Arithmetic School Readiness (Ulasan Jurnal)

School Readiness Assessment, 34
Asha Yathiraj
1
Arithmetic School Readiness

2*
Gowramma Ittira Poovaiah
of Preschoolers
with Hearing Impairment
Abstract
The study aimed to examine the difficulties of children with hearing impairment in acquiring arith-
metic skills at the preschool stage. Two groups of children, one with hearing impairment and anoth-
er who were typically developing were assessed on a ‘Pre-Arithmetic School Readiness Test’. The
test that was developed as a part of the current study elicited responses for questions presented
through the visual and auditory modality, for questions that required open and closed set respons-
es. The findings of ANOVA, MANOVA and independent t-test indicated that the children with hear-
ing impairment performed poorer than the typically developing children in three of the four sub-
categories of the test (auditory-open, auditory-closed, & visual-open). The only sub-section where
the children with hearing impairment performed better was the visual-closed sub-category. While
the children with hearing impairment performed similar to the typically developing children on tasks
involving number concepts and shapes, they performed poorer on fundamental operation of addi-
tion and subtraction. The test was found to be sensitive to the difficulties of the children with hear-
ing impairment in acquiring arithmetic concepts as it differentiated the performance of the two
participant groups.

Keywords: Pre-arithmetic skills, open-set performance, closed-set performanc, number concept,
fundamental operation
Introduction
that children with hearing impairment perform
The importance of early childhood education poorer in academics compared to their hear-
that includes preschool education has been ing peers (Nunes, 2004; Nunes & Moreno,
strongly advocated for all children. Ginsburg 2002; Powers, Gregory, & Thoutenhoofd, 1999;
(1997) noted that informal concepts formed Swanwick, Oddy, & Roper, 2005). Besides hav-
the prerequisites for formal learning of arith- ing difficulties in language, several studies
metic in the later stages of schooling. Like- have demonstrated that children with hearing
wise, Kaul (2002), based on extensive experi- impairment have considerable problems in
ence, opined that preschool exposure helps mathematical abilities (Nunes & Moreno, 2002;
cognitive development of children during pri- Pagliaro & Kritzer, 2013; Pau, 1995; Stewart &
mary education and has a strong bearing on Kluwin, 2001; Wood, Wood, & Howarth, 1983).
attendance and participation once they enter Stewart and Kluwin (2001) found school-going
formal school. Policies across Europe children with hearing impairment to be under-
(Christopher, 1994) and in the United States of achievers in mathematics. They reported of a
America (Bassok, Fitzpatrick, Loeb, & Paglayan, disparity in mathematical achievement perfor-
2013; Stipek, 2002) make it a mandate that all mance of children with hearing impairment and
children undergo preschool education. Simi- their hearing counterparts on the Stanford
larly, in India, the Kothari Commission (1966) Achievement Test. Although the performance
and the National Policy of Education (1986, in mathematics of the children with hearing
amended in 1992) recommends the need and impairment was better than their reading per-
importance of early childhood care and educa- formance, the performance in both areas was
tion. Evidence from literature indicates below the grade expectancy.
1
Ph.D., Proffessor, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, INDIA.
e-mail: asha_yathiraj@rediffmail.com
2
Ph.D., Associate Proffessor, Regional Institute of Education (National Council of Educational Research and
Training), Bhubaneswar, Odisha, INDIA.
e-mail: gowriip@yahoo.co.in
*Corresponding Author
International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education (INT-JECSE), 9(1), 34-49.
DOI: 10.20489/intjecse.330089
Similarly, Pau (1995) found that children with Thus, it is evident that in children with hear-
hearing impairment studying in primary ing impairment, difficulties in mathematics
school had difficulty comprehending verbal commences prior to formal schooling. Hence,
mathematical problems. This led to the chil- it is essential that their specific problems in
dren having considerable difficulty in arith- acquiring early mathematical skills be ex-
metic problem solving. Contrary to studies plored to know the areas of difficulty so that
that reports of children with hearing impair- it can be addressed as early as possible. Such
ment having difficulty in mathematics, assessment would help know the perfor-
Paranjape (1998) found such children to per- mance level of children and help in making
form poorer in language but not in mathe- appropriate decisions regarding educational
matics when compared to normal hearing placement, the types of supports required
children. These findings were based on the and referral for special educational services.
performance of children on achievement Although this process is important for all chil-
tests. However, Paranjape did not indicate dren, it is more important for children with
whether the performance was grade appro- hearing impairment. Thus, the present study
priate or not. aimed to develop a school readiness tool and
Studies have highlighted that chil- establish its effectiveness in identifying the
dren with hearing impairment often fall be- mathematical difficulties of children with
hind their hearing peers due to a lack of edu- hearing impairment. Audition and vision
cational experience during their early years being the two important modalities used in
(Gregory, 1998; Nunes, 2004; Nunes & More- learning, the study also aimed to evaluate
no, 2002). Exposure to preschool education responses through these two modalities using
was found to equip children with hearing open-set and closed-set questions. Hence, the
impairment for better and successful higher research questions addressed in the study
education (Nunes & Moreno, 1998). Children were:
with hearing impairment, admitted into for- a. Is there a difference between the acqui-
mal schooling without any prior training, sition of pre-arithmetic skills at the end
were reported to face difficulty and failure in of pre-school across children with hear-
the school. Hence, it was recommended that ing impairment and typically developing
they should be prepared prior to getting into children?
formal schooling by undergoing quality pre- b. Is there a difference in acquiring pre-
school education (Nunes & Moreno, 1998). arithmetic skills through the visual and
Mauk and Mauk (1992) considered preschool auditory modality across children with
age to be ideal to identify the problems faced hearing impairment and typically devel-
by children with hearing impairment and for oping children?
corrective measures to be implemented. c. Is there a difference in performance on
Studies have also reported of poor preschool open-set and close-set questions that
experience resulting in reduced mathematical test pre-arithmetic skills across children
abilities in children with hearing impairment with hearing impairment and typically
(Nunes & Moreno, 2002; Pagliaro & Kritzer, developing children?
2013). Nunes and Moreno (2002) noted that d. Can a pre-arithmetic school readiness
many early informal mathematical skills de- test detect the specific difficulties of
veloped prior to formal schooling were not preschool children with hearing impair-
evident in young children with hearing loss. ment?
Pagliaro and Klitzer (2013), who examined
early mathematics concepts of children with Method
hearing impairment in preschool, reported of
strong evidence that their difficulties in The study was carried out in two stages. In
mathematics began prior to the start of for- the first stage the test material was devel-
mal schooling. Pagliaro and Klitzer (2013) oped and the second stage dealt with field-
also reported that in their participants, the testing the developed test. The field test was
mathematic area of strength was ‘geometry’ done on typically developing children who
and the areas of weakness were ‘problem had normal hearing and children with hearing
solving’ and ‘measurement’. impairment.
Participants

DOI: 10.20489/intjecse.330089
Two groups of participants were ized preschool training for approximately one
included in the study. Group-I consisted of year.
100 typically developing children without
hearing impairment of whom 25 were used Procedure:
for Stage-1 (17 males & 8 females) of the Stage I: Development of test material
study and the remaining 75 were used for The development of the material involved the
Stage-II (29 males & 46 females). Group-II following: Compilation of the test materials;
had 37 children with hearing impairment (20 validation of test items with professionals and
males & 17 females). caregivers; and validation of test item on
The children in Group - I were pre- typically developing children.
schoolers aged 4½ years to 5 years. For
Stage-I of the study, ten children were select- Compilation of Test Items
ed from two regular schools where the in- The syllabi for mathematical skills followed in
struction was imparted in English and 15 were ten regular preschools in and around Mysore
selected from five regular schools where the were referred since no standard syllabus was
instruction was in Kannada, a language spo- available for preschools. The content in the
ken in south India. The 75 children selected ten syllabi that were common were selected
for Stage-II of the study were from seven to be included in the test. The compiled test
schools with English as the language of in- items covered three major areas to assess the
struction and five schools with Kannada as arithmetic skills of preschool children. These
the language of instruction. From the former, included number concepts, fundamental op-
40 children and from the latter 35 children eration including concept / application of
were tested on the tool designed for the fundamental operation and shapes. Further,
study. All the schools were located in Mysore the test material was designed such that the
city. stimuli were presented either auditorily (pre-
The typically developing children had sented orally) or visually (presented as pic-
no hearing problem, no history of ear dis- tures, written information or objects). This
charge and no other disabilities, as reported was done to tap the performance of children
by their teachers. The absence of a hearing when the stimuli were presented either
problem had been confirmed earlier through through the auditory or visual modality. For
routine pure-tone screening using Interacous- the items that were to be tested visually,
tics PA5 handheld audiometer. Additionally, pictures, written material and objects were
none of them were reported to have any compiled. Additionally, the test items were
problem with their school performance. It designed to elicit open set responses (where
was ensured that the children selected for the responses were obtained without choices
study had been taught in school the mathe- being provided) or closed set responses
matical concepts recommended in the sylla- (where choices were provided for the child to
bus for preschoolers. select). Details of the developed test are
The children in Group - II, aged 5 to 6 provided in Table 1. The test material was
years, were selected from four special prepared in English as well as Kannada.
schools, from Mysore and Bangalore, cities in
the southern part of India. The children had Validation of test items with professionals and
bilateral severe to profound sensorineural caregivers
hearing loss, as mentioned in the audiological Validation of the compiled material was done
reports available in the schools. All the chil- by getting feedback from 35 professionals
dren wore for more than two years, binaural who dealt with the training of typically devel-
behind-the-ear / pseudo-binaural body level oping children / children with hearing im-
hearing aids, prescribed by qualified audiolo- pairment. The professionals included ten
gists. Only those children who were reported regular preschool teachers, ten regular prima-
to have no additional disability were selected. ry school teachers, ten special preschool
The children with hearing impairment were teachers and five speech and hearing profes-
reported to have language levels appropriate sionals. The teachers / professionals were
for the class in which they were studying. All required to indicate whether the concepts as
the children had undergone specialized well as the test items were appropriate or not
speech and language training and / or special- in relation to the syllabus followed by the

DOI: 10.20489/intjecse.330089
preschools. Additionally, they had to specify tions were provided using a vocal effort that
if the vocabulary and concepts were age ap- is typically used when talking to a person
propriate in both the English and Kannada seated 1 meter away. Along with the instruc-
versions of the test. They also had to indicate tion, the visual material appropriate for the
whether the two language versions of the test task was placed in front of the child on the
were similar. Modifications and suggestions table. The instruction for the next task was
given by the teachers / professionals were given only after giving adequate time for the
incorporated if more than 10% of them rec- children to complete the previous task. The
ommended a change. instruction for a particular task was repeated
once, using a constant vocal effort, if a child
Validation of the test items on typically devel- indicated difficulty in understanding what was
oping children said. It was ensured that when a particular
The developed ‘Pre-Arithmetic School Readi- task was being evaluated, the child could not
ness Test’ was administered on 25 typically view the material for the other tasks. No help
developing children studying in seven differ- was provided by the tester to carry out the
ent schools. The children were tested individ- tasks. If a child was unable to perform a par-
ually in the school premises in quiet rooms, ticular task after the repetition of the instruc-
free from distraction. They were seated com- tion, evaluation of the next task was carried
fortably prior to the commencement of the out. The children received no feedback as to
test. They were instructed orally in Kannada whether their responses were correct or
or English, depending on the medium of in- wrong.
struction of the school, regarding what they While testing the children with hear-
were expected to do. Breaks were given during impairment, it was initially established
ing the testing, if a child showed any sign of that they wore their prescribed hearing aids
fatigue or restlessness. The children received that were in working condition. Children who
no feedback as to whether they were right or depended on speech-reading were allowed to
wrong. Each test item was presented only watch the tester when the instructions were
once. The test items were retained only if given, in addition to listening. Depending on
more than 80% of the children responded the task, the responses from the children
positively. Using the material that could be varied as indicated in Table 1. The responses,
carried out by more than 80% of the children, for tasks that required oral or pointing re-
the test items were finalized. The major task sponses from the children, were noted by the
under fundamental operation that had to be tester on a response sheet. Depending on
eliminated was ‘Subtract the object and write the speed at which a child responded, the
the number’. Additionally, the shape ‘dia- test time ranged from 30 minutes to 45
mond’ had to be removed since many could minutes.
not identify it. The study was carried out adhering
to the ‘Ethical guidelines for bio-behavioral
Stage II: Field testing of the ‘Pre-Arithmetic research involving human subjects’ (2009) of
school readiness test’ the All India Institute of Speech and Hearing,
The developed test was field tested on 75 Mysore. Consent of the caregivers was ob-
typically developing children and 37 children tained prior to evaluation of the children.
with hearing impairment who met the partic-
ipant selection criteria. Each child was tested Scoring
independently after being seated comfortably The score for the different test items varied
in a distraction free room. The child was depending on the simplicity of the tasks. In
seated in front of a table having appropriate general, a correct response was given score of
height for preschool children. The tester was 1 and an incorrect response a score of 0.
seated at a distance of 1 meter from the Only two of the tasks (‘Count and tick the
child, on the opposite side of the table on correct number’ & ‘Match the number to
which the test material was placed facing the number’) were assigned a score of 0.5 for a
child. correct answer and 0 for an incorrect answer.
The instruction for each task was Lower scores were assigned to these tasks
provided orally, one at a time, in the order of due the simplicity of the tasks compared to
the tasks mentioned in Table 1. The instruc-

DOI: 10.20489/intjecse.330089
Table 1
Details of the “Pre-Arithmetic School Readiness Test”
Score per Maximum
Response No. of
Concepts Test Tasks Task description correct possible
mode Items
Response score
Pictures of familiar objects are
1. Count & shown and the child is required
VO 5 1 5
write to count and write the number
of objects.
Pictures of familiar objects are
2. Count &
shown and the child is required
tick the
to count and point/tick the VC 5 0.5 2.5
correct
number of objects from the
number
given written choices.
A written number is provided
3. Write with a blank space before and
the missing after it. The child is expected
VO 5 1 5
number to fill in the blank with a num-
(Before) ber that comes prior to the
written one.
A written number is provided
4. Write with a blank space before and
the missing after it. The child is expected
VO 5 1 5
number to fill in the blank with a num-
(After) ber that comes after the writ-
ten one.
Number Concept
5. Listen
To the oral command of the
and an-
tester, the child has say what
swer the AO 5 1 5
number comes before a partic-
statement
ular number.
(before)
6. Listen
To the oral command of the
and an-
tester, the child has to say
swer the AO 5 1 5
what number comes after a
statement
particular number.
(after)
Two columns of numbers (dig-
7. Match its) are shown. The child is
VC 5 0.5 2.5
the digits expected to match the num-
bers in the two columns.
Two columns of numbers, one
8. Match
with digits and the other with
the digit
the same numbers in words are VC 5 1 5
and word
shown. The child is expected
numbers
to match the numbers.
9. Listen Five numbers (digits) are
and point shown. The child is required to
AC 5 1 5
at the point to the number said by
number the tester.
10. Listen Five numbers (words) are
and point shown. The child is required to
AC 5 1 5
to the point to the number said by
word the tester.


DOI: 10.20489/intjecse.330089
(Table 1 continued)
1. Add the Two groups of objects are shown
objects and with the symbol ‘+’ between them.
VO 5 1 5
write the The child is required to add the two
number groups and write the answer.
2. Addition The child is shown two sets of ob-
Fundamental Operation - (Addition)
(statement jects and is provided simple instruc-

problems) tions such as “I have 2 pens, mother
gave me 2 more. How many do I VC 5 1 5
have now”? The child is required to
point to the 2 written choices given,
one correct and the other wrong.
3. Auditory The child listens to simple state-
(statement ment problems regarding addition,
problems) with no visual clues and no options AO 5 1 5
provided. A verbal response is
required.
(statement ment problems regarding addition,
problems) with no visual clues but with 2
AC 5 1 5
written options provided. The child
points to one of the choices provid-
ed.
1. Subtrac- The child is shown two sets of ob-
tion (state- jects and is provided simple instruc-
Fundamental Operation- (Subtraction)
ment prob- tions such as “I have 6 chocolates. I

lems) gave 2 chocolates. Do I have 4 or 3 VC 5 1 5
chocolates remaining with me”?
The child has to point to two writ-
ten choices given.
(statement ment problems regarding subtrac-
problems) tion, with no visual clues and no AO 5 1 5
options provided. A verbal re-
sponse is required.
3. Subtrac- The child listens to simple state-
tion (statement problems regarding subtrac-
ment prob- tion, with no visual clues but with 2
lems) written options provided. The child AC 5 1 5
points to the choices provided.

1. Color the From a choice of four line drawings
shapes of shapes shown, the child is re-
VC 4 1 4
quired to color the one mentioned
in a written instruction.
2. Name the The child is required to name the
VO 4 1 4
Shapes
shapes line drawing of a shape shown.

3. Show the The child is expected to show a
correct shape said by the tester from a
AC 4 1 4
shapes choice of four line drawing options
presented.
4. Draw the The child is required to draw the
AO 4 1 4
following shape said by the tester.
Total 101 96
items /
marks
Note. Total score for: Visual open (VO) = 24; Visual closed (VC) = 24; Auditory open (AO) = 24;
Auditory closed (AC) = 24

DOI: 10.20489/intjecse.330089
the other tasks. Details regarding the scores The data were analyzed using repeated
to be assigned to the different tasks are pro- measure ANOVA, MANOVA and independent
vided in Table 1. The total possible score for t-test. A Mann-Whitney test was used to
the 101 items was 96. confirm the results of the parametric statis-
tics between the participant groups, as the
Results sample size differed considerably.

The data were analyzed using SPSS (version I. Comparison of scores between participant
17) to compare the performance of the typi- groups (typically developing children and
cal developing children with children with children with hearing impairment)
hearing impairment on the following: types of The mean and standard deviation (SD) of the
questions (open and closed) and questions overall performance of typically developing
tapping two sensory modalities (auditory and children with children with hearing impair-
visual). Further, the performance of the chil- ment is depicted in Table 2. It can be seen
dren on the two types of questions and ques- that the mean score of the typically develop-
tions tapping two sensory modalities were ing children was higher than that obtained by
also compared within each participant group. the children with hearing impairment. Simi-
The data of all 100 typically developing chil- larly, the SD was lesser in the typically devel-
dren were analyzed after scoring only those oping group compared to the group with
questions that were selected in the final test. hearing impairment.

Table 2.
Mean and SD of the total test scores of the two groups
Lower Upper
Groups N #Mean SD t value
bound bound
Typically developing 100 92.6 4.32 77 96

6.38**
Hearing impaired 37 84.84 9.98 56 96
Note. # Maximum possible score = 96
** = p < 0.01

A two-tailed independent t-test was groups. The SD was considerably more for
performed to check if the difference in scores the children with hearing impairment com-
was significant. The t-test indicated that there pared to the typically developing children.
was a statistically significant difference be- visual and auditory modalities (with types of
tween the typically developing children and questions combined) by the two groups of
the children with hearing impairment [t (135) children can be seen in Table 3. From the
= 6.38, p < 0.01] for the overall scores. Since
the sample size of the two groups was une- In order to determine how the two
qual, the result of the independent t-test was participant groups differed from each other
cross-checked with a non-parametric Mann- for the visual and auditory based question, a
Whitney test. Similar results were obtained MANOVA test was conducted. It revealed
through both the statistical procedures (z = that there was a significant difference be-
4.67, p < 0.01). tween the typically developing children and
Comparison of the mean and SD of the children with hearing impairment for
the scores obtained for questions tapping questions tapping the auditory modality [F (1,
2
table it is evident that for the visual based 135) = 53.93, p < 0.01, partial ƞ = .29 ].
questions the mean scores were almost simi-
lar with not much variation in SD between the In contrast, no such difference be-
two groups. In contrast, for the auditory tween the participant groups was seen for
based questions there was a marked differ- the visual based questions [F (1, 135) = 1.974,
2
ence in the mean scores between the two p > 0.05, partial ƞ = .02]. The non-parametric
tests also showed a significant difference

DOI: 10.20489/intjecse.330089
Table 3.
Mean and SD of the scores for the modalities (visual & auditory) and type of questions (open &
closed) for the two groups

Lower Upper z
Groups N #Mean SD
bound bound values
Visual Typically developing 100 47.63 1.32 47 48 0.51
Modality
Auditory Typically developing 100 45.03 3.76 44 46 5.09**
Open Typically developing 100 46.65 1.84 41 48 -5.18**
Question Hearing impaired 37 41.72 6.65 18 48
type Closed Typically developing 100 46.04 2.90 33 48 -4.42**
** = p < 0.01
between the groups for the auditory based Similar findings were obtained using a Mann-
questions (z = 5.09, p < 0.01) but not for the Whitney test where there was a significant
visual based questions (z = 0.51, p > 0.05). A difference between the two groups for the
comparison of scores for open and closed open (z = -5.18, p < 0.01) and closed type of
type of questions (with modalities combined), questions (z = -4.42, p < 0.01).
for the two groups, indicated that the per- Comparison of stimuli [question type
formance was similar to the earlier analyses. (open & closed) & modality (visual & audito-
The performance of the typically developing ry)] across participant groups was performed
children was better than that of children with using a MANOVA. Additionally, the MANOVA
hearing impairment for the open as well as output for the 4 variables (visual closed, visu-
the closed type of questions. Likewise, the SD al open, auditory open, auditory closed) was
was more for the children with hearing im- cross checked with a Mann-Whitney test.
pairment in both the types of questions. This From Table 4 it can be observed that the typi-
can be observed from the mean and SD pro- cally developing children and the children
vided in Table 3. with hearing impairment performed differ-
To compare the scores of the open ently. The former group performed signifi-
and closed type of questions, a MANOVA test cantly differently on open and closed type of
was carried out. A significant difference was questions when they were visual based.
seen between the two groups for the open However, in the latter group, this difference
[Wilks’ʌ= .74, F (1, 135) = 45.73, p < 0.01, was not seen for the visual based tasks but
2
partial ƞ =.25] and closed [Wilks’ʌ= .74, F (1, was seen for the auditory based tasks.
2
135) = 26.88, p < 0.01, partial ƞ =.17] type of
questions.

Table 4.
Mean, SD and p values for responses to visual open, visual closed, auditory open and auditory closed
questions for the two group
Participant # Parametric Stat Non-parametric Stat
Type of question/ modality N SD
groups Mean F df Z
Typically
100 23.92 0.46
Visual open developing 8.30 135** -2.06**
Hearing impaired 37 23.16 2.53
Typically
100 23.71 1.14
Visual closed developing 2.39 135 -1.77
Hearing impaired 37 24.00 .000
Typically
100 22.73 1.77
Auditory open developing 55.96 135** -5.32**
Typically
100 22.30 2.30
Auditory closed developing 39.64 135** -4.77**
** = p < 0.01

DOI: 10.20489/intjecse.330089

Figure 1.
Performance of typically developing children and children with hearing impairment (CWHI) for the
auditory open (AO), auditory closed (AC), visual open (VO) and visual closed (VC) stimuli.

It is clear from Figure 1 that between the two This marked difference was not present for
groups there was a marked difference in the visual based items.
scores for the auditory based questions.

Table 5.
Summary of the comparison between typically developing children and children with hearing im-
pairment (CWHI) for different stimuli
Total
VO+VC AO+AC VO+AO VC+AC VO VC AO AC
score
Typically
Developing p<0.01 p>0.05 p<0.01 p<0.01 p<0.01 p<0.01 p>0.05 p<0.01 p<0.01
Vs CWHI
Note. VO = Visual open; VC = Visual closed; AO = Auditory open; AC = Auditory closed

The two groups did not differ only for the developing children [Wilks’ʌ=.64, F (1, 99) =
2
visual based tasks, especially for the closed 54.85, p < 0.01, partial ƞ =.36] as well as for
type of questions (Table 5). For all the audi- the children with hearing impairment
tory based tasks, there was a significant dif- [Wilks’ʌ= .36, F (1, 36) = 58.87, p < 0.01, par-
2
ference between the two groups. tial ƞ =.62]. Since there was a significant
main effect, a t-test was carried out to check
II. Comparison of scores within participant the performance in type and modalities for
groups (typically developing children and each of the participant groups.
children with hearing impairment) The t-test results indicated that for
To determine whether there existed any sig- the visual and auditory based questions in the
nificant difference between scores for type of typically developing group (Table 6) there was
questions (open & closed) and modality (au- a significant difference for the visual and au-
ditory & visual), a repeated measure ANOVA ditory tasks. When the visual and auditory
was carried out within each of the participant questions were sub-categorized as open and
groups. With the type (open & closed) and closed, the performance differed. For the
modality (auditory & visual) combined, there visual tasks, no significant difference was
was a significant main effect for the typically seen between the open and closed question

DOI: 10.20489/intjecse.330089
(p > 0.05). On the other hand, for the auditory However, no significant difference
based question there was a significant differ- was seen for the auditory open and auditory
ence for the open and closed type of ques- closed tasks (p > 0.05).
tions. A comparison of scores of the open
In the group of children with hearing and closed type of questions within each
impairment there was a significant difference group (Table 6) using a t-test indicated the
between the total visual and auditory task as two types of questions were significantly
well as the visual open and the visual closed different. This was seen for the total scores
task (p < 0.01). of the open and closed type of questions as
well as for the visual based and auditory
based question in both participant groups.

Table 6.
Comparison of open and closed type of questions for visual and auditory based questions as well as
visual and auditory based questions for open and closed type of questions in typically developing
children and children with hearing impairment (CWHI).
Groups Modalities & Type of Questions Mean SD df t
Visual total scores # 47.63 1.32
99 7.15**
Auditory total scores # 45.03 3.76
Typically de- Visual open scores ## 23.92 0.46
99 1.86
veloping Visual closed scores ## 23.71 1.14
Auditory open scores ## 22.73 1.77
99 2.60**
Auditory closed scores ## 22.30 2.30
Visual total scores # 47.16 2.53
36 8.02**
Auditory total scores # 37.43 8.34
Visual open scores ## 23.16 2.53
CWHI 36 2.01**
Visual closed scores ## 24.00 .000
Auditory open scores 18.76 4.77
36 0.68
Auditory closed scores ## 18.86 3.95
Open total scores # 46.65 1.84
99 2.63**
Closed total scores # 46.04 2.90
Typically de- Open visual scores ## 23.92 0.46
99 6.56**
veloping Open auditory scores ## 22.73 1.77
Closed visual scores ## 23.71 1.14
99 6.70**
Closed auditory scores ## 22.30 2.30
Open total scores # 41.72 6.65
36 1.24**
Closed total scores # 42.83 3.95
Open visual scores ## 23.16 2.53
CWHI 36 7.49**
Open auditory scores ## 18.76 4.77
Closed visual ## 24.00 .000
36 7.92**
Closed auditory scores ## 18.86 3.95
Note. Visual total = Visual open + Visual closed;
Auditory total = Auditory open + Auditory closed;
Open total = Open visual + Open auditory;
Closed total = Closed visual + Closed auditory
# Maximum possible score = 48;
## Maximum possible score = 24;
** = p < 0.01
developing group and the group with hearing
III. Comparison of scores on specific mathe- impairment for number concept [F (1, 135) =
2
matical concepts between participant groups 3.06, p > 0.05, partial ƞ = .02] and knowledge
The findings of a one-way repeated measure of shapes [F (1, 135) = 1.00, p > 0.05, partial
2
mixed ANOVA indicated that there existed no ƞ = .01]. However, the children with hearing
significant difference between the typically impairment performed significantly poorer

DOI: 10.20489/intjecse.330089
than their typically developing counterparts From the findings of the Kruskal-Wallis test,
on the two fundamental operations that were no significant difference was observed be-
2
evaluated, addition [F (1, 135) = 31.84, p < tween the four different special schools, [χ (3,
2
0.001, partial ƞ =.19] and subtraction [F (1, N = 37) = 2.5, p > 0.05] as well as the 2 lan-
2 2
135) = 58.64, p < 0.001, partial ƞ =.3]. Due to guages (χ (1, N = 37) = 0.39, p > 0.05).
the unequal sample size in the two partici-
pant groups, the results were verified using a IV. Reliability of the Pre-Arithmetic School
non-parametric statistical test. Similar to Readiness Test
what was observed with the parametric test, The reliability of the pre-arithmetic school
the Mann-Whitney test highlighted that a readiness test was checked by computing
significant different between the groups for Cronbach’s α separately for each of the par-
‘number concept’ (z = -.522, p > 0.05) and ticipant groups. This was done separately for
knowledge of shapes (z = -1.06, p > 0.05) was visual open scores, visual closed scores, audi-
absent, but was present for fundamental tory open scores, auditory closed scores as
operations of addition (z = -4.410, p < 0.001) well as for the overall test scores. From Table
and subtraction (z = -5.4, p < 0.001). 7 it can be seen that the Cronbach’s α values
To establish whether extraneous fac- ranged from .83 to .90 in the typically devel-
tors such as the school in which the children oping children and ranged from .88 to 1 in the
studied and the medium of instruction had an children with hearing impairment. These
impact of the performance of the children results confirm that the pre-arithmetic school
with hearing impairment, further analyses readiness test has high reliability irrespective
were carried out. A Kruskal-Wallis test was of whether it is administered on typically
performed to determine whether there was a developing children or on children with hear-
significant difference between the 4 special ing impairment.
schools (2 in Mysore & 2 in Bangalore) and
the 2 mediums of instruction (English & Kan-
nada).

