
differences
Intergroup 0.371 02 0.185 0.722 0.491
English-Written Test Intragroup 13.611 53 0.257
Overall 13.982 55
Intergroup 0.006 02 0.003 0.087 0.917
English-Reading
Intragroup 1.922 53 0.036
Comprehension Test
Overall 1.929 55
Intergroup 0.143 02 0.071 0.632 0.536
Urdu-Written Test Intragroup 5.982 53 0.113
Overall 6.125 55
Intergroup 0.698 02 0.349 1.392 0.258
Mathematical Test Intragroup 13.284 53 0.251
Overall 13.982 55
Table 10 displays ANOVA results examining the impact of assistive
auditory/listening device type on SWHIs' levels of basic skills achievements. Findings
suggest no significant differences in achievement levels across all tested skills: English
Written, Reading Comprehension, Urdu Written, and Mathematical tests (all p > .05).

Table 11
ANOVA on SWHIs' Academic Achievement by Socio-Economic Status in Basic Skills
ANOVA Sum of squared
Socio-EconomicBackground df M Square F Sig.
differences
Intergroup 0.260 02 0.130 0.501 0.609
English-Written Test Intragroup 13.723 53 0.259
Overall 13.982 55
Intergroup 0.082 02 0.041 1.183 0.314
English-Reading
Intragroup 1.846 53 0.035
Comprehension Test
Overall 1.929 55
Intergroup 0.372 02 0.186 1.715 0.190
Urdu-Written Test Intragroup 5.753 53 0.109
Overall 6.125 55
Intergroup 0.215 02 0.107 0.414 0.663
Mathematical Test Intragroup 13.767 53 0.260
Overall 13.982 55
Table 11 illustrates the ANOVA test conducted to assess how the socio-economic
status influence SWHIs' academic accomplishment levels in basic skills. Findings indicate no
significant differences in achievement levels across all tested skills: English Written,
Reading Comprehension, Urdu Written, and Mathematical tests (all p > .05).

Discussion

The researchers evaluated the academic achievement of students with hearing

impairments (SWHIs) after the completion of primary special education. The results of the
399
 Annals of Human and Social Sciences (AHSS) April-June ,2024 Vol 5,Issue 2 (Special Issue)

study revealed that a majority of the participants scored below average in all basic skills.
These findings are also signified with previous research of Qi and Mitchell (2012) that deaf
students generally perform below their hearing peers in academic assessments.

Several factors may contribute to these outcomes such as the proficiency in sign
language among teachers and students is crucial for effective communication and learning.
Mwanyuma (2016) noted in his study that in Kenya, the deficiency in the use of fluent sign
language among teachers hampers the education of deaf students. Similar situation in
Pakistan is prevailing, where inadequate teacher training in sign language adversely
affecting deaf students' performance (Ali et al., 2023).

The significant gender difference observed in the Urdu written test with boys
beating girls (p = .013) which contrasts with the studies conducted by Antia et al. (2009)
resulted in no significant gender differences in the academic performance of deaf students.
This discrepancy could be due to the contextual differences such as cultural and socio-
economic factors are different in Punjab-Pakistan (Kanwal et al., 2022).

It is notable that no significant differences in academic performance were found on

other demographic variables such as type of educational institution (schools vs. centers)
and the onset of hearing loss (pre-lingual vs. post-lingual). It indicates the inadequate
quality of education for SWHIs might be uniform across different settings. Marschark et al.
(2015) reported that deaf students often receive an education that does not meet their
specific needs and this poor performance uniform regardless of the educational
environment.

Non-significant differences were found in academic achievements in other

demographic variables such as age, socio-economic status, or the type of assistive listening
device deaf use. This indicates that the issue with the overall quality and accessibility of
education for SWHIs is systematic. This finding is consistent with the studies of Kelly et al.
(2003) and Pagliaro & Kritzer (2005) in which they emphasized the inadequacy of curricula
and instructional methods used in deaf education programs.

The necessity of early identification and intervention is crucial which is also

emphasized by Ching et al. (2017) and Kanwal et al., (2024). Effective early interventions
improve language development and academic outcomes for deaf students. However, the
results of the current study indicate that even the potential early interventions are present
but SWHIs still struggle academically. It highlights the gaps in ongoing support and
educational strategies being provided to these students.

It is crucial to adopt a bilingual approach incorporating both sign language and

spoken/written language instruction to increase the proficiency levels in basic skills.
Research has shown that proficiency in a signed language supports the development of
reading and writing skills (Hermans et al., 2008; Hoffmeister & Caldwell-Harris, 2014).
Implementation of such approaches could enhance the educational outcomes for SWHIs.

Conclusion

The purpose of the research was to assess proficiency levels and identify any
disparities in academic performance among students with hearing impairment based on
various factors. as per the grading criteria provided, majority of students scored below
average in basic reading, writing, and mathematical skills. Notably, there were no significant
differences found in academic achievement levels across demographic variables such as
gender, age, type of institute, onset of hearing loss, type of assistive listening device used by
these students, or socio-economic status. However, a significant difference was found in
Urdu Written Test which indicates varied performance between male and female. Overall,
this study contributes to give the clear picture of outcome of primary special education
400
 Annals of Human and Social Sciences (AHSS) April-June ,2024 Vol 5,Issue 2 (Special Issue)

program implemented in public sector by providing the understanding of academic

achievement levels among students with hearing impairments. It highlights the importance
of quality educational practices in promoting their academic success and overall well-being
of these students.

Recommendations

 The incorporation of interactive teaching methods, visual aids, and assistive

technologies to facilitate learning of students with hearing impairment is a dire need
to enhance language proficiency in fundamental skills at primary school level.

 There should be the provision of quality training and support for teachers and
educational staff to effectively accommodate the diverse learning needs of students
with hearing impairments.

 School administration should ensure that teaching learning materials and resources
are accessible to teachers and students with hearing impairments.

 There should be a mechanism to encourage active involvement of parents and the

broader community in supporting the educational needs of students with hearing
impairments.

 School administration should implement regular monitoring and assessment

procedures to track the academic progress of students with hearing impairments
and identify areas where additional support may be needed.

401
 Annals of Human and Social Sciences (AHSS) April-June ,2024 Vol 5,Issue 2 (Special Issue)

References

Ali, Z. R., Kanwal, A., & Ishrat, G. (2023). Factors Affecting the Uniformity of Sign Language:
Perceptions of Teachers of Students with Hearing Impairment. Annals of Human and
Social Sciences, 4(1), 12-24.

Antia, S. D., Jones, P. B., Reed, S., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (2009). Academic status and progress of
deaf and hard-of-hearing students in general education classrooms. Journal of deaf
studies and deaf education, 14(3), 293-311.

Cawthon, S. W. (2004). Schools for the deaf and the no child left behind act. American Annals
of the Deaf, 149(4), 314-323.

Chamberlain, C., & Mayberry, R. I. (2008). American Sign Language syntactic and narrative
comprehension in skilled and less skilled readers: Bilingual and bimodal evidence for
the linguistic basis of reading. Applied psycholinguistics, 29(3), 367-388.

Ching, T. Y., Dillon, H., Button, L., Seeto, M., Van Buynder, P., Marnane, V., ... & Leigh, G. (2017).
Age at intervention for permanent hearing loss and 5-year language outcomes.
Pediatrics, 140(3), e20164274.

Fitzpatrick, E. M., Stevens, A., Garritty, C., & Moher, D. (2013). The effects of sign language on
spoken language acquisition in children with hearing loss: a systematic review protocol.
Systematic reviews, 2, 1-7.

Freel, B. L., Clark, M. D., Anderson, M. L., Gilbert, G. L., Musyoka, M. M., & Hauser, P. C. (2011).
Deaf individuals’ bilingual abilities: American Sign Language proficiency, reading skills,
and family characteristics.

Ganek, H., Robbins, A. M., & Niparko, J. K. (2012). Language outcomes after cochlear
implantation. Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America, 45(1), 173-185.

Garberoglio, C. L., Cawthon, S. W., & Bond, M. (2014). Assessing English literacy as a
predictor of postschool outcomes in the lives of deaf individuals. Journal of deaf studies
and deaf education, 19(1), 50-67.

