Resumen: El propósito de este estudio descriptivo cualitativo fue examinar cómo una estudiante de inglés sorda utilizó Grammarly y QuillBot para sus tareas de escritura en inglés, en una institución pública en Ecuador. Participaron una estudiante sorda y una intérprete de lengua de signos. Se utilizaron entrevistas y tareas de escritura para recolectar datos. Se utilizó análisis temático y una rúbrica. Además, una tabla comparativa mostró los resultados de las actividades de paráfrasis antes y después del uso de Quillbot y Grammarly. Los resultados de las entrevistas revelaron las dificultades que enfrentan los estudiantes sordos al escribir tareas en inglés, incluidas la comprensión del significado de las palabras, la comprensión del idioma inglés y la formación de oraciones. Además, el proceso de comparación reveló resultados beneficiosos para la escritura en inglés. El estudio enfatiza cómo Grammarly y Quillbot pueden mejorar significativamente la claridad de las tareas de escritura para estudiantes sordos.
Palabras clave: discapacidad auditiva; tareas de escritura; Grammarly; QuillBot.
Abstract: The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study was to examine how a deaf English student utilized Grammarly and QuillBot to assist with writing assignments in English, at a public institution in Ecuador. The participants were a deaf learner and a sign language interpreter. Interviews and student-completed writing assignments were used to collect data. The data from the interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis, and a rubric was utilized to grade the writing tasks. Additionally, a comparison table displayed the results of paraphrase activities both, before and after Quillbot and Grammarly use. The results of the interviews provided insight into the difficulties deaf students face when writing assignments in English, including understanding word meaning, English language comprehension, and forming sentences. Additionally, the process of comparison revealed beneficial outcomes for English writing. The study emphasizes how Grammarly and Quillbot may significantly improve the clarity of writing tasks for students who are deaf.
Keywords: deaf learners; writing tasks; Grammarly; QuillBot.
1. Introduction
Writing stands as an essential skill for university students, enabling the expression of thoughts and ideas through legible symbols, such as alphabetic letters, punctuation marks, and spaces. Al Fadda (2012) highlights the challenges faced by students, particularly in distinguishing between spoken and written English styles, which can be exacerbated for those with hearing impairments. For instance, Berent et al. (2001) have pointed out that the ability of deaf students in comprehending simple grammatical structures in English skills is a major problem that affects their overall writing capabilities. However, in a recent study by Anderson et al.,(2017) the authors differentiate between hearing loss and speech disorders since, though having difficulties in expressing themselves, deaf people are able to perform certain activities. Although they face such challenges, there is, thus, help in writing improvement courtesy of technology like Grammarly and QuillBot (Fitria, 2021, Xuyen, 2023). Deaf writers require more time to complete a given task than their hearing peers possibly due to the aforementioned difficulties such as grammar, spelling, and content generation; and therefore, have a smaller English vocabulary compared to hearing writers (Malik & Din, 2019; Sarchet et al., 2014). Domaga?a-Zy?k & Kontra (2016) also emphasize the need to provide teaching interventions during a learning process that is fully inclusive of students with a hearing impairment and non- disabled students, in this case.
Research by Zirzow (2019), Mishra et al. (2010), Hlatywayo & Muranda (2015), and Baglama et al. (2018) conclude that technology increases the efficiency of writing in different students, especially the deaf ones. First, relying on Zirzow (2019), it is necessary to mention that educational technology enhances the potentials of engaging knowledge in group activities and developing persons' skills, especially in terms of communication deficiencies. Hlatywayo and Muranda (2015) have employed Technological applications in accessibility to Linguistic Resources that assist in developing literacy skills as a means of supporting the Deaf students. Baglama et al. (2018) expand on these findings by showing the positive impact of using technological instructions on writing skills; supporting the viewpoint that computers and devices are pre-requisites tools in enhancing learning environment for hearing impaired users. In the same manner, from this series of studies, it could be postulated that technology has important contribution in writing process of a deaf learner.
English as a Foreign Language continues to expand its relevance as a medium of international interaction across various domains including commercial, educational, and recreational (Vonkova et al., 2021). Education wise, it plays a crucial role in the removal of language barriers to communication, especially in a classroom context (Quimosing, 2022). Moreover, at the university level, competence in English is not only confined to understanding and producing written and spoken language but also embracing research-based most often academic practices such as writing articles and discussion (Haeriati & Lodo, 2023). Thus, there is an exigency for students to enhance the competencies in language to address the challenges of modern learning and future careers. The concept of inclusive pedagogy in the university context involves the framing of an environment that provides equality to the learners and help them to learn according to their potential and proclivities (Thomas & May, 2010; UNESCO, 2023). In Ecuador, laws like Ley No. 675 emphasize inclusive education, ensuring equal access to educational opportunities (Ley No. 675, 2023). Curriculum differentiation for children with Special Educational Needs refers to curriculum accommodations based on individual student needs, including the mode of learning and teaching (Ministerio de Educación, 2013). Collaboration among educators, special education professionals, and stakeholders ensures responsive adaptations to evolving student needs (Ministerio de Educación, 2013). For the deaf students in Ecuador, the government's Ministry of Education has adopted Bilingual Bicultural National Educational Model, where ideas of integration and equality are underlined (Ministerio de Educación, 2019).
Measures aimed at overcoming the writing difficulties of deaf students include identifying certain difficulties, for example, limited opportunities to practice with proficient writing samples (Vizzi et al. , 2023). Recommendations with regard to increasing deaf people's interest in writing include encouraging deaf children's joy of reading and incorporating them into the process of telling a story (Deaf Children Australia, 2012). Holistically, the use of technology has proved to be an effective tool in enhancing writing skills and therefore its incorporation will be advantageous to the deaf students as it helps in minimizing communication impairment and encouraging the writing skills (Tahsaldar and Semaan 2018). Among the apps that can help in enhancing the quality of written text, Grammarly and QuillBot appear as more crucial technological tools that perform grammatical check and provide rewording tools (Karyuatry, 2018; Perdana et al.,2021; Nurmayanti & Suryadi, 2023). These tools also facilitate feedback and assessment processes, contributing to the academic success of deaf learners by enhancing writing proficiency and enriching the overall quality of writing works (Ministerio de Educación, 2013).
Under those circumstances, this study endeavored to analyze the use of Grammarly and QuillBot to support academic writing tasks of a deaf English student at a public university in Ecuador, during the academic period from April to August 2023. To meet this objective, there were established three research questions.
* What are the challenges a deaf English student presents when performing English writing tasks?
* What are the perspectives a deaf English student has after using technological tools to support her writing tasks?
* What is the effect of the use of technological tools on writing tasks of a deaf English learner?
2. Methodology
The methodology approach used was qualitative, in line with the descriptive method. To analyze data, it was used thematic analysis following the steps suggested by Braun & Clarke (2012).
In order to assess the effect of integrating Grammarly and QuillBot into a deaf learner's writing process, related to the third research question, two writing tasks were analized- one conducted prior to tool use and the other post-tool implementation. Both tasks were conducted under the supervision of the subject professor, with the assistance of a paraphrasing rubric to evaluate the student's performance.
2.1. Research context and participants
This investigation reveals the results gotten in a research done to obtain the bachelor's degree in National and Foreign Language Pedagogy, English Major. It took place at a public university of Ecuador, with the participation of two people, one student majoring in English in the Pedagogy of National and Foreign Languages Department, who has a hearing impairment; and the hearing-impaired student's sign language interpreter. The cooperation of the two informants allowed the researchers to obtain points of view that complemented the study, as well as permitted the triangulation of the information obtained.
2.2. Ethical considerations
The participants provided their written authorization, guaranteeing that they were fully aware of the purpose of the study and that they were willing to share their thoughts and experiences. The participants were assigned codes to ensure their anonymity. The deaf student was identified as (DS); meanwhile the sign language interpreter had the code (DSI).
2.3. Data collection procedure
A structured interview was the method utilized to gather the viewpoints and opinions of the deaf English language learner and the sign language interpreter. The interview was conducted in two moments of the research. The first moment allowed the researchers to obtain the comments of deaf student regarding the challenges she presented when performing English writing tasks. From this first analysis, it was inferred one main theme with three categories: words meaning, English language understanding and word order.
