Mixed methods study evaluates AR technology effectiveness and usability for hearing-impaired students, suggesting cognitive benefit.
Background Students with hearing impairments face elevated risks of executive function (EF) deficits due to limited auditory-linguistic scaffolding. Augmented reality (AR) offers visually grounded cognitive rehabilitation affordances aligned with these learners’ visual-spatial strengths.Objectives This study designed and evaluated an AR-based assistive technology to enhance EF in hearing-impaired elementary students and explored usability from learners’ perspectives.Methods An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was employed. In Phase 1 (QUAN), 50 hearing-impaired students (Grades 1–6) were randomly assigned to experimental (n = 25) or control (n = 25) groups across eight AR intervention sessions. In Phase 2 (QUAL), 12 participants were purposively selected via maximum variation sampling for group semi-structured interviews facilitated by Thai Sign Language teachers. Quantitative and qualitative strands were integrated via a joint display.Results Between-group analysis revealed a significant improvement in verbal working memory (p = .005, r = 0.43; surviving Bonferroni correction, α = 0.008); inhibition response time showed a marginal effect (p = .029) that did not reach the corrected threshold. Codebook thematic analysis (κ = 0.80) produced five themes. Joint display integration yielded four meta-inference types: confirmation (QUAN and QUAL mutually reinforce findings), expansion (QUAL extends interpretation of marginal QUAN effects), discordance–explanation (null cognitive-flexibility effect attributed to limited task variety), and confirmation of null (QUAL corroborates practice/maturation as alternative explanation for within-group TMT gains).Conclusion AR-based assistive technology grounded in visual-spatial learning principles shows promise for cognitive rehabilitation in hearing-impaired students. Mixed methods integration revealed intervention mechanisms that neither strand could yield independently.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Makmee et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: