Asia Social Issues E-ISSN: 2774-0315

Computer-Assisted Vocabulary Learning for Thai Deaf Students: A

Case Study of Sot Suksa School for the Deaf

Author Name (First name Lastname, Times New Roman, 14 pt, Bold)

Affiliated Institution, email@[Link] (Valid e-mail of all authors

should be written, Times New Roman, 14pt, Bold)

*
Corresponding author’s e-mail: e-mail (Times New Roman, 14 pt, Bold)

Received: xxx; Revised: xxx; Accepted: xxx (Times New Roman, 12 pt, Italic)

Abstract
In a world without sound, learning to communicate, read, write, and expand one's
vocabulary requires a community of expert communicators in sign language. For many deaf
individuals in Thailand who are born into hearing-abled families, access to the expert
assistance they need to learn communication skills does not begin until their first years of
compulsory education. By that time, academically, they are already many years behind their
hearing-abled peers. The present study employed an experimental research design to
investigate the influence of computer-assisted language learning technology, DeafReader, on
the vocabulary skills of deaf students in Thailand. After a six-week intervention, one-way
ANOVA analysis showed no significant difference in pre-test and post-test scores between
the treatment and control groups. Additional analysis found a significant difference in
performance between male and female students. Age differences in the acquisition of
foundation language skills between genders were considered to be an influencing factor in the
results of this study. The author concludes that students may have lacked the basic language
skills needed for technology intervention to be effective. The author recommends examining
the effects on an older age group and exploring the use of DeafReader as a learning tool for
fingerspelling, sign language, and mapping text to sign.
Keywords: Deaf, Hard of hearing, Vocabulary, Fingerspelling, Sign language, DeafReader

Introduction
One of the earliest developments children experience in their education is acquiring
the ability to read. For many, their reading proficiency is hindered by factors such as
dyslexia, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and sight or hearing problems. The
challenges that hearing-abled individuals face during this development stage are
inconsequential when contrasted with those who have never experienced the sound of words,
letters, or phonemes. Void of sound, learning to read seems an unattainable skill (Musselman,
2000), yet many deaf individuals have accomplished it (Azbel, 2004).

Vol.x No.x (20xx): xxx-xxx Article XXXXXX

 Asia Social Issues [Link]

Reading involves recoding written symbols (words and letters) into their equivalent
audio form and then relating that audio to spoken language (Cawthon, 2011; Harris, 2015).
Therefore, one might assume that knowledge of phonetic sounds is a fundamental building
block of reading. While the partially deaf may have some audio awareness, the profoundly
deaf may have a scant understanding of such audio representation depending on the onset of
their hearing loss (Möbus, 2010; Woll, 2013).
Few schools in Thailand are equipped with the expert support deaf students require
during their education. According to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), deaf
students in Thailand who cannot speak are prone to have poor academic performance or be
excluded from educational institutions (United Nations International Children's Emergency
Fund [UNICEF], 2018). Considerable research supports the argument that deaf students
suffer academically from language deprivation (Cawthon, 2011; Morere, 2011; Razalli et al.,
2018; Williams et al., 2015; Woll, 2019; Yoon & Kim, 2011). Concerning the Deaf, the
report affirmed that learning the mother tongue language should precede learning to read or
write. Unfortunately, for the Deaf, the mother tongue language is typically sign language
(Razalli et al., 2018), which, unless born into a deaf family, is unlikely to be a natural
acquisition (Joy et al., 2019; Razalli et al., 2018). Conversely, children born of deaf parents
(second generation Deaf) often acquire sign language through natural exposure in the same
way the hearing-abled acquire speech (Joy et al., 2019).
According to the National Statistics Office, Thailand, more than 380,000 deaf or hard
of hearing (D/HH) people reside in Thailand (National Statistics Office, Thailand, 2017). Of
those, 18.71% were deaf at birth (The Isaan Record, 2017). The reality of this statistic is that
more than 71,000 members of the Deaf community had no experience of audible language
when learning to read. Within the D/HH population, around 13.16% (50,000) attend school,
of whom less than 10% attend a specialist school (The Isaan Record, 2017). In a survey of the
disabled, more than one in three (37.8%) aged between 5 and 17 did not attend school
(National Statistics Office, Thailand, 2017). Of those attending school, it was found that only
9.7% studied at a school that catered specifically to their disability.
Void of specialist education, the opportunities for deaf students to learn to
communicate, either through sign, writing, or verbally, are greatly diminished. Research has
repeatedly shown that reading scores for the Deaf are significantly poorer than those of
hearing-abled students of an equivalent age (Morere, 2011; Razalli et al., 2018; Thurlow et
al., 2009; Woll, 2019), with the difference widening with age (Razalli et al., 2018). In
Thailand, D/HH students attain, on average, O-NET scores up to 50% lower than their
hearing-abled peers (Iam-Khong et al., 2011). However, according to Mathews and
O'Donnell (2018), this difference can be reduced using cochlear implants.
Nakhon Si Thammarat School for the Deaf is one of just a select number of schools in
Thailand that offer specialist education for the D/HH. Established in 1991, the school
provides residential tuition and tutors students from kindergarten (age five) to upper
mattayom (age eighteen). Most students have diminished hearing from birth and are
diagnosed as profoundly deaf. Students are assigned to classes based on their age and taught

Page 2 of 21
 Asia Social Issues [Link]

fingerspelling and sign language. The school teaches Thai Sign Language (TSL), which has
similarities with American Sign Language (ASL). Students have access to a limited number
of computers at the school but have no access to technology for learning reading, vocabulary,
fingerspelling, or sign language. Teachers at the school expressed their existing methods for
teaching new vocabulary are time-consuming and challenging for the students. The teaching
methods mainly involved using pictures, fingerspelling, and sight words. Textbooks specific
to learning vocabulary, such as shapes, colours, occupations, transport, etc., and story books
that include the target vocabulary in sign or fingerspelling translation are non-existent.

Research objectives
This research aimed to address three objectives: 1) To evaluate the influence of an
interactive web-based learning resource, DeafReader (Moxon, DeafReader, 2022b), on the
vocabulary skills of deaf students studying in pratom levels one to six at Nakhon Si
Thammarat School for the Deaf, Thung Song, Thailand. 2) Compare performance differences
between genders. 3) Compare performance differences relating to age level.

Research questions
Based on the research objectives, the study needed to address three research
questions:
1) To what extent can the use of DeafReader improve students’ range of vocabulary?
2) Does gender significantly influence students' vocabulary acquisition in this study?
3) Does age significantly influence students' vocabulary acquisition in this study?

Literature review
The literature search focused on the topics of teaching methods and technology used
to teach reading and vocabulary to deaf students. Here, a review of the literature is presented,
which relates to the current knowledge of how the Deaf learn to read in contrast with hearing-
abled readers, plus existing technological solutions available for deaf readers and teaching
pedagogy.
Differences between deaf and hearing-abled readers
Hearing-abled individuals often use internal monologue (also called “inner speech”)
when thinking or reading silently and “private speech” (Morin, 2012) to verbalise their
thoughts while completing a task. For the Deaf, this form of internal audio has been shown to
manifest as a visual representation of sign language or fingerspelling (Williams et al., 2015).
According to Morin (2012), private speech cannot exist without language and is a late
development in people with limited verbal and social interaction skills, which is often the
case for first-generation Deaf. Brain imagery suggests that the Deaf use areas of the brain, the
left inferior frontal gyrus (Morin, 2012; Rönnberg et al., 2004), and auditory cortex (Finney
et al., 2003; Harris, 2015) during tasks that require visual processing or utilise inner speech.
For the hearing-abled, most early vocabulary is acquired naturally through social
interaction (Luckner & Cooke, 2010). This is somewhat reflected in the study by Woll

Page 3 of 21
 Asia Social Issues [Link]

(2013), who stated over 90% of deaf children are first-generation Deaf and have significantly
smaller vocabularies than those born into deaf, signing families (second-generation Deaf). In
a later study, Woll also found that reading proficiency in the Deaf correlates to their age
when learning to sign; earlier signers tend to be more adept readers (Woll, 2019).
Technology solutions
While innovative designs have created solutions for aiding communication between
the Deaf and hearing-abled through the use of translation applications (Arya et al., 2017;
Elghoul & Jemni, 2009; HandTalk, 2022; Mahesh, 2018; Shinde & Kagalkar, 2015), the
reading difficulties confronting the Deaf have been mainly ignored.
Baglama et al. (2018) studied the technology used to support D/HH students in their
speaking, listening, and academic skills. The authors claim that D/HH students exhibited
heightened motivation and interest when mobile applications were incorporated into their
literacy training. In addition, they found instruction supported via computer applications
increased the rate at which the D/HH learnt new vocabulary.
However, user interface design may hinder rather than aid the D/HH and those with
reading difficulties (Möbus, 2010). A study by Elghoul and Jemni (2009) attempted to
alleviate the problems faced by individuals with hearing and reading limitations while
navigating and interacting with technological solutions. Their design consisted of a text-to-
sign engine that gave signed feedback to the Deaf while using a PC. Using a signing avatar,
their solution could translate on-screen text and assist navigation by providing cues for
whatever was beneath the mouse pointer. As Möbus points out, adapted media, such as
captions for audio, may be inappropriate when written language is not the user’s first
language, while maintaining signed video content poses many significant problems for the
software creator.
As the D/HH rely on visual information, Lang and Steely found that deaf students’
comprehension improved during online science courses through what they term “triad
presentation” (Lang & Steely, 2003). Their concept provides the user with three visual forms
of the same information; the text, the text translated into sign language, and an animated
image representative of the text. The authors suggest introducing new vocabulary before the
presentation and ensuring all text content is short and limited in vocabulary range. Razalli et
al. (2018) also found that reading comprehension improved through the blended use of text
and images. According to the authors, a lack of vocabulary and word comprehension
prevented some students from decoding text to sign. Still, the image assisted the students in
forming their understanding of the text and grasping novel information while maintaining
their attentiveness. While there is potential for increased demands on the visual cognitive
channel leading to cognitive overload, research already exists that suggests the Deaf can cope
with increased visual information, possibly by utilising areas of the brain typically associated
with audio processing (Azbel, 2004; Harris, 2015; Yoon & Kim, 2011).
Current teaching pedagogy
There has been significant research into how the Deaf learn to read and which
teaching pedagogy best suits their needs. However, the actual mechanics of how the Deaf