Based on the analysis of these first results, it was decided to train the participant in strategies to use the Grammarly and QuillBot tools. The student underwent a four-week training program, with three sessions per week throughout each week. The initial two weeks were dedicated to comprehensively explaining the functionalities, purposes, and limitations of two specific technological tools, thus focusing primarily on theoretical aspects. Weeks 3 and 4 were then devoted to practical application, demonstrating how to effectively utilize these tools through writing task examples, with a particular emphasis on paraphrasing exercises to facilitate skill development. Throughout the entire training period, a sign language interpreter provided assistance, ensuring accessibility and effective communication.
The second moment was to interview the participant (deaf learner) after the use of the technological tools, this process permitted to get one theme and three subcategories.
In addition, interviews were applied to the interpreter, the same two moments, the first moment was to know what strengths or weaknesses the deaf student had in the development of writing skills, and the second moment was after the application and training with the technological tools, in order to know the student's perceptions, based on the two technological tools to contrast the deaf student's opinions.
Furthermore, two writing assignments provided by a deaf student's professor were selected, in the first writing assignment the student did not use the technological tools, while the other assignment was after practicing with the two technological tools. The writing tasks were analyzed with a rubric in which the elements that a paraphrasing task should contain; in this sense, the use of synonyms and the change of structures within the paraphrase, were considered in the analysis of pre and post writing task. The deaf learner's paraphrasing and writing abilities were made clear by this process, in the two instances where she used and did not use the technological aids, respectively. A thorough evaluation of the student's proficiency in both scenarios was made by the rubric, and in the end, a comparative table was created to compare the two assignments (see Table 3). It was possible to identify variations between the writing assignments completed before and after using the tools in this way.
3. Results
The findings from the three study stages are shown in this section. The first and second phases reflect the outcomes of the interviews conducted both, before and after QuillBot and Grammarly were used. The findings of the previously described comparison of the tasks performed by the deaf learner, with and without the use of technology tools, are presented in the third stage.
3.1. Challenges in writing skills
To answer the first research question regarding to the challenges a deaf English student presents when performing English writing tasks, the interview responses were analyzed, and as a result, the first theme obtained was the challenges in writing skills, with three subcategories: a) Words meaning; b) English Language understanding; and, c) Word order (Paredes, 2024).
3.1.1. Subcategory: Words meaning
The deaf student bemoaned running into new words and noted that it was difficult for him to understand some vocabulary terms. He said, "(...) hay palabras que no conozco el significado" [There are words that I don't know the meaning] (DS) (Paredes, 2024). As the interpreter noted, "ella tiene un vocabulario limitado, no conoce el significado de algunas palabras" [She has a limited vocabulary; she does not know the meaning of some words] (DSI) (Paredes, 2024), this limitation not only makes it difficult for her to express herself clearly in writing but also poses a significant obstacle to increasing her overall writing proficiency The difficulties faced by deaf pupils, who could have extra challenges in word acquisition because of their hearing disability, are especially noteworthy. This is consistent with Zirzow's (2019) research, which highlights the deaf students' restricted language access, vocabulary deficiencies, and lower exposure to English in comparison to their hearing peers. These findings highlight the need of addressing this issue in educational interventions.
3.1.2. Subcategory: English language understanding
The deaf learner's comments, which read, "(..) no puedo entender muy bien en inglés," [ "(..) I can't understand very well in English." ] (DS) (Paredes, 2024), highlighted her difficulties understanding and writing in the language.. This shortcoming is a major hindrance to her overall writing skills and is especially prevalent in non-native English speakers: "Writing in English is difficult." [ "writing in English is difficult." ] (DS); "Escribir en inglés es complicado, no entiendo muy bien" [ "in English it is difficult to write, I don't understand very well." ] (DS) (Paredes, 2024). These difficulties can be made worse for deaf students by possible gaps in their exposure to spoken English and linguistic subtleties. According to Mishra et al. (2010), deaf students face additional challenges as a result of their hearing limitations. These challenges put them at a disadvantage in a number of tasks, including finding fully accessible English learning resources, which hinders their ability to learn the language and understand expressions that are not available in their native tongue. It is clear that in order for deaf pupils to overcome these linguistic difficulties, specialized treatments and easily accessible materials are essential. Teachers can promote more fair and successful English language instruction by recognizing their unique requirements and providing inclusive learning resources.
