2 The Deaf Community in Ghana as Technology Adopters

Abstract

In a world that is predominantly hearing, deaf is considered a severe disability that can impose a substantial social and economic burden on individuals, families, communities and countries. There are a growing number of technological tools that are developed primarily for the needs of deaf people. These tools include technology that is geared toward education, recreation, communication, safety, and improving quality of life. In this chapter, the focus is on a review of the literature for which the primary library databases used for the search of materials were Google Scholar and ProQuest. The literature on the Deaf community in Ghana was in general scarce and access to full articles was limited. This chapter covers factors affecting the use of technology as communication tools, challenges faced by members of the Deaf community in utilizing technology and concludes with some technology tools for communicating with and learning by Deaf people in West Africa and most importantly in Ghana.

Introduction

About 10% of Ghana’s population is comprised of Persons with Disabilities of whom more than 260,000 are Deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH) (Joshua Project, 2018). In a world that is predominantly comprised of hearing individuals, hearing loss is considered a severe disability that can impose a substantial social and economic burden on individuals, families, communities and countries. There are a growing number of technological tools that are developed primarily for the needs of deaf people. These tools include technologies that are geared toward education, recreation, communication, safety, and improving quality of life. In schools, there are systems that convert spoken words into real-time text that displayed to students to read on their computers or on a screen presented to the class. Also, these systems provide a printout or text file of the lecture. In this chapter, the focus is on a review of the literature. The primary library databases used for the search of materials were Google Scholar and ProQuest. The literature on the Deaf community in Ghana was in general scarce and access to some full articles was limited. This chapter covers factors affecting the use of technology as communication tools, challenges faced by members of the Deaf Community in utilizing technology and concludes with technology tools for communicating with and learning by Deaf people in West Africa; most importantly in Ghana.

Factors Affecting the Use of Technology as Communication Tools by Deaf People

Previous research has resulted in a long, almost exhaustive, list of issues concerning the uses of technology by members of the Deaf Community in the Western world (Keating, & Mirus, 2003; Singleton, Remillard, Mitzner, & Rogers, 2018). However, these issues are often examined in isolation of each other or relevancy to all Deaf people. Rarely are they studied together under a framework to sort out the relevant importance of these factors to Deaf people globally. Moreover, there seems to be no framework in the existing literature that captures the dynamic nature of the technology adoption process for members of the Deaf Community. In the quest to look for factors that affect technology uses, general factors such as accessibility, communication, education, and learning are considered in this review. It is essential to understand how the factors dynamically interact with each other and the use of technology.

Accessibility

People who are living with disability face various technology accessibility challenges. According to Maiorana-Basas and Pagliaro (2014), as society becomes more reliant upon technology, information about, preference for, and accessibility of frequently used devices and services among individuals who are Deaf and hard of hearing is critical. Developing functional and appropriate access to technologies allows people who are Deaf and hard of hearing to fully participate in society, education, and business, and provides opportunities for advancement. The authors add that although a few international studies have addressed the technology use of individuals who are Deaf and hard of hearing, none focus on the needs, preferences, and accessibility of current Internet- and mobile-based technologies. Maiorana-Basas and Pagliaro conducted a national survey was in the United States to determine the preference, frequency of use, and accessibility of various technologies (hardware, software, Web sites) by adults who are Deaf and hard of hearing and living in the United States. Findings indicate frequent use of smartphones and personal computers, specifically for text-based communication and web surfing, and little use of teletypewriter/telecommunications device for the Deaf. Web site feature preferences include pictures and text, and captions over signed translations.

In developing countries such as Ghana, many of the emerging technology tools are not available; those that are available are not affordable by most of the Deaf individuals. According to the National Commission on Tertiary Education (2006), there is a general problem of access to public tertiary education in Ghana. Available statistics from 1996-2001 shows that only 32% of the qualified applicants were admitted into the universities, and 54% of qualified applicants were admitted to the polytechnics. In the 2005/2006 academic year, 55% of qualified applicants were admitted into all the public universities while in the polytechnics it was 78%. Although data is not available for the applicants who are deaf, it can be suggested based on this data that deaf applicants also experienced lack of access to tertiary education (National Commission on Tertiary Education, 2006).

Communication

Communication may be defined as a process where information is transferred from one source to another. This definition is applicable to transferring information between Deaf and hearing individuals. Effective communication requires time, energy, focus, and commitment. In this digital age, technology has enhanced effective communication and it has transformed all aspects of life and made a significant impact on the lives of Deaf and hard of hearing individuals, as well. The most significant challenge for members of the Deaf Community is communication, which affects how well they can interact with their hearing counterparts in society.

Summet (2010) investigated the role that communication technologies played in the lives of many deaf individuals and examined how technology devices have affected their communication patterns and social circles. Specifically, the teens in the study identified problems communicating with hearing individuals such as close friends and family in face-to-face situations. Having identified sign language use at home as one of the earliest interventions for Deaf children, Summet (2010) investigated the use of mobile phones for learning survival-level through American Sign Language (ASL). A prototype software application, which presented short ASL lessons via either a mobile phone or desktop web-browser, was created. The software presented the lessons via one of two different scheduling methods designed to take advantage of the spacing effect during learning. Summet designed and conducted a study of forty individuals with no prior ASL knowledge, which compared the effects of both scheduling algorithm and platform. The results show that individuals who used a mobile phone platform and received a group of lessons at one time performed better on post-test receptive and generative ASL metrics than did participants in the three other conditions.

According to Fredua (2007), when a Deaf or hard of hearing person walks into a bank or other service providers in Ghana, he/she often finds it difficult accessing most of their services. They are also left helpless when they visit the hospitals, police stations, and courts of law (Fredua, 2007). They are also helpless in other places such schools, marketplace and even at church. Communicating within a hearing world is one of the most difficult challenges Deaf and hard of hearing Ghanaians face. For instance, a signed language is an effective means of communication when another person is present, but communicating over the phone from home has been difficult; besides, many people could not afford to buy telephones (A. Torgah, personal communication, June 19, 2018). Some deaf people use teletypewriters (TTYs) to speak with other people over the phone. The use of a telephone allows them to type a message to someone else who had a TTY device. However, it is still limited to communicate with those who did not have the devices.

In communication, a lot of modern technology is ideally suited for the deaf community. Texting and instant messaging are examples of technologies that provide the opportunity to communicate whether people are Deaf, hard or hearing, or hearing, and these technologies do not require the use of signed language. They do, however, require some ability to read and write.

Education

Hearing loss may significantly impact learning in a society that relies on auditory input rather than visual input, which makes deaf education an area that greatly benefits from the use of technology, which offers visual access. Most teachers of Ghana’s deaf and hard of hearing children are hearing, so they do not know nor understand signed language (A. Torgah, personal communication, June 19, 2018). Like hearing parents, these educators cannot transmit cultural values and beliefs to deaf and hard of hearing children. On average, deaf and hard of hearing children who have hearing parents enter school with only a 30 to 100-word vocabulary and have never understood the nuances of communication (A. Torgah, personal communication, June 19, 2018). Consequently, he/she has an extremely difficult time learning to read and write (A. Torgah, personal communication, June 19, 2018).

Technology seems to be a solution for communicating with deaf and hard of hearing children and members of the Deaf community. There is a growing number of technological tools that are made especially for accommodating the needs of D/deaf and hard of hearing children and adults. These tools include technology that is geared toward education, communication, and improving the quality of life. One way to support D/deaf and hard of hearing individuals is to provide assistive technology tools.

Learning

Learning with technology, whether using a math app, language, a video how-to, or a wiki, opens a new world of discovery for learners. Emerging technology tools have opened doors for learning through games. There are a lot of gaming media that bring fun and relaxation to the deaf community. (See gaming media for the Deaf in Table 1.)

Table 1

Web Sites for Gamers (Educational Games) who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

This table from, Simply Entertainment, is included on the basis of fair use.

Challenges faced by the Deaf in utilizing technology

D/deaf people face numerous challenges when it comes to the use of technology. Some of the challenges include parents’ attitudes, poverty, educational level, and attitudes towards technology acceptance.

Parents Attitudes

Hearing loss is considered a serious disability that can impose a substantial social and economic burden on individuals, families, communities, and countries. According to the Joshua Project (2018), hearing parents in Ghana may consider their deaf child to be a curse because of sin. The attitudes of some parents cause them to devalue their deaf child. Deaf children often learn values, morals, and social behaviors from other deaf children, television, or movies. Deaf children may experience delays in speech development, language, and cognitive skills. They may experience frustration with hearing people, including parents, siblings, teachers, classmates, and pastors. This frustration may be indicated by sentiments like the following, “If you really valued (loved) me, you could learn to Sign, but I cannot learn to hear!” (Joshua Project, 2018). Similar attitudes are found in other parts of the word. For example, according to Guimarães, Antunes, García, Peres, and Fernandes (2012), in Brazil, approximately 90% of deaf and hard of hearing children are born into hearing families. These children experience prejudice in social situations and in their own families. They have little opportunity of being exposed to signed language, the natural language of D/deaf and hard of hearing people, which may deprive them of adequate language acquisition and intellectual development. Libras, Brazilian Sign Language, is the linguistic system used by D/deaf and hard of hearing Brazilians for communication, education, social inclusion, citizenship exercise, among others. Guimarães et al.  (2012) presented a Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) conceptual meta-environment framework to construct Intellectual computational artifacts in signed language to promote bilingualism (Libras/Portuguese) via Intellectual Interactions (i.e., computer-mediated systems based on cognitive theories for mind development). A storytelling environment illustrates its use to increase family bonding activities and effective bilingualism for Deaf children and non-Deaf parents.

Poverty

In adulthood, hearing loss can make obtaining, performing, and keeping employment difficult. Eighty percent of deaf and hard of hearing people live in low- to middle-income communities. Many either depend on their family for support or may choose less reputable activities for survival (Joshua Project, 2014).

Adoption and Acceptance of Technology

Technology has potential for supporting deaf individuals; however, they experience some challenges in using technology. The deaf community in Ghana as technology adopters was examined through consideration of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Researchers have argued that the inclusion of technologies in teaching and learning should be preceded by users’ acceptance of technology. Without this acceptance, these technologies will be abandoned or underutilized when provide to the school system (Mugo, Njagi, Chemwei, Motanya, 2017).

Mugo et al. (2017) investigated how TAM was used in predicting acceptance and utilization of various types of technology in teaching and learning. They argued that TAM could be adopted in the development and utilization of mobile technologies for teaching and learning. In their study, documents stored electronically were analyzed for access through the Internet, textbooks, archival repositories, and an encyclopedia. Their study revealed that even with attitudinal and technical challenges, mobile technologies are acceptable as resources for pedagogical practices.

The acceptance and adopter of technology in all aspects of life have been widely interrogated in the literature (Saga & Zmud (1993) in Kurnia et al. 2005). There are several frameworks that are relevant to the theme of this chapter such as the Diffusion of Innovation Model by Rogers, Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) and the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Aizen & Eishbein, 1980). The most relevant model used as a guide in this review is the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) by Davis. TAM suggests that users presented with new technology consider several factors when making decisions about how and when they will use it.

Technology acceptance model aims at studying how individual perceptions affect the intentions to use information technology as well as the actual usage. Saga and Zmud (1993) in Kurnia et al. (2005) indicated that amongst other models, TAM has been influential and widely adopted for predicting acceptance and use of learning technologies, because the model has a theoretical basis and empirical support. It was designed to show how users accept and use technology. According to Saga and Zmud (1993) in Kurnia et al. (2005), when users are presented with a new technology, they consider three factors when making their decision about how and when they will use it. Those factors are perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU), and the attitude towards usage (ATU). These three factors influence user’s decision on how and when they will use technology: Perceived usefulness (PU), Perceived ease of use (PEOU) and User attitude towards usage (ATU).

Perceived usefulness (PU)

According to Davis (1989) perceived usefulness (PU) is the degree to which users believe the use of a system will enhance their job performance. In the deaf community in Ghana, members believe that they can benefit from the use of technology. However, the efforts to utilize advanced technologies in Ghana are often prevented by a much older infrastructure including technologies such as the phone system and the electric grid (Zachary, 2002).

Pioneers of the personal computer in the 1990’s saw mobile phones and the Internet as an opportunity to for people in Africa to circumvent what could normally take decades of conventional development (Zachary, 2002). The large vibrant signing Deaf communities in Kumasi and Accra, as well as the smaller communities of GSL users throughout Ghana, are seeking alternative technologies for communication (A. Torgah, personal communication, June 19, 2018).

Perceived ease of use (PEOU)

According to Davis (1989), perceived ease-of-use (PEOU) is the degree to which users believe the use of technology would be effortless. In other words, it is the degree to which consumers perceive technology as better than its substitutes. Chen et al. (2011) indicated that the argument that perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) positively affects the attitudes toward usage (ATU) of a technology. Most Ghanaian deaf read at a 3rd-grade level or below; many do not read at all (People and Language Profile, 2013) and the literacy level has contributed to their inability to embrace technology.

User attitude towards usage (ATU)

Singleton, Remillard, Mitzner, and Rogers (2018) explored technology use among 109 older Deaf adults. They investigated attitudes, adoption style, and frequency of use for assistive technologies for persons with hearing loss and other general technologies. They found that older Deaf adults were technology adopters and regularly use and feel comfortable with a variety of devices. However, they also identified several technologies that are not being used, including assistive technologies that have obsolete sound-based alert technology.

Not everyone in the Deaf community is accepting or open to technology to bridge the gap between individuals who are hearing and those who are Deaf or hard of hearing. There are at least two groups within the community with differing opinions. Some people refer to themselves as deaf with a lower case “d,” and others refer to themselves as Deaf with a capital “D” (Deaf website.com, 2005-2013). For deaf individuals, technology is perceived positively, while Deaf individuals may take pride in traditional forms of communication amongst deaf people (i.e., signed language) and may limit their use of technology as a way of communicating.

Assistive Technology

There are many resources that individuals that are challenged with hearing disabilities could tap into. Because being Deaf or hard of hearing prevents people from being aware of many of the auditory aspects that hearing people take for granted, much of the technology that is available is of an assistive nature. Some of the assistive technology commonly used by members of the Deaf Community is presented in Table 1. Assistive technology can help D/deaf and hard of hearing students learn more effectively. Technologies range in sophistication from “low” (e.g., a graphic organizer worksheet) to “high” (e.g., cutting-edge software and smartphone apps). Assistive technologies are growing and dynamic tools.

Many of the assistive technology commonly used by D/deaf and hard of hearing people are presented below:

Assistive Technologies for the Deaf

FM Systems – According to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), FM systems may be the best choice for some children who experience sensorineural hearing loss, which is the most common type of hearing loss experienced by people of all ages. Sensorineural hearing loss occurs when the inner ear or nerve pathways from the inner ear to the brain are damaged. Radio broadcast technology is used to make FM systems function. Using transmitter microphones and receivers, teachers and students are able to maintain consistent sound levels regardless of distance and background noise. ASHA also notes that hearing aid microphones may be turned off to allow students to concentrate on the teacher alone (Neese, 2015).

Assistive Learning System – Assistive technology can help students who are deaf or hard of hearing and those with other auditory and learning problems. Neese (2015) writes that according to the National Association for the Deaf, assistive listening systems can improve the reach and effectiveness of hearing aids and cochlear implants. Such systems use microphones and transmission technology for capturing and bringing sound to the ear. The specific technology used in a system is typically differentiates one type of assistive listening technology from another.

Technology as Tools for Communication

Advances in technology can improve quality of life for individuals who are D/deaf or hard of hearing. The following are technologies that would enhance hearing for the Deaf individuals (Szczerba, 2015).

MotionSavvy UNI – This technology was found by a team of students from Rochester Institute of Technology’s National Technical Institute for the Deaf. This two-way communication software translates American Sign Language (ASL) into speech, and speech into text utilizing a special camera that tracks the location of the hands and fingers. Live feedback is provided through graphic representations of the hands ensuring gestures are captured accurately. The software’s dictionary is customizable signs and an option is available to upload additional signs to the Internet to share with others. The more an individual uses the system, the more accurate and tailored it becomes. The package also includes voice recognition software called Dragon Nuance Pro (Szczerba, 2015).

ISEEWHATYOUSAY – ISEEWHATYOUSAY This smartphone app captures spoken language, converts it to text, and is then able to send the text through Bluetooth to the device of a remote user. It offers a specialized receiving device about the size of a flash stick, and apps to receive the text on smartphones and wearables.

Hayleigh’s Cherished Charms: Sometimes a low-tech innovation can have as big an impact as their high-tech counterparts. A ten year old girl named Hayleigh noticed that many of her deaf and hard of hearing classmates hid their hearing aids behind their hair. She said that she wanted to make her hearing aids shine and be fancy, so that she could take pride in wearing them. She started designing jewelry that can best be described as “hearing aid bling.”

This image from http://www.hayleighscherishedcharms.com is included on the basis of fair use.

Technological Advances and their Effect on Deaf Culture

Technological advances, such as telephones, TTYs, hearing aids, FM systems, and Cochlear implants impact opportunities and sometimes challenge the culture of Deaf and hard of hearing people. To understand the impact technology has had on D/deaf and hard of hearing users, an in-depth review of some of the most significant technological inventions is needed. One of the first notable inventions affecting users who are D/deaf and hard of hearing was the telephone, which was patented by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876 (Lee, 2012). Over the next 100 years, individuals who are D/deaf or hard of hearing experienced many challenges. For example, at work, communications began to occur primarily through telephone operations, resulting in fewer positions for D/deaf employees because they were unable to perform tasks associated with the telephone. In 1964, the teletypewriter, or TTY, offered both mobility and accessibility to individuals who were Deaf or hard of hearing (Bacon, 2005). The development of the TTY by Weitbrecht, Masters, and Saks radically improved the quality of life for members of the Deaf Community by improving access for both Deaf and hearing communities in areas of socializing, emergency situations, and employment (Bowe, 2002). Bowe also indicated that while the TTY was able to improve communication in its time, more recent advances in cellular phones with texting capabilities, have made devices like the TTY obsolete (Bowe, 2002).

The development of the Internet and video streaming has allowed D/deaf, hard of hearing, and hearings users of signed languages to communicate across space and time zones. Exploration of the development and manipulation of computer-mediated images, new participation frameworks, and specifics of language change in digital communicative spaces are underway (Keating & Mirus, 2003).

Methods and Technologies Geared Towards Deaf Communication

Information on the methods and technologies geared towards Deaf communication are found in many places on the Internet; especially at Deaf website.com. “Assistech,” a company based in Farmingdale, New York, provides assistive technologies for people with many differing abilities. Individuals who might benefit from Assistech include people who are d/Deaf, hard of hearing, or blind, as well as those who experience mobility/dexterity issues, memory loss, and cognitive disorders. TeachThought Staff (2019) also presented assistive technology tools geared towards D/deaf communication. Some of the technologies are presented below.

Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) – The TDD is an electronic device for text communication through a telephone line. The TDD is a device that is about the size of a small laptop computer. This device has a standard keyboard and a small screen where text is displayed electronically. TDDs may have a small spool of paper on which text is printed. The text is transmitted in real time over a telephone line to a compatible device. In some countries where there are Telecommunications Relay Services, D/deaf people can communicate with a hearing person who is using a voice telephone through a human relay operator. “Carry-over” services enable people who can hear but not speak (“hearing carry-over”) or people who are unable to hear but are able to speak (“voice carry-over”) to use the telephone with assistance from a relay operator (Deaf website.com, 2005-2013).

Captioned Telephones – A captioned telephone is a telephone that displays real-time captions of a conversation so that an oral deaf person or a person who become deaf later in life is able to make phone calls. Captions are displayed on a screen embedded in the base of the telephone. Some captioned telephones can function like voice carry-over (VCO) by switching the device to VCO mode. This allows for communication with an hearing carry-over users or hearing users directly and without relay (Deaf website.com, 2005-2013).

Video Conferencing – Anyone who prefers to make telephone calls using sign language and the Internet can use IP Video Relay Service (IP-VRS). Using a Video Interpreter and web camera one can communicate with voice telephone users in a preferred language, which is most natural to use. Video Interpreters may have professional training and/or certification.

IP Relay Quick Connect – This is the fastest and easiest way to place calls from a cell phone or over the Internet. One can connect instantly from a computer, make multiple calls, choose between split and single screen view, and print and save conversations. Calls are free in some countries. Calls may be placed with IP Relay through instant messaging.

T-Mobile Sidekick – The Sidekick is a text-based communications mobile device. Sidekicks also access email and have a full QWERTY keyboard. This device provided a telecommunications tool for use both inside and outside the home for members of  the deaf community. The Sidekick and similar devices have often replaced the use of the TTY/TDD machines.

Other Communication Methods that may be Used by Individuals

who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing as listed at Assistech (2019)

Real-Time Captioning – “Real-time captioning” provides communication between people who are hearing and those who are Deaf or hard of hearing. A transcriber types the speaker’s words typically using a laptop computer. Once typed, the words appear in text on a screen, so the Deaf or hard of hearing person can follow what the speaker is saying in written form. This service is useful for people who can read and understand a written language (Assistech, 2019).

Pen and Paper – When other methods are not readily available, note-taking (or similar variants) have been the most popular option for communicating with individuals who are Deaf or hard of hearing. Most businesses can successfully communicate short and simple conversations with customers who are Deaf or hard of hearing by using gestures and notes (Assistech, 2019).

Conclusion

Integrating technology that supports mediated visual learning tools will help Deaf and hard of hearing learners to develop social skills and achieve the higher education that will give them the tools they need to enhance and enrich their lives. The use of technology for visual learning helps break through the barriers of isolation that affect both hearing and Deaf and hard of hearing students and brings education closer to achieving a Universal Design for Learning that reaches a broad range of students. School leaders, teachers and most importantly, pre-service teachers should be groomed to appreciate the adoption of technology for the better and positive advancement of education in Ghana.

References

Assistech (2019). Deaf communication. Available online at: https://assistech.com/store/deaf-communication.

Bacon, P. (2005, Feb 18). PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/soundandfury/culture/deafhistory.html. Retrieved August 10, 2018.

Bowe, F. G. (2002). Deaf and hard of hearing Americans’ instant messaging and e-mail use: A national survey. American Annals of the Deaf, 147(4), 6-10.

Chen, S. Shing-Han, L., Chien-Yi., L. (2011). Recent related research in technology acceptance model: A literature review. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research. 2011;1(9): 124.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A Comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.

Deaf website.com, (2005-2013). Technology and deaf culture. http://www.deafwebsites.com/technology/technology-for-deaf.html. Retrieved August 10, 2018.

Fredua, A. (2007). Ghana: Why neglect the Deaf? Available at http://allafrica.com/stories/200912080844.html. Retrieved August 10, 2018.

Guimarães, C. C., Antunes, D. R., García, L.S., Peres, L. M, & Fernandes, S. (2012). Conceptual meta-environment for Deaf children Literacy challenge: How to design effective Artifacts for bilingual construction. Available online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235793362_Conceptual_meta-environment_for_Deaf_children_Literacy_challenge_How_to_design_effective_Artifacts_for_bilingualism_construction. Retrieved August 10, 2018.

Joshua Project (2018). Deaf in Ghana. https://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/19007/GH. Retrieved August 08, 2018.

Keating, E., & Mirus, G. (2003). American Sign Language in virtual space: Interactions between deaf users of computer-mediated video communication and the impact of technology on language practices. Language in Society, 32(5), 693-714. doi:10.1017/S0047404503325047.

Kurnia S, Smith S, & Lee H. (2005). Consumers perception of mobile Internet in Australia, Department of information systems. Available at https://people.eng.unimelb.edu.au/sherahk/Papers/Mobile%20Internet%20Paper_Submitted.pdf. Retrieved August 10, 2018.

Lee, C. L. (2012). Technological advancements and their affect on deaf culture. Available: http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/topics/technological-advancements-effect-deaf-culture.htm. Retrieved August 8, 2018.

Mugo, D. G., Njagi, K., Chemwei, B., Motanya, J. O., (2017). The technology acceptance model (TAM) and its application to the utilization of mobile learning technologies. British Journal of Mathematics & Computer Science 20(4): 1-8.

National Commission on Tertiary Education (NCTE), Ghana Report, (2006)

Neese, B., B. (2015). 5 Assistive technology tools that are making a difference. Retrieved https://online.alvernia.edu/5-assistive-technology-tools-that-are-making-a-difference. Retrieved August 8, 2018.

People and Language Profile (2013). Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/docad/Documents/deaf%20community%20in%20Ghana1.pdf

Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 Working Conference on Diffusion, Transfer and Implementation of Information Technology Pages 67-86. October 11 – 13, 1993

Saga, V. L., & Zmud, R., W., (1993). The nature and determinants of IT acceptance, routinization, and infusion. IFIP Transactions A: Computer Science and Technology. 8. 67-86.

Singleton, J. L., Remillard, E. T., Mitzner, T. L., & Rogers, W. A. (2018). Everyday technology use among older deaf adults, Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2018.1447609.

Summet, V. H. (2010). Facilitating communication for deaf individuals with mobile technologies. PhD thesis. Retrieved from: https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/33878/summet_valerie_h_201005_phd.pdf. Retrieved August 10, 2018.

Szczerba, R. J. (2015). Game-changing technologies for the deaf and hard of hearing. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertszczerba/2015/04/21/4-game-changing-technologies-for-the-deaf-and-hard-of-hearing/#65fe49c570a8. Retrieved August 10, 2018.

TeachThought Staff (2019). 15 assistive technology tools &resources for students with disabilities. Available online at https://teachthought.com/technology/15-assistive-technology-tools-resources-for-students-with-disabilities/

Zakary, G. P. (2002). The lesson from West Africa: good computers and fast modems don’t matter if you can’t get a dial tone and the power keeps going out. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/401607/ghanas-digital-dilemma. Retrieved August 8, 2018.