Teachers’ Perspective on Using Sign Language in English Instruction: Challenges in Malaysian Primary School

This qualitative study explored the challenges faced by Malaysian primary school teachers in using sign language for English instruction among Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (DHH) students, as well as the factors contributing to these challenges. The study employed semi-structured interviews with four teachers experienced in teaching DHH learners. Data were transcribed and analyzed thematically using Braun and Clarke’s (2023) six-phase framework to identify recurring patterns of meaning. Findings revealed that teachers encountered multifaceted challenges, including fragmented sign systems, communication barriers, limited vocabulary resources, and a lack of formal training in sign-supported English pedagogy. Contributing factors extended beyond classroom practice, such as the absence of standardized sign language policies, inadequate institutional support, and limited professional development opportunities. Despite these constraints, teachers demonstrated resilience through self-directed learning, peer collaboration, and the creative use of visual and multimodal teaching strategies. The study highlights the urgent need for systemic reform in Malaysia’s Deaf education system. Policy-level standardization of sign systems, targeted teacher training in bilingual-bimodal instruction, and structured mentoring networks are essential to enhance instructional quality and inclusivity. By centering teachers’ lived experiences, this study contributes to the growing body of research on bilingual education for DHH learners and underscores the importance of empowering educators as key agents of linguistic and educational equity.

sign language, Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (DHH)

1. Abdullah, N., & Mokhtar, R. (2020). Sign language practices in inclusive classrooms in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Special Education, 10(2), 22–35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Asaari, A., & Kamaluddin, S. M. M. R. (2024) Use of Malaysian Sign Language for Special Education Teachers in Teaching Deaf Students. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ballard, T. (2022). Cognitive strain and cross-modal literacy development in deaf learners. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 27(3), 210–225. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Beal, J. S., Dostal, H. M., & Easterbrooks, S. R. (2024). Literacy instruction for students who are deaf and hard of hearing. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bowen, S. K., & Probst, K. M. (2023). Instructional strategies for students who are deaf or hard of hearing: A review of evidence-based practices. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 28(1), 15–33. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023). Thematic analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Caldwell, S. (2022). Manually coded sign systems and cognitive load in deaf education. Language Learning and Development, 18(4), 355–372. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Canon, L., Marshall, C., & Chen Pichler, D. (2022). Sign bilingual education: Current perspectives and future directions. Applied Linguistics Review, 13(5), 789–812. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Cheong, J., & Lim, H. (2022). Teacher attitudes toward inclusive education for students with hearing loss in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 42(4), 566–580. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Chong, W. H., & Hussain, N. (2021). Inclusive education in Malaysia: Teachers’ preparedness and challenges in teaching students with disabilities. Asian Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(1), 33–49. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Dashwini, S., & Anal, S. (2022). Barriers to standardized bimodal bilingual instruction in Malaysia. Journal of Deaf Studies and Education, 27(3), 215–228. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Donati, C. (2021). Metalinguistic awareness and bimodal bilingualism: Cognitive advantages in deaf education. Language Learning and Development, 17(4), 341–357. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Greene, L., Chan, J., & Lau, E. (2024). Family engagement in bimodal bilingual communication and early deaf education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(2), 189–205. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hassan, S., & Yusof, M. (2020). Language barriers in teaching deaf students: Perspectives from Malaysian teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(7), 811–825. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Ishrat, S., Iqbal, F., & Khan, M. (2022). Teacher challenges in inclusive education for students with hearing impairments. Journal of Special Education Research, 12(3), 145–162. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Karuppannan, G., Mani, S., & Rahman, H. (2021). Teacher preparedness and bilingual pedagogy in inclusive classrooms for DHH learners. Malaysian Journal of Education Studies, 48(1), 77–94. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Lillo-Martin, D., Gagne, D., & Chen Pichler, D. (2022). Lessons to be learned from bimodal bilingualism. Hrvatska revija za rehabilitacijska istraživanja, 58(Special Issue), 83–97. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Marshall, C., Melotti, L., & Singleton, J. (2021). Integrating sign language and English instruction: Cognitive cooperation in bilingual-bimodal learning. Deafness & Education International, 23(1), 15–29. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Melotti, L. (2024). Cognitive and linguistic outcomes in bimodal bilingual instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 62(2), 201–220. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2023). Inclusive education policy report. Putrajaya: Special Education Division. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Mohd Ali, S. (2024). Inclusive education practices in Kuala Lumpur primary schools: An overview. Malaysian Journal of Special Education, 14(2), 44–58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Noor, A., & Rahman, M. (2021). Teacher readiness and challenges in teaching English to students with hearing impairments. Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(1), 55–70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Nugroho, A., & Lintangsari, A. P. (2022). Challenges of English literacy development among deaf students in inclusive schools. Asian Journal of Education and Learning, 12(3), 178–190. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury House. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Pawlak, M. (2021). Investigating language learning strategies: Prospects, pitfalls and challenges. Language Teaching Research, 25(5), 817–835. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Pfenninger, S., Lee, C., & Wong, T. (2023). Standardized sign language materials and curriculum alignment in Malaysian special education. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 10(1), 112–128. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Rahmat, N., Saiful, B., & Noraini, A. (2024). The role of multimodal strategies in teaching English to special needs learners. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 20(1), 55–72. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Rastgoo, R., Kiani, K., Escalera, S., & Sabokrou, M. (2021). Sign language production: A review. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 3451-3461). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Saiful Bahri, M., Noor, H., & Rahman, N. (2023). Comparative analysis of KTBM, SEE, and BIM in English literacy instruction. Malaysian Journal of Special Needs Education, 13(2), 66–82. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Salsabiilah, N. (2024). Linguistic challenges of multiple sign systems in Malaysian deaf education. Asia Pacific Journal of Special Education, 19(1), 43–57. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Simpson, M. L., & Mayer, C. (2023). Spoken language bilingualism in the education of deaf learners. American Annals of the Deaf, 167(5), 727-744. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Singleton, J. L., & Meier, R. P. (2021). Natural sign languages and bilingual development among deaf learners. Sign Language Studies, 21(2), 109–128. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Subin, W., & Liang-Itsara, P. (2022). Sign language and English literacy transfer among deaf learners in Southeast Asia. Asian Journal of Special Education, 7(2), 71–84. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Tang, M. (2024). Language learning strategies and sign-supported instruction: Gaps in Southeast Asian contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 58(2), 211–229. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Terblanche, W., & van Staden, A. (2021). Hearing-loss and early literacy development: Exploring the role of linguistic skills and support programs that can benefit dhh children. In EDULEARN21 Proceedings (pp. 12369-12379). IATED. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. World Health Organization. (2021). Deafness and hearing loss. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/deafness-and-hearing-loss [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Yasin, M., Abdullah, H., & Ibrahim, S. (2021). Sign language systems in Malaysia: Policy, practice, and implications for inclusive education. Malaysian Journal of Special Education, 15(2), 1–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Yufrizal, H. (2023). Bilingual-bimodal approaches and English proficiency among deaf students: A Southeast Asian perspective. Asian EFL Journal, 25(5), 59–75. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Yusof, H., & Jalaluddin, N. (2022). English language development among deaf students in Malaysia: A review. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 143–162. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study