Teaching and Learning Signed Languages

International Perspectives and Practices

D. McKee, R. Rosen, D. McKee, R. Rosen

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781137312488
• eBook ISBN: 9781137312495
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Educational Psychology

Teaching and Learning Signed Languages examines current practices, contexts, and the research nexus in the teaching and learning of signed languages, offering a contemporary, international survey of innovations in this field.

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 spoken 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 chapter 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 communication, the teaching and learning of foreign vocabulary are integral in classrooms (e.g. Sanchez & Manchon, 2007; Godwin-Jones, 2010). It is only in the past 20 years that researchers have investigated and compared 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 performance in the TL. Turnbull (1998, 1999a, 1999b) found that learners in classes where teachers spoke TL most frequently outperformed learners 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 vocabulary 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 language classrooms enhances student performance in the TL. In one such study, D’Annunzio (1991) reported that the learners who learned foreign vocabulary under the NL instructional condition in ESL (English as a Second Language) classrooms made rapid gains in a number of standardized tests, portfolio analysis, and informal assessments, with significantly 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 vocabulary. 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’ 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 Language at Teachers College, Columbia University. They were conducted at different schools with different groups of non-deaf students, and students 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 students 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 participants 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’ instructional 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 explaining 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 activities were explained in spoken English. Teacher and student participants verbally asked and answered questions. ASL was employed simultaneously 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 classroom. 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 similar 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 determine 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 ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction
• Section I: Development and Impacts of Sign Language Teaching
• Section II: Innovations in Using Digital Tools in Teaching and Learning
• Section III: Learners and Contexts for Learning
• Section IV: Assessment
• References
• Index