Qualitative analysis shows enhanced motivation in deaf students during collaborative learning, suggesting improved teaching strategies in both inclusive and non-inclusive classrooms.
This study looked at how experiential learning and collaborative teaching impact the motivation and self-confidence of deaf students in Mathematics within both inclusive and non-inclusive classrooms. The study used a qualitative method, conducting semi-structured interviews with six deaf students, three each from inclusive and non-inclusive. Thematic analysis revealed five main themes in inclusive settings: clarity and relevance through experiential teaching, emotional motivation from achievement and feedback, collaborative learning as a source of motivation, obstacles to motivation and ways to overcome them, and self-confidence through experience. In non-inclusive classrooms, the study identified four similar themes: experiential engagement boosts motivation, peer and teacher collaboration as sources of motivation, barriers to learning and ways to cope, and building self-confidence through interaction and practice. In both contexts, students showed more motivation when learning mathematical concepts through real-world, hands-on activities and group work. They often pointed out that peer interaction and teacher support were vital for keeping them engaged. However, ineffective teaching methods and negative feedback were viewed as demotivating. Despite these challenges, students employed proactive strategies like peer support, repeated practice, and teacher feedback to stay motivated. Researchers interpret the findings through Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory and Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory, highlighting how experiential and social learning help improve mathematical motivation among deaf students. The study offers practical suggestions for inclusive and special education by encouraging learner-centered, collaborative, and contextually relevant teaching methods that meet the needs of deaf students.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hatsu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: