Yiu Kun Man, Chris Centre for Sign Linguistics and Deaf Studies, Chinese University of Hong Kong

1. MOVING TOWARDS AN EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE OF DEAF EDUCATION: A “SIGN BILINGUAL” AND “CO-ENROLMENT” MODEL Yiu Kun Man, Chris Centre for Sign Linguistics and Deaf Studies, Chinese University of Hong Kong

2. Acknowledgement Jockey Club Sign Bilingualism and Co-enrolment in Deaf Education Programme (2006-2013)

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

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

5. Background information on Deafness in Hong Kong * 2000, Census and Statistics Department, HKSAR.

6. Number of D/HH students in Hong Kong (2006/07)

7. What kinds of support can D/HH students receive in Hong Kong?

8. Support in mainstream schools: Almost all Deaf/hard-of-hearing (D/HH) children are studying in mainstream schools • They are distributed in different schools. In general, there are only 1 or 2 D/HH students in one school. • Hearing aids and FM system are provided by the Government. • School-based support is provided to all students with special needs. • Speech therapy support is purchased for D/HH students. • After-school remedial support from special school is available (mainly Saturdays).

9. Special School Placement: • Only 1 special school for the deaf • Deaf schools: 4 --> 1 • Adopts “total communication” • Cantonese and English are the preferred medium of instruction, occasionally supplemented with signs while speaking. • Natural sign language is not used in class due to misconceptions: • Sign language is gesture, if not too primitive to support classroom teaching; • Learning sign language is detrimental to the spoken language development of D/HH children

10. Other problems facing D/HH students in general: • Big class size: 1:30 • Only one D/HH student in class – “Lonely planet” for D/HH students • Teacher-centered approach: high proportion of teachers’ talk in class • No special training for teachers • No sign language support available

11. How can the diverse needs of D/HH students be accommodated ? Let's start with the two cases: SY and MC.

12. Story of SY Age: 8;9 Sex: F Class Level: Primary 2 (09/10) Intelligence: Normal Family: Hearing parents; 1 hearing older brother Family support: Very good; good educational background of parents

13. Hearing status (SY) • Bilateral profoundsensorineural h.i., diagnosed at 2 months old • Absence of cochlear bilaterally, unable to receive cochlear implantation • Bilateral fitting of hearing aids (from 3 months old) • Speech Perception Level: very poor(z-score: <-2.44) (tested by Cantonese-based Speech Perception Test)

14. Challenges to SY Limited speech perception ability– How can she communicate with others effectively ?? Communication barriers–How can she develop social relationships with others ?? How can she participate in classroom activities ?? How can she learn in a mainstream classroom ?? Continued frustrations encountered in daily live situations– Can she accept her own hearing disability ?? How can she build positive self-esteem ?? Additional difficulties regarding parent-child communication– How can parents support her learning at home??

15. Story of MC Age: 9;0 Sex: M Class Level: Primary 3 (09/10) Intelligence: Normal Family background: Deaf parents and 1 younger sister (Deaf) – use Cantonese and Hong Kong Sign Language (HKSL) to communicate Family support: Working parents with inferior socio-economic status and educational background ; mainly supported by mother

16. Hearing status (MC) • Bilateral severe conductive h.i • Normal middle ear pressure and compliance bilaterally • Bilateral fitting of hearing aids (from 4 months old) • Speech Perception Level: good (z-score: 1.05) (tested by Cantonese-based Speech Perception Test)

17. Challenges to MC Limited sign language support in both mainstream and special school settings – Can he communicate well in class with his second language ?? Limited oral language input from parents– How can he develop oral language if he can only have limited use of oral language during daily communication ?? Restricted home-school co-operation and insufficient Deaf awareness – How can the school support Deaf parents effectively ?? How can Deaf parents communicate and get support from hearing teachers and parents ?? Are parents able to support MC’s learning and social development ??

18. Moving Towards an Alternative Model of Deaf Education The Jockey Club Sign Bilingualism and Co-enrolment in Deaf Education Programme (JC-SLCO) which lasts for 7 years (2006-2013)

19. Two Guiding Principles: Sign Bilingualism: Emphasize development of both signed (HKSL) and spoken language (Chinese and English). Co-enrolment: Emphasize partnership of deaf and hearing students in the inclusive classroom to support each other’s language, social and cognitive development.

