TEFL for deaf pupils in Norwegian bilingual schools: Can deaf primary school pupils acquire a foreign sign language?

PATRICIA PRITCHARD British to-handed alphabet TEFL for deaf pupils in Norwegian bilingual schools: Can deaf primary school pupils acquire a foreign sign language? Norwegian one-handed alphabet Masters Thesis in Special Education Dept. of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences & Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Trondheim, Norway December 2004

Summary TEFL for deaf pupils in Norwegian bilingual schools: Can deaf primary school pupils acquire and understand a foreign sign language? Both hearing and deaf people in Norway need skills in English to cope with the demands of modern society. The question is how can deaf pupils best acquire English? A National Curriculum was implemented in 1997 (L97) based on sign bilingualism and a socio-cultural approach to language learning. British Sign Language (BSL) was introduced into the English syllabus for Primary School deaf pupils as a first step in foreign language learning, before the introduction of English. The curriculum for deaf pupils (EfDP) was implemented without research underpinning and further education of in-service teachers, although some teaching aids were produced. This study looks at the BSL receptive skills of Norwegian Deaf pupils in class 4. and tries to pinpoint variables that played a part in their acquisition of BSL. The study makes use of theories created for hearing children acquiring a second spoken language. This is seen as defensible because they deal with the acquisition of languages of the same modality. A quantitative method was chosen to answer the research question of whether deaf Norwegian pupils in class 4 understood BSL and three language tests were used to measure their BSL receptive skills. A control group consisting of bilingual deaf Swedish children were given the same tests. Questionnaires were used to collect background information from the pupils teachers. The data was analysed using SPSS and Size Effect statistics (Cohen s d). Results and conclusions: Norwegian deaf pupils experiences with BSL in the EfDP classroom have had a positive effect on their BSL receptive skills. Pupils could understand a certain BSL text if they had been given adequate access to BSL. Pupils may be using their knowledge of BSL to solve the task, but also intuitively transferring L1 knowledge, metalinguistic strategies and world knowledge. There is reason to believe that Norwegian pupils generally have good NSL skills due to early exposure to the language. All the pupils showed interest in BSL and despite shortcomings in the learning environments, 46,6% scored above the standardised score for deaf British pupils of the same age on the Grammar Test. Hearing status seemed to dictate teachers organisation of TEFL, choice of teaching aids and, as a consequence, the quantity and quality of access to BSL, which in turn influenced pupils test results. Deficiencies in the learning environment revealed in this study are probably widespread and need to be addressed at all levels in the system i.e. in-service teachers particularly need further education in EfDP. More research is necessary into deaf pupils SLA and whether aspects of their experiences with BSL are transferable to learning English.

Sammendrag TEFL for norske døve elever i tospråklige undervisningsmiljøer. Kan elever i 4. klasse tilegner seg og forstår BSL? Behovet for kunnskaper i engelsk er stort for så vel hørende som døve personer i Norge i dag. Vi vet lite om hvordan døve best kan tilegne seg engelsk. Etter innføring av L97 og læreplanen engelsk for døve, ble undervisning av et fremmed tegnspråk, Britisk tegnspråk (BSL) en del av pensumet for døve elever på barneskoletrinnet som en introduksjon til fremmedspråkslæring (FLL). Dette ble gjort uten forutgående forskning omkring døve barns FLL eller videreutdanning av lærerne. Imidlertid var en del læremidler produsert. Læreplanen bygger på tospråklighet og en sosiokulturell tilnærming. Denne undersøkelsen er gjort for å utforske hvilke reseptive ferdigheter i BSL norske døve elever i 4. klasse hadde tilegnet seg og hvilke variabler som så ut til å fremme tilegnelse av et fremmed tegnspråk. Teoriene om normalt hørende elevers tilegnelse av fremmede talespråk ble brukt som grunnlag fordi de omhandler tilegnelse av språk som har samme modalitet som morsmålet og betingelsene for døve barn til å lære et fremmed tegnspråk er sammenlignbare med de for normalt hørende barn som lærer et fremmed talespråk. En kvantitativ metode var valgt for å undersøke reseptive ferdigheter i BSL hos alle døve elever i 4. klasse 2003 2004. Tre språktester ble brukt. En kontrollgruppe av svenske døve barn gjennomgikk de samme testene. Bakgrunnsinformasjon ble samlet fra lærerne ved hjelp av spørreskjemaer. Data ble analysert ved bruk av SPSS og Effect Size statistikk (Cohen s d). Resultater og konklusjon: Døve elevers erfaringer i klasserommet har hatt en positiv effekt på deres reseptive ferdigheter av BSL når elevene har fått tilstrekkelig tilgang til BSL. Elevene har brukt sin kunnskap om BSL, og kanskje også overført sin intuitiv kunnskap i norsk tegnspråk (NTS) og sin metalingvistisk kunnskap for å løse oppgaven. Interessen for BSL var tilstede hos alle informanter. På grammatikktesten skåret 46,6% av de norske elevene over det standardiserte skåre for døve engelske elever i samme alder. Uten måleinstrumenter, er det nærliggende å tro at elevene generelt har gode ferdigheter i NTS. Hørselsstatus ser ut til å være det som påvirker lærernes valg av organisering av undervisningen og læremiddelbruk, og dette hadde igjen en sterk innvirkning på elevenes testresultater. Ulike former for svakheter i undervisningsmiljøene som er avdekket bør bøtes på: lærerne har særlig behov for videreutdanning i faget engelsk for døve elever slik at de får en bedre forståelse av prosessene involvert i fremmedspråklæring. Det er behov for mer forskning om hvordan døve elever tilegner seg fremmedspråk og hvordan erfaringer med BSL kan overføres til opplæring i engelsk.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my pupils who set this whole process in motion so many years ago and the staff of Lillesund School who let us find our own way of tackling the subject of English. Thank you to all the pupils and teachers who so willingly took part in this project! Thanks to my employer, Vestlandet kompetansesenter for giving me the time and opportunity and to bury myself for periods of time, and to my colleagues for their support, especially Thor-Arne, Torill and Ellinor. I would also like to thank my fellow students, who made student-life very enjoyable! I would also like to acknowledge and thank Ros Herman, Bencie Woll and Sally Holmes for giving me permission to adapt the BSL Receptive Skills Test for use with Norwegian pupils and Rachel Sutton-Spence and Bencie for permission to use illustrations from their book The Linguistics of BSL. I would like to thank Bencie again and Claire Wickham for invaluable conversations about the study and to Sara Hetherington and Christina Kryvi who never say no when asked for assistance! Thanks also to Randi Natvig for her invaluable help. Last but not least, thanks to my mentors Per Frostad and Arnfinn Muruvik Vonen, who have given generously of their time and knowledge and guided me throughout Haugesund, December 2004

INDEX Summary (English version) Sammendrag (Norwegian version) Acknowledgements Index List with abbreviations and Norwegian equivalents CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction of the theme 1.1 The development of my interest in foreign language teaching for deaf pupils 1.2 Deaf pupils and the Norwegian school system 1.3 The premise for this study 1.4 The aim of this study CHAPTER 2 A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND THE RESEARCH QUESTION 2.0 Who are the deaf? 2.1 What is Sign Language? 2.2 Elements of BSL 2.2.1 The phonems of signed language and conventions used in glossing signs 2.2.2 The elements of BSL that are assessed in the tests used in this study 2.3 Are BSL and NSL related or similar in any way? 2.3.1 Similarity in lexicon 2.4 Communication between deaf people of different nations 2.5 Second language acquisition (SLA) and foreign language learning (FLL). 2.6 An overview of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theories 2.6.1 Cognitive theories of SLA 2.6.2 Linguistic-oriented theories or Universal Grammar Theory 2.6.3 Pragmatic approaches to SLA 2.6.4 Social theories or theories of discourse 2.6.5 Behaviourist learning theory and SLA 2.6.6 Krashen s psycholinguist theory of SLA 2.7 Teaching methods used in TEFL 2.8 Metalinguistic knowledge and awareness 2.9 The definition of curriculum and criticism of the implementation of reforms (R97 and L97) in relation to deaf pupils 2.10 The purpose of this study 2.10.1 The research question CHAPTER 3 THE METHOD 3.1 The quantitative research approach 3.1.1 The sample and gaining access to the field 3.2 Why test BSL receptive skills in class 4? 3.2.1 Why test the pupils receptive skills in BSL and not their expressive skills? 3.3 The instruments for assessing receptive skills in BSL 3.3.1 The development of Assessing BSL Development Test and criticism 3.3.2 A description of the first sub test: BSL Vocabulary Test 3.3.3 A description of the second sub test: BSL Grammar Test 3.3.4 A description of the third sub test: BSL Story Test 3.4 The pilot study of the complete test 3.5 The control group 3.6 Carrying out the tests in Norway 3.7 The questionnaires 3.7.1 Questionnaire content and construction 3.8 Carrying out the study 3.9 Methods used in data analysis 3.10 Ethical considerations Page 1 1 3 6 8 9 11 12 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 23 24 25 25 29 31 31 33 34 36 36 37 37 38 39 41 43 45 49 49 50 51 52 53 54 54

CHAPTER 4 THE RESULTS 4.0 Introduction 4.1 Descriptive analysis of the pupils in the sample 4.1.1 Gender 4.1.2 Hearing status 4.1.3 Pupils interest in BSL and behaviour in the EfDP classroom 4.1.4 Pupils early language development, present usage and skills 4.1.5 DCDP 4.1.6 Deaf pupils with CI and other diagnosis in addition to deafness 4.1.7 Pupils behaviour in the EfDP classroom and feelings towards EFL 4.2 Descriptive analysis of the teachers 4.2.1 Teachers qualifications 4.2.2 Teachers methods, choice of activities and metalinguistic awareness 4.2.3 Teachers attitudes to EfDP 4.2.4 The teachers choice of role and EfDP goals and expectations 4.2.5 Teachers choice of language usage in the EfDP classroom 4.3 Descriptive analysis of the pupils learning environments 4.3.1 Local Schools 4.3.2 Schools for the Deaf 4.3.3 The organisation of TEFL 4.4 Descriptive analysis of EfDP classrooms 4.4.1 The amount of BSL experience provided by the learning environments 4.4.2 Pupils access to BSL conversation partners in and outside the classroom 4.4.3 BSL teaching aids used in the EfDP classrooms 4.4.4 Cooperation between the school and the home 4.5 Descriptive analysis of the BSL test score results of the deaf Norwegian pupils 4.5.1 A descriptive analysis of pupils errors 4.6 An analysis of the differences in the three test results of the deaf Swedish and deaf Norwegian pupils 4.6.1 An analysis of the differences in the BSL Story Test results of the deaf Norwegian pupils, the deaf Swedish pupils and the hearing Norwegian pupils 4.7 Analysis of the independent variables of the deaf Norwegian pupils and some differences in test results 4.7.1 Differences in test results according to gender 4.7.2 Differences in test results according to pupils hearing status 4.7.3 Differences in test results according to the number of years TEFL of tuition 4.7.4 Pupils with foreign language home backgrounds 4.7.5 The results of deaf children of deaf parents (DCDP) 4.7.6 The results of deaf pupils with CI 4.8 Differences in test results according to the teachers independent variables 4.9 Differences in test results according to the learning environments independent variables 4.9.1 School placement 4.9.2 Classroom setting 4.9.3 The usage of teaching aids 4.10 Results that answer the research question Do Norwegian deaf pupils in class 4 (2003 2004) understand any BSL? CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY S FINDINGS 5.1 Discussion of the pupils independent variables in relation to SLA 5.1.1 Gender 5.1.2 Hearing status 5.1.3 Interest and Motivation 5.1.4 Early language development and SLA 5.1.5 Deaf pupils from foreign language backgrounds 5.1.6 Deaf children of deaf parents (DCDP) 5.1.7 Deaf children with CI and the EfDP syllabus 5.1.8 The effects of the combination of early experience of sign language as L1 (NSL or SSL) and classroom experience of an L2 sign language (BSL) 5.2 The independent variables of the EFL teachers 5.2.1 EfDP teachers qualifications 56 56 57 57 57 58 59 59 60 60 61 62 63 63 64 65 65 65 65 67 67 67 68 68 69 71 72 74 75 75 75 76 76 76 77 77 78 78 79 80 80 82 82 82 86 86 88 88 89 89 90 90

5.2.2 Teachers choice of teaching methods 5.2.3 Teachers choice of activities in the EfDP classroom 5.2.4 Teachers awareness of metalinguistic spin-offs 5.2.5 The teachers choice of role in the EfDP classroom 5.2.6 Teachers interpretation and adaptation of the EfDP syllabus 5.2.7 Teachers expectations of success and goals with EfDP 5.2.8 Teachers language usage in the EfDP classroom 5.3 The independent variables of the learning environments for EfDP 5.3.1 EfDP, school placement and classroom setting 5.3.2 IT and teaching aids 5.4 Answering the research question 5.4.1 A discussion of sources of error 5.5 Recommendations 5.5.1 Recommendations for Statped s role 5.5.2 Recommendations for the EfDP classroom: Tearing down classroom walls using IT. 5.5.3 Recommendations for teachers 5.6 Suggestions for new research 5.7 Final Conclusions 91 92 92 93 93 94 94 95 95 98 99 102 103 104 105 106 106 108 REFERENCES APPENDIX 1. Analysis of BSL texts 2. Flyer used at Nordic conference 3. Hearing pupils letter to parents 4. Letter to head teachers of deaf pupils 5. Letter parents of deaf pupils 6. Letter to teachers of deaf pupils 7. NSD request form 8. Pilot study letter to parents 9. Pilot study report 10. Questionnaire about the pupils 11. Questionnaire about learning environment 12. Result tables Chapter 4 13. Swedish pupils letter to parents 14. Test Manual

Word List with abbreviations and Norwegian equivalents Abbreviation English Norwegian ASL American Sign Language Amerikansk tegnspråk BSL British Sign Language Britisk tegnspråk DCDP Deaf child of deaf parents Døv barn med døve foreldre DCHP Deaf child of hearing parents Døv barn med hørende foreldre EfDP Syllabus, English for Deaf Engelsk for døve Pupils EFL English as a foreign language Engelsk som et fremmedspråk FAP Peripethetic advisor for a county, Fylkes audiopedagog employed by NSSSE FLL Foreign Language Learning fremmedspråklæring FSL French Sign Language Fransk tegnspråk KUF The Ministry for Education s title in 1997: The Royal Ministry of Education and Research GCSE O level General Certificate Of Secondary Education, Ordinary Level IT Information Technology IKT L1 Language 1 (mother tongue or first language that is established before the age of three) Det kongelige undervisnings- og forskningsdepartementet (1997) Avgangsprøve Språk 1 (morsmål eller første språk som er etablert før i 3års alderen.) L2 Language 2. Second language Language 2. Andrespråk L97 Curriculum Læreplan 97 NS Native speaker En person som har L2, i dette tilfelle BSL, som sitt morsmål NNS Non Native Speaker L2 elev NSD Norwegain Social Science data service Norsk samfunnsvitenskapelig datatjeneste NSL Norwegian Sign Language Norsk tegnspråk NSSSE The National Support System for Statped Special Education SSE Sign Supported English Engelsk med tegnstøtte SSN Sign Supported Norwegian Tegnspråk norsk SLA Second Language Acquisition Andre språks læring SSL Swedish Sign Language Svensk tegnspråk TEFL Teaching English as a Foreign Language Undervisning av engelsk som et fremmedspråk TTT Sign Supported Speech Tegn til tale UFD Present tittle of The Ministry of Education and Research (earlier known as KUF) Utdannings and forsknings departement

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction of the theme This chapter is an introduction to the theme of this study, containing some background information and a brief summary of the study s aims. During their early childhood deaf children have had other experiences than those of hearing children. This does not necessarily result in deaf children having worse abilities, skills or knowledge but it does mean that they have different needs to hearing children if they are to reach their full potential (Marschark, Lang & Albertini, 2002). Deaf children cannot choose to be any other way than that which they are, but the learning opportunities the environment provides can and must be tailored to optimise deaf pupils chances of success. This study focuses on the teaching of English as a foreign language (TEFL) to Norwegian deaf pupils in Primary School as prescribed by the L97 National Curriculum implemented in 1997. Paradoxically, as it may seem, the syllabus English for Deaf Pupils (EfDP) begins by presenting another foreign language, British Sign Language (BSL) and allowing pupils to experience foreign language learning (FLL) and develop their own language learning strategies, gradually leading on to the learning of English as a foreign language (EFL). As a first step in evaluating the impact of EfDP and in view of the lack of literature on deaf pupils Second Language Acquisition (SLA), this study looks at Norwegian deaf pupils BSL receptive skills in class 4 during 2003 2004 and the variables affecting their second language acquisition. 1.1 The development of my interest in foreign language teaching for deaf pupils In 1984 I was working as a teacher in a Local Authority Primary School with a class of five deaf children in Norway. In the classroom, together with a Deaf teaching assistant, we used Norwegian Sign Language (NSL) and Sign Supported Norwegian (SSN) for direct communication and Norwegian written and spoken language. Having regular contact with the neighbouring parallel class, my pupils were aware of what their hearing companions were doing and they always wanted to do the same; be it playing the 1

recorder (not something that lasted very long), playing in a Samba orchestra (which did lead to one pupil taking up drum playing) or learning English in class 4. As in all classes of deaf children the range of abilities and the type and degree of hearing loss varied greatly but I wanted all my pupils to feel that they could succeed with EFL regardless of hearing status. I wanted them to experience English as a language they could use in the real world to interact with others, both deaf and hearing. I made enquiries to find out what other teachers of the deaf were doing. Most deaf pupils were not offered English as an option. It was reserved for the cleverest, in other words, those pupils who not only had good abilities but also residual hearing and some speaking skills. Lessons comprised of speech reading and articulation of a very limited vocabulary, reading simplified texts and writing. Others used Norwegian signs together with English speech to make oral work possible. To my mind, this mixed language code, which could not be used outside the classroom, was of little practical value. At the same time it allowed pupils, in effect, to carry on decoding NSL signs and ignore English mouthings and aural input. Having rejected these methods, it was apparent that I had to seek a new approach. Use of a sign language was a logical choice as my experience showed that teaching using NSL was effective. Having seen programs for British deaf people on satellite TV, BSL was the natural choice, especially as the North Sea and ferry traffic to the UK was just outside the classroom window. From satellite TV, I video-recorded some children s stories in BSL and bought two very small, basic BSL dictionaries, which were all that was available at the time. After the first lesson it was clear that the children were interested and curious to know more about this strange new language: homework for next week was learned overnight, BSL finger spelling was used to send secret messages, BSL signs and some Signed English with English translations were presented and absorbed at an astonishing rate. The children s reactions convinced me that using a foreign sign language was the way to go. I did not understand at the time why they were so fascinated by it. We used BSL in games and drama, read English books and did writing exercises. We finally contacted a school in the UK and sent them a video-letter about our class in our best BSL. It was an exciting day when the pupils received a reply and understood most of what was said in BSL. At the class reunion in 2003, the same pupils, now grown up with careers and families, reminisced over all the things they had done at school and then started to see how much BSL they could remember 2

In light of my experiences with this class and subsequent classes, TEFL for deaf pupils using a foreign sign language (BSL) became an area of interest for me over several years and therefore a natural choice for the theme of this study. 1.2 Deaf pupils and the Norwegian school system As background for this study it is important to have an overview of the Norwegian school system and the reforms that took place in 1997. The Norwegian school system is a comprehensive one, consisting of three levels: Primary School (classes 1-4), Middle school (classes 5-7) and Lower Secondary School (classes 8-10) which leads on to compulsory Upper Secondary School. Pupils start school at the age of six. Reform 97 During much of the last century the education of the deaf in Norway, as in most of the western world, was focused on the teaching of spoken language, its modality and form, as an external one-way process, which emphasised learning, practise and training (Ohna et al., 2003). Traditionally, deaf pupils attended schools for the deaf or units for the hearingimpaired. Changes in the way deaf children were perceived 1 and how language is acquired, ultimately made possible the enormous changes in the home, the learning environment and the educational opportunities for deaf children in Norway. In 1993 the Ministry for Education (KUF) produced a guide with syllabuses for deaf pupils. In addition to the ordinary subjects, it included the following subjects: Norwegian for Deaf Pupils, Norwegian Sign Language as a First Language, English for Deaf Pupils and Drama & Rhythms (which replaced the subject of music). In 1997 the school reform, R97, increased schooling from 9 to 10 years and introduced a new National Curriculum called L97. The previously mentioned subjects for deaf children were included. In 1998 The Law for Primary and Secondary Education confirmed deaf children s legal right to education in and about NSL ( 2-6). The education of deaf pupils was no longer looked upon as special education. All pupils, including deaf pupils, were given the right to 1 Maybe we are experiencing another shift in perspective. In recent years with the increasing use of cochlear implants, the medical/healing perspective has become prevalent once again: Deaf children should be cured and trained to speak. Medical personnel question the use of Sign Language and purport that it is damaging to the development of speech, even though research has shown that this is untrue. 3

education adapted to their individual needs irrespective of the school setting. The inclusion of all pupils in their Local School was one of the basic philosophies of the reform. All teachers of deaf pupils, regardless of the school setting, were now required to have a formal qualification in NSL. In addition, to give deaf children the opportunity for early language development, the Norwegian State offered parents of deaf children 40 weeks NSL education free of charge, from the time the child was diagnosed until their sixteenth birthday (ibid.). This measure tries to ensure that the child s NSL is well developed and age appropriate by the time the child enters school. In L97 Sign Bilingualism is an important educational goal for deaf pupils. Sign bilingualism is the use of two languages in different modalities: one signed and one spoken. The balance of languages will be unique for each pupil according to individual preference, stage of development and demands from the environment (Pickersgill, 1998). The main underpinning of sign bilingualism is distinct language separation, high levels of signing skills and the development of metalinguistic skills through discussion in sign language (Swanwick, 1998; Mahshie, 1995). Through bilingualism the pupils use their L1 to construct L2 and can gain access to the curriculum, and the socio-cultural values and beliefs of the Deaf and hearing communities. The L97 English for deaf pupils (EfDP) syllabus The Norwegian school system has a long tradition of TEFL for hearing pupils and there have of course been several syllabuses over the years, but which few deaf pupils have been allowed access to. Both the L97 syllabuses English (for hearing pupils) and EfDP are based on a socio-cultural approach to TEFL. The subject matter in the two syllabuses is basically the same, but EfDP has its own progression and structure and also includes knowledge of BSL and the Deaf Cultures of English-speaking countries. The Primary School EfDP syllabus is intended to build the foundations for English literacy. It provides pupils with experience of FLL through BSL, which in turn offers motivation and experience of creating language learning strategies, experience of English mouthings and borrowings from English and the development of phonological awareness and metalinguistic skills that can be of help to construct English when the aural input is distorted, incomplete or absent. This is only possible because pupils have had access to NSL from early childhood. All these elements plus the pupils knowledge of L1 (NSL and Norwegian literacy) form the bridge leading from BSL to English literacy. It must also be born in mind that the modalities of the two languages are very different and there is to date no empirical measure to show 4

exactly how extensive the linguistic transfer from BSL to English literacy can be in this FLL situation. Earlier experiences and anecdotes are the only evidence to hand. EfDP shows respect for Sign Language and Deaf culture and encourages the expectation that deaf pupils will attain secondary school examinations in EfDP, equivalent to GCSE, O level. Examinations are not based on the notion of comparing deaf and hearing pupils, but to assess deaf pupils FLL achievements in accordance to the goals of the syllabus and in the pupils own right. EfDP is a totally new departure both nationally and internationally. The syllabus stresses that language is acquired through social interaction and the pupils active use of the language and must be adapted to the needs of each pupil. In light of this perspective, the learning environment must also be adapted so that the pupil s hearing loss is not a hindrance for reaching the learning goals (Zahl, 2000). The goals and structure of EfDP EfDP s main goal is: to understand English texts and use written English. Teaching shall stimulate the pupils to interact with people from English-speaking and other cultures and give them some knowledge of British Sign Language (BSL). (KUF, 1997a. pp. 35) EfDP begins in class 1 when children start school at the age of six. In Primary School, deaf pupils first experience with a foreign language is through a foreign sign language since it cannot be taken for granted that undistorted, oral English is easily comprehensible to the pupil: that foreign language is BSL. In Primary School the pupils discover, experience and explore BSL. In Middle School pupils continue to experience BSL and English written and oral language is introduced as BSL is gradually phased out. In Lower Secondary School work is concentrated on English. Pupils can however choose an introductory course on American Sign Language (ASL) or advanced courses in BSL or English if they wish to work on one of these two languages in greater depth. At Upper Secondary School, BSL is again part of the English syllabus. Because of the great variation in deaf pupils oral skills the syllabus states: Pupils shall develop their skills to communicate with English-speaking hearing and deaf people. Training in spoken English must take place in accordance with the individual s abilities. (ibid., pp. 31, pp. 35). 5

The role of the teacher and the pupil in the EfDP classroom The teacher s role in Primary School is that of a guide and organiser, not a language-model; BSL models are to be found on video and by the use of IT. The teacher is the gatekeeper who creates situations where pupils can experience and use BSL (ibid.). The curriculum uses a vocabulary that depicts pupils playing an active role in their own language learning process i.e. experiment, experience, discuss, find meaning, discover etc. Texts and activities in the Primary School EfDP classroom All the BSL texts that are available to Norwegian Primary Schools are authentic in that they are not all made specifically for the EfDP classroom, but chosen for their content and not their form. This is to encourage pupils to develop varied learning strategies and to work top-down i.e. look for the language s meaning not form and not just bottom-up i.e glossaries and rules of grammar etc. BSL texts are suggested as the starting point for creative, child-centered activities such as play, role-play, drama, art, creating original BSL texts etc. Cultural knowledge in EfDP EfDP includes some knowledge of Deaf cultures from the English-speaking world. Stone (2000) refers to Bienvenu (1992) who comments that deaf pupils must be taught about their own culture and other cultures like their own. Bienvenu argues that this will enhance the pupils self-confidence and self-image. Pupils will develop pride and a strong cultural identity, which is important if deaf pupils are to reach their full potential in the hearing world. 1.3 The premise for this study I am hearing, a teacher and an audiopedagog (a combination of a teacher of the deaf and an audiologist.) I am not a linguist. My mother tongue is English but I did not know any BSL before the need arose in 1984 in Norway. I taught deaf and hard-of-hearing children in a local authority unit for seventeen years and was active in the local Deaf Community. Subsequently, I was a consultant employed by the State to help advise parents, teachers and local authorities about the education of deaf children and adults in the fourth largest county in Norway, for seven years. Now, I am an advisor and member of the development team at one of the four State-owned, regional resource centres responsible for supporting the education of the deaf and hearing-impaired in Norway collectively known as: The National Support System for 6

Special Education (NSSSE or Statped). Each Statped Resource Centre consists basically of a school, a peripatetic advisory department and a sign language team. I chose a quantitative research method to answer my research question. A quantitative method is perhaps the most suitable for measuring and assessing language attainments. All measures of cognitive skills are necessarily indirect, incomplete, imprecise, subjective and relative (Bachman, 1990) and only a small portion of an individual s total language skills can be observed and measured. As a member of the working party involved in developing the curriculum for the teaching of EfDP I am a stakeholder with a special interest in investigating how EfDP has been used and the reaction of the pupils. With this in mind, the quantitative method seemed to be the best way of securing some level of objectivity, however precarious or tenuous this may be. BSL was chosen by the working party as the foreign sign language to be included in the curriculum after the pedagogical, cultural, geographical perspectives and the economical practicalities of ASL, BSL and other sign languages used in English speaking countries, were evaluated. The curriculum has received a good deal of criticism by some teachers: BSL is yet another language for the pupils to fail at, The teachers don t know BSL so how can they teach it? and ASL should have been chosen not BSL. It s more international. In view of my own experiences teaching English to deaf pupils using BSL, I needed to find out if my pupils were unique or whether the use of a foreign sign language is one of the keys to unlocking the door to FLL and eventually to English. Norway is the first country in the world to formally include a foreign sign language in its EFL syllabus during the first years of schooling, so there are no international comparisons to be made. There is very little research, literature or theories about deaf children s SLA; that which does exist is about deaf children living in homes where deaf parents use two different sign languages. This is of course a different situation to that which exists in the EfDP classroom. I am therefore using SLA theories developed for hearing children learning foreign languages. I base this on the premise that hearing children are learning a foreign spoken language (L2) in the same modality as their mother tongue (L1). Deaf children are also learning an L2 (BSL), which has the same modality as one of their L1s: NSL. Research on sign language development in deaf children of deaf parents has shown that this development is dependent on 7

the same basic needs as in hearing children learning a spoken language (H. Schlesinger & Meadows, 1972., Marschark et al., 2002). Interaction between the parent and child follows a similar, yet different, pattern in deaf/deaf and hearing/hearing dyads. One of the biggest problems in carrying out this study was the general lack of test materials for evaluating and assessing sign language development. Test materials specifically for assessing the development of sign language learned as a foreign language in the classroom are non-existent. 1.4 The aim of this study Deaf pupils hard won rights to bilingual education, education in and about NSL and knowledge of a foreign sign language (BSL), are already under attack from school leaders, doctors, some teachers and parents even before its effect on pupils performance has been documented. The aim of this study is to document how Norwegian deaf pupils have reacted to one small part of the syllabus for deaf pupils introduced in 1997: exposure to BSL and their understanding of it. Since there is so little research into deaf pupils SLA, this will mainly be an exploratory exercise to find out what has happened since Norwegian deaf pupils were given the opportunity to experience a foreign sign language (BSL), measure their acquisition of receptive skills in BSL, give a picture of the learning environments of the deaf pupils in this sample and try to pin point some factors that may have played a part in the results of the language tests used. 8

CHAPTER 2 A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND THE RESEARCH QUESTION In this chapter I shall define some central concepts and terms concerning deaf pupils and Signed Languages. I shall then conceptualise my research project by describing different theoretical areas of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and the main teaching methods used in TEFL that arise from them. Finally I will present my research question. 2.0 Who are the deaf? There are several definitions of the deaf, which vary in their perception of deaf people in an attempt to understand and define deafness. Throughout history deafness has been looked upon by the hearing majority as a sickness and the deaf as handicapped and defective (Heiling, 1995). The medical definition of deafness looks upon hearing loss as a pathological impairment and disability, which should be remedied. Emphasis is given to compensatory measures such as special education, speech training etc (Ohna et al., 2003). The deaf are categorised using audiometric measures as those with a hearing loss anywhere from 70 db to 93dB, depending upon which definition one chooses use. Experience shows however, that audiograms tell us little about how a pupil actually functions auditorily, linguistically and socially. Paddy Ladd (2003) refers to The Culturally Deaf, with a capital D. The core members of this cultural group are those who use a signed language and who are born deaf or lose their hearing at an early age before speech has developed (called prelingually deaf by the medical profession). By means of sign language the Deaf have created linguistic and cultural milieus where they feel at home and that they are proud of (Ladd, 2003). Any individual, even though he does not fulfil the definition of a core member, can choose to be a member of this sociallinguistic minority group, as long as the Deaf community accepts him or her. The exceptional quality of this definition is that it is created from within the deaf community itself. It is not a definition projected onto the group by outsiders. A third perspective is a socio-cultural one, which combines the medical-pathological and the linguistic-cultural perspectives. Here the focus is on how individuals and groups interact, using the physical and linguistic resources available in learning, development and communication. This perspective is in keeping with the child-centred pedagogical ideas 9

presented in Norwegian teacher training and it can give new understanding of how hearingimpaired children learn (Ohna et al., 2003). Deaf pupils were defined by the Norwegian Ministry of Education (then known as KUF) in 1997 as: 2 (Deaf) pupils (are those) who use sign language in communication with their social environment and to gather information. Functionally bilingual pupils can belong to this group. (Veiledning - Organisering av opplæring i og på tegnspråk. pp.2). The Ministry does not use a medical definition, but a linguistic one. Deaf pupils are hearing-impaired and have NSL as their first language. By using NSL, one is defined as deaf. In this study, deaf pupils are defined, necessarily, as those pupils who have chosen the English for Deaf Pupils syllabus L97 (EfDP) syllabus and from which my sample was taken. My own experience shows that the reasons for choosing the curriculum for deaf pupils can be many; a medical diagnosis of actual deafness or severe hearing loss may not be present. Reasons such as ease of access to additional teaching resources, the school setting and/or having sign bilingualism as a goal (in Norwegian and Norwegian Sign Language), may play a part in this decision. The deaf children in this study, as in the general population of the hearing-impaired, were not a homogeneous group. As the data showed, not unexpectedly, there was variation in pupils hearing status, how they utilize any residual hearing, their skills in Norwegian spoken and written language, their NSL skills, their general ability and communication skills, the pupils language and learning environments and the resources of, and choices made by each of their families. In addition, with the introduction of the cochlear implant (CI) a new group of deaf pupils has appeared during the last ten years. (A cochlear implant is an electronic device that restores partial hearing to the deaf. The device directly stimulates the auditory nerve, allowing individuals who are profoundly hearing impaired to receive sound that the brain has to interpret (American Academy of Otolaryngology, 2004). In my experience deaf children with CI have some unique hearing abilities and can profit greatly from bilingual education. 2 My own translation 10

2.1 What is Sign Language? A signed language is a natural visual, gestural and spatial language, which has developed over time because of the fundamental need for language and communication in settings where deaf people have come together. Signed languages develop where schools for the deaf have been established and in consequence a social milieu (Sutton-Spence & Woll, 1999). Earlier it was believed that sign language was international after observations by Bulwer in 1644 (Kyle & Woll, 1985). This idea was founded on the assumption that sign language was based on gestures that were universal. Today we know that this is untrue. The Etnologue index has registered 103 different sign languages throughout the world although this is probably an under-estimate (Woll, Sutton-Spence & Elton, 2001). In several countries in Scandinavia and Europe sign languages are recognised as official languages (Bergh, 2004). Each sign language has its own vocabulary and grammar, which are different from other sign languages and from spoken languages. Nevertheless, in several countries during the 1970s and 80s attempts were made to visualise the national spoken language by attaching a sign to each word and adding symbols to show inflection etc e.g. Tecknad svenska in Sweden, tegnspråk norsk in Norway and Signed English in the UK. The voice is used simultaneously with signs and follows the grammar of spoken language. When no word sign equivalent existed, signs were invented. The system has proved to be impractical for communication and the deaf communities have not adopted these artificial signed languages (Kyle & Woll, 1985; Heiling, 1995). Nevertheless, they are sometimes used in teaching to illustrate the grammar of a spoken language. A combination of the national spoken language and sign language, which develops through contact between the hearing and the deaf, is usually defined as Pigeon sign language (Vogt-Svendsen, 1987). They use varying degrees of sign and speech in situations where it is necessary to facilitate communication between the hearing and the deaf. In Fig. 2.1, I have made a simplistic one-dimensional diagram showing the parallel situations that exist in Norway and the UK. Fig. 2.1 does not attempt to describe the many varied reasons for using artificially constructed sign languages or a complete overview of the many forms and combinations of speech and sign. 11

Norwegian Tegn-til-tale Tegnspråknorsk NSL spoken language English Sign Supported English Signed English BSL spoken language Fig. 2.1 Illustration of the parallel situations that exists in Norway and the UK 2.2 Elements of BSL In this section I will describe conventions used in glossing signs and the elements of BSL that are assessed in the tests used in this study. 2.2.1 The phonems of signed language and conventions used in glossing signs In USA in the 1960s, William Stokoe was the first researcher in modern times to investigate the linguistics of a sign language, American Sign Language (ASL). His work had an enormous impact and enabled linguists and the Deaf themselves, to claim that sign languages were on a par with spoken languages and fulfil the same functions for deaf people as spoken languages do for the hearing (Vonen, 1997). Stokoe described, amongst other things, the phonemes or building blocks of ASL: the limited number of hand shapes used (Dez), the movements the hands can make (Sig) and the positions in which signs can be made (Tab) (Kyle & Woll, 1985). Researchers have continued to build on Stokoe s work and have described other aspects of ASL and of other sign languages. For example, non-manual components are important components of all sign languages as elements of the grammar and/or lexicon e.g. movements of the face (eyes, eye brows, cheeks, mouth and forehead), the head and/or body (Brennan, 1992). Glossing a sign means using an English word or words, which are then written in capital letters e.g. CAT. Many signs cannot be glossed by a single English word, because there is no exact translation. When it is necessary to use several words to give the approximate meaning of an individual sign, the words are joined together by hyphens e.g. I-DON T-LIKE (Sutton- Spence & Woll, 1999). 12

2.2.2 The elements of BSL that are assessed in the tests used in this study In the tests used in this research project, Norwegian, deaf pupils were given tasks to assess their understanding of BSL vocabulary, grammar and text. Herman et al., describe The Grammar Test as including spatial verb morphology, number/distribution, negation, size/shape specifiers, noun/verb distinctions, and handling classifiers (Herman et al., 1999). Here follows definitions and examples of these elements of BSL: Spatial verb morphology All sign languages make use of space in their grammars. The designated signing space is three-dimensional and is like an imaginary stage where the characters and objects to be talked about, are placed and relationships between them are established (Miles 2001). This is termed location. Spatial verbs are complex and include a movement, which begins at the initial location of the object and finishes at the final location. The sign consists also of a handshape, which is a pro-form, chosen depending on the class of object (Fig. 2.2). Fig. 2.2 BICYCLE-PASS. The classifier for bicycle is similar in BSL and NSL (Sutton-Spence & Woll, 1999). Objects are classified based on their sharing of a common feature: classifiers are an important category of components in both BSL and NSL. Some spoken languages such as Thai and Mandarin Chinese make use of classifier forms but these are not found in Norwegian or in English. Some of the classifiers used in BSL and NSL are identical whilst others are very different or exist only in one of the languages. As an illustration of the importance of classifiers in BSL and NSL, I refer to McAnnly, Rose & Quigley (1994). They describe Kanator s study (1980) of nine Deaf children s acquisition of classifiers. Already by the age of three, Deaf children of Deaf parents understood the necessity of utilising classifiers in certain syntactical situations. 13

Modification including number/distribution, negation, size/shape specifiers, noun/verb distinctions and handling classifiers In BSL one sign can have many different meanings (Kyle & Woll, 1985). The basic lexicon can be modified to show amongst other things number/distribution, negation, size/shape specifiers, noun/verb distinctions and handling classifiers. The same applies to NSL. Number/distribution This morphologically complex group of signs can be thought of as representing plurals in BSL (Herman et al., 1999). The base sign is performed followed by a pro-form that is repeated and located along a line or arc moving from left to right (Fig. 2.3). Fig. 2.3 BEDS (ibid.) Negation In BSL negation can be shown in three ways: by shaking the head which is glossed as neg e.g. WOMAN TELEVISION WATCH neg, by ending a sign with the palms facing upwards (see Fig. 2.4), or by using a multi-channel sign (see Fig. 2.5). Multi-channel signs do not have mouthings that are similar to any spoken word, but are performed together with an expelling of air or other special mouth gestures (Sutton-Spence & Woll, 1999). Fig. 2.4 DON T-LIKE. Note how the palms finally face upwards (ibid.). 14

Fig. 2.5 NOT-EXIST is a multi-channel sign. Mouth gesture: boo (ibid.). The two first forms of negation mentioned are similar in BSL and NSL. Although multichannel signs exist in both BSL and NSL they are for the most part, dissimilar. Size/shape specifiers Base signs can be modified to indicate the size and shape of nouns (Fig. 2.6) (Herman et al, 1999). Fig. 2.6 WIDE-BELT, NARROW-BELT (ibid.) Distinctions between verbs and nouns Distinctions between verbs and nouns can be shown through the use of totally different signs e.g. TO-FISH, A-FISH (Fig. 2.7) or a base sign can be modified by altering the duration and tempo of the movements used to perform the sign. In NSL the existence of a noun/verb distinction is controversial and under discussion at the moment. 15

Fig. 2.7 A-FISH, TO-FISH, (ibid.). Handling classifiers In this class of signs the handshape represents how a noun is handled (Fig. 2.8). Fig. 2.8 CARRY-BAG, CARRY-BABY A sign language verb can also give information about the subject s attitude and the appearance of the object e.g. (ibid.). 2.3 Are BSL and NSL related or similar in any way? In this section I will answer this question by looking at the historical and linguistic similarities between BSL and NSL. Historically, we have anecdotes of a common ancestry between NSL and ASL from contact with L Epée s School for the Deaf in Paris, established in 1770 (Kyle & Woll, 1985; Eriksson, 1993). Sign languages that are historically related are more similar to each other than languages that are not related (Sutton-Spence & Woll, 1999). For example, after a study by Woodward in 1978, comparing ASL and French Sign Language (FSL) it is generally assumed that the two languages do share a common ancestry (Kyle & Woll, 1985). However, after examining the histories of the British and Norwegian deaf communities, there appears to 16

be no documentation of BSL and NSL having a common ancestry or that members of the two deaf communities had contact before during the last century. 2.3.1 Similarity in lexicon Generally the average mean of similarity between the lexicons of unrelated sign languages is 35 40%. This is a much higher figure than one would expect between two unrelated spoken languages. Sign languages that have an historical connection show an even higher percentage e.g. Australian Sign Language (AUSLAN) and BSL: 80% (Kyle & Woll, 1985). Any similarities between BSL and NSL may be accounted for in a number of ways: These include historical links previously unsuspected, the borrowing of signs through contacts between signers using different sign languages, accidental similarities, or some specific cultural or universal propensities to label concepts in particular ways. (Woll, 1984. pp. 90). Words from different spoken languages that can be proven to have the same historical root by studying the written records or by systematically comparing existing languages in detail are called cognates. Some words can appear to be cognates, similar in meaning and sound, but in fact any likeness is coincidental. Such words are called chance cognates (Parkhurst & Parkhurst, 2003). It is difficult to study the historical development of sign languages, since there exists little written evidence until comparatively recently with the development of notation systems e.g. Sutton Movement Writing, Stokoe Notation etc (Kyle & Woll, 1985). The introduction of video has made it possible to record and study sign languages in depth. Because of the lack of documentary evidence of contact between the communities and common historical roots of the signs, I have chosen, therefore, to call all signs in BSL and NSL that are similar in appearance and meaning, chance cognates. The existence of chance cognates can be due to iconicity, which is used a great deal in all sign languages. An iconic sign reflects some of the properties of the object it represents: either its physical appearance or what it is used for or some other aspect. Since many objects can be expected to have a similar appearance and usage in different communities, it is not surprising that signs will also be similar (ibid.). For example, BOOK is a chance cognate in the sign languages of Norway, Spain, Finland, Bulgaria, Great Britain, etc. (Parkhurst & Parkhurst, 2003). The number of chance cognates in the test material used in this study must be taken into account when evaluating pupils results in some of the tests in this study. (See analysis of the test vocabulary, Appendix 1). 17