Teaching and Learning Signed Languages, International Perspectives and Practices (1349457280)

Teaching and Learning Signed Languages
This page intentionally left blank

Teaching and Learning
Signed Languages
International Perspectives and Practices
Edited by
David McKee, Russell S. Rosen, and Rachel McKee

Selection, introduction and editorial matter © David McKee, Russell S. Rosen,
and Rachel McKee 2014
Individual chapters © Respective authors 2014
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2014 978-1-137-31248-8
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this
publication may be made without written permission.
No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted
save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence
permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency,
Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication
may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.
The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this
work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published 2014 by
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN
Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited,
registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire RG21 6XS.
Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC,
175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010.
Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies
and has companies and representatives throughout the world.
Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States,
the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.
ISBN 978-1-349-45728-1 ISBN 978-1-137-31249-5 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/9781137312495
This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully
managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing
processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the
country of origin.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
Contents
List of Figures and Tables vii
Notes on Contributors x
Introduction 1
Section I Development and Impacts of Sign

Language Teaching
1 Swedish Sign Language as a Second Language: Historical
and Contemporary Perspectives 11
Anna-Lena Nilsson and Krister Schönström
2 Developing Deaf Communities through Sign Language

Teacher Training 35
David McKee and James Woodward
3 Educating the Trainers of British Sign Language Tutors:

Documenting the Educational Experience 65
Gary A. Quinn and Graham H. Turner
Section II Innovations in Using Digital Tools in

Teaching and Learning
4 Using Corpus-Based Research to Inform the Teaching of
Auslan (Australian Sign Language) as a Second Language 85
Donovan Cresdee and Trevor Johnston
5 eLCA – An e-learning Unit for Acquiring

Constructed Action 111
Renate Fischer and Anke Müller
6 Transcription as a Tool for Increasing Metalinguistic

Awareness in Learners of German Sign Language as
a Second Language 129
Thomas Kaul, Reiner Griebel, and Emily Kaufmann
v
vi Contents
Section III Learners and Contexts for Learning

7 Native Language, Target Language, and the Teaching and
Learning of American Sign Language Vocabulary 145
Russell S. Rosen, Mary-Kate DeLouise, Amanda T. Boyle,
and Kerry Daley
8 Hearing Parents as Plurilingual Learners of ASL 175

Kristin Snoddon
9 Learner Autonomy in New Zealand Sign Language

Interpreting Students 197
Lynette Pivac
10 Teaching British Sign Language as a Second Language to

Deaf Sign Language Users: Insights from
the Signs2Go Online Course 222
Jens Hessmann and Liesbeth Pyfers
Section IV Assessment
11 Formative Assessment for Student Progress and Program
Improvement in Sign Language as L2 Programs 253
David H. Smith and Jeffrey E. Davis
References 281
Index 287
Figures and Tables
Figures
1.1 Cover of Teckenspråket (Österberg, 1916) 21

1.2 Part of the hand position schema (Ordbok över de dövas
åtbördsspråk, 1) 23
1.3 Pages from the 1960 dictionary Ordbok över de dövas
åtbördsspråk (1960, pp. 60–61) 23
1.4 Page from Svenskt teckenspråkslexikon (1997, p. 19) 25
3.1 Range and mean ratings of student feedback 72
4.1 The signs FINISH.GOOD and FINISH.FIVE 88
4.2 The signs FINISH.GOOD and FINISH.FIVE 91
4.3 FINISH.GOOD as a full verb 93
4.4 FINISH.FIVE as a full verb 93
4.5 FINISH.GOOD as an auxiliary 93
4.6 FINISH.FIVE as an auxiliary 93
4.7 FINISH.GOOD as a conjunction 94
4.8 FINISH.FIVE as a conjunction 94
4.9 Illustrated Key Word in Context (KWIC) concordancer
tool in AntConc 107
5.1 User interface of exercise eLCA1 120
5.2 Lower part of the screen of overview display 122
5.3 User interface of exercise eLCA2 124
6.1 Mean, median scores for the error detection task
(grammaticality judgment), by group (control, test) 137
6.2 Mean, median scores for the error identification task, by
group (control, test) 138
7.1 Graphic representation of experiment one student
participant scores from voice-off, voice-on, and mixed
method groups 153
10.1 The main window of the Signs2Go course, showing
the unit clip for the Wicked TV program in the center,
the BSL signer (‘The immersion class’) on the bottom
left and the DGS signer (‘the bilingual class’) on
the bottom right 230
10.2 Overview of the different parts of each Signs2Go unit 231
vii
viii List of Figures and Tables
Tables
2.1 Certificate in the Linguistics of Vietnamese Sign

Languages, Level 1 40
2.2 Certificate in the Teaching of Vietnamese Sign
2.3 Certificate in the Linguistics of Vietnamese Sign
2.4 Certificate in the Teaching of Vietnamese Sign
2.5 APSL, Phase 1, Certificate in Sign Linguistics 43
2.6 APSL, Phase 1, Certificate in Sign Language Teaching 44
2.7 Courses taught in APSL Phase 2 47
2.8 Courses in sign linguistics taught in the higher diploma 47
2.9 Courses in Deaf studies and sign language teaching 48
3.1 Modules in each ToT cohort 70
3.2 Questions on the module evaluation form 72
4.1 The distribution of forms for the letter B in the
Auslan corpus 90
4.2 ELAN search examples 103
6.1 Transcription answer sheet example 135
6.2 Mean and median scores by task (error detection, error
identification) and group (control, test) 136
7.1 Experiment one: student participant scores,
voice-on class 150
7.2 Experiment one: student participant scores, mixed
methods class 151
7.3 Experiment one: student participant scores,
voice-off class 152
7.4 Experiment two: student participant pre-test scores 155
7.5 Experiment two: student participant post-test scores 156
7.6 Experiment three: each student participant’s
psychoeducational assessments 159
7.7 Experiment three: whole class, lexical recall after
complete voice-off instruction 164
7.8 Experiment three: control group, lexical recall after
complete voice-off instruction 164
7.9 Experiment three: experimental group, teacher
modification – lexical recall after voice-on instruction 165
7.10 Experiment one: vocabulary 170
7.11 Experiment two: vocabulary 171
List of Figures and Tables ix
7.12 Experiment three: pre-test vocabulary lists taught under

voice-off condition 171
7.13 Post-test vocabulary lists taught under both voice-off
and voice-on conditions 172
11.1 Rubric for assessment of expressive skills in American
Sign Language 265
Contributors
Amanda T. Boyle holds a Master’s in Teaching American Sign Language

as a Foreign Language from Teachers College, Columbia University. She
has taught American Sign Language (ASL) at Walt Whitman High School
and Farmingdale Middle School, and is currently at the Little Rascals
Learning Center.
Donovan Cresdee is Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Depart-

ment of Linguistics, Macquarie University. He studied applied linguistics
and second language teaching at the University of South Australia
and the Charles Darwin University. His research interests are signed
discourse cohesion, language teaching methodology, corpora of signed
languages, and grammaticalization. He has over 20 years of experi-
ence teaching Auslan, sign linguistics, and training Auslan tutors, and
has written curricula for Auslan.
Kerry Daley holds a Master’s in Teaching American Sign Language as

a Foreign Language from Teachers College, Columbia University. She
has taught ASL at Oyster Bay High School. Kerry also is a frequent ASL
and Deaf culture guest lecturer at Dowling College. Her interests include
Deaf community expositions and performances in ASL.
Jeffrey E. Davis has worked as an interpreter, teacher, and researcher in

signed language linguistics and interpretation. Since 2000, he has been a
professor in the American Sign Language and Educational Interpretation
Program at the University of Tennessee. He has published and presented
internationally on topics spanning sign language linguistics, interpre-
tation, and translation. He authored Hand Talk: Sign Language among
American Indian Nations (2010) and co-edited Sign Language Interpreting
in Multilingual/Multicultural Contexts (2010).
Mary-Kate DeLouise received her Master’s in Teaching American Sign

Language as a Foreign Language at Teachers College, Columbia Univer-
sity. She previously taught ASL classes at SUNY New Paltz, and currently
teaches ASL and history at Mary McDowell Friends School, a Quaker
x
Notes on Contributors xi
school for students with learning disabilities. Her teaching and research
interests focus on the development of student-centered curricula for her
current student population.
Renate Fischer was born in Berlin and studied in Berlin, Paris, and
Hamburg. She is Professor of Sign Language Linguistics and Deaf History
at the University of Hamburg, and has been teaching and researching at
the institute since its establishment. Current research interests include
constructed action in German Sign Language, how to distinguish it from
enactment in spoken language, and how to teach it to second language
learners. Many of her publications are accessible online at: http://www.
sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/personal/personen/fischer/fischer.html
Reiner Griebel has taught German Sign Language (DGS) in the Depart-
ment of Special Education and Rehabilitation in the area of Sign
Language and Communication of the Deaf at the University of Cologne
since 2006. From 1995 to 2006 he was the pedagogical director of the
State Institute for Sign Language (LINGS) of North Rhine-Westfalia,
Germany.
Jens Hessmann is Professor in the Sign Language Interpreting Unit at

Magdeburg-Stendal University of Applied Sciences, Germany. He is also
a course leader in the European Master of Sign Language Interpreting,
offered jointly by three European universities. Over the past 25 years, his
publications have covered a range of topics in relation to sign linguistics,
Deaf studies, and interpreting. He is co-editor of a recent handbook on
German Sign Language.
Trevor Johnston is Professor in Signed Language Linguistics at

Macquarie University, Sydney, and a Fellow of the Australian Academy
of the Humanities. He has a national and international reputation
in sign language documentation and description, having compiled
the first dictionary of Auslan (Australian Sign Language) and the first
large machine-readable multimedia signed language corpus. With Adam
Schembri, he is co-author of Australian Sign Language: An Introduction to
Sign Language Linguistics (2007).
Emily Kaufmann is a sign language linguistics researcher in the

Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation at the University
of Cologne. She has a special interest in bimodal bilingualism and
psycholinguistics.
xii Notes on Contributors
Thomas Kaul is Professor of Deaf Education at the University of

Cologne, Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation. Research
areas include language learning and communication of the deaf. He is
Head of the Sign Language Division of the Teacher Training Program in
Deaf Education at the University of Cologne.
David McKee is Director of the Deaf Studies Research Unit in the School
of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies at Victoria University of
Wellington. David has taught sign language and Deaf studies since the
1970s in USA and in New Zealand, and trained Deaf sign language teach-
ers in New Zealand and the Asia-Pacific region. His research interests
include sign lexicography, corpus analysis. and sociolinguistic varia-
tion. He co-edited the Online Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language
(2011).
Rachel McKee is Program Director of Deaf Studies in the School of

Linguistics and Applied Language Studies at Victoria University of
Wellington. She has co-founded programs in sign language interpreting
and second language teaching of New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL),
and is qualified as an NZSL and ASL interpreter. Book and article
publications span description of NZSL, sign language interpreting, lan-
guage and education policy vis-à-vis NZSL, sociolinguistics of NZSL, and
lexicography.
Anke Müller has worked on a bilingual teaching project (German for

deaf adults) and on e-learning for sign language teaching at the Univer-
sity of Hamburg. Her research interests in sign language linguistics are
mainly in discourse and text structure and the use of iconic devices.
Anna-Lena Nilsson is Associate Professor in (Swedish) Sign Language

at Stockholm University, where she teaches sign linguistics and further
education courses for Swedish Sign Language interpreters. She also has
more than 30 years’ experience of signed language interpreting. Her
PhD thesis was titled ‘Studies in Swedish Sign Language: Reference, Real
Space Blending, and Interpretation’. Her major research interests are in
discourse structure and reference in sign language, and the implications
for teaching interpreters.
Lynette Pivac holds an MA in Applied Language Studies, and is a

lecturer in the sign language interpreting program at AUT Univer-
sity in New Zealand. Lynette has extensive experience of teaching
Notes on Contributors xiii
sign languages and developing resources for the teaching of NZSL and
interpreting. Her research interests include sign language teaching and
learning as a second language, learning strategies, learner autonomy,
and blended learning involving digital video technology.
Liesbeth Pyfers is a psychologist who runs her own research and devel-
opment company, Pragma, in the Netherlands. Since 1994 she has
co-ordinated a series of projects under various EU Research Funding
Programs. Several of these projects were for sign language users and
involved the development and evaluation of ICT and e-learning tools:
from sign print, via signing avatars, to sign video. Her major research
interest has been the accessibility of information (and, thereby, educa-
tion, work, society) for people who cannot, for whatever reason, process
print.
Gary A. Quinn has over ten years’ experience teaching deaf students
in higher education. He is a lecturer and currently studying for a PhD
at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, Scotland. His research publica-
tions to date have focused on teaching deaf students in higher education
and on sign linguistics, including the origins of regional variation in
BSL. Currently he is involved in a project developing science signs at
the University of Edinburgh.
Russell S. Rosen is Assistant Professor of Education at Teachers College,

Columbia University, where he is the co-ordinator and founder of the
Program in the Teaching of American Sign Language as a Foreign Lan-
guage. Publications and research interests focus on the anthropology
and history of deaf people and their community and culture, psycholin-
guistics, linguistics and applied linguistics of ASL, second language
acquisition and instruction, curriculum, assessment, and the philosophy
of disability.
Krister Schönström is Associate Professor in the Department of Lin-

guistics, Stockholm University and has 15 years of experience teaching
Swedish and Swedish Sign Language. In 2010 he completed his PhD
thesis on bimodal–bilingual development in Swedish deaf children. His
main research interests include bilingualism and second language acqui-
sition in the deaf and hard-of-hearing. Currently he is conducting two
research projects investigating the bilingual situation of deaf and hard-
of-hearing students with regard to Swedish Sign Language, and the
written Swedish of hard-of-hearing students.
xiv Notes on Contributors
David H. Smith is currently Director of the Center on Deafness and

an associate professor at the University of Tennessee. He has worked as
a teacher of deaf children and taught in higher education programs in
teacher preparation, Deaf studies, and ASL for over a decade. His areas of
research and publication involve classroom discourse in sign language,
deaf and disability studies, and sign language skills assessment.
Kristin Snoddon is a postdoctoral fellow with the School of Early Child-

hood Studies, Ryerson University, Canada, where she teaches courses in
working with linguistically and culturally diverse children, and inclu-
sive curriculum design. She has worked with international, national,
and provincial organizations of deaf people, including a position as ASL
and Literacy Training Coordinator for the Ontario Cultural Society of
the Deaf, where she organized training for sign language instructors. She
has published in a range of areas on early literacy in deaf children. Her
book American Sign Language and Early Literacy: A Model Parent-Child Pro-
gram was recently published. Other publications have appeared in the
Canadian Modern Language Review, Current Issues in Language Planning,
Sign Language Studies, and Writing & Pedagogy.
Graham H. Turner is the Chair of Interpreting and Translation Studies

at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, Scotland. His research over 20
years has included work on Deaf experiences in education, legal set-
tings, sport, social care, the theater, and the workplace. Publications
include Word-Order Issues in Sign Language (1994), Deaf United (2000),
Interpreting Interpreting: Studies & Reflections on Sign Language Interpreting
(2001), and Many Ways to be Deaf (2003). His work has appeared in Sign
Language Studies, Current Issues in Language Planning, Sociolinguistics in
Deaf Communities, The Translator, and the International Journal of Applied
Linguistics.
James Woodward is Honorary Adjunct Professor in the Depart-

ment of Linguistics and Modern Languages and Co-Director of the
Centre for Sign Linguistics and Deaf Studies at the Chinese Univer-
sity of Hong Kong since 2004. He has published on sign language
sociolinguistics, universal and unique characteristics of sign languages,
historical-comparative relationships of sign languages, and deaf edu-
cation. His current research interests include historical-comparative
relationships of sign languages and the description and documentation
of endangered sign languages.
Introduction
The profile of signed languages as taught second languages has soared

in recent decades. This volume responds to the fact that innovation
and knowledge in the sphere of sign language teaching remain scarcely
documented compared with the scientific description of linguistic and
cultural properties of signed languages.
Worldwide, second language courses in signed languages have flour-
ished across the spectrum of educational contexts, from elementary
schools to community education settings to university degree programs.
Acceptance of signed languages in the domain of foreign language study
has become widespread, in many instances overcoming misperceptions
about their ‘universal’ or non-foreign character, and concerns about
their non-written form and lack of a conventional literature. Indeed,
learning sign language has become highly popular. In the USA, for
example, the Modern Language Association reported a startling 432
percent increase in enrolments in American Sign Language (ASL) courses
and the establishment of 187 new programs between 1998 and 2002.1
Teachers of signed language as a second language work across a vari-
ety of institutional and community contexts, and respond to diverse
learner goals and characteristics, sometimes within the same classroom
or program. Sign language learners bring a host of motivations, includ-
ing preparation and credential requirements for teaching, interpreting,
and service professions, a desire to communicate in family and social
contexts, and purely linguistic interest. Most learners of sign language
aim to make use of their language skills to interact with members of the
local target community, thus giving sign language teachers a responsi-
bility for preparing learners not only with language competencies but
also with the pragmatic and cultural knowledge needed to engage with
Deaf sign language users in a visual modality, in real contexts.
1
2 Introduction
Worldwide, the teaching and learning of signed languages as sec-

ond languages has been crucial to fostering understanding of their
importance to Deaf communities and promoting their status in society.
In countries where the teaching of signed languages is well established
and institutionally supported, there is usually also stronger recognition
of the needs of sign language users by governmental and administra-
tive bodies. The relationship between the development of sign language
teaching and advancing the linguistic human rights of sign language
users is complementary: societal commitment to improving commu-
nication accessibility requires that a range of professionals and service
providers acquire sign language proficiency, which in turn supports the
development of a sign language teaching industry and the production
of research and resources that support it.
Following the description of ASL in linguistic terms by William Stokoe
and associates in the 1960s, sign language research and teaching cen-
ters were established in many countries from the 1970s onwards. By the
1980s a burgeoning literature attesting to the linguistic properties of
signed languages and the production of national sign language dictio-
naries supported acknowledgment of signed languages as bona fide and
nationally distinct languages. Sign language and Deaf Studies teaching
programs have frequently co-existed in proximity to linguistic research
activity, and the scholarly description of lexicon, grammar, and use of
signed languages has provided an important source of ideas about how,
and what, to teach second language learners.
Nevertheless, the application of knowledge from sign language lin-
guistics to curriculum design and teaching remains under-developed in
comparison to the bridging field of applied linguistics that exists for spo-
ken languages. While the sign language teaching profession has grown
apace, the literature on linguistic and sociolinguistic aspects of signed
languages still far exceeds the scope of publications that address applied
issues of learning and teaching. Similarly, the application of theoret-
ical and empirical knowledge about spoken language L2 pedagogy is
under-explored in relation to signed languages. The distinctive bimodal
parameters of adult sign language learning are recognized by practition-
ers, but are not yet well articulated in terms of evidence-based teaching
practices. Rather, signed language pedagogy has relied strongly upon
the generation and sharing of practitioner insight, often in face-to-
face contexts such as workshops, conferences, training courses, and
on-the-job mentoring, which can be highly effective but ephemeral.
A relatively small selection of commercially published and custom-
made sign language teaching curricula and student materials have also
David McKee et al. 3
been influential in disseminating teaching approaches adapted from

the field of spoken language L2 teaching. Sign language teachers often
state that their methods rest on intuition and their understandings of
language and linguistics, developed through practical experience, avail-
able learning materials, and familiarity with their learners. This basis
for teaching practice can become deeply developed and effective, but
may not systematically lead towards evidence-based improvements in
practice across the field, which is broadly the goal of applied linguistics.
Besides a short history of professionalization, the emergent status of
applied sign language linguistics reflects some structural realities sur-
rounding the teaching of signed languages. Conditions vary between
countries, but some common factors include, first, a small number and
typically casual employment status of Deaf sign language teachers which
constrains the development of a professional infrastructure; second,
the historical hosting of sign language teaching programs in academic
disciplines such as communication disorders and special education or
in community education contexts which are outside the domain of
second/foreign language teaching; and, third, a lack of specialized qual-
ification requirements for sign language teachers in many (though not
all) contexts. Variable professional preparation relates to employment
of teachers across diverse contexts, and also reflects the barriers to
mainstream higher education experienced by first language sign lan-
guage users, and the lack of sign language specific teaching preparation
programs that are available. Programs and temporary projects to train
teachers of signed languages have been established in numerous coun-
tries, mainly from the 1990s; internationally, some are offered at a
foundational level and in a format designed to empower Deaf commu-
nity participation, while a smaller number are offered at Bachelor’s or
Master’s degree level. All such programs are challenged by the scarcity of
professional literature (in either written or signed form) that would form
a common foundation for promulgating effective pedagogical practices.
In turn, the relative scarcity of permanent and advanced-level academic
programs that address sign language teaching constrains the growth
of research and curriculum development, which is most likely to be
generated by faculty and graduates of such programs.
Notwithstanding these facts, a growing number of researchers and
teaching practitioners are actively investigating principles, practices,
and outcomes of sign language teaching for diverse learner groups.
This volume brings together an international collection of contem-
porary work by such scholars, as a contribution to the development
of an applied sign linguistics literature that we observe to be needed.
4 Introduction
Research approaches represented in this volume range from qualitative,

ethnographic, and documentary studies to quantitative and experimen-
tal designs. Topics span learner and teacher perspectives on learning,
teaching, and teacher training, and issues of curriculum, task, and assess-
ment design. Some chapters make an explicit link between empirical
findings of linguistic analysis and the design of curricula and learning
tasks. Another prevalent source of pedagogical innovation featuring in
the volume is the dynamic capacity of digital media and online learn-
ing tools to reconfigure the types of resources, tasks, and assessment
methods available to learners and teachers. The effects of learner char-
acteristics and strategies, and of specific instructional conditions, are
explored in some studies. Several contributors provide a macro-level
overview of teaching and training developments in a specific geograph-
ical context, which enables comparative reflection on patterns in the
development and impacts of sign language teaching. The following
section provides a preview of the contents of the volume, which is
organized into four sections.
The first section offers comparative insight into the development and
impacts of sign language teaching and teacher training through case
studies in three regions of the world. Anna-Lena Nilsson and Krister
Schönström start with a historical overview of factors that have con-
tributed to the development of teaching and learning of Swedish Sign
Language (SSL) as a second language, and consider future prospects
for SSL as a first and second language in light of the increasing num-
ber of deaf2 individuals who are growing up as cochlear implant users,
and associated changes in deaf education practices. These contextual
changes surrounding sign language teaching clearly have international
relevance.
Initiatives to formally train Deaf people as sign language teachers
have contributed not only to improving the standard of sign language
teaching and learning, but also to the internal development of Deaf
communities, by raising consciousness, increasing employment oppor-
tunities, and disseminating knowledge that underpins the advocacy for
recognition of a signed language. From the Oceania and Asia region,
David McKee and James Woodward report on teacher training pro-
grams established with broad development aims; their chapter outlines
the aims, structure, and participant perceptions of programs in two
contexts – New Zealand, and an Asia-Pacific regional program in sign
linguistics and teaching based in Hong Kong.
Moving a level beyond language teacher preparation, Gary Quinn and
Graham Turner’s chapter reports on a Graduate Diploma program in
Teaching British Sign Language Tutors, a course designed to train the

Deaf trainers of prospective BSL teachers. They discuss the rationale for
establishing the course, and its content, and evaluate impacts of the
program on course participants.
The second section of the volume focuses on teaching techniques
and task design, highlighting the application of digital tools and
research methods to sign language learning. Donovan Cresdee and
Trevor Johnston make a case for the merits of sign language teach-
ers and curriculum planners utilizing corpus-based evidence about sign
language structure and usage (illustrated by their work on Auslan) to
inform curriculum content, and as a resource for inquiry-based learning
by teachers and students of signed language. They argue that empir-
ical evidence from a corpus does not always align with intuitive or
conventional explanations about language use that teachers present to
learners.
Mastering the use of constructed action (CA) is known to be a bimodal
challenge for second language users of signed languages. Recently, con-
ceptual renewal in sign linguistics has resulted in re-evaluation of
iconicity in CA and led to enriched description of constructed action
as a discourse structure which is helpful for pedagogy. In this chap-
ter, Renate Fischer and Anke Müller report on the development and
use of an e-learning tool (eLCA) designed for students of Deutsche
Gebärdensprache (German Sign Language, known as DGS) as a means
of improving metalinguistic awareness, comprehension, and produc-
tion of CA.
Also addressing the development of metalinguistic awareness for DGS
learners, Thomas Kaul, Reiner Griebel, and Emily Kaufmann report on
an experimental study using transcription to improve students’ recep-
tive language competence. The aim of the transcription task was to
promote ‘noticing’ of non-manual features and mouth gestures, through
close analysis of sign language texts – using a method that parallels
phonological awareness tasks for learners of spoken languages. Results
from grammaticality judgment tests show a performance advantage for
the test group over a control group, indicating that repeated practice
using the transcription technique strengthens metalinguistic awareness
of the target features.
The third section of the volume comprises four studies that reveal
perspectives, strategies, and contexts of differing types of sign language
learners. Given that hearing learners are learning to communicate in a
visual modality, yet have the sensory capacity to be bimodal, teachers
may choose to keep classroom instruction and interaction ‘unimodal’
6 Introduction
(in sign language only) or bimodal (utilizing both native (spoken) and
target (signed) languages). The effects of target versus native language
as the medium of instruction in ASL classrooms is the focus of three
experimental school classroom studies reported by Russell Rosen, Mary
DeLouise, Amanda Boyle, and Kerry Drake. Comparison of learner per-
formance on vocabulary retention tests under each condition indicates
the overall advantage of target language or mixed modes as the medium
of vocabulary learning; however, some differential effects for students
with learning disabilities are also discussed.
Parents of deaf children are a target group of second language users
who have highly specific and important learning needs, and empir-
ical research is needed to identify effective contexts and approaches
for supporting their learning. Kristin Snoddon’s contribution reports
an ethnographic study of a series of workshops teaching parents how
to read books with their young Deaf child using ASL. In particular,
parents’ perspectives and orientations towards ASL and literacy and
learning goals are highlighted in comparison to the teaching goals of
three Deaf instructors. Implications of these findings regarding parents’
plurilingual orientation and repertoires are discussed in regard to early
years programming and policy.
Enrichment of linguistic and pragmatic competencies through inde-
pendent practice in authentic language contexts is a dearly held goal for
educators of sign language interpreting students. In a qualitative study
of interpreter trainees in New Zealand, Lynette Pivac explores learners’
reflections on their strategies and resources for autonomous learning
within academic and community contexts during a two-year program.
Learner perspectives gleaned from participants are considered in relation
to notions of ‘good language learner’ characteristics and sociocultural
perspectives on learner autonomy.
Deaf people as unimodal learners of a foreign sign language are only
emerging as a subject of consideration in course design or research.
Returning to a theme of plurilingualism, Jens Hessman and Liesbeth
Pyfers report on a collaborative project undertaken by a group of Deaf
and hearing researchers from EU countries which resulted in an online
course in British Sign Language as a foreign language (titled ‘Signs 2Go’),
for Deaf sign language users from Norway, the Netherlands, Germany,
and Italy. Their chapter identifies native language knowledge that is
apparently transferable for such learners, and considers what kinds of
metalinguistic annotation of authentic materials and tasks are most use-
ful for them in an online medium. The authors suggest that lexical
information is most critical to this target group, and draw attention to
the wider point that vocabulary acquisition and enrichment should take
a central place in all sign language instruction.
A final section comprises a chapter by David Smith and Jeffrey Davis
that begins by reviewing the existing literature on assessment of L2 sign
language users, differentiating summative and formative assessment,
which is the focus of their chapter. They highlight the importance of for-
mative assessment as a means of measuring learner progress and as a tool
for evaluating instructional effectiveness within programs. By way of
illustration, they discuss the efficacy of one approach currently offered
online at a large sign language program at a university in the USA, which
they regard as a pioneering formative assessment tool. Smith and Davis’
review reiterates that sign language teachers need more assessment tools
that have proven reliability based on empirical trials with large numbers
of learners.
The scope and diversity of this volume were determined by the range
of work offered in response to a call for papers. While this collection
addresses only a sample of the potential issues and contexts that are
pertinent to teachers and researchers in the field, we believe it provides
valuable insights on current practices and perspectives that will inform
sign language teachers, teacher preparation programs, and researchers.
It is the editors’ hope that this volume will encourage further inves-
tigation and publication about problems and innovations in second
language teaching, learning, and assessment of signed languages.
Notes
1. Welles, E. B. 2004. Foreign Language Enrollments in United States Insti-
tutions of Higher Education, Fall 2002. ADFL Bulletin, Vol. 35, Nos. 2–3
(Winter–Spring 2004).
2. Regarding use of ‘deaf’ and ‘Deaf’ in this volume: in the Deaf Studies liter-
ature, upper and lower case forms of d/Deaf are commonly used to denote
audiological status vs cultural-linguistc identity, and may be applied differen-
tially to children and adults according to their assumed degree of affiliation
with a signing community. Variation in the use of this orthographic conven-
tion between chapters in this volume reflects authors’ own preferences in the
use of this distinction.
Section I
Development and Impacts
of Sign Language Teaching
1
Swedish Sign Language as a Second
Language: Historical and
Contemporary Perspectives
Anna-Lena Nilsson and Krister Schönström
Introduction
Sweden was one of the first countries in the world to officially recognize
a signed language as a language. In 1981, Swedish Sign Language (SSL)
was recognized in a government bill (Proposition, 1980/81:100). This
recognition, in turn, had major consequences for the acknowledgement
of SSL as the first language of deaf children, and also increased the need
for formal courses in SSL. This chapter will mainly provide a historical
description of the teaching and learning of SSL as a second language
(L2) during the late 20th and early 21st century. In light of recent tech-
nical developments like, for instance, cochlear implants, some future
considerations for SSL, both as a first language (L1) and as L2, will also
be discussed, as will changes in the signing community in Sweden.
The academic study of how people learn a second language is rela-
tively recent, but the phenomenon itself is not new. As long as people
have migrated there has been second language learning, with people
moving into a new linguistic environment learning that language, or
people conquering an area and forcing their language upon the peo-
ple already living there. Certain parallels could possibly be drawn with
regard to signed languages, even though the circumstances are differ-
ent. When it comes to signed languages, it is usually not a matter
of crossing geographical borders. However, deaf people have always
been surrounded by a hearing majority in their respective countries.
In order for hearing people to communicate successfully with deaf peo-
ple, signing skills are required. Therefore many hearing individuals have
been learning sign language as a second language, thereby crossing the
11
12 Development and Impacts of Sign Language Teaching
linguistic border between the groups. For what purposes and to what
degree they have learned to sign has depended on the values and ide-
als prevailing in society during different periods of time. However, as is
the case for many other signed languages worldwide, the teaching and
learning of SSL as L2 has been the subject of very little research. This
chapter presents background facts and some experiences of the teach-
ing and learning of SSL as L2, analyzing and contextualizing them in
order to document important knowledge in this field and to share this
information both nationally and internationally.
We will provide a broad description of the teaching and learning of
SSL as a second language, describing it from a historical point of view,
and in addition portray the development up until today’s state of the
art, focusing on some key areas. To date, there has been no research on
this particular subject in Sweden, which makes the need for a histori-
cal description even greater. It is also our firm belief that many of the
trends described in this chapter will have parallels in other countries,
and the chapter will therefore be both useful and interesting from an
international perspective.
The formal teaching of SSL as L2 will be described from a general per-
spective, as regards both how it started and its development. We will
look at the main types of SSL as L2 teaching from a historical perspec-
tive, but also at the situation today. Some main target groups for the
teaching of SSL as L2, as well as the specific types of courses aimed at
them, will also be briefly discussed, as will the teachers. As an example
of the teaching materials used, we will describe how the ideas behind
the production of SSL dictionaries have changed over time. The chap-
ter concludes with some remarks regarding how both the L1 and the L2
learner groups of SSL are beginning to change, and some implications
this may have for the future of the signing community in Sweden.
The emergence of SSL as L2
Formal teaching of SSL as L2 is a relatively new phenomenon. The lan-

guage used to be transmitted from one generation to the next in deaf
families, in direct contact between people, for example, in schools for
the deaf, and in other situations where people were communicating in
sign language. As we will see, political decisions of various kinds were
instrumental in changing society’s views of deaf people and their lan-
guage, and as a result more and more hearing people needed to – or
quite simply wanted to – learn SSL.
Anna-Lena Nilsson and Krister Schönström 13
The Government Commission on Handicapped Persons (Handikappu-

tredningen) delivered its final report in 1976 (SOU, 1976:20). The report
contains a general discussion on the importance of language, culture,
and accessibility for everybody in society. The Commission stresses
that parents of deaf children have a right to learn sign language,
and that deaf children must receive linguistic stimulation by learning
sign language in pre-schools and schools. In addition, the importance
of sign language interpreters, the development of telephone services
(‘TV-phones’) for the deaf, and cultural activities like theater plays in
sign language are also discussed.
As a consequence of this change in society, the demand for formal
courses for parents of deaf children as well as other people in how
to communicate with the deaf increased. In these courses, however,
participants did not usually learn SSL – that is, the signed language
used in the Deaf community. When the political compass regarding
the communicative needs of deaf people started to change towards an
acceptance of using signs in the 1960s–1970s, what was recommended
was in fact a construction known as ‘Signed Swedish’ (Tecknad svenska).
Hearing people were told that they should speak Swedish while simulta-
neously producing one sign for each Swedish word they uttered. Using
this method of communication was erroneously believed to help deaf
people learn Swedish, which in turn was seen as crucial for the integra-
tion of deaf people in the majority society, and as a way to ‘normalize’
deaf people. Thus, signing was seen as a tool to reach this goal, whereas
SSL was not regarded as a valuable language in its own right.
Political trends and decisions

In 1967, a government committee suggested that society should offer
interpreting services for the Deaf free of charge, and in 1969 such provi-
sional services were organized for the first time (SOU, 1976:20, p. 108).
Before there were professional sign language interpreters in Sweden,
hearing children of deaf parents were a bridge to the hearing major-
ity society. They would interpret for their parents, and sometimes also
for their parents’ friends. As these new, formalized interpreting ser-
vices increased in volume a need for more SSL interpreters and for
formal training to become an interpreter became apparent. The Swedish
National Board of Education (Skolöverstyrelsen (SÖ)) initiated such a
training course, in co-operation with the National Association of the
Deaf (Sveriges Dövas Riksförbund (SDR)), The Association of the Swedish
Deaf Blind (Föreningen Sveriges Dövblinda), and The National Board of
Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen). The money to set up the courses was
taken from the state budget, from money set aside for ‘cultural activities
for handicapped people’. Gradually, persons who were not already fluent
signers were also trained to become SSL interpreters, and these inter-
preting students constituted one of the first large groups that needed
formal teaching of SSL as L2. It has been estimated that already during
the period from 1969 to 1976 approximately 200 persons were trained
to be SSL interpreters (SOU, 1976:20, p. 116).
Another driving force behind the emergence of the teaching of SSL
as L2 was a realization that not even the new technological advances
and improved hearing aids were enough to make the oral method of
teaching deaf and hard-of-hearing (HoH) children successful for all chil-
dren. In Sweden, a major turning point was an information meeting
held in Uppsala on May 10, 1970. At this meeting, members of SDR
and members of the Swedish National Association for Deaf, Hearing-
Impaired and Language-Impaired Children (Döva barns målsmän, DBM)
were invited to put questions to a panel of experts. The panel consisted
of researchers specializing in communication of the Deaf, and also the
principal of the Manilla School for the Deaf in Stockholm. Fortunately
for those of us who were not there, this decisive debate was transcribed
and published (SDR, 1971). Some of the experts stressed the importance
of early communication to ensure that a child develops into a normal,
healthy individual. During and after this meeting, many parents aban-
doned their earlier negative attitude towards using SSL in their homes
and towards its being used in the education of their children.
As we will see below, some of the main target groups for the teach-
ing of SSL as L2 have thus been the (hearing) parents of deaf children,
teachers of the deaf, and interpreting students.
Contributions from early research

During the early 1970s, there was a generally held belief that SSL was
not a ‘real language’, and therefore needed to be ‘developed’ in order to
be used in for instance educational settings: ‘To develop sign language
and make it fit better with the spoken language is one of the biggest
problems. In that area we have other specialists better equipped than
me, that can tell us how well developed it is today’ (Prof. G. Hanson at
the meeting held in Uppsala in 1970, SDR, 1971, p. 6, our translation).
Research into SSL began in 1972, in the Department of Linguistics at
Stockholm University. The results of early research on SSL, as well as
research on other signed languages, formed the foundation for efforts to
demonstrate that SSL was indeed a real language. Knowledge about the
grammar and lexicon of SSL was also important for the formal teaching
of SSL as L2. In addition, these research findings were fundamental for
the official recognition of SSL in 1981, when a government bill (Prop.,
1980/81:100) stating the need for deaf people to be bilingual was passed
in the Swedish parliament.
This bill stated that ‘[t]he Government Commission on Integration
points out that profoundly deaf people have to be bilingual to function
among themselves and in society. Bilingualism on their part, accord-
ing to the Commission, means that they have to be fluent in their
visual/gestural sign language and in the language society surrounds
them with – Swedish’ (Government Bill (Prop. 1980/81:100); our trans-
lation). In passing this bill, the Swedish Parliament was the first to
officially recognize a signed language as a language in its own right.
Research on the linguistic status of SSL was, of course, essential, but
there were other areas of research that were of equal importance dur-
ing these early years. In a project during the 1970s, the early linguistic
cognitive development in deaf and severely HoH children was investi-
gated in the same department at Stockholm University (Ahlgren, 1978).
In this project, the research team also examined the effects of teach-
ing ‘real sign language’ (as opposed to Signed Swedish) to parents of
deaf children (Ulfsparre, 1978). The work carried out in this research
project helped convince hearing parents that both they and their chil-
dren would benefit from learning SSL. The research team at Stockholm
University also hosted the First International Symposium on Sign Lan-
guage Research, which was held in Stockholm in June 1979 (Ahlgren &
Bergman, 1980).
Research on SSL continues at Stockholm University, and currently
covers areas such as children’s acquisition of SSL (Bergman, 2012), con-
structing a corpus of SSL for various educational and research uses
(Mesch, 2012), and the use of signing space in simultaneous sign lan-
guage interpretation. In addition, data will be gathered from students
learning SSL as an L2 in a new Bachelor’s program, and this data can
subsequently be used in future studies of this important area. Making
sure that research results continue to feed into the teaching of SSL as L2
is an important consideration for the future.
Teaching SSL as L2: Some target groups, courses,

and teacher provision
In the next three sub-sections we will look at some of the main target
groups for the teaching of SSL as L2 and the SSL courses specifically
aimed at them. Our focus will be Swedish/SSL interpreters, parents of

deaf and HoH children, and teachers of the deaf, but some other impor-
tant groups will also be mentioned. After this, we will briefly discuss the
matter of teachers for these courses.
Interpreters
In 1969, the Swedish National Association of the Deaf had founded
Västanviks folkhögskola. This is a so-called folk high school, a special type
of adult education college, and most of the courses at this particular folk
high school were held in sign language. The early sign language inter-
preting courses, which varied in length between two and six weeks, were
located there. The very first interpreters’ training course was held from
April 14 to May 24, 1969. The participants in this six-week course were
11 persons who were fluent users of SSL, and had already been interpret-
ing for several years (Lundström, n.d.). Nine of the participants were the
children of deaf parents.
During the first years, courses training SSL interpreters were aimed
at fluent signers. However, as the need for interpreters increased, peo-
ple who had hardly any signing skills at all were sent on the courses.
In order to resolve the problems this created during the courses, which
were in part taught in sign language by deaf teachers, an admission test
to make sure the students had the necessary signing skills was launched
in 1977. In addition, the interpreting courses were supplemented with
short courses in SSL, aimed at helping applicants to learn enough SSL to
pass this admission test.
The interpreters’ training courses gradually became longer and longer.
In 1981, a one-year (full-time) program was established. This program
was expanded into a two-year program in 1989. In addition, there was
a two-year program to learn SSL in place for those who needed to learn
SSL in order to pass the admission test to be accepted into the inter-
preters’ training program. During the 1990s more programs were set
up in similar training institutions in other parts of Sweden, all mod-
eled on the same pattern. ‘Two-year programs in SSL are offered by six
folk high schools as a preparation before the interpreters’ training pro-
gram’ (SOU, 1996:102, p. 30, our translation). The programs eventually
changed into four-year programs integrating the contents of the SSL pro-
grams and the interpreting programs, and the centralized admission test
was abandoned.
In 1983, a diploma program in SSL interpreting was established at
Stockholm University. This was an advanced course for people who
were already working as sign language interpreters. There was a special
admission test, in which applicants had to show their ability to inter-

pret. The program was a year and a half, full-time, with the explicit
aim of training interpreters to work in higher education. Since then,
there have been different types of interpreting courses and programs
at Stockholm University which have all included teaching of SSL the-
ory/grammar, and several of them have also included classes aimed at
improving these interpreters’ SSL skills.
Until today, all courses and programs in sign language interpreting
at university level in Sweden have thus been further education courses
of varying length, but there has never been any university program to
train SSL interpreters from scratch. In 2012, the Swedish government
appointed Stockholm University to create a Bachelor’s program (three
years, full-time) in ‘sign language and interpreting’, launched in 2013.
Parents of deaf and hard-of-hearing children

As mentioned above, hearing parents of deaf and HoH children began
to show an increasing interest in learning SSL in the early 1970s, and
summer courses in SSL for parents of deaf and HoH children were orga-
nized at Västanviks folkhögskola, the folk high school owned by SDR
(SOU, 1996:102, p. 24). The whole family was invited to these courses,
and, while the parents were learning SSL from deaf tutors, the children
were playing together and looked after by other deaf people. Later, this
type of combined SSL course and summer camp for the whole family
spread to many places in Sweden. Many parents have expressed their
gratitude for these camps, where they met other parents of deaf chil-
dren and, in addition to learning SSL, also formed informal support
groups.
From the early 1970s until today, parents have played a key role in the
development of bilingual education for the deaf in Sweden. The national
SSL teaching program for these parents that gradually came into exis-
tence was of major importance for this development. As soon as a child
was diagnosed as deaf, parents were offered courses in SSL. The govern-
ment paid for these courses, and parents were compensated for course
fees as well as receiving compensation for loss of income. In a govern-
ment committee report in 1976, it was proposed that both the father
and mother of a deaf child should be ensured the right to attend sign
language courses, and that the government should compensate them for
their loss of income (SOU, 1976:20, p. 78). During the 1990s, this system
was further improved, with a new national curriculum for the courses,
totaling 240 hours, offered to all parents (SOU, 1996:102, p. 12). The
courses are offered by folk high schools throughout Sweden, which are
authorized to do so by The National Agency for Special Needs Education

and Schools (Specialpedagogiska skolmyndigheten). The courses are offered
in many different ways; as evening classes, week-long courses at the
schools for the deaf, weekend classes, camps where both parents and
children attend, and so on.1
Teachers of the deaf

During the 1970s, there were also major changes in Sweden as regards
the education of deaf and HoH children. In 1974, the SÖ set up a com-
mittee, whose task was to look after and promote the use of signs in
the education of deaf children. It was, however, still recommended that
hearing people (teachers, assistants, etc.) speak Swedish, and produce
signs accompanying their speech (SOU, 1976:20, pp. 72–73). It was sug-
gested that the specialized training to become a teacher of the deaf be
revised, to include more SSL (SOU, 1976:20, pp. 78–79). However, stu-
dents in these teacher training programs were mainly taught individual
signs to be used while they continued to speak Swedish.
Following the recognition of SSL as a language in 1981, a new national
curriculum for schools for the deaf came into effect in 1983. This cur-
riculum made SSL the language of instruction in the schools, in addition
to being one of the languages taught: SSL, Swedish, and English (I86:22).
In order to implement this curriculum, further education courses in SSL
were organized for teachers who were already working in schools for the
deaf. Teachers of the deaf were offered one semester of full-time studies
at Stockholm University with their travel expenses as well as room and
board paid, and retaining their salary. The schools were compensated by
the government for the cost of hiring substitute teachers. Now, the aim
was for teachers to learn SSL, to be able to communicate with both the
children and their deaf colleagues.
Some additional groups

During the 1970s, deaf people and SSL (and/or Signed Swedish) gradu-
ally became more and more visible in society. Of particular importance
to achieve this were some TV shows mentioned below. Formal courses
on how to communicate with deaf people had already started to occur
on a more regular basis in the 1960s. The increase in visibility, and the
official recognition of SSL in 1981, created a growing interest in learning
the language, not only among friends and relatives of deaf people, but
also in society in general. Many hearing persons thus attended evening
classes organized by local deaf clubs, often in co-operation with local
educational associations for adults.
Starting in the late 1980s, Stockholm University also offered courses

in SSL for beginners. It was possible to study SSL for a total of three
semesters, full-time, and then combine these courses with courses in
other subjects as part of a degree. These courses attracted many different
types of students, some of whom then continued to the SSL interpreters’
training programs in folk high schools around Sweden.
In addition to courses and training programs that form(ed) part of the
ordinary educational system, there have also been different programs in
effect whereby, for example, a hearing person who has a deaf colleague
at work received SSL training free of charge, through the labor market
authorities (SOU, 1996:102, p. 31).
From 1995, SSL was also offered as one of the foreign languages to
choose from in schools for hearing pupils, on a par with languages such
as German, French, and Spanish.
Sweden has a sizeable group of deaf immigrants. The specific needs of
deaf immigrants, and the fact that they need different types of courses
in Swedish than hearing immigrants need, have taken a long time to
establish. In addition to learning Swedish, these immigrants need to
learn SSL, a fact that was observed in a government report in 2006
(SOU, 2006:54, pp. 161–176). Today, Västanviks folkhögskola runs a spe-
cial program for deaf and HoH asylum seekers, in co-operation with the
Swedish Migration Board (Migrationsverket). In addition to learning more
about Swedish society in general, participants in this program also learn
Swedish and SSL.
SSL teachers
As the need for courses in SSL was also increasing in society in gen-
eral, Västanviks folkhögskola introduced special courses for deaf people
who wanted to teach SSL. The first such courses were held in the early
1980s, and they began as 15-week courses. These courses could not fill
the need for tutors and teachers of SSL, however, and a very heteroge-
neous group of people have been teaching the language. Many different
types of materials have been used, and also many different approaches
to teaching the language, all in accordance with the individual teachers’
views.
Though a national curriculum for SSL as L2 was produced in the mid-
1990s, when the subject was introduced in schools for hearing pupils,
no formal training for teachers of SSL was ever established. This lack of
formal teachers’ training, as well as the lack of teaching materials, was
discussed in parliament several times during the late 1990s, but despite
these discussions nothing changed (SOU, 2006:29, pp. 104–105).
While there has not been any formal SSL teacher education, there
have still been efforts to develop the profession. For instance, there
have been some fairly short-lived associations and networks where SSL
teachers have been active in different ways. Currently, the Swedish sys-
tem for training teachers is changing, due to new legislation demanding
that teachers have formal qualifications for the topics and school levels
which they teach. To be allowed to teach and to give grades, an autho-
rization as a qualified teacher will very soon be needed (SFS, 2011:326).
However, teachers of SSL have not been taken into consideration dur-
ing the process, and teachers who have been teaching SSL for years
suddenly find they do not have the formal qualifications to be autho-
rized for teaching in schools. This is yet another example of how society
often fails to take minorities into account when deciding on new polit-
ical directions. These recent political developments have led to a new
interest in issues regarding SSL teachers, and SDR recently organized a
national conference for such teachers.
Spreading SSL to the general public
In this section we will look at how knowledge of SSL, and of deaf people,
spread to a more general public in Sweden. The production of textbooks
and materials for L2 learning of SSL has been very ad hoc, and it is prac-
tically impossible to take stock of this. The materials that have been
produced vary widely, seen from both a quantitative and a qualitative
perspective. As dictionaries are essential for language learners we will
focus on them, describing the changing philosophy behind the produc-
tion of SSL dictionaries. We will also provide a section describing the
period when SSL was made visible in Swedish society via television.
Swedish Sign Language dictionaries

The first dictionary of SSL, Teckenspråket (Sign Language) (Österberg,
1916), was an attempt to describe SSL that originated in work to create a
unified Scandinavian sign language and dictionary (Figure 1.1). Individ-
ual signs were described, but also the linguistic system as such, with a
‘mini-grammar’ of SSL. The author, Oskar Österberg, was a Swedish deaf
man. He wanted to describe SSL, which, according to him, was ‘known
for being the most beautiful’ (1916, p. 4, our translation). Österberg also
argued that the term ‘Sign Language’ (teckenspråk) was more appropri-
ate than the commonly used ‘gesture language’ (åtbördsspråk), with its
more derogatory connotations. Österberg was a pioneer, who, for exam-
ple, introduced a distinction between ‘lexical signs’ (fasta tecken) and
21
Figure 1.1 Cover of Teckenspråket (Österberg, 1916)

‘gestures’ (gester). He also discussed topics like pantomime and mimicry,

etymology, language politics, and language planning. Seen in the light
of the circumstances at the time, and the fact that he himself was a
shoemaker, this work is impressive.
The next SSL dictionary was not published until 1960: Ordbok över
de dövas åtbördsspråk (1960) (Dictionary of the Gesture Language of
the Deaf). The title is interesting in itself, as the term discarded by
Österberg – ‘gesture language’ – is used, not ‘sign language’, which
he recommended, and which is used today. There is also an emphasis
on this language being used by ‘the deaf’. This title thus queries the
linguistic status of SSL, and makes it a matter solely for deaf people.
A committee under the auspices of the Swedish state church developed
the dictionary. In the preface, the reader is told that the aim is not for
the dictionary to be in any way complete. It is said that the aim is to
give a hearing person some knowledge of this distinctive language (our
translation). The committee consisted of only hearing people, many of
who had deaf parents and remain prominent figures in Swedish deaf
history (for example, Elsa Fondelius and Hilding Zommarin). A pic-
ture schema, with hand positions from Danish Sign Language (see
Figure 1.2), was included, but no other photos. Signs for Swedish words
are described with words and with references to the hand position
schema (Figure 1.3). A mini-grammar describing some of the parts of
speech in SSL is included too, but it is based on the grammar of Swedish.
In 1968, the SÖ published the third dictionary in co-operation with
SDR and corresponding associations in the Nordic countries: Tecken-
språk för döva – Illustrerad ordbok över svenska teckenspråket (Sign Language
for the Deaf – An Illustrated Dictionary of the Swedish Sign Language)
(Skolöverstyrelsen, 1968). The dictionary had several purposes. One aim
was to help integrate the ‘handicapped’, that is, deaf people, into soci-
ety. Another aim was to use the dictionary in the emerging interpreter
education, which was to be established in 1969 (see above). Finally,
the dictionary was to be used in the training of teachers of the deaf,
and in sign language classes in schools for the deaf. Not only SSL signs
were included in the dictionary, but also a selection of signs from the
signed languages of the other Nordic countries. The dictionary contains
a total of approximately 2,700 signs. According to the introductory text,
it is the first dictionary in which all signs are described in both text
and pictures. There are also more signs described than in earlier dic-
tionaries. However, a condescending attitude to SSL can be seen in the
introduction, with its focus on deaf children learning to speak and write
Swedish: ‘But sign language needs to be nurtured and structured during
23
Figure 1.2 Part of the hand position schema (Ordbok över de dövas åtbördsspråk, 1)
Figure 1.3 Pages from the 1960 dictionary Ordbok över de dövas åtbördsspråk
(1960, pp. 60–61)
the school years, so that it does not break down the laboriously learned
speech and writing, which is so important for deaf people’s contacts
with hearing society’ (Skolöverstyrelsen, 1968, p. vii, our translation).
The fact that signs from other national signed languages were included,
as a matter of course, is also a clear indication that SSL was not regarded
as a valid language in its own right.
During the 1970s there was a growing interest in learning SSL. The
Swedish National Association of the Deaf established a committee for
a new dictionary to be used in courses teaching SSL. This Teckenordbok
(1970) (Sign Dictionary) was published in 1971, and contained approx-
imately 1,200 signs (Sveriges Dövas Riksförbund, 1971).2 In 1978, an
updated version was published: Teckenboken (1978) (The Sign Book),
containing approximately 3,000 signs (Sveriges Dövas Riksförbund,
1978). Both these dictionaries co-occurred with the period when ‘Signed
Swedish’ was used (see above), and they were based on a monolingual
Swedish dictionary, not on the existing sign vocabulary of SSL (Bergman,
1977).
In the late 1990s, a dictionary for SSL was finally constructed in which
signs were presented according to sign structure and hand shapes, not
the alphabetical order of translations of signs into Swedish (Figure 1.4).
The preface of Svenskt teckenspråkslexikon (Dictionary of Swedish Sign
Language), first published in 1997, states: ‘Finally a modern Sign Dic-
tionary!’ (Sveriges Dövas Riksförbund, 1997, p. vii, our translation).
This dictionary was developed in close co-operation between SDR and
the Sign Language Section at Stockholm University, using research on
SSL from the beginning of the 1970s and onwards. The dictionary
contains 2,968 lexical signs, as well as the SSL manual alphabet and
numbers. The target audience was ‘everybody who is interested in Sign
Language’ (Sveriges Dövas Riksförbund, 1997, p. vii, our translation),
including parents of deaf children, SSL teachers, interpreting students,
and teachers of the deaf. This dictionary was converted into a digital
dictionary, on CD/DVD and later also available on the internet, with
film clips of the individual signs both in isolation and used in example
sentences.
The most recent SSL dictionary is web-based and developed by the
Sign Language Section at Stockholm University (Svenskt teckenspråk-
slexikon 2008–).3 The dictionary is based on the 1997 dictionary, and
directed at the same target groups. With the possibilities that a continu-
ously upgraded, web-based content can offer, it has become a viable tool
for teachers and researchers. L2 learners can also search and watch film
clips of signs and signed sentences here, and there are mobile versions
25
Figure 1.4 Page from Svenskt teckenspråkslexikon (1997, p. 19)

and applications for iPhone, iPad, and Android phones/tablets. The web
dictionary and the applications are all free of charge, offering great
accessibility for any L2 learner of SSL. During 2012, a corpus of SSL was
published and is freely accessible on the internet.
Though earlier dictionaries were developed by committees that often
consisted of people who were deaf or otherwise fluent signers, the work
was influenced by the political mood and attitudes prevailing during
those decades. SSL was not accepted as a full language, but as something
that needed to be adapted to Swedish. A linguistically appropriate dic-
tionary was not developed until long after the emergence of research
in SSL and the acceptance and recognition of SSL. The modern dic-
tionaries (1997 and the web-based continuously upgraded one) have
a broader target group, due to the increased acknowledgment of SSL
in Swedish society. Due to advancements such as the recognition of SSL
and establishing of Sign Bilingual Education in Sweden, for instance, the
incentive to learn real SSL has increased, and there are therefore more
people interested in learning the language. Target groups now include
people such as teachers and researchers, but also hearing parents of deaf
children as well as members of the general public. From being directed
at L2 learners only, the current dictionary is also directed at L1 learn-
ers. Whereas the earliest dictionaries, especially those developed in the
1960s and 1970s, had a clear normative perspective, recent dictionaries
are more descriptive in nature with a variety of lexical signs, including
regional and also obsolete variants of signs.
Signing on Swedish public service television

Public service television was very important for making signing visible
to the general public in Sweden. In the 1970s, Sweden had only two TV
channels, so the range of programs to choose from was highly restricted.
Between 1974 and 1975 the TV show Upp med händerna (Hands up) was
broadcast on one of these channels. It was a family show that included
playing with and learning signs. Even though people were not using real
SSL, but using a contact form of SSL that entailed speaking and signing
at the same time, the show made a lot of people aware of sign language.
A famous Swedish TV producer, Gunnel Linde, known for making very
popular TV programs, produced the show.
Another TV show, mainly for deaf and HoH children, Tisdagskul med
teckenspråk (Tuesday fun with sign language), was broadcast in the 1970s
and 1980s. A nationally famous hearing actor/clown Clownen Manne
(Manne the clown), who has a deaf daughter, performed on this show
using signs while speaking Swedish.
These shows, ‘Hands up’ in particular, had a major impact on Swedish

society. Hearing people noticed SSL, and many of them became con-
scious of deaf people and SSL and even learned some signs. The effect
lasted for a long time, especially in the generation that grew up watching
those TV shows.
The changing context in the signing community and

implications for target groups of SSL as L2
Until now, teaching SSL as L2 has mainly implied teaching SSL to hear-
ing people, but we can see a changing pattern emerging. In this section
we will therefore describe how the L2 learner groups are beginning to
change, and currently also include, for example, children with cochlear
implants (CI), as well as other persons with impaired hearing.
One reason for this development is that more than 90 percent of the
children who are born deaf in Sweden today receive CI, most of them
bilaterally, at the age of 8–18 months (SOU, 2008:26; Karolinska, 2011;
Barnplantorna, 2012). This means that almost all deaf children have
CI, including some of those with deaf parent(s). This is the result of a
development that began in the 1990s, as the first children in Sweden
were surgically implanted with CI at an early age in 1990 (Anmyr &
Lundin, 2006). At the time, this was highly controversial in the deaf
community, and it was the subject of a long and heated debate. How-
ever, parents still chose implantation for their children, and the number
of children getting implanted increased during the late 1990s and the
2000s. During the same period, children were getting their implants at
an increasingly younger age, too. According to emerging research results
within the CI field, early implantation is seen as one of the factors for
succeeding with a CI (see, for instance, Leigh, 2008). The question of
how to define success is, of course, relative. Success as defined in the
research summarized in Leigh (2008) often refers only to the improved
ability to hear and speak in children implanted with CI.
This development, however, presents us with new challenges, like
defining the bilingual needs of these children, and it has also affected
schools for the deaf in Sweden. Whereas the schools previously offered
education strictly based on visual communication, they now also offer
auditory-based education, in order to meet demands from parents of
children with CI (Svartholm, 2007; see also SOU, 2011:30). It also seems
as if the number of children enrolling in schools for the deaf is decreas-
ing, while the number of children with CI enrolling in schools for the
deaf is increasing (SOU, 2011:30). Some parents also seem to choose
to place their children in schools for hearing children, with or without

additional support. Unfortunately, there is a lack of research regarding
children with CI and their bilingual needs (Kirkehei, Myrhaug, Garm,
Simonsen, & Wie, 2011). Many of these children do seem to be able
to acquire Swedish as their L1 via speech and hearing. However, they
need to learn sign language for various situations in which the CI is not
sufficient, as well as situations when they cannot use it (Preisler, 2007;
Svartholm, 2007; SOU, 2008:26; see also Marschark & Hauser, 2008).
With the exception of children of deaf parents, one can assume that
fewer of these children will acquire SSL as L1 in the future.
The development regarding cochlear implantation will possibly have
other effects, as well. Today, an increasing number of parents do not
think they need to learn SSL, as their children have CI and develop
spoken Swedish spontaneously. Educational choices for these children
will also, quite likely, affect both the number of teachers of the deaf
needed in the future, and the training of these future teachers.
Another major change is that there is now a large group of HoH indi-
viduals, especially HoH youths, who are fighting for their right to be
bilingual in Swedish and SSL. They are demanding the right to learn SSL,
regardless of whether they attend mainstream schools or are in special
groups or schools for the HoH (HRF, 2007). One reason is that it makes it
possible for them to access higher education more easily, with the aid of
sign language interpreters.4 Many HoH youths who learn SSL relatively
late describe this as something resulting in very mixed feelings. They
experience relief, when they finally have easy access to communication
in situations that have previously been difficult for them (HRF, 2007; see
also Ahlström & Svartholm, 1998).
Ahlström & Svartholm (1998) conducted a pilot study interviewing
bilingual HoH persons who acquired SSL in adolescence or later. The
study clearly shows that even individuals using speech in their daily life
also benefit from being bilingual in Swedish and SSL. This was especially
clear in situations where there was noise or where technical support was
not sufficient or not available (for example school, university, or work).
We believe that similar conclusions can be drawn for many children
with CI. Parallels can also be found in Midbøe (2011), studying the first
generation of deaf individuals growing up with CI from an early age.5
This case study included interviews with seven deaf adolescents about
their experiences growing up with CI. Even if many of them were able
to speak and hear, to various degrees, a bilingualism that included SSL
was still an important source for successful communication in every-
day life for many of them. There was an indication that the skill level
and use of SLL varied among these adolescents; however, their knowl-
edge of SSL was not explicitly tested. More studies are thus needed to
confirm the extent of this, and to discover how effective teaching for
them should be formed in the future. To summarize, what we currently
are experiencing is increasing numbers of young people who want to
decide for themselves when to use SSL and interpreters, and when the
CI is sufficient.
The changing context in the deaf community thus provides us with
many new issues to consider, and challenges for the future related to
the learning and teaching of SSL. In Schönström (forthcoming) the
demand for bilingualism for deaf children with CI and HoH children
was surveyed. Semi-structured interview sessions were conducted, in
which teachers from special schools for the deaf and HoH (with bilin-
gual education in Swedish and SSL) and from schools for the HoH (with
monolingual Swedish education) were interviewed. The study clearly
showed that on the one hand, the SSL skills varied more among these
children than among children enrolled in schools in the 2000s. On the
other hand, there is still a clear need for SSL among these children. SSL
may have to be taught as L2 to many of them, adapting the teaching
especially according to the fact that they are HoH or have CI. All teach-
ers were in agreement that there is a need for more knowledge about
how this should best be done.
This changing pattern has already had an effect on governmental poli-
cies regarding education. Special schools for the deaf in Sweden have
offered bilingual education (Swedish and SSL) since 1983. The most
recent national curriculum for these schools was published in 2011 (Lgr
11), in order to meet the new profile of this changing target group. The
change can be seen, for example, in the curricula for different languages,
and more specifically in the achievement descriptions of SSL. Having
been aimed at a more or less homogeneous visually oriented group of
pupils, the description is now directed at a more heterogeneous group
that may be able to hear to some degree, or not, with differing pre-
requisites and abilities. The most striking change, however, is that two
different SSL subjects are now taught in the schools: ‘SSL for the deaf
and HoH’ and ‘SSL for beginners’. The reason for this is the recent
phenomenon of pupils enrolling in schools for the deaf later in their
schooling, after not succeeding in a mainstream school setting. As they
cannot fulfill the requirements for achieving the aims of ‘SSL for the
deaf and HoH’, ‘SSL for beginners’ is offered to them instead. This is a
more L2 learning-like subject, aimed at developing their SSL proficiency
(SOU, 2011:30).
As we have shown, the conditions for SSL are changing, as is the whole
context. Though SSL was one of the first signed languages in the world
to be recognized, we are now in a situation where the number of deaf
people learning SSL as L1 is in fact decreasing and the proportion of deaf
people likely to learn it as an L2 is increasing.
Conclusions
Looking back at the attitudes that the early L2 learners of SSL faced
in the 1970s, it is obvious that the situation must have been highly
confusing for them. They were supposed to learn a language that was
not considered a real language, or at least not equivalent in status to
Swedish. They were also taught that they should continue to speak
Swedish while producing signs. However, many of them soon noticed
that this was not the way deaf people were communicating with each
other, and realized they could not understand a conversation between
deaf people. Not until the late 1970s and during the 1980s, with the
emergence of recognition of SSL, did this situation truly change, largely
as an effect of linguistic research into SSL. During the late 1980s and
1990s, teaching SSL as L2 finally matured, and, despite a lack of cen-
tralized guidelines, teacher education, and teaching materials, a large
number of people studied SSL as L2 in various settings.
Empirical research in the field of SSL as L2 is urgently needed: research
from a second language acquisition perspective, for instance, inves-
tigating the linguistic outputs of different target groups in order to
improve knowledge about learning an L2 cross-modally. Such research
would give new and important insights for linguistic research in gen-
eral. In addition, it would provide essential knowledge useful for future
educational purposes, especially with regard to, for example, SSL inter-
preting programs. There is also a new group of deaf people, that is, those
with CI, who, we believe, will develop SSL not as their L1, but as an
L2. Due to their ability to hear, many of them are going to learn spo-
ken Swedish first. Their particular learning situation needs to be taken
into consideration. Additionally, as the hearing status of these individ-
uals will vary, the extent to which and the manner in which they will
acquire spoken Swedish will vary, too. At this point in time, we do not
know how all of this will affect their learning of SSL, as compared with
the ‘traditional’ hearing group learning SSL as L2. In this context, we
also need to consider the question of teachers of SSL for these different
learner groups. Whereas there are training programs through which you
can become a teacher of the deaf and HoH, there is currently no formal
training program to become a teacher of SSL. Traditionally, many deaf

persons have worked as SSL teachers. Even though many of them had
no formal education, at least they had their L1 knowledge to rely on
when teaching hearing L2 learners. But if the number of deaf persons
with SSL as L1 decreases, and since there is still no formal teacher train-
ing program available for teachers of SSL, who will teach the language
in the future? In addition, due to new legislation, only people who
have trained to be formally qualified teachers will be allowed to give
grades, and to hold permanent positions as teachers. This will indeed be
a challenge for the future.
In addition to research regarding SSL as L2, we also need to reflect
on what the future may bring as regards the situation for SSL in this
changing society. On the one hand, an increasing number of people are
learning SSL, which, of course, is a good thing. However, the number
of people acquiring SSL as their first language seems to be decreasing.
What will this mean for the development of SSL? These are all important
challenges for future research.
Notes
1. Sign Language education for certain parents. ‘Teckenspråksutbildning för vissa
föräldrar’. Retrieved from SPSM’s website, April 2, 2013: http://www.spsm.se/
sv/Vi-erbjuder/Kurser-och-konferenser/For-foraldrar/Teckenspraksutbildning-
for-vissa-foraldrar/
2. Note that the Swedish title Teckenordbok literally translates into ‘Sign Word
Book’, which clearly mirrors the lack of knowledge and the attitudes existing
at the time.
3. The dictionary has been continuously developed since 2008, and will con-
tinue to be so. Therefore there is no year after the dash, to indicate that the
dictionary is an ongoing project.
4. Students in tertiary education institutions in Sweden are entitled to unlimited
hours of sign language interpreting, free of charge.
5. The age of implantation was 2–13 years. The participants had multiple back-
grounds; some were born deaf whereas others became deaf later in childhood
and had already developed speech prior to deafness and implantation.
References
Ahlgren, I. (1978). ‘Early Linguistic Cognitive Development in the Deaf and
Severely Hard of Hearing’, in Forskning om Teckenspråk II, pp. 11–15. Stockholm:
Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.
Ahlgren, I. & B. Bergman (eds) (1980). Papers from the First International Symposium
on Sign Langage Research. Leksand: Sveriges Dövas Riksförbund.
Ahlström, M. & K. Svartholm (1998). Barndomshörselskadades erfarenheter och
upplevelser av tvåspråkighet. En pilotstudie [Experiences of bilingualism by
persons with an early hearing loss. A pilot study], in Forskning om teckenspråk

XXI. Stockholm: Institutionen för lingvistik, Stockholms Universitet.
Anmyr, L. & Y. Lundin (2006). Cochlearimplantat på barn – föräldrarnas syn-
punkter påomhändertagandet och samarbetet mellan hörselvården, CI-teamet och
förskola/skola [Cochlear Implants in Children – Parental Views on Care and Cooper-
ation between the Audiology Team, the CI Team and Pre-School/School]. Stockholm:
Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset.
Barnplantorna (September, 2012). Är CI lämpligt för ditt barn? [Is your
child eligible for a cochlear implant?] Retrieved October 13, 2014 from:
http://www.karolinska.se/Verksamheternas/Kliniker–enheter/Oron–nas–och-
halsklinikerna/Huddinge-Cochleasektionen/Vem-kan-fa-ett-cochleaimplantat/
Bergman, B. (1977). Tecknad svenska [Signed Swedish] Utbildningsforskning 28.
Stockholm: Liber Läromedel/Utbildningsförlaget.
Bergman, B. (2012). Barns tidiga teckenspråksutveckling. Med illustrationer av
Lena Johansmide [Early Sign Language development in children. With illus-
trations by Lena Johansmide], in Forskning om Teckenspråk XXII. Stockholm:
Institutionen för lingvistik, Stockholms universitet.
HRF (2007). Äh det var inget viktigt . . . Om hörselskadades situation i Sverige. HRF:
sårsrapport 2007 [It Wasn’t Important . . . About the Situation for Hard of Hearing
Persons in Sweden]. Stockholm: Hörselskadades riksförbund.
I86:22 (1986). Special School Curriculum. NBE Information. Stockholm: Swedish
National Board of Education.
Karolinska (2011, October). Vilka kan behöva ett Cochleaimplantat? [Who might
need a cochlear implant?] Retrieved October 14, 2013 from: http://www.
karolinska.se/Verksamheternas/Klinikerenheter/Oron–nas–och-halsklinikerna/
Huddinge-Cochleasektionen/Vem-kan-fa-ett-cochleaimplantat/
Kirkehei, I., H. T. Myrhaug, N. Garm, E. Simonsen & O. B. Wie (2011).
Kommunikasjonformer for barn med cochleaimplantat [Communication
modes for children with cochlea implants]. Rapport fra Kunnskapssenteret
15–2011. Oslo: Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter for helsetjenesten.
Leigh, G. (2008). Changing Parameters in Deafness and Deaf Education. Greater
Opportunity but Continuing Diversity, in M. Marschark & P. C. Hauser (eds)
Deaf Cognition. Foundations and Outcomes, pp. 24–51. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lgr 11. Läroplan for specialskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet 2011 [Cur-
riculum for the special school, preschool class and the leisure-time centre 2011].
Skolverket. Stockholm: Fritzes.
Lundström, B. (no date). Teckenspråket är grunden i vår profession. En bok om
Sveriges Teckenspråkstolkars Förening [Sign Language is the Foundation of Our Profes-
sion. A Book about the Swedish National Association of Sign Language Interpreters].
Örebro: Tryckverksta’n i Örebro AB.
Marschark, M. & P. C. Hauser (2008). Cognitive Underpinnings of Learning by
Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students: Differences, Diversity, and Directions, in
M. Marschark & P. C. Hauser (eds) Deaf Cognition. Foundations and Outcomes,
pp. 3–23. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mesch, J. (2012). Swedish Sign Language Corpus, Deaf Studies and Digital Journal,
3. Retrieved October 14, 2013 from: http://dsdj.gallaudet.edu
Midbøe, M. (2011). Upplevelse av delaktighet i det sociala samspelet hos
ungdomar med cochleaimplantat [Youth with cochlear implant and their
perceived participation in social interplay], Master’s thesis. Stockholms

Universitet: Psykologiska Institutionen. Retrieved October 14, 2013 from:
su.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:402328/FULLTEXT01
Ordbok över de dövas åtbördsspråk (1960). [Dictionary of the Gesture Language of the
Deaf ]. Stockholm: Esselte.
Österberg, O. (1916). Teckenspråket. Med rikt illustrerad ordbok över det av Sveriges
dövstumma använda åtbördsspråket [Sign Language. With Richly Illustrated Dic-
tionary on the Gesture Language Used by the Deaf ]. Uppsala: P. Alfr. Persons
förlag.
Preisler, G. (2007). The Psychosocial Development of Deaf Children with
Cochlear Implants, in L. Komesaroff (ed.) Surgical Consent. Bioethics and
Cochlear Implantation, pp. 120–136. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University
Press.
Proposition 1980/81:100, Bilaga 12. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.
Schönström, K. (Forthcoming). Surveying the Bilingual Situation in the Deaf
and Hard-of-Hearing with Special Focus on Swedish Sign Language. Stockholm:
Stockholm University, Department of Linguistics.
SDR (1971). Paneldebatt vid informationsmöte i Uppsala den 10 maj 1970 [Panel
discussion at an information meeting in Uppsala on May 10, 1970]. Borlänge:
Sveriges Dövas Riksförbund.
SFS 2011:326. Förordning om behörighet och legimitation för lärare och förskollärare
och utnämning till lektor [Qualification and Authorization Act of Teachers, Preschool
Teachers and Appointment to Lecture]. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.
Skolöverstyrelsen (1968). Teckenspråk för döva. Illustrerad ordbok över svenska
teckenspråket, Sammanställd av Ann-Marie Bjurgate [Sign Language for the Deaf.
An Illustrated Dictionary of the Swedish Sign Language, edited by Ann-Marie
Bjurgate]. Stockholm: SÖ-förlaget, Skolöverstyrelsen.
SOU 1976:20. Kultur åt alla. Betänkande från Handikapputredningen [Culture for
Everybody. Final Report from the Government Commission on Handicapped Persons].
Stockholm: LiberFörlag Allmänna Förlaget.
SOU 1996:102. TUFF – Teckenspråksutbildning för föräldrar. Slutbetänkande av
Utredningen om utbildning i teckenspråk för föräldrar till döva barn m.m. [Sign Lan-
guage Courses for Parents. Final Report from the Government Commission on Sign
Language Courses for Parents of Deaf Children and so on]. Stockholm: Fritzes.
SOU 2006:29. Teckenspråk och teckenspråkiga. Kunskaps- och forskningsöversikt.
Betänkande av utredningen Översyn av teckenspråkets ställning [Sign Language
and Sign Language Users. A Survey of Current Research and Knowledge. Report
from the Government Commission on the Position of Sign Language]. Stockholm:
Fritzes.
SOU 2006:54. Teckenspråk och teckenspråkiga. Översyn av teckenspråkets ställning
[Sign Language and Sign Language Users. A Survey of the Position of Sign Language.
Final Report from the Government Commission on the Position of Sign Language].
Stockholm: Fritzes.
SOU 2008:26. Värna språken – förslag till språklag. Betänkande av Språklagsutrednin-
gen [Protecting Languages – a Suggestion for a Language Act. Final Report from the
Government Commission for a Language Act]. Stockholm: Fritzes.
SOU 2011:30. Med rätt att välja – flexibel utbildning för elever som tillhör special-
skolans målgrupp. Delbetänkande av Utredningen om en flexibel specialskola [With
a Right to Choose – Flexible Education for Children Attending Special Schools for the
Deaf and Hard of Hearing. Partial Report from the Government Commission on a
Flexible Special School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing]. Stockholm: Fritzes.
Svartholm, K. (2007). Cochlear-Implanted Children in Sweden’s Bilingual
Schools, in L. Komesaroff (ed.) Surgical Consent. Bioethics and Cochlear Implan-
tation, pp. 137–150. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Svenskt teckenspråkslexikon [Swedish Sign Language Dictionary]. Stockholm:
Stockholm University, Department of Linguistics). Retrieved October 14, 2013
from: www.ling.su.se/teckensprakslexikon
Sveriges Dövas Riksförbund (1971). Teckenordbok [Sign Dictionary]. Borlänge:
Sveriges Dövas Riksförbund.
Sveriges Dövas Riksförbund (1978). Teckenboken [Sign Book]. Leksand: Sveriges
Dövas Riksförbund.
Sveriges Dövas Riksförbund (1997). Svenskt teckenspråkslexikon [Swedish Sign
Language Dictionary]. Leksand: Sveriges Dövas Riksförbund.
Ulfsparre, S. (1978). Teaching Sign Language to Hearing Parents of Deaf Children,
in Forskning om Teckenspråk II, 5–10. Stockholm: Department of Linguistics,
Stockholm University.
2
Developing Deaf Communities
through Sign Language
Teacher Training
David McKee and James Woodward
Introduction
The development of sign language teaching as a community and

professional endeavor has been closely associated with the documen-
tation, promotion, and recognition of signed languages in many coun-
tries. In most places, though, the availability of formal training for Deaf
people as language teachers has lagged behind the demand for instruc-
tors in settings such as training programs for sign language interpreters
and teachers of the Deaf. Like teachers of other minority languages
that have been rapidly promoted or revived in the public domain (such
as Te Reo Māori in New Zealand), many Deaf sign language teachers
have developed their practices and expertise through experience, infor-
mal apprenticeship, and ad hoc professional development opportunities
rather than through formal preparation. For Deaf people whose primary
language is a signed language, study of second language teaching in
mainstream programs is hindered by accessibility and literacy barriers
to higher education in general (see Quinn and Turner, this volume).
Deaf communities’ interest in retaining control of sign language teach-
ing and promoting wider learning of sign language has given rise to
specialized teacher training initiatives, which have often been estab-
lished collaboratively between a Deaf organization and an academic
institution. Sign language teacher training opportunities now range
from non-credit-bearing courses and workshops to academic programs
that award vocational or university qualifications at undergraduate and
postgraduate levels.
35
Anecdotally, it is known that the training and employment of Deaf

people as sign language teachers has had important community devel-
opment and empowerment impacts in many countries. These include
strengthening pride in Deaf cultural–linguistic identity, enhancing
capacity for leadership and advocacy, opening a pathway into higher
education and professional employment opportunities, and increasing
access to society through wider public awareness of signed languages.
While the growth of signed language teaching in academia (mainly in
the USA) has been noted (e.g. Miller, 2008; Rosen, 2008; Brueggeman,
2009; Rosen, 2010), there is little written on the impacts of sign language
teacher training upon Deaf individuals and communities involved.
This chapter reports on the processes and outcomes of sign language
teacher training initiatives in two contexts: an Asia-Pacific regional pro-
gram based in Hong Kong, and New Zealand. We describe the social
context and development of the two programs, outline their aims,
structure, and delivery, and reflect on participant perceptions about
outcomes for them and their wider communities.
Context and structure of the two programs
The two programs discussed in this chapter are (i) the Asia-Pacific Sign
Linguistics Research and Training Program (hereafter abbreviated as
APSL), hosted in the Linguistics department of the Chinese Univer-
sity of Hong Kong, and (ii) the Certificate in Deaf Studies: Teaching
New Zealand Sign Language (hereafter abbreviated as CDSNZSL), hosted
in the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies at Victoria
University of Wellington.
APSL is a regional program that involves Deaf participants from eight
different countries and sign language communities. In addition to offer-
ing a higher education opportunity for individual participants, it has
explicit community development goals to be achieved via the graduates’
expected professional leadership of sign language documentation and
teaching on return to their respective countries. CDSNZSL is a national
program designed for members of the NZSL community and addresses
the need to prepare sign language teachers to work mainly in commu-
nity adult education settings. The APSL program is more ambitious in
its scope and academic level, more administratively complex, and has
higher stakes for regional development outcomes. Both, however, share
the goal of empowering Deaf communities through an accessible train-
ing program that aims to raise the caliber of sign language teaching.
Each program is hosted by a university department of linguistics that
David McKee and James Woodward 37
has a sign language research profile and a demonstrated commitment to

supporting equity initiatives for Deaf communities. Directors of both
programs maintain liaison with national Deaf organizations as key
stakeholders.
The authors have been closely involved in founding and teaching
these programs (Woodward – APSL; McKee – CDSNZSL). Both are orig-
inally US citizens who reside in the country in which each program
runs, where they have learned the local sign language(s) in which they
teach.
Asia-Pacific Sign Linguistics Research and Training (APSL)

Program (Chinese University of Hong Kong)
While this section focuses on the sign language teaching component in

the Asia-Pacific Sign Linguistics Research and Training (APSL) Phase 2
Program, it should be stressed that the sign language teaching compo-
nent in APSL Phase 2 did not develop in a vacuum, but has been strongly
influenced by previously successful sign language teaching programs in
Asia. In order to understand why the APSL Phase 2 sign language teach-
ing component is the way it is, it is crucial to have an understanding
of two previous programs that have affected its development: the Thai
World Deaf Leadership (WDL) Project (see Woodward, 1997 for further
description), and the Dong Nai Deaf Education Project (see Woodward
and Nguyen, 2012). It is also necessary to outline the first phase of the
APSL program, which preceded the current second phase.
The Thai WDL project

The Thai WDL Project (1997–2002), funded by The Nippon Foundation
in Tokyo through Gallaudet University, was a collaborative effort among
the National Association of the Deaf in Thailand (NADT), Ratchasuda
College (part of Mahidol University at Salaya), and Gallaudet Univer-
sity. The purpose of the project was to train the first Thai Deaf teachers
of Modern Thai Sign Language. Originally, the project was designed to
have both a university level certificate in sign language analysis and a
university level certificate in sign language teaching, but only the cer-
tificate in sign language teaching was approved for funding and the
certificate in sign language analysis was shelved.
Selection process
The program was advertised through NADT, regional associations
of Deaf people in Thailand, schools for Deaf people, and other
organizations, institutions, and individuals working with Deaf people in

Thailand. Admission criteria included fluency in Modern Thai Sign Lan-
guage, active Deaf community participation, commitment to a career in
sign language teaching/research, and being a graduate of M3 (Grade 9)
for people over the age of 25 and a graduate of M6 (Grade 12) for peo-
ple between the ages of 18 and 25. Applicants were required to fill out
an application, to pass a Thai Sign Language proficiency examination
(by interview) conducted jointly by Ratchasuda faculty proficient in
Thai Sign Language and NADT, and be accepted by an ad hoc Admis-
sions Committee at Ratchasuda, at least half of whose members had to
be Deaf.
Curriculum and delivery

The curriculum for the Thai WDL certificate in sign language teaching
was in part based on some courses in sign language teaching offered at
Gallaudet University, which were modified to make the content appro-
priate for Thailand. There were also new courses in the Thai curriculum
not offered at the time at Gallaudet (see Woodward, 1997 for cur-
riculum details). Course scheduling followed the academic calendar at
Ratchasuda College. Students had to complete a total of nine courses
for a total of 36 credit hours. Students normally did this by taking three
courses per semester for three semesters. Each semester had 16 weeks of
instruction. The minimum period of study for the certificate was three
semesters. All requirements had to be completed within three years of
initial registration for the certificate.
Teachers
Teachers of sign linguistics courses were Ratchasuda faculty fluent in
Thai Sign Language who also had training in sign linguistics. Teachers
of sign language teaching courses were normally professional Deaf fac-
ulty from Gallaudet University specializing in sign language teaching,
who could normally be present during the first and third semesters of
the program. During the second semester, teachers of the Sign Linguis-
tics courses also taught the sign language teaching courses. All faculty,
hearing and Deaf, Thai and foreign, had to learn enough Modern Thai
Sign Language from the Deaf students in order to use it as the language
of instruction.
The Dong Nai Deaf education project

After the success of the WDL Thailand Project, a new project, based in
part on the WDL Thailand Project, was proposed for Viet Nam. The
full title of the project was “Opening University Education to Deaf

People in Viet Nam through Sign Language Analysis, Teaching, and
Interpretation”, but it is commonly known as The Dong Nai Deaf Educa-
tion Project. This section will include a brief discussion of background of
the program, eligibility for the program, selection process, curriculum,
and teachers.
Background
This project (2000–2012) was designed to provide Deaf students in Viet
Nam with their first opportunity to study at higher educational lev-
els (junior high school, senior high school, and university education)
and their first opportunity to learn through bilingual instruction in the
local sign language (Ho Chi Minh City Sign Language) and in written
Vietnamese.
The project in Viet Nam was a test case to determine whether projects
similar to the WDL Thailand Project could be successfully set up in
countries that had few financial resources to call upon, no previous
sign language analysis, and only the most basic level of Deaf education.
When the project was proposed in 1999, per capita income in Viet Nam
was less than $300 per year, fewer than 1 percent of people over the age
of 35 and fewer than 3 percent of people between the ages of 25 and
35 had ever gone to school (see Ba and Tac, 1994), and only one school
was attempting to provide junior high school education to Deaf people
in Viet Nam, but that school had taken 4 years to move students from
grade 5 to grade 7 because it was a completely oral school. (Vietnamese
is a tonal language and it is impossible to know tones from lipreading
alone.)
The Dong Nai Project, funded by the Nippon Foundation in Tokyo,
was first administered by the Dong Nai Provincial Department of Edu-
cation and Training and later by Dong Provincial Teacher Training
College (now known as Dong Nai University). The foundation for this
program was a series of university level certificate programs in sign
language analysis and in sign language teaching. There are some sub-
stantial differences between the certificates offered in Viet Nam and the
one previously offered in Thailand. The four certificates offered in Viet
Nam were:
1. Certificate in the Linguistics of Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 1.

2. Certificate in the Linguistics of Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 2.
3. Certificate in the Teaching of Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 1.
4. Certificate in the Teaching of Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 2.
Curriculum
The curriculum for the first sign language certificate is loosely based on
the WDL Thailand certificate in sign language teaching but modified
for Viet Nam. The curriculum for the second sign language teach-
ing certificate is primarily new. Below are the courses offered in the
Certificate in the Linguistics of Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 1
(Table 2.1).
Upon successful completion of the Level 1 Certificate in the Lin-
guistics of Vietnamese Sign Languages, students with the highest level
of sign skills were invited to join the Certificate in the Teaching of
Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 1. Below are the courses offered in
the Certificate in the Teaching of Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 1
(Table 2.2).
Students with a grade of B or better in the Certificate in the Linguistics
of Vietnamese Sign Languages were allowed to enter the Certificate in
the Linguistics of Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 2, which consisted
of the following courses (Table 2.3):
Table 2.1 Certificate in the Linguistics of Vietnamese Sign Languages,

Level 1
Course title Credits
Introduction to Deaf Culture 2

Introduction to Deaf History 1 2
Introduction to Languages and Linguistics 2
Introduction to the Formational Structure of VNSLs 3
Introduction to the Grammatical Structure of VNSLs 3
Introduction to the Lexical Structure of VNSLs 3
Total (225 instructional hours) 15
Table 2.2 Certificate in the Teaching of Vietnamese Sign Languages,

Level 1
Communication in Gestures 2
Methods of Teaching VNSLs 2
Instructional Design for Teaching VNSLs, Level 1 2
Materials Development for Teaching VNSLs, Level 1 2
Practicum in Teaching VNSLs, Level 1 7
Table 2.3 Certificate in the Linguistics of Vietnamese Sign

Languages, Level 2

Introduction to Psycho/neurolinguistics 2
Introduction to the Sociolinguistics of VNSLs 2
Introduction to the History of VNSLs 1
Introduction to Sign Language Lexicography 1
Lexicographical Studies of VNSLs 2
Applied Sign Language Linguistics 3
Total (225 Instructional Hours) 15
Students with a grade of B or better in the Certificate in the Teaching of

Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 1, were allowed to enter the Certifi-
cate in the Teaching of Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 2. Below are
the courses offered in the Certificate in the Teaching of Vietnamese Sign
Languages, Level 2 (Table 2.4).
The Asia-Pacific Sign Linguistics Research and Training

Program (APSL), Phase 1
Background
After the immediate success of the Certificate in the Linguistics of
Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 1 and the Certificate in the Teaching
of Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 1 in the Dong Nai Project, a pro-
posal to replicate this type of training in other countries was proposed
to and funded by the Nippon Foundation. This project was entitled
Practical Dictionaries of Asian Sign Languages, and is also known as APSL,
Phase 1.
Table 2.4 Certificate in the Teaching of Vietnamese Sign Languages,
Level 2
Sign Language Assessment for Teaching VNSLs 3

Methods of Teaching VNSLs, Level 2 2
Instructional Design for Teaching VNSLs, Level 2 2
Materials Development for Teaching VNSLs, Level 2 2
Practicum in Teaching VNSLs, Level 2 6
This project (2003–2006) was designed not only to replicate the

Level 1 certificate training in Viet Nam in other countries, but also
to include an additional component of producing high-quality, low-
cost sign language dictionaries and sign language teaching materials.
The dictionaries and teaching materials were intended to be of prac-
tical value in preserving sign languages indigenous to the Asia-Pacific
region, and they have constituted invaluable resources for the future
development of sign linguistic research in the region.
The APSL, Phase 1 Program selected about half the courses taught in
the Dong Nai Project, but combined sign linguistics courses from the
Level 1 and Level 2 Certificates in Sign Linguistics into one new Sign
Linguistics Certificate and expanded the number of hours taught in
sign language teaching courses from the Level 1 Sign Language Teaching
Certificate. (See the Curriculum part of this section for the changes.)
Eligibility for the program

As in the Dong Nai Project, all students were first admitted into the
APSL, Phase 1 Program to the Certificate in Sign Linguistics. In order to
be eligible to enter this certificate program, applicants had to meet the
same criteria as in the Dong Nai Project. Applicants had to:
1. Be at least 17 years old.

2. Be fluent in a sign language used in Cambodia, Hong Kong, the
Philippines, or Viet Nam.
3. Have extensive interaction with other cultural Deaf people from their
country.
4. Have graduated from the highest level of education available to peo-
ple their age in their country (Cambodia and Viet Nam Grade 5,
Hong Kong Grade 10 or Form 5, the Philippines Grade 12).
5. Demonstrate commitment to work in sign language analysis, sign
language teaching, deaf education, or a related field upon graduation
from the project.
Selection process
The selection process in the APSL, Phase 1 Project followed very closely
the selection process in the Dong Nai Project.
Advertisements were sent throughout each country to the National
Association of Deaf People, if there was one, to other organizations
working with Deaf people, and to newspapers.
The interview process, however, only involved a sign language profi-
ciency interview that followed the model used in the Dong Nai Project.
All portions of the sign language proficiency interview were videotaped

and analyzed over time. In the sign language proficiency, there were five
tasks:
1. Applicants were asked to tell a story to another Deaf person based

on several already sequenced pictures (such as a fire in an apartment
building).
2. Applicants were given a group of unsequenced pictures of events,
then asked to arrange these events into a sequence that tells a story
and then tell the story of what happened to another Deaf person
using signing that they would normally use with other Deaf people.
3. Applicants were asked to describe complex geometric arrangements
of objects (pens, cans, books, etc.) using the way they would sign to
other Deaf people.
4. Applicants were shown examples of two different word orders of
signed sentences and asked which was the way that Deaf people
would sign.
5. Applicants were shown simple written sentences in the spoken lan-
guage whose grammatical structure was known to differ from similar
sentences in the local sign languages and were asked how they would
sign the meaning of these sentences to Deaf people.
Curriculum
The curriculum for the APSL, Phase 1 Certificate in Sign Linguistics took
courses from both the Level 1 and Level 2 Certificates in Sign Language
Analysis developed in the Dong Nai Project and expanded the number
of teaching hours for some of the courses. Below are the courses offered
in the APSL, Phase 1 Certificate in Sign Linguistics (Table 2.5).
The curriculum for the APSL, Phase 1 Certificate in Sign Language
Teaching expanded the number of hours taught in the Dong Nai Project
Table 2.5 APSL, Phase 1, Certificate in Sign Linguistics
Course title Dong Nai
Introduction to the Formational Structure of SLs Level 1

Introduction to the Grammatical structure of SLs Level 1
Introduction to the Lexical Structure of SLs Level 1
Sociolinguistics of SLs Level 2
Sign Language Lexicography Level 2
Applied Sign Language Linguistics Level 2
Total (270 instructional hours)
in Level 1. Below are the courses offered in the APSL, Phase 1 Certificate
in Sign Language Teaching (Table 2.6).
Course scheduling and requirements

Like course scheduling and instruction in the Dong Nai Project, course
scheduling and instruction were purposefully designed so that they did
not have to follow the academic calendar in any of the countries. Stu-
dents study each course as a module. The schedule for each module
is designed according to the needs of teachers and students. The only
requirement is that teachers teach the required number of hours for
the module and that students take the required number of hours for
the module. There is total flexibility of schedule as long as courses are
offered and taken in any required sequence. As long as the required
number of hours are taught, there are no minimum and/or maximum
time limits for the program.
Teachers
Teachers of sign linguistics courses were experienced sign language lin-
guists who had worked in Asia. Teachers of sign language teaching
courses were professional Deaf faculty from outside the countries who
specialized in sign language teaching. Sign language teaching courses
were only given when Deaf faculty could be present.
Language of instruction
The language of instruction was the local sign language used in the
region, Cambodian Sign Language in Cambodia, Hong Kong Sign Lan-
guage (HKSL) in Hong Kong, Filipino Sign Language in the Philippines,
and Ho Chi Minh City Sign Language. All faculty, hearing and Deaf,
local and foreign, had to learn enough of the local sign language from
their Deaf students in order to teach their courses.
Table 2.6 APSL, Phase 1, Certificate in Sign Language Teaching
Course title Dong Nai
Communication in Gestures Level 1

Methods of Teaching SLs Level 1
Instructional Design for Teaching SLs Level 1
Materials Development for Teaching SLs Level 1
Practicum in Teaching SLs Level 1
The Asia-Pacific Sign Linguistics Research and Training

Program (APSL), Phase 2
Background
Realizing that there were too few sign linguists and even fewer pro-
fessionally trained Deaf sign language teachers in Asia to send out to
individual countries, the organizers of APSL, Phase 1 decided to begin
APSL, Phase 2, in which Deaf students from other countries would be
brought to Hong Kong for up to five years of training and supervision.
Phase 2 of APSL is currently training fluent Deaf users of Hong Kong Sign
Language, Yogyakarta Sign Language, Jakarta Sign Language, Sri Lankan
Sign Language, Fijian Sign Language, and Japanese Sign Language.

As in the Dong Nai Project and the APSL, Phase 1 Project, all students
had to meet the following criteria. All applicants must:
1. Be at least 17 years old.

2. Be fluent in a sign language used in their home country.
3. Have extensive interaction with other cultural Deaf people from their
country.
4. Demonstrate commitment to work in sign language analysis, sign
language teaching, deaf education, or a related field upon graduation
from the project.
There are two additional, different criteria for eligibility to the APSL,
Phase 2 Program:
5. Applicants must be willing to work with their National Association

of Deaf People after their graduation (APSL, Phase 2 currently only
accepts applicants from countries that have National Associations of
Deaf People), and
6. Applicants must have completed Form 5 or Grade 10 (the entry
requirements for Diplomas at the Chinese University of Hong Kong).
Selection process
Two countries are chosen in each round (normally every three years) in
consultation with the World Federation of the Deaf Regional Secretariat
for Asia and the Pacific. After countries are chosen, the selection process
in the APSL, Phase 2 Project follows very closely the selection process
in the APSL, Phase 1 Project, which is based on the selection process for
the Dong Nai Project.
Advertisements are sent throughout each country to the National

Association of Deaf People, to other organizations working with Deaf
people, and to newspapers.
The interview process only involves the type of sign language profi-
ciency interview that followed the model used in the Dong Nai Project
and APSL, Phase 1. All portions of the sign language proficiency inter-
view are videotaped and analyzed over time. In the sign language
proficiency, there are five tasks:
1. Applicants are asked to tell a story to another Deaf person based on

several already sequenced pictures (such as a fire in an apartment
building).
2. Applicants are given a group of unsequenced pictures of events, then
asked to arrange these events into a sequence that tells a story, and
then tell the story of what happened to another Deaf person using
signing that they would normally use with other Deaf people.
3. Applicants are asked to describe complex geometric arrangements of
objects (pens, cans, books, etc.) using the way they would sign to
other Deaf people.
4. Applicants are shown examples of two different word orders of
signed sentences and asked which was the way that Deaf people
would sign.
5. Applicants may be shown simple written sentences in the spoken lan-
guage whose grammatical structure was known to differ from similar
sentences in the local sign languages and were asked how they would
sign the meaning of these sentences to Deaf people.
Applicants are also often asked why they want to enter the program,
how long they want to study, and what they want to do when they
finish the program.
Curriculum
The curriculum in APSL, Phase 2 is greatly expanded from previous cur-
ricula. There have been several diploma programs, and there is also a
Higher Diploma Program (equivalent to an associate degree) in Sign
Linguistics and Sign Language Teaching. The following is the complete
sequence of required programs:
Year 1
Diploma Program in Basic Sign Language Lexicography for the Deaf
Diploma Program in English Literacy and IT Applications for the Deaf
Year 2
Diploma in Sign Linguistics and Deaf Studies
Diploma in Adult Deaf Education
Diploma in English Literary Skills
Years 3, 4, and 5
Higher Diploma in Sign Linguistics and Sign Language Teaching
The above programs are jointly offered by the School of Professional

and Continuing Studies, CUHK, and the Centre for Signed Linguistics
and Deaf Studies Upon completion of the higher diploma, the Deaf
researchers are qualified for university study at bachelor’s level.
The following courses in sign linguistics, Deaf studies, and sign
language teaching are taught in the various diplomas (Table 2.7):
Table 2.7 Courses taught in APSL Phase 2
Formational Structure of Sign Languages

Sign Language Lexicography
Introduction to Sign Language Research
Exploring Sign Language Grammar: Phonology
Exploring Sign Language Grammar: Morphology
Exploring Sign Language Grammar: Syntax
Sign Language Research Projects
Exploring Deaf Studies: Deaf Histories and Deaf Communities
Exploring Deaf Studies: Language and Education
Introduction to Sign Language Teaching
There are other diploma courses in Hong Kong Sign Language,

computer technology, and English.
The following courses in sign linguistics are taught in the Higher
Diploma (Table 2.8):
Table 2.8 Courses in sign linguistics

taught in the higher diploma
Sign Language Phonology

Sign Language Morphology
Sign Language Syntax
Sign Language Lexical Analysis
Non-manuals in Sign Languages
Sign Language and Society
Sign Language Acquisition
Table 2.8 (Continued)
Sign Linguistics Research Project 1

Sign Linguistics Research Project 2
Readings in Language & Linguistics
The following courses in Deaf studies and sign language teaching are
taught in the Higher Diploma (Table 2.9):
Table 2.9 Courses in Deaf studies and

sign language teaching
Designing a Teaching Syllabus

Designing Learning Materials
Sign Language Teaching Methodology
Practicum in Teaching Sign Languages
Designing Sign Language Assessment
Readings in Language Teaching
Readings in Applied Linguistics
Deaf Identity and Deaf Culture
Deaf History and Deaf Community
There is also additional extensive training in English literacy.
Course scheduling and requirements

Like course scheduling and instruction in the Dong Nai Project and
in APSL, Phase 1, course scheduling and instruction were purposefully
designed so that they did not have to follow the academic calendar in
any of the countries. Students study each course as a module. The sched-
ule for each module is designed according to the needs of teachers and
students. The only requirement is that teachers teach the required num-
ber of hours for the module and that students take the required number
of hours for the module. There is total flexibility of schedule as long
as courses are offered and taken in any required sequence. As long as
the required number of hours are taught, there are no minimum and/or
maximum time limits for the program.
Teachers
Teachers of sign linguistics courses are experienced sign language lin-
guists who have worked in Asia and are now living in Hong Kong.
Teachers of sign language teaching courses are professional Deaf fac-

ulty from outside Hong Kong who specialize in sign language teaching.
Sign language teaching courses are only given when Deaf faculty can be
present.
The language of instruction is the local sign language, Hong Kong Sign
Language. All students must learn Hong Kong Sign Language in addi-
tion to their own sign language. Students from different countries are
encouraged to learn the sign languages of other students studying in
Hong Kong. All faculty, hearing and Deaf, Hong Kong and foreign, have
had to learn enough Hong Kong Sign Language from their Deaf students
in order to teach their courses.
Certificate in Deaf Studies: Teaching New Zealand Sign

Language (Victoria University of Wellington)
The New Zealand context

New Zealand has a population of 4.5 million people. The largest con-
centrations of Deaf people reside in the metropolitan areas of Auckland
and Christchurch, both of which are the sites of former schools for
the Deaf, now called Deaf Education Centres, since their main func-
tion is to provide specialist resources to mainstream schools. Victoria
University is in the capital city of Wellington, which has a smaller Deaf
community. Sign language research began at Victoria University in the
mid-1980s with a PhD thesis that described the grammar and lexicon
of NZSL (Collins-Ahlgren, 1989), and led to the establishment of a Deaf
Studies Research Unit in 1995 which produced a major sign language
dictionary in collaboration with the Deaf Association (Kennedy et al.,
1997).
Deaf Aotearoa New Zealand is a national representative organization
formed in the 1970s (formerly NZ Association of the Deaf). It is a nation-
wide provider of support and referral services and advocates on behalf
of Deaf people to government and other organizations. Political advo-
cacy resulted in the NZSL Act being passed in 2006, making it an official
language. However, the Act did not create enforceable requirements or
budget for the protection of NZSL, except in courts of law. The status
of NZSL in the education system was unaffected by the Act, and Deaf
children’s access to education through NZSL is inconsistent. Average
educational attainment for Deaf people remains well below that of the
hearing population.
Since the 1990s, educators and families of Deaf people, and mem-
bers of the public, have been increasingly interested in learning NZSL,
leading to many courses being offered within adult education programs.
A permanent sign language interpreter training program was established
in 1992 at Auckland University of Technology. These developments cre-
ated a need for a program to prepare Deaf community members to work
as sign language teachers in community and academic contexts.
The Certificate in Deaf Studies: Teaching New Zealand

Sign Language
The Certificate in Deaf Studies: Teaching New Zealand Sign Language
program (hereafter referred to as CDSNZSL) began at Victoria University
of Wellington in New Zealand in 1997, as the first teaching initia-
tive associated with the Deaf Studies Research Unit. The program aims
to introduce Deaf NZSL users to the fundamentals of sign language
structure, principles of language learning and teaching, and methods
and resources for teaching NZSL as a second language for adults. The
CDSNZSL is a foundation (pre-degree) level program designed for Deaf
community members. It is intended as introductory preparation for lan-
guage teaching for community purposes, rather than a professional level
qualification. The program is hosted within a School of Linguistics and
Applied Language Studies, which offers undergraduate and postgraduate
qualifications in applied linguistics that address language teaching and
learning.

To be eligible to enter the Cert Deaf Studies, applicants should be (i) at
least 18 years old, (ii) fluent in NZSL and a participating member of the
Deaf community, and (iii) able to benefit from the course of study. Previ-
ous NZSL teaching experience is an advantage but not required. Special
admission to university is extended to candidates for this program (i.e.
high school qualification requirements are waived), in recognition of
the diverse educational profile of the target community.
Recruitment and selection

Promotion and recruitment for the CDSNZSL is achieved through the
national Deaf Association, Deaf clubs, school, and social media net-
works. In the early years of the program, informational presentations
were given at Deaf club venues, but, as more graduates of the program
have spread the word in the community, the need for this has reduced.
The program is currently not advertised on the university’s website in
the general course catalogue, because we found that doing so generated

many enquiries from hearing individuals without NZSL knowledge who
perceived this as an interesting career option; nor was it an effective way
of targeting the Deaf community, who are less likely to seek information
from this source.
Applicants complete a written application form outlining their per-
sonal, educational, and work background, and submit a video clip
responding to prompt questions. The purpose of the video is to con-
firm proficiency in NZSL, to assess general communicative and thinking
ability, and to provide information about the candidate’s Deaf commu-
nity involvement and their motivation for enrolment. Many candidates
are mature students, and many are new to tertiary study. Occasionally,
hearing applicants are accepted on the basis of their fluency in NZSL and
motivation to teach. Generally, hearing applicants tend to be interested
in selected components of the course rather than the whole program –
for example, teachers of the Deaf who want the cultural or linguistics
components which are not offered in their own professional training.
Between 1997 and 2011, ten cohorts of students were accepted. A total
of 132 students have enrolled in some or all of the courses offered, and
73 have completed the qualification, with 13 currently in progress.
Curriculum
The curriculum for the CDSNZSL is a 120-point (equivalent to full-
time) pre-degree level program. The courses within the CDSNZSL are
as follows:
1. Deaf Culture and Society

2. Introduction to Structure and Use of NZSL
3. Introduction to Learning Sign Language
4. Principles of Teaching New Zealand Sign Language
5. Curriculum Design and Materials Development
6. Deaf Studies Teaching Practicum
The series of courses are taken sequentially. The program begins by

establishing a foundational understanding of concepts of Deaf commu-
nity, culture, and the structure and use of signed languages, in relation
to participants’ own local experience and in a wider international con-
text. These first two modules are followed by courses that parallel the
core components of second language teacher training – covering lan-
guage learning processes in L1 and L2, principles and approaches to
L2 teaching, curriculum and lesson planning, and design and use of
materials and learning activities. A teaching practicum in the second

half of the program allows application of course learning and practical
competencies to be developed.
Course delivery
New Zealand has a relatively small, dispersed population, and so a mod-
ular delivery structure is necessary to enable a sufficient number of
Deaf participants from around the country to attend intensive teach-
ing blocks, while also maintaining work and family commitments. This
delivery format was modeled closely on a similar program offered at the
University of Durham in the UK from 1987 (as described in Denmark,
1994), which faced similar constraints of time, place, and cost for poten-
tial participants. The CDNZSL was originally taught over one calendar
year, comprising five residential teaching blocks of five days per subject,
with independent assignments completed between blocks. The sixth
course (DEAF 806) is a teaching practicum that candidates undertake
in their local area over 12 weeks during the second half of the program.
Delivery format has now changed to two years part-time, with three
courses offered per year, in order to accommodate staffing considera-
tions and to spread the financial burden for participants in a period
when university fees have risen and employment rates have declined.
The biennial intake also takes into account that employment oppor-
tunities in teaching NZSL have shrunk since an 80 percent cut in
government funding for adult community education programs in 2009.
Modest scholarships from a charitable source and student loans are
available to assist students, but most of the cost for tuition, travel,
and lost work time is borne by participants, which amounts to a con-
siderable personal outlay for Deaf individuals, who generally have low
incomes. While the university funds administration and delivery of the
course, government funding is not available to directly support students’
individual costs.1
Teachers
The core teaching staff of the program are one Deaf and one hearing
lecturer, both fluent in NZSL, with extensive sign language teaching
experience and applied linguistics backgrounds. Deaf graduates of the
course who are experienced NZSL teachers, and hearing applied linguis-
tics lecturers from within the school, also contribute to some courses as
casual lecturers. For example, in the course DEAF 803, which addresses
language learning processes, a Deaf person proficient in another sign
language is invited to teach lessons that give participants an experience
of learning a foreign sign language; to date, different cohorts have expe-

rienced mini-courses in American, Russian, Argentinian, and Japanese
Sign Languages.
The main language of instruction in all courses is NZSL. For each mod-
ule, students receive a booklet of written course notes that summarizes
key content, with a DVD containing NZSL translation of the informa-
tion. Most assessment tasks are conducted in NZSL, with some minor
written in-class tests. Students complete most assessment tasks at home
in NZSL on video; the current format for submission is uploading to
a private YouTube link or a memory stick. The teaching practicum
requires a portfolio of written lesson plans and self-evaluations, and
video recordings of class teaching for lecturers and the candidate to
evaluate.
The capacity for ‘e-learning’ via asynchronous digital media and
synchronous internet-based communication has developed during the
life of this program, but has not drastically altered its delivery mode.
YouTube is a useful medium for sharing signed assignment instructions
and student work, a Facebook page is used for informal communica-
tion between class members, and video lab facilities for self-recording.
However, face-to-face interaction remains the primary mode of learning
in the program, as use of these media for distance learning is some-
what constrained by factors of text and computer literacy, the fact that
students have variable home access to high-speed broadband and data
upload/download (which is relatively expensive in NZ), and limitations
on the clarity and interactivity of internet-based video-conferencing.
Generational and educational diversity in each student cohort means
that face-to-face interaction remains the most equalizing mode of learn-
ing, as well as being essential to developing confidence in study skills
and practical teaching competencies.
Interaction with NZSL teaching program

The CDSNZSL training for Deaf people takes place alongside courses
at Victoria University in which hearing undergraduate students study
NZSL. The CDSNZSL program leverages this through creating activ-
ities that encourage learning between the hearing students and the
Deaf trainee teachers, as follows: (i) Deaf students observing teaching
and learning by master teachers in NZSL classes; (ii) inviting hear-
ing students to participate in a panel discussing learner perspectives;
(iii) inviting Deaf students to take part in a panel on Deaf life experiences
for the benefit of hearing students; (iv) CDSNZSL students practice plan-
ning and delivering mini-lessons for hearing students during language
labs; (v) having the CDSNZSL students organize a ‘communication
games’ evening for NZSL learners in the university and community; and
(vi) informal socializing over lunch or coffee breaks. For many of the
CDSNZSL candidates, this interaction is valuable in exposing them in a
personal way to learner characteristics and perspectives and having the
opportunity to reflectively debrief about their observations; the NZSL
students gain language and cultural insights through personal contact
with members of the Deaf community in a university which has few
full-time Deaf students on campus.
Student profile
Over the 15 years from 1997 to 2011, ten cohorts began the CDSNZSL,
with a total of 140 individuals enrolled. Not all of these candidates
intended to complete the whole certificate; the first two courses focusing
on Deaf community, and linguistics of NZSL, are taken by some stu-
dents for professional or personal development reasons. In each cohort,
the average number of students in these first two courses has been 13
students, with ten continuing on to enrol in the four language teach-
ing courses. By 2011, 73 candidates had completed the Certificate in
Deaf Studies. 24 percent of incoming students have been male and 76
percent female. Of the graduates, 19 percent are male and 81 percent are
female. Sixteen percent identify as Maori (which is slightly higher than
the proportion of Maori in the NZ population).
In early cohorts, most students were aged in their thirties or above,
and had attended a Deaf school. Over time, the average age of stu-
dents has dropped, with many in their twenties. Relatively fewer of the
younger cohorts have attended Deaf schools, and more have attended a
mix of Deaf units, mainstream placement, and perhaps a short time at a
Deaf school (usually at high school level).
Perceptions of program outcomes and impacts
We were interested to explore students’ perceptions of the impacts of

participating in these programs. Ten students in the current APSL cohort
and eight graduates of the NZ program were invited to participate in an
individual interview in which they were asked to reflect on aspects of
the program. In the case of the NZ program, interviews were conducted
in person and via Skype by a Deaf research assistant (not teaching staff),
and, in the case of APSL students, by the first author, who had worked
with the students as an adjunct lecturer for two short periods, but was
not responsible for overall program administration or outcomes. Ethical
consent was gained for interviews and anonymous use of the data. Inter-
views were videotaped and transcribed. Each interview lasted between
30 and 45 minutes.
The interview schedule was divided into three sections: (i) personal
background, (ii) Deaf community context, and (iii) the training program
(see Appendix A). Personal background questions were asked about the
individual’s sign language acquisition background and involvement in
the Deaf community. In the second section the interviewee was asked to
describe education and job opportunities for Deaf people in their home
country, about Deaf organizations, sign language teaching and about
societal attitudes to sign language and Deaf people in their country.
Finally, interviewees were asked to comment on aspects of the train-
ing program that they felt to be the most important and the most
challenging.
APSL
All ten students in the APSL cohort were interviewed. They came from
three countries: four from Sri Lanka, three from Indonesia, and three
from Hong Kong. Seven students were enrolled in the fifth and final
year of the Higher Diploma course, while three others had completed
the Diploma but had not continued on to the Higher Diploma for var-
ious reasons. These three students had opted to stay on at the Chinese
University of Hong Kong (CUHK) to continue work on dictionary and
teaching materials projects, and were auditing some of the Higher
Diploma classes with their cohort.
Three of the ten students came from Deaf families and were native in
their home country’s sign language, and seven had acquired sign lan-
guage while attending a school for the Deaf; their ages of Deaf school
entry varied from three to ten years, except for one who learned sign
language at age 13. Two students were Deafened at two and six years old
respectively, and eight were congenitally Deaf. All APSL students had
attended a school for the Deaf for at least six years or longer. None of
their schools used sign language as a medium of instruction, but all had
used sign language with peers outside the classroom, in the playground,
and in their dormitories.
All students reported that they socialize mainly in the Deaf com-
munity and use sign language within their Deaf community, with
Deaf friends, and with a few hearing people who can understand
sign language. The majority said they use gestures or write when
communicating with hearing people who do not sign. A small num-

ber said they use speech, particularly those who were born hearing and
were Deafened at an early age.
Sri Lanka – Deaf community context

In Sri Lanka, there are several Deaf schools, including one Muslim
school. All use primarily oral methods. Respondents commented that
the level of education among Deaf people in Sri Lanka is very low and
that no Deaf people hold university degrees, although a small num-
ber of people with lesser degrees of hearing loss have gained university
degrees.
Job opportunities for Deaf people are limited, with many employed
in sewing and woodworking and none in white-collar jobs. Partici-
pants knew of only three Deaf teachers in vocational classes in Deaf
schools. Their impression is that employers find Deaf people to be very
reliable and hard-working. One student stated that her education was
limited by the low expectations of Deaf students held by teachers at her
school.
There is one national organization for the Deaf, with 18 affiliates
around Sri Lanka. Recently the national Deaf organization aligned with
the disabled community to lobby for greater accessibility and educa-
tional opportunities. All of the students are very involved with a Deaf
organization in some capacity, one serving as treasurer for several years
before entering the APSL program.
There are very few sign language classes, and these are taught by
untrained teachers. APSL students stated that they aim to return to
their home country and train other Deaf people to become sign lan-
guage teachers, and to increase the number of sign language classes in
Sri Lanka. This is considered an important first step before establishing
a sign language interpreter training program. One government agency
provides sign language classes for hearing people, taught by a hearing
teacher, and one sign language class is taught at a national Deaf organi-
zation by an untrained Deaf teacher, whom one participant considered
to be more effective than the hearing teacher employed at the education
agency.
According to participants, Sri Lankan people generally hold a low
opinion of Deaf people’s abilities and are often derogatory towards sign
language. Participants stated that the life opportunities and accomplish-
ments of Deaf people are limited by their lack of education. The APSL
students all intend to return to Sri Lanka and to promote a more positive
view of Deaf people and sign language through their teaching.
Indonesia – Deaf community context

The three Indonesian students entered Deaf schools at different ages.
All had attended a regular high school as there is no separate Deaf
education provision at high school level. All were educated orally and
picked up sign language from other Deaf children. In vocational classes
at Deaf schools they had experienced a few Deaf teachers. Participants
report that Indonesia has two sign languages – Jakarta Sign Language
(the majority sign language) and Yogyakarta Sign Language. Yogyakarta
Sign Language is partially mixed with American Sign Language and local
sign language.
Very few Deaf people hold university degrees, and most work in blue-
collar occupations such as woodworking, screen printing, and sewing.
Unemployment among Deaf people is very high. One student has a
Deaf mother who holds a professional job requiring a university degree,
which is very unusual in the Deaf community.
As in Sri Lanka, Indonesian society tends to regard Deaf people as
inferior and ‘infirm’. People pity and patronize Deaf people and look
down on Deaf people who cannot speak. Deaf students stated that they
felt embarrassed about signing in public before they entered the APSL
program. They also aspire to change the image of Deaf people through
educating hearing people.
Hong Kong – Deaf community context

The three Hong Kong students had attended the same Deaf school for all
of their school years; they had learned Hong Kong Sign Language either
from Deaf families or at Deaf school. Teaching at the Deaf school used
oral methods, and they were never exposed to teaching in sign language.
They all socialize primarily with Deaf people, and their main means of
communication with hearing people is by writing or gesturing.
Participants reported that most Deaf people in Hong Kong finished
high school; however, few pursue tertiary education in Hong Kong.
Many of those who do take up tertiary study went overseas to study. Two
students from this program had previously studied in the USA. Prior to
the recent economic recession, Deaf people were able to secure white-
collar jobs such as clerical, data processing, and government service jobs.
After the economic recession, many Deaf people became unemployed or
could only gain menial jobs such as car cleaning, dishwashing, packing,
or restaurant work.
There are two major national organizations in Hong Kong that serve
different purposes. According to participants, one organization is run by
hearing people and has an interpreter training class. The other is run by
Deaf people. They describe infighting among minor Deaf organizations,

for numerous reasons.
Hong Kong society has a generally pejorative attitude towards Deaf
people and the use of sign language; however, this attitude is slowly
changing. Students hope to educate society about Deaf people and sign
language after they complete their study in APSL.
Reflections on personal impacts of program participation

Asked which subjects they felt were most important in the program so
far, students most consistently responded that studying linguistics, par-
ticularly phonology, caused them to understand that sign language is a
language in its own right, contrary to the perspective they held before
entering the program, as expressed in these comments:
Linguistics is probably the one that made most impact on me. In the
past I thought HKSL was bad language, but after taking this course I
have a different perspective on HKSL in a better light. I am now able
to explain the language better than I did in the past.
Phonology was the most important subject, particularly the fact
that sign language does have phonology on par with spoken lan-
guages. Learning about parts of word/sign and International Phonetic
Alphabet enabled me to understand why sign language is language.
Knowing that sign language is language made me feel a whole lot
better about my language.
I didn’t believe that sign language has phonology, morphology,

syntax before I took this course and now I believe it!
All students felt that all aspects of the program were relevant, but they
particularly appreciated the teaching methodology course:
Teaching methodology course was very beneficial as I used to teach

before coming here and I realized that the way I taught before was not
correct. Observing all teachers here made me see why my teaching
was not effective.
I find teaching methodology course valuable for new ideas of how to
teach sign language.
Another valued aspect of the program mentioned was the opportunity

to discuss issues and experiences of Deaf identity and community in
relation to students’ various home contexts, although at the time of

interview the APSL students had not yet undertaken the course designed
to address these topics.
An English preparatory course was required for all students in order
to develop their academic English, which would be necessary for the
Diploma and Higher Diploma courses. English and Hong Kong Sign Lan-
guage were the languages of literacy and instruction in the classroom.
For many, the English course was the most challenging aspect of the
program.
When asked whether they felt well prepared for their new profession
after leaving the program, all students responded affirmatively. As one
expressed it:
Yes, I feel a lot more confident and less inferior to hearing people.
I appreciate the opportunity to meet other Deaf people in Asia-Pacific
region and realize that we all have common problems.
Some intended to continue studying for a Bachelor’s degree after com-

pletion of their Higher Diploma, either at CUHK or in their home
country – for example:
I intend to continue for Bachelor’s degree even though there is an

interpreter shortage in Indonesia. I hope to lobby government to rec-
ognize sign languages in Indonesia, however, the government wants
to recognize only one sign language. That could be a problem here.
I want to lobby to remove job barriers for Deaf people.
Yes [I feel well-prepared] but first I want to continue BA study in

an English-speaking country before going home. Then I would feel
better prepared by first gathering more information and research to
lobby the government to consider action for Deaf people.
Others intended to return to their homes and work in three areas: teach-
ing sign language, doing research, and/or continuing the dictionary
work begun during the APSL program. One said: “I am eager to go back
home and start working.”
CDNZSL
Eight graduates of the CDNZSL program were interviewed, representing
diversity of region, age, and academic profile. Unlike the APSL students,
who were selected from large Deaf communities on the basis of having
recognized academic and leadership potential, students in the NZ pro-

gram were self-selected from a small community, and thus had more
varying abilities and motivations than the APSL cohort. Entry criteria
for the CDSNZSL do not include a minimum high school achievement
level for the reason that this would make the pool of potential appli-
cants unviable. In terms of schooling, most students over the age of 45
years have attended a school for the Deaf, and those younger than 45
years were mainly been educated in Deaf unit classes, Deaf school, or
mainstream school settings – often a combination of these.
The majority of students learned NZSL at an early age from peers at
school; two were native signers with Deaf parents, and one had learned
NZSL in her early twenties. Others had experienced oral education
and/or the use of Total Communication (including Signed English). All
use NZSL as their main means of communication and socialize mainly
with Deaf people, but also have signing hearing friends. Some gesture or
write with non-signing hearing people, while others speak.
Students believe that there is a wide range of educational levels among
Deaf people in New Zealand, and that the majority are at the low end
of the range. Their perception is that educational opportunities have
improved in recent years, especially the accessibility of tertiary (post-
school) education, but that education of Deaf people is still inadequate.
There is a national Deaf Association that has advocacy and service
provision goals, with branch offices throughout New Zealand. There are
other national Deaf organizations, including sports, rugby, and sign lan-
guage teachers, as well as local Deaf clubs and regional sport groups.
An indigenous Maori Deaf organization exists for social and cultural
purposes. Attitudes towards NZSL have improved over time, and espe-
cially since the passage of the NZSL Act in 2006, making NZSL an official
language of New Zealand. But language recognition has not necessar-
ily improved acceptance of Deaf people in general, especially in the
workplace.
Most students stated that their main motivation to enter the
CDSNZSL program was to learn more about Deaf identity and culture,
and about their sign language. One student wanted to get the certificate
to improve work opportunities in sign language teaching, and another
student was encouraged by others to enrol, being told that she would
make a good sign language teacher.
Like the APSL students, the eight CDSNZSL students stated that
courses dealing with Deaf identity/ culture and linguistics of NZSL were
vital, and had the greatest impact on altering both self-perception and
their sense of preparedness to teach the language:
Culture and linguistic courses were most important to me personally.

I learned NZSL in my early twenties and understand my Deaf identity
better.
Without any knowledge about Deaf culture, it’s difficult to teach
NZSL to hearing people without considering social implications of
Deaf culture, etc.
The course covering first and second language acquisition was also
mentioned as valuable by several students, not only in relation to
teaching, but also for personal reasons.
All courses were beneficial but if I have to pick one, it would be the
language acquisition course because I learned a lot about how peo-
ple learn a new language, remember vocabulary, and the fact that
repeating language is essential for language learning.
Linguistics and language acquisition courses were my favorite courses
because I have young children and was able to observe their language
development along with what I learned in these two courses.
Two students commented that the teaching methodology course was

useful in learning practically how to teach an NZSL class. One student
noted that the teaching practicum was very helpful for developing skills
in planning lessons and receiving lecturer feedback on videotapes of
their teaching.
I found practicum to be challenging. It was good for me to evalu-

ate my teaching from observing myself on video and from teacher’s
feedback on my teaching.
I appreciate that I learned how to use a curriculum for teaching in

my classes. I found that very useful.
Challenging aspects varied more with this group than the APSL students.
One reason is that the CDSNZSL students did not have to contend with
learning English and a foreign sign language as languages of instruc-
tion (although some of the NZ students found literacy challenging).
One student found the linguistics course to be challenging because of
many new terms used. Many students commented that managing inde-
pendent study – undertaking assignments and meeting deadlines – was
challenging because they had no previous experience of this in their
education.
I found assignments to be challenging but stimulating. Meeting

assignment deadlines was challenging because I was not used to that
experience in the past. I really enjoyed debating with teachers and
I learned a lot from that.
Personal development
For participants in both programs, the opportunity to examine aspects
of Deaf culture and identity raised participants’ consciousness and self-
esteem about their language and identity. Examples of participants’
comments highlight the importance of these program elements in con-
tributing to personal and professional development, and a sense of
competence in other roles.
Most definitely the Deaf culture course helped me understand my

identity as a Deaf person.
I feel this program helped me with my professionalism. I have my
own sign language classes. I was sometimes asked to mentor some
troubled Deaf juveniles and the Certificate program helped prepare
me to meet the requirements of that job.
I wanted to take just the culture course, then decided to take one
more course – linguistics. Eventually I ended up taking the whole
Certificate as I felt that having the Certificate would be a good move
in the long run along with Bachelor’s degree I already have.
Community development impacts
The APSL and CDSNZSL programs were both established with the pur-
pose of building capacity in sign language teaching as a key element
of community development. While it is too early to evaluate the APSL
program in relation to this goal, the NZ program has been running for a
long enough period to be able to identify graduate destinations, impacts
within the Deaf community, and some effects on the status of NZSL in
society.
Following the CDSNZSL program, most graduates taught adult sign
language classes on a part-time basis in their local area, in a com-
munity education institution, typically delivered as weekly evening
classes. A supply of trained NZSL teachers has significantly extended
the availability of NZSL courses to the general public, in both urban and
provincial areas.
Although the CDSNZSL program was not designed specifically to pre-

pare personnel for Deaf education contexts (in contrast to the Dong Nai
Project in Viet Nam, described earlier), it transpires that the program
has contributed significantly to the professional development of Deaf
individuals employed in the school sector, particularly in the various
paraprofessional roles created to increase the participation of Deaf peo-
ple since the mid-1990s. Forty-three of all participants in the CDNZSL
held, or subsequently obtained, paraprofessional positions in Deaf edu-
cation centers, Deaf resource classes, and mainstream school settings as
NZSL tutors, classroom language assistants, teacher aides, and residen-
tial social workers. Learning from the program has been applied to their
role in supporting first and second language acquisition of NZSL and
fostering positive identity in Deaf children and young people.
Fifteen candidates in the CDNZSL were also qualified as school teach-
ers (of Deaf/hearing-impaired children) either before, or following, their
participation in the program. Of the 15, nine are Deaf, and several of
these continued into teacher training following study in the CDNZSL,
which acted as a stepping stone into academic study.
Six graduates have held teaching positions in the Sign Language Inter-
preter training program at Auckland University of Technology. Several
of these subsequently pursued more advanced qualifications in second
language teaching.
The NZSL Tutors Association was formed in 1992 with an initial
membership of 20 tutors. Membership has increased steadily since the
Certificate program began in 1997. Many graduates are active members
of this professional organization, which hosts annual conferences and
workshops, and has established a registration system for qualified tutors.
All executive committee members hold the CDSNZSL.
The CDNZSL program has also served as professional development for
numerous Deaf individuals employed in service provision or education
roles by the National Deaf Association and other Deaf organizations.
At least 14 CDSNZSL participants have been employed by Deaf organi-
zations in various advocacy and promotion roles that have raised the
profile of NZSL and Deaf cultural awareness in society.
No direct causal link can be drawn between participation in the
CDSNZSL program and the holding of community development or
educational positions, as candidates for the program and for such
employment roles naturally draw from the same community of NZSL
users. However, the program has provided a uniquely accessible oppor-
tunity for academic and personal development for a large number of
Deaf individuals who work in roles that contribute directly to bilingual
delivery of Deaf education, Deaf community development, and the pro-

motion of NZSL in society. In some cases, program completion has
given confidence and motivation to pursue further study and training.
Although it is too early to evaluate the impacts of the APSL program for
Deaf communities in the Asia-Pacific region, it can be expected that the
outcomes will include strengthened capacity for leadership of language
documentation and advocacy for recognition of sign language users in
these societies.
Note
1. As previously noted, a stated purpose of the NZSL Act (2006) is to promote
and maintain NZSL, but the legislation does not mandate any resourcing that
might practically realize this, such as training NZSL teachers.
References
Brueggeman, B. J. (2009). American Sign Language and the Academy: The Little
Language That Could. In B. J. Brueggeman (Ed.) Deaf Subjects: Between Identities
and Places. New York & London: New York University Press, 25–37.
Collins-Ahlgren, M. (1989). Aspects of New Zealand Sign Language. Unpublished
doctoral thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Denmark, C. (1994). Training Deaf People as British Sign Language Tutors. In
C. J. Erting, R. C. Johnson, D. L. Smith, and B. C. Snider (Eds) The Deaf Way:
Perspectives from the International Conference on Deaf Culture. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press, 425–431.
Kennedy, G., R. Arnold, P. Dugdale, S. Fahey, and D. Moskovitz (1997). A Dictio-
nary of New Zealand Sign Language. Auckland: Auckland University Press with
Bridget Williams Books.
Miller, K. R. (2008). American Sign Language: Acceptance at the University Level.
Language, Culture and Curriculum, 21 (3), 226–234.
Rosen, R. S. (2008). American Sign Language as a Foreign Language in U.S. High
Schools: State of the Art. The Modern Language Journal, 92 (1), 10–38.
Rosen, R. S. (2010). American Sign Language Curricula: A Review. Sign Language
Studies, 10 (3), 348–381, 389.
Woodward, J. (1997). Case Study 8: A University-level Thai Sign Language Cer-
tificate Program. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.
Management of Self-Help Organizations of People with Disabilities. New York:
United Nations, 65–73.
Woodward, J. and T. H. Nguyen (2012). Where Sign Language Studies has Led us in
Forty Years: Opening High School and University Education for Deaf People in
Viet Nam through Sign Language Analysis, Teaching and Interpretation. Sign
Language Studies, 13 (1), 19–36.
3
Educating the Trainers of British
Sign Language Tutors:
Documenting the Educational
Experience
Gary A. Quinn and Graham H. Turner
Introduction
This chapter explores the development of the Graduate Diploma in

Teaching British Sign Language (BSL) Tutors (ToT) at Heriot-Watt Uni-
versity in Scotland. The course, designed specifically for teaching sign
language tutors to become trainers of other tutors, was established in
response to the varying standards and lack of consistency in BSL teach-
ing across Scotland. In order to improve the quality of sign language
tuition, it was recognized that training for tutors needed to focus on
enhanced understanding of sign linguistics in addition to language
learning and pedagogical methods. Evaluation of the course facilitates
comparison between the experience of students involved in a graduate
program specifically devised for and dedicated to Deaf participants with
the experience of Deaf students in higher education more generally.
Program development
Deaf experiences in higher education

An increasing number of Deaf students now attend higher education
institutions but some still find it difficult to access university life due
to lack of Deaf awareness.
(Olohan, 1995)
Deaf BSL users face a formidable barrier . . . This disadvantage is a
linguistic one . . .
(Quinn & Barnes, 2004, p. 72)
65
The existence of this barrier is not necessarily related to the specific

educational settings previously attended by the Deaf students, as Deaf
students coming from a wide variety of school settings experience
the same linguistic barriers on arrival in further or higher education
(O’Neill & Jones, 2007). In addition to linguistic barriers, it is also likely
that there will be a lack of understanding about how Deaf students learn
and progress within an educational environment. Barriers to success are
created by a combination of students’ lack of appropriate literacy and
study skills together with institutional lack of Deaf awareness (Quinn &
Barnes, 2004).
Teaching methods that may work well with hearing students make it
difficult for Deaf students to fully participate. For example, if a lecturer
is explaining a concept while using the display board to demonstrate
what is being explained, this creates problems for Deaf students watch-
ing an interpreter. This provides evidence not only that Deaf students
require appropriate communication support, but also that teaching
methodology needs to be adapted to suit their needs. Further, there is
an additional issue of finding suitable interpreters, which may directly
impact on student success. Quinsland and Long (1989) reported that
Deaf college students learning science through a skilled interpreter
scored approximately twice as highly as those learning through an
unskilled interpreter. Interpreter effectiveness was also highlighted in
a study by Lang (2002) which found that students retained signifi-
cantly less information when information was interpreted by a less
skilled interpreter in comparison with instructors who signed for them-
selves. This reduced retention of information was not evident when
skilled interpreters were used (Lang, 2002). However, the language of
instruction appears to be a key influence on the student experience.
Saur, Popp-Stone, and Hurley-Lawrence (1987) found that when instruc-
tors used signed language themselves, allowing direct communication
with their Deaf students, these students interacted with their instructors
as much as ‘normal-hearing students’ (Saur et al., 1987, p. 281). This
was not the case when instructors used speech and their sessions were
interpreter-mediated.
The importance of good teaching skills is a tutor attribute valued by
all students. Literature indicates that, in general, Deaf students have
preferences similar to those of hearing students. Research by Lang,
McKee, and Conner (1993) indicates that students valued professors
who were knowledgeable about the course content and who used visual
materials, communicated expectations and assignments clearly, lectured
Gary A. Quinn and Graham H. Turner 67
at a good pace, made sure students understood, challenged students’

thinking, and emphasized the important information presented in the
class.
The need for specialist course provision for BSL tutors

Historically, Deaf people in the UK have accepted the role of BSL tutor
despite a lack of pedagogical and, sometimes, even linguistic knowledge
(Denmark, 1994). Some Deaf people may have held the mistaken belief
that fluency in the language was adequate and, consequently, found
themselves teaching BSL while recognizing their own significant gaps
in knowledge and skills. Employers and institutions have permitted this
situation to persist because of difficulties in assessing the tutors’ skills,
underpinned by a failure to recognize the complexity of the language
and its importance. Therefore, the low status of sign language, combined
with the Deaf community’s experiences and perceptions of language and
learning, may have played a part in the subsequent reduced access to
high-quality training opportunities for students who are Deaf and native
users of BSL.
However, the acquisition of linguistic knowledge is essential before
the skills and strategies for language teaching and classroom manage-
ment can be developed. Lang, Biser, Mousley, Orlando, and Porter (2004)
recommend active, participatory learning in this context, an approach
which is greatly facilitated when students are able to access a curriculum
delivered in their first language (Saur et al., 1987). For Deaf students this
necessitates tuition delivered in sign language, and Lang et al. (2004)
note the importance of the signing skills of the tutor:
For teachers who use sign language with Deaf students, the relation-
ship between sign proficiency and instructional effectiveness appears
to be interdependent.
(Lang et al., 2004, p. 199)
The value that Deaf students ascribe to having lectures delivered in BSL
is noted in other studies (Spradbrow & Power, 2000; Quinn & Nunn,
2007) which describe how this was seen as a real advantage, enabling
lecturers to share and understand the experiences of the students. Lang
et al. (2004) describe how students with a Deaf tutor were much more
willing and able to openly discuss issues in the classroom and express
more empathy and understanding towards other students, leading to a
more engaging, enriching, and challenging learning environment.
Rationale for establishing the course

The development of the ToT program was in direct response to a recom-
mendation from the Scottish Training Strategy Working Group, who,
in conjunction with the Scottish Association of Sign Language Inter-
preters (SASLI), published their report Creating Linguistic Access for Deaf
and Deafblind People: A Strategy for Scotland (SASLI, 2002). The focus
of this strategy was towards increasing the number of sign language
interpreters in Scotland, through first increasing the number of sign lan-
guage tutors and the development of teaching and reference materials
at advanced levels. This resulted in a government proposal that laid out
a clear sequence of capacity-building activities that would culminate in
doubling the existing number of qualified BSL/English interpreters in
Scotland.
‘As a start, I believe that we should double the number of BSL inter-
preters in Scotland and I have asked officials to prepare plans for how we
might achieve that, which will be presented to whatever set of ministers
occupies the Executive offices after the election’ (Jack McConnell, First
Minister, March 27, 2003).
Fundamental to the training of interpreters is high-quality BSL teach-
ing. In turn, this necessitates sufficient BSL teachers to deliver quality
teaching to beginner, intermediate, and advanced learners, who may
then go on to take an interpreting qualification. Additionally, it was
acknowledged that there was no robust quality control mechanism in
place to ensure the standard and consistency of BSL teaching in Scotland
and that an accredited qualification in teaching BSL would go some way
to addressing this.
The ToT Graduate Diploma was identified as a vital stepping stone
towards achieving the government’s aims. The program was therefore
developed with the rationale that BSL teachers should have access to
training that would give them the opportunity not only to under-
stand the linguistics of BSL as a language in its own right, but also
to learn about aspects of pedagogy, including learning and teach-
ing methodologies, resource development, assessment, and professional
practice.
Program content and structure

To date there have been two student cohorts in the ToT program. The
first program, in 2005, was delivered on a two-year, part-time basis with
one-week teaching blocks scheduled every two months. The level of
study for the program equates to the fourth year of study at undergrad-
uate honours degree level (SCQF1 Level 10). Each of the 12 modules was
worth ten credits and involved 100 hours of study; the entire program
comprised 12 weeks of teaching contact with each module equating to
a week-long teaching block. Program content was informed by the spe-
cific recommendations of the Scottish Training Strategy Working Group,
drawing on the extensive experience of group members. Though mod-
eled on the principles of established programs for training teachers of
foreign, secondary, or additional languages, it was necessary to ensure
that the ToT program was grounded in research into signed languages
and Deaf communities, rather than a spoken language perspective. The
course was constructed around the visual principles of signed language,
and the approach to teaching and learning was designed to match the
needs of Deaf sign language users. Modules included topics such as the
learning and teaching of language, sign linguistics, and how to train
other sign language teachers.
Students successfully completing the Graduate Diploma were required
to achieve a minimum 40 percent grade in each of the 12 modules.
Those who achieved this grade for only six of the modules were entitled
to complete with the award of a Graduate Certificate.
The initial program was taught by an invited selection of 14 highly
experienced and internationally renowned lecturers from the USA,
Denmark, Australia, Germany, and the UK. These lecturers were all expe-
rienced in teaching Deaf students within higher education institutions;
they additionally contributed to the development of course material and
resources. While the expertise from the lecturing team was an invaluable
resource, the order of the taught modules for the first cohort was largely
dictated by the availability of the guest lecturers, many of whom had to
make extensive travel arrangements in order to attend. This resulted in
some modules being delivered in an order other than the ideal progres-
sion originally devised. The order in which the modules were taught is
indicated in Table 3.1.
The second cohort began study in 2009 and completed in Spring
2011, again on a part-time basis. This cohort had a slightly changed
structure due to changes made to all programs at Heriot-Watt Univer-
sity at that time. This resulted in a new format, totaling 150 hours
of study per module but with a reduced number of eight modules,
each worth 15 credits at Level 10 (SCQF). The new module structure,
shown in Table 3.1, involved adjustments to the teaching time per mod-
ule, though ultimately the number of contact hours, topics covered,
and overall credits were the same as for the first cohort. Requirements
for success on the program mirrored those in the first cohort, with
a minimum 40 percent grade for each of the eight modules required
Table 3.1 Modules in each ToT cohort
First cohort Second cohort
Language and culture Language and culture

Description of BSL Visuality and signed language
Language learning Function and structure
Language teaching 1 Sociolinguistics of sign languages
Visuality and signed language Language learning and teaching
Sociolinguistics of sign languages Language teaching strategies
Sign linguistics Language teaching Management
Language teaching 2 Language for special purposes
Function and structure
Language teaching 3
Contrastive linguistics
Language for special purposes
for the Graduate Diploma and across four modules for the Graduate
Certificate.
Drawing on all of the experience from the 2005–2007 delivery, this
cohort was taught by one lead lecturer supplemented by five additional
guest lecturers based within the UK. For this cohort all eight modules
were taught in BSL. The process of scheduling the modules for the
second cohort was made more complex as eight modules had to be deliv-
ered in 12 week-long teaching blocks. This necessitated the restructuring
of module content to enable delivery across the 12 weeks of contact
time, with some weeks combining study across more than one of the
new modules.
In contrast to the delivery on the first cohort, the second cohort
benefited from the fact that the modules could be taught and com-
pleted in the order originally intended. This revised order of modules
aimed to assist students’ progression, from understanding language and
cultural issues, linguistics, learning and teaching languages, strategies,
and teaching management to finally working on the development of
specialist curricula for particular client groups.
Another benefit to the second cohort was the additional teaching time
created through the use of guest lecturers fluent in BSL. The interna-
tional lecturers for the first cohort required considerable time to discuss
how course content related to a language with which they were less
familiar. The lead lecturer for the second cohort was able to capitalize
on the additional time created by the lack of need for such discussions
and was therefore able to expand module content.
Course participants
In 2005, the first cohort, which in many ways served as a pilot, com-
menced with 12 students with varying, but substantial, experience in
teaching BSL. There were no formal entry qualifications for students on
the program, but all prospective students were interviewed in order to
assess their suitability. The eight students in the second cohort also had
varying experience of BSL teaching, though overall their experience was
not as substantial as those in the first cohort. The entry requirements
and procedure for admission remained the same.
Evaluation of student experience
Comparison between the experiences of the ToT students and those

of Deaf students in higher education more generally has been facil-
itated by the detailed feedback obtained throughout both the ToT
programs. Obtaining feedback is a routine procedure at the university,
with students being asked to complete an anonymous student feedback
questionnaire at the end of each module. The student feedback ques-
tionnaire contained 15 questions, as shown in Table 3.2. Responses to
each question were rated on a five-point Likert Scale, where a score of 1
indicated strong disagreement with the statement and a score of 5 indi-
cated strong agreement. Students were invited to comment further on
issues particularly relevant to them.
The responses to 13 of the 15 questions, across all eight of the mod-
ules for the second cohort, averaged a score of 4 or above, representing
positive feedback about many aspects of the program. Two questions
scored a mean of below 4, and these related to the availability of study
materials in the library (question 9) and the suitability of the teaching
rooms used (question 10). The lower score for these areas was consis-
tent across both cohorts of students. The graphs in Figure 3.1 show the
range and mean ratings of cohort feedback across all modules for the
two questions relating to study materials and study space. For compari-
son, the range and mean of the responses to the remaining 13 questions
combined are also shown for each cohort. These graphs indicate the less
satisfactory evaluation of these two facets of course provision.
For the purpose of this chapter, the original course evaluation has
been supplemented with interview data from some of the former stu-
dents on the program. Students from both cohorts volunteered to
participate in these interviews, which were conducted in BSL by the
lead lecturer from the second program. A translated summary of these
72
Table 3.2 Questions on the module evaluation form
Questions
1 Module aims and objectives are clear.
2 Content of the module closely matches the declared aims of the course
handouts/handbook.
3 Various parts of the module are well linked (e.g. taught classes and
coursework).
4 Recommended guided reading and/or material for preparation is well
linked to the work in class.
5 Classes help me to understand the work covered on the module.
6 Coursework helps me to understand the subject area.
7 Assessment requirements are made clear at the start of the module.
8 Module material is up to date.
9 Text books are available in the library.
10 Teaching rooms are appropriate for study.
11 Concepts of this module are readily understood.
12 Workload in this module is reasonable.
13 Overall this module has helped me make progress with my learning.
14 Classes attended (few, several, most, all).
15 From your point of view, was the level of the module (just right, too high,
too low).
Further comments
(a) Please note the aspect of the module which, in your opinion, was ‘the most
interesting/useful’ and explain why.
(b) Please note the aspect of the module which, in your opinion, was ‘the least
interesting/useful’ and explain why.
(c) Please suggest one change which, in your view, would improve the module
when offered on a future occasion.
(d) Please use this space to add further comments on any aspect of the module.
Cohort 1 – Students' feedback Cohort 2 – Students' feedback

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
4.66 4.66
4.76 4.29
4.00 4.00
3.76 3.50 3.78 3.55
3.00 3.25 3.25
3.00 3.00 3.00
2.00 2.25 2.00 2.25
1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00
Study Study Other Study Study Other
materials space questions materials space questions
Figure 3.1 Range and mean ratings of student feedback

interviews provides qualitative data to support the original feedback,

and is used to support the following discussion.
Discussion
The linguistic disadvantage that Deaf sign language users face within
higher education (Quinn & Barnes, 2004) seems to have been borne
out by the prior experiences of the ToT students. Most of them had
previously experienced communication problems at other educational
institutions, as first language users of BSL. The comments of these
students are reflective of the difficulties experienced.
The ToT program was my first experience of a course for BSL users,
with most of the lecturers using sign language. My past experience
with adult education was at college with hearing lecturers and
students, and with no interpreter to support the communication.
(Student from first cohort)
My previous experience at college was very negative. Access was poor

as interpreters were rarely provided, and I had withdrawn from my
initial course because of lack of interpreter support.
(Student from second cohort)
As a result of their use of a different language, ToT students, like many

other Deaf students in further and higher education, had previously
experienced reduced access to the taught content of courses; so how
did their experiences of the ToT program contrast with this?
Teaching and learning

On the ToT program a wide range of teaching methods were used to
enable the students to fully comprehend the concepts involved, with
active learning (Lang et al., 2004) as a key feature in this approach.
The importance of tutors’ ability to identify with their students and
communicate with them effectively was evident in student feedback.
The difference in sign language (they were using American Sign Lan-
guage) was less important than their awareness about how Deaf students
learn. The effectiveness of their sessions had not only to do with their
delivery in sign language but also to do with the clarity of their expla-
nations and the way they conveyed the new concepts they introduced
very clearly to the Deaf students. (Student from first cohort)
The value of first language instruction (Spradbrow & Power, 2000;
Lang et al., 2004; Quinn & Nunn, 2007) is also exemplified by the
development of the ‘car and wall’ metaphor by the lead tutor on the
second ToT program. This metaphor was developed in response to the
fact that, though participants had varying degrees of experience in deliv-
ering BSL tuition, they were themselves hit by ‘the wall’ of linguistic
and pedagogical knowledge, as none of the students had degrees in
either education or linguistics. It therefore became necessary for them
to focus on acquiring essential linguistic knowledge before moving on
to developing skills and strategies for language teaching and classroom
management.
‘Car and wall’

Though most of the students on the ToT programs were already teach-
ing BSL classes in the community, it quickly became apparent that their
previous assumptions about the linguistics of BSL were, if not erroneous,
ill matched to the skills that were required to teach BSL proficiently. Sev-
eral mentioned that they wished that they had had the opportunity to
formally study BSL before embarking on a teaching career. As the course
progressed, students discovered that there were a significant number of
linguistic issues in BSL of which they were not aware, such as some
of the reasons behind the creation of the signed lexicon and grammar
(Brennan, 1992).
All this week was good. As I was confused before, now I have full
understanding. (Student from second cohort on Visuality and Signed
Language module)
Students on the second cohort were able to discuss these issues with the
lead lecturer, who responded by creating a metaphor which addressed
the issue of the impact that an unqualified teacher may have on their
students’ learning. The students described how they felt stuck, as if fac-
ing a brick wall which was blocking them from fully understanding the
linguistics of BSL. The metaphor created by the lead lecturer in response
to this involved students imagining that they were driving a car. If they
were simply to accelerate towards the wall, in the hope of demolish-
ing it, they might be successful in getting through the wall to a certain
extent, but their vehicle would be seriously damaged. It was suggested
that perhaps the best approach, under these circumstances, would be to
reverse, drive back from the wall to gain perspective, and take time to
study the linguistics of the language until they had developed a solid
knowledge of the subject. Only then would they be able to put the car
into gear and confidently negotiate the obstacle through skillful driving,
rather than trying to crash through it. Continuing this metaphor, it was
also suggested that if the ToT students chose to ignore this approach
and continued to try to crash through the wall, damaging the car as a
result, this would negatively affect their students by exposing them to
a damaged teaching process, resulting in an incomplete learning expe-
rience. Such an experience would only ever generate skills development
that was scratched or damaged.
Once this level of language competence is achieved, students can
then fully benefit from learning more about how to teach. The ToT pro-
gram included information about teaching methodologies, the teaching
and learning process, assessment methods, creating and/or obtaining
appropriate resources, and classroom management techniques.
Successful outcomes
Of the 12 students enrolled in the first cohort, eight successfully com-
pleted the Graduate Diploma, with a further two awarded Graduate
Certificates. Two students withdrew during the program. Similarly, in
the second cohort, two of the original eight students did not complete
their studies, with five achieving the full Graduate Diploma and two
awarded the Graduate Certificate. All those who completed the program
have either continued work as BSL tutors in Scotland or gone on to
further study in higher education.
Successful graduates have returned to their own teaching practice with
different perspectives. Some decided to modify their teaching methods
and resources to bring them into line with their new understanding of
the linguistics of BSL.
I am using the idea of ‘spiral learning’ in my own training sessions.

My understanding of BSL metaphor is now more comprehensive and
I am able to explain it better to the BSL/English interpreters and BSL
tutors that I train.
(Student from first cohort)
As this quote exemplifies, the graduates who continue to teach have

reported a new-found confidence in their own ability: not only in under-
standing what they are teaching and why, but also how to structure
it into a coherent developmental learning pathway. Further, several
reported that they had recommended to others who wished to start
teaching BSL that it was extremely important to first undertake a course
in the language, at university level or equivalent, before attempting to
teach it, reflecting the views of Elton (personal communication).
Although program participants reported very positive experiences
from the course as a whole, there were elements on the ToT programs
that received more critical feedback, namely, issues relating to study

space and materials.
Deaf space
As was evident from the data shown in Table 3.2, students expressed a
degree of dissatisfaction with the provision of lecture rooms. In part this
related to their concern about the variety of rooms used for teaching.
The one room that had the highest rating of 5 on the feedback forms was
only available for modules that took place when no other students were
on campus. As the ToT program did not involve full-time study, there
were no dedicated teaching rooms set aside for the classes, and students
and teachers had to accept whatever spaces were available at the time.
This is often the case for many university courses, particularly as student
numbers grow and pressure is put on existing accommodation; however,
it undoubtedly affected the students’ learning.
Students were, in general, unfamiliar with being on a large university
campus and struggled to find new room locations easily, resulting in
additional time for the group to get settled in preparation for study.
Occasionally rooms were unsuitable for group work and it was difficult
to find breakout spaces. At other times the room allocated would be
entirely unsuitable for teaching in BSL. Unlike other languages, teaching
in BSL requires good lighting and a clear line of sight both between
the students and the teacher and also between the students themselves.
Some rooms provided had large fixed tables in the center, which meant
that they were not entirely appropriate for this purpose. This takes on
particular significance in the light of findings by Olohan (1995), who
attributes the high drop-out and low retention rates for Deaf students
in higher education not only to the lack of academic experience among
these students but also to the lack of ‘Deaf-friendliness’ on the part of
the institutions themselves.
Study materials
In many respects the situation for the ToT students contrasted with
the general experience of Deaf students in higher education. Students
had little difficulty accessing information during lectures, as these were
delivered in BSL or other signed languages, or in English interpreted
into BSL. However, for self-study, and the work involved in the prepa-
ration and completion of assignments, this was not the case. Some of
the low scores on the student satisfaction questionnaires related to the
lack of reference materials. For the students on the first cohort, much
of the study material was in written form and for many texts there
were insufficient copies to enable several students to borrow books at

the same time. This problem was compounded by the structure of the
course, and the fact that many students lived at some distance from the
university, and were unable to return material between teaching blocks.
Students found it challenging to access complex linguistic informa-
tion in written English. This dilemma is not unique to the students on
the ToT program, and has been identified as a serious issue affecting
access for Deaf students in higher education more generally.
The reality is that Deaf BSL users face a formidable language barrier.
University is a literacy environment where everything is in spoken and
written English: lectures, tutorials, seminars are all spoken, and the lec-
ture notes, reading texts, and research are all based upon printed English
(Quinn & Barnes, 2004, p. 72).
The problem of access to self-study material was anticipated as being
one of the principal challenges facing the ToT program, and a slightly
different approach was taken with each of the two cohorts of stu-
dents, using the experiences of the first cohort to identify areas where
provision for the second group could be improved.
For the first cohort, all of the lectures were filmed, in their entirety,
resulting in a series of approximately 15 full DVDs per module. The
program co-ordinator then reviewed the videos for each module and
created a summary DVD of the content. Copies of this summary were
then distributed to each of the students. In addition, guest lecturers were
asked to recommend one article, relating to the module on which they
were teaching, which should be translated into BSL. These translated
articles were also made available on DVD (Wurm, 2010).
In a similar way to the first cohort, the lectures for the second pro-
gram were also recorded in full, and a filmed summary was produced
and uploaded to the university’s virtual learning environment (VLE).
Copies of all available PowerPoint presentations were also uploaded to
the VLE, and students were able to access the full set of translated articles
produced during the first program.
Despite the above measures, both staff and students had a number
of concerns regarding the lack of resources available for the students
and the challenges presented by the process of translating written mate-
rial into filmed BSL. The translation process was time-consuming and
perhaps not flexible enough to be responsive to the immediate needs
of the students, particularly those from the first cohort. In addition,
the translation requirements entailed additional costs for both materi-
als and personnel. Therefore, despite the efforts made to translate study
material, it is undoubtedly the case that Deaf students had a severely
restricted choice of materials available in their own language compared

with hearing students. For the first cohort, these restrictions were com-
pounded by the difficulties in ensuring that translated materials were
accessible at the right time for each taught module.
Conclusion
The innovative approach adopted by the ToT program addressed many

of the issues associated with reduced access to high-quality training
opportunities for Deaf students in the UK. It has also impacted on the
standards of BSL tuition throughout Scotland in two ways: through pro-
vision of a suitable qualification to enable experienced Deaf teachers
to be able to train others, and through educating all those involved
about the qualifications BSL tutors should aim to achieve, passing on
one generation’s experience and strategies to the next.
The specialized provision for Deaf students designed into the struc-
ture of the ToT program has alleviated many of the problematic issues
relating to Deaf students’ participation within higher education. Earlier
studies (Lang et al., 2004; Quinn & Barnes, 2004; Quinn & Nunn, 2007)
have identified how Deaf students are likely to benefit from modules
taught in BSL by tutors experienced at working with Deaf students. The
students from both the ToT cohorts emphasized the benefits of having
lecturers with a good understanding of sign language and the needs of
Deaf students. They considered their learning to be more efficient due
to their direct communication with the lecturers and ability to clarify
issues with them easily. However, it is important not to conflate tuition
delivered in BSL with Deaf lecturers. While it appears to be important
that a lecturer has good language skills and cultural awareness, this does
not necessitate the lecturer being Deaf. It is more crucial for tutors on
such a program to have linguistic knowledge and pedagogic skills to
enable them to convey language teaching concepts effectively to the
students. These are obviously not innate skills for Deaf people, and need
to be explicitly taught. Participants’ experiences with the ‘car and wall’
exemplify how even those who have been teaching BSL for some time
may not have developed the necessary linguistic knowledge to underpin
their work. This issue highlights the value of being taught by experi-
enced lecturing staff who not only share a language with those they
teach but are also able to identify with the students’ experiences and
respond accordingly. The ‘car and wall’ experience also evidences the
need for those involved in teaching sign language to undertake specific
training on the language before embarking on a teaching qualification.
This will better enable them to understand how students develop skills
and understanding in a second language.
While many of the students on the ToT program had previous nega-
tive experiences of higher education, the study environment provided
on this program helped alleviate many of these difficulties. Students
were able to settle into the process of studying more easily as a result of
the specialist provision, enabling them to develop the skills required for
study at this level. However, one of the features of study that remained a
difficulty for students, and perpetuated the inequality between Deaf and
hearing students, relates to accessibility of self-study materials. Though
considerable effort was put into the development of resources in BSL,
these still represented very limited access in comparison with the lit-
erature available within the university library as a whole. Major texts
relating to second language learning and teaching skills were available
in English only. Only a small selection of these texts were translated.
Experiences with the ToT program highlight the importance of thor-
ough course evaluation. The overall experience of the ToT students
was very positive and an unusually encouraging experience of higher
education for them. However, even in this context, the course evalua-
tion evidenced how improvements can be incorporated into educational
provision and developed from the experiences of earlier students.
Recommendations
The experience of establishing and running the ToT program reinforces
the notion that those who wish to become sign language tutors should
first develop linguistic knowledge and understanding of the language
they wish to teach (Elton, personal communication). Once this knowl-
edge is acquired it can be used to form a foundation on which other
skills can be developed. For language teachers, this needs to include
education on the process of learning and teaching and in pedagogical
methods. These skills can then be integrated with the knowledge of the
language to be taught in order to deliver the most effective training to
language learners.
Delivering higher education courses in signed language enables the
highest degree of access possible for Deaf students and removes many
of the barriers that have previously existed within this environment.
However, the ‘literacy environment’ described by Quinn and Barnes
(2004) still prevails in the limited range of study materials available
to Deaf students. Though the range of translated material available to
Deaf students may never match the extent of the literature available to
other students, there may be different ways of addressing this issue. One
recent innovation was the simultaneous publication of a PhD thesis in

BSL and in English (Emery, 2011). What would be useful in future is
for all institutions involved in delivering programs to Deaf students to
contribute to an open access resource of translated texts, though such a
scheme would involve complex copyright negotiations. At present such
developments may be uncommon, but this is an area that needs to be
addressed to ensure that Deaf students have access to the information
they need in order to fulfill their academic potential.
The invaluable experiences of the establishment of the ToT program
may form a useful basis for further debate on the challenges facing
Deaf students in higher education. It is hoped that this discussion
about the ToT program may encourage those involved in similarly inno-
vative programs elsewhere to exchange experiences and pedagogical
approaches.
Note
1. Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework is the national credit transfer
system for all levels of qualifications in Scotland.
References
Brennan, M. (1992). The Visual World of British Sign Language: An Introduction.
In Brien, D. (Ed.), Dictionary of British Sign Language/English. London: Faber and
Faber Limited.
Denmark, C. (1994). Training Deaf People as British Sign Language Tutors. In
Erting, C. J., Johnson, R. C., Smith, D. L., and Snider, B. C. (Eds), The Deaf Way:
Perspectives from the International Conference on Deaf Culture. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press, 425–431.
Emery, S. (2011). Citizenship and the Deaf Community. Ishara Press: Nijmegen.
Lang, H. G. (2002). Higher Education for Deaf Students: Research Priorities in the
New Millennium. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7, 267–280.
Lang, H. G., Biser, E., Mousley, K., Orlando, R., and Porter, J. (2004). Tutoring
Deaf Students in Higher Education: A Comparison of Baccalaureate and Sub-
baccalaureate Student Perceptions. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9,
189–201.
Lang, H. G., McKee, B. G., and Conner, K. N. (1993). Characteristics of Effec-
tive Teachers: A Descriptive Study of Perceptions of Faculty and Deaf College
Students. American Annals of the Deaf, 138, 252–259.
Olohan, S. (1995). Access and Communication Support for Deaf and Hearing Impaired
Students in Higher Education. Nottingham: Nottingham Trent University Press.
O’Neill, R. and Jones, M. (2007). The Experience of d/Deaf FE Students Moving
to Higher Education. In Barnes, L., Harrington, F., Williams, J., and Atherton,
M. (Eds), Deaf Students in Higher Education: Current Research and Practice. Douglas
McLean: Gloucestershire.
Quinn, G. A. and Barnes, L. (2004). Year Nought for Deaf Students at the Uni-
versity of Central Lancashire: Opening Doors to Higher Education: Developing
and Enhancing Study Skills for Deaf Students. In Storbeck, C. (Ed.), Building
Bridges to Literacy. South Africa: University of the Witwatersrand.
Quinn, G. A. and Nunn, N. (2007). Year Zero for Deaf Students: An Access
Course for Deaf Students. In Barnes, L., Harrington, F., Williams, J., and
Atherton, M. (Eds), Deaf Students in Higher Education: Current Research and
Practice. Gloucestershire: Douglas McLean.
Quinsland, L. K. and Long, G. (1989). Teaching, Interpreting and Learning: Impli-
cations for Mainstream Hearing-impaired Students. Paper presented at the
1989 Convention of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco,
March.
Saur, R. E., Popp-Stone, M. J., and Hurley-Lawrence, E. (1987). The Classroom Par-
ticipation of Mainstreamed Hearing-Impaired College Students. Volta Review,
89 (6), 277–286.
Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters (SASLI) (2002). Creating
Linguistic Access for Deaf and Deafblind People: A Strategy for Scotland.
Spradbrow, G. and Power, D. (2000). Slipping through the Cracks? The Support
Needs of Hard of Hearing Students in a University Program. Paper presented at
the 19th ICED Congress. Sydney, Australia. July.
Wurm, Svenja. (2010). Translation across Modalities: The Practice of Translating
Written Text into Recorded Signed Language – An Ethnographic Case Study.
Unpublished PhD dissertation, Heriot-Watt University, UK.
Section II
Innovations in Using Digital
Tools in Teaching and Learning
4
Using Corpus-Based Research to
Inform the Teaching of Auslan
(Australian Sign Language) as a
Second Language
Donovan Cresdee and Trevor Johnston
Introduction
In this chapter we investigate and argue for the role of corpus linguistics
in informing curriculum content and pedagogical practice in the teach-
ing of Auslan (Australian Sign Language) as a second language (L2).
Using the annotated Auslan corpus, we show how it is possible to iden-
tify phonological and lexical variants; the frequency, distribution, and
collocations of particular lexical items; and the patterns of colligation
and collocation in larger constructions, such as the clause. These pat-
terns are sometimes extremely difficult to identify in any way except
through corpus analysis, so we need to recognize that native or near-
native users cannot depend on their intuition alone in order to provide
this kind of information (Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan,
1999; Johnston, 2010). Teachers of Auslan as a L2 can take advantage of
these research data in terms of both content and pedagogical practice.
Rationale for a corpus-based approach to signed

language L2 teaching
In traditional language teaching materials, particularly spoken and

written English, information related to language features that appear
in the textbooks or teacher’s curriculum guides has frequently been
based on writers’ intuition, anecdotal evidence, and traditions (O’Keeffe,
McCarthy, & Carter, 2007; Reppen, 2010; Biber & Conrad, 2011). More-
over, Krieger (2003) states that ‘the development of materials often
relies on a developer’s intuitive sense of what students need to learn’
85
86 Using Digital Tools in Teaching and Learning
(p. 3). This situation also occurs in signed language (SL) teaching.
SL teachers, especially Auslan teachers, have in the past relied heav-
ily on their intuitions about language, partly because of incomplete
language description and documentation. In the Australian Deaf com-
munity there have been debates among Auslan teachers on language
description, e.g. the correct handshape for the letter B, the use of rhetor-
ical questions, the correct way to express completed but still relevant
actions, and so on.
This is not surprising, since many aspects of language use – unless
attached to strong social norms or values – are not close to conscious-
ness for the average user, nor are they easily brought into awareness
without linguistic training. In Auslan teaching, these linguistic features
have been described and modeled in ways that are based on teach-
ers’ intuitions or intuition-based teaching materials. Without extensive
corpus-based investigations it is doubtful whether this issue could be
resolved. For instance, the instruction reported by both students and
teachers does not appear to match the Auslan corpus data for the same
features.
In this chapter we first describe corpus linguistics and then present
a number of comparisons of intuitions against relevant corpus-based
data at various levels of linguistic organization: phonology, vocabulary,
and grammar. The corpus we use is the Auslan corpus. The corpus is
a machine-readable linguistic corpus which is being created by adding
time-aligned annotations to the digital videos in the Auslan archive
deposited at the Endangered Languages Archive at the University of
London.1 The annotations are being created in a digital video anno-
tation software program called ELAN,2 using the guidelines outlined
in Johnston (2013).3 (For full details of the Auslan corpus and anno-
tation practice, see Johnston, 2010.) To date (early 2013), the corpus has
annotations for 105,000 sign tokens.
Corpus-based linguistics
The need for a corpus-based SL linguistics arises from two major sets
of concerns. The first applies equally to spoken language, and relates
to long-canvassed questions about the nature of evidence in linguistics
and the limits to and reliability of intuition, introspection, and the elic-
itation of grammaticality judgments. We will not repeat them here (see,
e.g., Penke & Rosenbach, 2004 or McEnery, Xiao, & Tono, 2006). The
second set are SL-specific concerns about the nature and the impact
of the unique acquisition and usage environments typical of SL users
brought about by the shallow historical depth of signing communities,
Donovan Cresdee and Trevor Johnston 87
the absence of written forms, few institutional or ‘schooled’ language

norms, interrupted intergenerational transmission, small numbers of
native signers, language contact, and limited access to primary data
for peer review. As a consequence, SL use is commonly reported to
be highly variable (e.g. Schembri & Johnston, 2012) and, apart from
items of core basic vocabulary and cases of clear violations of logical
or spatio-temporal coherence, it is often difficult to get consensus even
from native signers with respect to what is phonologically, lexically, or
grammatically acceptable, typical, or marked. The previous reliance on
the intuitions of small numbers of informants in SL research is thus
problematic.
Machine-readable data storage for the analysis of languages, and the
use of multimedia annotation software, are tools that have enabled
SL corpus-based research projects, and the prospect of a much more
accurate description of the distributional patterns of certain target
grammatical features.
One aim of SL corpus linguistics, therefore, is to empirically ground
SL description in usage in order to validate previous research and gener-
ate new observations. This, naturally, also improves the knowledge base
which is used to inform language curricula. However, there are still yet
other aims of corpus creation and yet other uses to which a corpus can
be put. Of equal importance to language description is language docu-
mentation in order to create a resource for teaching and learning of an
L2, especially in the SL learning situation, when it is often difficult for
learners to get adequate exposure to the language. The corpus record-
ings and the annotation files themselves can be valuable teaching and
learning materials in this sense.
Intuitions in the light of corpus data
When we compare some native signer intuitions regarding Auslan with

available relevant corpus-based data, there often appears to be a mis-
match. Two signs that are usually glossed by the English word ‘finish’
by most signers serve as examples.
According to the ID-glossing system, which uses English-based glosses
to uniquely identify signs and which was adopted and pioneered in the
Auslan corpus (Johnston, 2010), the two signs in question are glossed
FINISH . GOOD and FINISH . FIVE , respectively (see Figure 4.1).
All tokens of these signs, and the environments they occur in,
have been extensively annotated in the Auslan corpus. At all levels of
linguistic organization, therefore, these data are relevant to our current
Figure 4.1 The signs FINISH.GOOD and FINISH.FIVE
discussion. The following is an exposition of the phonological, lexi-

cal, and grammatical aspects of FINISH.GOOD and FINISH.FIVE that
demonstrates the problematic nature of native intuitions and assump-
tions and, thus, supports the need for using corpus in teaching and
learning.
Phonological intuitions
The case of the letter B
In recent years there has been some debate among some Auslan teachers
in Melbourne around the ‘correct’ handshapes used in fingerspelling the
letter B. The questions centered on when the closed handshape (which
we will call the ‘O’ handshape) was used to make this letter rather than
the typical open handshape (which we will call the ‘F’ handshape).
A group of Auslan teachers felt that the closed handshape was either
simply incorrect when used to produce the letter B or was a form that
only occurred in very restricted environments, such as at the end of
a fingerspelled word and/or in certain lexicalized fingerspellings (e.g.
BRISBANE , which is actually fingerspelled B - B , or JOB , which is actually
fingerspelled J-B). Others claimed that there was variation in use of the
two forms and were teaching students that the closed handshape was an
acceptable alternative pronunciation or even should be made that way
(i.e. was more native-like) if it was the final letter of a word. Yet oth-
ers suggested that regional dialects or gender differences were at play.
This debate had received some sympathetic support from British Sign
Language (BSL) teachers in London, who displayed a similar range of
intuitions (Adam Schembri, personal communication). We interrogated

the Auslan corpus to see what light usage data could throw on this
question (see Table 4.1).
We found, somewhat unexpectedly, that in 453 fingerspelling tokens
in which the letter B appeared there were, in fact, only a few instances of
the F/F form, to be precise only 3 percent (and all of them in the initial
position of the word). The overwhelming majority (75 percent) were
made with strong hand closed-F handshape (which we have labeled
‘gO’) and weak hand open F handshape (i.e. F/gO), 8 percent with
gO/gO, and 5 percent with O/O (of which none were associated with a
lexicalized fingerspelling). About one in ten tokens were labeled indeter-
minate because they were between gO and O handshapes, with various
degrees of rounding or flattening of the fingers and/or some minor fin-
ger extension or opening of the handshapes. (Consequently, a larger
group of two ‘non-open’ handshapes could be said to exist. It would
account for 18 percent of all tokens of the letter B.)
There was no association of the closed O handshape with lexicalized
fingerspelling (though half of the small number of these were final let-
ters, a proportion greater than any other handshape combination, a fact
which may have prompted signer intuitions in this regard). Clearly,
the intuitions and unsystematic observations of the SL teachers and
other participants in this debate did not actually correspond closely with
usage data from the corpus.
The case of FINISH.GOOD and FINISH.FIVE

The signs FINISH.GOOD and FINISH.FIVE can be performed as two-
handed symmetrical signs or as one-handed signs, but one form usually
appears to signers to be much more common, frequent, or basic than
the other (Figure 4.2).
In the Auslan lexical database and associated dictionaries the most
common form is given full head word status while the other form is
simply treated as a variant. This is reflected in the ID-glossing system –
the form deemed to be a variant carries the suffix -1H or -2H, as the case
may be. According to majority intuitions of native signer informants
elicited through fieldwork at the time the Auslan lexical database was
first created in 1989, the basic form of FINISH.GOOD was reported to be
one-handed and that of FINISH.FIVE to be two-handed. These intuitions
still appear to be current with most signers.
There are currently more than 450 tokens of these signs in the Auslan
corpus, so we are now in a position to ask whether these intuitions were
accurate. It appears not. The frequency and distribution of these signs
does not seem to align closely with original signer intuitions. A search
90
Table 4.1 The distribution of forms for the letter B in the Auslan corpus
Word position Initial Medial Final Total
Handshapes
N N N N %
Weak (left)/Strong (right)
243 91 2 336 74
F/gO
Indefinite 37 8 0 45 10
34 1 2 37 8
gO/gO
12 2 8 22 5
O/O
13 0 0 13 3
F/F
Totals 339 102 12 453 100

Figure 4.2 The signs FINISH.GOOD and FINISH.FIVE
of the corpus reveals that, overall, the two-handed forms of both signs
are by far the most common, contrary to earlier reported intuitions, i.e.
the most basic form of FINISH.GOOD is not one-handed.
Lexical intuitions
It has been almost 30 years since lexicographical research into Auslan
began, and the two signs FINISH.GOOD and FINISH.FIVE have never been
reported as having any identifiable systematic difference in meaning
by native signers. Basically, informants have consistently reported that
both were essentially verbs, though researchers, and a small minority
of signers who had increased levels of awareness of language use, such
as some Auslan teachers, also recognized that both signs could be used
in an auxiliary-like way. Some informants have suggested there were
regional preferences for one or the other sign, but overall most reported
that they appeared to be in free variation, with both being used in the
same way with approximately the same frequency in discourse (with
FINISH . GOOD perhaps being used more often than FINISH . FIVE ).
No systematic investigation of the question could be undertaken
before the creation of the Auslan corpus. As mentioned earlier, as part
of a study of variation and change in Auslan (and BSL) all tokens of
FINISH . GOOD and FINISH . FIVE have been identified and annotated for
various linguistic features in the Auslan corpus. The annotations also
included literal and free translations of all clauses (sentences) in which
either of these two signs appeared.
With respect to frequency, the corpus data clearly show that FIN-
ISH . GOOD is far more frequently used than FINISH . FIVE , by a ratio of 2:1: a
differential that was not previously suggested by any native signers dur-
ing the fieldwork undertaken for the initial compilation of the Auslan
dictionary (from 1984 to 1988), nor was it spontaneously offered as a
point of distinction between the two forms by any Auslan users, native
or otherwise, during the fieldwork for the compilation of the second

edition (1996–1997) or in subsequent feedback made possible through
the online version of the dictionary (‘Auslan Signbank’) since 2004.
With respect to their meaning, attested usage of these signs in the
corpus showed that they clearly were not just simply, or always, verbs.
At a minimum, when we view the translations of the clauses in which
the two signs appear it becomes very clear that both FINISH.GOOD and
FINISH . FIVE are used in a variety of different ways, i.e. the meaning they
contribute to the clause is not constant if judged by the translation.
Importantly, they often appear to occur with other verbs, i.e. modifying
them in some way. Most strikingly, they sometimes appear together, or
appear at the beginning of the second of two clauses, forming one larger
sentence. Native signer intuitions had never previously suggested either
of these last two possibilities, and thus had not captured the full range
of meanings of these signs.
It is possible that the ratio of occurrence of 2:1 in favor of FIN-
ISH . GOOD indicates not only that the two signs have different uses, but
that one has a wider range of uses than the other, and thus occurs more
frequently. Different uses, of course, result in different meanings and
are potentially connected to the same sign having different grammati-
cal functions in different environments. (We will leave this secondary
observation for our discussion of grammatical intuitions below.)
With regard to some native signer suggestions that the difference
between the two signs were due to social variables such as dialect, sex,
class, or age, a multivariate analysis was conducted on tokens of FIN-
ISH . GOOD and FINISH . FIVE tagged for these factors, but no associations
of either form with any of these factors were found (preliminary results
were reported in Johnston, Cresdee, & Schembri, 2011).
Grammatical intuitions
Do native signers have intuitions on the signs FINISH.GOOD and FIN-
ISH . FIVE which also extend to more specific questions of grammatical
function? Apart from the recognition by some language researchers
and Auslan teachers that the signs FINISH.GOOD and FINISH.FIVE could
function as either full verbs or helping verbs, signer intuitions on the
grammatical class (part of speech) of these signs are not strong. Once
again, one can investigate the annotated Auslan corpus for usage data
for an answer.
Clauses (sentences) in which the signs FINISH.GOOD and FINISH.FIVE
occur have been identified and translated in the corpus as part of a
larger study. After clauses have been identified, it is then much easier
to identify the apparent grammatical function of each sign in the
clause, especially our target signs, e.g. as full verb and auxiliary verb
(see Figures 4.3–4.6).4
Of course, the identification of grammatical function is based partly
on structural considerations (with what other signs of what grammatical
type does the target sign occur?) and partly on functional and seman-
tic considerations (what does the sign contribute to the meaning of the
clause?). In other words, this exercise of categorization is neither defini-
tive nor without an element of circularity. Nonetheless, a large number
of tokens of FINISH.GOOD and FINISH.FIVE signs have been tagged in the
corpus as main or full verb, adverb, conjunction, auxiliary verb, affix,
and discourse marker. Their frequency and distribution characteristics
can now be described.
According to preliminary investigations (Johnston, Cresdee, &
Schembri, 2011), each sign appears to be ‘multi-functional’, and
Figure 4.3 FINISH . GOOD as a full verb
Figure 4.4 FINISH . FIVE as a full verb
Figure 4.5 FINISH . GOOD as an auxiliary
Figure 4.6 FINISH . FIVE as an auxiliary

the functions are not evenly distributed between each. FINISH.GOOD

functions equally as a full verb (37 percent of tokens) and as an aux-
iliary (35 percent of tokens). This does not match signer intuitions that
it is primarily used as a full verb. The divergence with FINISH.FIVE is even
larger – it functions primarily as an auxiliary (52 percent of tokens) and
is a full verb in only 19 percent of tokens (see Figures 4.2–4.4 for exam-
ples of use). Intuitions had not only failed to register the importance of
the auxiliary function in both cases, but were also not sensitive to this
difference between the two signs in this regard.
Of greater interest – because not previously flagged by intuitions at
all – was the finding that both signs fulfilled other functions as well for
much of the time (26 percent and 29 percent of tokens for FINISH.GOOD
and FINISH.FIVE, respectively). Function as a conjunction is one of the
most frequent among these (see Figures 4.7 and 4.8). Indeed, FINISH.FIVE
is used as a conjunction as often as it is used as a full verb.5
Finally, corpus tags that identify the position of the tokens of FIN-
ISH . GOOD and FINISH . FIVE relative to the clause as a whole and relative
to the main verb – when they are not themselves the main verb (e.g.
as an auxiliary expressing completed action of the verb, i.e. as an aspect
marker) – show that they occur overwhelmingly post-verbally. This post-
verbal position may also explain the unexpected use of FINISH.GOOD and
FINISH . FIVE as a conjunction, because in other languages where similar
words have changed their use from content word (e.g. a verb meaning
‘finish’) to a function word (e.g. a conjunction meaning ‘then’) – in
a process of language change known as grammaticalization – they are
also found in a post-verbal position (Heine & Kuteva, 2002). In other
words, the signs FINISH.GOOD and FINISH.FIVE and their one- and two-
hand variants, which had previously been thought of as non-significant
Figure 4.7 FINISH . GOOD as a conjunction
Figure 4.8 FINISH . FIVE as a conjunction

alternative forms, actually appear to be evolving distinctive functions as

a part of on-going grammaticalization of which most users and teachers
of the language appear to be quite unaware.
The teaching of Auslan as an L2 would be greatly enhanced if
these findings were incorporated into language description and teach-
ing curricula. Curricula written in the light of evidence-based reference
grammars mean that teachers can become more nuanced in their expla-
nations (e.g. pointing out that one sign is used more in one particular
way than another, but also explaining that this is only a tendency and
not a categorical difference). Teaching practice also necessarily involves
giving examples, as we have illustrated above, of different types of
usage. Access to online corpus resources greatly facilitates this aspect
of language teaching (see below).
Issues in the teaching of SLs as L2s
Obviously, therefore, the minimal first step in corpus-based L2 teaching

is to ensure that information conveyed to instructors and included in
curricula is actually correct. In this section we discuss how theoretical
framework or bias shapes teaching curricula and pedagogical practice
and, in particular, how corpora should inform content. Then we suggest
how to implement a corpus-based approach to SL L2 pedagogy.
Linguistic theories and L2 curricula and pedagogy

In the field of spoken and written language teaching, research litera-
ture often includes discussions on decisions for creating curricula and
syllabuses which have usually been influenced by the theoretical, empir-
ical, and pedagogical assumptions about the nature of language and
language learning. It is pretty obvious that in the SL teaching field differ-
ent curricula or syllabuses reflect different theories already adopted by
spoken second or foreign language developers of the materials for teach-
ers. Rosen (2010:351) states that ‘Curricular materials for spoken second
language follow developments in linguistic and learning theories. Fre-
quently those for ASL as a second language follow those models.’ There
is no doubt that Auslan teaching materials subscribed to them as well.
According to Smith (1988), the first standardized American Sign Lan-
guage (ASL) teaching curriculum, Signing Naturally (Smith, Lentz &
Mikos, 2008a, 2008b, first published 1988), adopted a functional-
notional approach because they needed an orientation that emphasized
interpersonal communication. The curriculum mapped out a two-year
course of study with the aim of developing proficient communicative
competency in ASL. The functional-notional approach to L2 teaching

was very prominent in the USA during the early 1980s and placed
major emphasis on the communicative purpose of speech acts, or the
functions of a language (Finocchiaro & Brumfit, 1983).
Interestingly, this approach relied heavily on intuitions, and the con-
cerns of Boxer and Pickering (1995:44) would, therefore, apply equally
to the Signing Naturally curriculum:
Billmyer, Jakar, and Lee (1989) surveyed the presentation of such

functions as compliments and apologies (known as speech acts) in
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) materials.
The authors found that most of the materials examined rely on the
authors’ intuitions of how these speech acts pattern out. Such explicit
knowledge often does not match up with actual speech behavior in
spontaneous interactions.
Whether explicitly acknowledged or not, the Signing Naturally cur-

riculum influenced, directly and indirectly, many Auslan L2 teaching
materials produced in Australia over many years, such as: Introduc-
tion to Auslan Level One & Two Student Workbooks (National Institute
for Deaf Studies); Language and Culture: Episodes 1–17 Teacher’s Guide
(Chisholm Institute of TAFE); Auslan: A Short Curriculum for Begin-
ners in Australian Sign Language (Deaf Education Network); and ‘Getting
It Right’ – Auslan Short Course (Deaf Australia). Samples of vocabulary,
phrases, and sentences appearing in these materials have been based on
native or near-native Deaf signers’ intuitions and/or informed by the
SL linguistics literature, mostly borrowed from ASL researchers. Natu-
rally occurring data were not the source of the samples (or, at least, the
source was never cited).
Using the corpus in L2 teaching

L2 learners face great problems in learning which language features to
use in which contexts when intuitions are vague and/or inaccurate.
We have exemplified this at various levels of the lexico-grammar in
Auslan: phonology (e.g. handshape or handedness), lexis (e.g. dialect
variation or the differences between closely related signs), and gram-
mar (e.g. the grammatical class of some signs). Auslan L2 teachers, in
describing language use to students in the classroom, have often over-
generalized and oversimplified because the information used to train
these teachers in the first place had not been based on naturalistic
corpora, since such corpora did not exist until recently, and are still
quite rare. Clearly, where they exist, educationalists who prepare or

authorize curricula need to ensure the information contained therein
is compatible with these corpora. The fact that teachers have yet to be
trained to access or investigate corpora in the preparation of teaching
materials also contributes to the problem.
Krieger (2003:2) states that ‘corpus linguistics provides a more objec-
tive view of language than that of introspection, intuition and anec-
dotes’. Once gleaned, however, information derived from the corpus
needs to be interpreted and then converted into an appropriate format
which can be comprehended and used for writers of curriculum materi-
als and, in turn, classroom instructors. This has been brought about by
the potential shortcomings of language description and teaching con-
tent which has been based solely on received traditions, intuitions, and
elicited material, as we have already discussed. It has also arisen because
it affects relations between student and teachers. Students lose trust
and respect in their teachers and become anxious and even irritated
by phonological or/and grammatical correction or rejection when based
on intuitions or assumptions that manifestly do not match the language
usage or language attitudes students encounter outside the classroom.
There are four major steps to the process of translating corpus findings
into teaching materials and practice, which are discussed in the follow-
ing sections. The first is foundational, and refers to the knowledge base
and the importance of instructors understanding the basic linguistic and
grammatical concepts that underpin the subject matter being taught.
The second is awareness of the potential mismatch between intuitions,
both personal and group intuitions, which may be biased and not sup-
ported by data. The third is implementation, and involves strategies for
incorporating knowledge about the language into curricula and class-
room practice rather than simply presenting it, i.e. using it to inform
the design of learning activities. The fourth is integration of the cor-
pus material itself into teaching resources, i.e. we promote the use of
clips of actual usage of the target sign or grammatical construction from
the corpus rather than overreliance or exclusive reliance on modeled or
invented examples.
Foundations and awareness

It should go without saying that effective language teaching requires
a solid knowledge base in the language(s) being used and taught, as
well as in relevant linguistic and pedagogical concepts and theories.
Of course, it would simply be impossible to detail all the knowledge
required to teach Auslan within the limits of this chapter. Our purpose in
this section, rather, is simply to draw attention to the importance of this

foundational knowledge and to illustrate it with reference to our major
thematic example in this paper, of the use of the signs FINISH.GOOD and
FINISH . FIVE in Auslan.
From our earlier discussions, we have seen that the signs FINISH.GOOD
and FINISH.FIVE have several distinct, but related, functions in Auslan.
One of them is as an aspect marker. It should be evident, therefore, that
an Auslan L2 instructor needs to understand the grammatical concepts
of tense and aspect generally as well as how they are manifested in both
English and Auslan specifically. For example, although both tense and
aspect markers express temporal information, they are two quite dif-
ferent concepts, and instructors need to be able to communicate this
difference to students:
Tense is deictic in that it indicates the temporal location of a situa-

tion, i.e., its occurrence in relation to a specific reference time. Aspect
is non-deictic in that it is related to the temporal shape of a situa-
tion, i.e., its internal temporal structure and ways of presentation,
independent of its temporal location.
(Xiao & McEnery, 2002:1)
Cross-linguistic and comparative SL studies are also a relevant dimen-

sion of foundational knowledge here. Instructors are helped by being
aware of similar or different lexico-grammatical constructions in other
languages and the basis upon which these claims have been made, espe-
cially if there has been no systematic research into the feature of the
grammar under question in Auslan.
Regarding aspect and tense, for example, until recently an Auslan L2
teacher would have been obliged to communicate to students that there
has been virtually no systematic research into the Auslan aspect mark-
ing system or tense marking. Observations made by ASL researchers
have long claimed that aspect in that language is marked with a com-
plex system of morphemes that modify the movement parameter of
verb signs. Similar claims have been made for other SLs. Descriptions
of Auslan have taken these observations and tried to apply them to
Auslan, making adjustments or qualifications as needs be and as best fit-
ted the available data and native signer intuitions (e.g. Johnston, 1989;
Johnston & Schembri, 2007).
It is essential to provide teachers of Auslan with an appreciation
of all relevant linguistic concepts, as this would be an advantage to
their learners, who may not have previously studied these grammat-
ical concepts. Though L2 learners do not necessarily need to master
these concepts in order to gain a working communicative knowledge
of the language, there should be no confusion in the minds of their
teachers.
We have also seen from the earlier discussions that the use of the signs
FINISH . GOOD and FINISH . FIVE as aspect markers in Auslan is not neces-
sarily clear-cut or unambiguous, i.e. they appear to be evolving from the
use of these signs as full lexical verbs, via adverbial uses, into auxiliaries
or even bound morphemes expressing completion; while in other cases
they appear to be evolving from full lexical verbs into temporal conjunc-
tions. For teachers, understanding this process means understanding the
linguistic concept of grammaticalization and how this impacts on the
distribution of function and forms observed in the corpus data and in
everyday use. From the learners’ perspective, this means that teachers
are able to use this phenomenon to explain the wide range of variation
that students encounter in real L2 usage situations, e.g. when interact-
ing with Deaf people or from their own explorations of the corpus (see
below).
It is desirable that all but absolute beginners have the opportunity
to use an inductive approach to language learning, rather than simply
passively receiving intuition-based opinions (which may be inaccurate)
from their teachers. However, this is no panacea: inductive corpus-based
generalizations are themselves not always accurate if the corpus is in
some way inadequate, e.g. is not truly representative.
It is inevitable, therefore, that teachers of Auslan need updated
research information based on the Auslan corpus to inform their teach-
ing materials and to maintain quality teaching standards. A case in
point would be the findings from the recently completed research into
aspect marking in Auslan mentioned above (Gray, 2012), and the cur-
rent project on variation and change in Auslan with respect to the signs
FINISH . GOOD and FINISH . FIVE (Johnston et al., 2011).
Implementation and integration

There are a number of corpus-based activities that can be used or
adapted by L2 students in the classroom, writers of SL curriculum mate-
rials, and SL instructors. In discussing how to access the corpus as part
of these student-centered learning activities, we once again use the
example of the signs FINISH.GOOD and FINISH.FIVE.
The reason for advocating these hands-on student-centered activi-
ties is that, according to studies concerning the language learning/
acquisition dichotomy, induction encourages L2 learners to discover

patterns and make generalizations about language form and use based
on observation of usage data, such as can be found in a corpus. The
use of inductive instructional approaches instead of deductive instruc-
tional approaches promotes effective learning by discovery and inquiry
learning (Felder & Henriques, 1995). This is one aspect of what has been
called ‘data-driven learning’ (DDL) (Johns, 1991a; 2002). This is exem-
plified in Leeson (2008), who describes how it has been applied to the
teaching of Irish Sign Language.
DDL exploits modern machine-readable linguistic corpora to create
the conditions whereby L2 learners can form their own generaliza-
tions about the target language. They do this by using structured and
focused searching activities designed by the teacher to directly inter-
rogate the corpus. Typically, results are displayed and manipulated in
concordance programs to locate authentic examples of language in use.
In this way, both learning and teaching are strongly rooted in authentic
language data.
The description of our DDL approach to language teaching takes it as
a given that authentic corpus-based usage data have already been used
as a source for the language description that provides the content to
teaching curricula and the language training that has been given to the
L2 teacher. A recent example of such a resource is the description of Irish
Sign Language found in Leeson and Saeed (2012). We recognize that
this, in itself, is the single most important contribution that linguistic
corpora can make to the teaching of SLs as second languages. It cannot
occur if a linguistic corpus for the SL has yet to be created.
Our DDL approach also assumes that: (i) the corpus resources are
made accessible6 (ii) the relevant software is available and students and
teachers are trained in its use7 (iii) students and teachers are familiar
with the glossing and annotation principles that were used to create
the corpora;8 and (iv) students and teachers have classroom instruc-
tion in the relevant general linguistic concepts (e.g. aspect) about which
the teacher wishes the students to discover or confirm language-specific
generalizations (e.g. the use of FINISH.GOOD and FINISH.FIVE in aspect
marking in Auslan). We do not assume that the majority of SL teach-
ers have already had this type of training; rather, we assume that –
provided a linguistic corpus already exists for a SL and that it has
already been used to inform the curriculum – the DDL approach can
exploit the corpus if the above enabling steps are in place. This would
require an expansion and enhancement of both teacher training and the
expectations we have of learners. Such a change would be appropriate in

SL courses leading to some kind of certification (e.g. as SL teacher or SL
interpreter), and probably not for recreational, parental, or community
language courses. We will not deal with the details of these enabling
steps here but, instead, move directly to the type of classroom exercises
that may be devised.
Based on the knowledge the teacher has of the language, a series
of questions can now be posed for students for reflection and
inquiry/experimentation-as-learning. By conducting corpus searches
and observing concordances in search results, students learn. As
explained by Johns (1991a:1):
at the heart of the approach is the use of the machine (DDL or

concordance programs) not as a surrogate teacher or tutor, but as a
rather special type of informant. The difference between teacher and
informant can best be defined in terms of the flow of questions and
answers.
Below we list the type of questions the teacher/curriculum could pose to

students (the Figures are in Table 4.2).
1. In English the following words and constructions are associated with

completed aspect, e.g. |have/has/had||VERB-ed/en|. In the Auslan cor-
pus, search for these patterns in the free translation tier and examine
the aligned Auslan video text (Figures A and B):
a. How often does this translate a clause which contains the signs
FINISH . GOOD or FINISH . FIVE ?
b. Are there other Auslan signs that also/instead regularly appear in
these clauses?
c. If so, what are they?
2. The Auslan signs FINISH.GOOD and FINISH.FIVE can function in dif-

ferent grammatical class roles. In the Auslan corpus, search for these
signs (Figures C and D):
a. What is the possible range of grammatical class roles?

b. What is the distribution of each by grammatical class?
c. Which is the most frequent usage?
d. Which is the least frequent usage?
e. Is sign form (one- or two-handed) related to sign function?
3. The Auslan signs FINISH.GOOD and FINISH.FIVE can function in ways

other than as full verbs (Figures E and F):
a. When used as an adverb or auxiliary can/do they follow or precede

the modified verb?
b. As an adverb or auxiliary can/do they occur clause initially or
clause finally?
c. Is sign form (one- or two-handed) related to sign function?
4. Auslan has signs of the grammatical class ‘conjunction’. In the

Auslan corpus, search for signs in this grammatical class (Figures G
and H):
a. What is the full range of conjunctions?

b. What is the distribution of these conjunctions?
c. Can/do they occur clause initially or clause finally?
5. In the Auslan corpus, search for these English words in the free trans-
lation: then, next, after that (see Figures A and B, but substitute ‘then’
etc. as search term).
a. How is this meaning encoded either lexically or morpho-

syntactically in the temporally aligned Auslan sentence?
b. Which is the most common?
With the help of teachers, students devise ways to interrogate the

corpora that may yield distributional and concordance data that enable
students to suggest and provide answers, which is the second vital step
in this dynamic teaching and learning process.
Implementing the DDL approach with respect to understanding the
use and function of the signs FINISH.GOOD and FINISH.FIVE means
accessing the Auslan corpus. The corpus is accessed either directly,
through the ELAN software that has been used to create it, or indirectly
through spreadsheet or concordance programs into which ELAN anno-
tations can be exported for further processing.
It is suggested that, in the first instance, the use of this DDL approach
with the teaching of Auslan as an L2 should be conducted using
the ELAN annotation program as the interface tool for viewing and
interrogating the corpus. In this respect, ELAN reveals itself to be a
multi-function tool: it is not only used to create the time-aligned anno-
tations of the media files of the corpus, it can also be used to conduct
investigations of the corpus (i.e. searches or statistical profiles of vari-
ous features of the annotations, such as frequency, duration, etc.) and
display the results of such searches within concordance views and data
matrixes (Table 4.2).
On the basis of the results from these types of searches, students are
then in a position to generalize about this part of the grammar of Auslan
by discussing the following types of ancillary questions that would be
posed by the teacher as part of the classroom activity:
• Is the use of FINISH.GOOD or FINISH.FIVE optional or obligatory when

marking an action as completed (i.e. as an auxiliary)?
• If not, what other lexical or grammatical strategies are used?
Table 4.2 ELAN search examples∗
Figure A Figure B
Search construction ‘has X-ed’ in Search construction ‘has X-ed’ in
English translation, view Auslan English translation with Auslan
equivalent and compare equivalents containing FINISH
Figure C Figure D
Search annotations with FINISH and View FINISH by grammatical class
show grammatical class results by descending order of
frequency
104
Figure E Figure F
Search for FINISH as AUX located Search for FINISH as AUX located
after a verb before a verb
Figure G Figure H
Search for ID-GLOSSES tagged as CONJ View ID-GLOSS as CONJ results by
(conjunction) descending order of frequency
∗ In some of the search fields displayed in this table simple regular expressions are used.
Regular expressions allow complicated pattern-based searches to be conducted within or

across annotation fields. Put simply, they involve the use of special non-alphabetic and
non-numeric characters together with the search string. The meaning of regular expressions
can be found in the ELAN help menu. For example, the regular expression.+ in Figure C
means: ‘any string of characters’ (any annotation would match this); the regular expression
(have|has|had)\s.{2,10}?(ed |en) in Figure A means: ‘look for a string in an annotation that
consists of the word have or has or had, followed by a space and then by any string of char-
acters between two and ten characters long that also ends in ed or en followed by a space’
(as one can see from the hits, ‘had been’ or ‘has played’ are matches).
• In what environments are FINISH.GOOD or FINISH.FIVE preferred or

commonly found as auxiliaries to express completed actions?
• Are the signs FINISH.GOOD or FINISH.FIVE more likely to be found
in one type of text than another, e.g. narrative, retell, recollection,
conversation, etc.?
• What is the preferred position of the signs FINISH.GOOD or FIN-
ISH . FIVE in the clause overall, or relative to full verbs?
• Is this related to production constraints and/or changes in the form
of the sign(s), e.g. reduced in handedness or overall duration?
• Some lexicalized compounds in Auslan have an element which is
related to FINISH.GOOD or FINISH.FIVE; how might they have evolved
from the construction patterns evident in the corpus?
If a teacher prepares for teaching beforehand and provides learners with

search and discussion questions similar to those just discussed, he/she
can facilitate learners making generalizations and then provide timely
and targeted feedback on their answers or responses. This classroom
exchange structure has been called Initiation Response Feedback (or IRF)
by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975, cited in Johns, 1991a) (see also Boyd &
Maloof, 2000; Ohta, 2001; Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Walqui, 2007).
As we have seen, searches based on standard English orthography
are possible in the Auslan corpus if searching is conducted on tiers
like the free translation or literal translation tiers. Some familiarity
with the structure of queries in the ELAN program is, nonetheless,
required. Indeed, knowledge of the form of regular expressions to
capture complex patterns is a major advantage.
However, the bulk of the annotations within the Auslan corpus are
glosses or tags, not plain English text. The glosses and tags, though based
on English, use abbreviations that result in annotation strings that do
not contain acceptable standard English words or phrases and clauses
in grammatically correct English. In other words, the Auslan corpus is
not a text glossed in a standard orthography or a minimally modified
standard orthography. Nonetheless, access to the corpus is facilitated by
an online lexical database (Auslan Signbank)9 which students can con-
sult. All signs are viewable by ordinary English translation equivalents
(keywords), the word used to gloss the sign in the corpus consistently
and uniquely, and video clip of the sign’s form.
The use of other language concordance programs is, thus, not straight-
forward for this reason. They are also difficult to use, because SLs also
rely on facial intonation, spatial placement, and directionality, and not
just a sequence of glossable signs equivalent to the spoken (and written)
words of an oral–aural language. Either the text string extracted from the
corpus does not contain codes for these features (being on other tiers in
the ELAN annotation file, just as grammatical class is a tag on another
tier for each ID-gloss) or, if they were concatenated into the one string,
it would produce a text that was not easily read by humans. (The same
can be said of multimedia corpora used in the analysis of multi-party
conversational material or the study of co-speech gesture and language
embodiment.)
With these qualifications in place, there are other concordance pro-
grams that could also be integrated into the DDL approach for Auslan,
especially for advanced students who have training in the annotation
conventions and ID-glossing. One such example is AntConc.10 AntConc
is not a tool for the creation of complex annotations on video but a
freeware, multi-purpose corpus analysis toolkit, designed specifically for
use in the classroom. It hosts a comprehensive set of tools, including
an easy-to-use, intuitive graphical user interface and offering a powerful
concordance, word and keyword frequency generators, tools for clus-
ter and lexical bundle analysis, and a word distribution plot (Anthony,
2004).
Despite its being designed for a spoken language learning context,
it seems possible for SL learners and teachers to use AntConc produc-
tively as a complement to ELAN. Once the corpus text has been exported
from ELAN into a text-file it can be imported into AntConc for further
processing. AntConc has an easy user-friendly interface, and teachers
and learners can benefit by exploiting this, depending on what tool fea-
tures they need for the specific activity. For example, highlight colors
are user definable at each level (see Figure 4.5); the blue, red, lime, and
purple text selects glosses deemed important by the teacher in this par-
ticular type of search, and the green color highlight appears on a line
the teacher has targeted for class or group discussions. In addition, and
importantly from the teacher’s point of view, in AntConc it is possible to
modify or delete difficult or inappropriate vocabulary items which will
appear in the Key Word in Context (KWIC) view (Figure 4.9).
Obviously, the use of both the ELAN and AntConc programs encour-
ages learners to act as the producers of research, rather than just passive
recipients (McEnery & Wilson, 1997). This implies that the teacher acts
as a research facilitator rather than the more authoritative teacher of
knowledge, not only because the programs provide a ready resource
of natural, or authentic, texts for language learning but also because
they check the temptation of inappropriate correction, or overcorrec-
tion, of lexical and grammatical ‘mistakes’ based on a teacher’s intuition.
Figure 4.9 Illustrated Key Word in Context (KWIC) concordancer tool in

AntConc
In addition, according to Johns (1991b), DDL would help students

to ‘learn how to learn’ and hence to ‘become better language learn-
ers outside the classroom’. Therefore, the concordance tools would be
advantageous to those who are eager to learn about language forms and
use in Auslan outside the classroom.
Conclusion
In this chapter we have argued for the importance and efficacy of using
linguistic corpora in the teaching of signed languages as second lan-
guages. In the first instance, corpora can be used to test and augment
curriculum content. In the second instance, corpora are integrated into
the teaching and learning classroom situation itself. For minority lan-
guages of limited diffusion, corpora can be used as teaching and learning
tools by increasing exposure to these languages (by making it possible
to view, or listen to, the recordings that constitute the corpus). Equally
importantly, corpora can be used as datasets which learners can be
taught to investigate with specialized linguistic analysis software, mak-
ing learning more effective and student-centered. Though the examples
we have given of DDL are still in development and need to be piloted
with students in the sign language classroom, they promise to make a
major contribution to the broadening of the type of language exposure
that L2 learners of Auslan have enjoyed to date.
Notes
1. For the Auslan corpus visit http://elar.soas.ac.uk/deposit/johnston2012auslan
2. For ELAN software and manual visit http://tla.mpi.nl/tools/tla-tools/elan
3. For the Auslan corpus annotation guidelines visit http://www.auslan.org.au/

about/annotations/
4. These examples are screen grabs from an open ELAN annotation window
(without the video inset). The signs are identified by ID-gloss annotations on
both left and right hand tiers. They are also tagged with grammatical class
(NP = plain noun, VILoc = locatable indicating verb, NLoc = locatable noun,
Pro = pronoun, Aux = auxiliary). The CLU annotation field identifies the
‘clause like unit’ (each CLU is given an identifying person, file, and sequence
code). The clause is given an approximate literal translation.
5. Conj = conjunction, VIDir = indicating directional verb, VD = depicting verb
(classifier sign or construction).
6. http://elar.soas.ac.uk/deposit/johnston2012auslan
7. http://tla.mpi.nl/tools/tla-tools/elan
8. http://www.auslan.org.au/about/annotations/
9. http://www.auslan.org.au
10. http:// www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/software.html
References
Anthony, L. (2004). AntConc: A Learner and Classroom Friendly, Multi-Platform
Corpus Analysis Toolkit. IWLeL 2004: An Interactive Workshop on Language
e-Learning, pp. 7–13.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2011). Corpus Linguistics and Grammar Teach-
ing. Available: http://www.longmanhomeusa.com/content/pl_biber_conrad_
monograph5_lo.pdf [accessed November 18th, 2013].
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, Edward. (1999).
Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
Billmyer, K., Jakar, V., & Lee, M. 1989. ‘The representation of sociolinguistic
features in TESOL materials’. Paper presented at the annual Colloquium on
Pedagogy and Pragmatics, TESOL Convention, San Antonio. Texas.
Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the Presentation of Speech Acts in
ELT Materials: The Case of Complaints. ELT Journal, 49(1), 44–58.
Boyd, M., & Maloof, V. (2000). How Teachers Can Build on Student-Proposed
Intertextual Links to Facilitate Student Talk in the ESL Classroom. In J. Hall &
L. Verplaetse (Eds) Second and Foreign Language Learning through Classroom
Interaction, pp. 163–182. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learn-
ing (CLIL) Classrooms (Language Learning & Language Teaching). Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Felder, M. R. & Henriques, E. R. (1995). Learning and Teaching Styles in Foreign
and Second Language Education. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 21–31.
Finocchiaro, M., & Brumfit, C. (1983). The Functional-Notional Approach: From
Theory to Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gray, M. (2012, submitted). Aspect Marking in Auslan: A System of Gestural Verb
Modification. Macquarie, Sydney: Doctoral dissertation.
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2002). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Johns, T. (1991a). Should You Be Persuaded – Two Samples of Data-driven

Learning Materials. English Language Research Journal, 4, 1–16.
Johns, T. (1991b). From Printout to Handout: Grammar and Vocabulary Teaching
in the Context of Data-Driven Learning. English Language Research Journal, 4,
27–45.
Johns, T. (2002). Data-driven Learning: The Perpetual Challenge. In
B. Kettemann & G. Marko (Eds) Language and Computers: Teaching and Learning
by Doing Corpus Analysis. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference
on Teaching and Language Corpora, Graz 19–24 July, 2000 (pp. 107–117).
Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
Johnston, T. (1989). Auslan: The Sign Language of the Australian Deaf Community.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sydney: University of Sydney.
Johnston, T. (2010). From Archive to Corpus: Transcription and Annotation
in the Creation of Signed Language Corpora. International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 15(1), 104–129.
Johnston, T. (2013). Auslan Corpus Annotation Guidelines. Downloadable from
Auslan Signbank at http://www.auslan.org.au/about/annotations/, Macquarie
University: Sydney.
Johnston, T., Cresdee, D., & Schembri, A. (2011). A Corpus-Based Study of
Synchronic Contextual Variation and Grammaticalization in a Signed Lan-
guage: The Frequency of Variants of ‘Finish’ and the Constructions They Occur
In. Paper presented at the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Xi’an,
China, July 2011.
Johnston, T., & Schembri, A. (2007). The Linguistics of Auslan. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Krieger, D. (2003). Corpus Linguistics: What It Is and How It Can Be Applied
to Teaching. The Internet TESL Journal. Available: http://iteslj.org [accessed
September 19, 2012].
Leeson, L. (2008). Quantum Leap – Leveraging the Signs of Ireland Digital Cor-
pus in Irish Sign Language/English Interpreter Training. The Sign Language
Translator and Interpreter, 2(2), 149–176.
Leeson, L., & Saeed, J. (2012). Irish Sign Language: A Cognitive Linguistic Account.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
McEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (1997). Teaching and Language Corpora. ReCALL, 9(1),
5–14.
McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y. (Eds) (2006). Corpus-Based Language Studies.
London & New York: Routledge.
Ohta, A. (2001). Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning
Japanese (Second Language Acquisition Research Series). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From Corpus to Classroom:
Language Use and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Penke, M., & Rosenbach, A. (2004). What Counts as Evidence in Linguistics:
An Introduction. Studies in Language, 28(3), 480–526.
Reppen, R. (2010). Using Corpora in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University
Press, New York, NY.
Rosen, R. (2010). American Sign Language Curricula: A Review. Sign Language
Studies, 10(3), 348–381.
Schembri, A., & Johnston, T. (2012). Sociolinguistic Aspects of Variation and

Change. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (Eds) Sign Languages: An Inter-
national Handbook, pp. 788–816. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Smith, C. (1988). Signing Naturally: Notes on the Development of the ASL
Curriculum Project at Vista College. Sign Language Studies, 59, 171–182.
Smith, C., Lentz, E. M., & Mikos, K. (2008a). Signing Naturally, Units 1–6 (Teacher’s
Curriculum). San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press.
Smith, C., Lentz, E. M., & Mikos, K. (2008b). Signing Naturally, Units 1–6 (Students
Set). San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press.
Walqui, A. (2007). A Scaffolding Instruction for English Language Learners:
A Conceptual Framework. In An O. Garcia, & C. Baker (Eds) Bilingual Education:
An Introductory Reader, pp. 202–218. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Xiao, Z., & McEnery, T. (2002). A corpus-based approach to tense and aspect
in English-Chinese translation. Plenary paper at the International Symposium on
Contrastive and Translation Studies between Chinese and English, Shanghai, August
8–11, 2002.
5
eLCA – An e-learning Unit for
Acquiring Constructed Action
Renate Fischer and Anke Müller1
Introduction
What makes constructed action (CA) difficult for hearing learners?

At first glance there seems to be no explanation for it. Instead, CA seems
to be something like a ‘universal’ or ‘natural’ interactive device.
Indeed, when CA is produced through one of its sub-types called con-
structed dialogue (CD), there is much analogy with spoken languages.
In an exercise for reporting signed utterances you might invite the hear-
ing students to produce a lexical sign designating the signer of the
utterance to be quoted, and then to slightly shift their upper bodies
and produce a ‘direct quote’. This is, except for the difference in modal-
ity, a slight difference only with respect to what hearing people would
produce in spoken discourse when they report speech.
Things obviously tend to become more complicated when what is
‘reported’ is not an interactive action, or utterance, but an action lit-
erally speaking, like a person leaving with disappointment. Producing
a pantomimic action of this kind is not entirely foreign to spoken
dialogue, but the action shown during a signed utterance exhibits cer-
tain characteristics that are not, or not systematically, found in spoken
dialogue. One of the characteristics is that a signer most often simulta-
neously combines the action s/he embodies, or shows through her/his
upper body, with a classifier construction produced on the hands.
Another challenge signed discourse exhibits is that the action shown
most often is not directly preceded by the lexeme identifying the actor.
Instead, this referential entity is to be found in the broader context,
both linguistic and extralinguistic. Finally, a word on how to act out the
action: the instance of CA coming close to authentic signed discourse
is not the one with the highest degree of pantomimic performance, but
111
the one which combines brevity and aptness to show the actor as an
actor. Again, the challenge is not to show the most individual aspects of
the referential entity, but to show characteristics of his or her actions –
a typical winner or loser, a typical writer engaged in his topic, a typical
charity woman.
Teachers of sign languages could never neglect CA and other iconic
devices because CA frequently appears in signed utterances. As early as
1986, Lentz proposed exercises for teaching CA (Lentz, 1986). Her pro-
posals made their way into one of the best-known teaching materials
for American Sign Language (ASL) as L2, Signing naturally, in which basic
exercises on how to produce CA (termed ‘role shift’ here) were included
(cf. Smith, Lentz, & Mikos, 1988, Unit 11). A recent edition has broad-
ened the scope and added details to the teaching of what is still termed
‘role shift’ (cf. Smith et al., 2008, Unit 6).
Studies on L2 learners’ performance, or understanding, of CA are rare;
there might be some done as bachelor’s or master’s theses (as is the case
in the programs at Hamburg University), but only a few of them are
reworked, or enlarged, for publication, such as Goswell (2011). She stud-
ied the production of ‘role shift’ during interpretation from English to
Australian Sign Language (Auslan). Her question was whether character-
istics of the English source text determined the occurrence of role shift in
the Auslan target texts. She found no clear relationship, or determining
factor, in the productions studied.
As early as 1992, Locker McKee & McKee found that ‘to think in
pictures’ (p. 135) was one of the biggest challenges to L2 learners and
that the students all too often were mistaken in considering the iconic
structures as being easy, or, at least, easier than syntax and grammar.
While CA (and/or role shift) has indeed found its way into teaching
material for several sign languages, the systematicity and in-depth qual-
ity of these exercises varies. This calls for a revisitation of the linguistic
description of CA.
CA in theory
Users of sign languages are familiar with CA, since it is an integral part
of signed utterances. However, it has received attention in sign linguis-
tics only recently. There are major challenges in describing the linguistic
form of CA. First, CA is a component of signed discourse, the linguistic
structure of which has proved difficult to describe. An L2 learner can-
not ask for standardized forms of CA because, unlike lexemes, there are
no citation forms available. Second, CA is not an easy unit of signed
Renate Fischer and Anke Müller 113
discourse to identify. One of the biggest challenges for sign language

learners is to capture the moment when the signer gives up his/her role
as interactive partner in order to assume the role of another entity. The
shifter’s problem inherent to it (the s/he pronoun becoming first per-
son pronoun in reported dialogue) was the first to attract sign linguists –
probably because it was integratable into the standard linguistic concept
of what language is. Thus, Lillo-Martin proposed in 1995 a hierarchi-
cal syntactic structure including a point-of-view predicate and allowing
the syntactic description of pronominal shift. Yet, the pantomimic part
of CA was not describable in this frame and remained more or less
untreated until recently.
Today, there are two approaches available which seek to take into
account iconicity, or gradience, and to fully integrate CA into cog-
nitive linguistic theory. In the USA, a first step had been taken by
Metzger (1995), who applied Tannen’s (1986) discourse-linguistic cat-
egories of CD in spoken language to ASL and, based on an idea put
forward by Winston (1992), distinguished between reporting dialogue
(CD) and reporting action and state (CA). Metzger held reporting action
or state to be particular to signed discourse, and proposed three sub-
types. These sub-types differed according to the degree to which the
action constructed was acted out and whether manual signing occurred
simultaneously with CA. An article co-authored with Liddell (Liddell &
Metzger, 1998) was a step towards the integration of CA into cognitive
linguistics, which was completed when Liddell, in 2003, put forward
the first theoretical description of CA within mental space theory.2
Liddell sees CA as a specific type of mental space blend – the ‘surrogate
blend’ (Liddell, 2003, pp. 141ff) – and he described the simultane-
ous production of several blends during one and the same part of a
signed utterance. For Liddell (2003, pp. 261ff), a surrogate blend pro-
duced through the signer’s upper body can be combined with a class
of classifier constructions called ‘depicting blends’. Following this line
of thought, Dudis (2002; 2004) spoke of systematic ‘body partitioning’
in signed languages and described the use of sequential and simultane-
ous production of several blends as being essential to the functioning of
signed discourse.
In France, a research group around Cuxac proposed another cogni-
tive linguistic approach, making ‘highly iconic structures’ (Cuxac &
Sallandre, 2007) the very basis of signed languages. Among them,
CA can be found under the heading of ‘personal transfer’. As in the
mental spaces approach, CA is said to combine simultaneously with
other types of highly iconic structures or with lexemes. The authors
highlight the gradient quality of these discourse sequences, allowing

the signer to intentionally show, or act out, what is meant, whereas
lexemes are considered to be frozen; instead of exhibiting a showing
quality, they are discourse elements for saying and referring in a lexically
standardized form.
When used in class, these theoretical approaches provide a deep
understanding of signed discourse and allow a fundamental description
of its various sequential and simultaneous parts. Both approaches aim at
a comprehensive theory of signed language, not just of particular aspects
of it. Thanks to these theories, CA gets rid of its singularity and is no
longer a gradient signing feature standing unconnectedly against a mul-
titude of various others. These approaches provide a sound basis for an
integrated view of signed language.
Still, when it comes to teaching–learning a particular sign language,
these valuable theoretical insights may not be enough. Hearing learn-
ers in Western countries are used to acquiring metalinguistic knowledge
in the form of linguistic ‘rules’ for correct usage of the language in
question. Of course, these learners are used to a multitude of ‘exceptions’
to the rules learned. This suggests that a fine-grained guide to L2 produc-
tion is needed. Quinto-Pozos (2007) follows this problem when he poses
his leading question: ‘Can constructed action be considered obligatory?’
He discovered that there are no obligatory rules that are formulatable in
the way that the rules are formulatable for, say, morphosyntax. This does
not come as a surprise, because CA is a part of signed discourse, which
is at a level of linguistic analysis that resists obligatory rules.
Fischer & Kollien on CA in German Sign Language (DGS)

During the last decade Fischer and Kollien have focused on how to
familiarize the students in the institute’s programs with CA in DGS.
The students are enrolled in either the sign linguistics and Deaf culture
program or the sign language interpreting program at the Institute for
German Sign Language at Hamburg University. Results of their research
find their way into the DGS courses, that is, into language practice
classes, but the most prominent target group is the student members
of their seminars in sign linguistics and sign interpreting. The aim is to
provide the students with theoretical insight and metalinguistic knowl-
edge of DGS, either as their L1 or L2. While the theoretical framework
is to prepare the ground for a comprehensive and cohesive understand-
ing of the linguistic phenomena involved in signed discourse featuring
CA, the metalinguistic information on CA in DGS is provided as a
means of linguistic self-management in both reception and production;
it should also enable the learners to identify with precision which partic-
ular aspects they need additional advice for. One of the main problems
faced by the researchers is how to devise rules for ‘correct’ CA usage.
Fischer and Kollien have undertaken a series of studies in order to
develop metalinguistic competence for using CA. Two articles pub-
lished in 2006 (Fischer & Kollien, 2006a, b) presented a typology of
CA in DGS with detailed observations of its fundamental characteris-
tics and restrictions of usage. In 2009, research on mouth gestures of the
so-called onomatopoietic kind was published (Fischer & Kollien, 2009)
and extended the understanding of the range of iconic devices in DGS
as well as the systematic simultaneous complexity of this ‘gestural’ phe-
nomenon. In 2010, contrastive research on meaning explanations in
written and spoken German as well as in DGS was published (Fischer &
Kollien, 2010). The authors saw sociolinguistic variation in using ges-
ture and enactment in German, whereas CA was pervasive in DGS and
of a complex simultaneous structure. Additional research explored the
experimental poetic usage of CA in two DGS versions of the poem The
Panther by Rainer Maria Rilke, performed by native signers (Fischer,
Goldschmidt, & Kollien, 2011; cf. Fischer, Dietrich, & Rossow, 2011).
The fundamental terms used for the functional description of CA are
‘predication’ and ‘reference’. CA is understood as a predication about a
referential entity without being a ‘verb’ and without being just a com-
ponent or concurrent gesture, as Emmorey proposed (Emmorey, 1999).
The referential entity is identified by a lexeme or a pronoun, and the
CA predicate ‘shows’ how this particular entity (inter)acts, behaves or
feels.
In this view, the predication function is central to CA. A CA may even
stand alone in an utterance. Quite often, though, it is sequentially com-
bined with, say, a verb lexeme plus a classifier construction preceding
it. This sequential combination highlights the specific achievement of
each of the three predicating items. While the verb lexeme serves to
designate the process on a more abstract level (‘what’ happens), the
classifier constructions show additional spatial details of and relations
within the event (‘where’) and the CA part adds procedural details of
the action (‘how’). This kind of sequence serves to aid signers in talking
about an event from different ‘angles’ (the so-called cinematographic
effect in sign languages).
While these sequential chains exist, a most important way of combin-
ing CA with lexemes and/or classifier constructions is their simultaneous
production. As DGS utterances show, the number of predicates consist-
ing of just one CA (what we call ‘pure CA’) is extremely low. Up to almost
half of a narrative may consist of CA, in particular CA in simultaneous

occurrence with a classifier construction (‘parallelized CA’) (cf. Fischer &
Kollien, 2006a, b; 2010).
Fischer and Kollien chose to categorize this kind of discourse feature as
(parallelized) CA instead of, say, a manual component being accompa-
nied by gesture. While cases exist of the main referent being continually
expressed via classifier construction, in most instances of parallelized
CA it is clearly the CA element that continues predication for the main
referent of the sequence. The classifier construction simultaneously exe-
cuted on the hands may serve different functions: it may show the
spatial details of the same event as predicated via CA, but very often
it is another perspective, on the micro-level, of a macro-event that the
parallelized CA as a whole presents. This would be the case of a female
referent shown through CA as she witnesses an accident of two bicy-
cles which is verbalized through manual classifier construction(s). So,
instead of commonly having one referential entity expressed through
the manual and non-manual components, a very complex referential
situation, with several sub-parts, may be simultaneously expressed in a
parallelized CA.
In order to decipher such a referentially complex predicate, you need
to know who the referents are. Liddell and Vogt-Svendsen (2007) have
shown how many traces have to be checked in the context of a CA in
order to identify the referent(s), for only seldom are they named explic-
itly before the CA. Consistency in showing a particular referent within a
(parallelized) CA may be one of the hints. The more you know about the
referential entities involved, the better you will understand the complex
forms of a CA predicate; the better you perceive what sub-type of paral-
lelized CA is produced, the more successful you will be in understanding
its (multiple) referentiality.
In sum, to master CA, particularly the parallelized types, must be con-
sidered to be one of the biggest challenges to any hearing adult learning
a sign language. CA is a central part of signed discourse – and of dis-
course only, because there are no context-free standard forms which can
be found in a dictionary. CA is a non-lexical part of an utterance serving
for predication which a signer may use, in the course of an interaction
with an addressee, to talk about a referential entity X. X is an animate
being or a fictitious entity. Specific to CA is its use of the upper body:
the upper body of the signer being present in the interaction represents
an entity not present in real space but made visible in the interaction
through CA creating a real space blend.
As for its predicative content, the specificity of CA is to show pro-

cedures, actions, or states of a referential entity which are ‘put on
stage’ by the signer, who, in general, is not identical with the entity
shown. In the course of a CA, this referential entity is not given lexi-
cally; it is the context and the specific way of ‘acting out’ a CA which
reveal its identity. The complex sub-types of CA, so-called parallelized
types of CA, are performed via what Dudis (2004) calls ‘body partition-
ing’: several single body parts, such as each hand or the mouth, are
isolated from the picture which the upper body part shows, thereby
adding further predications on additional referential entities. These are
constructions of a systematic simultaneous complexity unheard of in
spoken languages, even if one takes into account gesture and mimics
accompanying speech. To identify the respective type of CA means to
understand the referential relationships within this CA as well as its
predicative contribution. While in general the action constructed, that
is, the action predicate, is well understood by the DGS learners, the ref-
erential relations expressed often are too challenging for them, so that
the overall comprehension is minimal. The key to breaking the code of
these utterances is to identify the entities involved.
While it is not possible to go into all the details of Fischer and Kollien’s
description of CA in DGS, the introduction given is sufficient to present
the background of two electronic exercises that have been designed
for CA acquisition processes during a project conducted by the current
authors.
Project ‘eLCA’ – what is it?
‘eLCA’ is the acronym of ‘e-learning unit for CA’. An initiative spon-

sored by the University of Hamburg financed the production, in a
web-based e-learning format, of two exercises on CA in DGS. The exer-
cises entitled ‘eLCA1’ and ‘eLCA2’ enhance receptive competence as well
as metalinguistic knowledge in the students. There is no production
element in the exercises.
The design of both exercises follows what we have identified as major
challenges regarding CA in DGS. CA sequences not only blend a real
space with one event space; as parallelized constructions, they most
often blend real space and several distinct mental spaces via body par-
titioning. The challenges L2 learners are faced with are, therefore, to
identify the beginning and the end of a CA, that is, when a signer takes
a role and when s/he leaves it and returns into the interactive role as
signer, and to identify which, and how many, referential entities are
shown within a particular CA.
In eLCA1 the students analyze a filmed discourse sample3 in order to
identify any instance and duration of CA. They mark them electroni-
cally on a time line and categorize each item for the respective sub-type.
This procedure produces a colored visualization of the CA sequences
within the time line with automatic access to the film and a colored list
of the sub-types identified.
The exercises in eLCA2 show the students a selection of stills stem-
ming from the signed narrations used in eLCA1. They are invited to
do an in-depth analysis of the referential structure inherent in these
sequences and determine which referential entities are involved and
which body part(s) articulate(s) them. Geometrical figures of variable
size, form, and color permit the students to visualize their analysis of
the underlying semantic structure.
With eLCA1 and eLCA2, we propose exercises that allow online
distribution of discourse samples and the analysis of occurrences of
CA. eLCA contains a variety of sign language source data to cover
sociolinguistic variation and different text types. It is important for stu-
dents to have authentic linguistic material. The films we prepared for
eLCA consist of personal narrations, a retelling of an animated short
film, and explanations of lexical signs. This corpus can be enlarged by
the teachers.
Project ‘eLCA’ – why do it electronically?

eLCA is a program created for blended learning seminars. This means
a teaching/learning environment that combines co-presence of teach-
ers and students in class and tutored online learning units assembled in
a virtual course to be attended by the students in the intervals before
or after the class sessions. The eLCA project is an online course supple-
ment added to the normal seminar’s weekly meetings. It is devised as
a homework tool for class preparation. Essentially, the students’ results
are revised and discussed in class.
Each student works on the exercises on his/her personal computer
with internet access and receives individual feedback during or after the
seminar. All the data produced, including user identification, chosen
nickname, time segments, labels, colors, login time, and logout time,
are collected in the database. An additional function of the eLCA pro-
gram provides a simultaneous overview of all the results where they can
be compared and evaluated. The overview is accessible to teachers only,
but can be displayed in class, providing direct access to film material
and serving as a didactic device during class. It allows the teachers to

sort out ‘interesting’ mistakes beforehand and prepare class discussion
effectively.
In order to be able to analyze signed discourse, it is imperative that
the linguistic data be conserved in film. In a teaching environment, this
implies the technical challenge of calling up specific frames at will. Play-
ing the film back and forth in order to find the right spot wastes time.
Equally, the teacher must be able to immediately address the students’
results s/he has chosen to examine in class.
There are several reasons for an electronic and web-based realization
of the learning units of eLCA. The challenges we met are access to high-
resolution films restricted to teachers, tutors, and the students of the
seminar, quick and easy navigation within the film, a consistent work-
ing interface providing comparability, and teacher’s access to students’
results.
The guiding principle behind the design of eLCA is not only to make
accessible linguistic data in film but also to embed it in an exercise with
appropriate tools. The observation and recording of data in the film are
done on the same integrated interface in one task unit, be it individual
work of the students or plenary discussion in the seminar.
A second pedagogical principle is visualization. Visual presentation
of results is a didactic step to build up the understanding of the lin-
guistic structures. Additionally, the task of analyzing makes use of
a combination of visual–symbolic and verbal means of expression.
The combination of writing and multicolored schematic presentation
enhances information content and memorizability, and serves different
types of learners.
eLCA exploits the advantages of blended learning seminars. The indi-
vidualized student work, in contrast to seminar discussion, makes use
of predominant visual presentation that provides students with a con-
crete and hands-on approach to the acquisition of CA. Two different
competencies are practiced in a step-by-step progression.
The eLCA exercises are programmed in flash format, because this
format is particularly suitable for interactive and graphic–visual manip-
ulation of all kinds. Prepared as a SCORM 1.2 content package, the
exercises can be accessed online via any Learning Management Sys-
tem (LMS) supporting SCORM 1.2 standard.4 Programming and screen
design were executed by the company natani, Hemme & Widiger GbR
in Berlin.
In summer semester 2010 we used eLCA for the first time. The
eLCA exercises were implemented in a course created on the LMS
OLAT (Online Learning and Training), an open source software devel-

oped at the University of Zurich. OLAT was installed as an e-learning
platform by the University of Hamburg in 2010. We used OLAT for
administration of the e-learning course and for providing access to
course material like the eLCA exercises. To run eLCA, an additional
database management system is required, which is also provided by the
university’s central IT network. Presently, eLCA1 and eLCA2 are avail-
able at Hamburg University only. However, there is no impediment to
making the application available to others.
The following presents a detailed outline of eLCA exercises with a
focus on design details and usability. We will take up aspects intro-
duced in the first part of our article and give more information on the
electronic design and usage in class.
Exercise eLCA1: Segmenting and identifying CA structures

In eLCA1 the students analyze a filmed signed discourse in order to
detect the occurrences of CA and to mark their duration on a time line.
For this exercise, we have designed a user interface (see Figure 5.1) resem-
bling transcription software. There is a filmplayer equipped with several
useful navigation tools for mouse and keyboard which displays the sign
language source data. There is an electronic time line running along
with the film. Segments of the film can be marked on the time line.
Figure 5.1 User interface of exercise eLCA1

Additionally, there is a table for listing the marked items, denoting start
and end frame, labeling, and coloring.
Compared with a fully fledged transcription tool such as ELAN
(EUDICO Linguistic Annotator),5 eLCA is of reduced complexity.
It shows only one tier for marking linguistic occurrences. It is easy to
handle and can be learned quickly. Segments can be marked by pressing
a button, which produces a grey segment on the time line where the
playhead is set. Alternatively, the grey model segment at the bottom of
the time line can be dragged and dropped onto the scale. The default
size is ten frames. It can be changed by mouse action or by entering the
start and end frames into the table in the corresponding, highlighted
line. In the table, segments can be freely labeled by typing (up to 30
characters) and be given a color out of a palette of about 15 different
colors. The table allows segment-related navigation: in each line, there
is a button to jump to the start or the end frame, and another button
to play the segment repeatedly (loop function). This is a useful tool to
check results and for fine-tuning the length of the segment. There is also
a button to delete segments.
In order to support different user and learner types and their prefer-
ences, there are different devices to navigate and operate. Almost any
action can be carried out either in the table or on the timeline (e.g.
labeling the segments).
There is a second set of features which distinguish eLCA1 from a
scientific tool such as a transcription program. As eLCA is, above all,
a tool for learning, there is a variety of additional information and
help. In a pop-up window students are given the task of analyzing the
film as well as instructions on how to handle the task technically. There
is another pop-up window that gives information on the signed dis-
course shown in the film, for example, text type, source, or, in the
case of the retelling of a short film, an external link to that film on
YouTube. A third button is designed for teachers to add a translation of
the discourse sample, hints, or information on the content to support
comprehension.
The main idea of working with eLCA is the visualization of analytic
thoughts and operations. In eLCA1, operations of segmentation become
visible elements that can be revised and corrected by literally manipu-
lating the virtual objects on the screen. This scientific visualization can
lead to new research questions for study.
The advantages of visualization in eLCA1 can be outlined as follows.
After having analyzed the film, the students get an orientation within
the film by the graphic representation of film sections, that is, the
markings of CA occurrences on the time line. Segments are easy to find

and replay, and thus easily checked and eventually corrected.
The possibility of choosing colors for the time line markers may be
employed in different ways. Coloring offers an enrichment of informa-
tion and complexity. The colors can be given meanings, for example, to
denote grades of certainty during the segmentation and identification
process. In this way, ‘problematic cases’ can easily be highlighted. Alter-
natively, different types of CA can be color-coded, with available spaces
for comments.
For the purpose of overview and evaluation, the scale of the time
line can be altered – from 10 percent, which makes about 44 seconds
of signing visible, to 200 percent, which facilitates the manipulation
of segments.6 Students learn to ‘read’ the emerging picture of marked
segments on the time line. It provides information on the discourse
sample, particularly the frequency and length of CA occurrences and the
proportion and distribution of CA segments along the discourse stretch.
As eLCA is designed for use in blended learning seminars, it provides
a tool for the comparative presentation of results. These are overview
modules for teacher access only, the displays of which are similar to
the student’s views, but showing more than one segment tier in the
time line (see Figure 5.2, which shows the lower part of the screen).
The overview displays provide quick access to the linguistic data and
the material to support discussion, error analysis, and explanations in
class. To allow comparison and evaluation, the results of each student
are displayed one below the other.7 They cannot all be seen at the same
time, but a scroll bar and a sorting as well as a hiding tool help to find
and compile tiers. Up to three tiers are visible at a time. The teacher’s
segment tier is fixed at the first place and can be used to show the
Figure 5.2 Lower part of the screen of overview display

correct results. For immediate access to any student’s solution and film
segments, the respective tier can be highlighted by mouse click.
The overview modules can also be used by teachers to prepare lessons,
because of the built-in monitoring facility. With the program, teachers
can diagnose individual student difficulties and prepare class discussion
effectively. Additionally, a feedback module has been built to commu-
nicate the model solution to the students. This feedback module shows
students their own results as well as the model solution worked out by
the teachers.
Exercise eLCA2: Analysis of referential structure

The aim of the second exercise is to provide students with a
metalinguistic understanding of the referential structure underlying
CA constructions, including ‘pure’ ones or those parallelized by clas-
sifier constructions and lexemes. For this purpose, freeze frames from
the film were selected, each showing a CA at its ‘peak’.
The students’ task is to understand what referential entities the signer
is talking about, and how. The students are asked about the referential
entity (usually animate) that is being visibly shown by the upper body
including arms and hands, head and face, and by facial expression only,
and the referential entities that are represented by articulating classifier
constructions on the hands.
The referential analysis is a task of greater complexity than the iden-
tification of CA occurrences on the time line in eLCA1. While an event
being shown by a (possibly parallelized) CA may be recognized by
learners, a higher level of proficiency and linguistic knowledge would
be required to identify the referents and their actional or situational
relation to each other.
eLCA2 offers a tool to visualize this referential analysis, thereby
helping to link linguistic articulators to the corresponding referential
entities. eLCA2 requires the students to reconstruct the physical scene
(the details of the event space) underlying the verbalized scene (real
space blend) in an electronic rectangle linked to each still. These figures
representing the referential entities involved are designed to be arranged
in a physical ‘scene’; corresponding figures can be graphically superim-
posed upon the respective body parts, articulating them within the still
picture.
Though the task sounds straightforward, it poses some difficulties.
It is not always easy for an L2 student to determine which one of the
entities referred to in the respective discourse is being enacted. The L2
student may not be able to see whether the CA as signed refers to one or
Figure 5.3 User interface of exercise eLCA2
a multitude of persons, or whether an entity classifier on the hand does

or does not represent the same referent as the CA.
Figure 5.3 shows the students’ user interface. On the left, students
find a film still of the signer producing a CA. The filmplayer can be
activated by pressing a button on a menu below on the left. The pop-up
film shows a marker just at the point of the film still where it starts to
play, and students can navigate freely to recall the respective CA and to
view the context repeatedly, which often gives important clues as to the
referential entities involved.
There are buttons to open the task formulation and instructions on
how to solve it technically, and one to open the tool box. A navigation
tool serves to select the included film stills one after the other or at
random via a drop-down menu.
On the right of the film still, there is a white space of the same size,
which is labeled ‘Scene of referents’. Students can place models of ref-
erential entities there to create a picture of the conceptual scene the
signer is talking about at the moment of the film still. The tool box, if
opened, is placed directly below the film still and the white space. It dis-
plays two white boxes labeled ‘articulators’ on the left and ‘referents’
on the right, each of which provides a distinct set of figures to be used
as models. The figures for referents are a schematized, abstract person,
which could also be used to depict animals, if rotated by 90 degrees,
and a square-like figure, which can represent all sorts of things. These
two figures are the inventory for depicting the conceptual scene by drag
and drop. As soon as students grab a figure with the mouse, it replicates,
and, once dragged to the white space of the ‘scene’, it can be enlarged
in width or height, rotated at will, and filled with a color. So, when
students recognize what referential entity is being enacted by CA, they
place a referent figure onto the scene, give it a color – say red – and label
it appropriately, for example, ‘neighbor’. While this figure is activated, a
second set of figures in the box for articulators becomes visible, exactly
of the color chosen. The students are asked to mark the corresponding
articulator on the film still itself by superimposing the figure upon the
respective body part articulating the referent in question. There are two
shapes – one roughly resembles the outline of the upper body including
the head, suitable just for marking torso and head, and the other is a
circle suitable for minor articulators or body parts, such as hands, arm
plus hand, mouth, and face. The colors of the figures for the articula-
tors are semi-transparent so as to keep visible the covered articulators
on the still. The figures can also be enlarged or diminished, transformed
into an oblong form, and rotated. In our example, the students would
put the red upper body form onto the upper body of the signer and fit
it in size. This film still would be regarded as showing a pure CA. If a
hand is partitioned off, and if it articulates a classifier predicate, the stu-
dents must find out whether it represents the same or another referent
in the scene. In the first case, the ‘neighbor’-referent remains activated
and the students mark the articulating hand on the still with a red circle
figure. If it represents another referent in the scene, the students must
pick up a figure out of the referents’ inventory a second time, transfer it
to the ‘scene’, and place it in relation to the figure already there. They
must attribute a different color to it, say blue, label it, and mark the
articulating hand with the circle form.
The result of the analysis so far is a two-part picture, showing referents
taking part in the conceptual event on the one side and the respective
articulators on the other side. Referents and articulators of the same
color are linked, which may help students to visualize the underlying
semantic structure. The emerging diagram instantly provides informa-
tion on number and identity of referents talked about and how they
are represented articulatorily, including dimension and form of body
partitioning.
As with eLCA1, there is a teacher overview module and a feedback
module for eLCA2. Both module interfaces resemble the student’s inter-
face, with two lines of combined pictures. The upper one shows the
model solution; the one below shows the first student solution of a
scrollable list. In this second line, a special overview function may be
activated to see four reduced-size student solutions at a time.
Conclusion
In our contribution we have aimed to highlight the importance of deal-

ing with CA when teaching a signed language as L2 to hearing adults.
We presented two exercises designed as working tools in an e-learning
format in order to improve the learners’ receptive and metalinguistic
competencies in dealing with crucial aspects of CA. In addition, students
experience fundamental aspects of academic research, such as getting
acquainted with basic issues of transcription and visualization. In order
to come to a conclusion in each of the exercises, students have to thor-
oughly reflect upon the issue. As a consequence, questions arise which
may be new to the students or represent an interesting research topic.
To illustrate this potential of eLCA1 and eLCA2, we outline a possible
extension of eLCA2.
A signed text makes the referential entities involved visible to vari-
ant degrees. A signer’s body as surrogate shows the entity, but there are
also referential entities that cannot be linked to an articulator straight-
forwardly. For instance, virtual, invisible addressees may be indicated
by gaze and orientation by a signer enacting a dialogue scene. Other
referential entities are present by inference from context and world
knowledge. All these devices are referential traces of different degrees
of visibility and present a challenge to linguistic description and the-
ory. eLCA2 raises students’ awareness of the complexity of linguistic
issues and invites them to discuss and develop appropriate solutions to
represent different categories of referents.
Notes
1. An earlier presentation of eLCA was published in German by Müller & Fischer,
2010.
2. Liddell (2003) not only integrated CA into his description of ASL based on
mental space theory, but put forward a general critique against any linguis-
tic approach ignoring the contribution of gestural utterance components to
meaning constitution, be it in spoken or in signed languages.
3. This narration is accessible online at http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/
daziel/filme/film_5/film_5.htm (Fischer, Herbig & Kollien, 2001).
4. SCORM is an acronym for Sharable Content Object Reference Model, which is
a collection of standards and specifications ensuring application and exchange
of predominantly web-based e-learning content. SCORM 1.2 is widely in use.
5. ELAN is an open source software for transcribing auditory and/or visible lan-
guage data, developed at the MPI Nijmegen, and can be downloaded at http://
www.lat-mpi.eu/tools/elan, accessed November 19, 2013.
6. The default setting of 100 percent shows about 4.5 seconds of signing.
7. Recall that all the data produced by users are collected in the database and so
can be merged into the overview module.
References
Cuxac, C. & M.-A. Sallandre (2007). Iconicity and Arbitrariness in French Sign
Language: Highly Iconic Structures, Degenerated Iconicity and Diagrammatic
Iconicity, in E. Pizzuto, P. Pietrandrea, & R. Simone (eds.) Verbal and Signed
Languages: Comparing Structures, Constructs and Methodologies, pp. 13–33. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Dudis, P. (2002). Grounded Blend Maintenance as a Discourse Strategy, in C.
Lucas (ed.) Turn-Taking, Fingerspelling and Contact, pp. 53–72. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press.
Dudis, P. (2004). Body Partitioning and Real-space Blends, Cognitive Linguistics,
15, 223–238.
Emmorey, K. (1999). Do Signers Gesture?, in L. S. Messing & R. Campbell (eds.)
Gesture, Speech and Sign, pp. 133–159. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fischer, R., C. Dietrich, & M. Rossow (2011). Rainer Maria Rilkes Gedicht ‘Der
Panther’ in Deutscher Gebärdensprache – Einblicke in die Entstehung zweier
Translate [on Rilkes poem ‘The Panther’ being translated into DGS in two
different versions], Das Zeichen, 87, 162–173.
Fischer, R., S. Goldschmidt, & S. Kollien (2011). [Rainer M. Rilke, The panther –
two versions in DGS] http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/daziel/filme/
film_40/film_40.htm and http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/daziel/filme/
film_41/film_41.htm, accessed November 19, 2013.
Fischer, R., T. Herbig, & S. Kollien (2001). ‘Wer nicht hören kann, muss
fühlen.’ Oral History der Straferfahrungen Gehörloser, Seminarprojektarbeit.
Video, 18 min. http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/daziel/filme/film_5/
film_5.htm, accessed November 19, 2013. [oral history interviews on Deaf
people’s experiences of being punished at school]
Fischer, R. & S. Kollien (2006a). Constructed Action in DGS: Roses Aktions-
Fragmente (Teil I) [description of CA in DGS, part I], Das Zeichen, 72, 96–106.
Fischer, R. & S. Kollien (2006b). Constructed Action in DGS: Roses
Aktions=Fragmente (Teil II) [description of CA in DGS, part II], Das Zeichen,
74, 448–463.
Fischer, R. & S. Kollien (2009). Constructed Action und Mundgestik in DGS:
Lautmalerei und synästhetische Symbolisierungsverfahren [CA and the ques-
tion of onomatopoietic mouth gesture in DGS], Das Zeichen, 83, 464–478.
Fischer, R. & S. Kollien (2010). Gibt es Constructed Action in Deutscher
Gebärdensprache und in Deutsch (in der Textsorte Bedeutungserklärung)?
[CA in DGS contrasted with enactment in two varieties of spoken German],
Das Zeichen, 86, 502–510.
Goswell, D. (2011). Being There. Role Shift in English to Auslan Interpret-
ing, in L. Leeson, S. Wurm & M. Vermeerbergen (eds) Signed Language
Interpreting: Preparation, Practice and Performance, pp. 61–86. Manchester, UK:

St Jerome Publishing.
Lentz, E. M. (1986). Strategies for Teaching Verbs and Role Shifting, in C. Padden
(ed.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research
and Teaching, pp. 58–69. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.
Liddell, S. K. (2003). Grammar, Gesture and Meaning in American Sign Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liddell, S. & M. Metzger (1998). Gesture in Sign Language Discourse, Journal of
Pragmatics, 30, 657–697.
Liddell, S. & M. Vogt-Svendsen (2007). Constructing Spatial Conceptualizations
from Limited Input: Evidence from Norwegian Sign Language, in S. Duncan,
J. Cassell & E. Levy (eds) Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language. Essays
in Honor of David McNeill, pp. 173–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lillo-Martin, D. (1995). The Point of View Predicate in American Sign Language,
in K. Emmorey & J. S. Reilly (eds) Language, Gesture and Space, pp. 155–170.
Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum.
Locker McKee, R. & D. McKee (1992). What’s so Hard about Learning ASL?:
Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions, Sign Language Studies, 75, 129–157.
Metzger, M. (1995). Constructed Dialogue and Constructed Action in American
Sign Language, in C. Lucas (ed.) Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities,
pp. 255–271. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Müller, A. & R. Fischer (2010). Metasprachliche Kompetenz in Constructed
Action in Deutscher Gebärdensprache: Die internetbasierten Übungen eLCA1
und eLCA2 [Metalinguistic competence in constructed action in DGS: the
web-based exercises eLCA1 and eLCA2], Das Zeichen, 86, 512–522.
Quinto-Pozos, D. (2007). Can Constructed Action be Considered Obligatory?,
Lingua, 117, 1285–1314.
Smith, C., E. M. Lentz, & K. Mikos (1988). Signing Naturally. Student Workbook
Level 1. San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press.
Smith, C., E. M. Lentz, & K. Mikos (2008). Signing Naturally. Teacher’s Curriculum
Guide, Units 1–6. San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press.
Tannen, D. (1986). Introducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American
Conversational and Literary Narrative, in F. Coulmas (ed.) Direct and Indirect
Speech, pp. 311–332. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Winston, E. (1992). Space and Involvement in an American Sign Language Lec-
ture, in J. Plant-Moeller (ed.) Expanding Horizons: Proceedings of the Twelfth
National Convention of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, pp. 93–105. Silver
Spring, MD: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.
6
Transcription as a Tool for
Increasing Metalinguistic
Awareness in Learners of
German Sign Language as
a Second Language
Thomas Kaul, Reiner Griebel, and Emily Kaufmann
Introduction
One of the primary goals in second-language (L2) teaching is, of course,

increasing learners’ language competence. This general language compe-
tence has several components, including productive skills, i.e. learners’
ability to produce utterances in the language being learned; recep-
tive skills, their ability to understand utterances in that language; and
metalinguistic awareness. In this context, metalinguistic awareness is
the ability of an L2 learner to analyze their own linguistic knowl-
edge and control their own linguistic processing (e.g. Bialystok, 1986).
Metalinguistic awareness is important generally because it correlates
with language competence level (Smith & Tager-Flusberg, 1982) and, in
L2 learning and teaching, it is a predictor of future gain in L2 compe-
tence overall (e.g. Golonka, 2006; Bienvenu, 2009). In the same vein, it
has been found that improving bilingual learners’ metalinguistic aware-
ness may be advantageous when they learn a third language (Thomas,
1998). For hearing L2 learners of a signed language, Bienvenu (2009)
also indicates that increased metalinguistic awareness in the signed L2,
not just in learners’ spoken first language, is important for acquiring a
high level of sign language competence.
The learners who participated in the study reported on in this paper
were students in the Deaf Education program at the University of
Cologne in Germany. They were all native speakers of German who
129
learned at least one spoken L2 (English) in school and were learning

German Sign Language (Deutsche Gebärdensprache, known as DGS) at
the time of the study. For these learners, bilingual speakers of spoken
languages learning a signed language, metalinguistic awareness may be
a particularly important area. Also, for the participants’ future profes-
sion as teachers of Deaf children, it is important that they themselves
have high-level metalinguistic skills, in their own language as well as
in the sign language. Most of the study participants will be instruct-
ing d/Deaf and hard-of-hearing children in German, which for nearly
all the children will not be a naturally developed first language, and
many will be giving English lessons as well, which presumably will be a
completely foreign language for all the children. Just as our sign lan-
guage instructors adapt their signing to the students, in their future
profession, the study participants will have to be able to adapt their lan-
guage production to meet the children’s level of comprehension. This
ability to adapt shows high levels of metalinguistic awareness, and it
is especially important for L2 teachers to have these skills (Andrews,
1999).
In the context of L2 learning, in which most research has focused on
spoken languages, it is generally the case that receptive skills outpace
productive skills (e.g. Laufer, 1998). In an informal assessment of the
students in our sign language instruction program, we noticed that their
progression does not seem to match the patterns described for L2 learn-
ing in the literature: their productive skills outpace their receptive skills
and their levels of metalinguistic awareness in the L2. On the productive
side, the students generally are able to produce utterances as a classroom
task and to communicate a message to a signing interlocutor, either their
own instructor(s) or others. On the receptive side, however, their abili-
ties are quite limited when compared with their productive skills: they
are generally able to understand their own instructor(s), who adapt their
language output to students’ comprehension levels, but they gener-
ally cannot understand other signers or sign language videos, especially
when the utterance is not addressed specifically to them. Additionally,
they can recite grammatical rules when asked, but they are unable to
apply them in their own production or identify instances in others’
production.
Another asymmetry found by the informal assessment of our stu-
dents is that their manual-based vocabulary development considerably
outpaces their performance on non-manual elements: they are able to
produce multi-sign sentences, but their ability to produce grammatical
or emotional facial expressions is limited. Our students themselves also
Thomas Kaul et al. 131
report that perceiving and categorizing non-manual components of the

sign language, including grammatical facial expressions and mouth ges-
tures is one of their greatest challenges. Students’ ability to understand
their own instructors may at least partially stem from the instruc-
tors’ ability to get the message across without relying on non-manual
markers, which they expect may go unnoticed. Conversely, students’
ability to communicate a message to a signing interlocutor likely stems
from d/Deaf signers’ ability to understand a non-signer’s, or hearing L2
signer’s, message without relying on non-manual markers, which are
often insufficient or absent. (For an elaboration of such sociocultural fac-
tors in the context of teaching ASL to hearing adults, see Quinto-Pozos,
2011.) It may, then, be the case that students have limited awareness of
grammatical facial expressions and mouth gestures in DGS and limited
ability to perceive these features.
A reason for our students’ pattern of receptive and productive skills,
the reverse of learning patterns in spoken languages, may be the lack of
opportunity to practice receptive skills outside class. Most students have
limited or no contact with signers outside class, and there is not much
freely available video material in DGS, particularly material suitable for
low-level learners. This contrasts with the situation commonly found for
spoken L2 learning, in which learners have access to course materials
with readily available written, and often auditory, language input, in
addition to materials that are freely available on the internet. While
in-person interaction with native signers or speakers may be optimal for
L2 learning, this option is not readily available to most of our students
outside class time, which is often the case for hearing students learning
a sign language.
Supplementary online offerings can be useful in improving lan-
guage skills (Buisson, 2007). For the current study, our intent was to
develop and test a computer-based method for improving our students’
metalinguistic awareness in a receptive task that can be implemented
flexibly, either within the classroom or outside it, with an instructor or
without, in groups or individually. (For an overview of possible con-
figurations, see, e.g., Levy, 1997.) There is a large body of work on
Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) for spoken languages (for
an overview, see, e.g., Fotos & Browne, 2004); and interest in CALL for
sign languages has also been increasing in recent years, especially for
video technology (Tschirner, 2001; Bienvenu, 2009; Müller & Fischer,
2010; Mertzani, 2011; Quinto-Pozos, 2011). The DGS instruction pro-
gram at the University of Cologne offers a web-based learning platform
(‘WebDGS’) as a supplement to face-to-face instruction. The aim is for
the task developed and tested in the current study to be implemented

into this platform.
The task tested in the study reported on in this chapter is video tran-
scription, a technique which is often used in sign language research
but is typically not a core part of sign language instruction. So far,
transcription has been little studied as a tool for sign language learn-
ing. However, transcription requires a close analysis, which may lead
to heightened awareness of the features being transcribed: the learner
must first ‘notice’ or become aware of the features they are tasked with
transcribing before they can develop metalinguistic awareness of those
features (for a review of the Noticing Hypothesis, see, e.g., Truscott,
1998). In spoken language L2 learning, phonetic transcription has been
shown to improve learners’ phonological awareness (e.g. Wrembel,
2005; Golonka, 2006).
The phonological structure of spoken languages is largely sequential,
so it seems clear that the focus in transcribing syllables, words, and
larger units of speech would focus on phonological awareness. How-
ever, the phonological structure of signed languages has both sequential
and non-sequential components, with the sequential manual compo-
nents such as hand shape, movement and location easier to learn than
the non-manual components, which are produced simultaneously with
the sequential components and are less salient and thus more diffi-
cult to learn for L2 learners. For this reason, the manual aspect of
the phonological structure was not included in the transcription task
used in the current study; rather, these components were summarized
with a gloss, or sign translation. The focus was, rather, on the non-
manual features of eyebrows and mouth gestures. The function of these
non-manual components can be, for example, syntactic: in a question,
eyebrow activation is mandatory. Non-manual components can also be
lexical: in the sign HAVE, a mouth gesture resembling the mouthing of
/š/ is mandatory. Mouth gestures can also be optional and have, e.g.,
a prosodic function, for example, a smile indicating that the signer is
pleased about what they are saying.
A transcription task focusing on non-manuals was chosen for this
study for two reasons. First, it is a task which can be implemented
both in the classroom setting and outside it, so it is suitable for face-
to-face instruction as well as computer-based individual study. Second,
this task allows us to concentrate on improving students’ metalinguistic
awareness: specifically, their performance in recognizing the accurate
use of non-manual features. The focus in this study is on idiomatic
signs and questions because they contain mouth gestures and eyebrow
activation, respectively, as mandatory non-manual features. An exam-

ple of an idiomatic DGS sign would be NO-IDEA, meaning ‘no idea’,
produced with the f-hand to the forehead; the mandatory non-manual
component is a mouth gesture made by pressing the lips together and
releasing a small puff of air. Also, as in many sign languages, questions
in DGS require overt marking with eyebrow activation. So, the study
presented in this paper focuses on the non-manual features of eyebrow
activation and mouth gestures in a video transcription task targeting
participants’ receptive skills.
Method
Research hypothesis
We hypothesize that repeated training in our video transcription task
will increase participants’ metalinguistic awareness of the non-manual
features of eyebrow activation and mouth gestures, i.e. that the test
group will perform at a higher level than the control group on tests
of metalinguistic awareness: the error detection task (grammaticality
judgment) as well as the more difficult error identification task.
Participants
Thirty-three participants took part in the study, all hearing native speak-
ers of German who were enrolled in a fifth-semester DGS course at the
University of Cologne during the study period. In the control group,
there were 18 participants, ages 22–32, with 15 women and three men.
In the test group, there were 15 participants, ages 22–28, with 14 women
and one man. (One participant in the test group declined to state her
age.) The study was conducted exclusively within standard class time,
so participants were not compensated. Participants were all students in
the Deaf Education program at the University of Cologne; all partici-
pants had previously completed four semesters of DGS courses. In the
semester in which this study was conducted, there were four parallel
DGS-5 class sections with four different instructors.
The two groups in this study were formed by placing two DGS-5
classes into each group. The class sections were sorted into groups after
registration, so participants were not able to select whether they would
be in the control group or the test group. Students select their DGS
class sections each semester based on their course schedules, and each
semester they are reshuffled into new sections with different instructors;
for this reason, it can be reasonably presumed that there were no system-
atic differences between the groups before the study began. Students
also generally have had several different sign language instructors by

the time they reach the fifth semester. In the semester in which this
study was conducted, there were a total of five DGS instructors in the
department. Also, many, but not all, students were familiar with sign
language transcription as a research tool because this topic was covered
in a linguistics seminar before this study began.
Materials
For the training videos, there were five videos (6–9 seconds long, 6–13
signs, with a mean of 8.6 signs). Each video presented one complete
DGS sentence containing an idiomatic DGS sign. There were two dif-
ferent signers in the videos, one man and one woman. These materials
were chosen for two reasons: (1) because this topic is a standard part
of the curriculum for DGS-5 and (2) because idiomatic signs in DGS
make extensive use of mouth gestures, and the focus of our test of
metalinguistic awareness at this level is on the non-manual features of
mouth gestures and eyebrow activation.
For the testing videos, there were 12 videos (2–6 seconds long, 3–6
signs, with a mean of 4.75 signs). Each video presented one complete
DGS sentence. All items were signed by one signer (a woman; not the
same signer as in the training videos). There were two sentence types:
six of the videos contained mouth gestures as a salient feature of an
idiomatic sign. The idioms as well as the sentences were different from
those appearing in the training sessions; however, the participants were
familiar with these idiomatic signs because they had been taught in pre-
vious semesters. The other six videos contained eyebrow activation as a
salient feature in a question. All participants were familiar with question
formation in DGS, which is taught starting in the first semester. Addi-
tionally, half of the videos of each sentence type contained an error in
the respective non-manual feature (either eyebrows or mouth gestures)
and half were error-free.
Procedure
All DGS courses, as well as all training session and testing sessions, were
conducted without voice in DGS, with sign language instructors and the
experimenters writing notes in German on the board and students writ-
ing in German on the answer sheets. The experimenters conducted the
first training session, and the DGS instructors conducted the subsequent
four sessions. For each of the five training sessions, one training video
was used.
For the control group, the standard approach was used: the sign
language instructor demonstrated the idiomatic sign and explained
the meaning, then showed the video of the sentence containing the
sign, replaying it several times if necessary while discussing the sen-
tence with the class. For the test group, the transcription task was
used: the instructor demonstrated the idiomatic sign and explained
the meaning, then showed the video of the sentence containing the
sign, replaying it several times while discussing the transcription of
the sentence with the class. Participants were instructed to enter their
transcriptions individually onto the answer sheet for each video, and
the correct transcription was provided by the instructor. Transcriptions
included glosses, eyebrows, mouth gestures, and mouthings. The answer
sheet was grid-shaped, with the left-hand column for the glosses, the
next column for eyebrows, the next for mouth gestures, and the last
for mouthings, an approximation of the video screen intended to be
implemented in the online learning platform WebDGS. Participants pro-
ceeded sign by sign, transcribing the gloss, then, as appropriate, the
non-manual features. If a non-manual feature extended over several
signs, it was to be recorded along with the glosses for all appropriate
signs. Due to restrictions on the number of laptops available for testing,
all transcriptions were done on paper. For both groups, there was one
training session per week for five weeks. Training sessions lasted approx-
imately 30–45 minutes, with the class session in total lasting 90 minutes
(Table 6.1).
For the testing session, all 12 test videos were used. Participants were
told that around half of the items contained an error and around half
did not. Participants were instructed to watch the video for each item,
repeatedly if necessary, and decide whether or not the sentence con-
tained an error. If they decided that there was no error, they were to
simply note that down on the answer sheet. If they decided that there
was an error, they were to note that down and additionally identify the
Table 6.1 Transcription answer sheet example
Gloss Mouthing Eyebrows Mouth gesture
HOW-LONG how long – –

YOU – – –
HERE here – –
WORK work – –
error. Participants in all four DGS-5 class sections viewed all 12 videos
in the same order, with the order assigned semi-randomly. Again, there
were no time limits.
Design
In a first analysis, the between-subjects independent variable was tran-
scription training (with the control group not receiving training and
the test group receiving training), and the dependent variable was test
score on the error detection task (grammaticality judgment task). In a
second analysis, the between-subjects independent variable was tran-
scription training, and the dependent variable was test score on the error
identification task.
Results
The final two items were excluded from analysis due to implemen-
tation errors. (For these two items, participants were shown a more
complex version of the intended sentence which may have included
confounding elements.) The two items that were excluded were both
eyebrow-type questions, one of which contained an error and the other
did not. For this reason, the analysis includes six mouth-gesture items
(three with an error, three without) and four eyebrow items (two with
an error, two without) (Table 6.2).
In a first analysis, we compared overall accuracy scores on the error
detection (grammaticality judgment) task between the two groups. Scor-
ing was as follows. For an item without an error that was incorrectly
marked as containing an error, or for an item with an error that was
Table 6.2 Mean and median scores by task (error detection, error identification)
and group (control, test)
Task Group Mean score across Median score

participants, by across
group, all items participants, by
(of a possible 10 group, only items
points) with error (of a
possible 10 points)
Error detection Control group 6.78 7

Test group 9 9
Error Control group 4.22 4
identification Test group 6.07 6
incorrectly marked as containing no error, no points were awarded. For

an item that was left blank, no points were awarded (1.5 percent of all
responses). For an item without an error that was correctly marked as
error-free, or for an item with an error that was correctly marked as
containing an error, one point was awarded.
In order to test whether our data were normally distributed, we
conducted a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test; on this test, comparing our
distribution with a normal distribution, we found a significant dif-
ference (p < .05). Since the probability that our data were normally
distributed was, thus, low, we performed non-parametric tests in order
to compare performance on the error detection task between the groups.
We performed a Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance and found
a significant difference between groups (p < .001; η2 = 0.545), and we
performed a median test, also finding a significant difference between
groups (p < .001; Phi/Cramer’s V = 0.828) (Figure 6.1).
In a second analysis, we examined the items which included an error
in isolation in order to differentiate between different performance lev-
els: error detection in a grammaticality judgment, as above, along with
error identification, which is more difficult and may indicate a higher
level of metalinguistic awareness (Bialystok, 1979). Scoring was as fol-
lows. For an item that was incorrectly marked as not containing an error,
no points were awarded. For an item that was left blank, no points were
awarded (0.61 percent of all responses). For an item that was correctly
10
Points earned (max. 10 possible)
0
Mean Median
Control group Test group
Figure 6.1 Mean, median scores for the error detection task (grammaticality
judgment), by group (control, test)
Points earned (max.10 possible)

10
0
Mean Median
Control group Test group
Figure 6.2 Mean, median scores for the error identification task, by group
(control, test)
marked as containing an error, but in which the participant did not

identify the error, one point was awarded; a further point was awarded
for correct error identification, for a maximum of two points per item.
For example, the question ‘HOW-LONG YOU HERE WORK?’, meaning
‘How long have you worked here?’, is produced in citation form with
the eyebrows activated. In the test item, however, it is produced without
eyebrow activation, i.e. the mandatory overt question marking is miss-
ing. A complete correct answer for the maximal two points on this item
would note that the sentence has an error and indicate that eyebrow
activation is missing (Figure 6.2).
In order to test whether our data were normally distributed, we con-
ducted a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test; in this analysis, we also found a
significant difference (p < .001). In order to compare performance on the
error identification task between the groups, we performed a Kruskal–
Wallis one-way analysis of variance and found a significant difference
between groups (p < .001; η2 = 0.534), and we performed a median
test, again finding a significant difference between groups (p < .001;
Phi/Cramer’s V = 0.819).
Discussion
The present study was designed to determine the effectiveness of a

transcription training task in increasing metalinguistic awareness in
hearing, adult L2 learners of DGS who have intermediate-level sign-
ing skills. Analyzing the data on the basis of the error detection task
in a grammaticality judgment, our results in a first analysis found a sta-

tistically significant difference between the control group and the test
group, with the test group performing at a higher level. This result indi-
cates that repeated practice using the transcription technique assessed
in this study is beneficial in the development of learners’ metalinguistic
awareness in terms of the ability to detect errors in a grammaticality
judgment task.
In a second analysis, examining the data on the basis of the error
identification task for items including an error only (i.e. half of the
items), our results indicated that there was a statistically significant dif-
ference between the control group and the test group, with the test
group again performing at a higher level. Among adult L2 learners such
as those in this study, it has been shown that three task components
in tests of metalinguistic awareness have increasing levels of difficulty,
with grammaticality judgment of an error-free sentence being easiest,
followed by grammaticality judgment of an incorrect sentence (error
detection), and with the identification of the specific error being the
most difficult (Bialystok, 1979). For this reason, our two analyses dif-
ferentiate between error detection and error identification tasks for the
same response to the same item, and our different scoring systems for
the two tasks reflect this distinction. On both measures, the test group
performed at a higher level than the control group, indicating that the
transcription training task increases metalinguistic awareness for both
the less demanding task and the more demanding task.
In a recent study of hearing L2 learners of American Sign Language
(ASL), Buisson (2007) used an online platform to test a training pro-
gram that made use of a sign glossing task. In glossing, the gloss, i.e.
the spoken language translation equivalent of the sign language sign,
is recorded in a sequential fashion for each sign, as in the example
‘HOW-LONG YOU HERE WORK?’ as above. The glossing study found
that training in glossing ASL sentences improved learners’ knowledge of
ASL grammatical rules as well as their knowledge of English grammat-
ical rules. While this study indicates that a glossing task can improve
students’ performance in the area of grammatical awareness (presum-
ably linear syntax; the details were not provided), which is an important
finding, glossing is generally limited to a linear representation of lexical
signs and would not be appropriate for a study focusing on non-
manual features. For this reason, in this study we chose a transcription
task, which includes a linear gloss in addition to the non-manual
components of eyebrows, mouth gestures, and mouthings, in order to
focus on the non-manual features of eyebrows and mouth gestures.
Based on the results of the previous study (Buisson, 2007), which

found glossing to be advantageous in improving grammatical awareness
in ASL, as well as the results of this study, which found transcription to
be advantageous in improving metalinguistic awareness of non-manual
features of DGS, it seems that this type of close analysis of video data can
facilitate the learning of an L2 sign language in the area of metalinguistic
awareness. Since metalinguistic awareness is tied to the development
of overall language competence, tasks involving these types of close
analysis may be worthwhile in the pursuit of improving overall learner
outcome, especially for the type of learners represented in these stud-
ies, i.e. hearing L2 learners of a sign language. An important aspect of
these techniques is video technology, without which it would be nearly
impossible to complete such a transcription task.
For the L2 sign language learners in this study, video technology is
particularly important because they seem to lack the ability to ‘notice’
or recognize more difficult features in real time, even in slow, learner-
directed signing, as well as the ability to reproduce these non-manual
aspects of the utterances of their instructors in their own language pro-
duction. The ability to precisely reproduce a sign language sentence has
been used as a measure of overall sign language competence (Hauser
et al., 2008), so it seems that increasing learners’ awareness of these dif-
ficult aspects of the sign language has the potential to improve their
performance on measures of competence in these areas. It does not
appear that the L2 sign language learners in this study are able to learn
non-manual aspects of DGS implicitly, and this study may be able to fill
this learning gap in the areas of eyebrows and mouth gestures with a
more explicit task.
It is important, in examining L2 sign language learning, to identify
areas which pose unique challenges for languages of the visual modal-
ity which may not be obvious based on the literature, which deals
mostly with spoken languages, as well as ways to overcome these chal-
lenges. In this case, transcription tasks have been shown to increase
phonological awareness in L2 learners of spoken languages, while, for
a sign language, the transcription task in this study seems to increase
metalinguistic awareness not only in phonology, but also in syntactic
and lexical areas. New technologies present an opportunity not only for
spoken language L2 learning, but also particularly for sign language L2
learning due to its visual nature. Especially with the increasing interest
in sign languages among hearing people in some parts of the world,
as well as the increasing reach of new technologies into everyday life,
computer-based sign language learning has a great deal of potential for

expansion, and the techniques used in this domain should be guided by
research results.
Based on the results of the study presented in this chapter, along with
the results of other studies, it seems that transcription techniques may
improve L2 language learning outcomes in various domains. For spoken
languages, increased phonological awareness can result from transcrip-
tion training, and for signed languages, phonological, syntactic, and
lexical awareness can be increased using this technique. A future study
could repeat the training and test of metalinguistic awareness used in
this study and, with an added longitudinal aspect, assess learners’ ulti-
mate L2 competence attainment as a function of whether they received
transcription training in previous years. Also, since this study showed
that the transcription task was beneficial for participants’ development
of metalinguistic awareness, in this case fifth-semester sign language
learners, it would be appropriate to develop similar tasks suitable for
lower and higher levels, which in our department currently run through
eight semesters.
References
Andrews, S. (1999). Why Do L2 Teachers Need to ‘Know About Language’?
Teacher Metalinguistic Awareness and Input for Learning, Language and Edu-
cation, 13, 161–177.
Bialystok, E. (1979). Explicit and Implicit Judgments of L2 Grammaticality,
Language Learning, 29, 81–103.
Bialystok, E. (1986). Factors in the Growth of Linguistic Awareness, Child
Development, 57, 498–510.
Bienvenu, M. J. (2009). Revolution at Work: ASL Curriculum Re-visited, Deaf Stud-
ies Digital Journal, 1, entry 3, accessed at: http://dsdj.gallaudet.edu/index.php?
issue=1&section_id=3&entry_id=3 on September 26, 2012.
Buisson, G. J. (2007). Using Online Glossing Lessons for Accelerated Instruction
in ASL for Preservice Deaf Education Majors, American Annals of the Deaf, 152,
331–343.
Fotos, S. & C. M. Browne (2004). The Development of CALL and Current Options,
in S. Fotos & C. M. Browne (eds) New Perspectives on CALL for Second Language
Classrooms, pp. 3–14. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Golonka, E. M. (2006) Predictors Revised: Linguistic Knowledge and
Metalinguistic Awareness in Second Language Gain in Russian, The Modern
Language Journal, 90, 496–505.
Hauser, P. C., R. Paludnevičiené, T. Supalla, & D. Bavelier (2008). American Sign
Language – Sentence Reproduction Test: Development and Implications, in
R. M. de Quadros (ed.) Sign Languages: Spinning and Unraveling the Past, Present
and Future. TISLR9, Forty Five Papers and Three Posters from the 9th Theoretical
Issues in Sign Language Research Conference, Florianopolis, Brazil, December

2006, pp. 155–167, accessed at: https://ritdml.rit.edu/bitstream/handle/1850/
10588/PHauserConfProc12–2006.pdf?sequence=1 on March 4, 2013.
Laufer, B. (1998). The Development of Passive and Active Vocabulary in a Second
Language: Same or Different? Applied Linguistics, 19/2, 255–271.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer Assisted Language Learning: Context and Conceptualiza-
tion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mertzani, M. (2011). Computer-Assisted Language-Learning in British Sign Lan-
guage Learning, Sign Language Studies, 12/1, 119–154.
Müller, A. & R. Fischer (2010). Metasprachliche Kompetenz in Constructed Action
in Deutscher Gebärdensprache: Die internetbasierten Übungen eLCA1 und
eLCA2, Das Zeichen, 86, 512–522.
Smith, C. L. & H. Tager-Flusberg (1982). Metalinguistic Awareness and Language
Development, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 34, 449–468.
Quinto-Pozos, D. (2011). Teaching American Sign Language to Hearing Adult
Learners, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 137–158.
Thomas, J. (1998). The Role Played by Metalinguistic Awareness in Second and
Third Language Learning, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
9, 235–246.
Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in Second Language Acquisition: A Critical Review,
Second Language Research, 14, 103–135.
Tschirner, E. (2001). Language Acquisition in the Classroom: The Role of Digital
Video, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14, 305–319.
Wrembel, M. (2005). Metacompetence-Oriented Model of Phonological Acqui-
sition: Implications for the Teaching and Learning of Second Language
Pronunciation, Proceedings of the Phonetics Teaching and Learning Con-
ference, accessed at: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/johnm/ptlc2005/pdf/
ptlcp42.pdf on March 4, 2013.
Section III
Learners and Contexts
for Learning
7
Native Language, Target Language,
and the Teaching and Learning of
American Sign Language
Vocabulary
Russell S. Rosen, Mary-Kate DeLouise, Amanda T. Boyle,
and Kerry Daley
Introduction
A contentious pedagogical issue in American Sign Language (ASL) as

a foreign language is the use of spoken English as a medium in the
teaching and learning of ASL vocabulary – in other words, whether or
not teachers should use their voice while teaching ASL. A ‘voice-on’
approach entails the use of voicing and writing in learners’ native spo-
ken English in addition to sign. In contrast, ‘voice-off’ instruction and
learning entails the use of ASL signs and pictures and images but without
the use of voicing and writing in spoken English. The issue is paralleled
by debate over the use of native language (NL) or target language (TL)
as a medium of instruction in foreign language classrooms (Turnbull &
Arnett, 2002). The use of NL entails using the learners’ first language
(L1), and the use of TL involves using the foreign (L2) language only.
In the case of classrooms in ASL as a foreign language, NL refers to
spoken and written English modalities and the TL is ASL. This chap-
ter reports empirical studies of the use of NL and TL in the teaching
and learning of vocabulary in ASL as a foreign language. The following
section reviews relevant studies of spoken foreign language learning that
provide context for the focus of the ASL studies.
Background
As vocabulary plays a crucial role in language development and commu-

nication, the teaching and learning of foreign vocabulary are integral in
145
146 Learners and Contexts for Learning
classrooms (e.g. Sanchez & Manchon, 2007; Godwin-Jones, 2010). It is

only in the past 20 years that researchers have investigated and com-
pared the effects of the use of NL and TL in the teaching and learning of
vocabulary on language learners’ performance.
Several studies provide empirical evidence that teachers’ use of TL in a
second or foreign language classroom has positive effects on student per-
formance in the TL. Turnbull (1998, 1999a, 1999b) found that learners
in classes where teachers spoke TL most frequently outperformed learn-
ers in the classes where teachers spoke NL, based on measures of general
TL proficiency and achievement tests on foreign vocabulary knowledge.
Carroll, Clark, Edwards, and Handrick (1967) also found that the use of
TL during most of the instructional time resulted in higher TL vocab-
ulary proficiency in students. These findings were replicated in Linek,
Kroll, and Sunderman (2009) on several psychoeducational measures of
linguistic and cognitive tasks on vocabulary.
Other studies, however, show that teachers’ use of NL in foreign lan-
guage classrooms enhances student performance in the TL. In one such
study, D’Annunzio (1991) reported that the learners who learned for-
eign vocabulary under the NL instructional condition in ESL (English as
a Second Language) classrooms made rapid gains in a number of stan-
dardized tests, portfolio analysis, and informal assessments, with signifi-
cantly higher results compared with learners under the TL instructional
condition. Learners’ TL performance has been shown to be enhanced
by classroom activities such as first exploring ideas and writing in NL
and then translating into TL (Strohmeyer & McGrail, 1988; Shamash,
1990). Piasecka (1988) explained that, in order to make the transition,
L2 learners need to first ‘think-for-speaking’ using NL vocabulary, and
then express what they mean in the TL.
Evidence about the effect of TL and NL on learners’ performance is
mixed; some of the above studies showed that the use of TL enhances
learners’ foreign vocabulary learning, while others demonstrated that
the use of NL also enhances vocabulary learning. The varying findings
suggest that there is a continuing need to explore this issue. Regarding
ASL as a foreign language, there are anecdotes to the effect that ASL
teachers differ in the use of voice (NL) in the teaching of ASL vocab-
ulary. However, there is no empirical study that has explored whether
NL and/or TL use in ASL teaching helps enhance learners’ acquisition of
ASL vocabulary.
This chapter reports three separate experiments on the relationship
between the language used in foreign language classrooms and learners’
Russell S. Rosen et al. 147
performance in foreign vocabulary retention tests. The experiments

were conducted by DeLouise (2011), Boyle (2011), and Daley (2011) as
a part of their Master of Arts Projects under the tutelage of the first
author of this chapter, who was their advisor and supervisor in the
Program in the Teaching of American Sign Language as a Foreign Lan-
guage at Teachers College, Columbia University. They were conducted
at different schools with different groups of non-deaf students, and stu-
dents with learning disabilities. For each experiment, a description of its
purpose, research hypotheses, setting, student participants, materials,
procedure, and results are presented. A discussion of the relationship
between TL and NL in the teaching and learning of foreign vocabularies
is proffered in the concluding section.
Experiment one
Experiment one was conducted by Boyle (2011) with middle school stu-
dents learning ASL as a foreign language. The experiment involved a
series of tasks in the instruction and learning of ASL vocabulary using
NL, TL, and a combination of NL and TL. It was conducted to assess the
relationship between the language of instruction and student recall of
ASL vocabulary.
Research hypotheses. The null hypothesis was that there would be
no difference in vocabulary retention scores between participants who
received instruction in ‘voice-off’ ASL as a TL, participants who received
instruction in ‘voice-on’ NL spoken and printed English, and partici-
pants who received instruction in a mixture of both NL and TL. The
alternate hypothesis was that the vocabulary retention scores would
differ between the three instructional groups.
Setting. This study was conducted at a public junior high school that
was located in suburban Long Island, New York. The school housed
grades six through eight. It offered Levels 1 and 2 ASL classes.
Student participants. This study focused on students from Level 1 ASL
classes at the school. Seventy-five students from three Level 1 ASL classes
participated in this study. Their ages ranged from 11 through 13 years
old. Twenty-five students were male and 50 students were female. Their
NL was spoken English.
Materials. The subject matter was chosen from the curriculum used in
the school. The specific content used for this study was taken from the
unit entitled ‘Family’, with sub-topics on ‘Immediate Family’, ‘Extended
Family’, ‘Immediate Relationships’, and ‘Extended Relationships’. A set
list of 44 English vocabulary words, 11 from each of the sub-topics, was

used for this study. The vocabulary list is shown in Appendix A. The
duration of the research spanned 15 school days.
Procedure. All student participants were unaware of the study in order
to control possible negative effects of participant bias. One of the three
Level 1 classes was randomly designated as the ‘Voice-Off’ instruc-
tional group, the second Level 1 class as the ‘Voice-On’ instructional
group, and the third as the ‘Mixed Methods’ group. The activities, class
work, and assessment procedures were the same for each group. The
only element that was different was the use of NL and TL within the
classroom.
The ‘Voice-Off’ class maintained a strict no-talking policy, and relied
on ASL as the sole mode of communication. Signed vocabulary was
presented to the class using pictures, gestures, and visually explain-
ing how to form the sign, demonstrating its iconic basis, if any, and
production parameters of handshape, location, movement, and palm
orientation. Materials and directions for class activities were explained
in ASL. The teacher polled the student participants and asked whether
they understood the directions. If there was any confusion, the teacher
re-explained the directions in a voice-off manner. The teacher and
student participants asked and answered questions in ASL only. ASL
was employed exclusively during receptive and expressive activities for
students to practice using the vocabulary in conversational situations.
The ‘Voice-On’ class used spoken and written English as the language
of instruction. Signed vocabulary was presented to the class with voice
and writing, for eliciting student response and participation, and for
explaining how to form the sign while showing its iconic basis and
production parameters. All transitions and directions for class activi-
ties were explained in spoken English. Teacher and student participants
verbally asked and answered questions. ASL was employed simultane-
ously with voice by students during receptive and expressive practice
activities.
The ‘Mixed Methods’ class used an equal balance of ASL and spoken
and written English as dual languages of instruction in the class-
room. The ASL sign vocabulary was presented to the class using voice,
written words, pictures, and gesturing, and by visually and verbally
explaining the parameters involved in forming the signs. Materials
and directions for class activities were explained in ASL and spoken
English. The teacher checked student comprehension of directions, and,
if there was any confusion, the teacher re-explained in either spoken
English or voice-off ASL. Teacher and student participants used voice
simultaneously with signs when they asked and answered questions and
conducted receptive and expressive activities.
The subjects were tested three times during the study. A pre-test on
a list of vocabulary that was covered in the unit was given at the
beginning of the unit to ensure that the student participants had sim-
ilar knowledge of the vocabulary. The teacher did not use voice when
administering the pre-test. The student participants were not taught the
signs prior to the experiment. They were expected to guess the meaning
of the signs that were presented to them. The pre-test was given to deter-
mine that they had no prior knowledge of the meaning of the signs, to
remove any effects of prior knowledge on results. Student participants
in the three instructional groups were then given lessons and activities
on the first half of the ASL family vocabulary. A test was given at the
midpoint to assess whether the language of instruction affected student
participants’ sign performance. Students were then given lessons and
activities with the remaining half of the ASL family vocabulary, and took
a post-test to further assess whether instructional conditions influenced
their performance in vocabulary retention.
Results. Tables 7.1–7.3 show the mean scores of the student partici-
pants from tests 1 through 3.
Test 1 was the pre-test for all participants and served as their base-
line scores. Student participant scores were compared across the three
instructional conditions. Statistical testing was performed to determine
whether the means of pre-test scores were statistically different between
the groups. The scores were the percentage of vocabulary items that the
student participants jotted down correctly. The mean score from the
‘Voice-Off’ group was 90.7. The mean of the ‘Voice-On’ group scores
was 86.7 and the ‘Mixed Methods’ group score was 87.5. An analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was conducted and showed that Test 1 mean scores
of all three groups did not differ significantly (F(2,69) = 2.407, p = .098).
ANOVA also showed no significant differences between ‘Voice-Off’ and
‘Voice-On’ groups (F(10,12) = 1.604, p = .217; η2 = 0.57) and ‘Mixed
Methods’ group (F(10,12) = 1.684, p = .194; η2 = 0.58), or between ‘Voice-
On’ and ‘Mixed Methods’ groups (F(12,10) = 1.396, p = .303; η2 = 0.63).
The results establish that the participants in all three classes began
the experiment at the same level of knowledge of ASL vocabulary and
without any developmental or language proficiency bias.
For the midpoint test results, which covered the first half of the
sign vocabulary in the ‘Family’ unit, ANOVA was also used to check
whether scores differed across the three groups. For Test 2, the mean of
student participants’ scores from the ‘Voice-Off’ group was 91.8, from
Table 7.1 Experiment one: student participant

scores, voice-on class
Student Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

participant
1 68 68 66
2 89 89 80
3 87 86 85
4 89 85 80
5 77 75 69
6 82 80 78
7 98 98 98
8 89 85 80
9 93 89 89
10 93 92 92
11 82 77 78
12 95 87 86
13 79 74 76
14 89 89 89
15 90 90 90
16 87 85 80
17 92 91 90
18 76 66 66
19 85 84 84
20 90 90 90
21 85 84 82
22 90 90 90
23 89 87 87
Average 86.7 84.4 82.8
Source: Boyle (2011).
the ‘Voice-On’ group 84.4, and from the ‘Mixed Methods’ group 85.3.
Results from ANOVA show that Test 2 mean scores of the three groups
were statistically different (F(2,69) = 7.395, p = .001). This indicates that
there was a significant change in student participant test scores from the
baseline relating to the instructional condition. Post hoc tests showed
no significant difference between the ‘Mixed Methods’ and ‘Voice-On’
(F(14,8) = .997, p = .525; η2 = 0.64) and ‘Voice-Off’ (F(14,8) = 0.650,
p = .771; η2 = 0.53) groups. There was a significant difference between
the ‘Voice-Off’ and the ‘Voice-On’ groups (F(14,8) = 14.478, p = .000;
η2 = 0.96). Student participants in the ‘Voice-Off’ group scored signifi-
cantly higher than those in the ‘Voice-On’ group, with participants from
the ‘Mixed Methods’ groups scoring in between, but not statistically
differently from, the ‘Voice-Off’ and ‘Voice-On’ groups.

scores, mixed methods class
Student Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

participant
1 97 98 99
2 94 93 93
3 81 86 88
4 91 86 87
5 87 84 83
6 89 83 82
7 92 92 91
8 97 96 96
9 94 89 89
10 95 94 94
11 95 94 94
12 92 90 90
13 83 79 76
14 79 76 76
15 87 86 84
16 81 77 71
17 95 96 96
18 78 76 76
19 82 79 80
20 76 74 73
21 81 80 81
22 93 90 90
23 86 83 82
24 90 89 89
25 69 64 64
26 90 83 84
Average 87.5 85.3 84.9
At the post-test stage, which covered the last half of the sign vocabu-
lary in the ‘Family’ unit, ANOVA was again used to determine whether
student scores differed significantly in relation to the type of instruc-
tional condition. For Test 3, the mean score from the ‘Voice-Off’ group
was 93, from the ‘Voice-On’ group 82.8, and from the ‘Mixed Meth-
ods’ group 84.9. The highest scores on vocabulary retention tests were
attained by the student participants in the ‘Voice-Off’ group, followed
by those in the ‘Mixed Methods’ group. The lowest scores were attained
by student participants from the ‘Voice-On’ group. ANOVA results show
that student participant test scores differed according to instructional

scores, voice-off class
Student- Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

participant
1 87 88 90
2 90 93 94
3 81 82 82
4 97 97 98
5 92 93 95
6 91 92 93
7 97 97 97
8 95 95 97
9 92 93 95
10 83 85 88
11 91 92 92
12 81 82 84
13 93 94 94
14 92 94 95
15 93 93 98
16 97 98 98
17 91 97 98
18 93 94 96
19 91 91 92
20 94 96 96
21 93 93 93
22 91 91 91
23 80 81 82
Average 90.7 91.8 93
condition (F(4,138) = 21.267, p < .001). Post hoc tests show that scores
from the ‘Mixed Methods’ group were not significantly different from
the scores from the ‘Voice-On’ (F(13,9) = 0.213, p = .994; η2 = 0.23) and
the ‘Voice-Off’ (F(11,11) = 1.070, p = .457; η2 = 0.52) groups. There was
a significant difference between the ‘Voice-Off’ and ‘Voice-On’ groups’
scores (F(13,9) = 5.192, p = .009; η2 = 0.88). Students in the ‘Mixed
Methods’ group did not perform significantly differently from the stu-
dents in the ‘Voice-On’ and ‘Voice-Off’ groups. However, students in
the ‘Voice-On’ group performed significantly worse than the students
from the ‘Voice-Off’ group, and the students in the ‘Mixed Methods’
and ‘Voice-Off’ groups performed equally well at the post-test.
Figure 7.1 depicts a graph of mean test scores between all three groups.
The top line refers to the ‘Voice-Off’ group, the middle line to the ‘Mixed
Methods’ group, and the bottom line to the ‘Voice-On’ group.
Results from a series of ANOVA tests consistently supported the alter-
nate hypothesis that there are differences in participant scores between
the three instructional conditions. More particularly, they show that,
in the post-test, participants from the ‘Voice-On’ NL group performed
worse in the vocabulary retention tests than the participants from the
‘Voice-Off’ NL group. In addition, students in the ‘Mixed Methods’
mixed-TL-and-NL groups performed equally well as the students in the
‘Voice-Off’ NL group.
Estimated marginal means of test score
92.5
Estimated marginal means
90
87.5
85
82.5
1 2 3
Time
Method
Voice OFF Mixed Method Voice ON
Figure 7.1 Graphic representation of experiment one student participant scores

from voice-off, voice-on, and mixed method groups
Experiment two
Experiment two was similar to experiment one. It was conducted to

assess whether NL or TL use helped enhance students’ recall of ASL
vocabulary after instruction in either NL or TL. This study did not
include a ‘mixed methods’ instructional condition. The experiment was
conducted by Daley (2011) with high school students of ASL as a foreign
language.
Research Hypotheses. The null hypothesis was that there would be no
difference in vocabulary retention scores attained by students in the
‘Voice-Off’ TL and ‘Voice-On’ NL instructional conditions. The alter-
nate hypothesis was that student scores would differ across the two
instructional conditions.
Setting. The setting for this study was two ASL Level 1 classes in a
public high school in Long Island, New York.
Student participants. The student participants in this study were drawn
from two Level 1 classes in ASL as a foreign language. The native
first language of all student participants was spoken English. Student
participants in one of the classes received instruction via their NL,
and the class was labeled as the ‘Voice-On’ group. Student partici-
pants in the other class received instruction via the TL only, and were
labeled as the ‘Voice-Off’ group. The ‘Voice-Off’ group contained 15
students and the ‘Voice-On’ group contained 16 students. The ages of
the student participants in both groups ranged from 14 to 18 years
old, and their grade levels ranged from nine through 12. Student par-
ticipants were not informed of the study being conducted so as to
not influence any potential results. For this study, data were drawn
from 12 student participants in the ‘Voice-Off’ group and 13 stu-
dent participants in the ‘Voice-On’ group. These student participants
were present during the entirety of the study. A few student partici-
pants were eliminated from the study due to their inconsistent class
attendance. One student was eliminated because she had prior pro-
ficiency in ASL due to being raised with her Deaf sister in a signing
household.
Materials. The materials used in this study were drawn from the cur-
riculum used at the school and covered a unit on jobs and careers. They
contained lesson plans, a vocabulary list, and an identical pre-test and
post-test given at the start and end of the unit. The vocabulary list of 20
job and career-related signs that the students were expected to learn
from the unit, and which appeared in both pre-test and post-test, is
shown in Appendix B.
Procedure. Prior to the experiment, the student participants were given

a pre-test of vocabulary on occupations and careers. They were informed
that it was a simple activity involving guessing, as some signs in ASL
are iconic or motivated. As the teacher signed each item, the stu-
dent participants wrote down their translation for each one in order.
Following the pre-test, the two ASL classes were assigned to one of
two instructional conditions: one was designated as the ‘Voice-On’
group, in which all lessons were taught via spoken English as the NL,
and the other class was designated as ‘Voice-Off’, in which lessons
were taught via ASL without voice, as the TL. A series of lessons and
activities on jobs and careers drawn from the school curriculum was
taught throughout the unit. Students were then given a post-test on
the same 20 job and career vocabulary items. For the post-test, the
student participants were informed that the teacher wanted to check
their comprehension of the vocabulary learned in the unit by sign-
ing the same list of job and career vocabulary, using voice for the
‘Voice-On’ group and without voice for the ‘Voice-Off’ group, from the
beginning of the unit, and assessing the number of items they wrote
down correctly. The results of the post-test would determine which lan-
guage of instruction benefited the student participants more than the
other.
Results. Table 7.4 shows the student participants’ pre-test results.
Table 7.4 Experiment two: student participant pre-test scores
Student Number of Student Number of

participant correct answers participant correct answers
voice-off group voice-on group
1 6 14 6
2 7 15 8
3 5 16 5
4 6 17 8
5 5 18 6
6 8 19 5
7 5 20 6
8 7 21 6
9 5 22 7
10 4 23 7
11 4 24 7
12 6 25 6
13 5
Source: Daley (2011).

While the number of correct answers on the pre-test varied, no

student participant guessed more than eight items correctly. To estab-
lish that both groups of student participants began with an equal
level of ASL vocabulary knowledge, ANOVA was performed on their
scores and showed that there was no significant difference (F(4,7) =
1. 116, p = .420; η2 = 0.39) in mean scores among the student par-
ticipants prior to their assignment to ‘Voice-Off’ and ‘Voice-On’
groups.
At the conclusion of the unit, the student participants took the post-
test and their scores were subjected to statistical testing. The post-test
scores are shown in Table 7.5.
To determine whether the two groups’ performances differed sig-
nificantly, the ANOVA test was used. ANOVA results show significant
differences in scores between the two groups (F(3,8) = 4.203, p = .046;
η2 = 0.61).
The alternate hypothesis was supported by the results of this experi-
ment. While pre-test scores showed no significant differences in baseline
vocabulary knowledge, the post-test data reveal that the ‘Voice-Off’, TL
group attained significantly higher vocabulary acquisition scores than
the ‘Voice-On,’ NL group.
Table 7.5 Experiment two: student participant post-test scores
Student Number of Student Number of

participant correct answers participant correct answers
voice-off group voice-on group
1 19 14 18
2 16 15 20
3 20 16 15
4 18 17 19
5 19 18 12
6 20 19 8
7 19 20 13
8 20 21 8
9 16 22 20
10 16 23 20
11 18 24 14
12 20 25 15
13 19

Experiment three
Experiment three was conducted by DeLouise (2011) with student par-

ticipants who have learning disabilities. The experiment was driven
by the observation that in the last two decades there is an increas-
ing number of learners with learning disabilities in foreign language
classes (Sparks, Javorsky, & Phillips, 2005; Sparks, Patton, Ganschow,
Humbach, & Javorsky, 2006), including ASL (Rosen, 2008). Studies
show that learners identified as having learning disabilities experi-
ence difficulties learning foreign languages. They experience difficulty
in processing auditory information from listening and graphic infor-
mation from print, and drawing on memory, thoughts, and infor-
mation for speaking (Dinklage, 1971; Sparks, Ganschow, & Pohlman,
1989; Sparks, Ganschow, Kenneweg, & Miller, 1991; Sparks, Ganschow,
Javorsky, Pohlman, & Patton, 1992; Sparks & Ganschow, 1993; 1995;
Sparks, 1995; Ganschow, Sparks, & Javorsky, 1998; Barrera, 2003;
DeFino & Lombardino, 2004; Sparks et al., 2006; 2008). In addition,
these learners may display reversals and omissions of letters and let-
ter sequences (ei vs. ie) in the spelling of words. Word sequences are
reversed. Words are read backwards (e.g. was vs. saw). Letters are mis-
perceived in a mirror fashion (b for d; p for q). These difficulties occur
in both native and foreign languages (Mabbott, 1994; Barrera, 2003;
DeFino & Lombardino, 2004). Though learners with learning disabilities
are capable of learning a foreign language, Sparks and Ganschow (1993;
1995) attribute their difficulties in verbal foreign language acquisition
to auditory–verbal NL cognitive deficiencies.
The above studies concern learners with learning disabilities in spo-
ken, not signed, foreign language classes, and focus on learners who
experience auditory–verbal language processing difficulties. There are
different types of learning disabilities that pertain to the processing of
languages, in particular, one that is based on auditory–verbal and the
other on visual–manual language processing difficulties (cf. McGrady &
Olson, 1970; Fischer, 2012). What is not clear is whether learners
with, for instance, auditory–verbal processing abilities but visual–
manual processing difficulties exhibit similar difficulties in learning
a foreign language. What is also not clear is whether learners with
visual–manual processing abilities but auditory–verbal processing dis-
abilities would exhibit similar difficulties in learning a signed foreign
language. This experiment was conducted to investigate the relation-
ship between learners’ auditory–verbal and visual–manual language
processing abilities and their learning of a visual–manual language

such as ASL. The method employed both spoken NL and signed TL
approaches in the teaching and learning of ASL, and assessed which
instructional conditions might benefit which types of processing abili-
ties among students with learning disabilities.
Research Hypotheses. Two hypotheses were tested in the experiment:
(i) Learners with auditory processing disorders will perform better than
learners with visual processing disorders in a voice-off, TL ASL vocab-
ulary retention task. (ii) Conversely, learners with visual processing
disorders will perform better than learners with auditory processing
disorders in a voice-on, NL ASL vocabulary retention task.
Setting. A private, special education high school for students with
learning disabilities in New York City was the setting for this study.
Student participants. The student participants in this study consisted
of a class of ten high school freshmen. Each student participant was
classified as having a disability in language learning and displayed
either auditory or visual processing difficulties. They were native English
speakers learning ASL as a second language. The study included four
female and six male student participants ranging from 13 to 15 years of
age. This was their first course in ASL. The class met for four days a week.
Materials. Data for the study were collected from two sources. They
were reports on subjects’ performance on a battery of psychoeducational
assessments, and their ASL vocabulary pre-test and post-test scores from
this teaching intervention.
Previous studies have found that learning disabilities which mani-
fest in a learner’s NL are transferred to foreign language learning. The
interest here is whether students’ capacity to learn ASL vocabulary
under different instructional conditions would relate to their particu-
lar auditory or visual language processing abilities. To ascertain this,
the students first took a battery of psychoeducational assessments that
assessed their auditory–verbal and visual–manual abilities. The psychoe-
ducational assessments the student participants took were Wechsler
Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI); Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children, Third Edition (WISC-III), Fourth Edition (WISC-IV), and Fifth
Edition (WISC-V); Woodcock-Johnson-III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III);
Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (CAS); Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test–Third Edition (WIAT II); Stanford-Binet V; Devel-
opmental Neuropsychological Assessment (NEPSY); Test of Auditory
Processing Skills (TAPS) and Test of Auditory Processing Skills-
Revised (TAPS-R); Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning –
Second Edition (WRAML–2); Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale
of Intelligence – 2001 and – 2003 (WPPSI–2001 and –2003); Clinical

Evaluation of Language Functions – Fourth Edition (CELF–4); Bender-
Gestalt Test of Visual-Motor Integration; and WJ Reading Mastery Tests.
Results of each student participant’s psychoeducational assessments that
attested to their auditory–verbal and visual–manual language processing
strengths and weaknesses are shown in Table 7.6.
Table 7.6 shows variation in auditory–verbal and visual–manual abil-
ities for each of the student participants. Its implications for their
learning of ASL vocabulary are discussed in the Results section.
Table 7.6 Experiment three: each student participant’s psychoeducational

assessments
Participant Assessment Results
1 WISC-IV Verbal comprehension: 61%

Perceptual comprehension: 61%
Working memory: 42%
Processing speed: 27%
Full scale: 55%
Block design: 37%
Pictorial concepts: 63%
Matrix reasoning: 84%
WIATT-II Reading: 19%
Word reading: 37%
Reading comprehension: 14%
Pseudoword decoding: 14%
Written language: 66%
Spelling: 55%
Written expression: 50%
Comments: ‘Average score was obtained on a subtest where ____had to form
pictured geometric designs using appropriately colored blocks and on a subtest
measuring her ability to conceptualize generalizations from pictures. Similarly,
an average score was obtained on a subtest of basic visual perception which
required ____ to identify the missing integral piece in each of a series of
pictures. ____ performed within the high average range on a subtest assessing
her capacity to use non-verbal reasoning’
‘Average score was obtained on a subtest assessing her ability to find specific
shapes among multiple visual stimuli’
2 WJ-III Letter word identification: 7%

Reading fluency: 9%
Passage comprehension: 12%
Spelling: 10%
Writing fluency: 15%
160
Stanford-Binet V Low average

Full scale IQ: 10%
Verbal comprehension: 23%
Perceptual reasoning: 34%
Working memory: 9%
Processing speed 5%
3 WIATT-II Word reading: 21%

Pseudoword decoding: 21%
Reading comprehension: 14%
Spelling: 32%
WISC-III Verbal IQ: 30%
Performance IQ: 86%
Full scale IQ: 61%
Factor scores:
Verbal comprehension: 128
Perceptual organization: 122
NEPSY Tower: Standard score 12
Auditory attention: Standard score 5
Visual attention: Standard score 13
Comments: ‘_____ performed above expectancy on tasks assessing visual
sequencing, speed and accuracy of eye-hand coordination, the differentiation
from nonessential details and the ability to analyze and synthesize
visual-spatial material’
4 WISC-IV Full scale IQ: 73%

Verbal comprehension: 86%
Working memory: 47%
Processing speed 13%
WJ-III Letter word identification: 6.4
Reading fluency: 4.7
Passage comprehension: 7.0
Calculation: 7.5
Applied problems: 6.0
Spelling: 2.9
TAPS Word discrimination: 84%
WRAMI-2 Picture memory: 84%
Story memory 75%
Visual perceptual functioning:
Copy 85.69%
Recall 65.54%
161
5 WASI Verbal: 94 (Average)

Performance: 70 (Borderline)
Full scale: 80 (Low average)
WIATT Percent (Grade Level)
Word reading: 32% (6.8)
Reading comp: 4% (4.1)
Spelling: 37% (7.6)
Numerical operations 27% (6.8)
Math reasoning: 7% (5.2)
WJ-III (Grade Equivalence)
Letter word identification: 8.0
Reading fluency: 5.8
Passage comprehension: 6.1
Calculation: 7.5
Applied problems: 5.0
Spelling: 9.3
6 WISC–IV Verbal IQ: 114

Performance IQ: 72
Full scale IQ: 91
WJ-III Reading: 4.4 grade level
Reading fluency: 4.5 grade level
Passage comprehension: 5.5 grade level
Comments: Vocabulary & Similarities performed in the high average range.
Block Design & Matrix reasoning performed in the borderline range.
‘Nonverbal difficulty with tasks that require fine visual motor skills, visual
organization, and in general abstract visual reasoning.’
7 WISC-V Verbal comprehension: 39%

Working memory: 47%
Processing speed: 16%
WISC-IV Similarities: 37%

WISC-IV vocabulary: 37%
WISC-IV comprehension: 50%
Block design: 50%
Picture concepts: 75%
Matrix reasoning: 37%
CAS Verbal-spatial relations: 1%

Sentence repetition: 37%
Non-verbal matrices: 37%
WAITT-III Listening comprehension: 73%

Receptive: 70%
Oral discourse comprehension: 66%
162
Comments: ‘While ___ was able to accurately reproduce the main components
of the figures, he did not always see the design as a whole.’ ‘He did best on
measures that did not require extensive verbal output including identifying
the correct picture to a specific word and recognizing key phrases within short,
spoken sentences.’
8 WJ-III Letter word identification: 69%

Reading fluency: 6%
Writing samples: 5%
WPPSI (2003) Full scale IQ: 86
Verbal IQ: 94
Performance IQ: 79
WPPSI (2001) Overall intelligence
Full Scale: 101
Verbal IQ: 111
Performance IQ: 90
9 WIAT II Percent (Grade Level)

Word reading: 4% (4.6)
Reading comp: 1% (3.6)
Numerical operations 34% (7.8)
Math reasoning: 1% (4.3)
CELF-4 Auditory skills criterion score of 66
Below average receptive and expressive skills
Comments: ‘_______ was able to extend pictorial patterns;’ ‘written
expression is inadequate for ______.’
10 Bender-Gestalt II Copy: 10%

Recall: 5%
TAPS-R Auditory word discrimination: 47%
WJRMT Word identification: 5%
Word attack: 25%
Comments: ‘both visual and verbal memory were best when information
was more meaningful, as when ______ looked at pictures or attempted to
recall stories. Conversely, sequential memory, whether more visually or
verbally based, fell significantly below age level expectations.’
Note: Except for IQ scores, the scores on subtests were in percentiles.

Source: DeLouise (2011).
Vocabulary lists were drawn from the ASL curriculum used at the study
site, and they covered a unit entitled ‘Homes’, with sub-topics on rooms,
addresses, transport, furniture, and other home items and directions.
Full vocabulary lists are shown in Appendices C and D.
Procedure. All student participants had been learning ASL for four
months before the study was conducted. The duration of this experi-
ment was approximately five weeks. When the student participants were
first introduced to the ‘Home’ unit, they were taught vocabulary about
rooms, addresses, and transport under the voice-off instructional condi-
tion. The first list of vocabulary covered is shown in Appendix C. The
vocabulary items were introduced as images on the Smart Board. The
student participants were prompted to guess what the signs for these
items might be. Their teacher demonstrated the ASL sign corresponding
with the picture or image five to seven times and the student partici-
pants rehearsed. All communication between the teacher and the sub-
jects was attempted through use of previously learned ASL signs. After
each list was reviewed, the student participants were given a vocabulary
retention test. The test was administered within the same class period
that the vocabulary was introduced and served as a pre-test for this
experiment. The teacher used ASL to provide signs and the student par-
ticipants were asked to write down words that corresponded to the signs.
Proficiency in any of the recall tests was based on accurate recall and
translation of 85 percent or more of the presented vocabulary. Student
participants who attained at least 85 percent in the pre-test continued
to be taught new vocabulary under the voice-off, TL instructional con-
dition for the subsequent subtopics of the ‘Home’ unit. The student par-
ticipants who attained less than 85 percent on the pre-test were assigned
to the ‘Voice-On’ group and were subsequently taught under the voice-
on instructional condition. Over the next three weeks of the study, the
‘Voice-Off’ and ‘Voice-On’ groups were taught, in separate classrooms,
the new vocabulary on the last three sub-topics of the ‘Home’ unit,
which concerned the house and directions. The next set of vocabulary
that was taught to the student participants is shown in Appendix D.
Both ‘Voice-Off’ and ‘Voice-On’ groups were then given a vocabu-
lary retention post-test and their scores were compared to ascertain
differences in performance under the different instructional conditions.
Results. Table 7.7 shows the scores for all ten student participants cov-
ering vocabulary from the three sub-topics on the ‘Home’ unit that was
taught under the initial voice-off instructional condition.
Only half of the student participants were able to recall the presented
vocabulary, and they were student participants #1, 3, 4, 5, and 9. These
Table 7.7 Experiment three: whole class, lexical recall after complete voice-off
instruction
Student Vocabulary list Average Proficiency

attained?
List 1 List 2 List 3
1 100 100 100 100% Yes

2 55.6 87.5 75 72.7% No∗
3 100 100 100 100% Yes
4 100 87.5 75 87.5% Yes
5 100 100 100 100% Yes
6 44.4 87.5 25 69% No∗
7 0 50 62.5 37.5% No∗
8 55.6 75 37.5 56% No∗
9 100 100 87.5 95.8% Yes
10 77.8 75 87.5 80.1% No∗
Participants marked with a∗ were moved to the experimental group.

five participants continued on in the study as the ‘Voice-Off’ group

and received subsequent vocabulary instruction under the voice-off
condition. Five other student participants, #2, 6, 7, 8, and 10, did not
demonstrate proficiency. They were assigned to the ‘Voice-On’ group
and received subsequent vocabulary instruction under the voice-on
condition.
Results for the ‘Voice-Off’ group are listed in Table 7.8.
Table 7.8 shows that student participants #1, 3, 4, 5, and 9 contin-
ued to perform vocabulary recall well under the voice-off instructional
condition. In fact, other than student participant 9, who was man-
aging personal difficulties at the time of assessment, the four other
participants passed each assessment at a full 100 percent proficiency for
all lexical items in each of the three lists.
Table 7.8 Experiment three: control group, lexical recall after complete voice-off
instruction
Student Vocabulary list Average Proficiency

attained?
1 100 100 100 100% Yes

3 100 100 100 100% Yes
4 100 100 100 100% Yes
5 100 100 100 100% Yes
9 83.3 100 57.1 80.1% Yes

Results for the ‘Voice-On’ group are shown in Table 7.9.

Recall that the ‘Voice-On’ group of student participants #2, 6, 7, 8, and
10 did not pass proficiency in at least two of the three original lists that
were taught under the voice-off instructional condition. Findings show,
remarkably, that the five ‘Voice-On’ group participants passed each of
the three lexical recall lists after receiving instruction in the voice-on
condition.
The above tables showed that student participants #1, 3, 4, 5, and
9 were able to retain vocabulary learned under the voice-off instruc-
tional condition. In addition, student participants #2, 6, 7, 8, and
10 were able to retain vocabulary learned under the voice-on instruc-
tional condition. The next task was to determine whether there is a
relationship between students’ vocabulary retention performance under
different instructional conditions and their diagnoses drawn from sev-
eral psychoeducational assessments. To assess the relationship, results
of the student participants’ performance in various diagnostic assess-
ments in Appendix A were compared with their initial and subsequent
performance on vocabulary retention tests under different instructional
conditions. The group that performed well under the subsequent voice-
off instructional method was analyzed first, followed by an analysis of
student participants who performed well under the subsequent voice-on
instructional method.
The psychoeducational assessments indicated that the visual abili-
ties of student participants #1, 3, 4, and 9 exceeded their word-based
verbal abilities. Their visual abilities explain their success in the ini-
tial test that assessed their ability to retain vocabulary learned under
the voice-off instructional condition, as well as being able to retain
all vocabulary learned under the subsequent voice-off instructional
condition. In contrast, student participants #6, 7, and 8 demonstrated
Table 7.9 Experiment three: experimental group, teacher modification – lexical

recall after voice-on instruction
Student Vocabulary List Average Proficiency

attained?
2 100 100 100 100% Yes

6 100 100 71.4 90.5% Yes
7 100 100 85.7 95.2% Yes
8 100 100 100 100% Yes
10 100 100 100 100% Yes

higher word-based verbal abilities and lower visual perceptual abilities

on the psychoeducational assessments. They did not pass the initial
vocabulary retention test under the voice-off instructional condition,
but passed the subsequent vocabulary retention tests under the voice-on
instructional condition.
Three student participants exhibited language processing abilities in
their psychoeducational assessment results that were not reflected in
their performance in the vocabulary retention tests. Student partici-
pant #2, who exhibited poor verbal abilities but better visual abilities,
failed the vocabulary retention test under the voice-off instructional
condition and passed the vocabulary retention test under the voice-
on instructional condition. Student participant #5 demonstrated higher
verbal abilities but lower visual abilities in the psychoeducational
assessments. However, his performance on both tests showed poor
auditory-based word retention skills. These findings were not suggested
by their performance in several diagnostic assessments, were puzzling,
and need further analysis. Student participant #10’s assessment per-
formances and the evaluator’s report were inconclusive regarding the
subject’s visual and verbal processing skills. That the student passed
the initial and subsequent vocabulary retention tests under the voice-
off instructional condition warranted further investigation of his visual
and verbal processing abilities. In these cases, psychoeducational assess-
ments may not be the most reliable source of information when
choosing a language teaching strategy, as noted by Sparks (2009).
More information in the assessments may be needed to provide the
necessary data to help determine students’ abilities for instructional
purposes.
Overall, the above results suggest that students’ performance in
ASL vocabulary retention tests under different instructional conditions
relate to their visual and verbal processing abilities. Pre-test and post-
test results demonstrated that the participants who have high visual
processing skills and low verbal processing skills acquired ASL vocab-
ulary well under the voice-off instruction condition. Conversely, the
participants who have high verbal processing skills and low visual pro-
cessing skills performed the vocabulary retention test poorly under the
initial voice-off instructional condition but acquired the vocabulary well
under the subsequent voice-on instructional condition.
This experiment supports both hypotheses, in that learners with audi-
tory processing abilities and visual processing disorders can perform the
vocabulary retention tests well when provided with NL, auditory lexical
support during ASL learning, and that learners with visual processing
abilities and auditory processing disorders can perform well under

voice-off, TL instruction.
Discussion
Results from experiments one and two supported the alternate hypoth-
esis that there is a difference in mean scores on vocabulary retention
tests between the subject-participants who were taught under the voice-
off TL ASL instructional condition and the subject-participants who
were taught under the voice-on NL instructional condition. In fact, the
voiceless TL ASL group of participants produced higher mean scores
than the NL spoken English group of participants. In addition, exper-
iment one found that students in a TL and NL ‘Mixed Methods’ group
performed just as well as the students in the TL ‘Voice-On’ or ‘Voice-
Off’ groups. This suggests that learners in a foreign language classroom
setting would learn, acquire the language, and perform better on lan-
guage exams in a setting in which either a combination of TL and
NL, or only the TL, is used as a medium of instruction. Although stu-
dents in the TL group produced higher scores on vocabulary retention
tests than the students in the NL and mixed NL and TL groups, and
students in the NL group produced the lowest scores, post hoc test
results suggest that the use of ASL without voice, or in conjunction with
voiced English, would generate higher student achievement than voice
alone.
These findings support previous studies that demonstrate the supe-
riority of TL over NL as the medium of learning foreign vocabulary.
The results of the experiments are in agreement with the studies con-
ducted by Turnbull (2001), Turnbull and Arnett (2002), Carroll, Clark,
Edwards, and Handrick (1967), and Linek, Kroll, and Sunderman (2009).
The results of the three experiments discussed in this chapter showed
that learners in the learning context that offered the highest frequency
of TL production dramatically outperformed learners in a NL-medium
context. The study by Tonzar, Lotto, and Job (2009) is most compa-
rable to the experiments discussed here. In this study, the effects of
two separate learning methods on the acquisition of a foreign language
were studied. It compared two specific types of teaching methods: the
first being picture-based, where no spoken NL was used, and the sec-
ond being word-based, where spoken NL was used. These two groups
correspond to those used for the present study; the ‘Voice-Off’ class
being picture-based, and the ‘Voice-On’ class being English-based. Both
the present study and the previous study found that vocabulary recall
accuracy increased within the picture-based, TL method but not within

the translation-based, NL method.
The participants’ test results under the voice-on instructional condi-
tion imply that NL use in ASL classes did not contribute to their passing
performance on the vocabulary retention test. The experiments dis-
cussed here disagreed with the findings by Piasecka (1988), Strohmeyer
and McGrail (1988), Shamash (1990), and D’Annunzio (1991). The
results do not support previous findings that learners perform better
in classrooms where they receive instruction through the NL than in
classrooms where they receive instruction in the TL.
The impetus for experiment three was previous studies that attested to
difficulties experienced by learners with learning disabilities in learning
and using foreign languages. The studies report that these difficulties
occur in both native and foreign languages, and that NL processing
problems appeared in foreign language learning. A finding of this exper-
iment was that the voice-on, NL instructional condition contributed
to the passing performance of some participants on the vocabulary
retention test. The results from the experiment agree with findings by
D’Annunzio (1991), Shamash (1990), Strohmeyer and McGrail (1988),
and Piasecka (1988). The student participants apparently, as Piasecka
suggested, used thought-for-speaking in their NL when trying to recall
signed vocabulary that they learned under the voice-on instructional
condition. However, this study also found other students who were able
to learn signed vocabulary under the voice-off, TL instructional condi-
tion. They were found to benefit from the use of TL in their learning
and retention of ASL vocabulary. The results also support previous stud-
ies on the subject in spoken languages, particularly by Turnbull (1998;
1999; 2001), Linek, Kroll, and Sunderman (2009), and Tonzar, Lotto, and
Job (2009).
As discovered in the experiments, there were a variety of auditory–
verbal and visual–manual processing schemas among the student par-
ticipants. This implies that there were differences in foreign language
learning among individuals. As such, the subject-participants’ learning
disabilities did not necessarily carry over to their learning of ASL, in
contrast to studies by Sparks and Ganschow (1993; 1995). It depended
on the modality of the foreign language and the student participants’
processing schemas, which may or may not interfere with their learn-
ing of the language. They were able to retain ASL vocabulary if it
was taught via a language modality (i.e. speaking or signing) that was
commensurate with their stronger sensory processing mode. Regard-
less of language modality, auditory or visual, this study demonstrated
that learners with auditory or visual learning difficulties in their NL will
transfer the difficulties into a foreign language. Furthermore, there is

a distinct difference in foreign language acquisition for learners who
have difficulties with visual and auditory processing skills. The effects
of the learners’ processing difficulties may complicate their foreign lan-
guage learning unless appropriate instructional modifications are made
to counteract the processing difficulties. This departure from a general
pattern of language learning difficulty is explained by the visual–manual
modality of ASL, in contrast to spoken foreign languages, as well as the
instructional strategy employed in teaching ASL as a foreign language.
The three experiments reported in this chapter show not only that
TL is a more effective medium of instruction than NL in enhancing stu-
dents’ ability to learn ASL vocabulary, but also that the effectiveness
of NL and TL as the medium for vocabulary learning varies between
students. Variation between learners, both with and without learn-
ing disabilities, suggests that the relationship between the medium of
instruction in foreign language classes and students’ ability to retain
vocabulary learned is not clear-cut; learners with and without learning
disabilities vary in their auditory and visual processing abilities. While
the experiments with students without learning disabilities did not
measure their auditory and visual processing abilities and difficulties,
performances in vocabulary retention tests by individual participants
demonstrated that some were able to retain vocabulary learned under
the NL instructional condition, and others were able to retain vocabu-
lary learned under the TL instructional condition, as also demonstrated
by students with learning disabilities.
The results of the experiments suggest that the ability of a student to
learn a second language depends on the intersection of two factors. One
is the modality through which a foreign language is taught and learned,
and the other is the individual student’s auditory and visual perceptual
capacity for processing the foreign language. Foreign language teach-
ers may employ either auditory, visual, or combined modalities in their
teaching. The auditory learners may be said to process incoming linguis-
tic information in speech codes and the visual learners may be said to
process incoming linguistic information in codes in pictures and images.
The experiments discussed in this chapter have pedagogical impli-
cations. In agreement with Leons, Herbert, and Gobbo (2009), the
experiments clearly affirm that foreign language teachers need to be
knowledgeable in their understanding of learners to provide relevant
and supportive access to the foreign language. This study agrees with
Mabbott (1994) and Gass and Selinker (2008) in that teacher modifica-
tions, such as providing vocabulary by multisensory methods including
pictures, images, and speech, will directly cause an increase in the lexical
recall for learners with language processing difficulties. In addition,

the finding that a voice-off, TL method generated higher vocabulary
retention than a voice-on, NL method suggests that teachers should
favor use of the TL in their teaching of foreign languages, including ASL.
However, learner variation across the two instructional language condi-
tions also showed that some learners did profit from instruction in their
NL. The study of learners with learning disabilities showed that per-
formance variation relates to learners’ perceptual language processing
strengths.
If foreign language education aims to promote higher performance
outcomes for learners of foreign languages, it is imperative that teachers
appreciate and ascertain the diversity of language processing schemas
employed by their learners prior to selecting the language of instruction
in their classrooms. Since teachers work with learners who come into
their foreign language classrooms with a diversity of perceptual process-
ing schemas, it would be advisable for the teachers to employ both NL
and TL in their teaching. During the course of instruction the teachers
may need to modify their instructional language to correspond with the
processing strategies used by the learners in their attempt to learn and
master foreign languages. Bringing together these multi-faceted instruc-
tional methods will provide foreign language access to all learners.
Appendix
Tables 7.10 to 7.13

Table 7.10 Experiment one: vocabulary
Immediate Extended Immediate Extended

family family relationships relationships
Man/Male Grandpa Meet Separated

Woman/Female Grandma Hang Divorced
Boy Great grandpa out/Socialize Married again
Girl Great grandma Date Father in-law
Dad Grand Child Sweethearts Mother in-law
Mom Uncle Boyfriend Brother in-law
Parents Aunt Girlfriend Sister in-law
Son Nephew Fall in love Half brother
Daughter Niece Engaged Half sister
Brother Boy cousin Married Step brother
Sister Girl cousin Husband Step sister
Wife

171
Table 7.11 Experiment two: vocabulary
LAWYER
DOCTOR
ACCOUNTANT
ACTOR
ARCHITECT
LIFEGUARD
MANAGER
CASHIER
CARPENTER
PSYCHOLOGIST
COP/POLICE
PLUMBER
FIREFIGHTER
SECRETARY
SECURITY
SOCIAL WORKER
TEACHER
INTERPRETER
JANITOR/MAID
MUSICIAN
Table 7.12 Experiment three: pre-test vocabulary lists taught

under voice-off condition
Rooms Address Transport

Apartment building Address Taxi
Living room Phone Walk
Bathroom Street Airplane
House E-Mail Car
Dining Room Avenue Bus
Bedroom Zip code Subway
How-Many Video chat/phone Train
Kitchen Bike
Room

Table 7.13 Post-test vocabulary lists taught under

both voice-off and voice-on conditions
Items in house Directions, I Directions, II

Mirror Across Right
Refrigerator Front Intersection
Alarm clock Next-to Corner
Stairs Behind Straight
Closet Left
Couch Block
Direction
References
Barrera, M. (2003). Curriculum-based dynamic assessment for new- or second-
language learners with learning disabilities in high education settings. Assess-
ment for Effective Intervention, 29(1), 69–84.
Boyle, A. (2011). Native language use and student achievement in L2 American
Sign Language classrooms. Unpublished Master of Arts Project, Teachers
College, Columbia University.
Carroll, J. B., Clark, J. L. D., Edwards, T. M., & Handrick, F. A. (1967). The Foreign
Language Attainments of Language Majors in the Senior Years: A Survey Conducted
in U.S. Colleges and Universities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Daley, K. (2011). American Sign Language: Effects on student performance of
teaching in target language versus native language in the classroom setting.
Unpublished Master of Arts Project, Teachers College, Columbia University.
D’Annunzio, A. (1991). Using bilingual teachers and non-directive approaches in
ESL: A follow-up report. Connections: A Journal of Adult Literacy, 4, 51–52.
DeFino, S. M. & Lombardino, L. J. (2004). Language learning disabilities:
The ultimate foreign language challenge. Foreign Language Annals, 37(3),
390–400.
DeLouise, M. (2011). Modifying second language teaching strategies for students
with visual processing disorders in an American Sign Language classroom.
Unpublished Master of Arts Project, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Dinklage, K. T. (1971). Inability to learn a foreign language. In G. Blaine &
C. McArthur (eds) Emotional Problems of the Student, pp. 185–206. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Fischer, B. (2012). Looking for Learning: Auditory, Visual and Optomotor Processing of
Children with Learning Problems. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Ganschow, L., Sparks, R. L., & Javorsky, J. (1998). Foreign language learning
difficulties: An historical perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(3),
248–258.
Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course.
(Third edition). London: Routledge.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2010). From memory palaces to spacing algorithms:

Approaches to second-language vocabulary learning. Language Learning &
Technology, 14(2), 4–11.
Leons, E., Herbert C., & Gobbo, K. (2009). Students with learning disabilities and
AD/HD in the foreign language classroom: Supporting students and instructors.
Foreign Language Annals, 42(1), 42–54.
Linek, J., Kroll, J., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Losing access to the native language
while immersed in a second language: Evidence for the role of inhibition in
second language learning. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1507–1515.
Mabbott, A. (1994). An exploration of reading comprehension, oral reading
errors, and written errors by subjects labeled learning disabled. Foreign Language
Annals, 27, 293–324.
McGrady, H. J. & Olson, D. A. (1970). Visual and auditory learning processes
in normal children and children with specific learning disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 36(8), 581–589.
Piasecka, K. (1988). The bilingual teacher in the ESL classroom. In S. Nicholls &
E. Hoadly-Maidment (eds), Current Issues in Teaching English as a Second
Language to Adults, pp. 97–103. London: Edward Arnold.
Rosen, R. (2008). American Sign Language as a foreign language in US high
schools: State of the art. Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 10–38.
Sanchez, A. & Manchon, R. (2007). Research on second language acquisition
and learning: An introduction. International Journal of English Studies, 7(2),
vii–xvi.
Shamash, Y. (1990). Learning in translation: Beyond language experience in ESL.
Voices, 2(2), 71–75.
Sparks, R. L. (1995). Examining the linguistic coding differences hypothesis to
explain individual differences in foreign language learning. Annals of Dyslexia,
45, 187–214.
Sparks, R. L. (2009). If you don’t know where you’re going, you’ll wind up some-
where else: The case of ‘Foreign Language Learning Disability.’ Foreign Language
Annals, 42(1), 7–26.
Sparks, R. L. & Ganschow, L. (1993). The impact of native language learning
problems on foreign language learning: Case study illustrations of the linguistic
coding deficit hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 77, 58–74.
Sparks, R. L. & Ganschow, L. (1995). A strong inference approach to causal factors
in foreign language learning: A response to MacIntyre. Modern Language Journal,
79, 235–244.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J., & Patton, J. (1992). Identifying
native language deficits in high- and low-risk foreign language learners in high
school. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 403–418.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Kenneweg, S., & Miller, K. (1991). Use of an Orton-
Gillingham approach to teach a foreign language to dyslexic/learning disabled
students: Explicit teaching of phonology in a second language. Annals of
Dyslexia, 41, 96–118.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Pohlman, J. (1989). Linguistic coding deficits in
foreign language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 39, 179–195.
Sparks, R., Javorsky, J., & Phillips, L. (2005). Comparison of the performance of
college students classified as ADHD, LD and LD/ADHD in foreign language
courses. Language Learning, 55(1), 151–177.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N., & Javorsky, J. (2008). Early
LI reading and spelling skills predict later L2 reading and spelling skills. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 100, 162–174.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N., & Javorsky, J. (2006). Native
language predictors of foreign language proficiency and foreign language
aptitude. Annals of Dyslexia, 56, 129–160.
Strohmeyer, B. & McGrail, L. (1988). On Focus: Photographs and Writings by
Students. Boston, MA: El Centro del Cardenal.
Tonzar, C., Lotto, L., & Job, R. (2009). L2 Vocabulary acquisition in chil-
dren: Effects of learning method and cognate status. Language Learning, 59(3),
623–646.
Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language
teaching, but . . . . The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 4, 531–540.
Turnbull, M. & Arnett, K. (2002). Teachers’ uses of the target and first languages
in second and foreign language classrooms. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
22, 204–218.
8
Hearing Parents as Plurilingual
Learners of ASL
Kristin Snoddon
Introduction
Hearing parents of Deaf children who learn a signed language bring to

the task of second language learning unique issues of social identity
and investment (Norton Peirce, 1996). In addition, these parents have
unique learning needs. In a Canadian context, parents of Deaf children
often face distinct systemic, policy, and ideological obstacles to learning
signed language. This chapter seeks to advance a framework for par-
ents’ learning goals in light of current understanding of plurilingualism,
which is defined as multilingualism at the level of the individual and
which recognizes the different purposes, domains, and types of com-
petence that the individual social actor may have in their use of two
or more languages (Coste, Moore, & Zarate, 2009). This framework is
intended as a response to certain academic and professional perceptions
of parents’ learning of signed language as a second language as being
unrealistic, unimportant, or contentious.
The small number of signed language curricula designed for use
with parents of Deaf children has focused largely on communication
within everyday family contexts and on supporting parent–child com-
munication during play, instead of the vocabulary typically presented
in signed language classes for adult second language learners (Cassell,
1996; Napier, Leigh, & Nann, 2007). These curricula have often included
a component for teaching parents how to share books in signed lan-
guage (van der Lem & Timmerman, 1990; Myers & Hulsebosch, 1997;
Napier, Leigh, & Nann, 2007).
Within the present-day framework of universal neonatal hearing
screening and follow-up early intervention services in Ontario, Canada,
175
this chapter evaluates the effects of a series of workshops for teach-

ing hearing parents how to read books with their young Deaf children
using American Sign Language (ASL). This initiative was undertaken to
address recognized gaps in early intervention programming in terms of
bilingual, bicultural ASL and English services (Snoddon, 2012), and the
need for further research regarding bilingual early literacy initiatives.
In bilingual, bicultural early intervention, the second language learning
needs of hearing parents become a main focus (Myers & Hulsebosch,
1997). Moreover, for this model of intervention, the involvement of
Deaf teachers and professionals as language models and facilitators
of language-based interaction, language play, and sharing literature is
crucial (Mahshie, 1995; Watkins, Pittman, & Walden, 1998; Takala,
Kuusela, & Takala, 2000; Peterson, 2007). During a ten-month study
of an ASL book sharing program, parents’ perspectives and orienta-
tions towards ASL and literacy and learning goals are highlighted in
comparison to the teaching goals of three Deaf instructors.
The next section discusses the background of ASL early intervention,
and advances a theoretical framework for casting hearing parents as
plurilingual learners. A brief review of literature regarding shared read-
ing with signed language is also provided. I then discuss my study
methodology and findings in regard to parents’ rationale and learn-
ing goals in attending the ASL book sharing workshops. Implications of
these findings regarding parents’ plurilingual orientation and repertoires
are discussed in regard to ASL and English early years programming and
policy.
ASL early intervention
ASL and English bilingual education programs for Deaf students have
been provided in several Canadian provinces since the early 1990s
(Carbin, 1996; Gibson, Small, & Mason, 1997). However, in Ontario the
advent of universal neonatal hearing screening and follow-up interven-
tion services has been accompanied by operational policy restrictions
on access to ASL services. In line with the philosophy of auditory–verbal
therapy (AVT) practitioners, the Ontario Infant Hearing Program (IHP)
has not consistently supported access to ASL services for families of
children with cochlear implants (Snoddon, 2008).
Medical perspectives on Deaf identity are dominant in the early inter-
vention context. Perceived parental reactions of grief and searching for
resolution to a medical problem are tied to a view of Deaf personhood
as ‘individual pathological defectiveness’ (Slee & Allan, 2001, p. 179)
Kristin Snoddon 177
and to the attitudes of clinical professionals whom parents encounter

(Beazley & Moore, 1995; Fjord, 1999; Young, 1999). However, within a
cultural model, the focus of early intervention programming becomes
parents’ and children’s learning of a native signed language and reg-
ularly encountering signed language-using Deaf adults and children
(Young, 1999). Using this model, the diverse frameworks employed by
hearing parents and by hearing and Deaf early intervention service
providers have been contrasted in terms of conceptualizing parents’
learning of signed language (Young, 1997). These contrasts address the
argument that learning signed language is too difficult for hearing par-
ents for it to be a valid choice in early intervention service options
(Mayer & Leigh, 2010). It is suggested by the latter authors that lan-
guage delays are inevitable in Deaf children with hearing parents who
learn signed language as a second language: ‘Significantly delayed first
language acquisition is likely to be a hallmark of L1 (sign language)
learning by all deaf children whose hearing parents have no prior expe-
rience of deafness’ (Mayer & Leigh, 2010, p. 179). Mayer and Leigh base
these assertions on preliminary evaluations of an Australian Sign Lan-
guage bilingual program and of 36 children enrolled therein (Johnston,
Leigh, & Foreman, 2002; Leigh & Johnston, 2004). This argument
related to parents’ signing skills, which Young (1997) terms a ‘linguis-
tic proficiency’ (p. 265) framework, is echoed by the views of hearing
teachers in Young’s study who did not see parents as successfully using
British Sign Language (BSL). However, the Deaf consultants in Young’s
study used different criteria from the hearing teachers for evaluating par-
ents’ success in learning BSL. As BSL instructors, the Deaf professionals
employed a ‘learner’s framework’ (p. 271) for parents, in which teaching
goals were focused on supporting communication between parent and
child and encouraging parents’ positive orientation towards bimodal
bilingualism. This latter stance is in keeping with current thinking about
plurilingualism.
Plurilingualism
Bilingualism is often viewed in terms of ‘parallel monolingualisms’
(Heller, 2006, p. 5), or separate, native-like proficiencies in standard
languages, instead of plurilingual repertoires (Coste et al., 2009). Accord-
ing to the Council of Europe’s (n.d.) language education policy, the
concept of plurilingualism recognizes that individuals ‘are entitled
to develop a degree of communicative ability in a number of lan-
guages over their lifetime in accordance with their needs’. In this
view, ‘the individual’s plurilingual repertoire . . . is made up of different
languages and language varieties at different levels of proficiency and

includes different types of competencies. It is dynamic and changes in
its composition throughout an individual’s life’ (Council of Europe).
Framing parents’ signed language learning in these terms, as both
a right and a valued individual resource, has implications for Deaf
children’s social and emotional well-being. Deaf youth’s perceived suc-
cessful communication with their parents is significantly correlated with
quality of life and lower depressive symptoms (Kushalnagar, Topolski,
Schick, Edwards, Skalicky, & Patrick, 2011). Similar findings have been
reported regarding the central role of parent–child communication in
the psychosocial well-being of children with hearing loss (Dammeyer,
2010). Both hearing parental communication skill and Deaf children’s
social and emotional development significantly predict children’s lan-
guage learning and academic progress (Calderon, 2000). The benefits to
Deaf children of supporting parents’ learning of signed language include
enhanced language development and communication, emergent liter-
acy, and social and emotional development (Calderon, 2000; Takala
et al., 2000). The few studies that investigate teaching parents how
to share books using a native signed language have likewise reported
several benefits.
Previous studies of shared reading with native signed language

Van der Lem and Timmerman (1990) found a significant improvement
in parents’ use of attention-getting strategies and increased use of gram-
matical aspects of Sign Language of the Netherlands following a course
in joint picture book reading. These authors also found that parents
had become less controlling of interactions and both parents and chil-
dren engaged in more extended communications and turn-taking. Delk
and Weidekamp (2001) reported a significant increase in parent–child
reading, improved parental sign language skills and parent-child com-
munication, and increased child attention following the Shared Reading
Project.
Several studies of emergent literacy in Deaf children have described
how the actions of signed-language-using Deaf adult readers work to
engage children in the shared reading process (Akamatsu & Andrews,
1993; Lartz & Lestina, 1995; Maxwell, 1984; Mather, 1989; Neese Bailes,
2001; Swanwick & Watson, 2007). These studies have emphasized the
ways in which Deaf adults create a visually accessible and language-rich
shared reading environment using a set of common strategies, including
the use of eye gaze and tapping or nudging the child to direct and main-
tain attention, the use of signed language storytelling techniques such
Kristin Snoddon 179
as role shifting, and the use of dialogic reading techniques incorporating

bimodal communication. The studies mentioned above mainly feature
Deaf parents reading to their own children (Akamatsu & Andrews, 1993;
Lartz & Lestina, 1995; Maxwell, 1984; Swanwick & Watson, 2007) or
Deaf teachers reading to their students (Mather, 1989; Neese Bailes,
2001). While it is frequently suggested that the insights gleaned from
these studies should be used to teach shared reading skills to hearing
parents of Deaf children, few initiatives of this kind have taken place.
The next section discusses the study methodology.
Methodology
Given the dominant clinical perspective of a majority of studies involv-

ing Deaf children and adults, my methodology attempts to heed the
call of Lane (2005) to ‘replace the normativeness of medicine with the
curiosity of ethnography’ (p. 307). An ethnographic perspective is also
in keeping with an approach to literacy as a social practice (Heath &
Street, 2008). In this study, ethnographic methods, including participant
observation and interviews, were used.
As Heath and Street (2008) argue, ‘within ethnography, the researcher
is the instrument’ (p. 31) of fieldwork. My initial interest in studying
how children’s books can be read in ASL derived in part from my iden-
tity as a Deaf postdoctoral researcher of ASL and early literacy who is
also interested in improving the availability of bilingual resources for
parents and young Deaf children. This interest in resource availability is
based on my experience of having previously worked for a now-defunct
Deaf community organization as a co-ordinator of early literacy pro-
grams for parents and children. I was the ‘instrument’ in my study as not
only ethnographer but also service provider. Using the research funds
secured as part of my postdoctoral fellowship, I planned the series of
workshops, recruited the instructor participants and (via service agency
staff) participating families, purchased the books used in our program,
and negotiated the use of our program space.
The book sharing workshops took place every two to three weeks
over ten months for a total of 13 one-hour sessions at Ryerson Univer-
sity’s Early Learning Centre. Field notes and videotaping were utilized
for observations. I conducted 10–15-minute individual and focus group
interviews with the parent participants that were concurrent with my
observations during each session. Observational and interview video
data were transcribed, and video data transcripts and field notes were
then coded and analyzed using Nvivo 9 software. To examine the
reliability of my data analysis, I integrated dialectical triangulation of

observational and interview data.
An ASL interpreter was present throughout the workshops. It should
be noted that, while the interpreter signed many of the parents’
comments and questions during the workshops – an initiative that I
requested in order to ensure clarity of data, particularly on video record-
ings, and full expression on the parents’ and instructors’ part – the
parents often simultaneously signed for themselves.
Parent and child participants

Parents and young Deaf or hard-of-hearing children were two primary
participant groups for this study. Staff members of two service agen-
cies which work with Deaf people distributed a flyer with information
about the book sharing workshops to parents who attend programs at
or receive services from these agencies. Parents who contacted me after
being referred by the agencies filled out a registration form. This regis-
tration information was used to contact parents by email with follow-up
information about the program and my study. Five families with hearing
parents and Deaf and hard-of-hearing children aged from 3 to 4 signed
up for the program, but three families attended only one session. Two
families continued throughout the program, and they will be the focus
of this chapter. These two families are described as follows:
Monica, Peter, and Robert

Robert (aged 3) and his parents, Monica and Peter, attended every work-
shop except the first, although sometimes only one parent accompanied
Robert. In an email from Monica, Robert was identified as hard of hear-
ing. Robert attended a bilingual ASL and English preschool at a Deaf
Service Agency (DSA). This family had been receiving both ASL and
spoken English services via the IHP for about two years. The IHP ASL ser-
vice delivery model involves a part-time Deaf ASL instructor providing
in-home visits with parents and children. According to an IHP agency
policy and procedures manual, there is a maximum of one hour per fam-
ily per week for ASL instruction. A total of 48 hours of ASL instruction
and ten hours of consultation is allotted for each family requesting ASL
services, until the child reaches the age of six (Snoddon, 2012). Fam-
ilies such as Robert’s that request a dual spoken and signed language
approach receive half of the spoken English services and half of the
ASL services that are normally provided under the AVT and ASL services
options (Snoddon, 2009). Thus, it can be surmised that Robert and his
Kristin Snoddon 181
parents, like other families requesting the dual approach, received one
or two hours of ASL instruction per month.
Colleen and Margaret

Margaret (aged 3) attended seven workshops with her mother, Colleen.
This family received weekly ASL services via the IHP. Margaret has a
cochlear implant and had initially accessed IHP AVT services before tran-
sitioning to ASL services. She attended the same bilingual preschool as
Robert.
Instructor participants
In the course of planning and implementing my study, three different
Deaf instructors were recruited to teach the ASL book sharing work-
shops. The first instructor, Madeline, taught the first two workshops.
Madeline is a provincial school teacher of Deaf students and an ASL
instructor who specializes in teaching parents and young Deaf children.
Julia, who taught the next five workshops, is an ASL instructor with
experience of teaching parents and young children, and the mother of
a young Deaf child. Laura, who taught the last four workshops, also
teaches at a provincial school for Deaf students and is the mother of
two Deaf children.
The next section discusses parent participants’ rationale for attending
the ASL book sharing workshops.
A-S-L FOR-FOR?
As I worked to arrange the ASL book sharing workshops and oversaw

their implementation, I began to notice underlying messages about lit-
eracy in both ASL and English that were transmitted by parent and
instructor participants. Such messages regarding the perceived role and
function of both languages were apparent when I met the participating
families for the first time and learned about their various rationales for
attending the program. These rationales, or stated learning objectives,
did not always align with what I had first perceived to be the purpose
of the ASL book sharing workshops as a researcher. In other words, par-
ticipating parents did not always appear to attend the program for the
immediate purpose of learning how to read with their children using
ASL. Their rationales and stated needs, and related remarks about ASL,
gave rise to questions regarding what the parents perceived learning ASL
to mean for both themselves and their children in an early intervention
context. Who, in the parents’ view, learns and uses ASL? What is ASL
for? These questions are central to any endeavor to support ASL learn-
ing for parents and Deaf children. In Bourdieu’s (1977) terms, instead
of linguistic proficiency or ‘grammaticalness’, the issue at hand is the
‘acceptability’ (p. 646) of learning ASL. In the Ontario early interven-
tion context, restrictions surrounding ASL are tied to conceptions of
what counts as ‘legitimate language’, and the respective ‘symbolic cap-
ital’ (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 646) conferred upon English speakers and ASL
users.
ASL as threatened capital

As they discussed their navigation of the early intervention context, the
two families appeared to approach the linguistic capital of ASL from dif-
ferent perspectives. Each of these families already possessed experience
with learning ASL. However, ASL in the case of these families represented
a resource that had been proscribed for them, and this bore implications
for the parents’ conceptions of their linguistic competence and their
children’s orientations towards ASL. Still, in the parents’ words, it was a
resource for which they were prepared to fight.
Colleen and Margaret were apparently learning ASL out of perceived
necessity, as Margaret had previously undergone a cochlear implant and
received AVT but had not acquired spoken language. As Colleen stated
during my first interview with her mid-way through the third workshop,
her family received ASL services on a weekly basis, and Colleen was also
enrolled in ASL classes at DSA. When I asked Colleen how long she had
been receiving these services, she paused, shrugged, and then signed:
‘More than two years. She’s three. We started at six months because the
cochlear implant failed. The cochlear implant didn’t work. So, we sign.’
Colleen proceeded to tell me that her own ASL production more closely
resembled signed English due to her poor mastery of facial grammar.
Julia, who was the instructor for that day’s workshop, then commented
that under the IHP parents were pressured to pick either ASL or spo-
ken English but were rarely supported in both languages. Colleen then
stated, regarding her efforts to secure ASL services, ‘I had to put up a
terrible fight.’
Monica and Peter reported a different orientation towards ASL,
as Robert, who received dual-language IHP services, had apparently
successfully acquired spoken language. During the second workshop,
Monica told us that Robert had been ‘kicked out’ of speech-language
pathology services because his speech was ‘too good’. As Monica
reported, Robert had scored higher than one year past his age on a
Kristin Snoddon 183
test of speech proficiency. ASL did not, therefore, appear to represent

for Monica and Peter what it did for Colleen, who reminded us several
times that ASL was the only language that was accessible to Margaret.
Monica and Peter partly conveyed an instrumental rationale during the
fifth session when Julia engaged the parents in conversation regard-
ing home shared reading habits. At this time, Monica commented that
Robert didn’t know how to put his hearing aids on by himself and so the
early morning, before Robert’s hearing aids were in place, was a good
time for this family to use ASL. Monica then related an anecdote con-
cerning other parents’ decision to access only AVT services for their Deaf
children:
Yes, I know that other families decide that they will be oral only, with
no ASL. It’s their choice. Then (Monica names a DSA staff member)
you know, she works for DSA. She told me that a friend of hers took
their kid out to the beach. When they arrived home, the cochlear
implant was missing. The staff member went back to the beach to
look for it – you know all the stones there are on the beach? She
looked and looked, but of course the C.I. was lost. They had insur-
ance, but it takes one month to replace the C.I. So, that family said,
oh, we don’t need sign. Well, that was one month with no commu-
nication. Because the kid doesn’t know sign and can’t hear anything
without the C.I. I feel options are needed. We need that option.
In this account and others that she related during the workshops,
Monica presented herself as a seasoned navigator of early interven-
tion for Deaf children, and she approached learning ASL with relative
confidence. Later during the fifth session and again during the ninth
workshop, Monica referred to ASL as a ‘backup’ language for her fam-
ily. This is in keeping with the discourse surrounding ASL that was
presented by Colleen, who saw ASL as the alternative means of commu-
nicating when a cochlear implant cannot be utilized. Yet the extent of
Monica and Peter’s motivation to attend the workshops and continue
learning ASL suggested that this family had another, deeper ratio-
nale that was perhaps rooted in the recognition of Robert’s bilingual,
bicultural identity. This is reflected in Monica’s comments during the
fifth workshop:
During the summer when we go swimming and things like that, we

can’t use hearing aids. You can’t swim with them. There are many
times when we can’t use hearing aids. So we have a backup, we have
other options. Hearing aids aren’t a cure. Hearing aids don’t make
him a different person.
ASL for the two families, therefore, represented a certain linguistic cap-
ital, although the book sharing workshops were apparently seen as
primarily a means for learning more ASL, rather than as a support
for shared reading or emergent literacy. Monica and Peter reported
to Julia during the third workshop that they read with Robert using
spoken language, while Colleen stated that she didn’t know the signs
for many of the words in the books she read with Margaret. During
the workshops, parents’ questions and attention frequently centered
on individual ASL vocabulary items, although the instructors each dis-
cussed the importance of accurately conveying story concepts in ASL
rather than producing a word-for-word signed translation. This focus
on ASL vocabulary, as compared with the instructors’ efforts to teach
other aspects of ASL – such as non-manual signals for marking adverbs,
and role shifting to indicate different story characters – created a certain
tension between what the instructors wished to teach and what the par-
ent participants expected to learn. This tension can be partly viewed in
terms of underlying conceptions of, or messages about, literacy in ASL
and English – the respective scope and function of each language, and
the linguistic capital that each language carried.
Hearing parents as plurilingual learners of ASL
The parents saw their participation in the workshops as part of an over-

all, long-term effort to continue learning ASL alongside their Deaf and
hard-of-hearing children. On the parents’ part, this effort is in keeping
with the concept of plurilingualism, which challenges the notion that
bilinguals should be ‘equally or entirely fluent’ in their two languages
(Coste et al., 2009, p. v). Instead, individuals’ plurilingual competence –
a capital that develops over one’s lifespan – is seen as a unitary whole
instead of as separate language proficiencies. Plurilingualism is also
viewed in terms of the individual social actor’s ability in communicating
and interacting across languages and cultures (Coste et al.).
In the space of the ASL book sharing program, all of the parents had
multiple opportunities to demonstrate their plurilingual competence in
communicating and interacting with Deaf children and adults. In spite
of this, however, dominant conceptions of bilingualism held sway over
the parents’ conceptions of their own linguistic proficiency. This was
particularly true in the case of Colleen, for whom the matter of her own
Kristin Snoddon 185
and Margaret’s linguistic competence in ASL was evidently a source of

deep concern. Throughout the workshops, Colleen made repeated refer-
ence to the perceived inadequacy of her ASL skills and the impact this
had on Margaret, particularly in terms of Margaret’s learning to read and
write in English.
During the third workshop, Colleen asked Julia about how Deaf peo-
ple become literate in English. As Laura also did during the eighth
workshop, Julia here offered practical suggestions for supporting young
children’s awareness of and engagement with print, including reading a
wide range of picture books, calling awareness to environmental print,
and practicing writing at home. However, Colleen responded to Julia’s
advice by referring to her own perceived lack of ASL skills. As Colleen
remarked, ‘My concern is that I don’t know ASL, myself. She sees broken
ASL, and she can’t hear enough English. So I feel she gets both broken
English and broken ASL. You know?’ Colleen made similar comments to
me during the sixth workshop when she signed: ‘Deaf children of hear-
ing parents don’t receive a good overall model of ASL. Both languages
are broken.’
Colleen’s self-perception of ‘not knowing’ ASL and of signing ‘bro-
ken’ ASL speaks to the power of dominant ideologies which hold that
bilingualism is an all-or-nothing phenomenon. Moreover, a preoccupa-
tion with linguistic competence in ASL – as if this were something apart
from the parents’ existing plurilingual repertoires that were employed
in reading and communicating with their children – serves to obscure
what are arguably more salient concerns, such as a widespread lack of
ASL–English bilingual programs and opportunities for parents and Deaf
children to participate in community activities. A preoccupation with
linguistic competence also shifts the blame for Deaf students’ academic
struggles onto the Deaf child and his or her parents, and makes it appear
that lack of linguistic proficiency – and not other social or political
factors – is the major cause of these struggles.
However, Colleen also revealed a willingness to pursue advanced
opportunities to improve her ASL skills. Near the end of the sixth
workshop, Colleen signed to Julia about Colleen’s registration in a com-
munity college ASL program: ‘It’s a full-time program. I need more
practice signing. Night classes at DSA aren’t enough.’ Monica and Peter
also discussed their desire to take further ASL classes even as they told
Julia during the fifth session about their future plans to enrol Robert
in French immersion. Although Monica stated that she didn’t know
the answer when I asked her about her plans for Robert to continue
learning ASL, she went on to discuss having more time to take adult
ASL classes with Peter once Robert had transferred to a local school
board program. Neither Margaret’s nor Robert’s parents indicated that
they had considered the Ontario provincial schools for Deaf students as
an option for their children, although these schools and their array of
resources were mentioned several times during the workshops. There-
fore, the parents’ desire for their families to keep learning and using ASL
outside educational environments geared towards this group of learn-
ers bears implications for mainstream school settings which educate the
vast majority of Deaf children today.
Conceptions of ASL and literacy

This desire on the parents’ part to continue learning ASL, along with
the anxiety they reported regarding their ASL skills, also seemed to be
linked to lingering concerns about their young children’s English liter-
acy. During the seventh workshop, when I asked whether Colleen felt
her view of literacy had changed since the first workshop she attended,
Colleen responded by citing the positive effects that participation in
the workshops had for her but also her concerns regarding Margaret’s
emergent literacy development. Colleen lowered her head reflectively
and stated: ‘I feel a little bit better. I’m reading more with her. I feel
a little bit better. But I’m still very concerned about her literacy. I’m
truly concerned.’ Julia signed in response to Colleen: ‘Both ASL and
English?’ Colleen then signed: ‘Yes.’ To a lesser extent, Monica and Peter
both expressed concerns related to Robert’s learning how to read and
write in English. During the eighth workshop, Peter commented that
Robert seemed to be slow with connecting his knowledge of language
to basic reading skills. Towards the end of the tenth workshop, I asked
Monica about her plans to continue reading books with ASL. Monica
responded:
I think so, yes, definitely. He needs to learn to read, and I think any-
thing that works . . . Peter works with Robert on sounding out words
like on Sesame Street, but Robert doesn’t like this. Maybe it will be
better to use a visual approach with fingerspelling or signs instead of
sounding out letters. He loves reading books with us but he hasn’t
yet connected this to reading by himself.
In the Ontario early intervention context where the workshops took

place, it must be questioned how much the parents’ expressed worry
regarding their young children’s reading and writing development was
triggered by the same dominant ideologies that worked to diminish
Kristin Snoddon 187
parents’ linguistic competence in ASL. In other words, the parents may

have been primed by the messages they received about ASL and early
intervention to expect difficulties in their Deaf children’s emergent
English literacy learning.
Questions regarding signed English

Throughout the workshops, it appeared that the parents continued to
hold certain conceptions regarding signed English and how books are
read using ASL. During the third workshop, following Colleen’s conver-
sation with Julia about how Deaf children become literate in English,
Colleen went on to ask about the difference between ASL and English
grammar.
Colleen says:
Do you mind if I ask you one more question? Research proves that
kids who are strong readers are those who have a strong first language
in ASL, right? I understand that. That’s why we enrolled Margaret
in the DSA preschool, to be more exposed to ASL and get a strong
language foundation. My concern is when she needs to learn how to
write in English. How will she learn English grammar? It’s different
from ASL grammar. Words like very, the, in – you know? ASL doesn’t
have those words. How will she learn past and future tense?
Julia had, in fact, explicitly attempted to teach the parents how to

convey the concept of ‘very’ in ASL during the same session’s reading
of The Very Hungry Caterpillar, and the instructors all taught classi-
fier predicates which are used to show relationships between symbols
(Valli & Lucas, 1995), albeit in a way that is typologically different from
how predicates in English show the same relationships. The instruc-
tors also showed how time is represented in ASL as a way of conveying
tense. However, it appeared that, in addition to the parents’ concerns
about how their children could find correspondences between ASL and
English text, dominant conceptions of signed English as a representa-
tion of ‘the legitimate language’ may have continued to influence the
parents.
Laura was more frank when, during the eighth session, Monica
expressed her perception that signing in English word order is easier
and Colleen expressed her uncertainty about whether signed English is
better for teaching literacy. At this time, Laura responded: ‘Both lan-
guages become really screwed up.’ As the other instructors also did
throughout the workshops, Laura stressed the importance of conveying
story concepts accurately in ASL. Here she referred to her copy of The
Snowy Day:
Laura continues, ‘For example’ – she points to the first line of text on
the left-hand facing page in front of the mothers (that read ‘Then he
dragged his feet s-l-o-w-l-y to make tracks’) and fingerspells, T-H-E-
N H-E- D-R-A-G-G-E-D H-I-S F-E-E-T S-L-O-W-L-Y MAKE T-R-A-C-K-S.
She nods. ‘I will sign this sentence in this way’ – she purses her lips
‘mmm’ and with her right hand signs an upside-down 1 handshape1
limb classifier sliding forward, then alternates with her left hand to
move an upside-down 1 handshape limb classifier forward in the
same way. ‘This conveys an important concept.’ She again signs
upside-down 1 handshape classifiers gliding forward, her lips pursed.
However, Laura then went on to offer more detailed suggestions for

fostering emergent reading skills:
She points in Monica’s direction to indicate she is addressing her and

signs, ‘You can teach children to recognize words of text, like “feet” ’ –
she points at this word in the story text and then again signs an
upside-down 1 handshape classifier that represents a limb. ‘Feet’ – she
points to the text and then to her own foot. ‘Make a connection from
the text to your own feet using ASL. There are no actual feet depicted
in the story. Instead, use classifiers to convey the story concept’ – she
again signs upside-down 1 handshape limb classifiers gliding forward,
lips pursed. ‘Make the point that the English word feet corresponds
to an actual object. Use fingerspelling. Draw attention to the text.’
Laura went on to offer several other suggestions for facilitating young

children’s awareness of print, including inviting a child to look for the
word ‘snow’ on each page of the book. However, the issue of parents’
expectance of learning a word-for-word signed translation of English
books to ASL highlights themes related to plurilingualism.
Crucially, the parents apparently viewed their competence in ASL
and corresponding ability to sign stories with their children in terms
of knowing how to sign each word of text. During the sixth session,
Julia asked the parents about the languages they used when engaging
in shared reading at home. Peter responded: ‘Sometimes I will speak
and then add a sign for emphasis. If I know the sign, I will speak and
then sign a word. And I will add signs during reading for effect. But my
Kristin Snoddon 189
ASL vocabulary isn’t the best. I can’t sign the full story.’ Yet none of the
instructors produced a word-for-word translation of the books they read.
As part of the process of fostering young children’s engagement in and
comprehension of storytelling, the instructors emphasized how they
produced an ASL narrative from English texts. This sometimes involved
eliminating English words that had a different meaning in ASL or a
meaning that was conveyed differently in ASL. For instance, Madeline
explained to the parent participants during the second session’s read-
ing of Red is Best that she did not sign BUT in correspondence with
the young narrator’s argumentative ‘but’, which recurs throughout the
book. Instead, as Madeline explained, she used role shifting and facial
expression to convey the ongoing dialogue and exasperation between
the mother and child. Similarly, when signing The Snowy Day, Laura
explained to the parents that she did not sign PRETEND when reading
the page where the character Peter pretends he is a mountain climber.
Instead, she signed VISION (using S handshapes held up in front of
her face that spread outward into five handshapes), which was a more
accurate gloss of the concept of imagining one is a mountain climber.
This point underlines the phenomenon that, as in the case of other lan-
guages, there is often not a one-to-one correspondence between words
in ASL and English. For the instructors, supporting young children’s
comprehension of stories meant paying primary heed to the meaning
of the whole text being read, rather than the individual words.
However, throughout the program the parents appeared to remain
occupied with learning ASL vocabulary. To some extent, this may have
created a tension related to the instructors’ goals in teaching ASL book
sharing. But it is important to take note of the frustration sometimes
expressed by the parents in wanting to communicate better with their
children. During an interview with Monica near the end of the ninth
workshop, I asked her what the main benefit of the program had been
for her. Monica answered: ‘Learning vocabulary.’ She then went on to
express how difficult she found it to remember individual signs: ‘Because
there are so many different signs, right? I know I asked you before,
I know you showed me many times already, I know that. But I just
can’t remember. So I need to ask you again, you know? So, this bene-
fits me in that the more I see ASL, the better.’ I then asked Monica about
whether the program helped her and Peter when it came to reading
books with Robert. She answered, as she had in previous sessions when
I asked questions related to the impact of the program, that she and
Peter already read with Robert often and that Robert already enjoyed
reading. However, Monica went on to express the importance that her

learning of ASL had for her family as she related a recent incident when
Robert could not hear her:
I don’t know – sometimes, Robert won’t recognize what I sign. The

last time he had an ear infection, he went totally deaf. He couldn’t
hear at all. So we signed to him, but he said to us, ‘Don’t sign,
talk louder!’ I’m already talking very loudly. I need to sign to him.
But since then, in the mornings he doesn’t want his hearing aids;
he wants to sign. It’s a different phase he’s going through. So it’s
really nice to have a backup language. Yesterday morning, he was
frustrated because he forgot something or was having trouble with
something, I forget what. But we don’t sign enough, we don’t have
enough vocabulary, we just don’t have enough. And also because he’s
just a little kid himself, and I don’t always understand him. So some-
times I look at him, and he’s signing, but I don’t know what he’s
saying. He learns it from school, but I don’t know what it is. So it’s
also tricky because he uses a sign but I don’t know it. So, really, the
more we learn, the better.
Thus, for Monica, joined with a utilitarian view of ASL as a ‘backup

language’ for occasions when Robert was not able to hear her was the
recognition that Robert – in the process of negotiating his bilingual
identity – also needed to be able to communicate with his parents in
ASL. During my final interview with Monica at the tenth workshop,
I asked her and Peter a direct question about what they saw as the goal
of the program: was this, indeed, learning ASL vocabulary rather than
supporting reading or literacy? Monica answered me:
I never thought they were separate. I see them as together. Robert

is learning two languages; I know one language and am learning a
second. I don’t know. Robert isn’t reading yet, and this may partly be
because when he is frustrated, he drops what he is doing – this is his
personality. I try to get him to look at and read words but then he
drops reading. I want to allow things to happen, not have paper or
work like school. We read a lot and talk a lot and sign a lot. When we
go out, we see various things and label them for Robert. It happens
naturally. We don’t do something that is structured. I feel he should
be reading by now – I was reading at age 4. If Robert feels pushed, he
will become stubborn. If he’s not interested, he won’t do it. I hope
when he’s ready, he will start picking up reading.
Kristin Snoddon 191
Paying heed to the parents’ learning goals sometimes meant putting

aside preconceptions of how best to teach ASL storytelling or shared
reading. The parents’ vision of themselves as lifelong learners of ASL
speaks to the importance of supporting plurilingual competence in
terms of meeting parents’ wishes to learn more vocabulary while also
attempting to teach parents to move beyond the word level of texts in
order to better sign the stories for their children.
To this point, all three instructors suggested additional resources and
avenues for the parents to learn more ASL and improve their shared
reading skills. The instructors also utilized various strategies to sup-
port parents’ ASL vocabulary learning. For example, Madeline created
vocabulary homework materials for the parents that featured the seven
unmarked ASL handshapes – O, S, B, 1, C, 5, A – that are described as
being among the first acquired by young, ASL-exposed children (Valli &
Lucas, 1995; McLaughlin, Cripps, & Small, 2006). Madeline also recom-
mended the parents purchase the Canadian Dictionary of ASL for help
with learning vocabulary. Julia advised the parent participants to ask
their IHP ASL service providers for help with shared reading. Laura rec-
ommended the Read with Me series of DVDs that teach parents how to
read books through ASL with their children.
In their teaching of the workshops, the three instructors evidenced a
learner’s framework (Young, 1997) that supports the notion of parents’
plurilingual competence. While plurilingualism recognizes that learn-
ers may have only partial competence in a given language, as Coste
et al. (2009) note, this does not mean being satisfied, for reasons of
principle or pragmatism, with a very limited mastery of a foreign lan-
guage, but, rather, seeing this mastery, imperfect at a given moment, as
part of a multiple plurilingual competence which it enriches. It should
also be pointed out that this ‘partial’ competence is at the same time a
functional competence with respect to specific limited objectives (p. 12).
In the parents’ case, ‘specific objectives’ revolved around communica-
tion with their children in addition to learning how to read together
using ASL. As Colleen expressed during my final interview with her,
there was no other way for her to read with Margaret. When, during
the fourth workshop, Julia reviewed the previous session’s book, The
Very Hungry Caterpillar, with Margaret and Colleen, Julia found further
opportunity to offer Colleen advice regarding Colleen’s approach to
learning ASL:
Julia signs to Colleen, ‘Do you have any questions?’ She reaches for
and holds up the Hungry Caterpillar book to indicate what she is
asking about. Colleen shakes her head and signs, ‘No. OK.’ Julia signs,
‘You don’t look happy,’ and Colleen pauses and then signs, ‘I can’t
read using ASL like you.’ Julia signs, ‘That’s all right.’ Colleen: ‘I try.’
Julia signs, ‘You don’t have to sign perfectly. Just try and do what
you can. If you think you can’t, remind yourself you can. Just keep
trying. Just do it. If you don’t know a sign, that’s fine. You can make
one up.’
Julia here conveyed, like the Deaf professionals in Young’s study, the
importance of parents’ positive orientation towards bimodal communi-
cation with their child. Later during the same workshop, after reading
Farley Follows His Nose, a book that Colleen found to be particularly
difficult for its length and relatively extensive vocabulary, Julia also
advised Colleen: ‘Push yourself.’ In the context of the workshops, this
advice could, at least partly, be seen as a means to counter prevailing
discourses that worked to discourage the parents as second language
learners of ASL.
The parents did appear to push themselves towards greater linguis-
tic competence, especially during later workshops taught by Laura,
who apparently drew on her authority and expertise as a schoolteacher
in adopting a more directive approach than the first two instructors.
When, during the tenth workshop, Laura led the parents through a
page-by-page ASL reading of Where the Wild Things Are that made exten-
sive use of descriptive classifiers, Colleen commented that she hated
classifiers. Laura responded: ‘They are a key part of ASL.’ As this work-
shop progressed, Colleen appeared to remember what she had learned
from her adult ASL courses in following Laura’s signing of the story.
Similarly, both Monica and Peter appeared by the end of the program to
increase their use of facial grammar and classifiers.
Conclusion
This chapter has attempted to promote a framework for hearing par-

ents’ learning of signed language as a second language that is in keeping
with current understanding of plurilingualism. I have argued that a
fixation on parents’ and children’s linguistic competence in ASL that
regards this competence as a justification (or lack thereof) for bilin-
gual programs for Deaf students serves to obscure issues of power
and linguistic capital underlying the early intervention and educa-
tion context. This same fixation works to divert public attention from
Kristin Snoddon 193
policy restrictions on Deaf children’s exposure to signed language and

the uneven distribution of resources for bilingual ASL and English
programs.
A comprehensive, plurilingual framework for parents’ learning that
focuses on parents and young children’s immediate, everyday needs
for communication and on supporting Deaf and hard-of-hearing chil-
dren’s access to early literacy activities should be the focus of early
intervention programming. Further initiatives such as ASL shared read-
ing programs, which the parent participants in my study indicated were
highly valuable for them, and ASL classes focused on the specific needs
of parent learners require more uniform support and implementation
by public agencies. A necessary first step towards constructing ASL early
intervention services that are more than provisional and patchwork is
envisioning how parents of Deaf children can be better supported with
their second language learning of signed language.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Rachel McKee for her very helpful comments and
insights regarding an earlier version of this chapter.
Note
1. The ASL handshapes mentioned in this chapter are based on those described
in The Canadian Dictionary of ASL (Bailey & Dolby, 2002).
References
Akamatsu, C. T. & J. F. Andrews (1993). It Takes Two to be Literate: Lit-
eracy Interactions between Parent and Child, Sign Language Studies, 81,
333–360.
Bailey, C. & K. Dolby (2002). The Canadian Dictionary of ASL. Edmonton, AB:
University of Alberta Press.
Beazley, S. & M. Moore (1995). Deaf Children and Their Families: Dismantling
Barriers. London: David Fulton.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). The Economics of Linguistic Exchanges, Social Science
Information, 16, 645–668.
Calderon, R. (2000). Parental Involvement in Deaf Children’s Education
Programs as a Predictor of Child’s Language, Early Reading, and Social-
Emotional Development, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(2),
140–155.
Carbin, C. F. (1996). Deaf Heritage in Canada: A Distinct, Diverse and Enduring
Culture. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd.
Cassell, J. (1996). Bravo ASL! Curriculum Instructor’s Guide. Salem, OR: Sign
Enhancers, Inc.
Coste, D., D. Moore, & G. Zarate (2009). Plurilingual and Pluricultural Competence:
Studies towards a Common European Framework of Reference for Language Learning
and Teaching. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division.
Council of Europe (n.d.). Language Education Policy. Retrieved May 5, 2012 from:
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/division_EN.asp
Dammeyer, J. (2010). Psychosocial Development in a Danish Population of Chil-
dren with Cochlear Implants and Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 15, 50–58.
Delk, L. & L. Weidekamp (2001). Shared Reading Project: Evaluating Implementation
Processes and Family Outcomes. Washington, DC: Laurent Clerc National Deaf
Education Centre.
Fjord, L. (1999). ‘Voices offstage:’ How Vision has become a Symbol to Resist in
an Audiology Lab in the U.S., Visual Anthropology Review, 15, 121–138.
Gibson, H., A. Small, & D. Mason (1997). Deaf Bilingual Bicultural Education,
in J. Cummins & D. Corson (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol-
ume 5: Bilingual Education, pp. 231–240. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Heath, S. B. & B. Street (2008). On Ethnography: Approaches to Language and Literacy
Research. New York: Teachers College Press.
Heller, M. (2006). Linguistic Minorities and Modernity, 2nd Ed. London, UK:
Continuum.
Johnston, T., G. Leigh, & P. Foreman (2002). The Implementation of the Princi-
ples of Sign Bilingualism in a Self-Described Sign Bilingual Program: Implica-
tions for the Evaluation of Language Outcomes, Australian Journal of Education
of the Deaf, 8, 38–46.
Kushalnagar, P., T. D. Topolski, B. Schick, T. C. Edwards, A. M. Skalicky, &
D. L. Patrick (2011). Mode of Communication, Perceived Level of Understand-
ing and Perceived Quality of Life in Youth Who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing,
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16, 512–523.
Lane, H. (2005). Ethnicity, Ethics and the Deaf-World, Journal of Deaf Studies and
Deaf Education, 10, 291–310.
Lartz, M. N. & L. J. Lestina (1995). Strategies Deaf Mothers Use When Reading
to Their Young Deaf or Hard of Hearing Children, American Annals of the Deaf,
140, 358–362.
Leigh, G. & T. Johnston (2004). First Language Learning in a Sign Bilingual
Program: An Australian Study, NTID Research Bulletin, 9(2/3), 1–5.
Mahshie, S. N. (1995). Educating Deaf Children Bilingually: With Insights and
Applications from Sweden and Denmark. Washington, DC: Pre-College Programs,
Gallaudet University.
Mather, S. (1989). Visually Oriented Teaching Strategies with Deaf Preschool Chil-
dren, in C. Lucas (ed.) Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community, pp. 165–187.
New York: Academic Press.
Maxwell, M. (1984). A Deaf Child’s Natural Development of Literacy, Sign
Language Studies, 44, 191–224.
Mayer, C. & G. Leigh (2010). The Changing Context for Sign Bilingual Education
Programs: Issues in Language and the Development of Literacy, International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13, 175–186.
Kristin Snoddon 195
McLaughlin, L., J. Cripps, & A. Small (2006). ASL Eye Spy Handshapes. Toronto,
ON: Ontario Cultural Society of the Deaf and Canadian Cultural Society of
the Deaf.
Myers, L. R. & P. Hulsebosch (1997). Communicating across Cultures: The Deaf
Parent to Hearing Parent Project, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Napier, J., G. Leigh, & S. Nann (2007). Teaching Sign Language to Hearing Par-
ents of Deaf Children: An Action Research Process, Deafness and Education
International, 9(2), 83–100.
Neese Bailes, C. (2001). Integrative ASL-English Language Arts: Bridging Paths to
Literacy, Sign Language Studies, 1(2), 147–174.
Norton Peirce, B. (1996). Social Identity, Investment and Language Learning,
TESOL Quarterly, 29, 9–31.
Peterson, P. R. (2007). Freedom of Speech for Deaf People, in L. Komesaroff (ed.)
Surgical Consent: Bioethics and Cochlear Implantation, pp. 165–173. Washington,
DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Slee, R. & J. Allan (2001). Excluding the Included: A Reconsideration
of Inclusive Education, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 11,
173–191.
Snoddon, K. (2008). American Sign Language and Early Intervention, Canadian
Modern Language Review, 64, 581–604.
Snoddon, K. (2009). American Sign Language and Early Literacy: Research
as Praxis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.
Snoddon, K. (2012). American Sign Language and Early Literacy: A Model Parent-
Child Program. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Swanwick, R. & L. Watson (2007). Parents Sharing Books with Young Deaf Chil-
dren in Spoken English and in BSL: The Common and Diverse Features of
Different Language Settings, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12,
385–405.
Takala, M., J. Kuusela, & E.-P. Takala (2000). ‘A Good Future for Deaf Children’:
A Five-Year Sign Language Intervention Project, American Annals of the Deaf,
145, 366–373.
Valli, C. & C. Lucas (1995). Linguistics of American Sign Language: An Introduction,
2nd Ed. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Van der Lem, G. J. & D. E. Timmerman (1990). Joint Picture Book Reading in
Signs: An Interaction Process between Parent and Deaf Child, in S. Prillwitz &
T. Vollhaber (eds) Sign Language Research and Application: Proceedings on
the International Congress, March, pp. 77–90. Hamburg, Germany: Signum
Press.
Watkins, S., P. Pittman, & B. Walden (1998). The Deaf Mentor Experimental
Project for Young Children who are Deaf and their Families, American Annals of
the Deaf, 143, 29–35.
Young, A. M. (1997). Conceptualizing Parents’ Sign Language use in Bilin-
gual Early Intervention, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2,
264–276.
Young, A. M. (1999). Hearing Parents’ Adjustment to a Deaf Child: The Impact
of a Cultural-Linguistic Model of Deafness, Journal of Social Work Practice, 13,
157–176.
Children’s Books Cited

Carle, E. (1987). The Very Hungry Caterpillar. New York: Philomel.
Johnston, L. (2009). Farley Follows his Nose. New York: Harper Collins Children’s
Books.
Keats, E. J. (1962). The Snowy Day. New York: Puffin Books.
Sendak, M. (1963). Where the Wild Things Are. New York: Harper Collins
Children’s Books.
Stinson, K. (2006). Red is Best. 25th anniversary edn. Richmond Hill, ON: Firefly
Books.
9
Learner Autonomy in
New Zealand Sign Language
Interpreting Students
Lynette Pivac
Introduction
In many countries, interpreter education programs are key sites of sign

language teaching for adult learners (Napier, 2009). Historically, sign
language interpreters were naturally enculturated in a Deaf commu-
nity and were subsequently invited by Deaf people to enter interpreting
courses. In recent decades, the majority of interpreter trainees have
tended to initially acquire sign language within academic contexts
(Cokely, 1986; Peterson, 1999; Monikowski & Peterson, 2005). This
provides less opportunity for direct learning within target language
community contexts, and potentially increases second language users’
difficulties in social contexts.
What, and how, do adult learners of sign language learn from the
social and linguistic resources available to them outside the classroom?
What factors and strategies enable students to increase their sign lan-
guage competence through autonomous learning efforts? Relatively lit-
tle evidence about these questions is documented. This chapter reports
on a study that investigated independent language learning beyond the
classroom by students in a New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL) inter-
preting program. The chapter is organized as follows: the context of
the NZSL interpreting program; the literature review of ‘good’ language
learners and autonomous learning; the methodology of the study; the
findings and discussion; the conclusion; limitations of the study and
recommendations.
197
Context for the study
The interpreter role in New Zealand was historically filled by family

members, welfare workers, churchgoers, teachers, or CODAs (Children
of Deaf Adults), who may or may not have been proficient bilinguals
(Napier, McKee, & Goswell, 2006). In 1985 a four-month NZSL–English
interpreting program was convened by the Deaf Association (Napier
et al., 2006). As demand for trained interpreters grew, a two-year, full-
time Diploma in Sign Language Interpreting program was established
in 1992 at Auckland University of Technology (AUT). Candidates enter-
ing the program originally had to meet a minimum standard of NZSL
proficiency (equivalent to at least 100 hours of sign language learning),
acquired through community or university classes, or through social
channels.
The program at AUT intensively prepares students to work as profes-
sional interpreters across a wide variety of settings. NZSL interpreters
work in a greater variety of settings than spoken language interpreters,
and must be competent and adaptable. Napier et al. (2006, p. 38) note
that ‘the jump from second language conversational fluency to the
depth of language adaptability required for interpreting between such
different languages can be difficult’. Although the two-year Diploma
program was intensive, not all graduates exited with the ideal level of
proficiency and confidence to meet the challenges of all interpreting
assignments.
The two-year Diploma in Sign Language Interpreting has been
recently redeveloped into a three-year Bachelor of Arts NZSL–English
Interpreting program run by the AUT Sign Language Section. It has
resulted in the removal of the entry pre-requisite of NZSL knowledge and
the development of a blended learning approach involving a mixture
of face-to-face teaching and self-directed learning using online digital
resources. The changes have resulted in a significant reduction of class-
room hours. Year One NZSL instructional hours have steadily reduced
from 450 hours per year in 1992 to 192 hours in 2012. Due to timetable
restrictions, students have less face-to-face time with Deaf lecturers and
fewer Deaf guests contributing to classes.
Interpreter programs overseas have attempted to bridge the gap
between classrooms and communities by incorporating compulsory
‘service learning’, in which learners participate in Deaf community
activities for mutual benefit (Monikowski & Peterson, 2005). The AUT
program promotes community-based language practice and participa-
tion through activities such as a weekend camp, a welcome evening at
the Deaf club, field observations, and interpreting practicum.
Lynette Pivac 199
Reduced formal language learning input requires learners to indepen-

dently utilize all available learning resources. There has been concern
over the impact of program constraints such as teaching hours, learn-
ing materials, and access to Deaf people in formal and informal settings
on NZSL levels and graduate readiness as interpreters. The purpose of
the present study was to discover how students in this interpreting pro-
gram develop and utilize autonomous learning strategies and resources
beyond the formal curriculum. Literature on how ‘good’ adult learn-
ers of both spoken and signed languages supplement instruction with
autonomous learning is reviewed next.
Perspectives on learning spoken and signed

languages as L2
It can be assumed that good sign language L2 learners will share simi-
lar traits to good spoken L2 learners. However, the challenges associated
with learning a visual–spatial language highlight certain learner char-
acteristics. Within the sociocultural context, Oxford (1990) identified
metacognitive, affective, and social strategies as key learning strategies
adopted by good L2 learners.
Metacognitive strategies enable L2 learners to conceptualize the lan-
guage learning process, identify personal learning styles, establish goals,
and plan and monitor their progress in an analytical manner (Oxford,
1990). Good L2 learners, influenced by factors such as personality and
learning style preferences, are able to adapt strategies from a personal
‘strategy repertoire’ to match L2 learning tasks (Chamot & Kupper,
1989).
Affective strategies enable L2 learners to lower anxiety, take risks,
and deal with emotions in social environments (Oxford, 1990). Good
L2 learners develop strategies to optimize personal states, in order to
improve communicative competence (Brown, 1991; Dornyei, 1994).
Even though studies have mainly focused on psychological factors, little
is known about L2 sign language learning strategies outside the class-
room. Price (1991) states that spoken language learners typically feel
anxiety when not fully comprehending L2 language or needing to clar-
ify, interrupt, and enter conversations. Similarly, some sign language
learners experience situational anxiety related to receptive sign lan-
guage use when meeting and interacting with Deaf people (Kyle & Woll,
1985). Language anxiety for spoken language learners is higher when
producing the L2 than when receiving it (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope,
1986). Likewise, sign language learners must master the production of
the target language in a visual–spatial modality, becoming accustomed
to Deaf communicative norms, such as prolonged eye contact, use of

non-manual features, and being the visual center of attention (McKee &
McKee, 1992).
Social strategies enable L2 learners to initiate conversations with
L2 users, ask for clarification, interrupt conversations, and ask experts
for guidance (Oxford, 1990). Social strategies are best learned through
interaction and participation in the target language communities
(Barkhuizen, 2004). Good L2 learners should be willing to communi-
cate in L2 language, to tolerate ambiguity in communication, and to
make mistakes (Rubin, 1975). Clement and Kruidenier (1985) suggest
that higher learner confidence on use of L2 language leads to increased
contact with target language users, resulting in higher situational
communicative competence.
In addition, sign language learners should be aware of situational
variances in L2 language use (i.e. code-switching and sociolinguistic
variation) and learn to make appropriate adjustments to achieve high
sign language competency (Napier et al., 2006; McKee & McKee,
1992). Code-switching involves shifting between more and less English-
influenced sign features, for instance, fingerspelling and mouthing, to
match the communicative needs of addressees (Sutton-Spence & Woll,
1998). Sociolinguistic variation factors are occupational status, educa-
tion, age, gender, and religion (Lucas, Bayley, & Valli, 2001). NZSL lexical
variation is associated mainly with age group and region (McKee &
McKee, 2011). Moreover, sign language learners need to be inculcated
with Deaf culture and pragmatic behaviors in order to both negoti-
ate meaning and convey the message in a culturally appropriate way
(Jacobs, 1996; Kemp, 1998; Mindess, 1999). Jacobs (1996, p. 198) claims
that sign language learners who wish to use L2 professionally must
become ‘paradigm shifters’, who can mediate between Deaf and hearing
worldviews, in order to be highly skilled interpreters.
Sociocultural perspectives on learner autonomy
The notion of autonomy is associated with effective L2 learning, though

definitions of autonomy vary. Benson (1997) frames independence as
the extent to which L2 learners choose to study outside class, determine
their learning goals, and attempt to develop their skills without teacher
intervention. While independence is central to autonomous learning,
Toohey (2007, p. 241) asserts that interdependence is a more accurate
concept of autonomy, as learners are ‘linked to other people and their
tools and practices in complex ways’.
Lynette Pivac 201
Oxford (2003) identifies two sociocultural perspectives on learner

autonomy. The first sociocultural perspective draws on the Vygotoskian
notion of ‘mediated learning’ (Lantolf, 2000). Mediated learning
revolves around social relationships in which the more capable indi-
vidual scaffolds language learning and boosts learner motivation lev-
els to achieve higher language competency. Learners move through
‘zones of proximal development’ with the assistance of others until the
learner becomes more self-regulatory and scaffolding gradually lessens
(Ushioda, 2006). A second sociocultural perspective proposes that medi-
ated learning occurs within a supportive ‘community of practice’
(Lave & Wenger, 1991). A learner became a ‘cognitive apprentice’ within
the community when learning naturally and obtaining insider informa-
tion, such as cultural practices, from experts who have mutual social
interest (Rogoff, 1990). Consequently, the learner moves from periph-
eral involvement, for instance, as an observer, to an active participant,
and, as a result, undergoes a shift in identity (Toohey & Norton, 2003).
Norton and Toohey (2001) argue that L2 learner autonomy develops
within social contexts. Some contextual factors in L2 learning are out-
lined below, including: motivation, social and material resources, social
networks, and social identity.
Motivation
Many studies show that motivation is essential for successful L2 learn-
ing. Dornyei (1994) discusses three levels of L2 learner motivation: the
language level, the learner level, and the learning situation level. The
language level incorporates instrumental and integrative reasons for L2
learning. Instrumental orientation refers to the learner’s desire to learn
an L2 to enhance career or qualification opportunities (Gardner, 1985).
Integrative orientation refers to a learner’s willingness to interact with
L2 users. Historically, integrative motivation to communicate with Deaf
family members, friends, or colleagues has been associated with sign
language learners (Kyle & Woll, 1985; Kemp, 1998). More recently, inte-
gratively motivated learners may possess a strong interest in language,
linguistics, or Deaf culture, or simply wish to communicate with Deaf
people. They are inclined to seek out social interaction with Deaf people
and pursue lifelong learning goals (Kemp, 1998). Increasing numbers
of learners are instrumentally motivated and have the desire to learn
a second language for career or qualification requirements. Becoming
professionally involved in Deaf education, Deaf organizations, or the
interpreting field, these learners tend to have short-term learning goals
(Kemp, 1998).
Learner motivation level (Dornyei, 1994) refers to learner character-

istics that enhance motivation, such as learning preferences, linguistic
self-confidence, and positive outlook. Learner enjoyment of linguistic
and cultural immersion in the L2 community boosts motivation and
confidence levels (Young, 1998; Oxford, 2003). Clement and Kruidenier
(1985) add that analytical learners with self-confidence are motivated to
have frequent contacts and practical use in the target language commu-
nity, resulting in higher L2 communicative competency. The learning
situation motivational level (Dornyei, 1994) refers to social groups and
community resources; the degree to which a particular community
accepts and encourages learners influences L2 learner motivation. Posi-
tive reinforcement, peer support, and mediated scaffolding are likely to
influence learner participation and motivation.
The concept of ‘investment’ in L2 learning motivation, as raised by
Norton Peirce (1995), refers to learners investing time and effort to
develop social relationships in the target language community in return
for increased L2 competency, increased access to cultural knowledge,
and participation in different social contexts. Sign language studies
show that the time and effort invested contributes to formal L2 learn-
ing success (McKee & McKee, 1992; Peterson, 1999), but learners may
also be constrained by workloads, limited learning opportunities, and
the attitudes of others in their learning environment (Lang et al., 1996).
Social and material resources

Learning strategy choices within social contexts are dependent on the
availability and relevance of material and social resources and on learner
enjoyment (Palfreyman, 2006). Material resources include resources
within the social context that are useful for authentic language learning.
Social resources are the networks of people acting as language models
for L2 learners and as sources of support. L2 learning resources vary
across different communities of practice and different social networks
and over time.
Three main groups of Deaf people have been identified as social
resources for sign language learners (Lang et al., 1996; McKee, 1996):
paid Deaf teachers, Deaf private tutors, and Deaf colleagues who can
facilitate learner access to sign language, cultural information, and Deaf
community. Only a few learners follow through with regular social
practice (Peterson, 1999). Some reasons given are learner reluctance
to impose on unknown Deaf people for support (McKee & McKee,
1992) and a preference to communicate ‘in house’ (in contexts with
Deaf students or colleagues) rather than venture into other Deaf social
settings (Lang et al., 1996).
Lynette Pivac 203
Social networks and social identity

Social networks refer to relationship clusters whose members are deter-
mined by their social attributes. L2 learners access social networks for
information exchange, support, resources, and language maintenance
(Tajfel, 1974). Broad/shallow or ‘looser’ networks, interconnected in a
general way across a range of settings, offer L2 learners considerable lan-
guage variation with the opportunity to develop broad L2 repertoires
(Romaine, 1984). Narrow/deep social networks with less diverse settings
offer L2 learners strongly bounded personal relationships, frequent con-
tacts, mutual resources, and in-depth communication in a narrower
context. Deaf people use social networks around sign language use at
local, regional, national, and international levels (Ladd, 2003). Deaf
social networks are based on the frequency of contact, shared experi-
ences, interests, knowledge, support, and information exchange, known
as word of ‘hand’ (Becker, 1987). Thus, sign language learners should
establish and maintain Deaf social networks.
Learner identities revolve around L2 use and social relationships
(Norton, 2000; Palfreyman, 2006). Through language, a person negoti-
ates a sense of self, within and across different communities at different
times (Toohey & Norton, 2003). L2 learners experience multiple social
identities over time and in various settings (Norton Peirce, 1995). Social
repositioning boosts access to varying repertoires of language use within
the community. Factors influencing learner identities are the range of
L2 users encountered, the depth of relationships and networks, and the
regularity of interaction (Garton, Haythornthwaite, & Wellman, 1997).
Good L2 competency enhances learner identities (Palfreyman, 2006).
Three groups of sign language learners automatically possess desirable
‘Deaf’ identities, are generally accepted by L1 users, and have a ‘pass-
port’ to the Deaf world. They are CODAs, partners or family members of
Deaf people, and interpreting students (Kyle & Woll, 1985). In general,
learner acceptance into the Deaf community depends on the commu-
nity ‘pigeon-holing’ of learners and their motives, positive attitudes
towards Deaf people, sign language, and cultural values (Jacobs, 1996),
and willingness to acculturate (McKee & McKee, 1992; Kemp, 1998).
However, L2 learners can negotiate their own social identities and lan-
guage usage in order to operate effectively (Norton & Toohey, 2001,
Toohey & Norton, 2003).
The literature on ‘good’ language learners, taking a sociocultural per-
spective of L2 learner autonomy, suggests some gaps in research on
L2 sign language learning from a sociocultural perspective, especially
regarding learner strategies that utilize opportunities arising from social
and material resources.
Research method
The aim of this research was to investigate ‘insider’ impressions of recent

graduates of the two-year Diploma in Sign Language Interpreting at
AUT about their autonomous learning experiences and strategies. The
research method is described below.
Data collection
Semi-structured interviews were selected as an effective method of elic-
iting in-depth insights from participants with the least amount of
interviewer interference and the flexibility of adapting the sequence
of questions and pursuing concepts of particular interest (Fielding &
Thomas, 2001). Interview questions were designed to explore the four
research questions (see interview schedule in Appendix):
1. What factors contribute to independent language learning of NZSL?

2. What factors hinder independent language learning of NZSL?
3. What opportunities do learners have for learning NZSL outside class?
4. What learning strategies outside of the classroom benefit NZSL
learners?
The ten full-time students completing the program were all invited to
participate in the study. The Deaf researcher/interviewer was known
to the participants as their former teacher and program co-ordinator.
To minimize the risk of perceived power differential, the new program
co-ordinator, with a good understanding of the research process, was
appointed as a ‘gatekeeper’ (Mackey & Gass, 2005) to approach stu-
dents, explaining the aims of the project and the perceived risks and
benefits (Neuman, 2000), and inviting them to volunteer to become
participants after their final exams. Six students volunteered to par-
ticipate. All were female, aged between 25 and 35. All participants
chose the classroom venue. The gatekeeper managed informed consent
procedures, distributed the interview schedule, and explained to the par-
ticipants that every effort would be made to mask individual identities
by anonymizing data and reporting thematically.
For the semi-structured interview, all participants chose to discuss
their experiences in spoken English, which was simultaneously inter-
preted into NZSL by an interpreter. Working between NZSL and English
raised the risk of misinterpretation of meaning in either direction.
To overcome this, one interpreter was used for both the pilot and actual
interviews. Two pilot interviews were conducted with two qualified
Lynette Pivac 205
interpreters in order to identify potential problems, such as interpreting

issues, familiarity with the interview schedule, and practice with reflec-
tive interviewing techniques (Mackey & Gass, 2005), especially at the
probing level, and to signal a change of audio-cassette. Third party feed-
back on audiotapes and transcripts from the pilot interviews contributed
to refinement of the final model. Amplification of concepts by refram-
ing questions and reflective listening was important to ensure clarity
between the researcher, the participant, and the interpreter.
Data coding and analysis

Interview audiotapes were transcribed by a professional transcriber into
written English, for verification by the participants and subsequent
analysis. Participants were asked to verify and amend their interview
transcripts prior to analysis. Only a few amendments were made.
Once transcripts were signed off by the participants as accurate, the
researcher created analytical memos to record overviews of each tran-
script and summarized individual responses under the four questions
(Neuman, 2000, p. 365). This provided a quick cross-referencing system.
After repeated examination of each transcript, emerging themes were
inductively identified and coded, with each reading resulting in more
propositions (Mackey & Gass, 2005). Propositions were sorted into broad
topics. Sub-categories developed as more data was analyzed. Categories
were prioritized according to their apparent importance, as indicated by
the frequency of participant references. Themes identified are described
in the Findings section.
Potential limitations of the study arise due to the small pool of par-
ticipants, a single cohort of students with similar ages and gender,
regional variation in availability of social and organizational resources
for sign language learning opportunities, the perceived power differ-
ential between participants and the researcher, and ‘insider’ views
impacting on the data reported.
Findings
Three main themes related to accessing NZSL learning opportunities

were identified: Deaf people as an L1 social resource; hearing NZSL users
as an L2 social resource; and learning material resources. These learning
opportunities and contexts are outlined below, revealing social factors
that facilitate and hinder independent learning of NZSL outside the
classroom. Five key learning strategies also emerged from participants’
reflections, and these are discussed in a following section.
Social resources (Deaf people)

AUT program lecturers encourage students to regularly interact with
Deaf signers, as community participation is considered an important
supplement to classroom learning. All six participants found beneficial
learning opportunities in Deaf social settings, defined generally as places
where Deaf people routinely use NZSL as their preferred language. These
participants tailored their strategies to facilitate entry to, and interac-
tion within, the Deaf social context, while accommodating personal
preferences. These settings are of three types: Deaf-oriented settings,
Deaf–hearing settings, and hearing-oriented settings.
Deaf people in Deaf-oriented settings

Deaf-oriented settings are predominantly ‘Deaf-determined’. Deaf-
oriented activities and events are attended by a wide range of NZSL users
(Dugdale, 2000; Monaghan, 2003). Examples include Deaf clubs, sport-
ing events, meetings, churches, and camps. Deaf-oriented activities are
hosted by Deaf-determined organizations with varying levels of struc-
ture. They are operated largely by volunteers, who are predominantly
Deaf people. Hearing people with an appreciation of Deaf values are also
selectively welcomed. Deaf-oriented settings provide invaluable oppor-
tunities for exposure to sociolinguistic variation in NZSL usage due to
age, region, and other factors (McKee & McKee, 2011). Organizations
specifically mentioned below by the participants are the Deaf club, the
Deaf church and the Deaf Association of New Zealand.
The main Deaf-oriented setting was the Auckland Deaf Society club-
room, known generally as ‘the Deaf club’. The Deaf club holds social
gatherings at least once a week and provides a regular meeting place for
local Deaf sports clubs, interest groups, individual members, and visi-
tors. This setting provides significant exposure to natural sociolinguistic
variation and social situational repertoires. One participant described
the Deaf club as a ‘gateway’ into the Deaf world in terms of informa-
tion, language usage, and social networks for further language learning
opportunities.
Several Deaf church congregations exist in the Auckland region, either
independently or associated with hearing congregations. One partic-
ipant became involved with a core group of supportive Deaf parish-
ioners within a hearing church. Deaf-oriented church services were
conducted once a month by Deaf people and interpreted from NZSL
into English, and, three times a month, services in English were inter-
preted into NZSL. This setting also provided access to weekly interest
groups conducted in NZSL, including translation team meetings, ladies’
group, and study group.
Lynette Pivac 207
The Deaf Association of New Zealand (DANZ) is the political advocacy

organization for Deaf people. Its regional branches co-ordinate services
and activities for a broad cross-section of Deaf people. Three participants
worked voluntarily with DANZ during their studies.
By pursuing learning opportunities within Deaf-oriented settings,
the participants developed four main learning strategies: frequenting
established Deaf scenes, engaging with L1 users, developing social
relationships, and broadening their social networks within the Deaf
community.
Four participants reported frequenting established Deaf scenes. Four
participants also frequented the Deaf club and reported a sense of feeling
‘at home’ as they became familiar with the Deaf people in this environ-
ment. One participant reflected: ‘. . . as the environment became more
familiar, it became easier to go there by myself’ (Z6). They appreciated
entry into a Deaf ‘habitat’ where they could see a range of Deaf people
interacting freely, and were encouraged by their friendly inclusiveness.
Another participant frequenting Deaf church activities felt a sense of
comfort with the Deaf parishioners. Three participants described min-
gling with Deaf people in the company of familiar people such as
classmates, Deaf teachers, and Deaf tutors. When meeting NZSL users
for the first time, one participant felt some familiarity with them, as she
had watched video recordings of them in the program. One participant
affirmed: ‘Deaf club was just fantastic . . . because the Deaf people there
are generally well known’ (K3).
Four participants reported engaging with L1 users by choosing to
have one-to-one conversations with Deaf people, and gradually moved
to group conversations. These participants reported challenges relating
to interrupting, asking questions, and clarifying linguistic aspects, and
also reported taking fewer ‘risks’ and contributing less to conversations.
These participants realized that they must overcome their apprehen-
sions, and developed interruption and clarification strategies by initially
practicing interruptions, asking questions, and clarifying in one-to-one
conversations, and through trial and error they learned strategies for
politely interrupting and clarifying in group conversations. One partici-
pant stated: ‘I thought I would ask really stupid questions . . . but actually
being able to bite the bullet, go to the events and ask questions, even if
I felt stupid, didn’t matter’ (K8).
All participants reported engaging with L1 users through group con-
versations, such as comprehending multi-party conversations, following
the speed of conversation, or engaging in lengthy group conversations.
The larger the number of conversationalists, the more difficult compre-
hension became. Three participants reported missing some information
when trying to keep up with the speed of communication, rapid turn-

taking and cross-talk in group situations, and developed different coping
strategies by focusing on the gist of the conversations, in an attempt
to stay abreast of the subjects and content discussed and reducing the
number of clarification requests to preserve the fast conversational flow,
observing more, and giving affirmative ‘listening’ feedback. Two real-
ized that information was naturally paraphrased and repeated by various
Deaf people as active ‘listeners’, and so were able to piece together most
of the information. One explained: ‘. . . in a group of Deaf people signing
fast to each other . . . if you miss one [person’s signing] you can look at
another’s’ (A5). Another participant reported that group conversations
could also be very lengthy. She saw this as a positive aspect, as it meant
the longer streams of signing allowed her longer learning opportunities.
Two participants reported further engagement with L1 users by deter-
mining to comprehend and participate in the conversations when
there was diversity in language use and code-switching between NZSL
and contact signing. One participant said: ‘. . . it was amazing to see
the variety of Deaf people who didn’t use sign language at all, com-
pletely oral Deaf, and then at the other end of the scale, people who
were fluent NZSL users!’ (B5). They realized that displaying a hearing
and learner identity by repeatedly seeking clarification would result in
code-switching; that is, Deaf people would simplify and slow down
their signing, accommodating to a level they assumed appropriate. One
participant observed older signers signing among one another and code-
switching when talking with her, by not using their hands and using
strong mouth patterning and vocalization. She resorted to lipreading
and tried to pick up verbal clues. She also reported observing a group
of people using ‘crazy fast’ NZSL and trying to keep up. Both partici-
pants reported benefiting as a result of exposure to these diverse types
of language use and code-switching.
Five participants began social relationships with Deaf people through
socializing regularly in Deaf social environments. One participant
reflected: ‘[We] met so many people [at the Deaf club]. Everyone was
very keen to welcome us. As a result, we got to know a great deal
about what was going on in the Deaf community’ (K4). Through regular
church involvement, one participant developed lasting social relation-
ships with Deaf churchgoers and reported accepting numerous social
invitations to church-related activities. Another participant wished to
develop closer friendships with Deaf people in order to ‘understand,
know and feel comfortable in the company of Deaf people’ (R3). These
participants benefited from the supportiveness, encouragement, and
Lynette Pivac 209
inclusiveness of the members, in addition to being privy to cultural

information.
Five participants developed and reinforced their social networks
within Deaf-oriented settings, utilizing new and existing Deaf contacts.
These participants volunteered for positions with Deaf organizations
to help develop their NZSL and knowledge of Deaf culture. The con-
cept of volunteering aligns with the Deaf value of reciprocity, whereby
an individual contributes to and benefits from the collective (Napier
et al., 2006). Working alongside key Deaf people, participants developed
known social identities, enhancing social positioning, and expanding
their Deaf social networks, leading into further learning opportunities.
One participant reflected: ‘I’ve volunteered with the Deaf Association [in
various capacities] to meet more people. Hopefully they were getting to
know who I was, while I was learning NZSL and learning information’
(Z3/4). Involvement in social networks increased their comfort in Deaf
settings and exposed them to a wide range of NZSL variation, jargon,
and popular genres, and privy access to information about social events
that were potential NZSL learning opportunities.
Deaf people in Deaf–hearing-oriented settings

The second category of Deaf social setting is Deaf–hearing-oriented set-
tings in which NZSL was used. The term ‘Deaf–hearing-oriented settings’
is used here to describe ‘safe’ places or social milieus where both Deaf
and hearing people interact comfortably in NZSL. There is a more or
less equal power differential, depending on the aims of the group, the
make-up of the membership, and the type of interaction. Invitations for
informal social encounters may be initiated by either Deaf or hearing
participants, or by the interpreting program. Venues include private or
public establishments such as cafes, cinemas, party venues, and private
homes.
Types of Deaf people associated with the academic setting are lectur-
ers, guest speakers, visitors, and students studying non-Deaf and Deaf
courses. Affiliated settings are the ‘home’ classroom, student lounges,
and other university facilities, as well as a total immersion weekend
camp every year. As a result, learners initially interact socially with a
number of NZSL users and classmates within a familiar academic setting
and also maintain social interactions outside the academic setting. Three
participants, experiencing extra responsibilities associated with per-
sonal or financial commitments, reported deliberately extending their
participation with related Deaf people in order to gain extra benefits in
terms of NZSL acquisition and making the most of limited discretionary
learning time. Familiarization with Deaf people in this setting increased

learner confidence, eased introductions, and promoted learner auton-
omy by providing a social platform from which to access future encoun-
ters. This social networking by means of invitations resulted in students
boosting language competency and Deaf-related information. One shy
participant found that moving from known to unknown people and
environments was a useful scaffolding strategy to develop her confi-
dence. She said that ‘[initially] I had quite low confidence, so having
that safe environment, amongst my classmates, was very important. As a
result, I met a lot of Deaf people, became friends, went out with them
and learnt bits and pieces as we went along . . . As I went on I got more
confidence, got out there, did things and met more people . . . I wanted
to have people come to me; that sounds really awful but in my safe envi-
ronment I had people that I knew, as well as new people I was meeting’
(K3). One participant reported enjoying longer events, for example, a
weekend camp, because of the opportunity to engage with Deaf people
for extended periods of time.
Another group of Deaf people associated with mediated learning
support is private NZSL tutors, both paid and unpaid, in private
Deaf–hearing-oriented settings. Several participants raised the value of
additional learning support outside timetabled hours. One participant
stated: ‘sometimes it’s important to have extra time in a structured
learning environment [with a private NZSL tutor] for language learn-
ing, guidance and confidence’ (Z9). Another participant worked with
Deaf people, who unofficially performed private tutor roles. Two par-
ticipants reported being particularly motivated by their Deaf tutor’s
positive guidance. Socially, three participants reported significant gains
in personal confidence and comfort levels when interacting with Deaf
people within the proximity of NZSL tutors. Reported benefits included
authentic NZSL models, enhancement of NZSL capabilities, linguistic
and cultural insights, and positive affective factors. Despite the clear
advantages of working with private tutors, the constraints were tutor
availability, cost, and limited time available to balance demands of study
and personal life.
Deaf people in hearing-oriented settings

Hearing-oriented settings are defined here as mainstream society set-
tings where Deaf individuals or groups interact socially with hearing
people. Interaction opportunities may occur in these settings through
chance encounters or sharing common activities. Settings include
workplaces, sporting venues, and shopping centers. Three participants
Lynette Pivac 211
encountered Deaf people within work environments: one with work col-
leagues and two with customers in retail jobs. Work-based relationships
extended into continuing friendships for two participants. All three par-
ticipants also became ‘familiar faces’ within the Deaf community and
benefited from repeated encounters and shared interests. One of three
participants reported investing her free time, especially work lunchtime,
to mingle with Deaf workers and said that ‘it was absolutely priceless’
in terms of language development, cultural aspects, and maintaining
friendships initially developed through Deaf club or other settings. The
second participant said: ‘I’ve met others [Deaf people] through working
at a supermarket, and some of them have become quite good friends of
mine who I meet in different settings . . . These opportunities gave rise
to other opportunities. I have an interest in sports and have met Deaf
people through badminton’ (Z3).
Social resources (hearing people)

All participants noted two important contributions of hearing bilin-
gual NZSL–English people: peers and professional NZSL interpreters in
social settings. Personal support people were identified in regard to
sustaining motivation. All six participants reflected that hearing peers
provided significant social support in terms of solidarity, NZSL practice,
comfort, and motivation when interacting with Deaf people. Through
regularly interacting, studying, and practicing NZSL with one another
during non-timetabled hours, peers provided each other with support,
encouragement, and solidarity throughout the learning process. Three
participants motivated one another to attend unfamiliar Deaf social
environments, either meeting there or traveling together. At events,
they stayed within close proximity of one another to ensure ‘safe’ famil-
iar conversational partners and mutual support. One participant stated:
‘It is motivating to attend events if you know someone else is going
with you’. The barriers were that peer error correction was not always
immediate or accurate during signed social ‘chats’ and that the increase
in study demands during year two allowed less informal NZSL interac-
tion with peers. As a program requirement, all six participants observed
and met professional NZSL interpreters. Two participants reported ben-
eficial results from discussing a range of linguistic and cultural topics
informally with qualified interpreters. Discussions included personal
insights, problem-solving techniques, cross-cultural experiences, NZSL
grammar and lexicon, and ways to express particular concepts.
One participant reported a real benefit from interpreter-mediated
learning within a single setting. Prolonged informal observations,
‘mentoring’, and scaffolding from professional interpreters within

hearing-oriented and Deaf-oriented church settings boosted her moti-
vation and confidence. With strong interpreter encouragement, this
participant undertook interpreter training, accepted invitations from
the interpreters, first to observe, and, later, during the second year
of her formal studies, regularly worked with the church song transla-
tion team of interpreters and bilingual Deaf people. They met at least
twice a week to translate religious songs with an eye to vocabulary,
meaning, clarity of propositions and signs, and rhythm. The partici-
pant commented: ‘I started to get involved with the translation team,
and then began to interpret small segments of songs. I was very ner-
vous at the start of it but the interpreters were really encouraging’ (B3).
The interpreters mentored this participant into the interpreting role,
exposing her to increasingly complex assignments and a range of gen-
res, as her skills evolved. Towards the end of her studies, the participant
was supported to modify songs herself, seek feedback from the team,
perform rehearsals, and finally present the end product at church ser-
vices. ‘We’d translate [songs] into sign language and I’d go home and
I’d practice and I’d practice and I’d practice until I felt that I was con-
fident. Then I’d get up on Sunday and I’d be able to sign it while the
people were singing it. So it wasn’t really interpreting at that time’.
This participant also accepted invitations from the interpreters to incre-
mentally interpret notices and small segments of the services. Initial
examples included ‘Welcome to church everybody. It’s good to see you
here’. As her formal and informal training with the church interpreters
progressed, her confidence grew. She attributed this to increasing famil-
iarity with setting-specific vocabulary and meanings, in conjunction
with careful scaffolding. Throughout this process, the participant’s social
identity underwent significant change, as she evolved from being an
observing NZSL learner, to an active translation team member and con-
tributor, to an apprentice interpreter. By the time her formal studies
were completed, this participant was confident and ready to step into
a professional interpreting role, which she attributed to the interpreter
mentoring and the strong support of the Deaf people within her church.
Material resources
Five participants reported sign language material resources as being
critical for L2 learning when interaction with Deaf people was not pos-
sible. The most important of these are instructional and extra-curricular
videos produced in house, followed by participants’ own NZSL produc-
tion. Strategies to gain familiarity with Deaf faces and signing styles
Lynette Pivac 213
include observing videoed materials and analyzing signing styles, lan-

guage variation, genres, and cultural information captured in recorded
material. Another strategy employed was identifying new vocabulary,
which learners later tried to incorporate into their communication with
Deaf signers or when practicing NZSL with peers. The benefits included
seeing a wide range of authentic NZSL language samples in a comfort-
able, safe environment, with the ability to review the material. This
supported comprehension and exposure to NZSL variation, boosting
NZSL competence, linguistic confidence, and motivation. However, the
sixth participant, who preferred to socialize with Deaf people, found
video materials demotivating if viewed more than once.
Learner strategies
All learners reported that the greatest NZSL learning took place within
the Deaf sociocultural context. Learner involvement in the Deaf com-
munity, particularly within Deaf social networks, was felt to result in sig-
nificantly improved linguistic, pragmatic, and sociocultural competency
(as emphasized by McKee and McKee, 1992; Jacobs, 1996; Mindess,
1999). This shows that good L2 learners supplement formal language
learning practices with informal learning within target language com-
munities. This bears out Barkhuizen’s argument (2004) that interaction
in target language social contexts complements formal learning. In this
regard, a sociocultural perspective provides a useful lens through which
to view the good language learner and autonomous language learning
in social contexts.
Strategies to make use of NZSL material resources were raised above.
Five key learning strategies, employed by NZSL learners outside the
classroom context, emerged from the findings, as outlined below.
1. Proactively analyze learning needs and implement strategies.

2. Actively engage with NZSL users.
3. Establish and extend social networks.
4. Engage in mediated language learning.
5. Develop and sustain positive affective states.
1. Proactively analyze learning needs and implement strategies

Four out of six learners evidenced two strong characteristics through-
out the language learning process; the ability to analyze their language
learning needs and the ability to take effective action. The learning
process involves identifying and analyzing personal language learn-
ing needs, seeking or creating NZSL learning opportunities arising in
the Deaf social context, devising personalized NZSL learning strategies,

following through with targeted action, evaluating the productiveness
of their approach, and modifying their learning strategies as neces-
sary at regular intervals. This interpretation concurs with Norton and
Toohey (2001) and Palfreyman (2003) that good L2 learners develop
metacognitive competency to access social and material resources for
language learning opportunities within the sociocultural context.
2. Actively engage with L1 users

All six learners sought authentic exposure to a variety of L1 signers
in order to develop receptive and expressive NZSL competency. Nev-
ertheless, some learners sought communication opportunities within
Deaf sociocultural contexts more proactively by regularly engaging with
L1 users, internalizing authentic NZSL usage, pragmatic behaviors, and
Deaf culture, and making appropriate adjustments. They practiced cul-
turally appropriate conversational strategies (that is, ‘social strategies’,
cf. Oxford, 1990), to introduce themselves, ask questions, clarify, inter-
rupt, and seek feedback politely with Deaf individuals and groups.
According to Ellis (1994), they have the characteristics of good L2
learners. Some analytic learners sought challenging communicative situ-
ations to strengthen engagement and learning from more competent L1
users in order to achieve higher NZSL competency, such as awareness of
sociolinguistic variation and code-switching. Some learners studied the
dynamics of Deaf community social networks and met a variety of Deaf
people in different settings to extend their personal NZSL repertoires.
Napier et al. (2006) emphasize the importance of interacting with Deaf
people extensively, so that learners receive and understand firsthand
the contextualized discourse style of NZSL users. Overall, active engage-
ment with a variety of L1 users in a range of communicative situations
helps to develop sociocultural, communicative, and pragmatic compe-
tence. Jacobs (1996) asserts that this ability separates merely adequate
interpreters from highly skilled interpreters, and this may be reflected
in the strategies of NZSL learners who are analytical and seek active
engagements with L1 users.
3. Establish and extend social networks

The learners formed and maintained social networks through seeking
and developing social relationships, making use of Deaf connections,
and establishing a known social identity. Sign language learners entered
‘open’ established Deaf venues, such as the Deaf club, and assumed
new learner identities as new interpreting students. Through frequent
contact, they became socially visible, or ‘familiar faces’, and started to
Lynette Pivac 215
accept or initiate social invitations. They were seen as social acquain-

tances, enhancing learner identity. Some learners extended their social
networks by analyzing dynamic Deaf social networks and adopting the
Deaf value of reciprocity to become volunteers in return for extended
NZSL immersion and social repositioning as potential interpreters. Ben-
efits of Deaf social networks include learning support, range of language
users, resource sharing, and ‘insider’ information’ or word of ‘hand’
(Becker, 1987). Sign language learner social positioning and prestige
strengthen access to L2 opportunities (Palfreyman, 2006). The degree to
which learners can access the Deaf sociocultural context is largely deter-
mined by the extent and depth of their social relationships and social
networks (Garton et al., 1997).
The learners accessed Deaf social networks in different ways by enter-
ing either broad/shallow or narrow/deep social networks (Tajfel, 1974;
Romaine, 1984). Learners entering broad/shallow social networks may
gain privileged access to a wide range of L1 users and a range of social
and language support. In addition, these networks may provide entry
points to multiple social networks, wider Deaf community information,
and a wide exposure to language variation across contexts and locations,
thereby strengthening competencies necessary for professional sign lan-
guage interpreting and establishing a recognized identity within the
Deaf world. Learners entering ‘narrow/ deep’ social networks, such as
churches or youth groups, may form social relationships with multiple
sub-groups of Deaf people, form durable friendships, and have privi-
leged access to local groups and private settings. Benefits are exposure
to group and sub-group language variation and setting-specific termi-
nology. In addition, other possible benefits are accessibility of group
resources, social and language support, and being a recognized mem-
ber of a particular group, which helps to construct their social identity
and positioning in the Deaf community. One learner in an established
social network was invited to enter the interpreting program, said to be
a traditionally community-based route (Cokely, 1986).
4. Engage in mediated language learning

Several NZSL learners benefited from informal mediated language learn-
ing support provided by NZSL tutors, other L1 users, or L2 interpreters
(L2 users) within the supportive ‘community of practice’ (Lave &
Wenger, 1991). Duration and degree of mediated learning vary. Some
sign language learners received occasional feedback from Deaf people,
requested tuition from private (paid) NZSL tutors, or ‘apprenticed’ them-
selves to Deaf interest groups and mutually exchanged resources (Rogoff,
1990). In a church setting, a learner was offered informal mediated

learning as an ‘apprentice’, with weekly access to mentoring and scaf-
folding from bilingual Deaf people and professional interpreters over an
extended period. This is an example of a learner moving through ‘zones
of proximal development’ (Ushioda, 2006) and social positions, from
being a peripheral learner, to being an active participant, and ending up
as a professional interpreter.
5. Boost and sustain positive states

The study indicated that motivation and confidence are the main
attributes in boosting positive states in order to gain entry and access to
NZSL learning opportunities within Deaf social contexts. Oxford (1990)
also stresses the importance of good L2 learners optimizing affective
strategies. In the study the learners are motivated at all three intercon-
nected levels; language, learner, and learning situation (Dornyei, 1994).
On the language level, the study shows instrumental and integrative
reasons for L2 learning (Gardner, 1985). The learners are instrumentally
motivated to complete task observations as part of program require-
ments and to gain a qualification to work as a professional interpreter.
The learners are integratively motivated to seek interactions with NZSL
users, to appreciate Deaf culture, to show linguistic interest, and to
use NZSL in social practice. This results in enhancing linguistic self-
confidence and communicative competency. With the heavy study
commitments in the second year, it seems that most of the learn-
ers became more instrumentally motivated, focusing on short-term
motivational goals (Kemp, 1998).
The learner and learning situation levels are closely related. All
the learners optimized their personal states by personalizing learn-
ing strategies and choosing their preferred learning pathway, which
reflect learning needs, personalities, and preferences (Chamot & Kupper,
1989) to access L2 learning opportunities. The learners employed
four main motivational strategies to control the learning situation
to enhance learner confidence. These are: interacting with L1 users
in preferred comfort zones; becoming familiar with Deaf environ-
ments, Deaf people, and their norms; engaging frequently with Deaf
people; progressing from known ‘safe’ contacts and settings into
unknown faces and risky territories. Learner enjoyment and relax-
ation help to boost learner motivation and confidence levels (Young,
1998; Oxford, 2003). Some learners developed confidence-building
strategies to improve higher communicative competence by seeking
Lynette Pivac 217
mediated learning support, maintaining positive attitudes, and work-

ing on linguistic self-confidence. This correlates with Clement and
Kruidenier (1985). Much of the impetus to continue learning NZSL
stemmed from L1 Deaf NZSL users, bilingual L2 users, and peers, and, in
particular, acceptance, support, and encouragement from Deaf people,
which, in turn, boosts motivation and confidence levels (Cokely, 1986;
Jacobs, 1996), which may vary over time (Ellis, 1994).
Some learners deliberately maximized time spent being around Deaf
people by seeking opportunities that would simultaneously satisfy more
than one objective in return for L2 learning: for example, mingling with
Deaf work colleagues during break times or engaging with Deaf people
during observations. Following Norton Peirce’s (2001) concept of invest-
ment, four of the six learners were particularly ‘invested’ in learning
NZSL informally, as they spent considerable time and effort in the Deaf
social context for language learning ‘returns’: for example, regularly vol-
unteering while expanding social networks. Opportunities that involve
a long-term regular contribution of time and effort are more likely to
facilitate access to L2 learning opportunities (Toohey & Norton, 2003)
than maximizing time and effort for quick language returns.
Conclusion
Student reflections on learning contexts and strategies beyond the

classroom reported in this study support Toohey’s (2007) concept of
interdependence as an important element of autonomy. L2 learner
actions depend on L1 users’ acceptance, encouragement, and offers of L2
learning opportunities, in order for learners to become self-regulatory.
Regardless of their personalities, characteristics, and preferences, ‘good’
NZSL learners enter the Deaf sociocultural context early, frequently
engage with Deaf people, develop and extend social networks, seek
mediated learning, and optimize positive states to make the most of
informal language learning over a sustained time.
The findings of the study raise two main implications. First, the
study highlights the need for interpreting curriculum enrichment and
the resourcing of a program to foster learner autonomy. Second, to
date there has been little research on adult L2 sign language learning
outside the classroom context, and the study may stimulate further stud-
ies of the acquisition of sign language as a second language. Further
research, at set intervals, investigating the autonomous learning of stu-
dents passing through the sign language interpreting program, would
provide an insight into the changing availability of language learning

resources offered within the Deaf community and would benefit future
learners in shaping their learning strategies. Further qualitative research
investigating mediated learning practices from the perspectives of dif-
ferent stakeholders, such as learners, Deaf people, academic centers, and
interpreters, is strongly recommended.
APPENDIX: Interview schedule
Personal motivation for learning NZSL
• Please describe what first motivated you to learn NZSL?

• What external factors motivated you to learn NZSL?
• What are your personal motivations for learning NZSL?
Opportunities for learning and using NZSL outside

of the classroom
• How did you seek to improve your NZSL outside of the classroom?
• Please explain what strategies worked, and what strategies did not
work, for you when learning NZSL outside of the classroom?
Any barriers to learning NZSL outside of the classroom

• What were some of the difficulties you encountered when learning
NZSL outside of the classroom?
• How did you overcome these difficulties?
Personal experiences/background influencing your

learning of NZSL
• What personal experiences or background have helped you to
learn NZSL?
• What personal experiences or background have hindered your NZSL
learning?
Any suggestions/advice to future NZSL learners

• Reflecting on your experience, what suggestions or advice can you
give to future students regarding how to improve their NZSL outside
of the classroom?
Any other comments

• Is there anything else you would like to add?
Lynette Pivac 219
References
Barkhuizen, G. (2004). Social Influences on Language Learning. In A. Davis &
C. Elder (Eds), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics, pp. 552–575. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Becker, G. (1987). Lifelong Socialization and Adaptive Behavior of Deaf People.
In P. C. Higgins & J. E. Nash (Eds), Understanding Deafness Socially, pp. 59–80.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Benson, P. (1997). The Philosophy and Politics of Learner Autonomy.
In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds), Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning,
pp. 18–34. London: Longman.
Brown, H. D. (1991). Breaking the Language Barrier: Creating your Own Pathway to
Success. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Chamot, A. & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning Strategies in Foreign Language
Education. Foreign Language Annals, 22(1), 13–24.
Clement, R. & Kruidenier, B. (1985). Aptitude, Attitude and Motivation in Second
Language Proficiency: A Test of Clement’s Model. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 4, 21–37.
Cokely, D. (1986). College Level Sign Language Programs: A Resource List. Sign
Language Studies, 50, 78–92.
Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and Motivating in the Foreign Language Class-
room. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 273–284.
Dugdale, P. (2000). Being Deaf in New Zealand: A Case Study of the Wellington Deaf
Community. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Victoria University of Wellington,
Wellington, New Zealand.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Fielding, N. & Thomas, H. (2001). Qualitative Interviewing. In N. Gilbert (Ed.),
Researching Social Life (2nd Ed.), pp. 123–144. London: Sage Publications.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of
Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1997), Studying Online
Social Networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3:0.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00062.x
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign Language Classroom
Anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132.
Jacobs, R. (1996). Just How Hard is it to Learn ASL: The Case for ASL as a Truly
Foreign Language. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Multicultural Aspects of Sociolinguistics in
Deaf Communities, pp. 183–226. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Kemp, M. (1998). Why is Learning American Sign Language a Challenge?
American Annals of the Deaf, 143(3), 255–259. Washington, DC: Gallaudet
University.
Kyle, J. & Woll, B. (1985). Sign Language: The Study of Deaf People and their
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ladd, P. (2003). Deaf Communities. Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of
Deafhood. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lang, H., S. Foster, D. Gustina, G. Mowl, & Y. Liu (1996). Motivational and
Attitudinal Orientations in Learning American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 1(2), 137–144.
Lantolf, J. (Ed.) (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Lucas, C., R. Bayley, & C. Valli (2001). Sociolinguistic Variation in American Sign
Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McKee, D. (1996). Current Issues in New Zealand Sign Language Tutor Education.
In G. Kennedy (Ed.), Topics in New Zealand Sign Language Studies, pp. 85–93.
Deaf Studies Research Unit Occasional Publication No. 1. Wellington, New
Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington.
McKee, R. & McKee, D. (1992). What’s So Hard About Learning ASL?: Students’
and Teachers’ Perceptions. Sign Language Studies, 21(75), 129–158.
McKee, R., & McKee, D. (2011). Old Signs, New Signs, Whose Signs?
Sociolinguistic Variation in the New Zealand Sign Language Lexicon. Sign
Language Studies, 11(4), 485–527.
Mindess, A. (1999). Reading between the Signs: Intercultural Communication for Sign
Language Interpreters. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Monaghan, L. F. (2003). The Development of the New Zealand Deaf Community.
Deaf Worlds: International Journal of Deaf Studies, 19, 36–63.
Monikowski, C. & Peterson, R. (2005). Service Learning in Interpreting Education.
In M. Marschark, R. Peterson, & E. A. Winston (Eds), Sign Language Interpret-
ing and Interpreter Education: Direction for Research and Practice, pp. 188–207.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Napier, J. (Ed.) (2009). International Perspectives on Sign Language Interpreter Edu-
cation. Interpreter Education Series, V.4. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University
Press.
Napier, J., McKee, R., & Goswell, D. (2006). Sign Language Interpreting: Theory
and Practice in Australia and New Zealand. Sydney, Australia: The Federation
Press.
Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity and Educational
Change. Harlow: Longman.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing Perspectives on Good Language
Learners. TESOL Quarterly, 35(2), 307–322.
Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social Identity, Investment, and Language Learning.
TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Oxford, R. L. (2003). Toward a More Systematic Model of L2 Learner Autonomy.
In D. Palfreyman & R. Smith (Eds), Learner Autonomy across Cultures: Language
Educational Perspectives, pp. 75–91. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Palfreyman, D. (2003). Introduction: Culture and Learner Autonomy. In
D. Palfreyman & R. Smith (Eds), Learner Autonomy across Cultures: Language
Education Perspectives, pp. 1–19. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Palfreyman, D. (2006). Social Context and Resources for Language Learning.
System, 34, 352–370.
Lynette Pivac 221
Peterson, R. (1999). The Perceptions of Deafness and Language Learning of

Incoming ASL Students. In Proceedings of the 16th National Convention of
the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, pp. 185–237. Silver Spring, MD: RID
Publications.
Price, M. L. (1991). The Subjective Experience of Foreign Language Anxiety:
Interviews with Highly Anxious Students. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young
(Eds), Language Anxiety: From Theory and Research to Classroom Implications,
pp. 101–108. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social
Context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Romaine, S. (1984). The Language of Children and Adolescents. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the ‘Good Language Learner’ can Teach Us. TESOL
Quarterly, 9(1), 41–51.
Sutton-Spence, R. & Woll, B. (1998). BSL in its Social Context. In R. Sutton-
Spence & B. Woll (Eds), The Linguistics of British Sign Language: An Introduction,
pp. 23–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social Identity and Intergroup Behavior. Social Science Informa-
tion, 13, 65–93.
Toohey, K. (2007). Conclusion: Autonomy/Agency through Socio-Cultural
Lenses. In A. Barfield & S. Brown (Eds), Reconstructing Autonomy in Language
Education, pp. 231–253. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Toohey, K. & Norton, B. (2003). Learner Autonomy as Agency in Sociocultural
Settings. In D. Palfreyman & R. Smith (Eds), Learner Autonomy across Cultures:
Language Education Perspectives, pp. 59–72. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ushioda, E. (2006). Motivation, Autonomy and Sociocultural Theory. In
P. Benson (Ed.), Learner Autonomy 8: Insider Perspectives on Autonomy in Language
Teaching and Learning, pp. 5–24. Dublin: Authentik.
Young, D. J. (1998). Affect in L2 Learning: A Practical Guide to Dealing. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10
Teaching British Sign Language
as a Second Language to Deaf Sign
Language Users: Insights from
the Signs2Go Online Course
Jens Hessmann and Liesbeth Pyfers
Introduction: Foreign sign language learning and teaching
Signed languages have mainly been considered as objects of cross-modal

learning and teaching for hearing users of spoken languages who may
want to acquire competence in a sign language for any number of rea-
sons, including a variety of professional ones (Wilcox & Wilcox, 1998;
Metzger, 2008). As far as the language learning of deaf people is con-
cerned, beyond the traditional educational concern of providing access
to the spoken and written language of the surrounding hearing commu-
nity,1 there is a growing body of literature that deals with the acquisition
of a sign language as the first or preferred language of many, if not
most, deaf people (Chamberlain, Morford, & Mayberry, 2000; Schick,
Marschark, & Spencer, 2006). In contrast, little attention has been paid
so far to the learning and teaching of sign languages as additional means
of communication for deaf sign language users. Second sign language
acquisition can be considered as a unimodal process that takes place
when a foreign sign language is encountered as the target language for
a sign language user. Such processes will often unfold in natural inter-
active settings, but second sign language acquisition may also be the
object of purposeful teaching efforts.
We will report here on a specific instance of providing opportunities
for second sign language acquisition, the Signs2Go project and its out-
come, an online course for learning British Sign Language (BSL). The
course is freely available at www.signs2go.eu. It was designed in an EU
project by a group of deaf and hearing researchers from the UK, Italy,
222
Jens Hessmann and Liesbeth Pyfers 223
Norway, the Netherlands, and Germany. The authors of the present arti-
cle were part of the (hearing and hard-of-hearing) management team
whose main task consisted in facilitating the course design that was
decided upon by the deaf project members. Thus, though we were part
of the development process that led to the creation of the online course,
we report here as observers.2
The Signs2Go course targets deaf sign language users in the partici-
pating countries. BSL is treated as an object of second language learning
for deaf users of Italian Sign Language (LIS: Lingua dei Segni Italiana),
Norwegian Sign Language (NTS: norsk tegnspråk), Dutch Sign Language
(NGT: Nederlandse Gebarentaal), and German Sign Language (DGS:
Deutsche Gebärdensprache). The Signs2Go project had to rely on a
‘hands-on’ approach: in the absence of relevant research, it drew heav-
ily on the experience and intuition of the deaf project members, all of
them native signers who combined extensive experience in sign lan-
guage teaching, mainly to hearing learners, with a thorough grounding
in deaf community experience. Thus, the course embodies the intuitions
of a group of experienced deaf users and teachers of sign language as
to what kind of information is necessary for a deaf learner in order to
accomplish the task of learning BSL successfully. Our aim here is to take
a closer look at the approach developed on this basis by the deaf project
members. Indirectly, this may point to more general features involved
in second sign language acquisition.
A noticeable lack of reflection on processes of second sign language
learning and teaching may be due to the characteristics of cross-
language communication among signing deaf people. In fact, one might
question whether deaf people experience a need for learning a foreign
sign language, since signed communication seems to offer ways of over-
coming linguistic boundaries with comparative ease. Many situations
in which deaf people of different national backgrounds meet, includ-
ing such events as the World Congress of the Deaf, board meetings
of the World Federation of the Deaf, Deaflympics, etc., may be served
quite well by the set of communicative practices generally referred to as
International Sign (Rosenstock, 2004; Mesch, 2010). Clearly, availability
of such a mode of transnational communication greatly contributes to
the sense of a global deaf community or, as Paddy Ladd puts it, the
‘internationalist aspects of Deafhood’ (2008, p. 51). Still, heightened
international mobility increasingly creates situations in which it is desir-
able or necessary for deaf people to acquire a second sign language,
for example, in cases of migration or extended study or work periods
abroad. It may be assumed that an increased awareness of the linguistic
and cultural differences between national deaf communities will fur-

ther contribute to a growing demand for the acquisition of a second
(or, indeed, third or fourth) sign language. Thus, use of International
Sign may well be compatible with an increased demand for second sign
language learning and teaching.
It seems to be a commonly held view that the mastery of one sign
language facilitates the acquisition of another. Thus, in a summary on
‘Foreign Languages and Deaf Children’, Sandie Jones Mourão quotes the
following statement by Hillary McColl:
Just one thing I would say in advance and that is that deaf children
who use sign have an enormous advantage which I think ought to
be exploited by the educational system. Although national sign lan-
guages are different, they have certain features in common which
makes it much easier for a competent signer to learn a foreign sign
language than it is for us oral speakers. Why not, if they normally
communicate through sign, let them learn the British Sign Language
instead of (or alongside) English? This is one reason why Deaf people
are such enthusiastic travellers – they can manage to communicate
wherever they go. Where deaf children are denied the opportunity to
enhance their signing skills, we are denying them all this. There are
lots of materials, including CDs, which children could use on their
own. They might enjoy, for example, working with BSL story tapes
and working out the stories for themselves.
(http://www.countryschool.com/ylsig/members/
summaries/deaf.htm, retrieved March 28, 2013)
In a similar vein, a contributor to a popular US-American internet forum

devoted to deaf issues gives the following advice to a hearing sign
language learner:
Personally if the idea of learning another sign language is ‘so I can

some day travel and communicate etc with the people there in their
native signed language’ I’d really recommend getting a strong com-
mand of ASL first as having a solid signed language base will make
it MUCH easier when learning an additional signed language as
you’ll already have a strong understanding of how a signed language
worked, and the basic ‘rules’ that govern signed language (i.e. how to
use signing space, signing in a smooth understanding way etc).
(Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://www.alldeaf.com/
sign-language-oralism/88256-learning-foreign-
sign-language.html)
To check on such common perspectives, one of the deaf members of the

Signs2Go project team, Sabine Fries, conducted an informal small-scale
survey in December 2009.3 Fries contacted 12 adult deaf sign language
users whom she personally knew to be competent in two or more sign
languages. The second sign languages of the nine German and Spanish
signers, who responded to the survey, included ASL, BSL, LIS, DGS, and
LSE (Lengua de signos española, that is, Spanish Sign Language). Gen-
erally, the respondents confirmed views such as those quoted above,
but they also pointed to factors that may be conducive to second sign
language learning. While the respondents found learning a foreign sign
language generally ‘easy’, they stressed the importance of immersion in
the language and pointed out numerous sources, such as course books,
collections of signs, DVDs, or internet videos, that had supported their
learning process. Most of the respondents pointed to the gradual nature
of the learning process, whereby initial communication may be easy to
achieve but time and experience are needed to acquire more elaborate
productive and receptive skills. A Spanish sign language user who had
been living in Germany for a number of years estimated that it had taken
her about one year of day-to-day informal learning to establish full com-
petence in DGS for routine purposes, and another one to two years to
acquire ‘formal’ mastery of DGS which would allow her to use inter-
preters, understand sign dialects, etc. While none of the respondents
mentioned ‘grammar’ as a learning challenge, fingerspelling, numbers,
specific vocabulary, and the appropriate use of signed registers were
often referred to as causing difficulties.
Reports such as these seem to indicate that deaf users of a first sign
language will have some kind of privileged access to a second sign
language. In particular, they seem to be able to draw upon common-
alities that exist between sign languages or, at least, the set of European
sign languages considered here. The existence of shared cross-linguistic
characteristics of sign languages is well recognized in the literature (see
Section II of Brentari, 2010). Many of these characteristics can be traced
back to the visual–gestural transmission channel, or modality, used by
sign languages (Meier, Cormier & Quinto-Pozos, 2002; Meier, 2012). As
Sandler and Lillo-Martin (2006) conclude, ‘cross-sign-language charac-
teristics that are due to modality are largely attributable to the fact that
sign languages are capable of encoding experiences in a way that is icon-
ically motivated and that they are constrained by a variety of factors to
use simultaneous structuring’ (p. 509). Apart from basic receptive visual
and productive articulatory motor skills, sign language users may be
expected to be familiar with cross-sign-language features such as the use
of space for referential and grammatical purposes, use of non-manual
signals to mark sentence types, adverbial modification and other gram-

matical functions, ways of modifying manual signs for aspectual and
other purposes, use of classifier handshapes in ‘depicting verbs’ (Liddell,
2003), use of the body for the depiction of action or dialogue, etc.4
The Signs2Go project is to be seen in the context of a growing
emphasis on plurilingualism in European politics:
the plurilingual approach emphasizes the fact that as an individual

person’s experience of language in its cultural contexts expands, from
the language of the home to that of society at large and then to the
languages of other peoples (whether learnt at school or college, or
by direct experience), he or she does not keep these languages and
cultures in strictly separated mental compartments, but rather builds
up a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experi-
ence of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and
interact.
(Council of Europe, 2001, p. 4)
The notion of plurilingualism may be particularly appropriate with

respect to signing deaf people: as a starting point of the Signs2Go
project, it was assumed that the different sign languages involved would
interrelate and interact. BSL was chosen as the target language due to its
prominent status within Europe, which may reflect a perception of the
British deaf community as relatively advanced, but may also be related
to a more general esteem of the English-speaking world.5 As an instance
of the unimodal process of learning one sign language on the basis of
another, the acquisition of BSL as a foreign sign language may differ
from more commonly regarded second language acquisition processes.
But what is it that a user of LIS, NTS, NGT, or DGS needs to know and
learn in order to acquire competence in BSL? Here we will consider the
kind of answers the designers of the Signs2Go online course provided to
this question.
Concept and design of the Signs2Go online course
The Signs2Go course was to be designed as an online course. For

this purpose, the project could draw on the technical know-how and
extensive experience in producing materials for sign language learn-
ing of the Norwegian partner, the Møller-Trøndelag kompetansesenter
in Trondheim.6 There are a number of well-known problems with
e-learning materials of this kind, such as the dependence on suitable
technology, a reliance on the self-discipline of learners, and the lack

of interaction between teacher and student (Elliot, 2006; Rösler, 2007).
On the other hand, making the course freely available on the internet
provides easy access for a potentially unlimited number of users. Unfor-
tunately, the project afforded only very limited possibilities for creating
contexts of blended learning that might, to some extent, have combined
the advantages of online and direct learning approaches.
A further design feature of the course quickly arose from discussions
among the deaf project members: the course was to use a sign language-
only approach and dispense with the use of any written or spoken
language. This principle has been realized with great consistency and
with very few exceptions (such as using the widely understood word
‘start’ on the button that needs to be clicked to start the course). Nav-
igating through the course is supported by icons that should become
familiar easily, and even the online help is available in the five sign lan-
guages used in the course. As we will see, this approach creates a number
of didactic issues, since BSL does not exist in a vacuum and draws on
English to some extent. Still, as a point of principle it was decided that
English was only to be used as it occurs in the signing of British deaf
people, that is, by way of fingerspelling and mouthing.
A third basic feature of the course concerns the choice of language
material to be encountered by the learner. Generally, communicative
language teaching methods have emphasized the need for greater
authenticity in language learning, though the advantages and disadvan-
tages of using authentic texts, i.e. stretches of ‘real language, produced
by a real speaker or writer for a real audience and designed to convey a
real message of some sort’ (Morrow, 1977, p. 13), have been discussed
extensively in the literature (Gilmore, 2007; Case, 2012). Initially, the
project group considered designing its language materials along the lines
of traditional English courses for beginners. This might have involved
the production of simplified BSL texts that offer information on the
UK’s culture and geography in a didactic fashion, dealing with topics
such as the London Tube, the royal family, fish and chips, red tele-
phone boxes, or British pubs. However, after discussion, neither the
contents nor the language used in such an approach seemed satisfac-
tory to the project group. Rather, it was deemed desirable and possible
to offer authentic language material which refers to deaf issues as they
are discussed within the British deaf community. In particular, it was
assumed that information relating to actual British deaf people and
their ways of life would be of greater interest and thus more attrac-
tive for an international deaf audience. The assumption seemed justified
with a view to what is known about the global existence of deaf peo-
ple ‘as a visual minority in an auditory world’ (Murray, 2008, p. 108).
Linguistically, using authentic BSL texts would clearly present a chal-
lenge to the intended learners, but the project group was convinced that
Hillary McColl was right in assuming that, given adequate support, deaf
sign language users would enjoy ‘working out the stories for themselves’
(see above).
In practical terms, the question of choosing language material was
settled when the group encountered Wicked, a series of a magazine type,
accessible on the internet, which contains a variety of regular features,
some informative, some humorous, all of them signed in BSL for a
British deaf audience (to be found at http://www.bslzone.co.uk). As an
outstanding example of an attractive modern sign language production,
the Wicked series was regarded as embodying all the virtues that con-
tribute to the perception of the British deaf community as comparatively
advanced. Project members agreed that language material chosen from
this series would be of interest and exemplary value to deaf people in
the target communities.
Permission was kindly granted by the British Sign Language Broadcast-
ing Trust to use material from the 2009 season of the Wicked series. For
the purposes of the Signs2Go project, ten Wicked ‘profiles’ were chosen,
that is, brief episodes that show two young deaf interviewers in conver-
sation with a deaf person who represents a specific facet of the British
deaf community. The selected episodes offer a wide spectrum of people
and interests, not only in terms of age, gender, profession, and regional
affiliation, but also in terms of cultural background, presenting at least
part of Britain’s ethnic and cultural diversity. This is also true for BSL
use: the film clips chosen include an example of youthful BSL slang, BSL
use by a late-learning deaf migrant, and a number of signers who might
be considered as ‘relatively oral’, that is, displaying a signing style that
is clearly influenced by the use of English. Thus, in line with the general
emphasis on authenticity, BSL is not represented in any ‘pure’ fashion
in the course, but displays the kind of diversity that is to be encoun-
tered within the British deaf community (Sutton-Spence & Woll, 1999,
pp. 22–40).7
Clearly, authentic language material of this kind poses a serious chal-
lenge to any language learner. In fact, use of this material presupposes
the kind of reasoning referred to in the Introduction: it is assumed that
deaf users of a first sign language will have privileged access to a second
sign language. In particular, they are expected to be in possession of
relevant receptive and productive skills, and they will have knowledge
about many of the forms and functions of a visual–gestural language

to be built upon in the learning and teaching process. Thus, in a
general way, BSL signing is expected to be familiar to any deaf sign lan-
guage user, though any particular aspect or content may be completely
beyond comprehension. Deaf project members repeatedly expressed
their intuition about the similarities and differences of the sign lan-
guages involved by using the phrase ‘different signs, same grammar’.
While this was clearly a humorous overstatement of the linguistic facts,
as we will see, it guided the kind of explanations given to the learners to
a considerable extent.
The assumed relationship between the first and the second language
involved in the acquisition of a second sign language affords a welcome
opportunity to put an emphasis on language awareness as a more gen-
eral goal of foreign language education. Though deaf foreign language
learners will differ with regard to their language learning experience, it
can safely be assumed that the linguistic biography of many deaf for-
eign language learners is shaped to a large degree by cross-modal second
language learning of the national spoken–written language, sign lan-
guage studies not always or, in some countries, rarely being part of the
curriculum (Moores & Miller, 2009). Project members concurred that a
comparative approach might be useful in making deaf learners aware of
crucial aspects of their own native signed languages.
Starting from these premises, the Signs2Go course was designed
as an open, learner-centered, contrastive plurilingual program. It is
open and learner-centered in allowing learners to take a thematic
approach to the target language rather than presenting them with a pre-
structured, vocabulary-reduced and grammar-based sequential order,
allowing learners to explore the various topics presented and access the
target language according to their interests and needs.8 The course is
plurilingual in affording a place and role for BSL as the target language
as well as the other four national sign languages represented in the
project.9 Finally, a contrastive emphasis on comparing the target sign
language with features of the learner’s native sign language is central for
one of the major learning options that the user can choose.
The course consists of ten units which share the following basic
features (see Figure 10.1 and Figure 10.2):
1. Central to each unit is one of the chosen BSL film clips from the
Wicked TV program. This represents authentic linguistic material,
which can be watched in normal speed or slow motion. Each clip is
segmented into numbered sections that can be watched individually;
relevant linguistic and cultural explanations and background infor-

mation are provided for each numbered section.
2. The learner can consult an ‘immersion class’ by choosing to watch
the BSL signer on the bottom left of the page. Linguistic and cultural
explanations are given here in comparatively simple, accessible BSL,
referring to the numbered sections of the Wicked film clip.
3. Alternatively, the learner can opt for a ‘bilingual class’. This is done
by choosing a sign language of choice (by clicking on the appropriate
flag symbol on the top of the page). Linguistic and cultural explana-
tions are given here in a contrastive fashion, using one of the four
other national sign languages involved in the project.
4. Each unit is accompanied by an exercise section, which contains four
types of exercises. First, 25 BSL vocabulary items are shown individ-
ually and in the context of an example sentence, as well as paired
with equivalents in the chosen other national sign language. Second,
there is a set of multiple choice questions related to the contents
Figure 10.1 The main window of the Signs2Go course, showing the unit clip for
the Wicked TV program in the center, the BSL signer (‘The immersion class’) on
the bottom left and the DGS signer (‘the bilingual class’) on the bottom right
of the unit; questions are asked in BSL and answered in the sign
language of choice. Third, a game section (‘Memory’) contrasts BSL
vocabulary items with equivalents from the chosen sign language.
Fourth, the learner is asked to reproduce a number of BSL phrases.
Obviously, there is no teacher’s feedback, but the learner can record
and control his or her production (Figure 10.2).
Since the two-handed alphabet and the BSL number system were
expected to be among the more difficult elements to master for the tar-
geted European signers, two sets of exercises, focusing on fingerspelling
and numbers, were added to the ten units. These non-unit sets of exer-
cises follow the general pattern of exercises as described above and are
to be used as the need arises for the learner.
The following discussion will focus on the support given to the learner
in the ‘immersion’ and ‘bilingual classes’. Clearly, the intention of this
support must be to bridge the gap that exists between the general lin-
guistic familiarity that a deaf sign language user may be able to draw
upon and the challenges posed by authentic BSL texts and the specifics
of competent BSL use.
Figure 10.2 Overview of the different parts of each Signs2Go unit

How to approach a foreign sign language? Supportive

information provided in the Signs2Go course
Before any consideration of the kind of information that deaf teach-

ers chose to provide to users of the Signs2Go course, some practical
limitations of a two-year multinational project need to be pointed out.
Developing the course format and selecting the BSL material to be pre-
sented took up a large part of the project. Project meetings afforded
seriously limited time for discussion. Additionally, online video tools
were used for the discussion of deaf project members, but this was often
hampered by logistic or technical problems. In the end, a heavy bur-
den was put on the British signer (Clark Denmark). The production
process proceeded in the following way: (a) Wicked clips were selected,
segmented into sections, and discussed at the project meeting (b) on
the basis of this discussion, the British signer worked out and recorded
‘signposts’, that is, a number of items from each section of the unit
clips that were thought to be in need of explanation or merit comment
(c) ‘signposts’ were uploaded to a project website and provided other
deaf project members with an orientation for working out non-BSL com-
ments. Thus, while there was some joint discussion to clarify linguistic
or didactic questions, national signers basically worked out their own
versions on the basis of the BSL lead. The production process, as just
described, resulted in some apparent shortcomings:
1. All comments and explanations relate to items and issues as they

come up in the targeted unit clips, that is, interviews with deaf people
from the internet program Wicked. They cannot be accessed in any
principled or systematic way. Creating an index of relevant issues was
considered, but it is not easy to see how this could have been done
without recourse to the written languages in use in the participating
countries, and alternative approaches could not be pursued within
the lifetime of the project. Thus, the present article is the first attempt
at a more systematic review of the issues that formed the content of
the signers’ explanations.
2. Partly to allow a self-directed approach that would enable learners to
access the course in any chosen order, and partly because of insuf-
ficient overall co-ordination, overlap exists where cross-references
might have been conceivable. For instance, various ways of express-
ing causal connectors (variants of BECAUSE) are explained in units
2, 3, 5, and 9, the semantic contrast between extended thumb (‘posi-
tive’) and extended pinky (‘negative’) handshapes in the BSL lexicon
is referred to repeatedly (for example, in units 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, and

10), and the use of fingerspelling in formal personal introductions
is explained in units 4, 7, 8, and 10.
3. As explained above, each of the ten exercise sections contains 25 BSL
signs that relate to the unit clip from the Wicked series. Disregarding
repetitions, the vocabulary exercises cover 205 BSL signs. Occasion-
ally, vocabulary exercises contain signs not used in the unit clips to
cover semantic fields such as times of the day, seasons, or colors more
fully. A BSL sign may be shown in the vocabulary exercises of one
unit and commented upon more fully in the explanatory sections of
another unit; for example, the sign INTERNET is used and shown in
unit 7, but it is a variant use of the sign in unit 10 that occasions com-
ments on the variability that recently introduced signs frequently
display. Our analytical discussion will be limited to the comments
and explanations provided in BSL (the ‘immersion class’ on the bot-
tom left of each unit) and DGS (one of the ‘bilingual classes’ to be
chosen on the bottom right of each unit). While the DGS version
was chosen primarily for ease of access for one of the authors of this
chapter, it may also be the most elaborate version. Whereas LIS, NGT,
and NTS signers tended to restrict their explanations to pointing out
equivalent lexical items, translations, or paraphrases, the DGS signer
developed a specific format for her commentaries and often included
audience-specific advice or comments. Section-related comments in
DGS were given in the following format: (1) summary of section
contents (2) linguistic or cultural comments (3) individual vocabu-
lary items. The presentation of vocabulary items makes use of spatial
contrasts: a BSL item is signed to the left of the signer, usually includ-
ing one-handed fingerspelling of the relevant English word, followed
by DGS equivalents signed to the right of the signer. Deaf signers
were divided as to the use of fingerspelling. In line with the general
sign language-only approach, Norwegian, Italian, and Dutch signers
chose not to spell English words, since these may not be known to
their deaf target groups. In contrast, the German signer argued that
fingerspelling may have a function for some learners, since it may
allow access to English words commonly mouthed simultaneously
with BSL signs.
The ten unit clips from the Wicked series have a duration of 3:06
minutes (unit 8) to 6:34 minutes (unit 9), comprising a total of 44:25
minutes. Units are divided into 11 to 23 sections, one of which is intro-
ductory. In total, there are 145 section clips for each of the national
sign languages, ten of which introduce each unit. Thus, on average, a

section clip refers to about 20 seconds of BSL signing, though often the
sections commented upon are considerably shorter, since unit clips may
contain footage where no signing occurs. Each section clip breaks down
into a number of comments on linguistic or cultural issues, often refer-
ring to a single sign used in the unit clip. A section clip may contain
anything from one to 11 such comments, but most section clips take up
three or four items from the respective section of the unit clip. Thus, 135
BSL section clips (not counting introductions) refer to 505 items from
the unit clips, whereas the DGS section clips take up 403 individual
items (see Appendix 1 for an explanation of how to access the examples
referred to below in the Signs2Go online course).
Generally, the explanations given by the deaf teachers clearly show
that individual lexical BSL signs are seen as most in need of expla-
nation: 423, or 84 percent, of the 505 items taken up by the British
signer and 345, or 86 percent, of the 403 items commented upon by the
German signer provide explanations concerning specific manual signs.
Thus, only a minority of all the comments and explanations provided
are not vocabulary-oriented, and, as we will see, even those comments
often focus on manual productions such as fingerspelling, name signs,
or numbers. We will take a closer look at explanations that are lexical in
a narrow sense first.
The BSL signer explains the meaning of BSL signs by drawing on syn-
onyms and paraphrases or illustrating usage by way of examples, which
may be quite elaborate. The DGS signer may treat BSL signs as vocab-
ulary items, fingerspelling the corresponding English word and giving
one or more DGS equivalents. However, often she will add comments of
her own that paraphrase or illustrate meanings. A number of examples
may serve to illustrate the general approach:
• CAMPAIGN: The BSL signer very graphically depicts a protest march

of people demanding change, pointing out the placards that form the
iconic base of the sign CAMPAIGN. The DGS signer, after showing the
BSL vocabulary item and fingerspelling the word ‘campaign’, gives
two DGS equivalents and explains the iconic origin of the BSL sign.
• MOST: In unit 1, the BSL signer gives an extended example of com-
paring different body heights to explain the meaning of the sign. The
DGS signer treats the BSL sign as a vocabulary item and gives a DGS
equivalent. The sign MOST is referred to again in unit 9, where ref-
erence is made to a comparison between two very differently sized
groups of people. In addition to pointing out a DGS equivalent, the
DGS signer draws attention to the rather slight difference in form
that distinguishes MOST from TRY, a sign introduced earlier in the

same unit.
• MEANS: The BSL signer illustrates the meaning of this sign with
reference to situations in which the need for clarifications arises
because something has not been understood or it is unclear which
of a number of items is being referred to. The DGS signer gives a DGS
equivalent for what she explains to be very commonly used signs
in both languages and mentions uses in questions and explanations,
making reference to the way the sign is used in the unit clip.
• PLAY: The BSL signer explains common uses of the sign with refer-
ence to children playing and playing cards, making reference to the
rather special use of the sign in the unit clip (‘trying out different
camera settings’). The DGS signer spells out the English word ‘play’,
points out the DGS equivalent and explains the present context. She
points to a subsequent occurrence of the mouthed word ‘play’ in
conjunction with the sign CONTROL, again with reference to using
a camera.
• BEEN: The use of this sign is explained with slight variations in two
units. In unit 3, it is introduced as an aspectual marker that refers to
an event completed in the past, commonly used to answer questions
about things accomplished or done. An explanation given in unit 8
adds that the sign is more commonly, though not exclusively, used
in northern parts of Britain, points out the relation to time, and illus-
trates uses of the sign with reference to a question context (‘Have you
read this?’ – ‘Yes, I have.’). The DGS signer stresses the fact that a DGS
sign with an identical manual form and very similar uses exists and
explains the temporal meaning of the sign. Similarly, in unit 8 the
resemblance between the BSL and DGS signs in form and meaning is
pointed out and the reference to events and actions that have been
completed is explained.
• INSPECTOR: The BSL signer explains the origin of the old-fashioned
sign used in the unit clip, which goes back to the shape of the hat
of a bus conductor, by referring to a scene on a bus where tickets
are being ‘inspected’. He shows a more common variant of INSPECT
and refers to the context in the unit video where care homes are
being inspected. The DGS signer translates the BSL sign and similarly
explains its origin and its current BSL equivalent. The modern BSL
sign INSPECT is used later on in the same unit clip, and, again, both
signers offer explanations.
Comments on lexical items often go beyond explaining the meanings of

signs. Commonly, comments concern various types of variation. More
than one-third of all lexical comments by the BSL signer make reference
to variation of some kind (146, or 35 percent, of 420 lexical comments),
whereas the DGS signer comments on variation somewhat more selec-
tively (68, or 20 percent, of 343 lexical comments). The difference may
well be significant: while both signers considered information on lexical
variation as generally relevant for the learner, the DGS signer focused
on clarifying standard forms, knowing that interested learners might
retrieve more detailed information by watching the BSL explanations.
The different forms of variation commented upon may be illustrated
as follows:
• Often, alternative BSL signs are pointed out, for example, lexical
variants for COUNTRY, FRIEND, HATE, YELLOW, or HOLIDAY. Pre-
ferred variants may be distinguished from less commonly used forms
(for example, SPECIAL, BUY, RED, EXAMPLE, BECAUSE). Lexical
variation is often traced back to differences in regional dialect (for
example, a ‘south-eastern’ sign WOMAN, a ‘London’ sign PEOPLE, a
‘northern’ sign FOOTBALL, a ‘Scottish’ sign for LOUD, ‘northern’ and
‘southern’ variants of WAIT). Lexical variation may also be related
to specific user groups, age differences, language change, or foreign
influences (a ‘black’ version of HAPPY, a ‘young’ variant of SLEEP,
an ‘outdated’ form of TRAIN or MORE,10 a Scottish sign FOR whose
handshape reflects the influence of Irish fingerspelling, a borrowed
sign LANGUAGE).
• Variation may also concern different ways of executing particular
signs. Thus, variations in handshape, place of articulation, orien-
tation, movement, or handedness may be noted (for handshape
variation: FAKE, COMMUNICATE, or FAMILY; for place of articula-
tion: COMPANY; for orientation: ASSESS; for movement: ENVIRON-
MENT; for handedness: SOCIAL-WORKER). Variation of this kind is
sometimes explained with reference to communicative intent or sit-
uational factors. Thus, WISH and BAD are produced with both hands
for reasons of emphasis.11 DECIDE, DEAF, and HEARING are signed
casually in a lowered place of articulation.
Apart from variation, another type of common comment concerns the

origin or motivation of a sign’s form. However, the signers are careful
not to indulge in etymological speculations. This is made very clear
in the BSL signer’s comments on the sign LONDON: Various ‘explana-
tions’ are noted, but the signer remains generally doubtful as to the
value of such speculations and non-committal as to why London is
referred to in this way. Still, motivations are pointed out where these
may help to explain the meaning of signs (for example, relating CAM-
PAIGN to protest placards, relating LAUGH to ‘showing one’s teeth’,
relating STAFF or LAWYER to particular types of dress, relating PER-
CENTAGE to the commonly used symbol for percentage). Similarly,
pointing out gestural origins of BSL signs may have explanatory value
(for instance, PRETTY, MODEL, SPEAK, and a BSL sign GREECE). As men-
tioned above, the semantic significance of the opposition between the
thumb and pinky, particular to BSL and relevant for ‘positive’ signs such
as AGREE and ‘negative’ signs such as HATE, is explained repeatedly.
Finally, concerning geographical signs, the common practice of adopt-
ing signs used in the country concerned is demonstrated with reference
to a number of place names used in the unit clips (BRAZIL, INDIA, and
TANZANIA in unit 1; MALAYSIA in unit 2; THAILAND, ATHENS, and
GREECE in unit 10).12
One type of sign origin that is frequently commented upon relates
to the surrounding spoken language and the use of fingerspelling.
Fingerspelling may be an alternative where a sign does not exist or is not
known by the signer (as for ‘leech’, ‘law’, ‘reimplant’, or ‘Latin’). Abbre-
viations are commonly fingerspelled (such as CSCI for ‘Commission for
Social Care Inspection’ or NVQ for ‘National Vocational Qualifications’).
English words and phrases may be adopted and fingerspelled, often in
a shortened fashion (‘barrel’, ‘icing sugar’, ‘just be yourself’). Finally,
it may be useful for learners to understand that a fair number of BSL
signs originate in fingerspelling or make use of initialization (for exam-
ple, PROJECT, DO, CLUB, PARENTS, QUALITY, COMMUNITY, as well
as double-initialized signs such as STUDIO, AUTOMATIC, MANUAL, or
NATURE).13
How manual signs relate to the mouthing of English words is another
concern of the teachers’ comments. As pointed out above, English words
are not treated as part of the course’s curriculum. Still, as far as they play
a role in the use of BSL as shown in the original signed texts, explana-
tions can hardly avoid making reference to such items, which clearly
derive from the spoken language. A general observation the BSL signer
offers in unit 2 is relevant here: with reference to a signer who mixes
signs and words quite freely, the BSL signer comments that mouthing
is a frequent practice in BSL, particularly in the south of England,
acknowledging that this practice may be helpful for learners who know
English in understanding BSL but may cause problems for those who
are not familiar with English. As a matter of fact, mouthing is specifi-
cally referred to and explained in 36 comments of the BSL signer and 13
comments of the DGS signer. Such comments often relate to BSL signs
whose meaning is differentiated by mouthing (for example, GRADUATE
with mouthing ‘degree’; HOBBY, which may be ‘interesting’ or ‘adven-
ture’; WET with mouthing ‘damp’; FAMOUS with ‘legend’; WALK with
‘cat-walk’; FATHER, which might informally be accompanied by ‘daddy’
or ‘dad’; COURT, which might also be ‘judge’).14 With reference to the
BSL sign CLOWN, which may be accompanied by and thus mean ‘cir-
cus’, the DGS signer notes that, in contrast, DGS uses two different signs,
pointing out that BSL seems to be using mouthing pervasively and in a
similar fashion to DGS. In unit 2, a case of constructed action is com-
mented upon: just what the signer is ‘holding in her hand’ in a nightly
search is made clear by accompanying mouthing of the English word
‘torch’. The same signer tries to explain why mountaineering creates
breathing problems, using the word ‘altitude’ without any accompany-
ing manual sign. Only when this is not understood by the recipient
(that is, her interviewer) does the signer revert to the signed phrase
THIN AIR.15
Further comments that relate to lexical signs may be summarized as
follows:
• Non-manual behavior and, more particularly, facial expression is

often pointed out, either because it commonly occurs in conjunc-
tion with a specific sign (for example, UNCOMFORTABLE, HATE, or
SCARED) or as it may be used to intensify or otherwise modify the
meaning of a sign (an ‘amazed’ LOOK, a ‘surprised’ EXPECT, or a
‘disbelieving’ TWO-YEAR).
• Directional uses of a number of verb signs are demonstrated, includ-
ing signs such as ASK, ADVISE, INFLUENCE, TELL, and EXPLAIN.
A comment in unit 1 seems characteristic for the way such spatial
properties of manual signs, generally regarded as central for sign lan-
guage grammar, are reflected with regard to deaf learners: the DGS
signer points out that the sign TAKING-ON (in the sense of ‘accept’) is
used in an identical fashion in DGS (similar comments are made with
reference to TEACH in units 1 and 5). Clearly, learners are expected
to be able to deal comfortably with directional uses of verb signs.
• Occasionally, repetitions of signs that indicate a notion of ‘plural-
ity’ are referred to (as for MODULE, MEET, PHOTO, IDENTIFY, and
SET-UP). Further meaningful modifications of manual signs com-
mented upon include: a ‘big’ GROUP, distributive uses of SIGN (‘sign
with many people’) and ASK (‘ask them all’), SUPPORT of ‘a num-
ber of’ people,16 ‘long and hard’ WORK, and an added downward
movement that signals loss of CONFIDENCE. The latter is taken up

by the DGS signer: though there is no corresponding DGS sign that
allows similar modification, the general mechanism and the relation
to spatially iconic DGS expressions for ‘downhill’ or ‘descent’ are
treated as self-evident.
• For the sake of completeness, three further types of comments on
lexical signs should be mentioned. A number of signs are character-
ized as expressing a sense of negation (for example, NO, CANT, and
NONE); question signs are specifically referred to (such as WHO and
HOW); finally, a number of signs are characterized as relating to time
(BEEN, OCCASIONALLY, and FUTURE).
As noted above, only a minority of all BSL and DGS comments do

not relate to individual lexical signs (16 percent of the BSL comments,
14 percent of the DGS comments). Of these, explanations concern-
ing signs for cardinal and ordinal numbers are particularly prominent.
A variety of specific uses of number signs are commented upon (for
example, age-related numbers, year specifications, and number incor-
poration in the sign WEEK). The DGS signer points out differences from
DGS numbering (as in the formation of the number sign TWO) or refers
the learner to the additional set of exercises on the BSL number system.
Giving personal names often involves name signs as well as
fingerspelling. Typical attributes of name signs are explained with ref-
erence to the protagonists of the unit clips. The role of fingerspelling
and name signs in formal introductions is pointed out repeatedly.
Among the various linguistic issues referred to in the remaining com-
ments, the following seem most relevant: establishing contrasts between
two referents or topics spatially, listing items on the non-dominant
hand, one-handed signing when one hand is occupied, simultaneous
articulation of two manual signs, localization of persons in space, use of
depicting classifier signs, role-play and imitative behavior, and the use
of head-nods as textual markers.
Finally, apart from contextual information (such as pointing out the
location of Brixton, showing signs for the different parts of Britain, or
explaining what the abbreviation CSCI stands for), a number of cultural
issues are commented upon, such as how to get someone’s attention
by touching the person’s shoulder, furtive signing, solidarity within the
deaf community, the role of deaf clubs, or deaf–hearing relationships.
In unit 4, the BSL signer recounts an amusing episode when the simi-
larity between the BSL sign BROTHER and a Portuguese sign for ‘(toilet)
paper’ bewildered foreign BSL learners.
Our review of the kind of support offered to deaf learners in the

Signs2Go course indicates that lexical information is seen as the cru-
cial issue that needs to be resolved if a learner is to succeed: more
than anything else, the manual signs used in a BSL text need to be
highlighted and explained. It is here that the linguistic experience of
the Signs2Go teachers is particularly evident, and subtle and detailed
information on the form and use of a great number of BSL signs, their
interplay with fingerspelling or mouthing, and, where relevant, their
motivation and etymology is given. In contrast, grammatical informa-
tion plays a much less prominent role in the teachers’ explanations.
While a fair number of relevant issues are taken up and commented
upon, it is perhaps most striking that much of this kind of information
is treated as generally known to the learner. Thus, the DGS signer com-
ments on pluralization, on directional verbs, on non-manual adverbs,
on spatial contrasts, on head-nods as textual markers, on role-taking,
on manual simultaneity, and on the use of classifiers. As perceived by
a deaf teacher, all of these cases involve general ‘sign language gram-
mar’ or ‘sign language rules’. Thus, in this view, there is nothing specific
about BSL usage here that needs to be explained to a deaf learner.
Rather, the learner is made aware of the fact that these are features he or
she is familiar with from using his or her own native sign language.
Coping with the grammar of a foreign sign language is seen not so
much as a question of learning but as a matter of general sign language
awareness.
Conclusion: What can we learn from the Signs2Go course

about learning and teaching foreign sign languages?
As indicated earlier, one of the major shortcomings of the Signs2Go

project was that it did not allow systematic application and evaluation
of the online course. On occasion, parts of the course have been tried
out in various learning circumstances, and there has been some feedback
to the online publication of the course. However, it would be hazardous
to do more here than note anecdotally that the course has been well
received by most deaf users so far and that it seems to prove of value for
those who seriously make use of it. As noted above, the Signs2Go course
shares the problem of having to rely on the self-discipline of learners
with many other e-learning tools. As it is, the course focuses on receptive
language skills, and, ideally, it would be complemented by direct learn-
ing situations which make interaction between teachers and students
possible.
In spite of these shortcomings, it may be expected that the sign-only

approach of the course, its emphatic focus on culturally relevant con-
tent, and the wealth of sign language-related detail provided will appeal
to the targeted groups of deaf language learners. Our review of the sup-
portive information provided in the course points to the intuitions and
principles that guided its construction. In particular, it illustrates to what
extent the deaf teachers and course designers followed the maxim of
‘different signs, same grammar’. Clearly, the leading assumption was
that, apart from areas such as fingerspelling and numbers, the specifics
of competent BSL use to be imparted to deaf learners would very much
center on lexical information, that is, the form and use of BSL manual
signs.
As such, this emphasis on lexical information is very much in line
with recent trends that focus on ‘the crucial role that lexis plays in
second language learning and teaching’ (Sánchez & Manchon, 2007,
p. vii). After a period in which vocabulary was not seen as a pri-
mary concern of many teaching methodologies, as in communicative
approaches to language teaching that focus on discourse level functions,
more recently a ‘movement toward effective methodologies for teaching
vocabulary has emerged’ (Ketabi & Shahraki, 2011, p. 729). More specif-
ically, the teachers of the Signs2Go online course seemed to assume that
providing ‘enriched’ information on individual lexical items, such as
comments on sociolinguistic variation, etymology, iconicity, etc., would
serve a deaf learner well. This approach could fruitfully be considered
in the wider context of vocabulary strategies employed by second lan-
guage learners (Nyikos & Fan, 2007) and principles of second language
vocabulary teaching (Read, 2004). However, only direct evidence of
deaf learners’ successful acquisition of a foreign sign language can tell
whether or not the intuitions that guided the construction of the course
were reliable.
In contrast to the controlling role of lexical information, deaf teach-
ers seemed to assume that the learning process could rely upon learners’
first language familiarity with the majority of features one might specify
under the heading of sign language grammar, and thus did not expli-
cate these aspects of the BSL materials beyond pointing out similarities
between the learners’ native sign languages and the target language
BSL. While this agrees well with widely held views on cross-linguistic
similarities between sign languages, some caveats seem to be called for:
• The features regarded as belonging to a ‘general sign language gram-

mar’ may in fact be specific to the set of European sign languages
represented here, or to well-established sign languages more gen-

erally. Thus, for instance, as Nyst (2007) reports, Adamorobe Sign
Language (Ghana) uses classifiers and simultaneous constructions to
a much lesser extent than most sign languages observed so far (see
also Nyst, 2012).
• In spite of their extensive first-hand linguistic experience, the sign
language teachers involved in the project may have missed gram-
matical features of BSL in need of explanation. Though, as yet, no
fine-grained comparative accounts of the sign languages included in
the Signs2Go course are available, the possibility of subtle differences
should not be excluded, for example, in areas such as sign order or
the prosodic use of non-manual features.
• There may be challenges posed in the acquisition of a second sign
language that become apparent only in productive uses of a foreign
sign language. Thus, even if the Signs2Go course is considered to
provide receptive access to BSL texts, vocabulary, and grammar in
an adequate way, transfer of this learning into productive use of BSL
cannot be assumed.
Having said this, the Signs2Go course seems to confirm intuitions about
the specific nature of second sign language acquisition processes, such as
those quoted in the introduction to this chapter. If the approach taken
by a group of experienced sign language teachers is anything to go by,
most sign language users will be regarded as privileged learners of an
additional foreign sign language, and assumed to have ‘a strong under-
standing’ of grammatical and discourse features that tend to occur across
signed language. Teaching resources that start from this premise will
focus on conveying lexical information to the learner. Freed from the
burden of providing elementary language structures, language teaching
can proceed to providing the kind of cultural and social information
that makes it attractive for a deaf target audience to commit to the
process of learning a foreign sign language.
Traditionally, little attention has been paid to foreign sign language
learning by deaf people. Increased mobility and a growing sense of the
unity and diversity of deaf communities worldwide will prompt more
and more deaf people to be interested in learning about and acquir-
ing foreign sign languages. Developing target group-specific teach-
ing materials and enquiring into the unimodal processes involved in
the acquisition of a second sign language will allow us to under-
stand more about what may well be a unique situation of language
learning.
Appendix
In order to allow the reader to locate examples given in the text in

the Signs2Go online course at www.signs2go.eu, all the signs (ADVISE),
topics (attention getting) and English words and phrases fingerspelled or
mouthed (‘barrel’) that are referred to in the text are listed in alpha-
betical order below, combined with a locating expression in the format
‘language:unit/section/item’. Thus, an expression like ‘BSL:06/05/03’
refers to the third comment by the BSL signer in Section 5 of unit 6.
Units are numbered according to their position on the overview page
of the course, which shows the ten units as single frames arranged in
two lines: unit 1 is the one on the upper left, whereas unit 10 is the one
positioned on the far right of the lower line. Within unit 6, Section 5
and the BSL signer (bottom left of the page) can now be chosen. Items,
i.e. comments within section clips, are not numbered (or only num-
bered by the signer in the video), so the section clip will have to be
watched until the signer gives his or her third comment, in this case
an explanation of the BSL sign REAL. Similarly, ‘DGS:06/11/01’ refers
to the first comment the DGS signer makes in Section 11 of unit 6, in
this case a comment on the BSL sign WEDDING. In order to see the
DGS signer on the bottom right of the page, the small German flag on
the top of the page needs to be clicked first. All DGS section clips start
with introductory remarks that summarize the contents of the section
referred to; these will be disregarded for the purposes of numbering.
Thus, the comment on the BSL sign WEDDING is given after introduc-
tory remarks about the various activities of the professional make-up
designer interviewed here.
ADVISE BSL:03/01/03
AGREE BSL:10/02/03
ASK BSL:01/13/01 BSL:03/06/03
ASSESS BSL:09/16/04
ATHENS BSL:10/05/02
attention getting BSL:03/04/01
AUTOMATIC BSL:07/05/02
BAD BSL:03/10/01 DGS:03/10/01
‘barrel’ BSL:05/13/01
BECAUSE BSL:09/15/05
BEEN BSL:03/06/02DGS:03/06/01BSL:08/01/
01DGS:08/01/01
BORNEO BSL:02/09/03
BRAZIL BSL:01/05/06BSL:07/02/01
244
(Continued)
Britain, parts of BSL:06/06/01

Brixton BSL:04/08/02
BUY BSL:07/04/04
CAMPAIGN BSL:01/02/02DGS:01/02/02
CANT BSL:05/11/05
classifier signs BSL:02/04/03BSL:05/09/03DGS:05/09/
02BSL:05/15/01
CLOWN DGS:08/02/01
CLUB BSL:04/04/01
COMMUNICATE BSL:09/04/02
COMMUNITY BSL:10/07/01
COMPANY BSL:10/09/02
CONFIDENCE BSL:09/07/01DGS:09/07/01
contrasts, spatial BSL:01/04/02DGS:03/11/01BSL:05/06/03
CONTROL DGS:07/05/05
COUNTRY BSL:01/09/04
COURT BSL:10/12/01
CSCI BSL:09/20/01
DEAF BSL:05/16/01
deaf clubs BSL:04/04/01
deaf–hearing relationships BSL:05/17/02
DECIDE BSL:01/13/05
directional verbs DGS:01/04/03
DO BSL:03/10/08
‘early in life’ DGS:09/06/02
ENVIRONMENT BSL:09/02/05
EXAMPLE BSL:09/13/03
EXPECT BSL:03/06/06
EXPLAIN BSL:09/17/03
FACE+BOOK DGS:10/10/02
FAKE BSL:06/05/01
FAMILY BSL:09/06/01
FAMOUS BSL:04/01/02
FATHER BSL:07/04/01
FOOTBALL BSL:05/05/01
FOR BSL:05/06/01
formal introductions BSL:04:01/01BSL:07/01/01BSL:08/03/02BSL:10/
01/01
FRIEND BSL:03/06/04
furtive signing BSL:05/18/01
FUTURE BSL:07/13/01
GRADUATE BSL:01/12/01
GREECE BSL:10:06/02BSL:10/10/06
GROUP BSL:01/05/02
HAPPY BSL:03/05/01
HATE BSL:07/09/01
245
head-nods as textual BSL:04/09/02DGS:04:09:02BSL:05/13/04

markers
HEARING BSL:05/16/01
HEAVY BSL:02/10/02
HOBBY BSL:02/01/02
HOLIDAY DGS:10/04/01
HOW BSL:05/07/01
‘icing sugar’ BSL:09/14/01
IDENTIFY BSL:09/09/05
INDIA BSL:01/05/07
INFLUENCE BSL:07/10/02
INSPECTOR BSL:09/18/01DGS:09/18/01BSL:09/22/
01DGS:09/22/01
‘just be yourself’ BSL:10/03/01
LANGUAGE BSL:10/10/05
‘Latin’ BSL:10/10:04
LAUGH BSL:03/04/04
‘law’ BSL:04/11/01BSL:10/10/02
LAWYER BSL:10/10/07
‘leech’ BSL:02/04/01
LEWISHAM BSL:04/13/01
listing items BSL:01/06/04
localization, spatial BSL:03/07/04
LONDON BSL:07/02/02
LOOK BSL:02/06/01
LOUD BSL:05/11/04
MALAYSIA BSL:02/09/03
MANUAL BSL:07/05/03
MEANS BSL:07/06/01DGS:07/06/01
MEET BSL:01/08/02
MODEL BSL:06/02/01
MODULE BSL:01/04/06
MORE BSL:10/07/04
MOST BSL:03/09/01DGS:03/09/02BSL:09/06/
02DGS:09/06/03
MOUNT-EVEREST BSL:02/02/04
mouthing BSL:02/03/01
name signs BSL:01/01/01BSL:02/01/01BSL:03/05/04BSL:04/
01/01BSL:05/01/01
NATURE BSL:07/08/01
NO BSL:01/11/04
NONE BSL:06/07/02
non-manual adverbs DGS:02/10/02DGS:05/14/01
number incorporation BSL:10/01/04
number system DGS:09/08/01
numbers, age-related BSL:03/03/03
numbers (cardinal) BSL:01/05/01BSL:02/09/07
246
(Continued)
numbers (ordinal) BSL:02/09/06BSL:02/11/01

NVQ BSL:09/23/03
OCCASIONALLY BSL:06/07/03
one-handed signing BSL:02/05/03
‘over night’ BSL:10/04/04
PARENTS DGS:03/10/04
PEOPLE BSL:03/11/05
PERCENTAGE BSL:09/08/01
PHOTO BSL:06/11/04
PLAY BSL:07/05/01DGS:07/05/01
pluralization DGS:01/06/01
PRESTON BSL:01/01/02
PRETTY BSL:03/04/03BSL:06/04/03BSL:08/08/03
PROJECT BSL:01/11/01
QUALITY BSL:09/05/02
RED BSL:08/05/02
‘reimplant’ BSL:10/03/05
role-play BSL:04/05/02DGS:04/11/02BSL:05/12/
04BSL:10/04/07
SCARED BSL:08/06/02
SET-UP BSL:07/07/02BSL:10/08/03
SIGN BSL:01/09/08
similarity between BSL BSL:04/03/01
BROTHER and Portuguese
sign for ‘(toilet) paper’
simultaneous signs BSL:04/13/03DGS:04/13/02
SLEEP BSL:10/04/05
SOCIAL-WORKER BSL:09/16/03
solidarity within the deaf BSL:02/07/02
community
SPEAK BSL:06/07/02
SPECIAL BSL:02/10/01BSL:08/04/03
STAFF BSL:09/04/01
STUDIO BSL:07/03/01
SUPPORT BSL:01/10/02
TAKING-ON DGS:01/09/01
TANZANIA BSL:01/05/08
TEACH DGS:01/04/03DGS:05/13/03
TELL BSL:08/07/07
THAILAND BSL:10/01/03
THIN AIR BSL:02/05/02, DGS:02/05/02
‘torch’ BSL:02/04/02
TRAIN BSL:09/12/03
TRY DGS:09/05/01
TWO DGS:08/08/01
TWO-YEAR BSL:04/07/01
UNCOMFORTABLE BSL:06/04/01
WAIT BSL:10/03/06
WALK BSL:06/03/03
WEEK BSL:10/01/04
WET BSL:02/03/03
WHO BSL:03/07/08
WILL DGS:09/21/02
WISH BSL:06/08/01DGS:06/08/01
WOLF+MAN BSL:04/15/01
WOMAN BSL:02/11/02
WORK BSL:04/06/01
WORK+SHOP BSL:09/21/02
year specifications BSL:04/08/01
YELLOW DGS:08/05/01
Notes
1. Though this was often beyond the scope of traditional deaf education,
increasingly the learning of foreign spoken languages, and English in par-
ticular, has become another focus of attention (see, for instance, Mole,
McColl, & Vale, 2005; Kellett Bidoli & Ochse, 2008).
2. The project was funded under the Lifelong Learning Programme (Key Action
2: Languages) and carried out from January 2009 to March 2011. Con-
sortium members were the University of Central Lancashire (co-ordinating
institution; Preston, UK), Pragma (Hoensbroek, Netherlands), 1–2 Commu-
nicate (Arnhem, Netherlands), Møller-Trøndelagkompetansesenter (Trondheim,
Norway), Hochschule Magdeburg-Stendal (Magdeburg, Germany), and Siena
School for Liberal Arts (Siena, Italy). Deaf project members (‘the teachers’)
were Clark Denmark (UK), Unni Helland and Randi Høidahl (Norway), Tom
Uittenbogert (Netherlands), Sabine Fries (Germany), and Luigi Lerose (Italy).
As will become apparent, the project could not have been carried out with-
out their great enthusiasm and profound experience. For more information
on the project and its partners, see http://www.signs2go.info
3. The survey was reported upon at the third workshop for bilingual education
at the Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany, in January 2010.
4. Features such as these are commonly described in introductory treatments of
many sign languages. For BSL, see, for instance, Sutton-Spence & Woll, 1999;
for DGS, see Papaspyrou et al., 2008; for LIS, see Volterra, 2004; for NGT, see
Schermer et al., 1991; for NTS, see Mosand, 1996.
5. The so-called Amsterdam Manifesto regards BSL, along with ASL, as one of
‘the two signed languages which fit the criteria for a “lingua franca” for
the scientific Deaf community, since they are widely understood by Deaf
scientists from around the world’ (Rathmann, Mathur, & Boudreault, 2000).
6. For some of the digital sign language materials produced by the
Møller-Trøndelag kompetansesenter, see http://www.statped.no/Tema/Horsel/
Tegnsprak
7. For more recent research on BSL variation, see the website of the BSL Corpus
Project http://www.bslcorpusproject.org
8. In fact, the ten units are not even numbered, though they will be numbered
here for the purposes of reference (see Appendix 1). The signed introduc-
tions to what is counted as unit 8 here (‘the clown’) contain statements to
the effect that this unit might be particularly suitable for learners without
any previous experience of BSL, but there is no principled reference to any
learning sequence.
9. Since it was expected that signers with sign language background beyond
the languages included in the project might be interested in, if not use, the
course, an introduction in International Sign was added to the starting page.
The extent to which such users might be able to profit from the course is
beyond the consideration of this chapter, but deaf project members clearly
considered this to be possible.
10. The BSL signer comments on the particular variant of MORE used in the unit
clip as being still in use in Australia and speculates that the signer may have
adopted the sign from an Australian friend. In fact, this sign is registered as
one of the variants of MORE in the Auslan Signbank (see http://www.auslan.
org.au/dictionary/words/more-3.html).
11. The DGS signer comments similarly on the sign BAD but, uncharacteristi-
cally, seems to miss the point about WISH, which is considered as a sign
error.
12. However, geographical locations may also be referred to by BSL signs, and
these are often related to fingerspelling, as for BORNEO, MOUNT-EVEREST,
LEWISHAM, and a variant sign BRAZIL. Two versions of the town name
PRESTON are commented upon in unit 1; only the sign used mainly by deaf
people who grew up in Preston is related to fingerspelling.
13. In unit 7, the BSL signer comments on SET-UP: apparently, the signer shown
in the unit video, who is a second language learner of BSL, is not aware of the
standard BSL sign SET-UP. Instead, she uses double initialization as a strategy,
reduplicating the fingerspelled letter S.
14. An identical manual sign is presented in the vocabulary exercises for units 9
and 10, accompanied by the mouthing for ‘business’ in unit 9 and ‘company’
in unit 10. The DGS equivalent given is the same in both cases (that is,
FIRMA, or ‘firm’).
15. Further influence of English noted in the teachers’ comments includes:
use of HEAVY to characterize ‘heavy rain’ (instead of using manual and
non-manual modification); use of WILL to indicate future reference; use of
phrases like ‘early in life’, ‘just be yourself’, or ‘over night’; use of compounds
such as WOLF+MAN, WORK+SHOP, or FACE+BOOK.
16. In this example the non-dominant ‘thumb hand’ of SUPPORT is replaced by
a ‘five hand’, that is, all fingers are spread and pointing upwards. Clearly,
the BSL signer interprets this as a classifier handshape (five persons or more
instead of just one). It is not clear from the corresponding explanation of the
DGS signer whether or not she adopts this interpretation.
References
Brentari, D. (ed.) (2010). Sign Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Case, A. (2012). Advantages and disadvantages of using authentic texts in
class. Retrieved March 28, 2013, from: http://www.usingenglish.com/articles/
advantages-disadvantages-using-authentic-texts-in-class.html
Chamberlain, C., J. P. Morford, & R. Mayberry (2000). Language Acquisition by Eye.

London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Elliott, J. (2006). E-learning and Modern Foreign Language Teaching: E-guidelines 5.
Leicester: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.
Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic Materials and Authenticity in Foreign Language
Learning, Language Teaching, 40, 97–118.
Kellett Bidoli, C. J. & E. Ochse (eds) (2008). English in International Deaf
Communication. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Ketabi, S. & S. H. Shahraki (2011). Vocabulary in the Approaches to Language
Teaching: From the Twentieth Century to the Twenty-first, Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 2, 726–731.
Ladd, P. (2008). Colonialism and Resistance: A Brief History of Deafhood.
In H-D. L. Bauman (ed.) Open your Eyes: Deaf Studies Talking, pp. 42–59.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Liddell, S. K. (2003). Grammar, Gesture and Meaning in American Sign Language.
Meier, R. (2012). Language and Modality. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll
(eds) Sign Language: An International Handbook, pp. 574–601. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Meier, R., K. Cormier, & D. Quinto-Pozos (eds) (2002). Modality and Structure in
Sign and Spoken Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mesch, J. (2010) Perspectives on the Concept and Definition of International Sign.
Helsinki: World Federation of the Deaf.
Metzger, C. (2008). Lernstrategien erwachsener L2-Lerner der Deutschen
Gebärdensprache. Narr: Tübingen.
Mole, J., H. McColl, & M. Vale (2005). Deaf and Multilingual: A Practical Guide
to Teaching and Supporting Deaf Learners in Foreign Language Classes. Norbury:
Direct Learn Services.
Moores, D. & M. Miller (eds) (2009). Deaf People around the World: Educa-
tional, Developmental and Social Perspectives. Washington: Gallaudet University
Press.
Morrow, K. (1977). Authentic Texts and ESP. In S. Holde (ed.) English for Specific
Purposes, pp. 13–17. London: Modern English Publications.
Mosand, N. E. (1996). Se mitt språk!: språkbok: en innføring i norsk tegnspråk. Bergen:
Døves forl.
Murray, J. J. (2008). Coequality and Transnational Studies: Understanding Deaf
Lives. In H-D. L. Bauman (ed.) Open your Eyes: Deaf Studies Talking, pp. 100–110.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Nyikos, M. & M. Fan (2007). A Review of Research on Vocabulary Learning Strate-
gies. In A. Cohen & E. Macaro (eds.) Language Learner Strategies: Thirty Years of
Research and Practice, pp. 251–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nyst, V. (2007). Simultaneous Constructions in Adamorobe Sign Language
(Ghana). In M. Vermeerbergen, L. Leeson, & O. Crasborn (eds) Simultaneity
in Signed Languages, pp. 127–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nyst, V. (2012). Shared Sign Languages. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll
(eds) Sign Language: An International Handbook, pp. 552–574. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Papaspyrou, C., A. von Meyenn, M. Matthaei, & B. Herrmann (2008). Grammatik

der Deutschen Gebärdensprache aus der Sicht gehörloser Fachleute. Hamburg:
Signum.
Rathmann, C., G. Mathur, & P. Boudreault (2000). Amsterdam Manifesto.
Retrieved March 28, 2013, from: http://www.deafacademics.org/conferences/
amsterdam_manifesto.pdf
Read, J. (2004). Research in Teaching Vocabulary. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 24, 146–161.
Rosenstock, R. (2004). An Investigation of International Sign: Analyzing Structure and
Comprehension. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University dissertation.
Rösler, D. (2007). E-Learning Fremdsprachen: Eine kritische Einführung, 2nd edn.
Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Sánchez, A. & R. M. Manchon (2007). Research on Second Language Vocabu-
lary Acquisition and Learning: An Introduction. International Journal of English
Studies, 7(2), vii–xvi. Retrieved March 28, 2013, from: http://digitum.um.es/
xmlui/bitstream/10201/2582/1/2595023.pdf
Sandler, W. & D. Lillo-Martin (2006). Sign Language and Linguistic Universals.
Schermer, T., C. Fortgens, R. Harder, & E. de Nobel (eds) (1991). De Nederlandse
Gebarentaal. Twello: Van Tricht.
Schick, B., M. Marschark, & P. E. Spencer (eds) (2006). Advances in the Sign
Language Development of Deaf Children. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sutton-Spence, R. & B. Woll (1999). The Linguistics of British Sign Language:
An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Volterra V. (ed.) (2004). La lingua dei segni italiana: La comunicazione visivo-gestuale
dei sordi. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino.
Wilcox, S. & P. P. Wilcox (1998). Learning to See: Teaching American Sign Language
as a Second Language, 2nd edn. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Section IV
Assessment
11
Formative Assessment for Student
Progress and Program
Improvement in Sign Language
as L2 Programs
David H. Smith and Jeffrey E. Davis
Overview
This chapter reviews the current research literature on assessment of

sign language (SL) learning and proficiency in general, and the def-
initions of summative and formative assessment. We concentrate on
the importance of formative assessment (FA) for second language learn-
ers (L2) and teachers of SLs, and how FA can be used as feedback
for progress measurement of learner skills and as a tool for evaluat-
ing instructional effectiveness within programs. Moreover, we explore
the relevance and efficacy of one approach that is currently being used
online at a very large university SL program in the USA as a pioneering
FA tool. We conclude that the SL as L2 field needs more assessment tools
that have proven reliability based on empirical trials with large numbers
of learners.
Background on sign language assessment
In order to properly frame current assessment approaches relevant to

SL pedagogy, this chapter begins with a brief review of the current
literature on assessment of SLs and second language (L2) learners in gen-
eral. Following this overview, the definitions and distinctions between
summative assessment (SA) and FA grounded in multidisciplinary and
multinational perspectives are considered. Attention is given to how
FA can be used as vital feedback and data collection for progress mea-
surement of learner skills and as a tool for evaluating instructional
253
254 Assessment
effectiveness within programs. Additional investigation is done of FA in

the field of applied linguistics and how it is being used specifically in
SL as L2 programs. Furthermore, language and modality differences are
considered, and assessment approaches grounded in theory and practice
of SL as L2 teaching–learning are highlighted. In particular, we exam-
ine one promising approach currently being used online at a very large
university SL program in the USA as a pioneering FA tool.
There is documentation over the past three decades of efforts to
develop and implement tests of SL proficiency (see Singleton & Suppalla,
2003; Haug, 2005). The majority of these efforts have been motivated
by researchers’ need to show the level of linguistic proficiency among
their subjects, such as normative data on the characteristics that SL
users possess at various skill levels. A desire to identify the educational
and language achievement levels in children has driven other endeavors
to develop assessments. However, few of these language development
assessments have been aimed at L2 learners. Of these, most have focused
on American Sign Language (ASL), or European signed languages such
as British, German, Norwegian, and Italian (Haug, 2005; Haug & Mann,
2008), and Auslan in Australia (Johnston, 2004). Some of the latter
SLs use adaptations of either the Test of ASL (TASL) (Prinz, Strong, &
Kunze, 1994) or the British Sign Language (BSL) Receptive Skills Test
(Herman, Holmes, & Woll, 1998), and problems have been recognized
with this adaptation process, particularly with linguistic and cultural
issues (Haug & Mann, 2008).
Other significant issues have been observed with SL assessment, and
these have been noted for ASL assessment (Hauser, Paludneviciene,
Supalla, & Bavelier, 2006; Smith, 2007), as well as for the assessment of
other SLs (Haug, 2005). One common problem is the length and/or com-
plexity of tests. A good proportion of them require an hour or longer to
administer (see Prinz, Strong, & Kuntze, 1994; Herman, Holmes, & Woll,
1998). Additionally, they may require even more time to score, includ-
ing one as extreme as 20 hours for expressive skills (Haug, 2005). There
are measures that do not take as much time, such as skill checklists, in
which SL competence is assessed based on the level to which linguis-
tic parameters of the language are displayed according to a standard list
(Mounty, 1994; Anderson & Reilly, 2002; Johnston, 2004). In brief, most
tests require that the evaluators be quite skilled and preferably native
users of the SL being evaluated (Haug, 2005).
Another issue for assessors is the lack of commercially available tests.
Obtaining tests already developed and described in published literature
often requires contacting the researchers who created the assessment,
David H. Smith and Jeffrey E. Davis 255
which could be problematic if they are unreachable or if they do not

respond to inquiries. Often, the reason these tests are not commercially
available is because of the effort and time involved in the development
of psychometric properties to prove that the test is valid and reliable.
Validity demonstrates that the test actually measures what it says it will
measure, and reliability relates to the ability of the test to give consis-
tent results over time and among the test items (Gravetter & Wallnau,
2008). Developing the psychometric properties of a test requires a size-
able amount of effort, funds, and, especially, a large number of subjects
(Maller, Singleton, Supalla, & Wix, 1999). The latter is especially a
barrier, as deafness is a low incidence phenomenon and the number
of native SL users is low in any given geographical region (Mathers,
Smith, & Concha, 2003). Given the time and cost of development for
SL tests and the relatively small market for these assessments, it may be
inferred that commercial testing corporations would not be interested.
However, given that ASL is currently the fourth most popularly taught
L2 in USA universities and still growing (Furman, Goldberg, & Lusin,
2010; Wilcox, 2011), that may soon change, at least for adult tests.
The majority of the formalized tests discussed up to this point are
focused on children as L1 learners. At this time there are only a few
known assessments for L2 learners: Sign Language Proficiency Interview
(SLPI) (Newell, Caccamise, Boardman, & Holcomb, 1983), the Aachen
Test for Basic German Sign Language Competence (Fehrmann, Huber,
Sieprath, Jager, & Werth, 1995), and the American Sign Language-
Sentence Reproduction Test (Hauser et al., 2006). Of these three, the
last one is relatively short and easy to administer, but is still language-
specific and subject to issues of adaptation. In brief, there is a general
lack of normative data and no formal standardized tests readily available
to assess SL development, especially for those focusing on L2 learners.
It is worth mentioning that Haug (2005) asserts that all assessments may
be used ‘in principle’ with adults learning a SL. Of course, investigators
would be wise to proceed with caution if choosing an assessment not
yet validated for adults or L2 learners.
Summative assessment
The current approach to the issue of assessing SL proficiency appears
to be characterized mostly by the use of tests of SL at key points in
time after students are expected to have mastered the skills tested. For
instance, there has been the recent work on establishment of L2 learning
standards by the American Sign Language Teachers Association (ASLTA,
2011), and in Europe there are currently attempts to develop standards
256 Assessment
for SLs based on the Common European Framework of Reference for

Languages (CEFR) already in use for spoken languages (Leeson, 2006;
Haug & Keller, 2011; Sadlier, Van den Bogaerde, & Oyserman, 2012).
Logically, it follows that assessments would be based on the expected
outcomes from these standards. In the USA, SAs based on proficiency
interviews like the SLPI or ASLPI are in wide use in teacher and interpre-
tation preparation programs. The use of summative examinations for
interpreter certification does not yet appear to be common for many
countries except for Australia, Canada, and the USA (World Association
of Sign Language Interpreters, 2013). For the three countries identi-
fied, the assessment measure is the use of certification examinations
that have a written component and a performance component that is
videotaped and assessed. Other countries may require completion of a
recognized training program and/or a portfolio as an assessment (ibid.).
For others who work with the deaf, such as vocational rehabilitation
counselors or teachers of the deaf, the number of programs that require
proficiency in SL skills has grown over the past few decades in the USA,
and many are requiring proficiency as shown by SLPI (Caccamise &
Samar, 2009).
These are all examples of summative assessment, which is often done
for the purpose of reporting achievement to students, parents (as in the
case of pre-college levels), administrators, accrediting and licensure orga-
nizations, and other interested outside parties (Harlen & James, 1997).
Students who pass these tests can move to the next course or show evi-
dence of SL proficiency if they have finished their coursework. Students
who do not show evidence of expected competency will either need to
take remedial steps to improve their skills or, in the case of professional
competency, for example, interpreters and teachers, may need to retake
the assessment or seek alternative vocations. Summative evaluation has
a vital role to play in improving achievement outcomes for many stu-
dents and teachers. It can provide an incentive for students to do their
best work and teachers to improve their instructional approach (Dunn &
Mulvenon, 2009).
Few stakeholders would argue with the idea of having high standards
and holding accountable the potential professionals who work with
deaf individuals. If conducted properly with valid and reliable measures,
SA has been found to improve outcomes (ibid.). However, SA does not
typically inform instructional practices, or more importantly, provide
for timely changes in instruction before course completion (Howell &
Nolet, 1999). For many teachers and students, the disadvantages of
summative evaluation may outweigh its benefits. In effect, SA may occur
too late for making remedial corrections; students may have already
established bad habits before instructional intervention has corrected
them and helped avoid the potentially severe consequences of not doing
well (Shinn, Shinn, Hamilton, & Clarke, 2002).
Formative assessment
While this chapter is about FA within an applied linguistics context
for SLs, it is helpful for readers to have some background on the
topic from its origins within the field of education. Over the past
several decades, there have been a number of definitions proposed,
with the first generally accepted mention of the terms formative and
summative evaluation attributed to Scriven (1967) and followed by
Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus (1971), based on the functions served. Black
and Wiliam’s (1998) seminal article on the effectiveness of FA noted that
there was not yet a tightly defined and accepted meaning for the term
‘formative assessment’. There are also a number of various manifesta-
tions of FA approaches, such as self-assessment, peer assessment, and
interim assessment, among others. There are even debates over whether
it should be considered a test in itself or a process of gathering data
(Dunn & Mulvenon, 2009). However, a recent overview of 12 different
definitions by Filsecker and Kerres (2012) showed that there is a com-
mon thread viewing FA as a process that is ‘understood as a series of
informed and informing actions that change the current state of the
reciprocal teaching-learning relationship towards a more knowledge-
able one’ (p. 4). Black and Wiliam (1998) further clarify that ‘informing
actions’ refers to the communication feedback of evaluative judgments
by instructors so that students can reduce their knowledge gap. It is con-
sidered important that students be able to use the supplied information
during the reciprocal relationship to develop good self-monitoring skills
(Sadler, 1998). In short, this sustains and supports instruction that is
successful while also providing feedback for needed curriculum or teach-
ing improvement. Typically, most courses are taught a few months at a
time; accordingly, FA is about measuring student growth over a short
span of time such as weeks or months, gathering data, making inter-
pretations, and sharing the results (Shinn, Shinn, Hamilton, & Clarke,
2002).
Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to give an exten-
sive review here, we will highlight some of the main findings from this
line of research. It is important that, when talking about the ‘effect’
of FA, we are referring to learning gains (see Black and Wiliam, 1998
for extensive meta-analysis of the research literature). In effect, this is
258 Assessment
under the conditions that the feedback information is actually used and
that student roles in self-assessment and peer assessment are empha-
sized. The use of FA by teachers for instructional decision-making has
been shown to result in significant gains in student achievement. Meta-
analyses of studies in special education and general education show that
effect sizes of 0.5 and greater have been demonstrated (Fuchs & Fuchs,
1986; Deno et al., 2002). Again, it is essential that the assessment data
collected during the learning stages actually be shared and used in order
for it to be an effective tool to improve outcomes.
Feedback and student role as the core of

formative assessment
Any time we have a new learning objective, there is an ‘achievement

gap’ between the learner’s current knowledge and skill and the desired
objective or outcome. Thus, at the core of FA, there are two actions that
need to take place: the perception by the learner of the achievement
gap through feedback, and the action or role taken by the learner to
close that gap (Sadler, 1989, 1998; Filsecker & Kerres, 2012). Informa-
tion about the achievement gap is considered feedback only when used
to close that gap. If the information is only recorded and passed to a
third party lacking in appropriate instructional skills, or too vague (that
is, a summary score or grade), then it becomes of little use to the student
(Sadler, 1989).
In creating a summary of the research on feedback in FA, Nicol and
Macfarlane-Dick (2006, p. 205) gave the following principles of good
feedback practice:
• Clarifies for students what good performance is (goals, criteria,

expected standards).
• Facilitates the development of self-assessment by students in
learning.
• Provides high-quality information to students about their learning.
• Encourages teacher and peer dialogue around learning.
• Provides opportunities to close the gap between current and desired
performance.
• Provides information to teachers that can be used to help shape
teaching.
We will briefly summarize these points here. For the first principle, it
is shown to be good practice to identify at the outset of a course what
criteria or standards students are expected to achieve. It is also necessary

to be sure these goals are attainable by the use of short-term or proximal
objectives so that students feel they are achievable (Bandura & Schunk,
1981). We want a goal that students will adopt and internalize, which
they will have the self-efficacy to achieve (Sadler, 1989). It is important
for teacher and student to share a common conception of the goals via
dialogue and discussion, or a mismatch will result in feedback being
essentially useless, since the student will not have the same concept of
the goal as the teacher (Hounsell, 1997).
The second principle is to encourage self-assessment. Basically, this
is an extension of what students are already doing, albeit usually in
terms of what grades or scores they think they can attain. Instructors
can expand on this concept by having students write (or, particularly in
the case of SL learners, make videos of themselves using SL) to state how
they think they are doing in terms of the established criteria or goals
being addressed at that time in the coursework, usually in conjunction
with whatever FA task they just completed (Andrade & Du, 2007). In sev-
eral studies, self-assessing has been shown to be even more effective in
correcting errors and student achievement if done shortly after getting
feedback from instructors (Freeman & Lewis, 1998; Boud, 2000; Nicol &
Macfarlane-Dick, 2006).
The third principle in the provision of high-quality feedback refers
to information that students can actually use to trouble-shoot and take
action to reduce the achievement gap. As Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick
(2006) note, the feedback needs to be within a short time of assessment,
be given in terms of no more than the three criteria that most influence
performance, explicitly state corrective action needed for performance,
be directed towards higher order learning goals, and be done using a
positive tone and encouragement for attainment in future efforts. This
will not only give students useful information but also improve their
self-monitoring. One other important point to be made here is that the
feedback should be focused on the task and not on the person. Black and
Wiliam (1998) state that feedback that draws attention away from the
task and towards self-esteem can have a negative effect on attitudes and
performance. In other words, it is important that students understand
that feedback is an objective evaluation, not of personal ability but of
their skills on the task.
The fourth principle of dialogue relates to the empowerment of learn-
ers when they receive clear feedback from both teachers and peers
(Leung & Mohan, 2004). Again, the feedback needs to be of high qual-
ity, as noted above, but also the provision of dialogue enables learners to
260 Assessment
glean more information about their expected performance and to clar-

ify any points about which the learner desires more explication. This
may be one of the reasons why Black and Wiliam (1998) noted that oral
feedback has been shown to be more effective than written feedback.
Research on peer dialogue in second language learning has shown that
students who have just learned something are often better able than
teachers to explain it to classmates in an accessible manner (see Swain,
Brooks, & Tocalli-Beller, 2002). Peer dialogue provides for alternative
perspectives and strategies for task performance, and it is usually easier
to accept assessments of performance from peers rather than teachers
(Nicol & Boyle, 2003).
The fifth principle relates to how students are given opportunities
to take the feedback they have been given and apply it to close the
gap. This is known as completing the feedback loop (Sadler, 1989), and
this can often be achieved by allowing students to produce improved
work. If this is not done, there is no way of knowing whether the feed-
back was effective and/or whether the student was able to incorporate
it. The most common way of accomplishing this is by allowing students
to resubmit an assignment or by having another attempt at performing
a task (Boud, 2000).
The last principle is for teachers to incorporate feedback for the
improvement of learning. Emphasis on the use of reflection in teaching
goes back as far as John Dewey (1933) and was resurrected as reflec-
tive practice by Schön (1983) and Boud, Keogh, and Walker (1985).
To accomplish this, teachers need good data about how students are pro-
gressing, and they need to be involved in the interpretation of student
performance on tasks and not just passive recipients of the assessment
data. Noting patterns where students are showing weaknesses or mak-
ing errors allows teachers to become cognizant of the fact that either
they did not adequately cover the material or their approach in teaching
it was not effective (Cross & Angelo, 1993). One of the more effec-
tive approaches to data management for the purpose of instructional
planning is by the use of a formative assessment approach known as
Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM), which results in data presen-
tation that is clear and usable. When teachers use this approach it
can significantly affect both the frequency and quality of the instruc-
tional changes they make as they respond to inadequate learner progress
(Deno, 2003). Later in this chapter we will expand upon CBM as cur-
rently in use in the ASL program at the University of Minnesota (Miller,
Hooper, & Rose, 2008).
Again, feedback is a crucial component of effective FA and is critical to
the validity of the approach if it is to work as intended. We will expand
on validity next and will show how the concept as used in FA is dif-
ferent from the usual concepts of validity and reliability as known in
psychometrics.
Validity, reliability, and washback
Validity. Given the wide range of possible tasks that can be used for
FA (Wiliam, 2000; Skehan, 2003) and that we need usable feedback
information, the caveat for choosing a valid task or measure is whether
it has meaning, relevance, and utility for the intended purposes of the
assessment (Messick, 1989; Heritage, 2007; Stobart, 2011). This concept
differs in some ways from the paradigm of traditional psychometric def-
inition of validity as the degree to which an assessment measures what
it is supposed to measure, with the focus being on the test itself, and
not on the consequences of its use (see Shinn & Hubbard, 1992 for
more on paradigm shift in assessment). Messick (1989) in his seminal
essay on validity argued for a new concept of validity as an inductive
summary of both the evidence for and the actual or potential conse-
quences of score interpretation and use. What needs to be validated is
not the test itself but ‘the adequacy and appropriateness of inferences
and actions based on test scores or other modes of assessment’ (p. 5).
In other words, the consequences, intended or unintended, of the assess-
ment need to be validated. This definition became accepted and known
as consequential validity (Mertens, 2004). It has been further argued that,
because the purpose of FA is to improve student outcomes as an action,
its consequential validity is based on whether effective learning takes
place in the ensuing instruction (Shinn & Hubbard, 1992; Sadler, 1998;
Stobart, 2011). Instructors also should make sure FAs are aligned with
intended outcomes, and be sure that the evidence from assessments and
the interpretations and inferences they produce from them will pro-
vide information about where in the learning gap a student is situated
(Stobart, 2011).
Reliability. The traditional psychometric definition is related to the
consistency of an assessment in different contexts and stability of scores
over time. In discussing reliability in formative assessment, Black and
Wiliam (2012), summing up the recent literature on the topic, state that,
given the definition of FA as a process, it is ‘reliable to the extent that
the assessment processes being used generate evidence that consistently
leads to better, or better founded decisions, which turns out to be a less
restrictive condition than is needed for summative assessment’ (p. 260).
They also state that, since there is no need for concern about the reliabil-
ity of a FA beyond the immediate setting and individual (as opposed to
262 Assessment
the wide range covered by SAs), it should be evaluated by the extent to

which they provide solutions for effective learning. Sadler (1989) notes
that attention to the validity of interpretations about individual pieces
of work should have priority over attention to reliability in any context
where the emphasis is on diagnosis and improvement. Hence, reliability
will follow as a result.
Washback. One of the consequences of assessment is its impact on
teaching, learning, and related processes. This is known in applied lin-
guistics as ‘washback’, which is defined as ‘the extent to which the
introduction and use of a test influences language teachers and learn-
ers to do things they would not otherwise do that promote or inhibit
language learning’ (Messick, 1996, p. 1). This ties in with Messick’s
(1998) concept of consequential validity. The desired end product is the
improved learning of language proficiency, but not all of the beneficial
washback is learner-centered; there are other participants who can gain
from it. Some examples might be improved teaching, new materials and
curriculum, beneficial research findings, enhanced reputation of train-
ing programs, and so forth (Bailey, 1999). Negative washback usually
occurs from poorly applied assessments. For example, it could include
constructs (or skills) unrelated to those that were taught and/or a nar-
row focus on particular skills for test preparation. This can be harmful
when students have skills but do not learn their application to real world
communication skills in the target language. Awareness of negative
washback is beneficial if it is recognized and dealt with by making neces-
sary adjustments to the assessment process in a timely manner (Messick,
1996). There are two assessment errors that are frequently overlooked:
making sure the construct (or skill) being measured has actually been
taught, and, conversely, making sure the targeted constructs are ade-
quately represented in the assessment (ibid.). It makes sense, then, to
have an agreed-upon way of looking at what these constructs are and
how they are defined as acts of performance by learners through the
use of standards. This leads us to a focus on SL as L2 in the following
sections of this chapter.
Language standards and rubrics in formative assessment
The importance of having established and clearly defined standards for

learners in FA lies in the fact that feedback needs to have evaluations
of an individual’s skills in relation to some established criteria or perfor-
mance descriptors. Giving feedback in the form of letting a learner know
they are about as good as or worse than a group of other individuals,
‘normative feedback’, does very little in terms of giving concrete infor-

mation on what they need to do to close the gap. This also can have the
undesired effect of feedback being interpreted as criticism and discourag-
ing learners (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Sadler, 1998). In the field of second
language instruction there are already well-established standards, such
as the American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)
Proficiency Guidelines, the Common European Framework of Reference
for Languages (CEFR), UNIcert (Europe), and others that are used for
assessment purposes.
Standards are quite lacking for many SLs, which is further complicated
by the fact that many SLs themselves have still to be well defined with a
documented lexicon and corpus (Sadlier et al., 2012), as has been done
with ASL, BSL, and Auslan. However, progress is being made, as seen
in Konrad’s (2012) survey listing plus references of 17 SL corpora, some
with dictionaries. Also, an internet search will reveal a good number
of online SL dictionaries, some of which are corpus-based. In terms of
communicative competence, there are some organizational standards in
the process of being formalized, such as those for ASL by the American
Sign Language Teachers Association based on ACTFL proficiency guide-
lines (ASLTA, 2011), which is still a work in progress but already has
well-defined standards. Even more ambitious is the effort in Europe to
align sign languages with the CEFR (Leeson, 2011; Sadlier et al., 2012).
Most signed languages do not yet have organizationally defined
assessment standards; however, this should not keep SL educators from
being able to develop learning objectives and performance criteria for
language competence in their programs. Still, the development of such
standards and assessment criteria should be based on current research
in L2 learning. As a cautionary tale, Rosen (2010) gives a review of some
of the issues inherent in development of ASL curricula and their lack
of connection with research on current spoken L2 approaches using
task-based methods. Many descriptions of objectives and criteria in the
USA and Europe had already been established, albeit in a piecemeal
fashion, at various universities or secondary programs prior to their cur-
rent attempts at aligning these with recognized standards (Rosen, 2010;
Sadlier et al., 2012). Other SLs also have a good number of examples
of learning objectives or performance criteria. For example, an inter-
net search using the terms ‘course objectives’ and specific SL names or
acronyms such as ASL, Auslan, BSL, etc. will turn up a good number of
well-defined (and some not so well-defined) performance criteria. One
exemplar is the Government Skills Australia website, which includes
detailed standards and criteria for uses of Auslan in various settings
264 Assessment
(Government Skills Australia, 2013). Again, it is a good idea for instruc-

tors to become familiar with the concepts of task-based learning in
applied linguistics before attempting to select performance criteria that
fit this model of learning, which is defined in the next section (see Ellis,
2003; Skehan, 2003).
A major question that will arise is ‘How will we organize standards,
objectives, or criteria that we have so that we can assess students?’ We
posit that the use of rubrics is an effective way of translating instruc-
tional objectives into concrete performance measures. There are two
main aspects of rubrics: a set of criteria and descriptions of levels of
performance for each criterion. This is usually represented on a matrix
or graph with the criteria listed horizontally and intersected vertically
with levels of performance. (See Table 11.1, appended, for an example of
a rubric for ASL.) As Brookhart (2013) notes, the genius of rubrics is that
they are descriptive and not evaluative; that is, performance is matched
to the description rather than trying to make judgments. They provide
structure to observations of performances and the rater matches that
to the description rather than trying to make inferences. This is espe-
cially true of task-specific rubrics with the learning outcomes because
they detail elements to look for in a student’s responses. Less training
is required of raters to reach acceptable levels of inter-rater reliability.
However, with task-specific rubrics there is a risk of being so specific
about tasks that students miss the whole point of the learning outcome
(Moss & Brookhart, 2009). For example, we would not want students
to think that the task of being able to accurately fingerspell the alpha-
bet alone is sufficient for communicative competence. For that reason,
rubric writers need to be sure that the task is holistic enough to be used
across a variety of situations by learners to authentically reflect their
understanding of the intended learning outcome. Since student knowl-
edge of learning objectives and feedback are essential components of
FA, rubrics are an outstanding resource for awareness. When they are
shared with students before evaluation, students will have clear under-
standing of the learning target, and after being assessed they will have
a good perception of where they are in closing the gap between their
current level and the desired performance level (Andrade & Du, 2005).
It is also a good idea for teachers to encourage the students to ask clarify-
ing questions about rubrics to ensure they have a clear understanding of
what is expected of their performance. This also helps with revisions of
rubrics as needed (Moss & Brookhart, 2009). There are a number of good
resources for rubric construction, including Brookhart (2013) and the
website for the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition
Table 11.1 Rubric for assessment of expressive skills in American Sign Language
Criteria 4 Excellent 3 Very Good 2 Satisfactory 1 In Progress
Form: • Consistent use of • Self-corrects; few • Some errors, but is • Frequent incorrect
Handshape correct signs mistakes made understandable formation of signs
Palm Orientation • Clear, easily under- • Easily understood • Errors are usually not • Very difficult to
Movement Location stood corrected understand signs
Spatial Referents: • Extensive use of • Frequently sets up • Limited use of set- • Difficulty with set-
Motion/Location of setting up points in points in space to ting up points in ting up points in
Verbs (includes eye space to refer to refer to objects and space to refer to space to refer to
gaze, body shifting, objects and people people; makes some objects and people; objects and people
and choice of signs) • Good eye contact errors sometimes makes • Difficulty with
• Lively, enthusiastic, • Maintains some eye errors maintaining eye
uses expressiveness contact • Limited eye contact contact
• Some use of • Limited use of • Lacks expressive
expressive behaviors expressive behaviors behaviors when
signing
265
266
Criteria 4 Excellent 3 Very Good 2 Satisfactory 1 In Progress
Grammar—Use of • Uses good facial • Appropriate use of • Some appropriate • Lacks facial
Non-Manual Markers: expressions correctly facial expressions use of facial expressions when
Yes/No Questions and consistently when signing expressions signing
‘Wh—’ Questions • Uses intensifiers • Inconsistent use of • Limited use of • Difficulty using
Location (dramatic use of intensifiers intensifiers intensifiers
Negation facial expressions • Inconsistent use of • Limited use of non- • Difficulty using
Contrastive Structure and signs) to match non-manual markers manual markers non-manual markers
(referents, time, information
intensity, etc.) conveyed
• Uses all non-manual
markers
appropriately
Fluency/Accuracy: • Communicates with • Smooth flow of signs • Hesitates and self- • Jerky hand
Smoothness and fluency and with confidence corrects when movements and
Fluency of Signs confidence most of the time signing choppy use of signs
Conceptually • Signs conceptually • Signs conceptually • Signs conceptually • Unable to sign
Accurate accurate ideas/ accurate ideas/ accurate conceptually
Ideas/Messages messages messages the ideas/messages on a accurate
consistently majority of the time limited basis ideas/messages
Source: New Jersey Department of Education, 1999. Permission granted to reproduce for educational purposes.
(CARLA) at the University of Minnesota (www. carla.umn.edu). Also,

there is an example of a holistic rubric for ASL based on the ACTFL
guidelines (Kurz & Taylor, 2008).
Again, it should be emphasized that, before starting a task, the con-
nection between learning objectives and success criteria or performance
descriptors (via rubrics or other means), as well as the role of feed-
back with self and peer assessment, needs to be made very clear to
students and other instructors within a program (Black & Wiliam, 2003;
Klenowski, Askew, & Carnell, 2006).
Formative assessment tasks
Once there are learner outcomes in place and a means of scoring them,
there are a variety of FA tasks that learners can perform. A ‘task’ is
defined by Ellis (2009) as having a primary focus on meaning for the
purpose of closing a ‘gap’ (need to convey information, express opin-
ion, or infer meaning) that needs to be done using a learner’s own
resources, and should have a real world outcome other than just the
use of language. Tasks within a spoken second language learning envi-
ronment typically involve expressive and receptive components that
are oral/aural (speaking and listening) and orthographic (writing, and
reading print). As part of the ongoing process of establishing CEFR Sign
Language levels, it was determined that orthography can be eliminated
and reconstructed as pre-recorded signing skills with a focus on pro-
duction of a rehearsed topic (Sadlier et al., 2012). This points to the
impact and prominent role that video production and use has in SL
learning environments and assessment (Hooper, Rose, & Miller, 2005).
The advantages of using video for assessment are obvious to most SL
instructors, one of them being that performance can be assessed more
than one time, which is very useful for self and peer assessment, and pro-
viding feedback. They can be used with almost any task, and, of course,
would be an essential component of language portfolios. One disadvan-
tage that we have noted, and we are sure many instructors will agree
with this, is that the knowledge of being video-recorded can be intrusive
for students. How much of an impact this has on student performance
is certainly worth researching further.
Self and Peer Assessment. The impact of self and peer assessment as
part of the FA process has been mentioned previously, but we would
like to make it more concrete in terms of tasks that can be done to
promote SL learning. There is little research literature on the topic
of self-assessment in SL, as noted by Stauffer (2011). However, in the
268 Assessment
author’s own study of 166 students (both beginning and advanced), who
received no training in self-assessment, a moderately strong correlation
of 0.62 was noted between their self-perceived level of skill based on the
Sign Language Proficiency Interview and the actual score they received.
Certainly, these results cannot be generalized; still, they reflect that it is
possible for students to have a somewhat realistic view of their skills
even without training in self-assessment. Given training, the results
might be better, as seen in qualitative studies by Fowler (2007) and
Sadlier (2009). In both cases, these were interpreter training programs in
which self and peer assessment was deemed a critical skill for the profes-
sion, though we find that such approaches to self and peer assessment
can be adapted for SL as L2 learners. Along these lines, Fowler (2007)
offers a descriptive approach to self-assessment, stating that trainees
need: (1) an understanding of the interpreting process (this might be
changed to understanding of SL discourse features and conversational
patterns) (2) clear assessment criteria as a benchmark to measure their
own work (3) an awareness of how to give and receive oral and written
feedback with their peers in a positive manner and avoid the temptation
to dwell on mistakes; and (4) an understanding of the rationale of peer
and self-assessment and continued practice in its application.
Task-based Performance. Formative assessment that is task-based goes
hand-in-hand with task-based language teaching approaches, which, as
Rosen (2010) mentioned, is not currently found in published ASL cur-
ricula, nor could we find any description of it in other international
SLs. However, we believe this should not preclude the use of task-
based assessment (TBA) approaches in SL programs regardless of the
pedagogical approach used. Ellis (2003) describes TBA as being of two
kinds – incidental and planned. Incidental TBA is described as an
informal ad hoc process that is indistinguishable from good teaching
arising from instructional conversations (Goldenberg, 1991; Tharp &
Gallimore, 1991). These types of conversations have several elements
that are both ‘instructional’, in the sense that they have a learning task
involved, and ‘conversational’, in that they are true two-way dialogues
with open-ended questions. For example, a teacher could hold up their
index finger and ask students the different ways it could be used to com-
municate in SL (see Smith & Ramsey, 2004 for an example using ASL
elements).
Planned formative TBA involves classroom use of direct assessments
that are standards-referenced. In our case, these would be sign language
standards based on ACTFL or CEFR. These, of course, will require mea-
suring student performance using a rubric or scale, which will provide
a means of feedback to the students. Having a second rater observing

also will improve reliability. Self-assessments are a part of this process
as well, and should be done both before and after the task. Ellis (2006)
explicates further on a task-based teaching approach that can very easily
be used as TBA if both the pre-task and post-task activities are used. Pre-
task activities include framing the activity by explaining the expected
outcome and purpose of the task, and giving students planning time
is correlated with improved assessment results. Post-task activities are
inherently metalinguistic. They include self-assessment and reflection
using the rubrics on how students might improve their performance.
This is combined with teacher feedback that is focused on language
form. For example, students can be shown their own utterances con-
taining an error and then asked to identify the error, make corrections,
and formulate an explanation. Also, as previously mentioned, students
should be allowed to repeat the performance to ensure improvement.
Portfolios. Given that a number of second language and SL interpret-
ing programs require their students to assemble portfolios of their work
(Napier, 2004; Leeson, 2006, 2011), this can be considered as another
application of FA. Although portfolios are frequently seen as a type of
SA, they are also a formative means of tracking self and peer assessment,
awareness of progress in terms of the achievement gap, and feedback
from instructors (Baume & Yorke, 2002). Klenowski et al. (2006) describe
development of portfolios with focus, making it a learning process
with assessment, self and peer review, feedback, and dialogue, that
goes into the process of building a portfolio during a course. Given
the visual nature of SLs and use of videos, it is considered optimal for
portfolios to be electronic or online whenever possible. One example
of the use of online portfolios in SL programs is at the University of
Minnesota, where they have developed an online assessment program
called AvenueASL (Miller et al., 2008). In describing the portfolio com-
ponent of AvenueASL, the authors state that the performance portfolios
of the learners allows visual display of language proficiency gains and
maturing of communication abilities that ultimately encourage students
to be more reflective of their ASL skills (see also Hooper, Miller, Rose, &
Veletsianos, 2007). This is part of an exemplary model of formative
assessment in SL programs, which is based on the concept of CBM.
Curriculum Based Measurement. Originally developed within the field
of special education over 30 years ago as a means of enabling teach-
ers to formatively evaluate the effectiveness of their instruction, CBM
has evolved to the point where it can be applied in general education
settings and has been used with students learning English as a second
270 Assessment
language in general education classrooms (Deno, 2003). CBM has an

extensive research literature showing its validity and reliability across all
language areas (reading, writing, oral) and mathematics. A listing of all
published journal articles related to CBM by the University of Minnesota
Research Institute on Progress Monitoring cited 313 peer-reviewed arti-
cles as of 2004, plus 131 dissertations and 131 research reports (Fuchs,
2004). CBM has been used with a good degree of success with deaf stu-
dents (Rose, 2007; Luckner & Bowen, 2010). It has also been used for
the development of assessments on ASL students who are L2 learners
(Miller et al., 2005, 2008; Hooper et al, 2007). CBM is a relatively sim-
ple process that takes little time to administer and score compared with
other assessments, with a high degree of reliability and validity, and
it is considered a form of standardized assessment, unlike most other
FA approaches (Fuchs, 2004).
CBM described in context. Here we will give an example of a CBM pro-
cedure used in reading known as maze passages, which, including the
administration of the test and scoring, only takes about ten minutes per
student (Hosp, Hosp, & Howell, 2006). These maze passages are typi-
cally 300 words in length or greater with every seventh word missing.
The task for the student is to choose from three given choices for the
missing word, of which only one is correct. The student is given exactly
three minutes, timed on a stopwatch, to answer as many items as pos-
sible. The score is given simply as the rate of number of correct answers
per minute. The results are recorded on a graph to show visible evidence
of progress over time as the student retakes this test using different pas-
sages of equal difficulty (alternate forms) at least twice a month to track
progress.
The efficacy of CBM (especially in terms of the time to administer
and score) with validity and reliability across different language skills
made it attractive for use as assessment in SL programs. The ASL fac-
ulty at the University of Minnesota, which has a large program with
over 2,000 students per year, was able to take advantage of the presence
of the CBM research center and learning technologies on their campus
to develop procedures for formatively assessing students online, which
they named AvenueASL. As described by Hooper, Miller, and Rose (2005,
2007, 2008), they began with the creation of valid and reliable CBM
assessment tasks. They determined that ASL instructors may use CBM
measures for fluency, linguistics, and expression to assess students fre-
quently using short linguistic performances. After some research on a
variety of potential tasks, they settled on story retell and picture naming.
For the story retell task, students view a 20-second video narrative signed
by an expert ASL user, after which they sign the story back for video
archiving and evaluation. The picture naming task requires students to
view 20 photographs sequentially and attempt to sign the name of each
image to a video camera.
While establishing the tasks, the authors were also designing the
environment of the AvenueASL online platform. As described in Miller
et al. (2008, p. 156), ‘the environment is composed of four layers that
establish (1) a platform for students to capture, submit, and archive
ASL performances (2) a setting for instructors to evaluate and report
student performance (3) a portfolio where students can monitor their
personal performance; and (4) an administration component to manage
and co-ordinate performance- and evaluation-data. These performance
portfolios allow students and instructors to visually display language
proficiency gains and demonstrate maturing communication abilities,
ultimately encouraging students to be more reflective regarding their
ASL communication skills. Moreover, instructors have the ability to
modify feedback based on individual student needs by using various
feedback modalities (text, numeric, video, et cetera).’ As we can see,
they have effectively incorporated FA elements for second languages
into an online environment. As of this writing, the website, which is
now known simply as ‘Avenue’, has expanded for use with all world
languages, both spoken and signed, and can be accessed and used by
instructors on a trial basis at https://ave.umn.edu/info/
While being an exemplar of online formative assessment in second
languages, Avenue does have some drawbacks. One is the technical
requirements for computers and bandwidths that are not available or
accessible in all regions internationally. The other is that there is no
guarantee of how long it will be maintained or have technical support in
the future, given the rapidly evolving nature of technology. Those issues
aside, it illustrates that an approach using CBM with self-assessment
and feedback activities can be developed and used with SL programs.
We feel this is a promising area of research in FA and applied linguistics
in SLs internationally. Those who wish to replicate this method should
review the literature on the process of developing CBMs, as described by
Deno (1985, 2003) and Fuchs (2004). Perhaps the issue of most inter-
est would be task selection. There are a number of potential tasks that
could be utilized for SL assessment. It is not necessary to use all of the
tasks. For example, the developers of AvenueASL initially settled on two
tasks out of four, picture naming and story telling (Miller, 2011). The
four tasks that they initially tried (Hooper, Miller, & Rose, 2005) were
based on research in spoken language and ASL fluency studies (Wilbur,
272 Assessment
1987; Lupton & Zelaznik, 1990; Lupton, 1998). While this is not explic-
itly stated, it is conjectured that a reason for not using the other two
measures (picture description and story completion) is because of the
complexity of scoring and difficulty of getting reliable results.
• One minute picture naming: signs produced correctly. When given a set
of pictures one at a time, subject will attempt to produce the correct
single corresponding sign. Regional variations are acceptable.
• Story retell: phrases repeated correctly, signs used correctly, and idea units
repeated correctly. After watching a 20-second video of a native SL user
giving a short phrase, subject will attempt to communicate all details
of the original message.
• One minute picture description: classifiers used correctly. Given a set of
pictures of objects, subjects will attempt to describe the object using
classifiers.
• One minute story completion: phrases, classifiers, and idea units used cor-
rectly. Given a starter statement, subject completes the narrative. For
example, ‘Today I went to the store . . .’
• Based on studies on the relation between fingerspelling and with
both ASL and BSL fluency, we would posit fingerspelling as another
possible assessment task to be considered (Sutton-Spence & Woll,
1999; Padden & Ramsey, 2000; Baker, 2010). However, it has been
noted that some sign languages use widely varying degrees of
fingerspelling (Padden, 2006), so this may not apply to all sign
languages.
• 30-second finger spelling: correct/incorrect hand shapes and palm orienta-
tion (2 parameters only). When given a set of written words one at a
time, subject will attempt to produce the correct fingerspelling.
Whatever tasks are ultimately chosen and validated, and there should be
at least two measures used, it is important to understand that assessors
need to consider the comprehensive skills of the students and not focus
only on teaching the forms that are represented by the tasks. In other
words, they need to be holistic and avoid the narrow emphasis of ‘teach-
ing the test’ to the detriment of overall competency in students (Fuchs,
2004).
Summary and conclusions
In surveying the distinctions and definitions of summative and forma-

tive types of assessment, we have taken into account multidisciplinary,
multilingual, and multinational perspectives. In the process, we have

uncovered a plethora of issues, yet barely touched the tip of the iceberg.
At the same time, we have identified guiding principles, strategies, and
best practices to assess SL among L2 learners. This chapter focused on
FA, but, to provide the proper grounding and framework, we also briefly
reviewed SA. Hence, we have aimed to provide readers with an overview
of both major types of assessment and resources to learn more about
this topic.
While FA and SA serve different purposes, both can be used to form
an integrated system of assessment, curriculum, and instruction. Typi-
cally, in the SL field, SAs are geared towards professionals like teachers or
interpreters of the deaf. Used mainly for the purpose of hiring or qualify-
ing such professionals, SA does little to inform day-to-day instructional
practices or to provide for timely changes in instructional programming
prior to course completion or graduation. In contrast, FA is curriculum-
driven and makes stronger connections between teaching, learning,
and assessment. As described earlier, planned FA approaches, like TBA,
involve teaching tasks with some method of measuring learners’ per-
formance. In brief, both SA and FA potentially serve vital roles in
identifying achievement gaps and improving learning outcomes.
Studies reviewed here commonly hold that FA is a process, best
defined as a series of ‘informed and informing actions’ to enhance
the efficacy and reciprocity of the teaching–learning relationship. This
reciprocal relationship is a recurring theme and central to develop-
ing self-monitoring skills; it encourages instructional efficacy while
also providing feedback for needed curriculum or teaching improve-
ment (Sadler, 1998; Filsecker & Kerres, 2012). Thus, the major hall-
marks of FA are self-assessment, peer assessment, and other approaches
described in this chapter designed to offer SL learners high-quality
feedback. Teacher observations and CBM are also widely recognized
FA procedures. The FA-based approaches described here are geared to
the collection, analysis, and response to data about student progress;
or, to identify and mediate achievement gaps. In particular, we have
reviewed the research on feedback in formative assessment and high-
lighted best practices of providing feedback (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick,
2006). According to these principles, providing students with meaning-
ful feedback is a major way to trouble-shoot and take action to reduce
the achievement gap. Most importantly, FA encourages teacher–learner
feedback and dialogue, contributes to portfolio development, enhances
reflective practices, and potentially offers tangible ways for students to
be better prepared for SA.
274 Assessment
Given the visual nature of SLs and use of video recording, it is

considered optimal for portfolios to be electronic or online whenever
possible. We have explored one instance of electronic portfolios being
developed and used at the University of Minnesota in an online assess-
ment program called ‘AvenueASL’ (Miller et al., 2008). Notably, this
online assessment program includes a performance portfolio compo-
nent, which allows the visual display of language proficiency gains and
development of communication abilities as learners progress through
ASL coursework. Accordingly, students are encouraged to be more reflec-
tive of their developing ASL skills (see also Hooper et al., 2005, 2007;
Miller, 2011). We find AvenueASL to be an exemplary model of for-
mative assessment grounded in principles of CBM. While this offers an
effective FA-based approach to data collection and management for the
purpose of instructional planning, the SL as L2 field needs more assess-
ment tools that have proven reliability based on empirical trials with
large numbers of learners.
Generally, most assessment efforts have focused on the SL learning
of deaf children or the SL proficiency of interpreters and teachers of
the deaf. However, adapting these assessments to SL as L2 at varying
stages of language learning and across different languages and cultures
is problematic. Of central concern are validity and reliability, and one
must proceed with caution if choosing to adopt or adapt an assess-
ment tool not yet validated for SL and L2 learners. Internationally, there
are an ever-growing number of individuals choosing to learn SL for
academic, professional, or personal purposes. This development raises
certain rewards and challenges, addressed throughout the present vol-
ume. For instance, it offers excellent opportunities for data collection
and research on SL learner outcomes, including development of valid
and reliable measures of language learning and proficiency. Our hope
is that this chapter will stimulate further research and development of
assessment approaches geared to SL as L2 learners and programs.
References
American Sign Language Teachers Association. (2011). Standards for Learning
American Sign Language: A Project of the American Sign Language Teach-
ers Association. Retrieved from http://aslta.org/sites/default/files/documents/
ASL%20Standards%20(March%202011%20draft)%20pub.pdf
Anderson, D. & Reilly, J. (2002). The MacArthur Communicative Development
Inventory: Normative Data for American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 7(2), 83–106.
Andrade, H. & Du, Y. (2005). Student Perspectives on Rubric-Referenced Assess-

ment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(3), 1–11.
Andrade, H. & Du, Y. (2007). Student Responses to Criteria-Referenced Self-
Assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 159–181.
Bailey, K. M. (1999). Washback in Language Testing. Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service.
Baker, S. (2010). The Importance of Fingerspelling for Reading. Visual Language and
Visual Learning Science of Learning Center (Research Brief No. 1). Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University. Retrieved from http://vl2.gallaudet.edu/assets/section7/
document100.pdf
Bandura, A. & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating Competence, Self-Efficacy, and
Intrinsic Interest through Proximal Self-Motivation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 41(3), 586.
Baume, D. & Yorke, M. (2002). The Reliability of Assessment by Portfolio on a
Course to Develop and Accredit Teachers in Higher Education. Studies in Higher
Education, 27(1), 7–25.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2003). In Praise of Educational Research: Formative
Assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 29(5), 623–637.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (2012). The Reliability of Assessments. In J. Gardner (Ed.),
Assessment and Learning, 2nd ed., pp. 243–263. London: Sage.
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook of Summative and
Formative Evaluation of Student Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection, Turning Experience into
Learning, London: Routledge.
Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable Assessment: Rethinking Assessment for the Learning
Society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167.
Brookhart, S. (2013), How to Create and Use Rubrics for Formative Assessment
and Grading. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Caccamise, F. & Samar, V. (2009). Sign Language Proficiency Interview (SLPI):
Prenegotiation Interrater Reliability and Rater Validity. Contemporary Issues in
Communication Science and Disorders, 36(Spring 2009), 36–47.
Cross, K. & Angelo, T. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook
for College Teachers. Ann Arbor: National Center for the Improvement of
Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-Based Measurement: The Emerging Alternative.
Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219–232.
Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in Curriculum-Based Measurement. The Journal
of Special Education, 37(3), 184–192.
Deno, S. L., Espin, C. A., Fuchs, L. S., Shinn, M. R., Walker, H. M., &
Stoner, G. (2002). Evaluation Strategies for Preventing and Remediating Basic
Skill Deficits. Interventions for Academic and Behavior Problems II: Preventive and
Remedial Approaches, 213–241.
Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co.
Dunn, K. E. & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A Critical Review of Research on Formative
Assessment: The Limited Scientific Evidence of the Impact of Formative
276 Assessment
Assessment in Education. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(7),

1–11.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford University
Press, USA.
Ellis, R. (2006). The Methodology of Task-Based Teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3),
19–45.
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-Based Language Teaching: Sorting Out the Misunderstand-
ings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–246.
Fehrmann, G., Huber, W., Sieprath, H., Jager, L., & Werth, I. (1995).
Linguistische Konzeption des Aachener Tests zur Basiskompetenz in Deutscher
Gebärdensprache (ATG). [Linguistic Conception of the Aachen Test of
Basic Competence of German Sign Language (ATG)]. RWTH-Aachen,
Germanistisches Institut & Neurologische Klinik, Projekt DESIRE.
Filsecker, M. & Kerres, M. (2012). Repositioning Formative Assessment from an
Educational Assessment Perspective: A Response to Dunn & Mulvenon (2009).
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(16), 1–9.
Fowler, Y. (2007). Formative Assessment: Using Peer and Self-assessment in Inter-
preter Training. In Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of Interpreting in the
Community: Selected Papers from the 4th International Conference on Inter-
preting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Stockholm, Sweden, 20–23
May 2004, Vol. 70, pp. 253–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Freeman, R. & Lewis, R. (1998). Planning and Implementing Assessment. London:
Kogan Page.
Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The Past, Present, and Future of Curriculum-Based Measure-
ment Research. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 188–192.
Fuchs, L. S. & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of Systematic Formative Evaluation:
A Meta-Analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.
Furman, N., Goldberg, D., & Lusin, N. (2010). Enrollments in Languages Other
than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2009. Modern
Language Association. Retrieved from http://www.mla.org/enroll_survey09
Goldenberg, C. (1991). Instructional Conversations and their Classroom Applications.
UC Berkeley: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.
Government Skills Australia. (2013). Auslan Accredited Courses. Retrieved
March 20, 2013 from http://www.governmentskills.com.au/usercontent/
documents/AUSLAN/AUSLAN_Accredited_Courses_2010_Introduction_
updated_01.07.2013.pdf
Gravetter, F. J. & Wallnau, L. B. (2008). Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.
Stanford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Harlen, W. & James, M. (1997). Assessment and Learning: Differences and
Relationships between Formative and Summative Assessment. Assessment in
Haug, T. (2005). Review of Sign language Assessment Instruments. Sign Lan-
guage & Linguistics, 8(1), 59–96.
Haug, T. & Keller, J. (2011). ESF Exploratory Workshop on Development of The-
oretical and Practical Guidelines for the Adaptation of the Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR) to Sign Languages (Scientific Report). Zurich: Uni-
versity of Applied Sciences of Special Needs Education Zurich (HfH) and Zurich
University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW). Retrieved from http://www.hfh.ch/
webautor-data/70/10_112_Report-1.pdf
Haug, T. & Mann, W. (2008). Adapting Tests of Sign Language Assessment for
Other Sign Languages – A Review of Linguistic, Cultural, and Psychometric
Problems. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(1), 138–147.
Hauser, P., Paludneviciene, R., Supalla, T., & Bavelier, D. (2006). American
Sign Language-Sentence Reproduction Test: Development & Implications.
In R. M. deQuadros (Ed.), Sign Language: Spinning and Unraveling the Past, Present
and Future, 160–172. Petrópolis, Brazil: Arara Azul.
Heritage, M. (2007). Formative Assessment: What Do Teachers Need to Know and
Do? Phi Delta Kappa, 89(2), 140–145.
Herman, R., Holmes, S., & Woll, B. (1998). Design and Standardization of an
Assessment of British Sign Language Development for Use with Deaf Children:
Final Report, 1998. (Manuscript). London, UK: City University.
Hooper, S., Miller, C., Rose, S., & Veletsianos, G. (2007). The Effects of Digi-
tal Video Quality on Learner Comprehension in an American Sign Language
Assessment Environment. Sign Language Studies, 8(1), 42–58.
Hooper, S., Rose, S., & Miller, C. (2005). Assessing American Sign Language Per-
formance: Developing an Environment for Capturing, Evaluating, and Mon-
itoring Student Progress. In Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference
Web-based Education (pp. 452–457). Presented at the IASTED International Con-
ference Web-based Education, Grindelwald, Switzerland: ACTA Press. Retrieved
from http://learngen.org/∼aust/WBE2005/461-107.pdf
Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2006). The ABCs of CBM: A Practical
Guide to Curriculum-Based Measurement. New York: Guilford Press.
Hounsell, D. (1997). Contrasting Conceptions of Essay-Writing. In F. Marton, D.
Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds), The Experience of Learning, 2nd Ed., pp. 106–125.
Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Howell, K. W., & Nolet, V. (1999). Curriculum-Based Evaluation: Teaching and
Decision Making. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Johnston, T. (2004). The Assessment and Achievement of Proficiency in a Native
Sign Language within a Sign Bilingual Program: The Pilot Auslan Receptive
Skills Test. Deafness & Education International, 6(2), 57–81.
Klenowski, V., Askew, S., & Carnell, E. (2006). Portfolios for Learning, Assessment
and Professional Development in Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 31(3), 267–286.
Konrad, R. (2012). Sign Language Corpora Survey. DGS-Korpus. Retrieved
June 10, 2013 from http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/dgs-korpus/index.
php/sl-corpora.html
Kurz, K. B. & Taylor, M. M. (2008). Learning Outcomes for American Sign Lan-
guage Skills Levels 1–4. Rochester, NY: Rochester Institute of Technology,
National Technical Institute for the Deaf. Retrieved from https://ritdml.rit.edu/
bitstream/handle/1850/6270/LearningOutcomesASL06-2008.pdf?sequence=1
Leeson, L. (2006). Signed Languages in Education in Europe– a preliminary
exploration. Presented at the Intergovernmental Conference: Languages of
Schooling: Towards a Framework for Europe, Strasbourg October 16–18 2006,
Language Policy Division, Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.coe.
int/t/Dg4/Linguistic/Source/Leeson_EN.doc
Leeson, L. (2011). Mark My Words. In B. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds),
Advances in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in Action, pp. 153–188. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
278 Assessment
Leung, C. & Mohan, B. (2004). Teacher Formative Assessment and Talk in

Classroom Contexts: Assessment as Discourse and Assessment of Discourse.
Language Testing, 21(3), 335–359.
Luckner, J. L. & Bowen, S. K. (2010). Teachers’ Use and Perceptions of Progress
Monitoring. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(4), 397–406.
Lupton, L. (1998). Fluency in American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and
Deaf Education, 3(4), 320–328.
Lupton, L. K. & Zelaznik, H. N. (1990). Motor Learning in Sign Language
Students. Sign Language Studies, 67, 153–174.
Maller, S., Singleton, J., Supalla, S., & Wix, T. (1999). The Development and
Psychometric Properties of the American Sign Language Proficiency Assessment
(ASL-PA). Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4(4), 249–269.
Mathers, C., Smith, A., & Concha, M. (2003). Global Burden of Hearing Loss in
the Year 2000 (Working Paper). Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved
from http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/bod_hearingloss.pdf
Mertens, D. M. (2004). Consequential Validity. In M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, &
T. Liao (Eds), Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, pp. 179–180.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and Values in Test Validation: The Science and Ethics
of Assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5–11.
Messick, S. (1996). Validity and Washback in Language Testing. Language Testing,
13(3), 241–256.
Miller, C. (2011). Aesthetics and e-assessment: The Interplay of Emotional Design
and Learner Performance. Distance Education, 32(3), 307–337.
Miller, C., Hooper, S., & Rose, S. (2008). Avenue ASL: Transforming Curricu-
lum through Design and Innovation. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice
to Improve Learning, 52(2), 27–32.
Moss, C. & Brookhart, S. (2009). Advancing Formative Assessment in Every Class-
room. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Mounty, J. L. (1994). Signed Language Development Checklist: Training Manual.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Napier, J. (2004). Sign Language Interpreter Training, Testing, and Accreditation:
An International Comparison. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(4), 350–359.
New Jersey State Board of Education (1999). New Jersey World Languages Curricu-
lum Framework. Trenton, NJ: Author.
Newell, W., Caccamise, F., Boardman, K., & Holcomb, B. R. (1983). Adaptation
of the Language Proficiency Interview (LPI) for Assessing Sign Communicative
Competence. Sign Language Studies, 41, 311–352.
Nicol, D. J. & Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer Instruction versus Class-Wide Discus-
sion in Large Classes: A Comparison of Two Interaction Methods in the Wired
Classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 457–473.
Nicol, D. J. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative Assessment and Self-
Regulated Learning: A Model and Seven Principles of Good Feedback Practice.
Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
Padden, C. (2006). Learning to Fingerspell Twice: Young Signing Children’s
Acquisition of Fingerspelling. In B. Schick, M. Marschark, & P. E. Spencer
(Eds), Advances in the Sign Language Development of Deaf Children, pp. 189–201.
Padden, C. & Ramsey, C. (2000). American Sign Language and Reading Ability
in Deaf Children. In C. Chamberlain, J. P. Morford, & R. I. Mayberry (Eds),
Language Acquisition by Eye, pp. 165–189. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
Prinz, P., Strong, M., & Kunze, M. (1994). The Test of American Sign Language.
Unpublished Manuscript.
Rose, S. (2007). Monitoring Progress of Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing.
Retrieved from National Center on Student Progress Monitoring. http://www.
studentprogress.org/library/articles.asp#hearing
Studies, 10(3), 348–381.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional
Systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.
Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative Assessment: Revisiting the Territory. Assessment in
Sadlier, L. (2009). Pandora’s Box: Lifting the Lid on Issues of Testing. The Sign
Language Translator and Interpreter, 3(2), 177–201.
Sadlier, L., Van den Bogaerde, B., & Oyserman, J. (2012). Preliminary Collabora-
tive Steps in Establishing CEFR Sign Language Levels. In D. Tsagari & I. Csepes
(Eds), Collaboration in Language Testing and Assessment. Vol. 26, pp. 185–198.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. London: Temple Smith.
Scriven, M. (1967). The Methodology of Evaluation. In R. E. Stake (Ed.), Curricu-
lum Evaluation (American Educational Research Association Monograph Series
on Evaluation No. 1). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Shinn, M. R. & Hubbard, D. D. (1992). Curriculum-Based Measurement and
Problem-Solving Assessment: Basic Procedures and Outcomes. Focus on Excep-
tional Children, 24(5), 1–20.
Shinn, M. R., Shinn, M. M., Hamilton, C., & Clarke, B. (2002). Using Curriculum-
Based Measurement in General Education Classrooms to Promote Reading
Success. In M. Shinn, H. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds), Interventions for Aca-
demic and Behavior Problems II: Preventive and Remedial Approaches, 113–142.
Washington, DC: National Association of School Pyschologists.
Singleton, J. & Suppalla, S. (2003). Assessing Children’s Proficiency in Natural
Signed Languages. In M. Marschark & P. Spencer (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of
Deaf Studies, Language, and Education, pp. 289–302. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-Based Instruction. Language Teaching 36(1), 1–14.
Smith, A. K. (2007). The Performance of Deaf Students on a Test of American Sign
Language Abilities – Receptive (TASLA-R). Beaumont: Lamar University.
Smith, D. & Ramsey, C. (2004). Classroom Discourse Practices of a Deaf Teacher
Using American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 5, 39–62.
Stauffer, L. (2011). ASL Students’ Ability to Self Assess ASL Competency. Journal
of Interpretation, 21(1), 80–95.
Stobart, G. (2011). Validity in Formative Assessment. In John Gardner (Ed.),
Sutton-Spence, R. & Woll, B. (1999). The Linguistics of British Sign Language:
An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
280 Assessment
Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-Peer Dialogue as a Means of
Second Language Learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171–185.
Tharp, R. & Gallimore, R. (1991). The Instructional Conversation: Teaching and
Learning Social Activity (Research Report No.2). Washington, DC: National Center
for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
Wilbur, R. (1987). American Sign Language: Linguistics and Applied Dimensions.
Boston, MA: Little Brown & Company.
Wilcox, S. (2011). Universities That Accept ASL In Fulfillment Of Foreign Language
Requirements. Retrieved from http://www.unm.edu/∼wilcox/UNM/univlist.
html
Wiliam, D. (2000, November) Integrating Summative and Formative Functions of
Assessment. Keynote address to the Euproean Association for Educational
Assessment, Prague, Czech Republic. Retrieved from http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/
1151/1/Wiliam2000IntergratingAEA-E_2000_keynoteaddress.pdf
World Association of Sign Language Interpreters. (2013). Testing Assessment and
Accreditation. Retrieved March 21, 2013 from http://www.wasli.org/testing-
assessment-and-accreditation-p50.aspx
References
American Sign Language Teachers Association. (2011). Standards for Learning

American Sign Language: A Project of the American Sign Language Teach-
ers Association. Retrieved from http://aslta.org/sites/default/files/documents/
ASL%20Standards%20(March%202011%20draft)%20pub.pdf
Anderson, D., & Reilly, J. (2002). The MacArthur Communicative Development
Inventory: Normative Data for American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 7(2), 83–106.
Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2005). Student Perspectives on Rubric-Referenced Assess-
ment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(3), 1–11.
Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2007). Student Responses to Criteria-Referenced Self-
Assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 159–181.
Bailey, K. M. (1999). Washback in Language Testing. Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service.
Baker, S. (2010). The Importance of Fingerspelling for Reading. Visual Language and
Visual Learning Science of Learning Center (Research Brief No. 1). Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University. Retrieved from http://vl2.gallaudet.edu/assets/section7/
document100.pdf
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating Competence, Self-Efficacy, and
Intrinsic Interest through Proximal Self-Motivation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 41(3), 586.
Baume, D., & Yorke, M. (2002). The Reliability of Assessment by Portfolio on a
Course to Develop and Accredit Teachers in Higher Education. Studies in Higher
Education, 27(1), 7–25.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment
in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2012). The Reliability of Assessments. In J. Gardner (Ed.),
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook of Summative and
Formative Evaluation of Student Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable Assessment: Rethinking Assessment for the Learning
Society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167.
Caccamise, F., & Samar, V. (2009). Sign Language Proficiency Interview (SLPI):
Prenegotiation Interrater Reliability and Rater Validity. Contemporary Issues in
Communication Science and Disorders, 36(Spring 2009), 36–47.
Cross, K., & Angelo, T. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook
for College Teachers. Ann Arbor: National Center for the Improvement of
Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-Based Measurement: The Emerging Alternative.
Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219–232.
Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in Curriculum-Based Measurement. The Journal
of Special Education, 37(3), 184–192.
281
282 References
Deno, S. L., Espin, C. A., Fuchs, L. S., Shinn, M. R., Walker, H. M., &
Stoner, G. (2002). Evaluation Strategies for Preventing and Remediating Basic
Skill Deficits. Interventions for Academic and Behavior Problems II: Preventive and
Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A Critical Review of Research on Forma-
tive Assessment: The Limited Scientific Evidence of the Impact of Formative
Assessment in Education. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(7),
1–11.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford University
Press, USA.
Ellis, R. (2006). The Methodology of Task-Based Teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3),
19–45.
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-Based Language Teaching: Sorting Out the Misunderstand-
ings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–246.
Fehrmann, G., Huber, W., Sieprath, H., Jager, L., & Werth, I. (1995).
Linguistische Konzeption des Aachener Tests zur Basiskompetenz in Deutscher
Gebärdensprache (ATG). [Linguistic Conception of the Aachen Test of
Basic Competence of German Sign Language (ATG)]. RWTH-Aachen,
Germanistisches Institut & Neurologische Klinik, Projekt DESIRE.
Filsecker, Michael & Kerres, Michael (2012). Repositioning Formative Assessment
from an Educational Assessment Perspective: A Response to Dunn & Mulvenon
(2009). Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(16). Available online:
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=17&n=16
Fowler, Y. (2007). Formative Assessment: Using Peer and Self-assessment in Inter-
preter Training. In Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of Interpreting in the
Community: Selected Papers from the 4th International Conference on Inter-
preting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Stockholm, Sweden, May
20–23, 2004, Vol. 70, pp. 253–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Freeman, R., & Lewis, R. (1998). Planning and Implementing Assessment. London:
Kogan Page.
Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The Past, Present, and Future of Curriculum-Based Measure-
ment Research. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 188–192.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of Systematic Formative Evaluation:
A Meta-Analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.
Furman, N., Goldberg, D., & Lusin, N. (2010). Enrollments in Languages Other
than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2009. Modern
Language Association. Retrieved from http://www.mla.org/enroll_survey09
Goldenberg, C. (1991). Instructional Conversations and their Classroom Applications.
UC Berkeley: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.
Government Skills Australia. (2013). Auslan Accredited Courses. Retrieved
November 20, 2013 from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6q72k3k9#page-1
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2008). Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.
Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and Learning: Differences and
Relationships between Formative and Summative Assessment. Assessment in
Haug, T. (2005). Review of Sign language Assessment Instruments. Sign Lan-
guage & Linguistics, 8(1), 59–96.
References 283
Haug, T., & Keller, J. (2011). ESF Exploratory Workshop on Development of Theoretical
and Practical Guidelines for the Adaptation of the Common European Frame-
work of Reference (CEFR) to Sign Languages (Scientific Report). Zurich: University
of Applied Sciences of Special Needs Education Zurich (HfH) and Zurich
University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW). Retrieved from http://www.hfh.ch/
webautor-data/70/10_112_Report-1.pdf
Haug, T., & Mann, W. (2008). Adapting Tests of Sign Language Assessment for
Other Sign Languages – A Review of Linguistic, Cultural, and Psychometric
Problems. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(1), 138–147.
Hauser, P., Paludneviciene, R., Supalla, T., & Bavelier, D. (2006). American Sign
Language-Sentence Reproduction Test: Development & Implications. In de
Quadros RM, editor. Sign Language: Spinning and Unraveling the Past, Present and
Future,160–172. Petrópolis, Brazil: Arara Azul.
Heritage, M. (2007). Formative Assessment: What Do Teachers Need to Know and
Do? Phi Delta Kappa, 89(2), 140–145.
Herman, R., Holmes, S., & Woll, B. (1998). Design and Standardization of an
Assessment of British Sign Language Development for Use with Deaf Children:
Final Report, 1998. (Manuscript). London, UK: City University.
Hooper, S., Miller, C., Rose, S., & Veletsianos, G. (2007). The Effects of Digi-
tal Video Quality on Learner Comprehension in an American Sign Language
Assessment Environment. Sign Language Studies, 8(1), 42–58.
Hooper, S., Rose, S., & Miller, C. (2005). Assessing American Sign Language Per-
formance: Developing an Environment for Capturing, Evaluating, and Mon-
itoring Student Progress. In Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference
Web-based Education (pp. 452–457). Presented at the IASTED International Con-
ference Web-based Education, Grindelwald, Switzerland: ACTA Press. Retrieved
from http://learngen.org/∼aust/WBE2005/461-107.pdf
Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2006). The ABCs of CBM: A Practical
Guide to Curriculum-Based Measurement. New York: Guilford Press.
Hounsell, D. (1997). Contrasting Conceptions of Essay-Writing. In F. Marton, D.
Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds), The Experience of Learning, 2nd Ed., pp. 106–125.
Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Johnston, T. (2004). The Assessment and Achievement of Proficiency in a Native
Sign Language within a Sign Bilingual Program: The Pilot Auslan Receptive
Skills Test. Deafness & Education International, 6(2), 57–81.
Klenowski, V., Askew, S., & Carnell, E. (2006). Portfolios for Learning, Assessment
and Professional Development in Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 31(3), 267–286.
Konrad, R. (2012). Sign Language Corpora Survey. DGS-Korpus. Retrieved
June 10, 2013 from http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/dgs-korpus/index.
php/sl-corpora.html
Kurz, K. B., & Taylor, M. M. (2008). Learning Outcomes for American Sign Lan-
guage Skills Levels 1–4. Rochester, NY: Rochester Institute of Technology,
National Technical Institute for the Deaf. Retrieved from https://ritdml.rit.edu/
bitstream/handle/1850/6270/LearningOutcomesASL06-2008.pdf?sequence=1
Leeson, L. (2006). Signed Languages in Education in Europe – a preliminary
exploration. Presented at the Intergovernmental Conference: Languages of
Schooling: Towards a Framework for Europe, Strasbourg October 16–18, 2006,
284 References
Language Policy Division, Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.coe.

int/t/Dg4/Linguistic/Source/Leeson_EN.doc
Leeson, L. (2011). Mark My Words. In B. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds.),
Advances in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in Action, pp. 153–188. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Leung, C., & Mohan, B. (2004). Teacher Formative Assessment and Talk in
Classroom Contexts: Assessment as Discourse and Assessment of Discourse.
Language Testing, 21(3), 335–359.
Luckner, J. L., & Bowen, S. K. (2010). Teachers’ Use and Perceptions of Progress
Monitoring. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(4), 397–406.
Lupton, L. (1998). Fluency in American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and
Deaf Education, 3(4), 320–328.
Lupton, L. K., & Zelaznik, H. N. (1990). Motor Learning in Sign Language
Students. Sign Language Studies, 67, 153–174.
Maller, S., Singleton, J., Supalla, S., & Wix, T. (1999). The Development and
Psychometric Properties of the American Sign Language Proficiency Assessment
(ASL-PA). Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4(4), 249–269.
Mathers, C., Smith, A., & Concha, M. (2003). Global Burden of Hearing Loss in
the Year 2000 (Working Paper). Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved
from http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/bod_hearingloss.pdf
Mertens, D. M. (2004). Consequential Validity. In M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, &
T. Liao (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, pp. 179–180.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and Values in Test Validation: The Science and Ethics
of Assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5–11.
Messick, S. (1996). Validity and Washback in Language Testing. Language Testing,
13(3), 241–256.
Miller, C. (2011). Aesthetics and e-assessment: The Interplay of Emotional Design
and Learner Performance. Distance Education, 32(3), 307–337.
Miller, C., Hooper, S., & Rose, S. (2008). Avenue ASL: Transforming Curricu-
lum through Design and Innovation. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice
to Improve Learning, 52(2), 27–32.
Moss, C., & Brookhart, S. (2009). Advancing Formative Assessment in Every Class-
room. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Mounty, J. L. (1994). Signed Language Development Checklist: Training Manual.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Napier, J. (2004). Sign Language Interpreter Training, Testing, and Accreditation:
An International Comparison. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(4), 350–359.
New Jersey State Board of Education (1999). New Jersey World Languages Curricu-
lum Framework. Trenton, NJ: Author.
Newell, W., Caccamise, F., Boardman, K., & Holcomb, B. R. (1983). Adaptation
of the Language Proficiency Interview (LPI) for Assessing Sign Communicative
Competence. Sign Language Studies, 41, 311–352.
Nicol, D. J., & Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer Instruction versus Class-Wide Discus-
sion in Large Classes: A Comparison of Two Interaction Methods in the Wired
Classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 457–473.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative Assessment and Self-
Regulated Learning: A Model and Seven Principles of Good Feedback Practice.
Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
References 285
Padden, C. (2006). Learning to Fingerspell Twice: Young Signing Children’s

Acquisition of Fingerspelling. In B. Schick, M. Marschark, & P. E. Spencer
(Eds), Advances in the Sign Language Development of Deaf Children, pp. 189–201.
Padden, C., & Ramsey, C. (2000). American Sign Language and Reading Ability
in Deaf Children. In C. Chamberlain, J. P. Morford, & R. I. Mayberry (Eds),
Language Acquisition by Eye, pp. 165–189. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
Prinz, P., Strong, M., & Kunze, M. (1994). The Test of American Sign Language.
Unpublished manuscript.
Rose, S. (2007). Monitoring Progress of Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing.
Retrieved from National Center on Student Progress Monitoring http://www.
studentprogress.org/library/articles.asp#hearing
Studies, 10(3), 348–381.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional
Systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.
Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative Assessment: Revisiting the Territory. Assessment in
Sadlier, L. (2009). Pandora’s Box: Lifting the Lid on Issues of Testing. The Sign
Language Translator and Interpreter, 3(2), 177–201.
Sadlier, L., Van den Bogaerde, B., & Oyserman, J. (2012). Preliminary Collabora-
tive Steps in Establishing CEFR Sign Language Levels. In D. Tsagari & I. Csepes
(Eds.), Collaboration in Language Testing and Assessment. Vol. 26, pp. 185–198.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Scriven, M. S. (1967). The methodology of evaluation (Perspectives of Curriculum
Evaluation, and AERA monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, No. 1).
Chicago: Rand NcNally.
Shinn, M. R., & Hubbard, D. D. (1992). Curriculum-Based Measurement and
Problem-Solving Assessment: Basic Procedures and Outcomes. Focus on Excep-
tional Children, 24(5), 1–20.
Shinn, M. R., Shinn, M. M., Hamilton, C., & Clarke, B. (2002). Using Curriculum-
Based Measurement in General Education Classrooms to Promote Reading
Success. Interventions for Academic and Behavior Problems II: Preventive and
Singleton, J., & Suppalla, S. (2003). Assessing Children’s Proficiency in Natural
Signed Languages. In M. Marschark & P. Spencer (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of
Deaf Studies, Language, and Education, pp. 289–302. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Smith, A. K. (2007). The Performance of Deaf Students on a Test of American Sign
Language Abilities – Receptive (TASLA-R). Beaumont: Lamar University.
Smith, D., & Ramsey, C. (2004). Classroom Discourse Practices of a Deaf Teacher
Using American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 5, 39–62.
Stauffer, L. (2011). ASL Students’ Ability to Self Assess ASL Competency. Journal
of Interpretation, 21(1), 80–95.
Stobart, G. (2011). Validity in Formative Assessment. In John Gardner (Ed.),
Sutton-Spence, R., & Woll, B. (1999). The Linguistics of British Sign Language:
An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
286 References
Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-Peer Dialogue as a Means of
Second Language Learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171–185.
Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1991). The Instructional Conversation: Teaching and
Learning Social Activity (Research Report No.2). Washington, DC: National Center
for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
Wilbur, R. (1987). American Sign Language: Linguistics and Applied Dimensions.
Boston, MA: Little Brown & Company.
Wilcox, S. (2011). Universities That Accept ASL In Fulfillment Of Foreign
Language Requirements. Retrieved from http://www.unm.edu/∼wilcox/UNM/
univlist.html
World Association of Sign Language Interpreters. (2013). Testing Assessment and
Accreditation. Retrieved March 21, 2013 from http://www.wasli.org/testing-
assessment-and-accreditation-p50.aspx
Index
acquisition, 7, 15, 30, 55, 61–7, 86, Cambodia, 42, 44

100, 117, 119, 146, 156–157, Cambodian Sign Language, 44
167, 169, 177, 209, 217, 222–9, Canada, 175, 256
241–2, 264 certificate (in linguistics; in sign
Adamorobe Sign Language language), 37–44, 54, 60, 62,
(Ghana), 242 69–70
adverb, 93, 99, 102, 184, 226, Chinese University of Hong Kong, 36,
240, 245 37, 45, 55
American Sign Language (ASL), 1, 95, classifiers, 188, 192, 240, 242, 272
112, 139, 145, 176, 254 classroom management, 67, 74, 75
applied linguistics, 2, 3, 48, 50, 52, cochlear implants, (CI), 4, 11, 27, 28,
254, 257, 262, 264, 271 176, 181–3
Argentinian Sign Language, 53 cognitive linguistics, 113
Asia, 4, 36, 44–8, 59 college, colleges, 16, 37–9, 66, 73, 147,
Asia-Pacific, 36–7, 41–2, 45, 59, 64 185, 226, 256
Asia Pacific Sign Linguistics program comprehension, 5, 117, 121, 130, 148,
(APSL), 37, 41, 45 155, 159–62, 189, 207, 213, 229
aspect (verbs), 94, 98–101 Computer-Assisted Language Learning
assessment, 130, 146, 148, 158–166, (CALL), 131
253–274
constructed action (CA), 5, 111
formative, 7, 253–274
constructed dialogue (CD), 111
summative, 253–74
corpus, 5, 26, 86–108, 118, 247, 263
attitudes, 26, 30, 55, 60, 97, 177,
corpus linguistics, data, 85–7, 97
202–3, 217, 259
curriculum, curricula, 2–5, 17–19, 29,
auditory, auditory-verbal
38–40, 42, 51, 61, 67, 85, 95–7,
processing, 27, 127, 157–9, 166–9,
99–100
176, 228
curriculum based measurement
Australia, 69, 85–6, 96, 112, 248, 254,
(CBM), 260, 269
256, 263, 264
Australian Sign Language
(Auslan), 112 deaf children, 6, 11–15, 17–18, 22, 24,
autonomy, 6, 197, 200–3, 210, 217 26, 27, 29, 33, 49, 57, 63, 130,
175–9, 181–7, 193, 224, 274
bilingual, bilingualism, 15, 17, 26–30, deaf community, deaf communities, 3,
39, 63, 117, 129, 130, 176, 13, 27, 29, 38, 48–51, 54–7, 62,
177–84, 184, 185, 193, 211, 212, 64, 67, 80, 86, 179, 197, 198, 202,
216, 217, 230–3, 247 203, 207, 208, 211–15, 218, 223,
bimodal, bimodality, 2, 5–6, 177, 226–8, 247
179, 192 deaf education, 4, 32, 37–9, 42, 45, 47,
book sharing, 176, 179–81, 184, 189 49, 57, 63, 64, 80, 96, 129, 133,
British Sign Language (BSL), 65, 88, 201, 247, 274
177, 222, 254 deaf families, 12, 55, 57
287
288 Index
deaf parents, 13, 16, 17, 22, 28, first language, 3, 11, 31, 67, 73,
60, 179 129, 130, 145, 154, 177,
Deaf Studies, 2, 7, 36, 47–51, 54, 187, 241
80, 96 foreign language, 1, 3, 6, 7, 19, 95,
Denmark, 52, 67, 69, 232, 347 130, 145–7, 154, 157, 158, 159,
dictionary, dictionaries, 20, 22–4, 26, 167, 168, 170, 191, 224, 229, 263
31, 49, 55, 59, 91, 92, 116, 191, French, 19, 127, 185
193, 248
digital tools, 5, 83, 88 Gallaudet University, 37, 38, 127
diploma, 4, 16, 45–8, 55, 59, 65, 68, German, Germany, 5, 6, 19, 69,
69, 70, 75, 198, 204 114, 115, 126, 129, 130, 133, 134,
discourse, signed, 111–14, 116, 119–21 223, 225, 233, 234, 243, 247,
Dutch Sign Language (NGT), 223, 226, 254, 255
233, 247 German Sign Language (DGS), 5, 114,
129, 130, 223, 255
gestures, 5, 22, 40, 44, 55, 115, 131–5,
early intervention, 175–7, 181–3, 186,
139, 140, 148
187, 192, 193
gloss, 87, 89, 100, 104, 105, 106, 108,
ELAN, 86, 102, 103, 105, 106–8,
132, 135, 139, 140, 189
121, 127
good language learners, 6, 197,
e-learning tool (eLCA), 5, 111, 117,
203, 213
118–26, 240
government, governmental
English, 46–8, 59, 60, 61, 68, 75–7, 79,
recognition, 2, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18,
80, 85, 87, 96, 98, 101–3, 105,
19, 29, 33, 49, 52, 56, 57, 59, 68,
112, 130, 139, 145, 146–8, 154,
263, 264
155, 158, 167, 176, 180–2, 184–9,
grammar, 2, 15, 17, 20, 22, 47, 49, 74,
198, 200, 204–6, 211, 224, 226,
86, 95, 96, 98, 103, 108, 112, 182,
227, 228, 233–8
187, 192, 211, 225, 229, 238, 240,
error detection/identification task,
241, 242, 266
133, 136–9
grammaticality judgment tests, 5
ethnography, 179
evaluation, 53, 65, 71, 79, 122, 159,
handshape, 86, 88, 89, 90, 96, 148,
177, 240, 256, 257, 259, 262,
188, 189, 191, 193, 195, 226, 232,
264, 271
236, 248, 265
experiment, 4–6, 101, 115, 134, 146, hard-of-hearing, HoH, 14, 17, 31, 130,
147, 149, 150, 154–71 180, 184, 193, 223
hearing aids, 14, 183, 184, 190
Facebook, 53 hearing children, 13, 17, 28, 130, 180,
facial expression, 123, 130, 131, 189, 184, 193, 194
238, 266 hearing children of deaf parents
feedback, 61, 71–3, 76, 92, 105, 118, (CODA), 13, 198, 203
123, 125, 205, 208, 212, 214, 215, hearing impaired, 14, 27, 63, 80
231, 240, 253, 257–64, 267–9, hearing parents, 14, 15, 17, 26, 175,
271, 273 176, 177, 179, 180, 184, 186, 192
Fijian Sign Language, 45 higher education, 3, 7, 17, 28, 35, 36,
Filipino Sign Language, 44 39, 65, 66, 69, 71, 73, 75–80
fingerspelling, 88, 89, 186, 188, 200, high school, secondary school, 16, 17,
225, 227, 231, 233, 234, 236, 237, 19, 39, 50, 54, 57, 60, 147,
239, 240, 241, 248, 272 154, 158
Index 289
Hong Kong, 4, 36, 37, 42, 44, 45, 48, lexicon, lexical, 2, 15, 49, 74, 211,
49, 55, 57, 58, 59 232, 263
Hong Kong Sign Language (HKSL), 44, listening, 157, 161, 205, 208, 267
45, 47, 49, 57, 59 literacy, 6, 35, 46, 48, 53, 59, 61, 66,
human rights, 2 77, 79, 81, 176, 178, 179, 181,
184, 186, 187, 193
iconicity, iconic, 5, 112, 113, 115, 148,
155, 225, 234, 239, 241 media (digital), 4, 50, 53, 102
identity, 7, 36, 48, 58, 60–3, 117, 125, metalinguistic awareness, 5, 129, 130,
175, 176, 179, 183, 190, 201, 203, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137, 138, 139,
208, 212, 214, 215 140, 141
Indonesia, 55, 57, 59 modality (of language), 1, 5, 111, 140,
instruction, 4–7, 18, 38–41, 43, 44, 168, 169, 199, 225, 254
47–9, 53, 55, 59, 61, 66, 67, 73, Modern Language Association
86, 100, 121, 124, 130–2, 145, (MLA), 1
147–51, 153–5, 158, 163–70, 180, morphology, 47, 58
181, 198, 199, 212, 253, 256–8, motivation, instrumental; integrative,
260, 261, 263, 264, 268, 269, 273, 1, 51, 60, 64, 183, 201, 202, 211,
274, 276 212, 213, 216, 217, 218, 236, 237,
International Sign, 223, 224, 248 240, 275
interpreters, interpreting, 1, 6, 13, mouth, mouth gesture, mouthing, 5,
14–17, 19, 22, 24, 28–31, 35, 39, 115, 117, 125, 131, 132, 133, 134,
50, 56, 57, 59, 63, 64, 66, 68, 73, 135, 136, 139, 140, 200, 208, 227,
75, 76, 97, 101, 112, 114, 171, 233, 235, 237, 238, 240, 243, 245,
180, 197–201, 203–6, 209, 211, 248
212, 214–18, 225, 248, 256, 257, movement, 98, 132, 148, 236, 239,
260–3, 268, 269, 273, 274 241, 265, 266
interviews, 28, 54, 55, 71, 73, 179,
204, 205, 232, 256 National Association of Deaf, 42,
Italy, 6, 222, 247 45, 46
Italian Sign Language (LIS), 223 native language, 6, 145, 172
negation (signs), 239, 266
Jakarta Sign Language, 45, 57 Netherlands, 6, 178, 223, 247
Japanese Sign Language, 45, 53 New Zealand, 4, 6, 35, 36, 49, 50, 51,
52, 60, 64, 197, 198, 206, 207
learner autonomy, 197, 200, 201, 203, New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL),
205, 210, 217 36, 49, 50, 51, 197
learner identities, 208, 215 non-manual features, 5, 132, 133, 134,
learning disability, 6, 147, 157, 158, 135, 139, 140, 200, 242
168, 169, 170 Norway, 6, 223, 247
learning materials, 3, 48, 87, Norwegian Sign Language (NTS), 223
199, 226 noun, 113, 115
learning process, 51, 52, 75, 102, number (signs), 24, 239
158, 173, 199, 211, 213, 225,
241, 269 Oceania, 4
learning strategies, 199, 204, 205, 207, orientation, 6, 95, 121, 126, 148, 176,
213, 214, 216, 218 177, 182, 192, 201, 219, 232, 236,
lexemes, 112–15, 123 265, 272
290 Index
parameters, 2, 148, 254, 272 role shifting, 179, 184, 189

parents of deaf children, 6, 13, 14, see also constructed action (CA)
15, 17, 24, 26, 174, 175, Russian Sign Language, 53
179, 193
parliament (Swedish), 15, 19 scaffolding, 201, 202, 210, 212, 216
pedagogy, pedagogical, 2, 5, 68, 95, Scotland, 65, 68, 75, 78, 80
108, 253 second language (L2) learners, 2, 175,
performance, 5, 6, 111, 112, 130, 132, 192, 241, 253
137, 138– 140, 146, 147, 149, 156, second languages, 1, 2, 100, 107, 271
158, 160–3, 165, 166, 168–70, Signed Swedish, 13, 15, 18, 24
256, 258, 259, 262, 263, 264, 265, signing community, 7, 11, 12, 27
267– 274
Signs2Go, 6, 222 – 242
Philippines, 42, 44
social network, 201, 202, 203, 206,
phonological awareness, 5, 132,
207, 209, 210, 213, 214,
140, 141
215, 217
phonology, phonological, 47, 58, 86,
sociocultural theory, 220, 221
96, 140
sociolinguistic, sociolinguistics, 2, 41,
pictures, 22, 43, 46, 112, 125, 145,
43, 70
148, 159, 162, 169, 272
sociolinguistic variation, 115, 118,
plurilingualism, 6, 175, 177, 184, 188,
200, 206, 214, 241
191, 192, 226
Spanish, 19, 225
politics, political, 12, 13, 20, 22, 26,
Spanish Sign Language (LSE), 225
49, 185, 207, 226
speech, 18, 22, 24, 28, 31, 56, 66, 92,
practice (professional, teaching), 2, 3,
96, 106, 111, 117, 132, 169,
4, 68, 75, 85, 95, 97
182, 183
pre-school, 13
speech-language pathology, 182
production, 2, 5, 12, 20, 105, 112,
spoken language, 2, 3, 5, 14, 43, 46,
113, 114, 115, 117, 130, 140, 141,
58, 69, 86, 106, 111, 113, 117,
148, 167, 182, 199, 212, 227, 228,
130, 131, 132, 139, 140, 141, 168,
231, 232, 234, 255, 267
182, 184, 198, 199, 222, 227, 237,
proficiency, 2, 29, 38, 42, 43, 46, 51,
247, 256, 271
67, 123, 146, 149, 154, 163, 164,
165, 177, 178, 182, 183, 184, 185, Sri Lanka, 45, 55, 56, 57
198, 253, 254, 255, 256, 262, 263, Stokoe, William, 2
268, 269, 271, 274 story, literature, 43, 46, 160, 178, 184,
psychoeducational assessments, 158, 188, 189, 191, 224, 270, 271, 272
159, 165, 166 Sweden, Swedish, 11–14, 16–20, 26,
27, 29, 31
qualitative, 4, 6, 20, 73, Swedish Sign Language (SSL), 4, 11,
218, 368 20, 22, 24
quantitative, 4, 20, 220 syntax, 47, 58, 112, 114, 139
questionnaire, 71, 76
question (signs), 86, 88, 132, 134, target language, 6, 100, 145, 172, 197,
136, 239 199, 200, 202, 213, 222, 226, 229,
241, 262
reading, 48, 72, 77, 159, 160, 161, teacher preparation, training, 4, 7, 18,
162, 176, 178, 179, 183, 184, 185, 22, 31, 35, 36, 39, 51, 63, 100
186, 187, 188, 189, 190–3, 205, teaching methods, 66, 73, 75,
267, 270 167, 227
Index 291
technology, technologies, 47, 50, 63, video, 51, 53, 61, 77, 86, 101, 105,
131, 140, 198, 227, 271 106, 130– 136, 140, 171, 179, 180,
testing, 2, 134, 135, 149, 156, 255 207, 212, 213, 232, 259, 267, 270
Thailand, 37, 38, 39, 40, 237, 246 Viet Nam, Vietnamese, 38– 42, 63
Thai Sign Language, 37, 38 Ho Chi Minh Sign Language, 39, 44
training program, 4, 16, 18, 19, 30, 31, visualization (as pedagogical strategy),
35, 36, 41, 45, 50, 55, 56, 63, 139, 118, 119, 121, 126
256, 262, 268 vocabulary, 6, 7, 24, 61, 86, 87, 96,
transcription, 5, 120, 121, 126, 129, 106, 130, 145–9, 151, 153–6,
132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 158–72, 175, 184, 189, 190, 191,
140, 141, 179, 205 192, 212, 213, 225, 230, 231, 233,
tutors, 5, 17, 19, 63, 65, 67, 68, 75, 78, 234, 241, 242, 248
79, 202, 207, 210, 215 voice-on approach, 145, 147, 148,
150–6, 158, 163–8, 170
unimodal, unimodality, 5, 6, 222, voice-off approach, 145, 147–56, 158,
226, 242 163– 168, 170
United Kingdom, 52, 67, 69, 70, 78,
222, 227, 247
web-based learning, 131
United States of America, 1, 5, 7, 36,
writing, 24, 57, 119, 134, 145, 146,
57, 69, 96, 97, 99, 100, 113, 253–
148, 159, 162, 185, 186, 267,
256, 263
270, 271
verb, 91– 94, 98, 99, 101, 102, 104,
105, 108, 115, 116, 119, 238, 240, Yogyakarta Sign Language, 45, 57
244, 265 YouTube, 53, 121

Teaching and Learning Signed Languages, International Perspectives and Practices (1349457280)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Teaching and Learning Signed Languages, International Perspectives and Practices (1349457280)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Teaching and Learning Signed Languages

This page intentionally left blank

David McKee, Russell S. Rosen, and Rachel McKee

List of Figures and Tables vii

Section I Development and Impacts of Sign

2 Developing Deaf Communities through Sign Language

3 Educating the Trainers of British Sign Language Tutors:

Section II Innovations in Using Digital Tools in

5 eLCA – An e-learning Unit for Acquiring

6 Transcription as a Tool for Increasing Metalinguistic

Section III Learners and Contexts for Learning

8 Hearing Parents as Plurilingual Learners of ASL 175

9 Learner Autonomy in New Zealand Sign Language

10 Teaching British Sign Language as a Second Language to

1.1 Cover of Teckenspråket (Österberg, 1916) 21

2.1 Certiﬁcate in the Linguistics of Vietnamese Sign

7.12 Experiment three: pre-test vocabulary lists taught under

Amanda T. Boyle holds a Master’s in Teaching American Sign Language

Donovan Cresdee is Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Depart-

Kerry Daley holds a Master’s in Teaching American Sign Language as

Jeffrey E. Davis has worked as an interpreter, teacher, and researcher in

Mary-Kate DeLouise received her Master’s in Teaching American Sign

Jens Hessmann is Professor in the Sign Language Interpreting Unit at

Trevor Johnston is Professor in Signed Language Linguistics at

Emily Kaufmann is a sign language linguistics researcher in the

Thomas Kaul is Professor of Deaf Education at the University of

Rachel McKee is Program Director of Deaf Studies in the School of

Anke Müller has worked on a bilingual teaching project (German for

Anna-Lena Nilsson is Associate Professor in (Swedish) Sign Language

Lynette Pivac holds an MA in Applied Language Studies, and is a

Russell S. Rosen is Assistant Professor of Education at Teachers College,

Krister Schönström is Associate Professor in the Department of Lin-

David H. Smith is currently Director of the Center on Deafness and

Kristin Snoddon is a postdoctoral fellow with the School of Early Child-

Graham H. Turner is the Chair of Interpreting and Translation Studies

James Woodward is Honorary Adjunct Professor in the Depart-

The proﬁle of signed languages as taught second languages has soared

Worldwide, the teaching and learning of signed languages as sec-

been inﬂuential in disseminating teaching approaches adapted from

Research approaches represented in this volume range from qualitative,

Teaching British Sign Language Tutors, a course designed to train the

The emergence of SSL as L2

Formal teaching of SSL as L2 is a relatively new phenomenon. The lan-

The Government Commission on Handicapped Persons (Handikappu-

Political trends and decisions

Contributions from early research

Teaching SSL as L2: Some target groups, courses,

aimed at them. Our focus will be Swedish/SSL interpreters, parents of

admission test, in which applicants had to show their ability to inter-

Parents of deaf and hard-of-hearing children

authorized to do so by The National Agency for Special Needs Education

Teachers of the deaf

Some additional groups

Starting in the late 1980s, Stockholm University also offered courses

Spreading SSL to the general public

Swedish Sign Language dictionaries

Figure 1.1 Cover of Teckenspråket (Österberg, 1916)

‘gestures’ (gester). He also discussed topics like pantomime and mimicry,

Figure 1.4 Page from Svenskt teckenspråkslexikon (1997, p. 19)

Signing on Swedish public service television

These shows, ‘Hands up’ in particular, had a major impact on Swedish

The changing context in the signing community and

to place their children in schools for hearing children, with or without