Increasing Teachers' Understanding of Dual Language (ASL/English) Use in the Classroom: Content and Exemplars Through Educational Technology

Transcription

1 Increasing Teachers' Understanding of Dual Language (ASL/English) Use in the Classroom: Content and Exemplars Through Educational Technology Elizabeth A. DiGello, M.S. Jenny L. Singleton, Ph.D. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign This project was supported by a University of Illinois Office of Educational Technology PT3 Minigrant to awarded to Singleton and DiGello and a Research Grant awarded to Singleton by the University of Illinois Research Board in Fall For further information about this project contact: Elizabeth DiGello digello@uiuc.edu A paper presented at the W06P 1

2 Abstract Information regarding metalinguistic awareness and dual language acquisition issues is beneficial to teachers of the deaf but receives little attention in current teacher preparation programs. To describe and model the dual language use of American Sign Language and English in classrooms serving deaf children, we developed a CD-ROM-based multimedia instructional tool oriented to teachers of the deaf. Exciting advances in educational technology have created opportunities for ASL integration (via embedded digital video clips) into instructional materials. In the current pilot tool, dual language (ASL and English) issues facing deaf children in the classroom are explained in ASL and English using embedded video clips, thus making the tool linguistically accessible to deaf and hearing educators. Video examples of classroom vignettes are also included to illustrate the tool's lesson objectives. The program not only communicates the lesson objectives but also serves as a model for teachers on how to use dual language (ASL and English) representations effectively with instructional technology. The pilot tool was examined by focus groups comprised of educators of the deaf. This poster presentation will focus on development of instructional media, lesson objectives, and evaluation of the tool by focus group participants. A paper presented at the W06P 2

3 Currently, the most common form of communication in the deaf education classroom is Simultaneous Communication, a combination of a Manually Coded English signed system (MCE; e.g., SEE, SEE-II) and spoken English. By using Simultaneous Communication, teachers attempt to present English via two modalities with the goal of enhancing deaf children s literacy development. The literacy skills of deaf students, however, have not improved significantly since Simultaneous Communication became the common practice in classrooms. Recent studies (e.g., Hoffmeister, 2000; Mayberry, Lock & Kazmi, 2002; Padden & Ramsey, 2000; Strong & Prinz, 1997) have found that deaf students with stronger American Sign Language (ASL) skills demonstrate stronger English literacy skills (e.g., reading comprehension, written narratives) than their peers with weaker ASL skills. Moreover, Israelite, Ewoldt, and Hoffmeister (1992) summarized key studies comparing deaf children born to deaf parents (with presumably native ASL proficiency) with deaf children born to hearing parents (with presumably non-native ASL proficiency) and concluded that children born to deaf parents outperform those children born to hearing parents on different English tasks. Based on these findings citing the important contribution of ASL proficiency upon development of stronger English skills, recent initiatives such as the Star Schools Project (Nover & Andrews, 2001) have supported the inclusion of ASL in deaf education and have promoted the adoption of bilingual-biculturalism (ASL/English) instead of Simultaneous Communication as the classroom language approach. Similarly, this project adds support to the bilingual-bicultural educational reform effort. When a teacher adopts a bilingual approach, she needs to be aware that most of her students are born into hearing families (Karchmer & Mitchell, 2003), and have not developed ASL or English in their homes. Therefore, for most deaf children, their first exposure to an accessible language model will likely be found at school. Consequently, it becomes the teacher s task to introduce the deaf child to the concept of language and expose him/her to coherent linguistic input. In order for deaf children to become bilingual proficient in both ASL and English that linguistic input must include both languages in their intact form. The focus of this project is to educate teachers about the use of ASL and English in the classroom, and to enhance their metalinguistic understanding about dual language development for deaf children. It is important for both the teacher of the deaf and the students in her classroom to think of language as a system, one that can be manipulated to construct meaning and communicate with others. This idea of metalinguistic awareness, or the concept of thinking about language in the classroom, is not currently emphasized in teacher preparation programs. However, when teachers have an understanding themselves about metalinguistic awareness, they can incorporate it into their teaching practices (e.g., adopting teaching strategies that clearly delineate ASL vs. English), thereby increasing their students understanding of languages and their uses. Our aim is to stress that educators should not present metalinguistic awareness as a specific classroom lesson to their deaf students. Rather, we promote the idea that the teaching practices illustrated in the instructional tool serve to increase teachers knowledge of the differences between ASL and English, and that knowledge will influence teaching practices and, thus, metalinguistic awareness will be infused into the curriculum. The Instructional Tool The current project aims to begin to fill the gap in teacher preparation by creating a tool that supplies both information about metalinguistic awareness and dual language representation, and A paper presented at the W06P 3

4 offers ideas of how to implement this concept in the deaf education classroom. This particular tool utilizes current technology that allows for ASL video clips to be placed next to English text, thereby communicating the concept of dual language representation while demonstrating it. In general, the use of technology in deaf education classrooms is increasing in importance and popularity. The Star Schools Project (Nover & Andrews, 2001) reported that technology use increased in their participating classrooms over the four years of the project, and that technology helped teachers present more organized information and engaged students more in classroom activities. Educational technology also assisted specifically in enhancing their bilingual classrooms: teachers used such tools as PowerPoint presentations, SMARTBoards, digital cameras, and digital camcorders to present both ASL and English, displaying the capabilities of the two languages (Nover & Andrews, 2001). The instructional tool presented here uses current technology to address three goals consistent with a bilingual-bicultural educational philosophy and the trend of increasing technology use in the deaf education classroom. First, the tool presents academic content about dual language development, the roles of ASL and English in the education of deaf students, and how Deaf adults lead successful bilingual lives. The instructional tool communicates information about metalinguistic awareness to a population of pre-service teachers who may not think about the impact it has on their teaching and their students. Most teachers of the deaf are hearing themselves and may not know the linguistic similarities and differences between English and ASL. This tool attempts to communicate these ideas to the user and encourages discussion among pre-service teachers about such issues. Second, as the instructional tool uses both English text and live-motion ASL video clips to deliver the content information, it is linguistically accessible to both the deaf and hearing user. This aspect of the tool benefits both the teacher of the deaf and her students. Most teacher instructional materials are available in English, which may be a second language for a portion of teachers of the deaf. Incorporating video into the tool allows the deaf teacher to learn about language issues in their first language. It also demonstrates to educators the legitimacy of ASL as a full-fledged language, one that can communicate academic information just as effectively as English. When the teacher begins to use the practices described in the tool, her students may also develop respect for both languages. Nover and Andrews (2001) stated that including both ASL and English in the classroom contribute[d] to students empowerment and self-esteem by showing respect for ASL and English used in the classroom (p. 77). The final goal of the present instructional tool is to serve as a model for dual language representation. The tool does not just talk about the importance of dual language representation in the classroom, it uses that concept to deliver the information. With current technology, it is relatively easy for the classroom teacher to take video clips of students signing and incorporate it into classroom activities and displays. Video-journaling in ASL, literacy building activities, and portfolios of student projects that include ASL narrative, are all possible uses of this technology, and demonstrate ideas of dual language representation (Nover & Andrews, 2001). Also included in the tool are actual classroom video examples of deaf teachers engaging the practices discussed, which provide a compelling illustration of the practices described in ASL and English. Tool Development This instructional tool was created as part of a PT3 technology grant awarded to the researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. It was constructed on an Apple A paper presented at the W06P 4

5 ibook computer using Dreamweaver, imovie, QuickTime, and digitized video clips of an ASL native signer. The interface of the tool is that of a website, a display that is becoming more and more familiar to educators, but the information is stored on a CD-ROM making it convenient for teachers who may not have the high-speed internet connection that would be necessary to play the sign language video clips effectively. The tool was developed to address national standards in deaf education teacher preparation programs. The Council of Exceptional Children (CEC) and the Council on the Education of the Deaf (CED) together have established knowledge and skill standards for teachers who will be educating deaf children. Included in these standards are multiple references to teacher knowledge base concerning language development and communication issues, use of technology in instruction, and recommendations for professional development activities. The instructional tool is in the initial stage of development. Improvements will be made to the current tool according to feedback from the evaluation procedures described below. However, the potential of such a tool is enormous. Future projects could include making similar tools that address different topics that are not well covered in current teacher preparation programs, and constructing analogous tools for a student audience. Tool Evaluation Participants To evaluate the instructional tool, we recruited seven teachers of the deaf from a Midwest residential school. The pool of teachers included deaf teachers and hearing teachers, and half of the participants taught kindergarten or elementary grades (4 out of 7). All participants were female. In the future, we will seek input from teachers who work in different school settings (e.g., day school and inclusion settings). All participants were compensated for their help with this project. Design and Procedure The instructional tool was evaluated by teachers of the deaf using a focus group approach to obtain input on the content, design, and applicability/utility of the tool. The entire focus group discussion was conducted in ASL. The researchers briefly introduced the goals of the project before asking the participants to interact with the tool. The teachers then viewed the tool and navigated their way through the program. Next, the researchers began the focus group discussion with a set of predetermined questions such as, Are the signing sections of the tool clear and smooth (not jumpy or hard to read)?, Is the information presented in the tool important for teachers of the deaf to know?, and What do you think is missing in teacher preparation programs for those who want to use a dual language (ASL/English) approach with deaf children?. Before leaving the focus group discussion, participants were asked to complete a brief exit survey asking whether they would use such a tool themselves, and what they saw as the most positive and negative aspects of the tool. Preliminary Results While the analysis of the focus group transcripts is still in progress, several key themes emerged in the discussions. All of the teachers commented that they were impressed with the tool and thought it would be of great value to training future teachers of the deaf. The two deaf teachers wished they had a textbook like this when they were in college. They were extremely pleased with the equity afforded to ASL, seeing it side-by-side with the English text. Several hearing teachers felt that the ASL video clips, all of which are presented in academic ASL at a high rate of fluency, were especially important for hearing teachers. They A paper presented at the W06P 5

6 maintained that in pre-service training, hearing teachers of the deaf have little opportunity to see a high level of ASL discourse. Most of their signing experience is in sign language classes with fellow students, with other hearing teachers or supervisors, and with deaf children. Thus, there exists almost no chance to engage in college level ASL discourse. While some ASL videotapes are available for students, most are introductory level with the goal of teaching ASL, or are intended as entertainment (e.g., storytelling or poems). One teacher said that it was not surprising that hearing teachers who know only child ASL expect nothing more than child ASL for their deaf students; they do not possess high standards since they have not seen much adult ASL. With the tool s capacity to replay the video segments, novice teachers have a chance to review the high level of ASL discourse over and over until they comprehend it. The participants liked the fact that there was no voiceover or captioning for the ASL segments, thus requiring the user to view the ASL segment as stand-alone input. The focus group discussion also yielded several important constructive comments that will assist us in the continuing development of this tool. The video clips were considered a little too dark. Some participants felt the transitions between ASL paragraphs were too choppy, and that the lag time for the video clip to play was a bit too long. There was agreement that it would be useful to include video clips of actual teachers in practice to illustrate concepts presented in the tool, but also the participants expressed concern that sometimes raw classroom footage is not of good enough quality to make the instructional point. (Contact E. DiGello at digello@uiuc.edu for more information). Conclusion In summary, the possible impact of this tool is great both for teachers of the deaf and their students. The tool itself will model to teachers of deaf students the potential instructional uses and applications of digital video and computers in the classroom. This latest technology affords us the opportunity to exhibit to teachers how relatively simple it is to digitize video clips of signers in action and incorporate those segments into computer-based formats that can be later accessed by deaf students. The potential classroom applications are enormous (e.g., video ASL journaling, ASL narration accompanying class projects or lessons, literacy building activities that include ASL and English). In the future, this tool could be easily disseminated to many teachers across the country, requiring only CD-ROM playing capability on a basic computer. This availability would greatly enhance the opportunity for professional development as relatively few continuing education programs or workshops are available for deaf education specialists, especially for those educators living in rural areas of the United States. As this tool will model effective use of ASL and English within a unified instructional format, it will be linguistically accessible to both hearing and deaf teachers alike. Typical media used in teacher development resources present academic and narrative content on the sound track thus relegating the deaf viewer to follow along by reading captions (if that is even available). With this tool, we propose to display English text and digitized video clips of ASL side by side, reinforcing the legitimacy of both languages in communicating academic information. The tool s substantive content contained (information about metalinguistic awareness and its role in deaf children s dual language development) will also be an important contribution to re-conceptualizing language development curriculum and specific instructional approaches for ASL and English literacy skill building. A paper presented at the W06P 6

7 References Hoffmeister, R. (2000). A piece of the puzzle: ASL and reading comprehension in Deaf children. In C. Chamberlain & J. P. Morford & R. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Israelite, N., Ewoldt, C., & Hoffmeister, B. (1992). Bilingual/bicultural education for deaf and hard of hearing students: A review of the literature on the effective use of native sign language on the acquisition of a majority language by hearing impaired students. Toronto, Canada: MGS Publication Services. Karchmer, M.A., & Mitchell, R. E. (2003). Demographic and achievement characteristics of deaf and hard of hearing students. In M. Marschark & P.E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education. (pp ). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Mayberry, R.I., Lock, E. & Kazmi, H (2002). Linguistic ability and early language exposure. Nature, 417, 38. Nover, S., & Andrews, J. (2001). Critical pedagogy in deaf education: Issues in ASL/English bilingual assessment and methodologies: Year 4 ( ). Santa Fe, New Mexico School for the Deaf. Padden, C., & Ramsey, C. (2000). American Sign Language and reading ability in deaf children. In C. Chamberlain & J. P. Morford & R. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Strong, M., & Prinz, P. (1997). A study of the relationship between American Sign Language and English literacy. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 2, A paper presented at the W06P 7