Running head COMMUNICATION .docx
- 1. Running head: COMMUNICATION 1 COMMUNICATION 2 What Is The Relationship Between The Use of Educational Toys and The Educational Outcome For Deaf Children? Student’s Name University Affiliation Abstract Deaf children always go through challenges in memory tasks. The ability to learn for a variation of purposes is essential to the success of these deaf children, the schools and in the modern society as a whole. This research is aimed at assessing the relationship between learning among the deaf students and the use of educational toys. It seeks to evaluate the null hypotheses that there is a significant association between use of educational toys and the outcome for learning in deaf children. The study will involve ten deaf children, both males, and females. The children's ages will range from 4-6 years. Questionnaires will be used to gain the relevant information and data needed for the research. The study will also use the statistical techniques of regression analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to analyze the data. The expected result is that the use of educational toys will play a significant role in the learning and educational outcome of the deaf children. Educational toys are considered to be helpful in the development of the child, language proficiency, creativity, and social development. Keywords: Information Processing, Cognitive Development, Toys, Deaf Children Introduction
- 2. Significant evidence from various research reveals that deaf children experience challenges in memory tasks. For instance, an article by Eime, Young, Harvey, Charity, & Payne (2013) demonstrated that deaf children are deficient on digit span test and are not able to interact with others children when playing. Children with austere to insightful hearing losses often feel isolated, without associates or friends, and doomed in school, predominantly when their socialization with other kids with the same problem is limited. These social challenges appear to be more recurrent in children with a slight or adequate hearing losses than in those with austere to insightful loss. This is because deaf children are slow learners due to their status. According to another study by Peredo, Owen, Rojas, and Caughy (2015), two factors are contributing to slow learning and communication in deaf children. First, deaf children do not exploit the playing materials and memory aid strategies such as grouping and practice with other kids. Second, despite the deaf children using the memory aid procedures, they may take quite a long time to practice and employ them proficiently. This, therefore, affects the learning and playing processes both in the short and long run. Additionally, a survey conducted on the relationship between learning among deaf children and play toys revealed that the play toys enhance early cognitive, demonstrative, and physical development by approximately 33% (Eime et al. (2013). This further means that if parents understand appropriate toys for deaf children, the children will develop better communication, thinking, and physical development. The research question of this study is: "What is the relationship between the use of educational toys and educational outcome in deaf children?" This paper, therefore, seeks to determine the relationship between the use of educational toys and the results of learning in deaf children. Definition of Terms
- 3. Hearing loss refers to a weakened aptitude to hear sounds like other people do according to special education guide. Deafness is the lack of ability to understand speech through hearing regardless of the sound being amplified. Profound deafness implies that the individual cannot hear anything at all; they cannot detect sound, even at the loudest volume possible. A deaf child, according to the Disabilities Education Act, is a child who has a hearing impairment that hinders his/her capacity to receive verbal information through hearing. Learning environment refers to a place or institution that provides the hearing impaired child with an opportunity to learn through exploration and play. The term rehearsal is defined as the process of transferring sensory information from a temporarily limited capacity to more permanent high capacity for long-term loading. Information processing is the order or steps of a mental operation whereby the brain processes and reduces the incoming information. Information processing rate refers to the frequency at which an individual moves from one mental operation to the next. Automatic processing relates to the ability of a person to process information using a negligible amount of cognitive capacity.
- 4. Effortful processing denotes the process through which a person needs a significant amount of mental resources. Vocalization latency refers to the least amount of time required by a deaf person to identify or name a single item. Memory span denotes to the number of objects a person reminiscences immediately in their original form and order during the presentation. Learning deaf refers to the deaf children with mental problems such as understanding and the use of language; whereas, the child might have deficient incompetence to think, speak, listen, write, read, and conduct mathematical calculation. Research Problem Deaf children have had learning challenges in the past since parents and teachers were insensitive towards developing the concepts to help them learn as proficiently as others. The society had designed and accepted that, since language and speech is closely linked (Hunt, 1997). Hence, the children who had hearing impairments were un-teachable (Obusu, 2012). Studies reveal that deafness affects communication and education in children (Avoke (1997) and Yekple et al. (2011). Accordingly, Teicher and Samson (2013) investigations done revealed why deaf children learned and performed poorly, and the findings were because of lack of social environment. This implies, the parents did not provide play tools, and as a result, the children required the favorable social environment to interact with other children through play. Schneider, Atkinson, and Tardif (2001) carried similar research and found that parents did not play the role of supervision or coach deaf children appropriately. As such, their performance in school significantly worsened. Geary (2013) carried out an investigation among deaf children's performance in grade 3 and
- 5. found out that the average score in the class was approximately below 60%. Ironically, Teicher and Samson (2013) assert that the mean score for deaf children whose parents provide a social environment and play tools is approximately 90%. This difference implies that deaf children have the ability to score highly if teachers and relatives are willing to provide the necessary playing tools such as toys. Therefore, this research focuses on exploring how the use of toys could improve learning among deaf children. Literature Review Information Processing Cognitive psychologists define information processing as the mental ability to execute and process information from the environment appropriately. For instance, Sahay, Prakash, Khaique, Kumar, Meenakshi, Ravichandran, and Singh (2013) has employed the information-processing model to explain how a person can analyze and interpret the incoming information. According to them, the information system models consist of the sensory store, response to execution mechanism, perceptual system, and response selection mechanism. Sahay et al. (2013) emphasize that during the initial stage of information processing, a replica of sensory stimuli information is agitated. As a result, the information is received and stored for a short time once the incentives are removed. During the processing stage, some part of the sensory stimulus is utilized. Peng and Fuchs (2014) state that part of the stimulus employed or attended receive the information and store it for future use. However, if the deaf child does not execute this process efficiently, the information processing and delivery will be slow (Johnson, 1997). Analyzing information in mind involves receiving the correct information from the long-lasting system to respond suitably.
- 6. Once the selected response is performed, the information is kept in the brain and expressed through actions. According to Ducharme and Shecter (2011), cognitive ability is essential for information processing. However, the limitation of information processing model is that it confines cognitive capacity. Similarly, it does not evaluate the way cognitive function affects the performance of the mental operation. For this reason, Peng and Fuchs (2014) delivered an important study on effortful processing and automatic processing. The main aim of the effortful and automatic processing was to determine the rate at which an individual process information in a sequential manner. Similarly, the authors wanted to determine the mental capacity to deal with the mental operation as indicated in automatic processing. Development of Different Processing Rate among Deaf Children Younger children are faster than the middle-aged children (10-12 years) in handling the same activities. The developmental research on the reaction time reduces as the child grows or matures (Baruni, Rapp, Lipe, & Novotny, 2014). Authors used different techniques to determine the processing rate of deaf children and normal children. The authors used surveys during the tasks to measure the speed at which the two groups of children complete their duties; they realized that deaf children perform well when they are given objects to help them. For instance, deaf children perform well when they are given toys to play with to accomplish a task. This is because they relate toys with certain information, which is useful in increasing their rate of processing (Lederberg, 2000). Weisberg, Zosh, Hirsh-Pasek, and Golinkoff (2013) examined three measures that involve the information processing speed which children identify items: retrieval of names codes from long-term memory, object recognition time, and speed of short-term memory. The item recognition time measures the minimum time a child takes to recognize and process the object accurately. The
- 7. author realized that deaf children find it difficult to identify stimulus for approximately 50% of the time. Ducharme and Shecter (2011) carried out a similar study among grade three children. The study established that healthy children exhibited faster learning and communication ability compared to deaf children. In other words, deaf children responded slowly since they required objects such as toys or play tools to remind them of past information or words. This implies that play tools provide longer item recognition among deaf children since these kids are visual learners (Easterbrooks and Stoner, 2006). Likewise, Eubanks (2011) argues that visual language is more holistic and more efficient than spoken language as a means of disseminating knowledge. Accordingly, Peng and Fuchs (2014) performed a survey among children in grade four to determine the vocalization latency. The authors found that fourth-grade children were able to draw lines resembling objects and animals to the toys they use when playing at home or school. As a matter of fact, when the teacher taught using playing tools, the deaf children were able to conceptualize the ideas and achieve the learning objectives. On the other hand, Ducharme and Shecter (2011) argue that naming latency decreased significantly due to lack of teaching and playing material in the classroom. The authors concluded that deaf children retrieved information faster when they could bear information a resemblance to a game object. Accordingly, Henley (1992) retells that visual communication should be practiced in the classroom. However, this research failed to examine the features of the objects or toys that the parents should consider when buying the objects for deaf children. Baruni et al. (2014) investigated the characteristics and factors parents or teachers should consider when purchasing toys to facilitate learning to provide information on the research gap. The authors reason that parents should find the objects they
- 8. want according to the objectives they want to achieve. For instance, some toys promote muscle and physical development, sensory toys, make-believe toys, and creativity toys. Baruni et al. (2014) stress that deaf children require creativity and intelligence toys such as crayons, clay, and scissors in to achieve vocalization latency. Intelligence toys help deaf children to improve and retrieve higher-level semantic information. In another research, Weisberg et al. (2013) investigated and compared the oral reading rate among children in grade 2-5. The authors presented 50-word list and 50 letter lists and instructed deaf children to skim each work. They also showed the letters and words simultaneously from left to right and recorded the reading ability or speed of each child. They discovered that the reading speed for the deaf children was slow since they used eye and hand coordination. Conversely, the authors noticed that as they proceeded to higher grades, reading among children decreased. This is because children at lower grades used play toys during reading classes and those in upper grades did not. In other words, the lower grade deaf children memorized words and letters faster compared to the deaf children at higher grades. Weisberg et al. (2013) concluded that the deaf children required toys meant for muscle exercise, developing imagination, and learning to balance and coordinate between the eye and the hand. Letter matching techniques have also been used to measure the child's processing rate. Mortensen, Derby, and McLaughlin (2015) developed letter matching tasks to determine whether deaf children have the ability to identify if letters have been paired in a given criteria. For example, the children are required to use their judgment in the identification of the differences between letters such as Aa or AA. In case the child notices the differences, it explains that the child can retrieve name information from his or her memory (Lovaas, 1990). Mortensen, Derby, and McLaughlin (2015) state that development improvement among children increases with years and interaction with the environment. As the child grows and
- 9. continues playing with others or toys, the retrieval speed increases. Weisberg et al. (2013) affirmed that younger children process information slowly since they play with toys without conceptualizing their impact. Therefore, the decision time is slow. Baruni et al. (2014) argue that teachers should use toys or play items when teaching to increase decision time. Decision time measures the time required to process one bit of information. The authors concluded that the processing rate of the child is the function of the age and association. Role of Toy Play in Development Play is a vital portion of a child's development. It assists them to learn, to appreciate and nurtures them. Being inventive and creative with the play is mainly important for children with hearing impairments (John L. Luckner, 2006). It is not about the high-quality play but about making all types of play available and assisting the children to interact with their mates. Stockall, Dennis, and Miller (2012) assert that play offers the child and the parents an opportunity to engage and learn about one another. This is crucial since the child learns new ideas and information from the parents. Stockall, Dennis, and Miller (2012) argue that career development pursued by parents have reduced the time parents take with children. As such, parents fail to understand the type of toys they need to buy the child at a given age. This failure leads to slow development of the child both physically and cognitively. Ducharme and Shecter (2011) assert that some of the factors that contribute to a reduction of a child's playing time include increased attention to enrichment and academic activities and changes in the family structures. According to Mortensen, Derby, and McLaughlin (2015), more than 40% of the children experience developmental challenges. This is manifested in the way children perform in school both academically and emotionally. For example, typical children bully deaf children since parents have failed to guide children on the importance of integration and respect. As such, deaf
- 10. children find it difficult to interact and learn new ideas and information from others. Play toys have a great impact on the development and learning the process in deaf children. According to research done by Mortensen, Derby, and McLaughlin (2015), there is a high correlation between learning toys and development in deaf children. The researchers found out that deaf children who play most of the time with the learning toys developed universal learning skills. Accordingly, Turnbull et al. (1995) and Marschark and Mayer (1998) retell that stressing the mastery of speech and grammar with little or no time for practical learning may not be successful when teaching deaf children. This is because playing with toys maximizes the child's creativity and imagination. Also, toys act as an imaginative companion. Milteer, Ginsburg, Mulligan, Ameenuddin, Brown, Christakis, and Levine (2012) state that imaginary friend promotes joy in the child, thus helping him/her develop self-esteem. This is because the learning process is sustainable since the child has a companion. As a matter of fact, deaf children develop confidence since they develop natural love. This is based on the fact that the child engages with an imaginary companion through the toy. Milteer et al. (2012) examined how learning emotional-behavioral occur through toy play among deaf children in primary schools. The authors found that deaf children reduce fear, stress, and anxiety when they play with toys. This is because the child learns to develop companion with the imaginary friend since other kids find it difficult to interact with them (Spencer, 2010). In most cases, deaf children have learned to reduce social exclusion from classmates and some family members. For example, when they experience social exclusion during play, they console themselves with their toys. This allows the child to develop high self-esteem. Mortensen, Derby, and McLaughlin (2015) argue that toy play enables a deaf child to learn how to
- 11. cope with different social conditions and circumstances. In most cases, deaf children have increased calmness, adaptability, and ability to deal with challenges, changes, and surprises. In the long run, the family, school, and the society as a whole benefit since other children learn from the ones that have developed using the play toys (Mayberry, 2002). Play toys enable the deaf children to have the ability to handle conflicts and pressures. A review of over 40 studies by Moll, Göbel, Gooch, Landerl, and Snowling (2016) attributed to the fact that toy play contributes to problem solving and creativity. Also, the study illustrated that the deaf children playing with learning toys develop cooperative behaviors and logical thinking. According to the researchers, toy play enhances learning by approximately 33% to 66%. That is, the child learns how to adjust, reduce social and emotional problems, and improve on the language. As the biologist Jean Piaget observed, dolls contribute to the child's early development since it helps the child experience both unpleasant and pleasant happenings. This is because toys invite plays and prolong play. Moll et al. (2016) carried out home surveys and found that there are two factors related to cognitive development during preschool years mainly the availability of playing material and quality of the parent's involvement. Toys enhance learning since they help the child to learn how to interact with others and cooperation. In fact, access to different toys increases intellectual achievement regardless of race, sex, and social class. Toy Play Promotes Language Development There is slow growth of language among deaf children. In most cases, disable children develop the feeling of loneliness and social exclusion (H Knoors, 2012). Consequently, these children are reluctant to associate or socialize with others. Christopher, Miyake, Keenan, Pennington, DeFries, Wadsworth, and Olson (2012) assert that children learn almost everything through visualization and play. In other words, play helps the child build a strong feeling and learning the foundation for future
- 12. academic growth. However, deaf children are victimized in the process since some teachers believe that disabled children are slow learners. This mismatch forced Moll et al. (2016) to conduct research on the relationship between learning pace among deaf children and toy play. The author found that providing deaf children with toy play enabled them to develop interpersonal skills, develop high self-esteem and as a result learn languages quickly. Moll et al. (2016) further found out that cognitive development processes are similar to the processes involved in the learning of meaning, self-regulation, and motivation. Contemporary toys by electronic possibilities and functions enabled deaf children to discover learning activities and explore new ideas both at school and at home. In other words, deaf children develop the ability to pay more attention to ideas, which is useful in learning and performance. Christopher et al. (2012) argue that the span of knowledge and care during toy play depends on the number of toys available for the child. This forces parents to buy a deaf child a variety of toys to enhance learning. The authors further argued that the child's exploration during toy play supports education which means the child develops the ability to speak, read, and also do mathematics. Capacity to perform in maths, however, depends on the child's capability to use symbols. Toys such as blocks can be helpful in learning mathematics for the deaf children. According to Eime et al. (2013), a deaf child between 13 and 24 months playing with toys shows a high degree of language development. Apart from the language skills, the child also enhances school readiness, creative accomplishment, and social skills. Therefore, early exposure to toy play at home and school help deaf children develop emergent literacy skills by the time they reach kindergarten. Another instance is, playing with block toys helps a child develop mathematical skills such as estimation, subtraction, planning, and equality, and counting. Research conducted by Milteer et al. (2012) in Montessori
- 13. Kindergarten reveal that deaf children improved their language capability and abstract memory increased due to prolonged exposure to toy play. Gunhilde Westman of Uppsala University suggests that toy play provides an arena for communication and language development (Stockall, Dennis, & Miller, 2012). This is based on the fact that children pay attention to performing a given task as required. Children learn the language by being keen to the signs and instructions provided by the teacher or parents. Also, deaf children learn language by playing with others. Christopher et al. (2012) believe that language development and understanding among children promote motivation and confidence when playing. In other words, deaf children motivated by toy play tend to expand their language and play actions. This is useful during the child's cognitive development. Christopher et al. (2012) caution that if deaf children are left to decide on their own about toys to use during play, it cannot achieve effective results. As a result, parents and teachers are obligated to guide the child on the appropriate toys to play with depending on the purpose of the learning. Eime et al. (2013) argue that much research has focused on the importance of toy play in social and cognitive development. As such, few studies is investigating between play and talk in preschool. In a study by Weisberg et al. (2013), a group of children 3 to 5 years old who had Norwegian as the second language and Turkish as the first language shows that during preschool children talk and play in accordance to language skills during the first grade. The Choices of Toy to Enhance Learning among Deaf Children Girls and boys prefer different play toys. Parents should be cautious when selecting the play toys either for their boy or girl child. Boys are more physically active and require toys that promote muscle development and learning. Sahay et al. (2013) observed that girls prefer playing in small groups and quietly
- 14. while boys run around and make more noises. As such, if both boys and girls are playing together, there is a high level of competition and the children tend to express their emotions rather than physical. According to Peredo et al. (2015), children showing preferences to toys were noted as early as the 1930s in America, Italy, and Asia. This provided the basis through which psychologists develop factors to be considered by parents and teachers when buying toys for boys and girls to promote learning. For example, to promote learning among deaf girls, parents should buy dolls compared to the truck for boys. Peredo et al. (2015) argue that feminine and masculine toys are preceded by sex differences and features such as purpose, color, and shape. These preferences influence the choice of the toy a parent should consider when buying the toys. Research by Sahay et al. (2013) found that children learn social behavior through the toy play. In other words, the behavior of the child depends on the daily activities he/she engages in. For example, girls like to be slow and emotionally attached to drawings such as butterflies, human, and flowers. On the other hand, boys like drawing trains, cars, and moving objects. Although these researchers examined toy preferences of boys and girls, they did not evaluate how these toys expanded the working memory of the child in the short and long term memory. Therefore, scholars did more research in this field to unveil the relationship between working memory and the choice of toy play objects. According to Moll et al. (2016), working memory is divided into an articulatory loop and a central executive. These memories help a child in learning and memorizing information, which is useful for future remembrance. The Central executive component is responsible for processing information and helping the child to make decisions. On the other hand, articulatory loop stores the verbal information and controls the central executive. Peng and Fuchs (2014) asserts that working memory model helps the memory to perform a given task by recording materials depending on the
- 15. objects presented to the child. Therefore, if the child is provided with the appropriate play tool, it easy for the articulate loop to expand the memory spans. As such, the child develops memory capacity and recalls the learning process quickly. Peng and Fuchs (2014) suggest that limited memory span among deaf children occur due to poor utilization of articulatory loop. This is based on the fact that parents having deaf children are incapable of identifying the required objects for play. This slows learning since it limits the articulate loop hence the child finds it difficult to learn faster. The purpose of the Study Despite other studies such revealing that there is a relationship between learning of deaf children using toys and information processing, the issue of how toys significantly contribute to the educational outcome for deaf children remains a question. The rationale of the study, therefore, is to examine the role of toys in promoting learning among deaf children in schools. This is useful in determining the effects of the relationship between short-term memory in deaf children and information processing. Every child wants to achieve cognitive, emotional, and physical development. Therefore, determining how toys significantly contribute to the educational outcome for deaf children will help in eliminating learning challenges experienced by deaf children in many schools. Statistical Hypothesis H01: There is a significant relationship between use of educational toys and educational outcome for deaf children. Research Design and Methodology How the Samples will be gathered The accomplices for the study will be recruited from preschool
- 16. to grade 1. The method of study is quantitative since it involves collecting data from the population using interview and questionnaire. The first step in the recruitment process is to get approval from the school administration and the parents of deaf children who are active members of the deaf community. This process is considered crucial to secure cultural legitimacy from the parents of deaf children. Upon receiving the permission, ten deaf children will randomly be selected. In other words, the children will be grouped from preschool to grade one and be chosen randomly without considering the class. Then, the children would be picked randomly regardless of their ages. After that, the researcher will use the teacher's register to select children aged four years and six years. According to Aladag and Cingi (2015), during random sampling, the entire process ought to be done in a single step as the subject becomes an independent member of the population. The researcher will, therefore, employ Aladag and Cingi system of sampling. During this time, the researcher should ensure that the students use sign language exclusively to communicate. Data collection Primary and secondary procedures will be employed for data collection to accomplish the study. Primary data collection will involve constructing a structured questionnaire for collecting information from parents of deaf children on issues such as the type of toys they buy for their children, the time they spend with their children, and their cooperation with teachers. Nonetheless, a questionnaire would be prepared to retrieve information such as the average performance of a deaf child, the performance difference between deaf children with toys and deaf children without toys, and what role are played in ensuring the deaf children learn through toys and other objects from teachers. Besides, five students would be requested to use their toys to name parts of the body and mention alphabetical letters which make the names. On the other hand, five students would
- 17. choose to teach others in the name of different toy objects within the classroom and how they are associated with the environment. This exercise will enable the researchers to gather information such as children's attentiveness, activeness, learning process, interaction, and self-esteem since there will be active involvement for the deaf students to express themselves. Secondary data collection will involve reviewing the findings of other studies conducted and published by professionals in the same field. This secondary collection will enhance the data collected during the primary data collection. Reliable information from peer-reviewed journals would be considered since the researchers found larger sample sizes. Materials to be Used during the Study The materials to be considered during the survey include different kinds of toys and other stimulus pictures such as letters, digits, colors, and words. The toys include blocks, cars, and dolls. Testing Procedures The required data will be collected using the Robert Apperception Test for Children (RATC). RATC is a test meant to produce information on a developmental level from deaf children. It is based on hypothetical assumptions and projected measures. First, the children would be subjected to drawing the relationship between the parents and deaf children. Some of the expected characteristics that will be examined during the process include concerns, thoughts, conflicts, and coping styles. Second, the RATC would allow freedom of response to test- taker, which measures a child's judgment and rating against normative samples. Third, since RATC includes a scale which measures the literature as frequency problematic for deaf children, the child's self-sufficiency will be measured regarding
- 18. positive emotions and assertiveness. The scale would be 1- reliance on others, 2-support others, 3-problem identification 4- aggressive. The process would be carried out during class time. Control Steps The researcher would cooperate with the teacher to make sure that the children comply with the instructions. The activities would occur in respective classes since the children are used to the classroom environment and their classmates. The classroom environment is believed to enhance the children's interaction and minimize errors. Also, the speed of identification would be calculated based on each subject by determining the mean and median response time for each stimulus. The researcher will give each participant a numerical code to ensure participants' confidentiality. Statistical Tools to be used When the information and data have been collected, the researcher will employ the use of regression analysis and ANOVA to analyze the data. Regression analysis would be used to determine the relationship between variables. In this research, the dependent variable is the learning output among deaf children whereas the independent variables include, child development, language development, information processing, and type of toys for the child. Version 16.0 Statistical Package for Social Studies (SPSS) would be used to minimize the time used to carry out the regression analysis. SPSS analysis begins by presenting data in dialogue box in an open file. Second, there would be data editing where data, which have been entered wrongly, will be corrected. Finally, there would be data view whereby the researcher would see variables if they were appropriately placed before running the regression. Nonetheless, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) would be used to analyze differences among different groups. Other groups here
- 19. include the non-deaf children that will be used to compare performance with the deaf children. Along with F-test, it would be easy to know the significant level and standard error. The data would be entered in a frequency table to determine standard deviation and variance. This information would be useful in drawing charts and graphs to determine normal distribution graphs. The Anticipated Results The result expected is that the deaf children who learn using play toys will have an excellent performance in class compared to the deaf children who do not use play toys. Another expected result is that the deaf children in the lower grades will have the ability to recognize things faster than those in the upper class. The final expected result is that the deaf children who learn using the play toys (blocks) will be relatively proficient in mathematics as compared to those that do not use the blocks. The expected results are because toys are believed to play a crucial role in the learning of a deaf child. The chi-square in ANOVA analysis is supposed to be significant to show that there is a relationship between the performance of the deaf playing with toys and the outcome of their education. The stable relationship between toy play and performance of children is useful in developing strategies to increase performance. For example, parents would be forced to allocate quality time with their children to identify appropriate toys to buy to facilitate learning. It is expected that there is no significant existing between toy play and attributes such as cognitive development, emotional sustainability, language development, and social development, and creativity. This is because the major level is expected <0.5 during regression analysis in SPSS. Recommendations Every local authority should offer reachable play opportunities that meet the deaf children's range of needs, including experts
- 20. and normal settings. Similarly, deaf children and their parents should be playing together to ensure the learning process do not end in school. The parents of these deaf children should have better access to information and guidance on how to play with their child effectively, as well as how to make their play toys at home. Finally, families, teachers and support workers should create time to celebrate the successes children achieve through play. This will embrace the culture of using toy plays as a strategy for learning in deaf children, deaf learning institutions and even at their homes. Conclusion Toys play a crucial role among deaf children since they help in child development, language proficiency, creativity, and social development. Therefore, teachers should cooperate with parents in to include appropriate play toy at home and school. However, no significant difference in performance exists between deaf children playing with toys and normal children. In case the hypothesis was not supported, parents and teachers would not bother buying deaf children toys to facilitate learning. Although many researchers investigated the relationship between toy play and learning among deaf children, there is still a gap to identify the impact of toy play on health development. This research has several limitations. For instance, several findings are based on reports from parents and teachers, which may be biased. For example, parents choose playmates without a guaranteed of real friendship. Also, the research failed to consider the severity of the disability. As a result, it was difficult to determine whether other factors are contributing to slow learning. Therefore, the researchers should consider carrying out future research on the relationship between deaf children playing with toys and health development. Also, the researchers should determine the relationship between the child's characteristics such as age and gender and toy play. The implication of the research results for education is that it would enable parents to become active
- 21. players in training to facilitate learning. References Aladag, S., & Cingi, H. (2015). Improvement in estimating the population median in simple random sampling and stratified random sampling using auxiliary information. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 44(5), 1013-1032. Avoke, M. (1997). Introduction to Special Education for universities and colleges. Accra: the City Publishers. Baruni, R. R., Rapp, J. T., Lipe, S. L., & Novotny, M. A. (2014). Using lag schedules to increase toy play variability for children with intellectual disabilities. Behavioral Interventions, 29(1), 21-35. Christopher, M. E., Miyake, A., Keenan, J. M., Pennington, B., DeFries, J. C., Wadsworth, S. J., & Olson, R. K. (2012). Predicting word reading and comprehension with executive function and speed measures across development: a latent variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 470-485. Ducharme, J. M., & Shecter, C. (2011). Bridging the gap between clinical and classroom intervention: Keystone approaches for students with challenging behavior. School Psychology Review, 40(2), 257-274 Easterbrooks, S. R., & Stoner, M. (2006). Using a Visual Tool to Increase Adjectives in the Written Language of Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27(2), 95–109. Eime, R. M., Young, J. A., Harvey, J. T., Charity, M. J., & Payne, W. R. (2013). A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for children and
- 22. adolescents: informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(1), 1-20. Eubanks, P. K. (2011). Art Is a Visual Language. Language, 23(1), 31–35. Geary, D. C. (2013). Early foundations for mathematics learning and their relations to learning disabilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(1), 23-27. Henley, D. R. (1992). Exceptional Children: Exceptional Art. Teaching Art to Special Needs. Massachusetts: Davis Publications, Inc. H Knoors, M. M. (2012). Language planning for the 21st century: Revisiting bilingual language policy for deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Learning Strategies, 15-23. Hunt, P. (1997). Research on Inclusive Educational Programs, Practices, and Outcomes for Students with Severe Disabilities. The Journal on Special Education, 39. John L. Luckner, A. M. (2006). An Examination of the Evidence-Based Literacy Research in Deaf Education. Special Education Journal, 443-456. Johnson, D. W. (1997). Mainstreaming and Cooperative Learning Strategies. Sage Journals, 23. Lederberg, A. R. (2000). Word-Learning Skills of Deaf Preschoolers: The Development of Novel Mapping and Rapid Word-Learning Strategies. nEW yORK: ORCID. Lovaas, O. I. (1990). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 7-9.
- 23. Mayberry, R. (2002). Cognitive development in deaf children: The interface of language and perception in neuropsychology. Journal of Neuropsychology, 14. Milteer, R. M., Ginsburg, K. R., Mulligan, D. A., Ameenuddin, N., Brown, A., Christakis, D. A., & Levine, A. E. (2012). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bond: Focus on children in poverty. Pediatrics, 129(1), e204-e213. Marschark, M., & Mayer, T. S. (1998). Interactions of language and memory in deaf children and adults. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 39(3), 145–8. Moll, K., Göbel, S. M., Gooch, D., Landerl, K., & Snowling, M. J. (2016). Cognitive risk factors for specific learning disorder processing speed, temporal processing, and working memory. Journal of learning disabilities, 49(3), 272-281. Mortensen, S., Derby, K. M., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2015). Teaching leisure skills to developmental deaf children and facilitating interaction with typically developing peers through playing hockey. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 2(1), 106-117. Obosu, G. K. (2012). The value of visual art in deaf education- investigating visual teaching in some schools for the deaf (Doctoral dissertation, School of Graduate Studies, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi). Peng, P., & Fuchs, D. (2014). A Meta-Analysis of working memory deficits in children with learning difficulties: is there a difference between verbal domain and numerical domain?. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2(2), 21-94. Peredo, T. N., Owen, M. T., Rojas, R., & Caughy, M. O. B.
- 24. (2015). Child vocabulary, maternal behavior, and inhibitory control development among Spanish-speaking children. Early Education and Development, 26(5-6), 749-769. Sahay, A., Prakash, J., Khaique, A., Kumar, P., Meenakshi, S. P., Ravichandran, K., ... & Singh, N. B. (2013). Parents of intellectually deaf children: a study of their needs and expectations. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 2, 1-8. Schneider, B. H., Atkinson, L., & Tardif, C. (2001). Child– parent attachment and children's peer relations: A quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 86-100 Spencer, P. (2010). Evidence-based practice in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Oxford University Press Journal, 12. Stockall, N. S., Dennis, L., & Miller, M. (2012). Right from the start: Universal design for preschool. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(1), 10-21. Teicher, M. H., & Samson, J. A. (2013). Childhood maltreatment and psychopathology: a case for ecophenotypic variants as clinically and neurobiologically distinct subtypes. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(10), 1114-1133. Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull III, R., Shank, M., & Leal, D. (1995). Exceptional Lives: Special Education in Today’s Schools. Eaglewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. Weisberg, D. S., Zosh, J. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Talking it up: Play, language development, and the role of adult support. American Journal of Play, 6(1), 39-54. Yekple, Y. E., Offei, Y. N., & Acheampong, E. K. (2011). Introduction to special needs education-A practical guide for Teachers. Winneba: Department
- 25. of Special Education, University of Education, Winneba.