Table 7.
Reliability of the pre-arithmetic school readiness test on typically developing children and children
with hearing impairment.
Cronbach's Alpha
Typically developing Children with hearing

children impairment
Visual open .90 .93
Visual closed .89 1.0
Auditory open .86 .88
Auditory closed .83 .90
Overall .84 .90

Discussion tory open and auditory closed. In both groups
the scores dropped for the auditory based
From the comparison of performance be- questions, but this drop was more prominent
tween the two groups of children it is evident for the children with hearing impairment. This
that the typically developing children per- is evident from the mean scores provided in
formed significantly better than the children Table 5.
with hearing impairment. This was seen for Similar observations were made in
the overall scores and for all the auditory earlier studies by Pau (1995) and Wood et al.,
based questions. This higher score for the (1983), Nunes and Moreno (2002), Swanwick
auditory based questions was seen for the et al. (2005). They too observed that children
total auditory based score as well as when with hearing impairment performed poorer
the questions were sub-categorized as audi- than typically developing children on the

DOI: 10.20489/intjecse.330089
tasks evaluated by them. Their participants ing impairment relied on visual cues for com-
faced difficulty despite the evaluation being prehension in spite of amplified acoustic cues
done using written tests. Contrary to the being provided. This trend continues to be
above findings, Traxler (2000) observed chil- present despite the advances in technology
dren with hearing impairment to perform on resulting in children with hearing impairment
par with their counterparts who had normal using digital technology that is expected to
hearing. However, this finding was attributed reduce their dependence on visual cues. This
to the purposive sampling of students who highlights the need to stress on providing
performed well. Hence, their findings cannot listening training for children with hearing
be generalized to all students with hearing impairment. This would help them cope in a
impairment. Similar to the findings of Traxler, regular school set-up where major mode of
it was reported by Paranjape (1998) that chil- learning is through the auditory modality.
dren with hearing impairment could perform Additionally, the use of more visual instruc-
like typically developing children. This latter tion in the regular classroom, where children
study however, made no mention if the tasks with and study together, would be beneficial.
evaluated were grade appropriate. Despite The findings of the present study in-
the drawbacks of the studies by Traxler as dicate that when visual-closed questions are
well as Paranjape, their findings highlight that used, a ceiling effect was seen in both groups,
certain children with hearing impairment are resulting in no significant difference between
capable of performing on par with their typi- the groups. Although the children with hear-
cally developing peers. ing impairment obtained similar mean scores
In the current study, in contrast to for the visual-open and the visual-closed type
the performance on the auditory based ques- of questions, the variability was larger for the
tions, the total score on the visual based former. The latter resulted in the participants
questions were not significantly different in obtaining perfect scores, thus resulting in no
the two groups. This suggests that all children variability. This probably led to the significant
in the early stages of their development are difference between the groups only for the
dependent more on the visual modality for visual-open type of questions. Wilson and
concept formation even if the auditory mo- Antablin (1980) also observed that closed-set
dality is fully functional. There continued to speech identification abilities in individuals
be no significant difference between the two with hearing impairment were far better than
groups when the visual based questions were their open-set responses. Additionally, they
given with choices of answers (closed type). noted that individuals with hearing impair-
On the other hand, when the visual based ment did not achieve 100% open-set word
questions were given with no choices (open perception even when the material was pre-
type), there was a significant difference be- sented at sufficient loudness.
tween the two groups. On the visual-closed The performance of the children on
task, the children with hearing impairment specific mathematical concepts revealed that
preformed slightly better than the typically children with hearing impairment had signifi-
developing children (Table 4, Figure 1, & Ta- cantly more difficulty than the typically de-
ble 6). This indicates that on visual based veloping children in fundamental operations
tasks with options given, children with hear- involving addition and subtraction, but not in
ing impairment are able to perform at par number concept and shapes. This indicates
with typically developing children but not that they have difficulty in grasping arithmetic
when options were absent. concepts that are relatively more complex but
In consonance with the findings of are on par with the typically developing chil-
the present study, Nunes and Moreno (2002) dren on tasks that are less complex (number
reported of improved performance of chil- concept) or that can be easily grasped using
dren with hearing impairment with the use of visual cues (shapes). It is possible that the
visual representation of the problems. Like- inability to use the auditory mechanism to the
wise, children with hearing impairment were same extent as normal hearing children could
found to outperform the young children in have prevented them from grasping arithme-
informal spatial pre-arithmetic tasks by tic concepts within and outside the class-
Zarfaty, Nunes and Bryant (2004). As early as room.
1971, Erber reported that children with hear-

DOI: 10.20489/intjecse.330089
Hyde, Zevenbergen, and Power and medium of instruction were found to