Page 4 of 21
 Asia Social Issues [Link]

convert written text to language remains a much-debated topic. Some researchers (Cupples et
al., 2014; Geers & Hayes, 2011; Paul et al., 2009; Trezek & Mayer, 2015) point to
phonological awareness as the means to reading success, whereas others argue that language
awareness, even a non-verbal language, is the answer (Goldin-Meadow & Mayberry, 2001;
Mayberry et al., 2011; Schirmer et al., 2004). Some researchers argue that a combination of
both forms of coding is required for reading skills to develop (Easterbrooks et al., 2015;
Lasasso & Crain, 2015; Paul, 2013; Scarborough, 2001; Trezek & Mayer, 2015).
Luckner and Cooke (2010) state that high-frequency (sight) words, novel and
complex concepts, and comprehending affixes, word roots, and context clues cannot be learnt
indirectly through social interaction; they must be taught. With no comprehension of word
roots and affixes, it is clear why the Deaf lag behind the Hearing in terms of vocabulary range
and reading comprehension, an imbalance the authors state has been prominent in the
research literature for over ten years. A generally overlooked issue in evaluating vocabulary
is basing the measurement on the number of known words. Often, terms that are single words
in written or spoken form consist of two or more words when signed (e.g., the word “puppy”
is signed as “baby” and “dog”) (Prezbindowski & Lederberg, 2003).
In what they term “the simple view,” Hoover and Gough suggest that proficient
reading is the product of decoding and language skills (Hoover & Gough, 1990). According
to the authors, any enhancement in either component will enhance the reading proficiency of
the individual, but if either factor is absent, the product, skilled reading, will be zero. This
belief is supported by “Scarborough’s reading rope” (Scarborough, 2001), in which skilled
reading is exemplified through the interweaving of numerous component strands consisting
of language comprehension and word recognition. According to Scarborough, word
recognition combines phonological awareness, decoding, and sight recognition, whereas
language comprehension encompasses background knowledge of a language, language
structure, reasoning, literacy knowledge, and vocabulary.
In examining the literature, the case for non-verbal language and visual stimuli
appears more probable and applicable to the students of this study, who have had little or no
experience of sound and are not taught phonics. For example, Kuntze et al. (2014) argue that
the Deaf should be trained to read using the same visual modality they use for
communication, i.e., sign and fingerspelling. This viewpoint is reinforced by the research
literature, which proposes a parallel between the time sign language skills are acquired and
proficiency in reading (Goldin-Meadow & Mayberry, 2001; Musselman, 2000; Woll, 2019).
In sum, for the Deaf, learning to read is no different from acquiring a second
language. For readers with a reduced vocabulary range, encountering verb forms and words
with numerous meanings can result in comprehension problems. Void of phonological rule
awareness, deaf readers must rely on the direct lexical path of identifying words, which
requires prior knowledge to recognise and decode the word. These later two strands,
decoding and word recognition correlate with the sight recognition and decoding strands from
Scarborough’s reading rope (Scarborough, 2001) and seem a universally supported idea in

Page 5 of 21
 Asia Social Issues [Link]

much of the literature discussed herein. The literature shows that using imagery can aid text
comprehension, particularly in cases where a word has multiple meanings.

Research hypotheses
Based on the research literature, three hypotheses were posed thus:
H1: Using DeafReader will facilitate vocabulary acquisition.
H2: Gender is an influencing factor in vocabulary acquisition for the DeafReader
users.
H3: Age is an influencing factor in vocabulary acquisition for the DeafReader users.

Research methodology
Research instrument
This study utilised an experimental design using pre-test and post-test scores as a
measure of effect. Students were first divided into two groups based on their age level. Level
one consisted of students studying in pratom levels one to three (age 7 to 9 years). Level two
comprised students studying in pratoms four to six (age 10 to 12 years). Within each level,
stratified random sampling was used to assign respondents to one of two groups, a control
group (hereafter Classroom) or a treatment group (hereafter DeafReader). Respondents in
each Classroom group were taught in separate classrooms by two teachers using flashcards
and traditional teaching methods. In contrast, respondents in the DeafReader groups went to a
computer lab and received guided supervision while using DeafReader (See Figure 1).
DeafReader is a web-based platform that facilitates textual comprehension by
presenting students with media in a triad format (Lang & Steely, 2003). The site consists of
vocabulary flashcard sets, a searchable picture dictionary, interactive reading exercises, and
instant feedback quizzes. A contextual image, animated fingerspelling, and a signed video
accompany all textual content. Reading exercises are presented page by page as a short
section of text and a contextual image. Hotspot links connect areas of the picture with the
words in the text, enabling student interaction and creating a dynamic association between
vocabulary text and objects in the picture. Students can also highlight each word in isolation
and view its corresponding fingerspelling, signed video, and image via a dynamic link to the
picture dictionary. A video accompanies each story page to provide students with the sign
language translation of the text. Personal user accounts enable each student to have a record
of their performance, which the teachers can also monitor via a user progress dashboard.
Although not used in this study, the user progress dashboard enables teachers to monitor quiz
responses and quickly identify common errors.
After completing the pre-test, all students studied the target vocabulary within their
relevant groups for one hour per week for six weeks. At the end of this period, all students
completed the post-test. Between study periods, the user accounts in DeafReader were locked
to prevent students in the DeafReader group from gaining additional practice time.
The pre-test and post-test questions for each level were based on thirty words selected
randomly from a vocabulary list that formed part of the school's yearly learning outcomes.

Page 6 of 21
 Asia Social Issues [Link]

Two styles of multiple-choice questions were used; 1) Select the word that matches the
picture. 2) Select the word that best completes the sentence. To prevent any practice effect,
the order of pre-test and post-test questions were changed, and the style of each question was
reversed. Four possible answers were presented for each question, one correct answer and
three distractors. The distractors consisted of one related word (frog/fish), an unrelated word
(frog/bicycle), and a word that is similar when signed (frog/neck) (See Figure 2). Where
possible, different distractors were used in the pre-test and post-test questions.

Figure 1 Students learning target vocabulary words

Note: Left to right: Classroom Group, DeafReader Group.

Figure 2 Similarly signed distractor words

Note: Left to right: Frog (กบ), Neck (คอ).

The learning features of DeafReader include interactive vocabulary-based short

stories, keyword flashcards, knowledge review quizzes, and a searchable picture dictionary.
The application links story and keyword vocabulary to picture dictionary entries to present
vocabulary in image, text, fingerspelling, and sign language form (Lang & Steely, 2003).
Before the study, staff were given access to administrator and student profile user guides via
the DeafReader application (Moxon, 2022a; Moxon, 2022c).
Population and sample

Page 7 of 21
 Asia Social Issues [Link]

While the school had 30 students registered in pratoms one through six, issues relating
to COVID-19 meant only 21 were present and could participate in the study. Table 1 shows
the participant's age level and gender and has been subdivided to show the distribution within
each test group.
Table 1 Demographic information of assigned sample groups

Male Female Total

Test Group Age Level n % n % n %
Level 1 2 50 2 50 4 19
Classroom Level 2 5 83 1 17 6 29
Total 7 70 3 30 10 48
Level 1 1 25 3 75 4 19
DeafReader Level 2 4 57 3 43 7 33
Total 5 45 6 55 11 52
Total 12 57 9 43 21 100

Data analysis
After completing the post-test, all data were collated and screened for completeness
and correctness to ensure no erroneous data could interfere with the final analysis. The data
were then screened for outliers and tested to ensure the assumptions of ANOVA were met.
To ensure that the stratified random sampling had resulted in the creation of two homogenous
groups, a one-way ANOVA was used to compare pre-test scores between the two test groups
at the start of the study. The data file was then split to 1) compare scores by age level, then 2)
compare scores by gender.
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the mean difference between pre-test
and post-test scores (hereafter Difference Scores) between students in the DeafReader and
Classroom groups (Question 1). The data file was then split by gender, and a one-way
ANOVA was conducted to compare mean Difference Scores between the DeafReader and
Classroom groups when compared by gender (Question 2). Finally, a one-way ANOVA was
conducted with the data file split by age level to compare mean Difference Scores between
the DeafReader and Classroom groups when compared by age level (Question 3).

Results
Data screening
A Shapiro-Wilk test showed that pre-test and post-test Difference Scores for
Classroom and DeafReader groups did not significantly depart from normality, W(10) = .933,
p = .475 and W(11) = .954, p = .700, respectively. Scores for both groups were skewed to the
left, X(10) = -.503, z = -.732 and X(11) = -.287, z = -.434 respectively, with platykurtic
kurtosis, X(10) = .158, z = .118 and X(11) = -1.128, z = -.882 respectively. No outliers were
detected (See Figure 3). In addition, no departure from normality was detected in the
unstandardised residuals for Difference Scores W(21) = .959, p = .490, Skewness X(21) =

Page 8 of 21
 Asia Social Issues [Link]

-.347, z = .693, Kurtosis X(21) = -.776, z = .798 (See Figure 4). As the sample size was below
200, the Difference Scores were assumed to be normally distributed (Ghasemi & Zahediasl,
2012).

Figure 3 Boxplot of pre-test and post-test difference scores by test group

Figure 4 Distribution of pre- and post-test residual scores

In testing homogeneity between the groups, the ANOVA showed that pre-test scores
for Classroom and DeafReader groups were not significantly different overall, F(1, 19)
= .020, p = .890, η2 = .001, 95% CI [-6.380, 5.580], when split by age level, FLevel1(1, 6)
= .042, p = .844, η2 = .007, 95% CI [-3.226, 2.726], FLevel2(1, 11) = .000, p = .986, η2 = .000,
95% CI [-8.661, 8.818], or when split by gender, FMale(1, 10) = 1.006, p = .339, η2 = .091,

Page 9 of 21
 Asia Social Issues [Link]

95% CI [-3.349, 8.835], FFemale(1, 7) = .391, p = .551, η2 = .053, 95% CI [-18.321, 10.654].
Therefore, the groups were considered homogeneous in terms of vocabulary ability at the
start of the study.
Question 1
Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for pre-test and post-test scores by test group.
Paired-samples t-test of pre-test and post-test scores revealed that both groups displayed
statistically significant overall improvement in performance, tClassroom(9) = -3.352, p = .009,
95% CI [-9.882, -1.918], tDeafReader(10) = -4.732, p = .001, 95% CI [-12.569, -4.522] (See Table
3 and Figure 5). However, the one-way ANOVA revealed there was no statistically
significant difference in pre-test and post-test scores between the Classroom and DeafReader
groups, F(1, 19) = 1.092, p = .309, η2 = .054, 95% CI [-7.943, 2.652] (See Table 4 and Table
5). The strength of the relationship between the Test Group and the Difference Score, as
assessed by η2, was medium, with the Test Group factor accounting for 5.4% of the variance
in the Difference Score.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for pre- and post-test scores by test group

Test Group n % M SD Min Max

Classroom 10 48 11.60 5.797 5 23
Pre-test Score DeafReader 11 52 12.00 7.141 6 28
Total 21 100 11.81 6.377 5 28
Classroom 10 48 17.50 4.649 10 24
Post-test Score DeafReader 11 52 20.55 5.610 8 27
Total 21 100 19.10 5.281 8 27

Table 3 Paired-sample t-test pre-test and post-test scores by test group

95% CI of the
Sig. (2- Difference
Test Group M SD SEM t df tailed) LB UB
**
Classroom -5.900 5.567 1.760 -3.352 9 .009 -9.882 -1.918
**
DeafReader -8.545 5.989 1.806 -4.732 10 .001 -12.569 -4.522
**
p < .05 (2-tailed).

Page 10 of 21
 Asia Social Issues [Link]

figure 5 mean Pre-test and Post-test Scores by Test Group

Table 4 Descriptive statistics for difference scores between test groups

95% CI for Mean

n % M SD SE LB UB Min Max
Classroom 10 48 5.90 5.567 1.760 1.92 9.88 -5 13
DeafReader 11 52 8.55 5.989 1.806 4.52 12.57 -1 17
Total 21 100 7.29 5.806 1.267 4.64 9.93 -5 17

Table 5 Analysis of variance for difference scores between test groups

SS df MS F Sig. Partial Eta Squared

Between Groups 36.658 1 36.658 1.092 .309 .054
Within Groups 637.627 19 33.559
Total 674.286 20

Question 2
Descriptive statistics for Difference Scores between test groups compared by gender
are shown in Table 5. The one-way ANOVA showed that Difference Scores between the
Classroom and DeafReader groups were not statistically significantly different for female
students F(1, 7) = .057, p = .818, η2 = .008, 95% CI [-8.912, 10.912]. However, as shown in
Table 6, the scores for male students were marginally statistically different, F(1, 10) = 5.120,
p = .047, η2 = .339, 95% CI [-13.269, -.102]. Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the mean pre-test
and post-test scores between the Classroom and DeafReader groups for male and female
students, respectively. For male students, the strength of the relationship between the Test
Group and Difference Score, as assessed by η2, was strong, with the Test Group factor
accounting for 34% of the variance in the Difference Score. However, the relationship was

Page 11 of 21
 Asia Social Issues [Link]

weak for female students, with the Test Group factor accounting for .8% of the variance in
the Difference Score.

Table 5 Descriptive statistics for difference scores between test groups by gender

95% CI for Mean

Gender n M SD SE LB UB Min Max
Classroom 7 5.71 5.908 2.233 .25 11.18 -5 13
Male DeafReader 5 12.40 3.362 1.503 8.23 16.57 8 17
Total 12 8.50 5.916 1.708 4.74 12.26 -5 17
Classroom 3 6.33 5.859 3.383 -8.22 20.89 2 13
Female DeafReader 6 5.33 5.955 2.431 -.92 11.58 -1 15
Total 9 5.67 5.568 1.856 1.39 9.95 -1 15

Table 6 Analysis of variance for difference scores between test groups by gender

Partial Eta
Gender SS df MS F Sig. Squared
Between Groups 130.371 1 130.371 5.120 .047** .339
Male Within Groups 254.629 10 25.463
Total 385.000 11
Between Groups 2.000 1 2.000 .057 .818 .008
Female Within Groups 246.000 7 35.143
Total 248.000 8
** p < .05.

Figure 6 Mean pre-test and post-test scores for males by test group

Page 12 of 21
 Asia Social Issues [Link]

Figure 7 Mean pre-test and post-test scores for females by test group

Question 3
Descriptive statistics for Difference Scores between test groups compared by age
level are shown in Table 7. As illustrated in Table 8 and Figure 8, the one-way ANOVA
showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups, FLevel1(1, 6) = .000, p =
1.000, η2 = .000, 95% CI [-8.991, 8.991], FLevel2(1, 11) = 1.601, p = .232, η2 = .127, 95% CI [-
12.066, 3.256]. For students in level 1, the strength of the relationship between the Test
Group and the Difference Score, as assessed by η2, was weak, with the Test Group factor
accounting for 0% of the variance in the Difference Score. However, for level 2 students, the
relationship was strong, with the Test Group factor accounting for 12.7% of the variance in
the Difference Score.

