Listening and learning challenges for deaf or hard of hearing students during different classroom scenarios: an itinerant teachers of the deaf perspective

ABSTRACT

The aim of this exploratory study was to gather survey data from itinerant teachers of the deaf (IToDs) to better understand the impact of different classroom scenarios on 6- to 9-year-old Deaf or hard of hearing students’ listening and learning. Across two surveys, 109 IToDs (Study 1) and 18 IToDs (Study 2) were either asked to list the positive or negative implications for students’ listening and learning during lecture-style lessons, guided-learning groups, and self-directed/independent work (Study 1), or were asked to rank the importance of each of the implications (Study 2). The different types of classroom scenarios differentially impacted students’ listening and learning outcomes. In lecture-style, the IToDs reported that assistive devices worked well, but there was less support for the student in this scenario. For guided-learning, IToDs identified background noise as problematic, but as the students were engaged in classroom discussions, the IToDs felt that it was also a beneficial scenario for developing social skills. When students were engaged in self-directed/independent work, IToDs noted that while the quieter environment could be beneficial for the student’s concentration, it can also be quite isolating for the student. Overall, this study provided helpful insights from IToDs into the factors affecting listening and learning during different classroom scenarios for students who are Deaf or hard of hearing. The challenges and benefits these students encounter in the different learning settings revealed valuable insights that can be utilized by educators and policymakers aiming to optimize educational outcomes for this demographic.

KEYWORDS:

• Listening
• learning
• deaf
• hard of hearing
• hearing loss
• group work
• classrooms
• itinerant teachers of the deaf

Introduction

Speaking and listening are the primary modes of communication in the mainstream classroom, so it is vital that children can hear and understand their teacher and classmates in order for learning to take place (Backlund, 1985). However, classrooms are dynamic spaces where many different learning activities occur, each creating their own challenges for listening and learning. These challenges may be even more pronounced for children who are Deaf or hard of hearing (DHH), who can have poorer listening, language, and reading skills, and poorer quality of life (Antia et al., 2020; David R. Moore, Zobay, & Ferguson, 2020; van der Straaten et al., 2020). Therefore, there is a need to understand the positive and negative implications of different learning activities on DHH children’s listening and learning.

The Listen to Learn for Life Assessment Framework (Mealings et al., 2023) outlines three main classroom activities that were drawn from a literature search: lecture, group work, and independent work. In particular, the NSW Government Education Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (2020) recommends that teachers should explicitly teach their students (lecture-style) and guide their students (guided group learning), and then allow students to benefit from independently practising the new concepts and skills (independent work) to reinforce and consolidate their learning. This mix of activities is also suggested by Kokotsaki, Menzies, and Wiggins (2016) who recommend that teachers balance didactic instruction with independent inquiry method work and effective group work. Didactic lecture scenarios typically involve the teacher standing at the front of the classroom and directly instructing the children who are sitting quietly. Self-directed/independent work involves the child quietly working on their own. Guided-learning group work involves children talking in small groups engaged in problem-based learning and sharing knowledge via social interactions (see Kokotsaki et al. (2016) for a review). Thereby, the classroom teacher moves between each group monitoring engagement and responding to queries and comments from each group.

Different classroom configurations and scenarios interact to expose children to different noise levels throughout the school day. It will be of no surprise that guided-learning where children are conversing in groups will lead to high classroom noise levels (Greenland & Shield, 2011; Mealings, Buchholz, Demuth, & Dillon, 2015; Shield & Dockrell, 2004). Shield and Dockrell (2004) found that the average noise level in the classroom was 76.8 dBA when children were engaged in group work with movement, compared to only 61.2 dBA when only the teacher was speaking and 64.7 dBA during independent work. Consideration of noise levels in the classroom is critical as noise can adversely affect children’s listening, learning, and wellbeing (Anderson, 2001; Braat-Eggen, Kohlrausch, & Hornikx, 2017; Dockrell et al., 2006; Hurtig, Sörqvist, Ljung, Hygge, & Rönnberg, 2016; Klatte, Lachmann, & Meis, 2010; Klatte & Hellbruck, 2010; Mealings, 2022a, 2022c, 2022b, 2022d, 2022e, 2023a; Murgia, Webster, Cutiva, & Bottalico, 2022; Schiller, Remacle, Durieux, & Morsomme, 2022; Shield, Greenland, & Dockrell, 2010; Shield & Dockrell, 2003, 2008; Wang, 2014). Background noise in classrooms reduces the signal-to-noise ratio of the speaker’s voice compared to the background noise. The signal-to-noise ratio is often recorded as well below the recommendation of +15 dB (Crandell & Smaldino, 2000; Mealings, 2016), and group-work noise levels with low signal-to-noise ratios can become highly detrimental (Mealings et al., 2015).

