Hearing, Deaf, and Hard-of-Hearing Students Satisfaction with On-Line Learning

Hearing, Deaf, and Hard-of-Hearing Students Satisfaction with On-Line Learning By James R. Mallory, M.S. Professor Applied Computer Technology Department jrmnet@rit.edu Gary L. Long, PhD, Associate Professor Research Department gllerd@rit.edu Stacey M Davis, Research Associate Research Department smd5659@rit.edu Abstract: Some faculty within the (NTID) at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) have been using varied technologies for delivering and interacting with both on-campus and Distance (On-Line) Learning classes for the past six years. For the past two years, the authors have collected data from all RIT deaf, hearing, and hard of hearing students who participated in courses both on-campus and via distance learning in order to better understand the relative effectiveness of these technologies from the perspective of the student. A survey was implemented with RIT hearing, deaf and hard of hearing online learners. In this session, we will present the Interactive technologies used to deliver the instructional material and the results of student-centered ratings from a questionnaire regarding their relative effectiveness for delivery of instruction for on-line learners. Introduction For the past two years, the authors have collected data from students who participated in both on-campus DL and traditional (remote) DL classes in an effort to better understand the advantages and disadvantages of the DL format and delivery methods for deaf learners. There is very little data or information currently available about deaf, online learners regarding which components of online learning are important for their mastery of course material. The literature does support DL courses as equally as effective as face-to-face instruction for hearing students (Collins & Pascarella, 2003). When examining different components of DL courses, Katz (2002) found that students who preferred interactive instruction that included tutoring,, also liked video-conferencing. Those who were more independent in their learning style or preference preferred the Internet based set-up. The presence of the (NTID) on Rochester Institute of Technology s (RIT) campus with between 30 and 50 deaf and hard-of-hearing students enrolled in Distance Learning (DL) courses each quarter, provides an opportunity for examining these DL learners. Procedure This paper focuses on the results of a questionnaire accessible to deaf and hard of hearing DL learners at RIT for the fall, winter and spring quarters during the two year time period of 2001-2003, and for both hearing and deaf/hh students during the summer quarter of the 2002 RIT academic year. Due to the large number of hearing students enrolled in DL courses at RIT, one academic quarter was more than adequate to acquire a sufficient sample size. A paper presented at the T3B 1

A 35-item questionnaire was administered online at the end of each academic quarter. Respondents were automatically entered into a lottery and two individuals each quarter were randomly selected and received $25.00 for their participation. The questionnaire consisted of 35 items,: 12 demographic, 6 open ended, and 17 Likert items. The Likert items focused on the following course components: 1. Testing and Interactions 2. Groupware Conferences 3. Web, Textbook and Instruction, Videotape 4. Homework and Interactions Students were asked to rate the importance of these components for their overall learning using a five-point scale from not important at all to very important. A sample of the online survey can be seen in Figure 1. Figure 1. Likert Question Samples from the RIT Online Survey Subjects Of the students enrolled in DL classes at RIT during the 2002-03 Academic Year (AY), 246 students, 187 hearing (76%), and 59 (34%) with a declared hearing loss participated in the survey. Of the 59 with a hearing loss, 42 (17%) were Deaf, and 17 (7%) were hard of hearing (HH). Participants were volunteers who were enrolled in graduate (36%) and undergraduate (64%) courses at RIT during the four quarters during the 2002-03 academic year. Approximately 74% of the students were enrolled in applied science/computer science courses, while the remainder of the students, 26%, were enrolled in liberal arts or business courses. A paper presented at the T3B 2

Eighty three percent of respondents indicted that their first language was English and 10 percent indicated that their first language was American Sign Language (ASL). Seven percent of the sample were deaf students who indicated that a language other than English or ASL was their first language. As a group, respondents were not new to online learning and expected to do well in the present class. Sixty seven percent had participated in a prior DL course. Seventy one percent had used electronic conferencing before, and 91 percent expected to receive either an A or B in the course they were evaluating. Results The three groups of students (hearing, deaf, and hard-of-hearing) were compared on the number of hours per week they spent studying. No significant differences were found among the three groups, and on average, students reported spending between 5-10 hours per week including class time. Subsequent analyses were conducted on the Likert items to determine which factors were: a) consistently perceived as most important for student learning by all three groups and, b) which factors were weighted differently by the three groups. MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS The following factors were rated as important or very important for learning course material by hearing, deaf, and hard-of-hearing students. Table 1. presents the mean rating for each item on a Likert scale of (1 = not important at all, 2 = not very important, 3 = somewhat important, 4 = important, and 5 = very important). Students who indicated that the factor did not apply to his/her course were not included in the analysis. Table 1. Factors rated as most important for learning by all students MEAN RATINGS ITEMS Hearing (N=187) Deaf (N=42) H-H (N=17) 25. Teacher s written explanations on homework. 4.37 4.53 4.44 18. Instructor comments posted on electronic conference. 4.39 4.46 4.44 26. On-line interactions/comments by instructor and fellow classmates on homework. 4.21 4.34 4.25 20. Textbook or materials developed by instructor. 4.36 4.07 4.00 19. Students comments posted on electronic conference. 4.04 4.13 4.12 The factors that were rated as most important for learning by all three-student groups were related to their receiving specific feedback (on homework) or comments (through an electronic conference) from the instructor of the course. The next set of instructional factors seen as important for learning, were feedback from fellow students (posted on line) and materials developed by the instructor. It appears that the five items in Table 1. that were rated as most important for overall learning by all students were synchronous in nature. This means that students could take full advantage of the benefits of on-line-learning and access these five aspects of learning when it was most convenient for them. Written comments on their homework or posted ideas would be responded to by either the teacher or their peers and then they could access their important input to their learning as their schedules allowed. No significant group differences were related to these five factors, so it doesn t matter if student were hearing, deaf, or hard-ofhearing - posted comments by the teacher and student peers and material developed by the instructor were seen as most important for learning. A paper presented at the T3B 3

Some quotes from hearing and deaf students bellow will elaborate on these factors. Hearing Students: My instructor always gives quick feedback. Utilize my time much more effectively. I enjoy the interaction better than a class setting because all the students are able/required to participate. It allows more people s views to be heard. The instructor communicated with individual students as well as the whole class. Deaf/Hard of Hearing Students: Ability to communicate freely without barriers. Everything is text based and hearing isn t a problem. Freedom of participation No need to feel awkward speaking in front of class... I can say what I want and not feel judged. too All students are responding to the ease of communication provided by the on-line discussion boards and chat capabilities and the deaf/hard-of-hearing students are responding to the increased ease of communication compared to more traditional lecture classes. The following section focuses on instructional factors that were rated differently by the three groups. Table 2. presents the mean ratings for factors on which the three student groups different on their perceptions of importance based on the same Likert scale presented with Table 1. Table 2. Factors Rated as Most Important for Learning on Which Student Groups Differ. MEAN RATINGS ITEMS Hearing (N=187) Deaf (N=42) H-H (N=17) 15. Live classroom interactions/discussion with the teacher. 3.48 4.07 3.31 17. Tutoring help from friends, colleagues, or classmates. 2.91 3.74 3.18 27. Live classroom explanations/discussions with the teacher on homework. 3.39 4.15 3.64 16. Individual tutoring sessions with the teacher. 2.61 3.39 3.40 For the first three items in Table 2 (questions 15, 17, & 27) the hearing student ratings differed significantly from the deaf student ratings, but the hard-of-hearing and the hearing ratings did not differ. On the last item (16), the hearing students differed from the deaf and hard-of-hearing respondents. Students responding to the items in Table 2. are in mixed classes where online instruction coexists with some opportunity to come together as a class and A paper presented at the T3B 4

interact with the teacher and student peers. For questions 15, 17, and 27 deaf students rated the live (one-on-one) contact with the instructor and student peers as more important for their learning than did either hearing students or hard-of-hearing. This finding is interesting, in that most of the deaf students would need to use an interpreter to support their communication, and going through a third party presents its own challenges. What may be happening is that deaf students are using all options (on-line, class, text, tutoring, peers) for obtaining the information needed to be successful. On the last item in Table 2., Individual tutoring sessions with the instructor, the deaf and hard-of-hearing students rated this item as more important than did the hearing students. This finding is consistent with a prior study (Foster, Long, & Snell, 1999) in which deaf/hard-of-hearing indicated that if they did not understand the material presented in class, they would contact the faculty outside of class for an explanation. The following quote from student help to clarify the findings in Table 2: Quotes from deaf and hard of hearing students: Felt like I was able to participate in e-chat just like hearing student. I prefer to do this instead of using an interpreter which he/she doesn't understands me all of the times. Received the same education as my classmates it is neat to communicate online and learn from one another I was hoping to be assigned to a specific tutor to help me to understand codes, since it was always my weakness in there. Quotes from hearing students: Not having to attend a class scheduled instruction. I liked being able to do the work when I had the time, allowing me to take other classes I wanted to. I can do the work when I have time to do the work. Not having a set schedule of meeting times, more freedom of when and where to get work done. Discussion Limitations of this study There were several factors that the authors felt may have affected the results of this study. These factors are listed below under their corresponding title. A paper presented at the T3B 5

Mixing Blended and Non Blended Students Students in a blended/hybrid environment were mixed in with students who were in a pure DL (remote) environment. Hybrid/blended would be defined as those students who were enrolled in DL classes and received instruction in the same manner as the rest of the class, but also were able to come on campus and talk to the instructor. The authors failed to include a survey question as to whether the student was a true remote learner or whether they had access to on-campus resources. This item will be included on future surveys. On Campus Tutoring for Deaf and HH Students Also not factored into this study is the fact that some of the deaf and HH could have accessed some of the available on-campus tutoring resources. RIT/NTID has significant support services, which includes tutoring for deaf and HH students. This could have impacted on the perceived importance of live contact with the instructor. This may be negated by the specific use of the word teacher in the questionnaire, but students using peer tutoring may have internalized the question to include it. Small Sample Size for Hard or Hearing Audience Although the N for hearing (N= 187) and deaf (N=42 ) is adequate, the N for HH (N=17 ) students is not large enough to render sound statistical data. The authors plan to continue this study in order to gain larger sample sizes and statistically improve our results. Conclusion The items that came out as most important for all groups utilized the strength of DL, the asynchronous strength to enhance the ease of communication among the students and the teacher in the virtual classroom. Some deaf and HH students felt that DL helped level the playing field by providing a text-based communication format. There were a significant number of items on which all three groups agreed with regard to which factors were most important for learning. The most prominent questions common to all three groups are those listed in Table 1. Figure 1. below shows a bar chart of one of these questions, Mean importance for teacher s written explanations on homework. Figure 1. Mean importance for teacher s written explanations on homework A paper presented at the T3B 6

Some factors were different among the three groups as shown in Table 2. One such example would be the question where the HH responded similar to their hearing peers, such as the item Live classroom interactions/discussions with the teacher. The data for this item is illustrated below in Figure 2. Figure 2. Live classroom interactions/discussions with the teacher On one item also shown in Table 2. relates to the importance of Individual tutoring sessions with the teacher. On this item the HH responded more like their deaf peers. This comparison is shown below in Figure 3. This factor could be affected if the deaf or HH students were on-campus utilizing tutoring support services. Remote and possibly graduate DL students would not do this, but others DL students could have. In future surveys, the authors plan to query students as to whether they had access to and used on-campus support services such as tutoring. Figure 3. Individual tutoring sessions with the teacher A paper presented at the T3B 7

DL courses are largely text based, and do not create the anxiety that going through a third party, such as an interpreter creates in the communication process. This is similar to the findings (Richardson, Long, Foster, in press) in the Open University Study. The difficulty with this is that deaf learners may have difficulties with reading that may negate some of the advantages created by a text-based learning environment. Typically, even in multi-media based teaching, (animations, streamed video, etc.) text captioning and/or text inserts are used to make the content accessible. One of the advantages of DL courses is that the instructor is able to communicate with individual students, whereas in a more traditional lecture situation a majority of the communication happens between the teacher and the class as a whole. References Collins, J., & Pascarella, E. T. (2003). Learning on campus and learning at a distance: a randomized instructional experiment. Research in Higher Education. 44(3). 315-326. 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. Katz, Y. J. (2002). Attitudes affecting college students preferences for distance learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 18. 2-9. Mallory, J.R., & Long, G.L. (2002). Deaf students perceptions on online learning and delivery technologies. Postsecondary Education Programs Network (PEPNet). Kansas City, Missouri. [Online]. Available: http://sunsite.utk.edu/cod/pec/other.html Richardson, J., Long, G., & Foster, S. (in press). Academic engagement in students with a hearing loss in distance education. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. A paper presented at the T3B 8