Table 7 Descriptive statistics for difference scores between test groups by age level

95% CI for Mean

Level n M SD SE LB UB Min Max
Classroom 4 8.50 3.697 1.848 2.62 14.38 4 13
1 DeafReader 4 8.50 6.351 3.175 -1.61 18.61 2 17
Total 8 8.50 4.811 1.701 4.48 12.52 2 17
Classroom 6 4.17 6.210 2.535 -2.35 10.68 -5 13
2 DeafReader 7 8.57 6.294 2.379 2.75 14.39 -1 15
Total 13 6.54 6.411 1.778 2.66 10.41 -5 15

Table 8 Analysis of variance for difference scores between test groups by age level

Page 13 of 21
 Asia Social Issues [Link]

Partial Eta
Level SS df MS F Sig. Squared
Between Groups .000 1 .000 .000 1.000 .000
1 Within Groups 162.000 6 27.000
Total 162.000 7
Between Groups 62.683 1 62.683 1.601 .232 .127
2 Within Groups 430.548 11 39.141
Total 493.231 12

Figure 8 Mean pre-test and post-test scores for age level 1 by test group

Page 14 of 21
 Asia Social Issues [Link]

Figure 9 mean pre-test and post-test scores for age level 2 by test group

Discussion
This study aimed to evaluate the influence on deaf students’ vocabulary skills using
an interactive web-based learning resource, DeafReader. The measure of effect was the
difference in pre-test and post-test scores of students using DeafReader, when compared
statistically against scores attained by students in a control group.
In addressing research question one, while both groups displayed a statistically
significant improvement, the comparison of Classroom and DeafReader mean Difference
Scores were not statistically significant different. This suggests that while practice and
repeated exposure may have aided both groups, the learning media modality was not a
significant influence. While these findings are not reflective of the anticipated results based
on the literature (Baglama et al., 2018; Lang & Steely, 2003; Luckner & Cooke, 2010), the
overall effect observed in both groups is reflective of the findings of Allgood et al. (2009).
Based on these findings, the use of DeafReader as a learning medium was deemed to be not
dissimilar to traditional classroom instruction for the students in this study. Therefore,
hypothesis H1 was rejected.
As the results of research question 2 suggest, the use of DeafReader had a more
significant influence on the vocabulary of male students than females, with the Test Group
factor accounting for 34% of the variance in their Difference Scores. Therefore, hypothesis
H2 was retained. Several studies have highlighted gender differences in all aspects of
language development (see Berninger et al. (2008), Burman et al. (2008), Lynn & Mikk
(2009), Reilly et al. (2019), Schwabe et al. (2015). Development age differences may well
have been an influencing factor in the findings of this study as the majority of females were
in the younger age group, whereas the majority of boys were in the older age group (See
Table 1).
While the results of research question 3 showed no statistically significant difference
in performance between the two age levels, the comparison between Classroom and

Page 15 of 21
 Asia Social Issues [Link]

DeafReader Difference Scores for Level 1 students showed that, statistically, their mean
Difference Scores were identical (See Figure 8). Based on these findings, hypothesis H3 was
rejected. The results raise interesting questions regarding the threshold at which technology
intervention for vocabulary learning becomes appropriate for the Deaf. While some studies
have pointed to language as being the fundamental building block for reading and vocabulary
(Joy et al., 2019; Mayberry et al., 2011; Schirmer et al., 2004), others have pointed to a
proportional relationship between skills such as word recognition and vocabulary
(Easterbrooks et al., 2015; Lasasso & Crain, 2015; Scarborough, 2001). It would seem,
therefore, that the students in this study may be lacking in underpinning language skills.
Two contributing factors that may have influenced research question 3 in particular
are:
1) Due to COVID-19 restrictions, students in pratom levels 1 and 2 received little or
no formal tuition prior to the school reopening, meaning they were void of the
basic fingerspelling and sign language skills needed to study and learn the target
vocabulary.
2) Students who are first-generation Deaf may well have weaker language skills in
general compared to students who are second-generation Deaf. The proportion of
first- and second-generation Deaf in this study is unknown.
Conclusion
Advancements in mobile technology and artificial intelligence create infinite ways in
which communication boundaries can be broken down. While some of these advancements
may benefit the Deaf, limited vocabulary, reading, and language awareness often render the
technology redundant. In this paper, the author has trialled a purpose-built software solution
aimed at helping deaf students in Thailand improve the skills they need to overcome some of
the communication barriers that hinder them in society.
The results of this study showed that using DeafReader as a teaching medium, while
beneficial, was not significantly different from traditional classroom teaching methods in
terms of student acquisition of vocabulary. The use of the software was found to have a
significantly greater influence on vocabulary attainment in male students than in females,
which may be attributed to a larger proportion of younger female students in the sample
group. However, the results showed that, statistically, age was not an influencing factor in
student performance. While the results of this study may not have been as promising as
hoped, the data provides a valuable insight for future developments and enhancements to the
software.
Limitations in the sample size and essential reading and signing ability of students in
this study were a direct consequence of the school closure during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Time and resources were also limitations in this research. A more extended training period
with a broader target vocabulary may have produced more significant results.
Future research should examine the effects on an older age group, who may be better
equipped to absorb new vocabulary and study autonomously. Future studies should also

Page 16 of 21
 Asia Social Issues [Link]

explore other building blocks of reading and vocabulary for the Deaf, such as learning
fingerspelling, sign language, and mapping sign to letters and words.

References
Allgood, M. H., Heller, K. W., Easterbrooks, S. R., & Fredrick, L. D. (2009). Use of picture
dictionaries to promote functional communication in students with deafness and
intellectual disabilities. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 31(1), 53-64.
[Link]
Arya, M., Patil, R., Karande, P., & Jadhav, D. (2017). Automated sign to speech portable
translator for vocally challenged using Android and touch sensors. International
Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research, 4(11), 379-383.
[Link]
Azbel, L. (2004). How do the deaf read? The paradox of performing a phonemic task without
sound. Intel Science Talent Search, 1-20. [Link]
[Link]
Baglama, B., Haksiz, M., & Uzunboylu, H. (2018). Technologies used in education of
hearing impaired individuals. iJET, 13(9), 53-63.
[Link]
Berninger, V. W., Neilsen, K. H., Abbott, R. D., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (2008). Gender
differences in severity of writing and reading disabilities. Journal of School
Psychology, 46(2), 151-172. [Link]
Burman, D. D., Bitan, T., & Booth, J. R. (2008). Sex differences in neural processing of
language among children. Neuropsychologia, 46(5), 1349-1362.
[Link]
Cawthon, S. (2011). Test item linguistic complexity and assessments for deaf students.
American Annals of the Deaf, 156(3), 255-269. [Link]
Cupples, L., Ching, T. Y., Crowe, K., Day, J., & Seeto, M. (2014). Predictors of early reading
skill in 5-year-old children with hearing loss who use spoken language. Reading
Research Quarterly, 49(1), 85–104. [Link]
Easterbrooks, S. R., Lederberg, A. R., Antia, S., Schick, B., Kushalnagar, P., Webb, M.,
Branum-Martin, L., Connor, C. M. (2015). Reading among diverse DHH learners:
What, how, and for whom? American Annals of the Deaf, 159(5), 419-432.
[Link]
Elghoul, O., & Jemni, M. (2009). A sign language screen reader for deaf. In A. Holzinger, &
K. Miesenberger (eds), HCI and usability for e-inclusion (pp. 476-483). Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer. [Link]
Finney, E. M., Clemmentz, B. A., Hickok, G., & Dobkins, K. R. (2003). Visual stimuli
activate auditory cortex in deaf subjects: Evidence from MEG. Neuroreport, 14(2),
1425-1427. [Link]

Page 17 of 21
 Asia Social Issues [Link]

Geers, A. E., & Hayes, H. (2011). Reading writing and phonological processing skills of
adolescents with 10 or more years of cochlear implant experience. Ear and Hearing,
32(1), 49S-59S. [Link]
Ghasemi, A., & Zahediasl, S. (2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: A guide for non-
statisticians. International journal of endocrinology and metabolism, 10(2), 486–489.
[Link]
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Mayberry, R. I. (2001). How do profoundly deaf children learn to
read? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 222-229.
[Link]
HandTalk. (2022). HandTalk (3.4.11). Google Play. [Link]
id=7663902211023143892&hl=en
Harris, M. (2015). The impact of new technologies on the literacy attainment of deaf
children. Top Lang Disorders, 35(2), 120-132.
[Link]
Hoover, A. W., & Gough, B. P. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127-160. [Link]
Iam-Khong, N., Suksakulchai, S., & Kaewprapan, W. (2011). The learning achievement in
Thai language for hearing impaired students in Thailand. US-China Education
Review A7, 1023-1029. [Link]
Joy, J., Balakrishnan, K., & Sreeraj, M. (2019). SiLearn: An intelligent sign vocabulary
learning tool. Journal of Enabling Technologies, 13(3), 173-187.
[Link]
Kuntze, M., Golos, D., & Enns, C. (2014). Rethinking literacy: Broadening opportunities for
visual learner. Sign Language Studies, 14(2), 203-224.
[Link]
Lang, H. G., & Steely, D. (2003). Web-based science instruction for deaf students: What
research says to the teacher. Instructional Science, 31, 277-298.
[Link]
Lasasso, C. J., & Crain, K. L. (2015). Reading for deaf and hearing readers: Qualitatively
and/or quantitatively similar or different? A nature versus nurture issue. American
Annals of the Deaf, 159(5), 447-467. [Link]
Luckner, J. L., & Cooke, C. (2010). A summary of the vocabulary research with students who
are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(1), 38-67.
[Link]
Lynn, R., & Mikk, J. (2009). Sex differences in reading achievement. Trames: A Journal of
the Humanities and Social Sciences, 13(1), 3-13. [Link]
Mahesh, K. (2018). Conversion of sign language into text. International Journal of Applied
Engineering Research, 13(9), 7154-7161.
[Link]
Mathews, E. S., & O'Donnell, M. (2018). Reading and deaf and hard of hearing pupils in
mainstream education. [Link]

Page 18 of 21
 Asia Social Issues [Link]

Mayberry, R. I., del Giudice, A. A., & Lieberman, A. M. (2011). Reading achievement in
relation to phonological coding and awareness in deaf readers: A meta-analysis. The
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(2), 164–188.
[Link]
Möbus, L. (2010). Making web content accessible for the deaf via sign language. Library Hi
Tech, 28(4), 569-576. [Link]
Morere, D. A. (2011, June). Visual language and visual learning science of learning center.
Reading Research and Deaf Children (Research Brief No. 4).
[Link]
Morin, A. (2012). Inner speech. In V. S. Ramachandran (ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior (2 ed., pp. 436-443). Academic Press. [Link]
375000-6.00206-8
Moxon, S. (2022a). Administrator user guide.
[Link]
Moxon, S. (2022b). DeafReader. [Link]
Moxon, S. (2022c). Student user guide.
[Link]
Musselman, C. (2000). How do children who can’t hear learn to read an alphabetic script? A
review of the literature on reading and deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 5(1), 9-31. [Link]
National Statistics Office, Thailand. (2017). The 2017 Disability Survey.
[Link]
2017/Full_Report.pdf
Paul, P. V. (2013). The view from the edge: Rethinking a few ideas. American Annals of the
Deaf, 158(3), 287-291. [Link]
Paul, P. V., Wang, Y., Trezek, B. J., & Luckner, J. L. (2009). Phonology is necessary, but not
sufficient: A rejoinder. American Annals of the Deaf, 154(4), 346-356.
[Link]
Prezbindowski, A. K., & Lederberg, A. R. (2003). Vocabulary assessment of deaf and hard-
of-hearing children from infancy through the preschool years. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 8(4), 383-400. [Link]
Razalli, A. R., Thomas, R. O., Mamat, N., & Yusaf, N. (2018). Using text with pictures in
primary school to improve reading comprehension for hearing impaired students.
Journal of ICSAR, 2(1), 19-27. [Link]
Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2019). Gender differences in reading and
writing achievement: Evidence from the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP). American Psychologist, 74(4), 445–458.
[Link]
Rönnberg, J., Rudner, M., & Ingvar, M. (2004). Neural correlates of working memory for
sign language. Cognitive Brain Research, 20(2), 165-182.
[Link]

Page 19 of 21
 Asia Social Issues [Link]

Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading

(dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. (S. Neuman, & D. Dickinson, Eds.)
Handbook for research in early literacy, pp. 97–110.
[Link]
Schirmer, B. R., Bailey, J., & Lockman, A. S. (2004). What verbal protocols reveal about the
reading strategies of deaf students: A replication study. American Annals of the Deaf,
149(1), 5-16. [Link]
Schwabe, F., McElvany, N., & Trendtel, M. (2015). The school age gender gap in reading
achievement: Examining the influences of item format and intrinsic reading
motivation. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(2), 219–232.
[Link]
Shinde, A., & Kagalkar, R. (2015). Advanced Marathi sign language recognition using
computer vision. International Journal of Computer Applications, 118(13), 1-7.
[Link]
The Isaan Record. (2017). Growing up deaf in Thailand.
[Link]
Thurlow, M. L., Moen, R. E., Liu, K. K., Scullin, S., Hausmann, K. E., & Shyyan, V. (2009).
Disabilities and reading: Understanding the effects of disabilities and their
relationship to reading instruction and assessment. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota, Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment.
[Link]
[Link]
Trezek, B. J., & Mayer, C. (2015). Using an informal reading inventory to differentiate
instruction: Case studies of three deaf learners. American Annals of the Deaf, 160(3),
289-302. [Link]
United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund. (2018). Bridge to a brighter
tomorrow: The Patani Malay-Thai Multilingual Education Programme. UNICEF.
[Link]
%20Tomorrow%20(Full%20Report).pdf
Williams, J., Darcy, I., & Newman, S. (2015). Fingerspelling and print processing similarities
in deaf and hearing readers. Journal of Language and Literature, 6(1), 56-65.
[Link]
Woll, B. (2013). Sign language and spoken language development in young children:
Measuring vocabulary by means of the CDI. In L. Meurant, A. Sinte, M. V.
Herreweghe, & M. Vermeerbergen, Sign language research, uses and practices (pp.
15-34). De Gruyter. [Link]
Woll, B. (2019). Applied linguistics from the perspective of sign language and deaf studies.
In C. Wright, L. Harvey, & J. Simpson (eds.), Voices and practices in applied
linguistics (pp. 51-70). York: White Rose University Press.
[Link]

Page 20 of 21
 Asia Social Issues [Link]

Yoon, J.-O., & Kim, M. (2011). The effects of captions on deaf students’ content
comprehension, cognitive load, and motivation in online learning. American Annals
of the Deaf, 156(3), 283-289. [Link]

Page 21 of 21