Goldin–Meadow, S., & Mayberry, R. I. (2001). How do profoundly deaf children learn to
read?. Learning disabilities research & practice, 16(4), 222-229.

Hermans, D., Knoors, H., Ormel, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2008). The relationship between the
reading and signing skills of deaf children in bilingual education programs. Journal of
deaf studies and deaf education, 13(4), 518-530.

Hoffmeister, R. J., & Caldwell-Harris, C. L. (2014). Acquiring English as a second language via
print: The task for deaf children. Cognition, 132(2), 229-242.

Hrastinski, I., & Wilbur, R. B. (2016). Academic achievement of deaf and hard-of-hearing
students in an ASL/English bilingual program. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 21(2), 156-170.

Kanwal, A., Bashir, R., & Afzaal, H. M. (2024). Enhancing Early Intervention for Deaf Children:
A Study on Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSPs) in Punjab, Pakistan. Pakistan
Social Sciences Review, 8(2), 57-66.

402
 Annals of Human and Social Sciences (AHSS) April-June ,2024 Vol 5,Issue 2 (Special Issue)

Kanwal, A., Jaleel, F., Bashir, R., & Shahzadi, K. (2022). Challenges limiting the role of deaf
parents in academics of their children with normal hearing. Sustainable Business and
Society in Emerging Economies, 4(2), 597-610.

Kelly, R. R., Lang, H. G., & Pagliaro, C. M. (2003). Mathematics word problem solving for deaf
students: A survey of practices in grades 6-12. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education,
8(2), 104-119.

Lederberg, A. R., Schick, B., & Spencer, P. E. (2013). Language and literacy development of
deaf and hard-of-hearing children: successes and challenges. Developmental psychology,
49(1), 15.

Luckner, J. L., Sebald, A. M., Cooney, J., Young III, J., & Muir, S. G. (2005). An examination of
the evidence-based literacy research in deaf education. American Annals of the Deaf,
150(5), 443-456.

Mahmutović, E. H., & Hadžiefendić, M. P. (2020). Developing the motivation of deaf and hard
of hearing students to learn and academic achievement. Human: Journal for
Interdisciplinary Studies, 10(2), p64.

Marschark, M., Shaver, D. M., Nagle, K. M., & Newman, L. A. (2015). Predicting the academic
achievement of deaf and hard-of-hearing students from individual, household,
communication, and educational factors. Exceptional children, 81(3), 350-369.

Mayer, C., Trezek, B. J., & Hancock, G. R. (2021). Reading achievement of deaf students:
Challenging the fourth grade ceiling. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,
26(3), 427-437.

Mitchell, R. E. (2004). National profile of deaf and hard of hearing students in special
education from weighted survey results. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(4), 336-349.

Moats, L. C., & Brady, S. (2000). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers (p. 304).
Paul H. Brookes Pub.

Mwanyuma, R. M. (2016). Factors influencing the academic achievement of deaf learners in

Kilifi County, Kenya: A case of Sahajanand School for the Deaf (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Nairobi).

Pagliaro, C. M., & Ansell, E. (2002). Story problems in the deaf education classroom:
Frequency and mode of presentation. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(2),
107-119.

Pagliaro, C. M., & Kritzer, K. L. (2005). Discrete mathematics in deaf education: A survey of
teachers’ knowledge and use. American Annals of the Deaf, 150(3), 251-259.

Qi, S., & Mitchell, R. E. (2012). Large-scale academic achievement testing of deaf and hard-
of-hearing students: Past, present, and future. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education,
17(1), 1-18.

Ruben, R. J. (2018). Language development in the pediatric cochlear implant patient.

Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 3(3), 209-213.

Schick, B., De Villiers, P., De Villiers, J., & Hoffmeister, R. (2007). Language and theory of
mind: A study of deaf children. Child development, 78(2), 376-396.

403
 Annals of Human and Social Sciences (AHSS) April-June ,2024 Vol 5,Issue 2 (Special Issue)

Spencer, L. J., Gantz, B. J., & Knutson, J. F. (2004). Outcomes and achievement of students who
grew up with access to cochlear implants. The Laryngoscope, 114(9), 1576-1581.

Traxler, C. B. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test: National norming and performance
standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of deaf studies and deaf
education, 5(4), 337-348.

404