SUNGMIN IM and OK-JA KIM

AN APPROACH TO TEACH SCIENCE TO STUDENTS

WITH LIMITED LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY: IN THE CASE
OF STUDENTS WITH HEARING IMPAIRMENT
Received: 31 March 2012; Accepted: 3 March 2013

ABSTRACT. For over two decades, there has been increasing concern regarding the
science learning of disadvantaged students such as indigenous or disabled students. The
academic achievement of students with hearing impairment has been seen as relatively
low. This low achievement has been mainly due to students poor literal ability and not
because of their low intellectual ability. Interactive experiences and the repeated use of
previously learned terms have been suggested as being important to improve their literacy.
In addition, it is well recognized that for all students to experience success in science
education, literacy needs to be considered as a crucial factor when setting educational
goals among students with limited language proficiency. This study presents a strategy for
teaching science to students with limited language proficiency based on a teaching
strategy which deliberately focuses on written expression in the context of hands-on
scientific activities. The influence of this teaching strategy upon hearing impaired
students language proficiency and inquiry skills was also examined. Results revealed the
students language proficiency was enhanced in terms of fluency of expression, and their
inquiry skills were also improved as compared to the students in a control group among
whom the teaching strategy was not used. These results demonstrated that this teaching
strategy which focuses on students written expression and inquiry skills through scientific
activity can improve the literacy of students with limited language proficiency as well as
increase their learning success in science.
KEY WORDS: hearing impairment, inquiry skill, language proficiency

INTRODUCTION
With the emergence of science for all as a key concept of contemporary
science education, there has been an increasing emphasis on understanding the state of science learning among disadvantaged students, such as
indigenous students and students with disabilities. A number of studies
which focus on disadvantaged students have adopted critical or cultural
historical views with postmodern and feminist thinking in science
education (Wong, 2001). Such research has led to the insistence that the
inequalities in contemporary society must be addressed and that
educational researchers should develop practical ways to provide equal
opportunities for all students (Seiler & Elemsky, 2005). For example,
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (2014) 12: 1393Y1406
# National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

1394

SUNGMIN IM AND OK-JA KIM

Kincheloe (2005) suggested that the term critical constructivism from the
perspective of doing educational research means exploring new ways of
understanding educational phenomena and changing those aspects of
education which bring about injustice, pain, and suffering (Kincheloe &
Tobin, 2006).
On the other hand, many studies in this category have focused on
seeking more effective teaching strategies for disadvantaged students.
When teaching students with disabilities, the activity-oriented
(Mastropieri, Scruggs & Magnusen, 1999; Mastropieri & Scruggs,
1992; MacDogall, Schnur, Berger & Vernon, 1981) and the studentcentered inquiry (Scruggs, Mastropieri, Bakken & Brighan, 1993; Bay,
Staver, Bryan & Hale, 1992) approaches have been suggested as being
more effective in assisting students in learning than the traditional
teacher-centered lecture approach. The cultural adaptive approach has
also been used to improve science education, especially among
disadvantaged students. Attempts have been made to improve science
curriculum and instruction by focusing on the sociocultural aspects of
science and science education (Pak, 2001). However, few practical
strategies have been presented in the literature which makes science
education culturally adaptive for students with disabilities.
Students with hearing impairment are known to have lower literal
ability compared to other healthy students. This is not due to lower
cognitive ability but due to their limited experience of communication
with written language (Kim & Choi, 1990). This limited experience of
communication may explain the relatively low achievement in cognitive
understanding and the consequent low inquiry skill in science learning
among such students (Park, 2000).
Intuitively, one might consider teaching science to the the deaf as
being much easier than teaching science to the blind because most
information and activities are dependent on visual inputs. However,
special education experts contend that the opposite is true. A number of
educators, including the authors of this study, have tried to find more
effective ways of teaching science to students with disabilities and in
doing so have learned experientially that teaching science to students with
hearing impairments are much more difficult than to students who are
visually impaired. Students with hearing impairments are usually apt to
show a lack of attention, low interest, and deficiency of basic
understanding. Students with visual impairment, on the other hand, can
follow much of their teachers science instruction as long as the students
are provided with appropriate curriculum and materials (Toriyama, 2006).
These differences between these two groups of students may be rooted in

LIMITED LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

1395

their limited language proficiency with written language, because

blind students seem to have relatively better language proficiency
than deaf students. We can therefore infer that students with limited
language proficiency, irrespective of the reason, be it physical or
sociocultural, will have limited chances to master the contents in
learning science.
The role of language in science learning has attracted researchers
interest with the premise that language may not only be the most
important medium but also a major barrier in learning science
(Wellington & Ireson, 2008). Although discourse and communication
have become increasingly important areas for research in science
education, few studies have focused on the role and function of language
as a tool for general communication. The main target of research in
science education has been towards students who are assumed to have no
special communication problems. Given that language proficiency is
considered to play an important role for successful learning, we can
anticipate some problems in learning science among students with limited
language abilities. Therefore, the role of language should be considered as
the most important aspect of learning science, especially for students with
hearing impairments. However, there have been few studies conducted on
the role of language in learning science among students with hearing
impairments.
The purpose of this study is to propose a practical approach for
teaching science to students with hearing impairments with the aim of
achieving equity of science education among disadvantaged students. We
focused on two research tasks:
First, we investigated the role of language in learning science
among students with limited language proficiency and hearing
impairments.
Second, we investigated the use of a teaching strategy designed for
students with limited language proficiency and its effectiveness in
teaching science to students with hearing impairments.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Science Learning of Students with Limited Language Proficiency
Although the main features of science learning are logical thinking and
practical tasks such as observation, experimental work, forming hypotheses, and data interpretation, most learning activities are dependent on

1396

SUNGMIN IM AND OK-JA KIM

language. As Vygotsky noted, children solve practical tasks with the

help of their speech as well as their eyes and hands (Vygotsky, 1978).
Using language for communication and inquiry is the main tool for
learning science which provides students with a way for thinking and
constructing understanding (Lee, 2001). Students gain their social and
academic identities through language (Reveles, Cordova & Kelly, 2004).
Even scientific thought is considered to be possible through language
(Lee, 2004).
However, many studies have reported generally low language
proficiency and low academic achievement of marginalized students such
as foreign language learners of immigrant parents and foreign language
learners who have disabilities. The cultural and linguistic backgrounds of
foreign language learners are not advantageous for their academic success
for sociocultural reasons (Vang, 2005). Among students who are deaf or
have hearing impairments, their physical impairments prevent them
from achieving proper language proficiency and consequent learning.
Students with hearing impairments generally show retardation in
understanding and written language expression (Kwon, 1989), while
the intellectual abilities of deaf students are not lower than that of the
non-deaf (Braden, 1992). For example, the literacy of 11th grade deaf
students was similar to the literacy of second grade non-deaf students
(Kim & Choi, 1990). Some studies have found a correlation between
deaf students reading and achievement in science (Chang, Cheong &
Cheong, 1999). Even though this may suggest an absence of any
correlation between hearing impairment and intellectual abilities, there
may be some relationship between hearing impairment and their
language ability which could lead to low achievement in science
(Kuder, 2003).
Science Education for Language Proficiency
Hence, what should be the aim of science education for students with
limited language proficiency? Traditionally, an understanding of basic
concepts in science and the ability to utilize inquiry skills to solve
everyday life problems (i.e. to enhance scientific literacy) have been
major goals of science education. However, many researches have
postulated language proficiency as one of the most important factors
of successful learning in all subject matter education. Thus, to
improve language proficiency might be a more fundamental goal of
science education for students with limited language proficiency due
to hearing impairment.

LIMITED LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

1397

The main task in deaf education is to raise the communication skills of

students through language education. Several approaches, such as the
inductive approach in a structured context, exposure to written language
in a natural context (Lee & Shin, 2003), and repeated use of vocabulary in
meaningful communication settings, have been suggested (Groht, 1958).
Language education for students with hearing impairments is similar to
that for foreign language learners. In the light of foreign language
acquisition, a bilingual approach that considers written language as the
second language, known as the Bicultural and Bilingual (2Bi) approach,
has been suggested (Choi, 2007).

Proposed Teaching Strategy to Improve Language Proficiency

in Learning Science
In consideration of such approaches, science education can contribute to
the literal education of students with hearing impairment because science
can provide natural and structured context for utilizing literal
communication. Intentional exposure and repetition of key vocabulary
words in the context of science hands-on activities might be an
effective approach to enhancing students language proficiency as in
the case of foreign language acquisition. If students language
proficiency can be enhanced, their achievement in science may also
be improved due to the critical role of language in learning science.
Language proficiency and scientific inquiry are dialectically related.
Thus, to enhance language proficiency in the context of concrete scientific
inquiry activities is an effective way to enhance the achievement in
science learning.
In this study, we present an alternative approach to teach science
to students with hearing impairments. This approach has five key
features. This approach (1) focuses on logical and procedural thinking
in a structured context, (2) is a content-oriented approach of language
education with scientific hands-on activities, (3) aims to give
intentional exposure to reading and writing with guided manual and
guided report writing, (4) applies foreign language learning for the
purpose of enhancing students language proficiency by scientific
activity, and (5) is premised on the belief that language proficiency is
strongly correlated with scientific inquiry skills for the purpose of
enhancing science learning. The successive sections present the detailed
procedures and features of the proposed approach and examine its
effectiveness among students.

1398

SUNGMIN IM AND OK-JA KIM

RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE

Development of the Instructional Strategy
An instructional strategy developed for this study was designed based on
scientific hands-on activity with guided report writing which focused on
reading and writing. The scientific hands-on activity was adapted to give
students practical experience so as to motivate their thinking and
communication. Through scientific activity, science can serve as a tool
of interactive communication. Guided manual and report writing should
be followed in doing scientific hands-on activity, so as to activate
communication with written language. Intentional exposure to and
exercise of key vocabulary words, as used during foreign language
learning, were used during the scientific activity. Following is a detailed
description of key features of the strategy.
Scientific Hands-on Activities. A structured context for learning.
Scientific activity has a strong procedural structure in nature and
needs logical and procedural thinking to be performed successfully.
The scientific activities in this study engaged students in using
logical and procedural thinking in a structured context. We used four
difference hands-on activities: (1) magnetic dragon fly, (2) hand
battery, (3) electrostatic tray, and (4) Theres always air! (Fig. 1).
These activities were constructed with four basic criteria: simple, easy,
interesting, and safe. The materials consisted of an instruction manual and
report form with blanks for students to fill in (Fig. 2)and a small kit
including all materials for students to conduct scientific inquiry during the
activity.

Figure 1. Examples of the small kit for scientific hands-on activity: a hand battery and b
Theres always air!

LIMITED LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

1399

Figure 2. An example of a an instruction manual and b the guided report writing with a
guide of procedure and blank quiz

Instruction Manual for Activity: Intentional Exercise for Reading and

Sequential Thinking. Students were provided with an instruction manual
for each activity to explain the procedures of the activity and execute the
tasks in the activity. The manual used easy literal expressions and pictures
in consideration of the students literal ability, in order to provide an
intentional exercise for reading and sequential thinking. The manual
contained simple writing quizzes to make students reflect on the
procedure and materials needed for the activity. The manual repeatedly
used several key vocabulary words such as observe, measure, describe,
and explain, for foreign language learning
Guided Report Writing: Intentional Exercise for Writing and Reflective
Thinking. Students were asked to make a report for each scientific activity.
The report was guided by the same construction as the report presented in the
instruction manual. The guided report had a semi-open structure and required
students to respond to several simple quizzes. For example, students were
asked to describe the procedure they followed and answer questions about
their results and conclusion
To make a guided report, the students had to reflect on the procedure
and results, and express their actions in an appropriated or guided way
of writing. An example of such appropriated or guided way of writing
was the use of literal expressions which are commonly used during
scientific activities.

1400

SUNGMIN IM AND OK-JA KIM

Research Population and Applying the Strategy

Before applying the proposed strategy in the science classroom, the four
different scientific hands-on activities were pilot tested among 30 students
with hearing impairments in a 1-day program of a science fair for disabled
students. By pilot testing these activities, we could modify the level of
difficulty of the learning activities and the vocabulary used in the
instruction manual according to students responses. After these modifications were made, the four scientific hands-on activities were then used
among a second group of students.
The second group of students consisted of 13 students from two classes in a
special school for the deaf in South Korea. One class consisting of five
students was used as the experiment group, and the other class with eight
students was used as the control group. The purpose of using an experimental
group and a control group was to compare the effectiveness of the instructional
strategy supporting these activities. The science teacher who taught both
groups used the traditional ways of teaching science among the students in the
control group and adopted the use of the scientific activities designed in this
study among the students in the experimental group for a period of 1 month.
The teacher was fully informed of the study purpose and had taught both
groups prior to implementing the use of the scientific activities.
Of the students who participated in this study, two students were totally
deaf, and the remaining students had hearing impairments with the minimum
intensity of sound to hear ranging from 62.5 to 103.8 dB in spite of their
hearing aids. The students with hearing impairments of the control group
were taught using both sign language and partly written language expression.
However, for the experimental group, the teacher and students were asked to
focus on written language communication with a notebook and pen.
Tools for Examining the Effect of the Strategy
To examine the effectiveness of the strategy used in this study, the
authors investigated the change of the students language proficiency and
inquiry skill after learning. To investigate the students language
proficiency before and after application of the strategy, the authors asked
the students to respond to 15 general open-ended questions (e.g.
Introduce yourself briefly, How do you think about science?, and
How can you cook noodles?). The students were encouraged to write
down their own idea as best as they could in writing. The students
language proficiency was then measured according to the eight criteria
shown in Table 1. Each criterion was converted into numeric values so
that a quantitative analysis could be conducted on the students answers.

LIMITED LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

1401

TABLE 1
Criteria of language proficiency in free responding questions

Fluency of
expression

Criteria

Content

Number of
vocabulary

As many as vocabulary used in a sentence,

student can express her/his own idea more
fluently.
As many as postpositional words properly used
in a sentence, student can use literal expression
more precisely in Korean.
As many as predicate verbs used properly in a
sentence, student can express her/his idea more
apparently.
As many as subjects used in a sentence, student
can express her/his idea more apparently.
As less as errors in spelling in a sentence, student
can use literal expression exactly.
As less as errors in word order in a sentence,
student can use literal expression exactly.
As less as errors in concord with subject and
verb in a sentence, student can use literal
expression exactly.
As less as indifferent contents in a sentence,
student can understand the question rightly.

Number of
postpositional words
Number of predicate
verbs
Number of subjects
Grammatical
errors

Error in spelling
Error in word order
Error in concord with
subject and verb
Indifferent sentence

To investigate the students inquiry skill as a result of applying the

strategy of this study, the authors used a survey tool adopted from Park
(2000). Parks survey tool consisted of 20 multiple choice questions
which evaluated students basic and integrated inquiry skills according to
nine criteria: observation, measurement, classification, expectation,
inference, data transformation, data interpretation, variable control, and
making hypothesis. The students responses were evaluated quantitatively
by the right answer ratio.

RESULTS
Language Proficiency
The authors used the students responses from the language proficiency
and inquiry skill surveys as evidence for the effectiveness of the strategy
on students sense of meaningful science learning. Only responses from

1402

SUNGMIN IM AND OK-JA KIM

four of the five students in the experimental group were used in the
analysis because one of the students could not finish the whole lesson.
The responses of all eight students of the control group were compared
with four students of the experimental group.
Comparisons of the students responses on language proficiency
according to the eight criteria revealed that the participants language
proficiency had improved in fluency of expression. According to the
quantitative result shown in Table 2, the experiment group exhibited an
increase in fluency of expression. Students were found to express their
own ideas using longer sentences even if they tended to make
grammatical errors. The students in the control group, however, did
not exhibit any apparent improvement in both fluency of expression
and grammar. An independent t test showed that differences in criteria
of language proficiency between experiment group and control group
were statistically meaningful. Despite an increase of grammatical errors,
we inferred that the students language proficiency was enhanced in
that they could express themselves more fluently with more words,
although their expressions contained grammatical errors. We believe
the fluency of expression is more important in learning science than
grammatical correctness.

TABLE 2
Comparison of students language proficiency
Change of score

Criteria
Fluency of
expression

Grammatical
error

pG0.05

Number of vocabulary
Number of postpositional
words
Number of predicate
verbs
Number of subjects
Error in spelling
Error in word order
Error in concord with
subject and verb
Indifferent sentence

Experiment
group
(n = 4)

Control
group
(n = 8)

60.25
23.75

5.13
1.75

8.22**
7.18**

0.000
0.000

8.50

0.38

3.16*

0.010

5.75
6.75
0.75
5.00

3.38
1.63
0.50
0.38

0.93
3.87**
2.49*
6.57**

0.375
0.003
0.032
0.000

2.50

1.75

3.37**

0.007

t value

p value

1403

LIMITED LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

Inquiry Skill
The students inquiry skills also improved in line with previous research
for deaf students (Park, 2000). The average ratio of correct answer was
51.4 %, compared to 40.5 % for the previous research and 40.3 % for the
control group. The participants of the experimental group showed
increased competencies in the criteria of observation, measurement,
classification, data transformation, and variable control. The other criteria
relating to their abilities were similar or poorer than in the control group
(Table 3).

DISCUSSION
For more meaningful education of marginalized students, culturally
adaptive teaching in consideration of the individual and sociocultural
background of the students is necessary (Tobin, 2005). The limited
language proficiency of students with hearing impairments is a critical
factor to understand their learning of science. Therefore, in this study, the
authors weighed the language proficiency of the research participants
critically and then deliberately focused on written language expression
though scientific hands-on activities. An approach was proposed to teach

TABLE 3
Comparison of the students inquiry skill
Average ratio of correct answer (%)

Criteria
Observation
Measurement
Classification
Expectation
Inference
Data transformation
Data interpretation
Variable control
Making hypothesis
Average

Experiment group
(n = 4)

Control group
(n = 8)

Previous result by Park

(2000) (n = 25)

50.0
75.0
75.0
37.5
37.5
75.0
50.0
50.0
12.5
51.4

43.8
31.3
50.0
50.0
56.3
37.5
56.3
25.0
12.5
40.3

41
64
52
42
40
30
40
38
18
40.5

1404

SUNGMIN IM AND OK-JA KIM

science to students with limited language proficiency by using a teaching

strategy which focused on written language expression in the context of
scientific hands-on activities. The premise of this approach was that science
can contribute to language education for students with limited language
proficiency. We believed that the activities in scientific inquiry could
activate communication with written language in a structural and procedural
context. This approach emphasized students performance through the use of
an instruction manual and report writing. This approach shares an important
aspect of other alternative teaching approaches in science which is to allow
meaning-making by students. However, this approach differs from other
similar approaches in that it took a bilingual approach which considered
written language as the second language. Based on students background of
limited language proficiency, this approach explicitly focused on written
expression of basic vocabulary words in the procedures of scientific inquiry,
such as foreign language learning.
The application of the proposed strategy to a group of students with
hearing impairments revealed the possibility of effective science teaching
for disadvantaged students, especially those with limited language proficiency. The results showed that students of the experimental group who were
structurally exposed to written language expression through scientific handson activities enhanced their language proficiency in fluency of expression
and performed better in basic and integrated inquiry at a written form of
investigation, even during the short period of the strategys application, than
students of the control group.
However, there is an inherited limitation in generalizing the results of
this study. This study only involved a small number of students for a
short period of time. Even though it might be difficult to increase the
number of disabled students, a larger number of participants would be
preferred for the purpose of conducting a more critical ethnographical
approach with sociocultural perspectives to raise the validity of a study.
Thus, the authors hope to reconfirm the present study results
qualitatively and ethnographically. In addition, we will seek to extend
our experience and intuition through successive studies and explore
more appropriate ways of teaching science to disadvantaged students.
We anticipate that such research should consider students learning in
the social and cultural dimensions, not only in the individual cognitive
dimension.
We hope that the strategy of this study will be suitable for those who
need special educational support and be applicable to all other students.
On this basis, we plan to enlarge the strategy into a general science
teaching strategy for all kinds of students, especially low achievers.

LIMITED LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

1405

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by the Daegu University Research Grant, 2011.

REFERENCES
Bay, M., Staver, J. R., Bryan, T. & Hale, J. B. (1992). Science instruction for the mildly
handicapped: Direct instruction versus discovery teaching. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 29(6), 355376.
Braden, B. A. (1992). Intellectual assessment of deaf and hard of hearing people: A
quantitative and qualitative research synthesis. School Psychology Review, 21, 8294.
Chang, M.-D., Cheong, C. & Cheong, J.-W. (1999). The relation between reading ability,
inquiry skill and achievement of elementary school students. Journal of Korean Earth
Science Society, 20(2), 137142.
Choi, S.-K. (2007). Vygotskys view and contribution on bicultural and bilingual
approach for the hearing impaired. The Journal of Special Education: Theory and
Practice, 8(4), 633653.
Groht, M. A. (1958). Natural language for deaf children. Washington, D. C.: Alexander
Graham Bell Association for the Deaf.
Kim, B.-H. & Choi, Y.-J. (1990). An analysis of literacy of hearing impaired students.
Communication Disorder, 13(2), 526.
Kincheloe, J. (2005). Critical constructivism. New York: Peter Lang.
Kincheloe, J. & Tobin, K. (2006). Doing educational research in a complex world. In K.
Tobin & J. Kincheloe (Eds.), Doing educational research: A handbook. Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Kuder, S. J. (2003). Teaching students with language and communication disabilities (2nd
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Kwon, Y.-H. (1989). A study on literal education for the deaf students. Seoul: The Kumok
Foundation of Academy.
Lee, O. (2001). Culture and language in science education: What do we know and what
do we need to know? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 499501.
Lee, Y. (2004). Science seen by mind. Seoul: Gyoyuk-gwahaksa.
Lee, P.-S. & Shin, S.-J. (2003). The effect of whole language program on the language
development of hearing impaired children. Communication Disorder, 26(2), 331.
MacDogall, A., Schnur, R., Berger, C. & Vernon, D. (1981). The use of activity-centered
science activities to facilitate the mainstreaming of elementary school children with
special needs. Science Education, 65(5), 467475.
Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. E. (1992). Science for students with disabilities. Review
of Educational Research, 62(4), 377411.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E. & Magnusen, M. (1999). Activities-oriented science
instruction for students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 240249.
Pak, S.-J. (2001). Physics education in cultural context: Issues, approaches, and
perspectives. In Y. Park (Ed.), Teaching and learning of physics in cultural contexts.
Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.
Park, H. (2000). A study on assessment of scientific inquiry skill of students with hearing
impairment. Masters thesis, Kookmin University.

1406

SUNGMIN IM AND OK-JA KIM

Reveles, J. M., Cordova, R. & Kelly, G. J. (2004). Science literacy and academic identity
formulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 11111144.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Bakken, J. P. & Brighan, F. F. (1993). Reading versus
doing: The relative effects of textbook-based and inquiry-oriented approaches to science
learning in special education classrooms. The Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 1
15.
Seiler, G. & Elemsky, R. (2005). The who, what, where, and how of our urban
ethnographic research. In K. Tobin, R. Elemsky & G. Seiler (Eds.), Improving urban
science education: New roles for teachers, students, and researchers. Lanham:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Tobin, K. (2005). Urban science as a culturally and socially adaptive practice. In K.
Tobin, R. Elmesky & G. Seiler (Eds.), Improving urban science education: New roles
for teachers, students and researchers. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Toriyama, Y. (2006). Proceedings of international seminar on science education for the
less represented students. Gyeongsan: Daegu University.
Vang, C. T. (2005). Minority students are far from academic success and still at-risk in
public schools. Multicultural Education, 12(4), 915.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wellington, J. & Ireson, G. (2008). Science learning, science teaching. New York:
Routledge.
Wong, D. (2001). Perspectives on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
38(3), 279281.
Department of Science Education
Daegu University
201 Daegudae-ro, Jillyang, Gyeongsan, Gyeongbuk, South Korea 712-714
E-mail: ismphs@daegu.ac.kr