DEAFVOC CURRICULA: RESULTS AND EXPERIENCES

1. DEAFVOC CURRICULA: RESULTS AND EXPERIENCES Klagenfurt, Austria 19th November 2010 Ulla Aunola. M.A. Counsellor of Education

2. Finnish National Board of Education in Helsinki

3. Finnish National Board of Education www.minedu.fi Ministry of Education www.edu.fi the Finnish education portal information in Finnish, Swedish and English www.oph.fi Finnish National Board of Education information in Finnish, Swedish and English Timo Lankinen, Director General

4. Role of the FNBE in VET • Prepares the National qualification requirements for VET > core curricula • Decides on the learning outcomes of the studies and their assessment and determines some other provisions for VET in the qualification-specific national requirements • Evaluates nationally learning outcomes • Supports and develops nationally important aims in close co-operation with the providers and working life

5. From DeafVoc 1 to DeafVoc 2 • Continuation with results – to new partners • The main task in DeafVoc1: model for curricula in language teaching for deaf students in vocational training • Booklet was finished 2006 • The basis was the ”Finnish type of writing curricula” (was it a good solution?) • To encourage common thinking: curriculum is important

6. Content of the Deaf Voc1 booklet • Curriculum Sign Language as a mother tongue • Written Language as a second language for the deaf • > Language variaton according the country • Teacher´s guide (methods, principles) • In DeafVoc2 > adaptation, implementation of the curricula models, if possible • Teaching material, consulting ( > Slovenia, Ireland)

7. Was it easy to implement? • An inquiry of curricula implementation – summer 2010 • Slovenia took a lot of measures! • The start/introduction was in March 2009 in ”Ljubljana meeting” – School of the deaf • Ireland: the topic was not so relevant • Notice! Every country has it´s own character: > The Status of Sign Language in laws > Educational System – role of curriculum

8. Experiences from Slovenia • Curricula were translated and modified – Slovenian adaptation • Will be passed Scientific Board of the National Education (approvment or rejection?) • The goal: to take into use in Institute of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Ljubljana (also High School for adults) • Already a decision: Second Foreign Language is an alternative > negotations of Slovenian Sign Language? • Could primary schools enable the possibility?

9. Some details of the feedback • Can be used at all levels in vocational but also in primary education > was useful! > 30 students • Slovenian modification: more modern information and communication technology • Biggest difference (betw. Finnish and Slovenian)= Sign Language is possible only at the High School for Deaf and Hard of Hearing – not in primary education • Some differences within the content • Written language to the deaf was not so in the focus

10. What do the deaf students need? • Larger tolerance toward using of Sign Language • New teaching and communication technology (University of Maribor supported in many ways) • Instruction in SL in the Schools and Institutes • Motivation – self esteem • Goal = to be capable at the end of education to work and community > To enable better, easier and more effective education for deaf

11. THANK YOU!