3.1.3. Subcategory: Word order (sentence structure)
The feedback provided by participants reveals noteworthy obstacles related to sentence structure and word order in English writing, which impede the deaf learner's comprehension of grammatical rules: "algunas oraciones suelen confundirme" - ["some sentences tend to confuse me"] (DS) (Paredes, 2024). These challenges arise from the distinctions between Spanish and English, which are exacerbated by the absence of functional terms in sign language structure. This makes learning English much more difficult for her: "en la estructura suelo confundirme también, no es igual que escribir en español"- ["in the structure, I tend to get confused too, it's not the same as writing in Spanish".] (DS) (Paredes, 2024). Due to their hearing loss, deaf students have additional language barriers that make it more difficult for them to understand and apply grammatical rules: "tiene mucha dificultad al ordenar palabras"- ["She has a lot of difficulty ordering words"] (DSI) "Muy difícil la estructura de las oraciones"- ["It is very difficult the sentences structure"] (DS) (Paredes, 2024). The research of Mishra et al. (2010) reveals that students with hearing impairments frequently have poor language abilities, which exacerbates problems with writing sentence construction. These results highlight the significance of tackling these particular language acquisition barriers, particularly for deaf students, by means of focused educational interventions meant to improve their comprehension and competency in English grammar, and sentence structure.
3.2. Technological tools
The second step corresponds to getting the participants' comments after the use of the technological tools, in order to answer the second research question concerned to the perspectives a deaf English student has after using technological tools to support her writing tasks. As a result, it was possible to get one theme: Technological tools usage, and four subcategories: a) Challenges using technological tools; b) Grammarly use; c) QuillBot use; and, d) Confidence in improving writing skills (Paredes, 2024).
3.2.1. Subcategory: Challenges using technological tools
The remarks made by the participants disclosed their lack of experience with technical tools and the difficulties they encountered in comprehending their proper use: "No conocía estas herramientas fue un poco difícil de entender su uso"- ["I didn't know about these tools, it was a little difficult to understand how to use them."] (DS); "son herramientas nuevas para mi también, no conocía estas herramientas y su uso"- ["for me they are also new tools, I didn't know these tools or their use".] (DSI) (Paredes, 2024). For the participants, using the tools was significantly hampered by their lack of prior knowledge. These answers highlight how crucial it is to provide students with thorough training and direction when integrating new technology resources into the classroom. The results of Baglama et al. (2018) provide credence to the idea that the use of technology tools can have a beneficial effect on the development of writing abilities; yet, in order to maximize their usefulness, it is crucial to guarantee that users receive sufficient support. Teachers are therefore urged to offer extra support and resources for helping students get past their early challenges and make the most of these resources.
3.2.2. Subcategory: Grammarly use
The deaf student acknowledged that Grammarly was extremely helpful to assist her in writing more effectively, noting how well it corrected grammatical errors, enhanced sentence structure, and improved vocabulary: "me corrigió la escritura de palabras, también la escritura de oraciones, me señaló qué debo corregir." - ["It (Grammarly) corrected me on the writing of words, also the writing of sentences, it pointed out to me that I should correct.] (DS);"Grammarly también me ayudó con escritura correcta de la estructura de oraciones y palabras."-[Grammarly also helped me with correct writing of sentence and word structure.] (DS) (Paredes, 2024). Additionally, the deaf learner interpreter observed that Grammarly assisted the student in organizing her thoughts and visualizing grammatical elements, which in turn led to a reduction in spelling errors and an increase in confidence: "Grammarly le ayudó a ordenar sus ideas, pudo visualizar más lo que era la parte gramatical"- [Grammarly helped her to sort out his ideas and she was able to visualize better the grammatical elements] (DSI) (Paredes, 2024). These results are consistent with earlier studies, like Fitria's (2021) research, which showed the beneficial effects of comparable tools on college students' writing skills. Additionally, studies conducted by Baglama et al. (2018) provide credence to the notion that technology tools such as Grammarly might have a good impact on the development of writing skills, especially for those with hearing impairments. As a result, participants' positive opinions of Grammarly support the data that is already available, indicating that it may be useful in assisting deaf learners with their writing.
3.2.3. Subcategory: QuillBot use
The benefits of using QuillBot to improve paraphrase abilities and aid in text comprehension were emphasized by the participants. Their encouraging comments suggest that QuillBot was a useful tool for handling writing assignments requiring content rephrasing: "QuillBot fue muy útil para hacer una tarea de parafraseo de varios textos."-["QuillBot was very helpful in doing a paraphrasing assignment of various texts."] (DS) (Paredes, 2024). Furthermore, the deaf participant and the sign language interpreter both mentioned how simple it is to search for synonyms and phrase meanings using QuillBot, indicating that its design is straightforward and user-friendly, which may help students who struggle with writing: "Con QuillBot es fácil buscar los sinónimos y sentido a frases"- ["With QuillBot it is easy to search for synonyms and meaning in sentences"] (DS). "QuillBot fue útil para los sinónimos, y a la vez le ayudaba a entender los párrafos que ella parafraseaba."- ["QuillBot was useful for finding synonyms, and at the same time, it helped her comprehend the paragraphs she paraphrased."] (DSI) (Paredes, 2024). These results are consistent with Fitria's (2021) study, which showed benefits from using comparable paraphrase techniques with college students. Moreover, QuillBot's ability to suggest synonyms and support with text comprehension may be especially helpful for deaf pupils, who can face more difficulties understanding written material. All things considered, these answers point to QuillBot as a potentially useful tool for assisting students with their writing processes and providing a quick and easy way to improve their paraphrasing and text comprehension abilities.
3.2.4. Subcategory: Confidence in improving writing skills
The deaf learner's comments emphasized the hope that QuillBot and Grammarly will improve her writing abilities: "Sí, las dos herramientas me ayudarán a mejorar en la escritura, y a escribir mejor en muchas tareas que me envíen los profesores."- ["Yes, the two tools will help me get better at writing, and write better on many assignments that teachers send me."] (DS) (Paredes, 2024). Furthermore, the deaf learner and her interpreter conveyed hope that these tools will help deaf students write better, highlighting the significance of tools for assisting with comprehension and vocabulary growth: "( )van a entender el proceso al buscar palabras o sinónimos a las palabras y saber cómo se realiza un parafraseo."- ["(...) they (deaf learners) are going to understand the process by looking up words or synonyms to words and knowing how paraphrasing is done."] (DSI) (Paredes, 2024). These findings show a trend in the right direction toward the use of technology in the classroom, supporting earlier studies by Zirzow (2019) and Fitria (2021), who found that students using similar resources improved their writing significantly. These results demonstrate how technological tools can help students with specific learning requirements, such as the deaf, strengthen their language skills and provide a more inclusive learning environment.
Additionally, the answers highlight how important these tools are for improving grammar, expanding vocabulary, and assisting with text comprehension. This finding aligns with the conclusion drawn by Baglama et al. (2018), who showed that similar technologies produced positive results for verb tense accuracy and sentence structure. Therefore, it is clear that tools like Grammarly and QuillBot can be quite helpful for students who are having trouble with language, providing timely and focused support during the writing process.
3.3. Grammarly and QuillBot effect
Initial findings revealed that in the pre-tool task, the deaf student predominantly resorted to direct copying and quoting from the original text, failing to engage in paraphrasing. Furthermore, she did not utilize synonyms to modify the original text, resulting in no alteration in meaning or length, possibly indicating difficulty in executing paraphrasing and reluctance to alter sentence structures. (See Table 1)
Original text Deaf student's task (direct copying and quoting from the original text)
Knowledge and control of grammar is widely developed by learning rules, norms, structures, etc. Reading and writing work is deepened. Literature is used to a large extent, through which the culture related to the English language is learned, in addition to the development of learning English through translation. (Rodríguez, 2021). Knowledge and control of grammar is widely developed by learning rules, norms, structures, etc. Reading and writing work is deepened. Literature is used to a large extent, through which the culture related to the English language is learned, in addition to the development of learning English through translation. (Rodríguez, 2021).
However, after following comprehensive instruction on the functionalities of Grammarly and QuillBot, in the second paraphrasing task provided by the deaf student's professor, it was observed that through the use of technological tools, the student was able to paraphrase by employing synonyms and changing sentence structures. It is important to emphasize that the student did not simply maintain the paraphrased text provided by QuillBot; instead, she was able to select synonyms according to the context in which the text was situated. (See Table 2)
Original text Deaf student's paraphrasing with technoligical tools assistance
QuillBot's automatic paraphrasing
To examine how the four background variables of the DHH children: STS knowledge, hearing loss, deafness (including deaf children without use of spoken language), and bilingual experience, together and separately, contribute to the children's spelling skills. quantitative and qualitative, comparative study, schools, and hospitals 33 children (23 girls and 10 boys) between 9.9 and 11.6 years old were recruited. To investigate the effects of the four background factors on the spelling abilities of deaf and hard young people: STS information, hearing impairment, hearing (which includes hard-of-hearing children with use of expressed language), and bilingual experience. Relative studies, quantitative and qualitative research, and hospitals and schools Between the ages of 9.9 this month and 11.6 years old, 33 kids (twenty-three girls & 10 boys) were recruited. To look at the effects of the four background characteristics on the spelling skills of deaf generations: STS information, hearing impairment, hearing (which Deaf learners with use of expressed language), and bilingual participation.
Comparative studies, quantitative and qualitative research, and hospitals and schools Between the ages of 9.9 this month and 11.6 years old, 33 kids (twenty- three girls & 10 boys) were recruited
Note. Writing assignment provided by the deaf student's professor. The highlighted parts on the chart, shows how the student altered the text provided by QuillBot and chose synonyms that corresponded to the original text. Additionally, she adjusted the sentence structure, which she did not do in the initial task.
Finally, a comparison was made between pre- and post-tool usage performances in a similar writing task (paraphrasing). The subsequent analysis indicated positive outcomes in the paraphrasing task, as assessed by the rubric. Notably, the technological tools facilitated the incorporation of synonyms and manipulation of structures to
Overall, the results indicate that the deaf learner's writing proficiency was positively impacted by the integration of Grammarly and QuillBot, especially in assignments involving paraphrase. The tools helped with phrase rearrangement and the use of synonyms, which improved adherence to the rubric's requirements. This emphasizes how useful technology can be in helping pupils acquire new languages and improve their writing abilities, especially those who face severe language barriers like deaf students.
4. Conclusions
The deaf learner's interview yielded insightful information on the difficulties she had in developing her writing skills, with a particular emphasis on word understanding. The learner faced significant challenges in understanding the meanings of particular
English words, a task made worse by the language's intrinsic complexity. Her linguistic restrictions also make matters more difficult for her in this aspect. In addition, the student found it difficult to manipulate phrase structures effectively. Notably, the interpreter and the deaf student both raised problems with language understanding, highlighting the deaf learner's limited vocabulary and the particular challenges she faces when putting sentences together.
The interview strategy also showed that the deaf student had positive perceptions after using both technological tools in an academic paraphrase exercise. She also emphasized the benefits of QuillBot and Grammarly. Regular usage of these assistive technology tools could potentially improve and lessen the difficulties deaf students have when completing written assignments. This emphasizes how combining Grammarly with QuillBot might improve deaf students' academic writing experiences by providing them with useful tools.
Furthermore, the analysis of the impact of Grammarly and QuillBot on an assignment of writing completed by the deaf student revealed significant improvements in the assessed paraphrase work. The rubric assessment shows that the assignments did not use sentence structures or synonyms when paraphrasing before these tools were integrated. But after QuillBot and Grammarly were put into use, it was clear that these technical tools functioned as automatic helpers, making recommendations while completing writing assignments. This clear improvement between the pre- and post-application stages highlights how these assistive technologies work well to overcome the difficulties that come with these kinds of assignments and increase the quality of assignment presentation, especially for deaf English learners.
The study's conclusions generally have significant relevance for educational practices and signal the arrival of novel approaches designed to increase deaf students' access to and success in developing their English writing skills. With the knowledge gained from this study, educators can create focused interventions aimed at creating a more diverse and equal learning environment.
Although this study highlights the potential benefits of using QuillBot and Grammarly to help deaf English students with their academic writing, there were a number of intrinsic research constraints. First off, the study's short period (April to August 2023) would not have fully captured the complexities or long-term effects of incorporating these tools into academic writing assignments for deaf students. Secondly, the utilization of the sign language interpreter may generate biases or communication hurdles, that could impact the research process and the quality of the data during data collection. Furthermore, while technical problems with these platforms may have an impact on student experiences and outcomes, concentrating just on Grammarly and QuillBot as support tools, ignores the investigation of alternative technological or pedagogical approaches that could boost their usefulness. Finally, in order to contextualize the results and direct future research efforts aimed at improving academic support mechanisms for deaf students, as well as advancing knowledge and practices to foster inclusive and empowering educational environments for deaf students, it is imperative that these limitations be acknowledged and addressed.
References
Al Fadda, H. (2012). Difficulties in academic writing: From the perspective of king Saud university postgraduate students. English language teaching, 5(3). https://doi. org/10.5539/elt.v5n3p123
Anderson, R., Wiryana, F., Ariesta, M. C., & Kusuma, G. P. (2017). Sign language recognition application systems for deaf-mute people: a review based on input-process-output. Procedia computer science, 116, 441-448. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050917320720
Baglama, B., Haksiz, M., & Uzunboylu, H. (2018). Technologies used in education of hearing impaired individuals. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 13(09), 53. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i09.8303
Berent, G. P. (2001). English for deaf students: Assessing and addressing learners- grammar development. En D. Janáková (Ed.), International Seminar on Teaching English to Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students at Secondary and Tertiary Levels of Education: Proceedings (pp. 124-134). The KarolinumPress.https://www. rit.edu/~wntidpen/newdownloads/workshop/cr/2004/2-Berent/Berent%20 Prague%202001%20Paper.pdf
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. En APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57-71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
Deaf Children Australia. (2012). Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students and Reading and Writing. Org.au. https://www.deafchildrenaustralia.org.au/wp-content/ uploads/2021/06/reading-writing.pdf
Domaga?a-Zy?k, E., & Kontra, E. H. (Eds.). (2016). English as a foreign language for deaf and hard-of-hearing persons: Challenges and strategies. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. https://repozytorium.kul.pl/server/api/core/bitstreams/e07fbe30- e513-4992-ad70-87c49e523449/content
Fitria, T. N. (2021). Grammarly as AI-powered English Writing Assistant: Students' alternative for Writing English. Metathesis Journal of English Language Literature and Teaching, 5(1), 65. https://doi.org/10.31002/metathesis.v5i1.3519
Fitria, T. N. (2022). Avoiding plagiarism of students' scientific writing by using the QuillBot paraphraser. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(3). https:// doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i3.9917
Haeriati A, &. Lodo R. (2023). Introduction of English for University Student. Pt global eksekutif teknologi. [File PDF]
Hlatywayo, L., & Muranda, A. Z. (2015). Teaching strategies and technological tools that enhance literacy development among learners with hearing impairment. International Journal of Novel Research in Humanity and Social Sciences, 2(1), 19-25. https://www.noveltyjournals.com/upload/paper/ Teaching%20strategies%20and%20technological%20tools-124.pdf
Karyuatry, L. (2018). Grammarly as a tool to improve students' writing quality: Free online-proofreader across the boundaries. JSSH (Jurnal Sains Sosial dan Humaniora), 2(1), 83-89. https://jurnalnasional.ump.ac.id/index.php/JSSH/ article/view/2297
Malik, M., & Din, N. ud. (2019). Writing skills development among students with deafness at elementary level. Bulletin of Education and Research, 41(1), 1-16. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1217863.pdf
Ministerio de Educación. (2013). Guía de adaptaciones curriculares para la educación inclusiva. https://educacion.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2019/05/ Guia-de-adaptaciones-curriculares-para- educacion-inclusiva.pdf
Ministerio de Educación. (2019). Modelo Educativo Nacional Bilingüe Bicultural para- Personas con Discapacidad Auditiva. https://educacion.gob.ec/wpcontent/ uploads/downloads/2020/02/Modelo-Educativo-Bilingue-Bicultural-para- Personas-con-Discapacidad-Auditiva.pdf
Mishra, M. P., Sharma, V. K., & Tripathi, R. C. (2010). ICT as a tool for teaching and learning in respect of learner with disability. National Open University Journal. https://oasis.col.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/d9b09b6a-e997-4e4e-869e- 4e8608d692cc/content
Nurmayanti, N., & Suryadi, S. (2023). The effectiveness of using Quillbot in improving writing for students of English education study program. Jurnal Teknologi Pendidikan : Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pembelajaran, 8(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.33394/jtp.v8i1.6392
Paredes, S. (2024). Grammarly and QuillBot in supporting a deaf English learner's writing academic task. [Research report before obtaining the bachelor's degree in National and Foreign Language Pedagogy, English Major, Universidad Técnica de Cotopaxi]. https://repositorio.utc.edu.ec/bitstream/27000/11814/1/PP-000379. pdf
Perdana, I., Manullang, S. O., & Masri, F. A. (2021). Effectiveness of online Grammarly application in improving academic writing: review of experts experience. International journal of social sciences, 4(1), 122-130. https://doi. org/10.31295/ijss.v4n1.1444
Quimosing, A. B. (2022). Learning English as A foreign language (EFL): A narratology. SALTeL Journal (Southeast Asia Language Teaching and Learning), 5(2), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.35307/saltel.v5i2.85
Sarchet, T., Marschark, M., Borgna, G., Convertino, C., Sapere, P., & Dirmyer, R. (2014).
Vocabulary knowledge of deaf and hearing postsecondary students. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability (JPED), 27(2), 161-178. https://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4280560
Tahsaldar, M., & Semaan, C. (2018). The Impact of Toondoo Comics on Undergraduate Students Taking Creative Writing and Children Literature Courses at the Lebanese University Faculty of Pedagogy. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education , 5(8), 203-226. https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijhsse/ v5-i8/19.pdf
Thomas, L., & May, H. (2010). Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education.
Amazonaws.com. Retrieved March 24, 2024, from https://s3.eu-west-2. amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe-document-manager/documents/hea/ private/inclusivelearningandteaching_finalreport_1568036778.pdf
Vizzi, F., Angelelli, P., Iaia, M., Risser, A. H., & Marinelli, C. V. (2023). Writing composition ability and spelling competence in deaf subjects: a psycholinguistic analysis of source of difficulties. Reading and Writing, 36(5), 1201-1226. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10335-w
Vonkova, H., Moore, A., Kralova, K., & Lee, J.-Y. (2021). English as a Foreign Language and Motivation for Learning: A Comparative Perspective. Eric.ed.gov. https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED613944.pdf
Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura [Unesco], (2023) What you need to know about inclusion in education. Unesco. org. https://www.unesco.org/en/inclusion-education/need-know
Xuyen, N. T. (2023). Using the online paraphrasing tool Quillbot to assist students in paraphrasing the source information: English-majored students' perceptions. Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Language Teaching and Learning. https://doi.org/10.21467/proceedings.150.3
Zirzow, N. K. (2019). Technology use by teachers of deaf and hard-of-hearing students.
West Virginia University. https://doi.org/10.33915/etd.3885
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2024. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
[...]in a recent study by Anderson et al.,(2017) the authors differentiate between hearing loss and speech disorders since, though having difficulties in expressing themselves, deaf people are able to perform certain activities. Education wise, it plays a crucial role in the removal of language barriers to communication, especially in a classroom context (Quimosing, 2022). [...]at the university level, competence in English is not only confined to understanding and producing written and spoken language but also embracing research-based most often academic practices such as writing articles and discussion (Haeriati & Lodo, 2023). [...]there is an exigency for students to enhance the competencies in language to address the challenges of modern learning and future careers. Data collection procedure A structured interview was the method utilized to gather the viewpoints and opinions of the deaf English language learner and the sign language interpreter.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Technical University of Cotopaxi, Pujilí, 050403, Cotopaxi, Ecuador