Sign Bilingualism and Co-enrollment: An answer to deaf education?

1. Sign Bilingualism and Co-enrollment: An answer to deaf education? Gladys Tang, Chris Yiu, He Jia, Stella Wong, Denise Chan, Centre for Sign Linguistics and Deaf Studies Chinese University of Hong Kong

2. Acknowledgement The project “Jockey Club Sign Bilingualism and Co-enrolment in Deaf Education Programme” (JC-SLCO) is funded by The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust

3. Background Deaf children’ difficulty in developing knowledge of language at an early age has an adverse effect on their acquisition of Chinese and English, and sometimes even on their cognitive development.

4. Background Deaf children always experience an overwhelming difficulty in participating in academic and social activities, due to the language barrier in communication.

5. Background There is no systematic, longitudinal study in Hong Kong on the bilingual – sign and spoken language -- development of deaf children. Another important area is their literacy development, which is key to academic achievement.

6. Introduction In August 2006, The Centre for Sign Linguistics and Deaf Studies of the Chinese University of Hong Kong received a major donation from the Hong Kong Jockey Club to conduct an experimental programme on a form of education based on the concept of sign bilingualism and co-enrolment.

7. Introduction The programme lasts for 7 years (2006-2013) It incorporates pre-school and primary education in its experimentation

8. Why Sign Bilingualism? • Sign bilingualism: emphasize the development of both signed and spoken languages of hearing-impaired children • Sign language: First language • Spoken language (speech + written): Second language

9. Why Sign Bilingualism? Insights from sign language acquisition theory: • Deaf children of deaf parents acquire sign language in the same way that hearing children of hearing parents acquire a spoken language. • Exposing to natural sign language triggers a deaf child’s innate linguistic capability (Wilbur 2000).

10. Why Sign Bilingualism? • Both deaf and hearing children develop gestures as the first stage of language development (Susan Goldmeadow 2003) • Representative readings: Bellugi 1988; Lillo-Martin, 1999; Meier 1991, Newport and Meier 1985, Petitto et.al. 2001, Emmorey 2002

11. Why Sign Bilingualism? Importance of deaf children to acquire sign language as the first language: • Difficult to predict how well a child will acquire spoken language through the auditory channel when he or she is very young. But all deaf and hard of hearing children have the potential to fully acquire language through the visual mode

13. Why Sign Bilingualism? • Research indicates that the brain does not discriminate between signed and spoken language as input for developing a first language, since both have the formal properties of language.

14. Why Sign Bilingualism? • Without visual language, deaf/hh children may be in danger of achieving little competence in any language, or only a surface comprehension of the spoken language. (Graney, Sharon. 1997) • Sign language can facilitate the transition from basic interpersonal communicative skills to cognitive academic language proficiency in deaf children’s acquisition of the spoken language (Cummins 1986)

15. Why Sign Bilingualism? First language fosters the development of the second: • Developing skills in a second language is dependent upon the abstract linguistic knowledge that has already developed in the first language.

16. Why Sign Bilingualism? • Given adequate exposure to second language and learning motivation, a positive transfer of linguistic knowledge from 1st to 2nd language is possible. Cummins 1981,1986; Bialystock, 1991; Collier 1989, 1992, 1995; Garcia 1994; Genessee 1987, 1994; Thomas & Collier 1997; August & Hakuta 1997; Cuevas 1997; Lindfors, 1987

17. Why Sign Bilingualism? Sign language facilitates cognitive and social development: • Deaf children of deaf parents outperform deaf children of hearing parents in academic and social aspect

18. Why Sign Bilingualism? Early exposure of sign language helps develop abilities in the domains of: • categorical thinking (Courtin 1997) • spatial thinking (Conrad & Weiskrantz 1981) • nonverbal cause effect reasoning (Sisco & Anderson 1980) • understanding mental states (Courtin 2000b; Courtin & Melot 1998) • emergence of cognitive flexibility inthinking (Courtin 1997, 2000a)

19. Why Co-enrolment? Co-enrolment: • A co-enroled school combines the advantages of a mainstream school and a deaf school • Placement of both deaf and hearing students in a general education classroom with a ratio of 1:2

20. Why Co-enrolment? Characteristics: • Adoption of normal curriculum • co-teaching of a general education teacher and a teacher of the deaf who is fluent in sign language, deaf teachers may also be involved • Co-operative learning strategy • Student-centered approach • Bilingual mode of communication (Sign and spoken language)

21. Why Co-enrolment? • Emphasizes social and academic integration • Students, no matter deaf or hearing, receive same expectation from teachers • Encourage the “I can” attitude, both deaf and hearing students should actively participate in class

