Teacher-Student Relatedness: The Importance of Classroom Relationships for Children with Hearing Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is evidence to suggest that there is a strong relationship between psychosocial development and academic performance. The school is an important setting for developing social skills, and students function optimally in the context in which their needs are satisfied. A large amount of research has examined the importance of the teacher-student relationship as an important, contributing factor to student wellness, peer relationship development and academic success. Early identification of hearing loss, early habilitation and new hearing technology have moved the majority of deaf and hard of hearing students into their neighborhood schools. This study explored the facilitators and barriers to the teacher-student relationship for students with hearing loss in mainstream classrooms. Surveys and interviews were used to gather information from teachers, parents, and students on their experiences with the teacher-student relationship and their early elementary classroom. Results revealed five main constructs that were crucial to promoting the teacher-student relationship, and therefore supported the development of relatedness of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. They were transitions, social skill development, teacher understanding of hearing loss, classroom inclusion, and the importance of the teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing. This study found that parents were doing a great deal of work to ensure that the needs of their deaf or hard of hearing child were being met in their mainstream classroom. Teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing were also found to be instrumental because they supported parents, teachers and the student with hearing loss. This work identified a set of requirements to facilitate a successful teacher-student relationship and it is important that parents are equipped with this knowledge as early as possible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".