Research question will be addressed in this section is that are there differences between deaf pupils with/without CI in terms of their Educational Progress In this section, each subject’s result will be presented for each group based on the academic reports and the Saudi evaluation system at primary school (details of this system were mentioned in Chapter Three). First, a general picture of both groups’ results will be described, then an analysis of data in terms of pupils’ variables and whether there is a relationship between them will be highlighted.
Mathematics
Half of Pupils with CIs, which represents two of them, have obtained all the mathematics required skills by while the rest of pupils got just the minimum required skills. This might indicate that there is a clear variation among pupils’ educational progress, as no one received the middle score on the evaluation scale (when 66% of
162
the skills are gained). 33% of Pupils without CI obtained all the required skills in mathematics which is less than the percentage that is recorded by pupils with CI. Of the pupils without CI, 66% had acquired just the minimum required skills. It was noticed that neither group had recorded the lowest score when a pupil does not have the minimum required skills.
Table 22: Mathematics progress for groups
Participants (deaf with/without) n %
DW
Mastered all skills 2 50.0 Mastered at least
minimum required skills 2 50.0
Total 4 100.0
DWO
Mastered all skills 1 33.3 Mastered at least
minimum required skills 2 66.7
Total 3 100.0
Reading and Writing
From Table 23, it can be seen that of the pupils with CI, only one obtained the highest score on the evaluation scale, while the rest of the pupils are divided between mastering 66% of the skills and the minimum required skills. Of the pupils without CI, the table shows that no one obtained the highest score and also there was one pupil who received the lowest degree, which is considered as a fail, and he should repeat the same academic year.
163
Table 23: Reading and writing progress for groups
Participants (deaf with/without) n %
DW
Mastered all skills 1 25.0 Mastered 66% including
minimum skills required 1 25.0 Mastered at least minimum
skills required 2 50.0
Total 4 100.0
DWO
Mastered 66% including
minimum skills required 1 33.33 Mastered at least minimum
skills required 1 33.33 Has not mastered all
minimum skills required 1 33.33
Total 3 100.0
Religious Studies Progress
Half of the pupils with CI acquired 66% of the skills in this subject, whereas most of the pupils without CI achieved the minimum required sills. It is important to point out that religious studies as well as reading skills require speech, listening ability and imagination in order to interrelate the meanings between the words heard and the concepts.
164
Table 24: Religious studies progress for groups
Participants (deaf with/without) n %
DW
Mastered all skills 1 25.0 Mastered 66% including
minimum required skills 2 50.0 Mastered at least minimum
required skills 1 25.0
Total 4 100.0
DWO
Mastered 66% including
minimum required skills 1 33.3 Mastered at least minimum
required skills 2 66.7
Total 3 100.0
Science Progress
In science, all the pupils without CI had acquired the minimum required skills. The other group showed their ability to record all skills and 66% of the skills. However, there was one pupil with a CI who failed to obtain the minimum required skills. This might indicate that not only might a subject that relies on language ability be difficult for a deaf pupil, but also skills that depend on reasoning such as sciences.
Table 25: Science progress for groups
Participants (deaf with/without) n %
DW
Mastered all skills 1 25.0 Mastered 66% including
minimum required skills 2 50.0 Has not mastered all the
minimum required skills 1 25.0
Total 4 100.0
165
Social Science Progress
This subject shows that both groups obtained significantly poor results. Two of the pupils with CI were omitted from the results because they do not have this subject in their year. Other pupils within this group showed that poor results had been obtained, as no one achieved high scores and one of them was recorded as a fail. Most of the pupils without CI had failed to obtain at least the minimum required skills.
Table 26: Social science progress for groups
Participants (deaf with/without CI) n %
DW
Mastered at least minimum
required skills 1 50.0 Has not mastered all
minimum required skills 1 50.0
Total 2 100.0
DWO
Mastered at least minimum
required skills 1 33.3 Has not mastered all
minimum required skills 2 66.7
Total 3 100.0
Progress in Art
It is claimed that the subject of art is interesting for deaf pupils. Pupils with CI showed that 50% (n=2) had obtained all the skills in the subject, compared to 33% (n=1) of pupils without CI.
166
Table 27: Progress in art for groups
Participants (deaf with/without) n %
DW
Mastered all skills 2 50.0 Mastered 66% including
required skills 1 25.0 Mastered at least minimum
required skills 1 25.0
Total 4 100.0
DWO
Mastered all skills 1 33.3 Mastered 66% including
required skills 2 66.7
Total 3 100.0
Progress in PE
All the pupils with/without CI showed good results in PE. However, pupils with CI showed a good ability in this subject.
Table 28: Progress in PE for groups
Participants (deaf with/without) n %
DW
Mastered all skills 3 75.0 Has not mastered all
minimum required skills 1 25.0
Total 4 100.0
DWO
Mastered all skills 1 33.3 Mastered 66% including
minimum required skills 2 66.7
167
Perspective of Parents and Teachers of Pupils with CI Towards Educational Progress
Of the parents of pupils with CI, 75% (n=3) admitted that their children had made good educational progress after the CI compared to their results before. In addition, 80% (n=8) of the teachers indicated that there were positive results shown by deaf pupils with CI. For instance, one teacher stated: “Yes, the cochlear implant has played a role in the change and evolution of students in terms of the educational aspect”.
Both parents and teachers indicated that the progress involves positive results in school subjects and increasing vocabulary and language structures.
Importantly, 30% of the teachers claimed that CIs could have a positive impact regarding inclusive education. One teacher commented: “There is no doubt that a cochlear implant has a substantial impact upon attainment and inclusive education”.
In contrast, 25% of the parents and 10% of the teachers responded negatively regarding the impact of CIs upon educational progress. Moreover, one teacher stated that the situation of pupils before surgery should be measured in terms of their educational progress. It was added that it “may be difficult to determine such impact accurately because I did not measure the level of the student before the implants”.
Moreover, although the majority of participants indicated that there was a positive impact of CIs upon educational progress, they used the word “but” after their agreement about such an impact. This word refers to the requirements that could enhance the outcomes of CIs as claimed by parents and teachers. For instance, the time of implantation, the rehabilitation programme after the implant, and early intervention programmes are among these requirements. One teacher argued that
168
“Vocabulary increases when a child has a cochlear implant, especially if it is done in the first two years”. Therefore, it seems that there are differences among pupils with CIs themselves. One teacher stated that it “must be kept in mind that results vary between deaf children after surgery”.
This could explain the differences that were discussed earlier regarding the educational progress of pupils with CIs based on their academic report. Other factors were also mentioned, such as parents’ awareness and training, qualified teachers and government support.
With respect to clinicians, it is crucial to point out that although perspectives regarding the impact of CIs upon educational progress had been given by the clinicians, their answers did not seem to be in depth and were incomplete. This may be due to that they are not specialists in the field of education. However, such participants gave a wide range of responses regarding the surgery itself and the impact upon hearing and speech development, as well as the factors affecting CIs.