22. Why Co-enrolment? A bilingual environment: • Deaf children can receive instructions in sign language • Deaf children can interact with teachers and hearing students in spoken language • Hearing children learn to sign and interact with deaf peers –gradually become interpreters for the deaf • Both spoken and sign language have absolute equality of status in school

23. Why Co-enrolment? • Co-enrolment programmes in different parts of the world:

24. Why Co-enrolment? Overseas experience: • Both deaf and hearing students showed satisfactory attainment in school (reading, math, vocabulary, etc) • The longer students are involved in the programme, the closer the academic result moves towards the norm • Nearly 70% of deaf students earned a high school diploma from the co-enrolment programmes (35-40% in traditional deaf classrooms)

25. Research Components of the JC-SLCO • Language Acquisition: • Chinese and Hong Kong Sign Language Deaf Education and Classroom Process Research JC-SLCO Literacy Development: spoken language literacy in Chinese and English Oral language development of deaf students

26. Organisation of Research Programme Management Committee • School Partnership • Peace Evangelical Centre Kindergarten • Kowloon Bay St. John the Baptist • Catholic Primary School Research Consultants Materials Development Sign Language Development Oral Language Development Literacy Development Deaf Educationand Classroom Process

27. Local experts • ProfessorLEE Yuet Sheung, Kathy (The Institute of Communicative Research, CUHK) • Professor LIN Mei Yi, Angel (CUHK) • Professor GU Yang (CUHK) • Professor LEE Hun-tak, Thomas (Language Acquisition Laboratory,CUHK) • Professor YIP Choy Yin, Virginia (CUHK) • ProfessorLI Hui (HKU)

28. Overseas experts • Mr. Carl J. KIRCHNER (California State University Northridge) • Dr. Gary MORGAN (City University London; Deafness, Cognition and Language Research Centre, University College London) • Professor Jenny SINGLETON (University of Illinois at Urbana-Campaign; Science of Learning Center on Visual Language and Visual Learning, Gallaudet University) • Professor Bencie WOLL (Deafness, Cognition and Language Research Centre, University College London)

29. JC-SLCO Programme Characteristics • Inclusive setting • Teaching in sign and spoken language: by deaf and hearing teachers • Literacy-rich environment • Implementation of reading programmes • Student-centered learning • Speech therapy support

30. Progress • Preparatory sign language and literacy training for pre-school deaf students • First co-enroled class in a local kindergarten from Sept 2006 • First co-enroled class in a local primary from Sept 2007 • Baby signing class and literacy class for deaf adults coming up

31. Progress • Observation from the teachers and the principal from the local kindergarten: - Students have better motivation to learn - Both deaf and hearing students participated more actively in class - the deaf and hearing students could develop good friendship

32. General observation • Parents’ feedback - the programme brought positive impact on their children in the development of both languages

33. Oral language development ofdeaf students - Individual Speech training - All parents are involved in training and follow up practices

34. Oral language development ofdeaf students • Continuous improvements in: - Speech perception with reduced dependence on visual cues (e.g. lipreading) - Increased confidence and frequency of using oral language in supplement with sign language - Increase in the preciseness of articulation in single words

35. Oral language development ofdeaf students • Increased collaborations of speech therapist and teachers • Group training for the deaf children • In-class speech therapy support

36. Literacy development • Chinese Reading Programme (Everyday): - Free reading - Guided reading • EnglishProgramme (3-4days/week)

37. Literacy development • Curriculum reform - increase literacy input in class • Monitor progress using “Chinese Literacy Scale for Pre- & Primary Schoolers (PPCLS)”, developed by one of the local consultants of the project, Prof. Li Hui of the University of Hong Kong, mainly focuses on Chinese Character recognition

38. PPCLS Mean(HK): obtained from 160 local children with ages ranged from 2 to 6 years (Li & Rao, 2000)

39. PPCLS Mean(HK): obtained from 160 local children with ages ranged from 2 to 6 years (Li & Rao, 2000)

40. PPCLSMean (HK) for 5-6 =41.7 PPCLS Mean(HK): obtained from 160 local children with ages ranged from 2 to 6 years (Li & Rao, 2000)

41. Sign language development • Increased Sign Language Proficiency: - D/hh Students - Hearing Students - Hearing Teacher • Barriers reduced (In class) • Among students: Using both sign and spoken language to communicate with each other

42. Sign language development • A basic vocabulary assessment in HKSL is now in process with reference to wordlist developed by the former Education Department and some well-established tests from other sign languages.

43. References • August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). 1997. Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. • Bellugi, U. 1988. The acquisition of a spatial language. In F. Kessel (ed.)The development language and language researchers: essays in honor of Roger Brown, 153-185. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. • Bialystok, E. (1991). Language processing in bilingual children. New York: Cambridge University Press. • Braden, J.P. 1987. An explanation of the superior performance IQs of deaf children and deaf parents. American Annals of the Deaf, 132, 263-266. • Brill, R.G. 1974. The superior IQs of deaf children of deaf parents In P.J. Fine (Ed.) Deafness in infancy and early childhood, 151-161. New York: Medcom. • Collier, V. (1992). A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1-2), 187-212. • Collier, V. (1995, Fall). Acquiring a second language for school. Directions in Language and Education, 1(4). • Conrad, R., & Weiskrantz, B.C. 1981. On the cognitive ability of deaf children of deaf parents. American Annals of the Deaf. 126, 995-1003. • Corson, Harvey Jay. 1973. Comparing deaf children of oral deaf parents and deaf parents using manual communication with deaf children of hearing parents on academic, social, and communicative functioning. Dissertation: Univ. of Cincinnati • Courtin, C. 1997. Does sign language provide deaf children with an abstraction advantage? Evidence from a categorization task. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2, 161-171. • Courtin, C. 2000a. Sign Language and cognitive flexibility. Current Psychology Letters: Behaviour, Brain and Cognition, 3, 19-30. • Courtin, C. 2000b. The impact of sign language on the cognitive development of deaf children: the case of theories of mind. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 266-276. • Courtin, C., & Melot, A.M. 1998. The development of theories of mind in deaf children. In M. Marschark & M.D. Clark (eds.), Psychological perspectives on deafness (Vol. 2, pp. 79-102). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum. • Cuevas, J. A. (1997). Educating limited-English-proficient students: A review of the research on school programs and classroom practices. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. • Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp.16-62). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 249 773) • Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 18-36.

44. Dolman, D. 1983. A study of the relationship between syntactic development and concrete operations in deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 128, 813-819. • Emmorey, K. 2002. Language, Cognition and the Brain: insights from sign language research. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. • Ewoldt, C., Hoffmeister, R., & Israelite, N. 1992. Bilingual/bicultural education for deaf and hard of hearing students: A review of the literature on the effects of native sign language on minority language acquisition. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education. • Garcia, E. (1994). Understanding and meeting the challenge of student cultural diversity. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. • Genessee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. • Genessee, F. (Ed.). (1994). Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community. New York: Cambridge University Press. • Graney, Sharon. 1997. Where does speech fit in? Spoken English in a Bilingual Context. A sharing ideas series paper by the Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Centre, Gallaudet University. • Heiling, K. 1998. Bilingual vs. Oral Education: Academic Achievement Levels in Deaf Eighth-Graders from Two Decades. InAmatzia Weisel (ed.) Issues unresolved : new perspectives on language and deaf education. Washington, D.C. : Gallaudet University Press, 141-147. • Krashen, S. 1973. Lateralization, language learning, and the critical period: some new evidence. Language learning. 23:63-74. • Lenneberg, E. 1967. Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley. • Lillo-Martin, D. 1999. Modality effects and modularity in language acquisition: The acquisition of American Sign Language. In W.C.Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (eds.) Handbook of child language acquisition. 531-567. San Diego: Academic Press. • Lindfors, J. (1987). Children's language and learning (2nd. ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. • Mayberry, R.I. 2001. Reading development in relation to sign language comprehension. Manuscript. • Meier, R.P. 1991. Language acquisition by deaf children. American Scientist, 79, 60-70. • Newport, E.L. & Meier. 1985. The acquisition of American Sign Language. In D. Slobin (ed.) The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition. 881-938. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. • Petitto, L. A., Katerelos, M., Levy, B., Gauna, K., Tétrault, K., & Ferraro, V. 2001. Bilingual signed and spoken language acquisition from birth: implications for mechanisms underlying bilingual language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 28 (2), pages 1-44. • Ritter-Brinton, K., & Stewart, D. (1992). Hearing parents and deaf children: Some perspectives on sign communication and service delivery. American Annals of the Deaf, 137, 85-92. • Schick, B., de Villiers, P., de Villiers, J. & Hoffmeister, R. (2003). Theory of Mind: Language and Cognition in Deaf Children. The ASHA Leader, 7, 6-14. • Sisco, F.H., & Anderson, R. J. 1980. Deaf children’s performance on the WISC-R relative to hearing status of parents and child-rearing experiences. American Annals of the Deaf, 125, 923-930. • Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students (NCBE Resource Collection Series, No. 9). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. • Zwiebel, A. 1987. More on the effects of early manual communication on the cognitive development of deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 132, 16-20.