For children who are DHH, high noise levels resulting in low signal-to-noise ratios can be even more detrimental to their ability to understand their teacher and peers (Crandell & Smaldino, 2000). While devices such as hearing aids and cochlear implants and assistive devices such as wireless remote microphones can help, they are not as good at picking out a voice amongst background noise as a child with typical hearing can (Ching et al., 2018). These children can have difficulty engaging in the classroom due to the background noise, difficulties during group work, difficulties with assistive listening devices, difficulties following multi-part instructions, and a lack of confidence (Todorov, Galvin, Punch, Klieve, & Rickards, 2021). In addition, the challenges of tracking multiple speakers who change turns rapidly, and frequently interrupt and talk over each other makes it very hard for a student to fully engage and learn in group work scenarios (Schley & Stinson, 2016). However, there is little research on the specific listening and learning challenges for each of the different learning scenarios they face. One study that has started to explore this was by Nelson et al. (2020), where the authors explored the listening ratings of children who are DHH in different situations. The best scenarios for listening as rated by the children were when the classroom was quiet and the teacher was talking at the front of the room, and when the teacher was using some form of instructional technology (e.g., computer, TV, video). The most difficult situations were listening during large group meetings or school assemblies without a microphone, and when the teacher was talking while students inside the class were being noisy. While this study covers several scenarios, we were interested in delving more deeply into the specific challenges during lecture, guided-learning group work, and self-directed/independent work. Additionally, the study by Nelson et al. (2020) was with students in Grade 3-12. We focus on children below this age group, namely children aged 6–9 years. Rather than using predefined questions on listening, our study covers broader challenges to listening and learning identified by itinerant teachers of the deaf (IToDs).

Traditionally, children who are DHH attended special education classes with trained Teachers of the Deaf (ToDs). However, in many countries, including Australia and the United States of America, there has been a move to include these children in mainstream classes (Lenihan, 2010; Luckner & Ayantoye, 2013). There is evidence to suggest that students who are DHH who are in mainstream classes achieve better academic outcomes than those in special education classes (Antia, Jones, Reed, & Kreimeyer, 2009; M. S. Stinson & Kluwin, 2003). However, placing these children in mainstream classes has shifted responsibility for the learning outcomes of students who are DHH onto mainstream teachers rather than trained ToD (Luckner & Ayantoye, 2013). Antia et al. (2009) found that children who are DHH can make progress in a mainstream setting alongside their hearing peers, with their average progress in mathematics, reading, and language/writing consistent with, or better than that made by a norm group of hearing students. However, this is not achieved by a child merely being present in a classroom. The range of educational adjustments needed to be made by the teacher to ensure effective communication and equitable access to the curriculum are largely unknown, and outside the teaching experience, of many mainstream teachers (Cawthon, 2009; Luckner, Slike, & Johnson, 2012, respectively). In addition to this, children who are DHH, which is an invisible disability, may commence school with age-appropriate sounding speech which may lead to incorrect assumptions about their ability to progress alongside their hearing peers without specific education supports (Archbold & Mayer, 2012; Marschark & Knoors, 2012). Often mainstream teachers do not know how to read an audiogram, so they base their assumptions about a student on how they sound, how they seem to be following spoken language, and on social interactions which may lead the teacher to assume that the child does not need individualized and/or specialist support. Teachers of the deaf are increasingly being placed in the role of itinerant teachers to support DHH students in mainstream settings and provide mainstream teachers with training, support and guidance in these areas of expertise (Foster & Cue, 2008; Luckner & Ayantoye, 2013). IToDs are highly qualified to offer insight into the listening and learning challenges students with hearing loss face in mainstream classrooms. However, there is little literature on the perceptions of IToDs apart from studies by Davison-Mowle, Leigh, Duncan, and Arthur-Kelly (2018), Hyde and Power (2002), Luckner and Ayantoye (2013), Luckner and Howell (2002), and Stinson and Antia (1999). However, these studies do not directly assess the listening and learning challenges students with hearing loss face. IToDs were selected as the population of interest for the present study as they are involved in mainstream classroom teaching with children who are DHH and are also trained in understanding the importance of the listening environment, hearing technologies, and the impact of background noise. IToDs both observe the class and help the mainstream teacher so offer a unique perspective on what is happening in the classroom compared to the mainstream teacher.

With this in mind, the aim of the current exploratory study was to gather survey data from IToDs to understand the impact of different classroom scenarios (lecture, guided-learning, and self-directed/independent work) on DHH students’ listening and learning. The age group of interest was selected as those that are in their early years of schooling where the child is adapting to the new environment and technology, so we see this as an especially important age group to study. Given the significance of this age group we examined the adaptation and learning challenges and experiences of 6–9 year old children as described by IToDs. Two surveys were conducted. Specifically, the aim of Survey 1 was to gather free-response data on the positive and negative implications of different teaching scenarios on DHH student’s listening and learning. Survey 2 aimed to quantify how strongly the IToDs agreed with the importance of the categorized implications on the student’s listening and learning from Survey 1 via rating scales. While we were interested in the findings for all scenarios, we were particularly interested in the barriers and facilitators in the guided-learning scenario, which is an increasingly popular educational setting, provides the highest noise levels, and is an under-researched area.

Survey 1 methodology

Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the Humanities and Social Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee at Macquarie University (Reference 52021916835563).

Participants

One hundred and eleven IToDs were asked to participate in an anonymous short 10 min survey during a face-to-face IToD training seminar in December, 2019. The purpose of the training seminar was to provide overviews of the research being conducted at the Australian Hearing Hub, and importantly, none of the topics of the presentations were believed to have biased the IToDs responses on the survey. Teachers comprised 103 females. The teachers were distributed across the range of student ages of support provided by the New South Wales (NSW) Department of Education: from age of diagnosis (generally 3-months-old) to the end of school age (generally 18 years). All participants were working as IToDs within the NSW education system and were accredited with the NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA). All IToDs in New South Wales were invited to the seminar via email/advertising (which is around 130 people, hence the attendance rate at the seminar was around 85%).

Procedure

IToDs were asked to consider a DHH student aged 6- to 9-years-old, and then complete the below survey questions separately for the listed learning scenarios below. The IToDs were provided with explanations of the scenarios prior to encountering the survey questions, ensuring their comprehension of the context for each scenario. This study used an exploratory survey developed by the authors (three hearing sciences researchers and one ToD) incorporating the experience of the ToD and the literature review. As the aim of this survey was to gather information on the positive and negative implications of different teaching scenarios on DHH student’s listening and learning, a simple broad open-ended question that was repeated for each scenario was developed to address this aim. This method was chosen rather than using a less relevant validated questionnaire to allow the questions to be tailored to IToDs and permit open-ended questions so that the IToDs could expand more on their insights. As this was an exploratory question based on the ToD’s experience and grounded in the literature, formal testing of the question was not deemed necessary (see limitations section for more of a discussion on this). The survey was provided as part of an overall event evaluation quiz shared in a weblink as an opportunity for the IToDs to contribute to future research given that they had just listened to a seminar on current research. Participants who completed the evaluation and survey received a certificate of attendance for the event. IToDs completed it on their own devices (e.g., mobile phone). Valid responses to the survey were received by 109/111 teachers. The survey took 10 min and responses for each question were 1–5 sentences long.

Scenarios

Scenario 1: Lecture - one teacher standing in front of class lecturing to students

Scenario 2: Guided-learning (or group work) - group of students sitting around table

Scenario 3: Self-directed (or independent learning) - students work quietly on their own inside the classroom; occasionally talking to neighbouring student or teacher

Survey questions

Question: List the implications (positive & negative) on your student's listening and learning in this scenario in the classroom.

Comment: Teachers were encouraged to additionally leave a comment on any school scenarios that they felt were challenging for their students (other than lecture, guided-learning and independent teaching scenarios)

Data analysis

Sentiment analysis

Sentiment analysis was conducted to assess the perceptions from the free-response data on the positive and negative implications of different teaching scenarios. Sentiment analysis bridges the gap between qualitative and quantitative research by quantifying the sentiments expressed in qualitative data. Through the analysis, the positive and negative implications of the different teaching scenarios can be scored. Given that the sentences per response were short, the free-text responses were quantitatively text-mined using the Valence Aware Dictionary and sEntiment Reasoner (VADER) library from Python. This method has been used in other educational research, e.g., Newman and Joyner (2018). VADER models were built to overcome the challenges of shorter text from social media posts. Sentiment analyses use natural language processing to computationally examine the opinions, to determine whether text is positive, negative, or neutral. Sentiment scoring conducted with VADER examined the polarity of text by applying existing sentiment dictionaries and taking into account valence shifters in text such as words that act as negators and amplifiers (e.g., I am not very happy) (Hutto & Gilbert, 2014). Since participants were specifically asked to list positive and negative implications, the words ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ and its stems (e.g., positives, positively etc.) were removed as stop-words and excluded in the sentiment scoring. Polarity scores were generated for each sentence, with a composite score where 0 represented a neutral sentence, a negative score represented a negative sentiment and a positive score represented a positive sentiment. Sentiment scores for the free-text sentences were evaluated separately for positive and negative sentiments, rather than utilizing a composite sentiment measure. By assessing positive and negative sentiments independently, we aim to capture the differentiated view of the positive and negative implications in the text. After calculating the polarity scores for each response, the data is aggregated to identify overall trends in sentiments towards different teaching scenarios.

Topic modelling

Topic modelling was conducted on the free-response data provided by IToDs, to determine the latent thematic structure across all of the comments for the different scenarios. This approach was instrumental in identifying the latent topics that may not be immediately apparent. We employed Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF) for topic modelling, a method particularly well-suited for the analysis of shorter texts like the comments in our dataset. Unlike other topic modelling techniques that often assume a large amount of text, NMF can robustly infer context and extract meaningful patterns from the concise expressions typically found in free-response data. This method has been used in other education research, e.g., Gündüz and Fokoué (2021). We utilized the scikit-learn library in Python, which includes algorithms for topic modelling (Pedregosa et al., 2011). In the analysis, we used the ‘NMF’ functionality from the scikit-learn library to systematically identify distinct topics within our free-text. The NMF class was specifically employed to perform the factorization of our dataset into non-negative components corresponding to topics and their associated weights. Topic modelling allowed us to quantitatively dissect the vast array of comments into coherent themes, offering a scalable way to analyse the text. By leveraging NMF, we will be able to identify the latent themes for each teaching scenario.

Survey 1 results

Sentiment analysis

Figure 1 shows the violin plots for the sentiment analysis results. A violin plot depicts distributions of data using density curves. The width of each curve shoes the number of data points in each region i.e., a wider curve means more data for that value. The positive (Figure 1a) and negative (Figure 1b) sentiments are displayed independently for each of the classroom scenarios. The violin plot for positive sentiment scores in self-directed/independent learning was wider and higher, suggesting more instances of higher positive sentiment scores for this scenario. This was supported with the mean (SD) positive sentiment score of 0.138 (0.154) for self-directed/independent learning compared with 0.112 (0.137) for lecture style scenario and 0.119 (0.151) for guided-learning. However, there were no significant differences between the groups in positive sentiment scores (F(2,663) = 1.79, p = 0.168). For negative sentiment scores, the lecture style scenario, appeared to have a more pronounced width which indicates a greater variability. It also had the highest maximum score among the three groups, suggesting high negative sentiment within this group. This was supported by a higher mean (SD) negative sentiment score of 0.857 (0.151) compared with 0.730 (0.114) for self-directed/independent learning and 0.556 (0.112) for guided-learning. However, there were no significant differences between the groups in negative sentiment scores (F(2,663) = 2.41, p = 0.091).

Figure 1. Sentiment scores for lecture, guided-learning, and self-directed/independent learning scenarios.

Topics

A non-negative matrix factorization method was used to identify common topics across all of the comments the IToDs made for the different scenarios. The following topics were identified:

• Topic 1: Student-teacher interactions, student-teacher positioning.

• Topic 2: Background noise, group interactions.

• Topic 3: Fatigue and concentration.

• Topic 4: Small group activities, distractions.

• Topic 5: Hearing difficulties, distractions, speaking.

• Topic 6: Classroom environment.

• Topic 7: Technology.

• Topic 8: Self-directed learning styles.

• Topic 9: Missing out on information, auditory and visual support needs.

• Topic 10: Help – seeking clarifications, confidence issues.

Figure 2 shows the breakdown of the topics for each scenario. Topic 1 was the dominant topic for lecture, guided-learning, and self-directed/independent learning at 40.23%, 21.75%, and 27.92% respectively. Topic 3 and Topic 9 were also dominating for the lecture style scenario, and the least was Topic 4 at 2.04%. Also dominating for guided-learning was Topic 4 at 18.43%, and the least represented topic was Topic 3 (3.32%). For self-directed/independent learning, Topic 8 has a split of 16.98%, with least represented topic also being Topic 3 (1.51%). Table 1 further explores the topic distribution (which scenarios the topic was represented more or less in) and the concepts in each topic. For the lecture style scenario, the concepts that particularly came out were fatigue and concentration, the student missing spoken information from the teacher and students, limited support provided to the student, limited confirmation of student understanding, isolation, and students lacking the confidence to speak up. For the guided-learning scenario, the concepts that particularly came out were background noise as a major issue, as well as reverberation, teacher movement, and distance also contributing to the child missing spoken information. Positives for this scenario were that the student is engaged in discussions and learning, there are more opportunities to develop social skills, there is positive turn-taking, and there is opportunity for peer scaffolding (i.e., the students to follow and learn from their peers). Interestingly, assistive devices received mixed comments. The negative comments were mainly related to the DHH child’s typical hearing peers not using the assistive devices well in this scenario, however, when used properly in group mode, there were a lot of positive comments as it enabled students to interact and be part of the group discussions. For self-directed/independent learning, the concepts that particularly came out were that the students that it promotes independence and that it was a quieter scenario, but that it could be isolating for the student.

Figure 2. Breakdown of the topics identified by a non-negative matrix factorization method for each scenario.

Table 1. Topics, distributions, and concepts.

Topic	Distribution	Concepts
Topic 1: Student-teacher interactions, student-teacher positioning.	Lecture > Guided and Self-directed/Independent	Teacher-student distance
		Teacher movement
		Confirmation of student understanding
		Teacher feedback
		Isolation
		Peer scaffolding
		Communication ease with the teacher and peers
Topic 2: Background noise, group interactions.	Guided > Lecture and Self-directed/Independent	Background noise
Topic 3: Fatigue and concentration.	Lecture > Guided and Self-directed/Independent	Fatigue
		Concentration
Topic 4: Small group activities, distractions.	Guided > Self-directed/Independent > Lecture	Engagement in discussions and learning
Topic 5: Hearing difficulties, distractions, speaking.	Guided > Lecture > Self-directed/Independent	Ability to hear and understand the teacher
		Ability to hear and understand responses from other students
		Turn taking
Topic 6: Classroom environment.	Similar across scenarios	Room acoustics/reverberation
Topic 7: Technology.	Guided and Lecture > Self-directed/Independent	Assistive devices
Topic 8: Self-directed learning styles.	Self-directed/Independent > Guided > Lecture	Independence
		Opportunity to develop social skills
Topic 9: Missing out on information, auditory and visual support needs.	Lecture > Guided and Self-directed/Independent	Miss spoken information
		Support provided to the student
Topic 10: Help - seeking clarifications, confidence issues.	Self-directed/Independent > Lecture and Guided	Confidence to speak up

Additional scenarios

Lastly, teachers were asked to leave a comment on any school scenarios that they felt were challenging for their students (other than lecture, guided-learning and self-directed/independent scenarios). Overwhelmingly, audio-visual presentations were cited as the most problematic scenario (18%), followed by assembly (13%) and the playground (12%; Figure 3).

Figure 3. Additional school scenarios that may be challenging for students.

Survey 2 methodology

Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the Humanities and Social Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee at Macquarie University (Reference 52021916835563).

Participants

Ninety IToDs were invited to participate in an anonymous short survey during an online training seminar one year after the initial data collection. The training seminar was advertised to the same group of IToDs from New South Wales as Survey 1 as well as IToDs from all other states and territories around Australia. Therefore, some of the IToDs from the first survey also completed this survey as well as some new IToDs who had not completed the first survey. Teachers were located across Australia. Limited demographic data on the sample was collected due to time restraints for filling out the survey at the seminar.

Procedure

A link to the online survey was made available to IToDs who attended the online training seminar. IToDs completed the survey on their own devices (e.g., computer, mobile phone). Valid responses to the survey were received by 18 IToDs.

Survey questions

The survey was developed by the authors (three hearing science researchers and on ToD) drawing on the results of Survey 1. Again, as this was an exploratory survey based on the IToD’s responses from Survey 1, formal testing of the survey was not deemed necessary (see limitations section for more of a discussion on this). IToDs were presented with 20 randomized statements that reflected the concepts from Survey 1 and were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale what they thought of a 6- to 9-year-old DHH student’s experience when listening and learning in the following classroom scenarios from Survey 1: lecture style, guided-learning group work, and self-directed/independent learning. The 5-point Likert scale comprised the ratings: strongly disagree (−2), disagree (−1), neutral (0), agree (+1), strongly agree (+2). Unfortunately, the statement ‘listening and learning is fatiguing’ was unintentionally left out of Survey 2. It would be beneficial for future research to investigate the fatigue of students in the different scenarios.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics and Friedman tests with post-hoc Wilcoxen signed rank tests (with Bonferroni adjusted p values) were run on the data using R version 4.2.1 to determine significant differences in the agreement of the statements for each scenario.

Survey 2 results

Table 2 shows the mean ratings for the lecture, guided-learning, and self-directed/independent scenarios. The statements are ranked from highest scores (strongest agreement) to lowest scores (strongest disagreement). The statements ‘Background noise affects listening and learning’ and ‘Room acoustics/reverberation affects listening and learning’ were consistently ranked as having the highest agreement across lecture, guided-learning, and self-directed/independent scenarios. Figure 4 shows the mean ratings of how strongly IToDs agree (from −2 to +2) with positive and negative statements about listening and learning in the lecture, guided-learning, and self-directed/independent scenarios. This figure shows how the physical characteristics of the space such as background noise, room acoustics, and teacher distance or movement can negatively affect children’s listening and learning, but how assistive devices can be a positive aid to listening and learning. Friedman tests with post-hoc Wilcoxen signed rank tests (with Bonferroni adjusted p values) were run on each statement to determine significant differences in the agreement of the statements for each scenario. Table 3 shows these results in order of the p values on the Friedman test. The statements that were consistently agreed with across scenarios were: ‘room acoustics/reverberation affects listening and learning’; ‘teacher-student distance affects listening and learning’; ‘background noise affects listening and learning’; and ‘teacher movement affects listening and learning’. Although 10 statements had significant differences across scenarios on the Friedman test, post-hoc Wilcoxen signed rank tests only showed significant differences between scenarios on the statement ‘the student does not receive teacher feedback’ with this being agreed significantly more for the lecture scenario than the guided-learning scenario.

Figure 4. Mean ratings for each statement split into positive and negative statements. Error bars show standard error of the mean. Ratings are as follows: −2 = strongly disagree, −1 = disagree, 0 = neutral, 1 = agree, 2 = strongly agree.

Table 2. Mean rating scores for statements in each scenario.

