Study on perspective taking in online discussions among university students with hearing impairments

Introduction. Communication skills are regarded as one of the most essential competencies for deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students in a digital learning environment. This importance is attributed to the unique cognitive and learning characteristics of these students. Aim. The present research aimed to compare the ability of DHH students with their hearing peers to accept different perspectives during online discussions. Methodology and research method. The experiment involved 17 students, consisting of 8 Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) students and 9 hearing students, who participated in online discussions via Telegram chats over a period of six weeks. Within the framework of the chosen qualimetric approach, methods of group expert assessments and a pedagogical council were employed, along with elements of quantitative content analysis. Results. The quality of online discussions and the level of perspective taking are significantly higher among hearing students compared to their DHH peers. When organising these discussions, it is important to consider certain characteristics: hearing students tend to be highly engaged and independent, while DHH students may provide uncompromising and emotional responses, exhibit frequent linguistic errors, and struggle with issues of plagiarism. In light of these observations, recommendations are provided for effectively organising and conducting online discussions with students who have hearing impairments. Scientific novelty. This study represents the first attempt to compare the development of communication skills between DHH students and hearing students in a digital environment. Considering the unique characteristics of the cognitive activities of DHH students, the method for quantitatively assessing these skills was adapted specifically for this group. Practical significance. The study found that online discussions significantly enhance the cognitive engagement of DHH students, potentially fostering the development of their communication skills in a digital environment. The authors recommend strategies for formulating discussion questions, assisting moderators in discussion chats, and establishing procedures for evaluating discussions. These recommendations can be utilised to assess students’ online discussions and their ability to consider alternative perspectives.

1. Gupta S., Jaiswal A., Sukhai M., Wittich W. Hearing disability and employment: a population-based analysis using the 2017 Canadian survey on disability. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2023;45(11):1836–1846. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2022.2076938

2. Merchant G. Writing the future in the digital age. Literacy. 2007;41(3):118–128. doi: 10.1111/j.14679345.2007.00469.x

3. Järvelä S., Häkkinen P. The levels of web-based discussions: using perspective-taking theory as an analytical tool. Cognition in a Digital World. 2003:77–96. doi: 10.4324/9781410607072-6

4. Järvelä S., Häkkinen P. Web-based cases in teaching and learning–the quality of discussions and a stage of perspective taking in asynchronous communication. Interactive Learning Environments. 2002;10(1):1–22. doi: 10.1076/ilee.10.1.1.3613

5. Barak A., Sadovsky Y. Internet use and personal empowerment of hearing-impaired adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior. 2008;24(5):1802–1815. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.007

6. Soetan A.K., Onojah A.O., Alaka T.B., Aderogba A.J. Hearing impaired students’ self-efficacy on the utilization of assistive technology in federal college of education (special) Oyo. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education. 2020;11(1):4245–4252. Accessed April 14, 2024. https://infonomics-society.org/wp-content/uploads/Hearing-Impaired-Students-Self-Efficacy-on-the-Utilization-of-Assistive-Technology.pdf

7. Maiorana-Basas M., Pagliaro C.M. Technology use among adults who are deaf and hard of hearing: a national survey. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2014;19(3):400–410. Accessed April 14, 2024. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43666294

8. Lindsay S., Cagliostro E., Albarico M., Mortaji N., Karon L. A systematic review of the benefits of hiring people with disabilities. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 2018;28(4):634–655. doi: 10.1007/s10926-018-9756-z

9. Aichner T. The economic argument for hiring people with disabilities. Humanities for Social Sciences Communications. 2021;8(1):8–11. doi: 10.1057/s41599-021-00707-y

10. Spencer M. Emergent literacies: a site for analysis. Language Arts. 1986; 63(5):442–453. doi: 10.58680/la198625681

11. Gilster P., Glister P. Digital Literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Pub.; 1997. Accessed April 14, 2024. https://openlibrary.org/works/OL2627594W/Digital_literacy

12. Heath S.B. Ways with words: language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1983. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511841057

13. Street B.V. Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984. Accessed April 14, 2024. https://www.cambridge.org/ru/universitypress/subjects/languages-linguistics/sociolinguistics/literacy-theory-and-practice?format=PB&isbn=9780521289610

14. Belshaw D. What is “Digital Literacy”? A Pragmatic Investigation. Doctoral thesis. Durham: Durham University; 2012. Accessed April 14, 2024. http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3446

15. Janssen J., Stoyanov S., Ferrari A., Punie Y., Pannekeet K, Sloep P. Experts’ views on digital competence: commonalities and differences. Computers & Education. 2013;68:473–481. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.008

16. Neumann M.M., Finger G., Neumann D.L. A conceptual framework for emergent digital literacy. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2017;45:471–479. doi: 10.1007/s10643-016-0792-z

17. Eden S., Eshet-Alkalai Y. The effect of format on performance: editing text in print versus digital formats. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2013;44(5):846–856. doi: 10.1111/j.14678535.2012.01332.x

18. Ng W. Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education. 2012;59(3):1065–1078. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016

19. Amin H., Malik M.A., Akkaya B. Development and validation of digital literacy scale (DLS) and its implication for higher education. International Journal of Distance Education and E-Learning. 2021;7(1):24–43. doi: 10.36261/ijdeel.v7i1.2224

20. Kerkhoff S.N., Makubuya T. Professional development on digital literacy and transformative teaching in a low-income country: a case study of rural Kenya. Reading Research Quarterly. 2022;57(1):287–305. doi: 10.1002/rrq.392

21. Abbas Q., Hussain S., Rasool S. Digital literacy effect on the academic performance of students at higher education level in Pakistan. Global Social Sciences Review. 2019;4(1):154–165. doi: 10.31703/gssr.2019(IV-I).14

22. Martzoukou K., Fulton C., Kostagiolas P., Lavranos C. A study of higher education students’ self-perceived digital competences for learning and everyday life online participation. Journal of Documentation. 2020;76(6):1413–1458. doi: 10.1108/JD-03-2020-0041

23. Belshaw D. Essential elements of digital literacies. Self-published. 2014. Accessed April 14, 2024. https://dougbelshaw.com/essential-elements-book.pdf

24. Adeoye A.A., Adeoye B.J. Digital literacy skills of undergraduate students in Nigeria Universities. Library Philosophy and Practice. 2017;1665:1–23. Accessed April 14, 2024. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Azeez-Adeoye/publication/323165345_Digital_Literacy_Skills_of_Undergraduate_Students_in_Nigeria_Universities/links/5b361325aca2720785f4ffb3/Digital-Literacy-Skills-of-Undergraduate-Students-in-Nigeria-Universities.pdf

25. Chan G.H. Enhancing digital literacy in education: educational directions. Education+Training. 2024;66(1):127–142. doi: 10.1108/ET-09-2022-0390

26. Park E.Y., Nam S.J. An analysis of the digital literacy of people with disabilities in Korea: verification of a moderating effect of gender, education and age. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2014;38(4):404–411. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12107

27. Lowenthal P.R., Persichini G., Conley Q., Humphrey M., Scheufler J. Digital literacy in special education: preparing students for college and the workplace. Research Anthology on Inclusive Practices for Educators and Administrators in Special Education. IGI Global. 2022:524–537. doi: 10.4018/978-16684-3670-7.ch029

28. Conley Q., Scheufler J., Persichini G., Lowenthal P.R., Humphrey M. Digital citizenship for all: empowering young learners with disabilities to become digitally literate. Human Performance Technology: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. 2019:829–850. doi: 10.4018/978-1-52258356-1.ch042

29. Shamsutdinova Yu.F. Communication with the involvement of hearing and deaf/hard of hearing people: social media opportunities. Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 10. Journalism. = Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Serija 10. Zhurnalistika. 2020;5:54–76. (In Russ.) doi: 10.30547/vestnik.journ.5.2020.5476

30. Gareyev A.A., Ponomarenko E.P., Shishkina A.A., Krasavina Yu.V. Structure and contents of hearing impaired university students’ epistemic competence within digital learning environment: criteria and evaluation methods. Science for Education Today. 2023;13(4):148–169. (In Russ.) doi: 10.15293/2658-6762.2304.07

31. Ibraimkulov A., Yerimbetova A.S., Gromaszek K. Development of digital literacy of students with disabilities. Advanced Technologies and Computer Science. 2021;2:4–9. doi: 10.13187/ejced.2022.2.388

32. Abdullina K., Zolotovitskaya A. Social integration and activities of children with hearing loss with digital literacy strategies. Education and Information Technologies. 2023;29(6):7671–7692. doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-12099-4

33. Mehrkian S., Bayat Z., Javanbakht M., Emamdjomeh H., Bakhshi E. Effect of wireless remote microphone application on speech discrimination in noise in children with cochlear implants. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 2019;125:192–195. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.07.007

34. Kantor V.Z., Proekt Yu.L., Antropov A.P., Kondrakova I.E. Pedagogical education as an area to form teacher inclusive dispositions. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2023;25(10):12–44. (In Russ.) doi: 10.17853/1994-5639-2023-10-12-44

35. Vygotsky L.S. The fundamentals of defectology (Abnormal Psychology and Learning Disabilities). In: Reiber R.W., Carton A.S., eds. The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. Springer Science & Business Media; 1987. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-2806-7

36. Wei X., Cheng I.L., Chen N.S., Yang X., Liu Y., Dong Y., Zhai X., Kinshuk. Effect of the flipped classroom on the mathematics performance of middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2020;68:1461–1484. doi: 10.1007/s11423-020-09752-x

37. Gopalan C. Effect of flipped teaching on student performance and perceptions in an Introductory Physiology course. Advances in Physiology Education. 2019;43(1):28–33. doi: 10.1152/advan.00051.2018

38. Midtlund A., Instefjord E.J., Lazareva A. Digital communication and collaboration in lower secondary school. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy. 2021;16(2):65–76. doi: 10.18261/issn.1891943x-2021-02-03

39. Cabero-Almenara J., Gutiérrez-Castillo J.J., Palacios-Rodríguez A., Guellén-Gámez F.D. Digital competence of university students with disabilities and factors that determine it. A descriptive, inferential and multivariate study. Education and Information Technologies. 2023;28(8):9417–9436. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11297-w

40. Selman R.L. The Growth of Interpersonal Understanding: Developmental and Clinical Analyses. New York: Academy Press; 1980. Accessed April 14, 2024. https://lib.ugent.be/en/catalog/rug01:000027838

41. Cherepanov V.S. Osnovy pedagogicheskoj jekspertizy = Basics of Pedagogical Expertise. Izhevsk State Technical University; 2006. (In Russ.) Accessed April 14, 2024. https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=19993919

42. Devi Prasad B. Research Methods for Social Work. New Delhi: Rawat; 2008:173–193. Accessed April 14, 2024. http://www.css.ac.in/download/deviprasad/content%20analysis.%20a%20method%20of%20social%20science%20research.pdf

43. Mendoza Velazco D.J., Alava Barreiro L.M., Moreira Chica T.K., Alcivar Medranda E.M., Romero Chávez S.A. Resilience in vulnerable university groups: An analysis of social work intervention strategies from the perspective of social inclusion. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2024;26(1):82–102. doi: 10.17853/1994-5639-2024-1-82-102