CONTRIBUTION OF TECHNOLOGY TO ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF LEARNERS WITH HEARING IMPAIRMENT IN SELECTED SCHOOLS IN LUSAKA AND NDOLA DISTRICTS IN ZAMBIA: TEACHERS’ VIEW
Main Article Content
Abstract
Learners with hearing impairment have a fundamental right to equitable to education, and this extends to the integration of assistive and digital technologies in classroom settings. This study explored the contribution of technology to the academic performance of learners with hearing impairments in selected secondary schools in Zambia. Employing an interpretivism paradigm and a case study research design, the study targeted secondary school teachers across five schools in Lusaka and Ndola Districts, with a purposively selected sample of 35 participants. Data were collected through unstructured interview schedules and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis. The practical significance of the study lies in its provision of contextually grounded, empirical evidence to inform policy reform, institutional planning, and teacher professional development in Zambia's inclusive secondary education system. Findings revealed that, while technology devices including hearing aids, FM systems, captioning services, and sign language interpretation tools were available in varying degrees, their effective deployment was constrained by insufficient resources, device incompatibility, inadequate teacher training, and the absence of structured sign language support in ICT instruction. Despite these challenges, teachers consistently affirmed that appropriately utilised assistive technologies improved classroom engagement, communication, and academic performance among hearing-impaired learners. The study underscores the need for institutionalised procurement of assistive technologies, targeted professional development for teachers, and policy alignment to ensure equitable and sustainable technology integration in inclusive secondary education in Zambia.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
KNUMJ uses Creative Common (CC) Attribution (BY) 4.0 International License which guarantees people (readers) and organisations unlimited rights to share, use, and build upon works published in this journal; all they need to do is to acknowledge the sources (authors).
References
Adom, D., Hussein, E. K., & Agyem, J. A. (2018). Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Mandatory Ingredients of a Quality Research. International Journal of Scientific Research, 7(1), 438-441.
Archbold, S., Lutman, M. E., & Marshall, D. H. (2002). Categories of auditory performance. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 111(5 Suppl), 312-314.
Baker, P., Sherwood, K.,& Jones, C. (2015). E-learning and students with disabilities: Access and engagement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 550-561.
Borg, J., Lindstrom, A., & Larsson, S. (2017). Assistive technology in developing countries. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 12(3), 219-226.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Brunner, J. J. (2001). Globalization, education and the technological revolution. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, XXXI(2).
Chilisa, B., & Preece, J. (2005). Research Methods for Adult Teachers in Africa. Gaborone: UNESCO Education Publishers.
Crandell, C., & Smaldino, J. (2000). Classroom acoustics for children with normal hearing and with hearing impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31(4), 362-370.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Foster, P., & Alghazo, M. (2016). Accessible educational media: Toward a common goal for blind and deaf students. Information Technology and Disabilities, 8(2), 95-103.
Imenda, S. (2014). Is there a conceptual difference between conceptual and theoretical frameworks? Journal of Social Science, 38(2), 185-195.
Kombo, D. K., & Tromp, D. L. A. (2013). Proposal and Thesis Writing: An Introduction. Nairobi: Paulines Publication Africa.
Lang, H. G., McKee, B. G., & Conner, K. (2020). Characteristics of effective teachers: A descriptive study of the perceptions of faculty and deaf college students. American Annals of the Deaf, 138(3), 252-259.
Luckner, J. L., & Muir, S. (2001). Successful students who are deaf in general education settings. American Annals of the Deaf, 146(5), 435-446.
Marschark, M.,& Hauser, P. C. (2012). How Deaf Children Learn: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marschark, M., & Wauters, L. (2008). Language comprehension and learning by deaf students. In M. Marschark & P. Hauser (Eds.), Deaf Cognition: Foundations and Outcomes (pp. 309-350). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Okolo, C. M., & Englert, C. S. (2019). Technology and inclusive education: A systematic review. Journal of Special Education Technology, 34(1), 1-15.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (4th ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Tharpe, A. M., & Bess, F. H. (1999). Minimal, progressive and fluctuating hearing losses in children. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 46(1), 65-78.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (2016). The role of technology in integrating people with disabilities in society. Information Society, 16(1), 1-12.
Vanderheiden, G. C., & Marschark, M. (2021). Technological advances in education for deaf students: A critical overview. Deafness and Education International, 10(4), 197-214.
Wyatt, T. (2010). Captioning and reading: A review of research. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 15(3), 220-235.
Yin, R. K. (2010). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. London: The Guilford Press.