Scenario	Rating	Statement	Mean
Lecture	Strongly agree	Background noise affects listening and learning	1.9
		Room acoustics/reverberation affects listening and learning	1.9
		Teacher-student distance affects listening and learning	1.7
		Teacher movement affects listening and learning	1.6
	Agree	Assistive devices work well	1.4
		The student misses spoken information	1.4
		The student lacks confidence to speak up in this situation	1.4
		There is limited confirmation of student understanding	1.3
		There are fewer opportunities to develop social skills	1.2
		There is limited support provided to the student	0.9
		The student does not receive teacher feedback	0.9
		It is isolating for the student	0.8
		It is difficult for the student to concentrate	0.7
		The student can hear and understand the teacher	0.6
	Neutral	Independence is promoted	0.3
		The student is engaged in discussions and learning	−0.1
		There is opportunity for peer scaffolding	−0.3
		It is easy to communicate with the teacher and peers	−0.4
		There is positive turn taking	−0.4
	Disagree	The student can hear and understand responses from other students	−0.6
Guided	Strongly agree	Background noise affects listening and learning	1.9
		Room acoustics/reverberation affects listening and learning	1.9
		Teacher movement affects listening and learning	1.5
	Agree	The student misses spoken information	1.3
		Teacher-student distance affects listening and learning	1.2
		Assistive devices work well	1.1
		Independence is promoted	0.8
		There is opportunity for peer scaffolding	0.8
		It is difficult for the student to concentrate	0.7
		It is easy to communicate with the teacher and peers	0.7
		There is positive turn taking	0.5
		There is limited support provided to the student	0.5
		The student is engaged in discussions and learning	0.5
		The student lacks confidence to speak up in this situation	0.5
	Neutral	The student can hear and understand responses from other students	0.2
		There is limited confirmation of student understanding	0.2
		The student can hear and understand the teacher	0.2
		The student does not receive teacher feedback	0.0
		It is isolating for the student	0.0
	Disagree	There are fewer opportunities to develop social skills	−0.6
Self-directed/ Independent	Strongly agree	Background noise affects listening and learning	1.8
	Agree	Room acoustics/reverberation affects listening and learning	1.3
		Independence is promoted	1.2
		Teacher-student distance affects listening and learning	1.0
		Assistive devices work well	1.0
		It is isolating for the student	1.0
		There are fewer opportunities to develop social skills	1.0
		Teacher movement affects listening and learning	0.8
		The student misses spoken information	0.7
		There is limited support provided to the student	0.5
		The student lacks confidence to speak up in this situation	0.5
	Neutral	The student is engaged in discussions and learning	0.4
		It is difficult for the student to concentrate	0.4
		The student can hear and understand the teacher	0.4
		There is limited confirmation of student understanding	0.3
		It is easy to communicate with the teacher and peers	0.1
		There is positive turn taking	0.0
		The student does not receive teacher feedback	0.0
		The student can hear and understand responses from other students	−0.2
		There is opportunity for peer scaffolding	−0.2

Table 3. Friedman test results with post-hoc Wilcoxen signed rank test results.

Statement	Friedman test p value	Wilcoxen signed rank significance
Room acoustics/reverberation affects listening and learning	1	Ns
Teacher-student distance affects listening and learning	0.779	Ns
Background noise affects listening and learning	0.717	Ns
Teacher movement affects listening and learning	0.717	Ns
It is difficult for the student to concentrate	0.568	Ns
The student can hear and understand the teacher	0.446	Ns
The student is engaged in discussions and learning	0.296	Ns
Assistive devices work well	0.264	Ns
Independence is promoted	0.257	Ns
There are fewer opportunities to develop social skills	0.089	Ns
It is easy to communicate with the teacher and peers	0.042	Ns
The student lacks confidence to speak up in this situation	0.040	Ns
There is limited confirmation of student understanding	0.026	Ns
It is isolating for the student	0.026	Ns
There is opportunity for peer scaffolding	0.018	Ns
The student lacks confidence to speak up in this situation	0.016	Ns
There is limited support provided to the student	0.008	Ns
The student misses spoken information	0.008	Ns
The student does not receive teacher feedback	0.007	lecture > guided
There is positive turn taking	0.002	Ns

Discussion

The aim of the current exploratory study was to gather survey data from IToDs to better understand the impact of different classroom scenarios on DHH students’ listening and learning. The results provided helpful insights from IToDs into the factors affecting listening and learning in different classroom scenarios for students who are DHH.

Survey 1 asked the IToDs to report the positive and negative implications of listening and learning in these scenarios. While there were no significant differences in the positive or negative sentiment scores across the scenarios, there was a trend of more positive sentiment scores for self-directed/independent learning, and more negative sentiment scores for lecture style teaching. This was shown in the positive sentiment analysis by wider and higher violin plots in the self-directed/independent learning scenario than the other scenarios. For negative sentiment scores, the lecture style scenario had a more pronounced width and the highest maximum score among the three scenarios, suggesting high negative sentiment within this group.

A non-negative matrix factorization method was used to identify common topics from the comments of the IToDs. The analysis revealed 10 topics. Concepts were then identified across the 10 topics.

Survey 2 quantified the IToD comments from Survey 1 by asking IToDs to rate how much they agreed with the concept statements for each teaching scenario. The top statements that had the strongest overall agreement for all scenarios combined on a scale of −2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree) were: (i) ‘background noise affects listening and learning’ (lecture mean = 1.9, guided-learning mean = 1.8, self-directed/independent mean = 1.8); (ii) ‘room acoustics/reverberation affects listening and learning’ (lecture mean = 1.9, guided-learning mean = 1.9, self-directed/independent mean = 1.3); (iii) ‘teacher-student distance affects listening and learning’ (lecture mean = 1.7, guided-learning mean = 1.2, self-directed/independent mean = 1.0); and (iv) ‘teacher movement affects listening and learning’ (lecture mean = 1.6, guided-learning mean = 1.5, self-directed/independent mean = 0.8).

These statements all relate to listener-external factors associated with the physical characteristics of the space. This shows the importance of considering and modifying the physical environment of the classroom to help listening and learning. This includes installing acoustic treatment to reduce the reverberation time, controlling environmental noise levels from both outside and inside the classroom as well as the noise from the children themselves, and minimizing the distance that the teacher is from the students, particularly if the student has hearing loss (Nelson & Soli, 2000). The statement ‘assistive devices work well’ was also rated highly across scenarios (lecture mean = 1.4, guided-learning mean = 1.1, self-directed/independent mean = 1.0.) It is a positive finding that these devices can be helpful in the classroom for children with hearing loss. Below is a discussion of the findings specifically for each of the teaching scenarios.