(2003) also reported of older children with have no influence on the performance of
hearing impairment, studying in grades 1 to children with hearing impairment. Thus, stud-
12, having difficulty in the use of analytical ies reported in literature indicate that in indi-
and thinking strategies to solve arithmetic viduals with hearing impairment, higher cog-
word problems. Additionally, Epstein et al. nitive factors influence arithmetic perfor-
(1994) found that limited auditory experience mance. From the findings of the current
effecting short-term memory, was a factor for study and that reported in the literature, it
poor performance of college students with can be construed that the difficulties in using
hearing impairment. Recently, Gowramma higher cognitive functions in fundamental
(2014) also reported that children with hear- operations of arithmetic is present right at
ing impairment had more difficulty in carrying the initial formative ages and continues to
out fundamental operations that required persists later in life while solving word prob-
higher order thinking. It was found that chil- lems. Hence, the focus of intervention should
dren with hearing impairment studying in be more towards compensating for the audi-
grades 4 and 5 performed similar to their tory input. As children with hearing impair-
hearing peers in addition and subtraction, but ment were able to utilize visual cues better
performed poorer in multiplication and divi- than auditory cues (Table 4 & Figure 1), it is
sion. It was concluded that mathematical recommended that more visual based activi-
reasoning in children with hearing impair- ties be used in preschools in order enable
ment was on par with hearing children but these children grasp such concepts. Training
the learning process was slow. Similar obser- to make fundamental operations clear to
vations were made by Meadow-Orlans children with hearing impairment should be
(1980). incorporated in the teaching-learning process
Swanwick et al. (2005) reported that right from the preschool age. This could re-
findings from research studies between 1980 duce the difficulties faced by them in arith-
-2000 suggest that there is an average delay metic in higher classes.
of 2 to 3.5 years in mathematical achieve- From the findings of the present
ment in children with hearing loss. However, study, it can be inferred that the newly devel-
many of these children were reported to oped pre-arithmetic school readiness test
show similar processes as their hearing peers, that has high reliability is sensitive to detect
confirming the suggestion of delay in mathe- the specific difficulties children with hearing
matical development rather than a disorder impairment have in learning arithmetical
or deviant development. Based on the above concepts. This would enable planning appro-
study, Swanwick et al. (2005) suggested that priate remedial instruction for children with
students functioning at lower mathematic hearing impairment. The test can also be
levels may not have the opportunity to be used as a guideline to decide on educational
exposed to the curriculum content at a higher placement of such children by special educa-
level and therefore continue to perform poor- tors or speech and hearing professionals. The
ly in content that requires the use of higher developed test also could also be used as a
order analytical skills. tool to demonstrate to caregivers of children
The presence of a hearing impair- with hearing impairment regarding the im-
ment and the ensuing cognitive problem portance of providing their wards training
could have hampered incidental learning that prior to admission to school. Narayansamy,
takes place in typically developing children Ramkumar, and Nagarajan (2014) noted that
outside the classroom. This has also been mother of children with hearing impairment
reported by Kritzer (2009) who suggested in rural south India believed that once chil-
that a lack of incidental learning experiences dren with hearing impairment were fitted
could have led to the participants with hear- with hearing aids they could go to regular
ing impairment aged 4 to 6 performing poorly schools without further intervention. Tests
on informal mathematical problems including such as the ‘Pre-arithmetic school readiness
word problems. The finding of the current tool’ could be utilized to highlight to them the
study suggests that children with hearing need for special intervention to prepare their
impairment are unable to utilize this channel children for regular school. Further, the de-
of learning. Further, factors such as school veloped test not only throws light on the

DOI: 10.20489/intjecse.330089
arithmetic performance of children with hear- would help in planning appropriate remedial
ing impairment, but also on the performance instruction programs for children with hear-
of typically developing children. ing impairment and in selecting educational
placement. However, the present study is
Conclusions limited to only one regional language. It is
recommended that similar tests be developed
The comparison of performance of the two and validated in other languages.
groups (typically developing & children with
hearing impairment) for the sensory modality
(visual & auditory) and type of questions Acknowledgement
(open & closed), revealed a statistically signif-
icant difference. This difference was seen for The authors thank the All India Institute of
the scores of auditory stimuli, open type of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, for providing
questions and closed type of questions. the financial assistance to carry out the study.
However, the performance of the two groups The assistance of Ms. Prithi Nair and Ms. Vi-
did not differ significantly for the visual based jetha P. while compiling the test items, Mr.
stimuli. Within the visual based tasks, the Varun A. with data collection, Dr. Vasantha
two participant groups did not differ signifi- Lakshmi and Mr. Akshay R. Maggu for statisti-
cantly for the closed type of questions but did cal analysis is appreciated.
for the open type. When the scores were
compared within each of the participant Funding
groups, the pattern of difficulty varied for the
categories studied. This indicated that the This original study was wholly funded by the
level of difficulty varied depending on wheth- All India Institute of Speech and Hearing re-
er they had hearing impairment or not. Fur- search fund (SH/CDN/ARF/3.50/AY/2009-10)
ther, children with hearing impairment per- of All India Institute of Speech and Hearing,
formed at par with typically developing chil- Mysuru, India
dren on tasks such as number concepts and
shapes. On the other hand, they performed References
poorer than the typically developing children
on fundamental operation of addition and Bassok, D., Fitzpatrick, M., Loeb, S., &
subtraction. Paglayan, S. (2013). The early child-
Thus, it can be construed from the hood care and education workforce
finding of the present study that though chil- in the United States: Understanding
dren with hearing impairment wear state-of- changes from 1990 through 2010.
the-art hearing devices to compensate for Education Finance and Policy, 8(4),
their hearing loss, they continue to have diffi- 581–601.
culty in carrying out auditory based activities. doi: 10.1162/EDFP_a_00114
Hence, while planning auditory based activi- Christopher, B. (1994). Start right: The im-
ties, special care is required to make the sig- portance of early learning. London
nals audible to the children with hearing im- (England): Royal Society for the En-
pairment. Additionally, intensive listening couragement of Arts, Manufactures,
training is recommended to enhance their and Commerce
listening skills. This along with the use of Epstein, I., Hillegeist, G., & Grafman, J. (1994).
visual representation of the mathematical Number processing in deaf college
problems would enhance learning of mathe- students. American Annals of the
matics in these children in their early years of Deaf, 139(3), 336-347.
development. doi: 10.1353/aad.2012.0321
The study provides insight to the spe- Erber, P. (1975). Auditory-visual perception of
cific strengths and weaknesses of young chil- speech. Journal of Speech and Hear-
dren with hearing impairment in mathemat- ing Disorders, 40(4), 481-492.
ics. The ‘pre-arithmetic school readiness test’ doi: doi:10.1044/jshd.4004.481
was found to be sensitive in tapping the diffi- Ethical Guidelines for Bio-Behavioural Re-
cult areas of pre-arithmetical concepts in search Involving Human Subjects.
children with hearing impairment. Such tests

DOI: 10.20489/intjecse.330089
(2009). Mysore, India: All India Insti- CBR & Inclusive Development, 25(4),
tute of Speech and Hearing. 119-135. doi:
Ginsburg, P. (1997). Mathematics learning doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5463/dcid.v
disabilities: A view from develop- 25i4.328.
mental psychology. Journal of Learn- National Policy on Education. (1986, amended
ing Disabilities, 30(1), 20-33. doi: in 1992). Delhi: Ministery of Human
10.1177/002221949703000102 Resource Development, Government
Gowramma, P. (2014). Arithmetic difficulties of India Retrieved from
of children with hearing impairment http://www.ncert.nic.in/oth_anoun/
In S. Chinn (Ed.), Routeledge interna- npe86.pdf.
tional handbooks: The routeledge in- Nunes, T. (2004). Teaching mathematics to
ternational handbook of dyscalculia deaf children. London, England:
and mathematical learning difficul- Whurr Publishers, Ltd.
ties. UK: Taylor & Francis. Nunes, T., & Moreno, C. (1998). The devel-
Gregory, S. (1998). Mathematics and deaf opment of mathematical skills, Is
children. In S. Gregory, P. Knight, W. hearing impairment a cause of diffi-
Mccracken, S. Powers & L. Watson culties in learning mathematics? . In
(Eds.), Issues in Deaf Education. Lon- C. Donlan (Ed.), The development of
don: Faulton press. mathematical skills. Hove, Britain:
Hyde, M., Zevenbergen, R., & Power, J. Psychology Press.
(2003). Deaf and hard of hearing Nunes, T., & Moreno, C. (2002). An interven-
students' performance on arithmetic tion program for promoting deaf pu-
word problems. American Annals of pils' achievement in mathematics.
the Deaf, 148(1), 56-64. doi: Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Ed-
10.1353/aad.2003.0003 ucation, 7(2), 120-133.
Kaul, V. (2002). Early childhood care and edu- doi: 10.1093/deafed/7.2.120
cation. In R. Govinda (Ed.), India Edu- Pagliaro, M., & Kritzer, L. (2013). The math
cation Report. New Delhi: Oxford gap: A description of the mathemat-
University Press. ics performance of preschool-aged
Kothari commission report. (1966). Education deaf/hard-of-hearing children. Jour-
and National Development: Report nal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Educa-
of the Education Commission 1964- tion, 18(2), 139-160.
66. New Delhi: Retrieved from doi: 10.1093/deafed/ens070
http://www.teindia.nic.in/Files/Repo Paranjape, S. (1998). Achievement of normal
rts/CCR/KC/KC_V1.pdf. and hearing handicapped pupils at
Kritzer, L. (2009). Barely started and already the end of the primary cycle. Disabili-
left behind: A descriptive analysis of ties and Impairments, 10(2), 73-86.
the mathematics ability demonstrat- Pau, S. (1995). The deaf child and solving
ed by young deaf children. Journal of problems of arithmetic: The im-
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, portance of comprehensive reading.
14(4), 409-421. American Annals of the Deaf, 140(3),
Mauk, W., & Mauk, P. (1992). Somewhere, 287-290.
out there: Preschool children with doi: 10.1353/aad.2012.0599
hearing impairment and learning dis- Powers, S., Gregory, S., & Thoutenhoofd, E. D.
abilities. Topics in Early Childhood (1999). The educational achieve-
Special Education, 12(2), 174-195. ments of deaf children: A literature
doi: 10.1177/027112149201200204 review executive summary. Deafness
Meadow-Orlans, P. (1980). Deafness and child and Education International, 1(1), 1-
development. California: University 9. doi: 10.1002/dei.38
of California Press. Stewart, D., & Kluwin, T. (2001). Teaching
Narayansamy, M., Ramkumar, V., & Nagara- deaf and hard-of-hearing students:
jan, R. (2014). Knowledge and Beliefs Content, strategies, and curriculum.
about Ear and Hearing Health among Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Mothers of Young Children in a Rural Stipek, D. (2002). At what age should children
Community in South India. Disability. enter kindergarten? A question for

DOI: 10.20489/intjecse.330089
policy makers and parents. Social Wood, J., Wood, A., & Howarth, P. (1983).
Policy Report, Giving Child and Youth Mathematical abilities of deaf
Development Knowledge Away, school-leavers. British Journal of De-
16(2), 3-17. velopmental Psychology, 1, 67-73.
Swanwick, A., Oddy, A., & Roper, T. (2005). doi:10.1111/j.2044835X.1983.tb0054
Mathematics and deaf children: an 4.x
exploration of barriers to success. Zarfaty, Y., Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2004). The
Deafness and Education Internation- performance of young deaf children
al, 7(1), 1-21. in spatial and temporal number
Traxler, B. (2000). The Stanford Achievement tasks. Journal of Deaf Studies and
Test, (9th ed.): National norming and Deaf Education, 9(3), 315-326.
performance standards for deaf and doi: 10.1093/deafed/enh034
hard-of-hearing students. Journal of
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5,
337-348.
doi: 10.1093/deafed/5.4.337
Wilson, H., & Antablin, K. (1980). A picture
identification task as an estimate of
the word-recognition performance of
nonverbal adults. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Disorders, 45(2), 223-
238. doi: 10.1044/jshd.4502.223

DOI: 10.20489/intjecse.330089

Arithmetic School Readiness (Ulasan Jurnal)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Arithmetic School Readiness (Ulasan Jurnal)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

School Readiness Assessment, 34

International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education (INT-JECSE), 9(1), 34-49.

International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education (INT-JECSE), 9(1), 34-49.

International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education (INT-JECSE), 9(1), 34-49.

International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education (INT-JECSE), 9(1), 34-49.

(statement jects and is provided simple instruc-

ment prob- tions such as “I have 6 chocolates. I

shapes line drawing of a shape shown.

International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education (INT-JECSE), 9(1), 34-49.

Typically developing 100 92.6 4.32 77 96

International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education (INT-JECSE), 9(1), 34-49.

International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education (INT-JECSE), 9(1), 34-49.

International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education (INT-JECSE), 9(1), 34-49.

International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education (INT-JECSE), 9(1), 34-49.

Typically developing Children with hearing

International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education (INT-JECSE), 9(1), 34-49.

International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education (INT-JECSE), 9(1), 34-49.

Hyde, Zevenbergen, and Power and medium of instruction were found to

International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education (INT-JECSE), 9(1), 34-49.

International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education (INT-JECSE), 9(1), 34-49.

International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education (INT-JECSE), 9(1), 34-49.

International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education (INT-JECSE), 9(1), 34-49.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi