TESOL – 2003 - Baltimore, Maryland Session #2313 Convention Center, Room 320

1. Language Background Effects on Deaf Written EnglishKathleen Eilers-crandall, Ph.D.National Technical Institute for the DeafRochester Institute of Technology TESOL – 2003 - Baltimore, Maryland Session #2313 Convention Center, Room 320 Thursday, March 27, 2:00 pm to 2:45 pm

2. Study Background • In a language diverse classroom, the teacher has little information how previous language experiences are influencing the students' written English. • The teacher does not know the ways students' use of English may be related to the students' first language experiences. • However, the teacher observes that students who have similar scores on English placement tests do not necessarily experience the same success in learning.

3. Study - Objective • To determine if there is a relationship between language background factors and written English characteristics of Deaf students who are writing at a basic level

4. Language Background • Two groups • ASL Dominant Students • Non ASL Dominant Students

5. Students Criteria – for both groups • Born in the U. S. • Enrolled in Level A reading and writing courses • Deafness onset before 1 year of age

6. ASL Dominant Students Selection Characteristics based on L/CBQ • Began learning sign at birth • Preferred communication mode; self-rating = Sign Alone • Excellent sign skills; self-rating of sign skill = 5 • Less than excellent speech skills; self-rating of speech skills < 5

7. Non ASL Dominant Students Selection Characteristics based on L/CBQ • Did not begin learning sign at birth • Preferred communication mode; self-rating = Speech Alone, or, Speech and Sign • Excellent or very good speech skills; self-rating = 5 or 4 • Less than excellent sign skills; self-rating of sign skills < 5

8. ASL Dominant - Means PTA better ear = 100.8 dB HL Age of deafness onset = birth Age began learning sign = birth Sign skill rating = 5 Speech skill rating = 2 Non ASL Dominant - Means PTA better ear = 96.9 dB HL Age of deafness onset = 0.1 year Age began learning sign = 9.9 years Sign skill rating = 3.4 Speech skill rating = 4.4 Student Characteristics

9. Data Collection • Daily journals in response to specific questions/topics • Digitally submitted via Message Board • http://www.rit.edu/~kecncp/discus

10. Message Board

11. Message Board – Topic Examples

12. Message Board – Entry Examples

13. More Entry Examples

14. Analyses Conducted • Quantity • Number of words • Number of clauses • Number of words per clause • Variety • Number of unique words • Number of unique clause types

15. Analysis Process • An MS Word Macro was written to organize samples into one word per line. • These data were transferred into MS Excel Worksheets. • MS Excel contains a unique item filter. This was applied to determine unique words. • Clause analyses were done by hand for the first 500 words. • Visual basic routines were written to count total and unique clause types.

16. Vocabulary Analysis Examples Total words: 18 Unique words: 13

17. Clause Types - Some Examples

18. Clause Analysis Examples • Independent Clauses = 5 • Dependent Clauses = 2 • Unique Ind. Types = 4 • Unique Dep. Types = 1

19. Quantity Analyses • Vocabulary: • Number of words used • Grammar: • Number of clauses in 500 words • Number of independent clauses • Number of dependent clauses • Number of words per clause

20. ANOVA: F= 0.180; (p = 0.67); Not significant

21. ANOVA: F= 0.144; (p = 0.71); Not significant

22. [ALL] Ind v. Dep -- ANOVA: F= 202.96; (p = 8.45E-14); Significant Ind by group -- ANOVA: F = 0.176; (p = 0.68); Not significant Dep by group -- ANOVA: F = 0.009; (p = 0.93); Not significant

23. ANOVA: F= 0.280; (p = 0.61); Not significant

24. Variety Analyses • Vocabulary Variety: • Number of unique words • Clause Variety: • Number of unique independent clause types • Number of unique dependent clause types

25. ANOVA: F= 67.66; (p = 3.11E-08); Significant

26. ANOVA: F= 67.66; (p = 3.11E-08); Significant

27. Variety by group – ANOVA: F = 5.34; (p = 0.039); Significant

28. Variety by group -- ANOVA: F = 5.56; (p = 0.036); Significant

29. Variety by group -- ANOVA: F = 7.99; (p = 0.015); Significant

30. Variety by group – ANOVA: F = 1.58; (p = 0.23); Not Significant

31. Summary -- Quantity Overall Significant Differences • Both groups used a larger number of unique vocabulary words in longer samples (213 Unique Words in 500 words, 330 in 1000 words, and 418 in 1500 words). • Both groups used more independent clauses than dependent clauses (Independent Clauses: 56.14; Dependent Clauses: 20.50).

32. Summary -- Variety Significant Differences between Groups • Variety of independent clause types (average = 14.50 in 500 words for ASL Dominant students and 18.37 for Non ASL Dominant students) • Variety of single independent clause types (average = 3.83 in 500 words for ASL Dominant students and 3.13 for Non ASL Dominant students) • Variety of compound clause types (average = 4.17 in 500 words for ASL Dominant students and 6.25 for Non ASL Dominant students)

33. Summary – Quantity & Variety No Significant Differences between Groups • Quantity: • Number of words used in 50 journal entries • Number of clauses in 500 words • Number of words per clause • Number of independent clauses used in 500 words • Number of dependent clauses used in 500 words • Variety: • Unique words used in 500, 1000, 1500 words • Unique dependent clauses used in 500 words

34. Discussion • How do these results compare to the writing of native speakers of English? • What about appropriateness of vocabulary items? • What about the frequency of specific types of independent and dependent clauses? • What about grammatical acceptability for clause types?

35. Kathleen Eilers Crandall, Ph.D. Department of English National Technical Institute for the Deaf Rochester Institute of Technology Lyndon Baines Johnson Building - 2264 Phone: (585) 475-5111 Fax: (585) 475-6500 Email: kecncp@rit.edu Web: http://www.rit.edu/~kecncp Presenter