Lecture

In addition to the challenges already outlined above, the IToDs identified multiple additional areas of concern. Notably, fatigue and concentration challenges rated highly for this scenario. Listening-related fatigue has been shown to be a common problem in DHH children resulting in physical, cognitive, and socio-emotional fatigue (Davis et al., 2021). This is particularly concerning considering the potential impact of recurrent fatigue on academic performance (Nagane, 2004). Other challenges include the student missing spoken information from the teacher and students, limited support provided to the student, and limited confirmation of student understanding as the student does not receive teacher feedback. Additionally, this scenario was identified as isolating for the student with fewer opportunities for them to develop social skills, and that students often lack the confidence to speak up. Compared to their typical hearing peers, self-confidence is known to be reduced in children with hearing loss (Keilmann, Limberger, & Mann, 2007), and the lecture-style scenario potentially exacerbates this issue. Combined, it is likely these factors affect learning outcomes and academic progression, possibly resulting in children with hearing loss falling behind their peers.

The positive of this scenario is that it is the ideal scenario for both personal and classroom amplification devices to be used (Lewis, Feigin, Karasek, & Stelmachowicz, 1991), which in this case refers mainly to remote microphones attached to the teacher and combined with either personal amplification devices or classroom amplification systems.

Guided-learning

The guided-learning scenario is potentially very problematic for children with hearing loss, with IToDs claiming background noise is a major issue and students miss spoken information. Background noise was also noted as a problem in the study by Todorov et al. (2021). Reverberation, teacher movement, and distance also contribute to missing spoken information in this scenario as reported by the IToDs. These factors have been outlined as classroom acoustic parameters need to be controlled in the classroom by Crandell and Smaldino (2000), though the present study particularly relates these to the guided learning scenario. Guided-learning group work was also one of the more difficult listening situations identified by Nelson et al. (2020) and Todorov et al. (2021).

While Survey 2 revealed that IToDs generally agree that assistive devices work well in this scenario, the comments from Survey 1 showed that assistive devices were problematic in this scenario. Assistive devices in this case mainly refers to the children’s hearing devices (hearing aids, cochlear implants) connected wirelessly to an adaptive directional microphone placed on the table in the centre of the group or the microphone of the teacher’s personal amplification devices passed between each speaker. The negative comments were mainly related to the DHH student’s typical hearing peers not using the assistive devices well in this scenario, however, when used properly in group mode, there were a lot of positive comments on the use of assistive devices in the guided-learning scenario as it enabled students to interact and be part of the group discussions. However, it is challenging to relate these findings to the literature as speech intelligibility benefit from the relevant assistive listening devices such as a personal amplification devices has typically been evaluated in laboratory/ clinical settings using standard speech materials presented in a ‘lecture-style’ scenario (i.e., speech presented from approximately 0° azimuth; Anderson & Goldstein, 2004; Johnston, John, Kreisman, Hall, & Crandell, 2009; Schafer & Thibodeau, 2006) which neither takes into account the realistic speech and noise signals nor the dynamic and interactive task involved in group work. With so much of a child’s day spent listening and learning during a guided-learning scenario, how assistive devices work to improve communication requires further investigation.

Regardless, our findings demonstrate that it would be beneficial to train children in how to use assistive devices effectively and promote self-efficacy. Other positives for this scenario are that the student is engaged in discussions and learning, there are more opportunities to develop social skills, there is positive turn-taking, and there is opportunity for peer scaffolding (i.e., the students to follow and learn from their peers). However, it is unclear whether DHH children benefit from these positives to the same extent as their typical hearing peers.

Self-directed/independent learning

It was interesting that IToDs generally agreed that background noise affects listening and learning for the self-directed/independent scenario, but at the same time, in Survey 2, as in Survey 1, it was reported that there was less background noise in this scenario which was a positive for student listening and learning. It was also reported in Survey 1 that it is easy for the students to concentrate in the quieter self-directed/independent learning scenario. However, it is possible that the IToDs interpreted the background noise question focusing on when there may be background noise present in the classroom, rather than considering whether background noise is an issue or not compared to the other scenarios. The wording of this question could be improved to better reflect our intention which will be discussed in the limitations section.

It is not surprising that IToDs identified the self-directed/independent scenario as being beneficial for the child’s concentration as this is the quietest classroom scenario. As such, listening effort is minimal (Howard, Munro, & Plack, 2010) and may therefore be an optimal learning environment for DHH children. However, a trade-off was evident in the IToD responses, with the teachers noting that while this scenario promotes independence, the decreased social interaction can be isolating for the student.

Study limitations

This study has several limitations. As it was a new exploratory study, we did not use or create a validated questionnaire but instead created a survey that aimed to gain open-ended insight from the IToDs. These insights from Survey 1 were collated to present the 20 statements for Survey 2. However, 109 IToDs shared their implications on listening and learning in the different scenarios so many of these statements needed to be categorized into topics and concepts. We acknowledge that the categorization of this data may have resulted in the loss of some information or particular nuances. Additionally, there may have been some ambiguities in the interpretation of the statements, particularly when we look at the results for ‘background noise affects listening and learning’. From the data collected in Survey 1, we expected the IToDs to agree with this more for the guided-learning scenario than the other two scenarios, especially the self-directed/independent scenario as it was commented that quieter self-directed/independent learning was a positive for student listening and learning. It is possible that the IToDs interpreted the background noise question focussing on when there may be background noise present in the classroom, in which case if there was, it would affect listening and learning. Our intention, however, was more about whether there is background noise present in the classroom, and if so, does this affect listening and learning. Therefore, the wording of this question could be improved to better reflect our intention.

Another limitation of the study is the wording of four of the statements used in Survey 2. For the statements ‘background noise affects listening and learning’; ‘room acoustics/reverberation affects listening and learning’; ‘teacher-student distance affects listening and learning’; and ‘teacher movement affects listening and learning’, the use of ‘affects’ in these statements render the statements inherently neutral. While it is thought that the IToDs would have interpreted these sentences as being negative as was intended, it would have been more explicit to have used ‘negatively affects’ in the statements. This potential ambiguity should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.

Additionally, Survey 2 only had responses from 18 IToDs which is a low sample size for survey data. While it can provide some interesting initial insights, confirmation is needed with a larger sample of IToDs. Furthermore, due to time constraints with the seminar we were unable to gather very much demographic data on the IToDs, so gathering this data in future studies would be of benefit.

Finally, for both surveys, the IToDs were asked to think of a child who was DHH to answer the questions about. This was chosen so that the IToDs could give more specific, concrete answers rather than trying to generalize their responses. However, we acknowledge that the results may vary slightly depending on the child (or children) that the IToD was specifically thinking of and that these are secondary reports and would benefit from future research on student self-report. The IToDs were specifically asked to think of a child aged 6–9 years, but it is possible that some IToDs may not have seen a child of that age yet still filled out the surveys. It is likely, however, that the challenges are similar for older students.

Conclusions and outlook

Overall, this study provided helpful insights from the IToD perspective into the factors affecting listening and learning for children who are DHH in the classroom for the three main teaching scenarios: lecture, guided, and self-directed/independent learning. This study provided real-world data of the observations and experiences from the IToDs who work with DHH children in the classroom and have experience with hearing technologies, providing face validity to the study. The study revealed that there are positive and negative implications for each scenario, for example in the lecture style, assistive devices work well but there is less support for the student. In the guided scenario, background noise is problematic, but the student is engaged in discussions and learning and can develop social skills. In the self-directed/independent scenario, the quieter environment can be beneficial for the child’s concentration, but it can also be isolating for the student.

The main negative implications that came out of the study are that background noise, reverberation, and speaker-listener distance and movement are all likely to affect listening in learning for DHH children in each scenario. This shows the importance of considering and modifying the physical environment of the classroom to help listening and learning (Mealings, 2023b). This includes installing acoustic treatment to reduce the reverberation time, controlling environmental noise levels from both outside and inside the classroom as well as the noise from the children themselves, and minimizing the distance that the teacher is from the students, particularly if the student has hearing loss.

A positive that came out of the study is that assistive devices are reported by IToDs to work well in most scenarios, however, mixed responses for the guided-learning scenario highlight the need for the IToDs to provide coaching and guidance to the mainstream teachers and hearing students about how to use the devices effectively and monitor use to ensure they are being used correctly. Additionally, IToDs could help promote self-advocacy skills for children who are DHH in the different scenarios, particularly guided-learning, where they may need to manage their devices themselves and teach their peers how to use microphone technology when conversing.

On top of the listening and learning scenarios surveyed here, the teachers also commented on additional activities which were challenging for their students (summarized in Figure 2). Some of these situations were investigated by Nelson et al. (2020). However, future studies may wish to quantify the listening and learning challenges for these younger students in these scenarios. In particular, audio-visual presentations were cited as problematic by 18% of teachers, followed by assembly (13%) and the playground (12%). Audio-visual presentations present an interesting area to investigate as there are assistive devices which may be capable of mitigating some of the listening challenges. Research into playground activity is also thought-provoking, given the strong emphasis on engagement and socialization in this scenario.

The challenges and benefits DHH encounter in the different learning settings revealed valuable insights that can be utilized by educators and policymakers aiming to optimize educational outcomes for this demographic. However, while this study focused on listening and learning in the classroom for children who are DHH, it does have applications to other populations. Children with special educational needs such as attention deficits and being on the autism spectrum may also face listening challenges in these scenarios, as may children who have English as a second language (Kanakri, Shepley, Tassinary, Varni, & Fawaz, 2017a; Kanakri, Shepley, Varni, & Tassinary, 2017b; Nelson, Kohnert, Sabur, & Shaw, 2005). Additionally, young typically developing children may find some of these listening situations challenging as their auditory system is still developing (Jean K. Moore & Linthicum, 2007).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all of the IToDs who took part in this study for their time and helpful contributions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by The Martin Lee Centre for Innovations in Hearing Health.