21. Programme Components Baby Sign Language Programme Saturday Sign-Supported Reading Programme Kindergarten Programme Primary School Programme • Materials Production • Chinese/English Literacy Programme for Deaf Adults

22. Programme Characteristics(Kindrgarten and Primary School Programmes) • D/HH and hearing students co-taught by Deaf and hearing teachers (1 regular teacher, 1 sign bilingual hearing teacher and 1 Deaf teacher as a Deaf role model for D/HH students) • Student-centered activities and collaborative learning approach • Literacy-rich learning environment with the emphasis of systematic reading programmes • Emphasize also oral language development (Speech therapy support available)

24. In which areas SY and MC are benefitted from the "Sign Bilingual" and "Co-enrolment" model of Deaf education ?

25. Providing access to information in class Both sign and spoken lang. are use as M.O.I. , information can be accessed through both languages. Besides, more visual aids are used in class, communication barriers, especially for SY, are alleviated. Hearing impairment creates great barriers for D/HH students to access to communication and information in class. SY relies more on sign language. MC tries his best to listen, but whenever he has difficulty understanding teacher’s talk, he will seek information from Deaf or Teacher through signs

26. Provide opportunities to participate in learning activities Both SY and MC are active in class. They are free to use both signs and spoken languages to answer questions and express their ideas Many D/HH integrators are facing social isolation and difficulties in academic participation (Stinson & Anita, 1999) They participate actively in cooperative learning activities, using both signs and spoken languages to Communicate with their hearing and D/HH classmates

27. Support academic and literacy development In general, SY and MC are having comparable academic performance and literacy skills in class. MC slightly lags behind in English Deaf students continue to lag far behind their hearing peers in reading and writing (Schirmer, 2005) 50% of the D/HH students in the US read below normative level (Marschark, 2005) Sign language support and reading programmes helps develop their literacy. They have good vocabulary Knowledge, but still show difficulty in acquiring grammaticalknowledge of Chinese

28. Academic Performance (08/09)

29. Academic Performance (07/08) – by LAMK, a standardized test developed by the Education Bureau * LAMK results have not been collected due to class suspension in May 09 for the prevention of Swine Flu

30. Support social integration and acceptance Critical mass of D/HH students, thus higher Deaf awareness in class and in school. Other measures like sign language training for teachers and students and SL assembly support social integration In a study in Sweden, 47% of D/HH students in public schools were not chosen as friends by any of their classmates (Tvingstedt, 1993) Difficult to make and keep friends with their hearing peers (Anita and Stinson, 1999) Both hearing and D/HH students can communicate with HKSL and Cantonese, which facilitates effective communication between them SY and MC can both develop friendship with hearing and D/HH students

31. Sociometric Study – My 3 Best Friends (07/08) (Students are asked to choose 3 best friends among 30 students in class) * Data have not yet been collected in 08/09 due to class suspension in May 09 for the prevention of Swine Flu * All D/HH students study in the same kindergarten before P1

32. Sociometric Study – My 3 Best Friends (07/08) (Students are asked to choose 3 best friends among 21 students in class) * Data have not yet been collected in 08/09 due to class suspension in May 09 for the prevention of Swine Flu * SY was studying in the kindergarten programme of JC-SLCO during data collection

33. Support oral language development Daily oral language input and stimulation from hearing teachers and students. FM system is available in class. Outcomes of cochlear implants and hearing aids still vary and restricted by many factors. Cochlear implant offers good alternative to Deaf children, but is still not “a solution for all” (Knoors, 2005) Speech therapy training from school and the Programme Language skills from signing shows No detrimental effects on SY and MC’s oral language development. They both show good development in their oral language abilities though SY Has great limitation in her speech perception ability

34. Oral language development of SY Growth rate: Expressive lang. > Receptive lang.(Based on results of RDLS) HKCOLAS at P1 Standard scores: -4.0 to -1.9 Language-impaired ceiling age score End of K3 End of P1 Before K3 Period of assessment

35. Oral language development of MC Growth rate: Similar in Expressive & Receptive lang. ; Showed continued improvement ceiling age score HKCOLAS at P2 Standard scores: -2.7 to 1.3 Language-impaired End of K3 End of P1 End of P2 Before K3 Period of assessment

36. Provide parental support from both Deaf and hearing staff Hearing staff with signing skills and Deaf teachers can both provide support to MC’s parents Problems communicating with school staff always brings to ineffective home-school cooperation Deaf parents in mainstream schools can easily been isolated. Hearing staff with signing skills and Deaf teachers can both help understand students’ needs Especially when his/her oral language Is limited Other hearing parents are also Equipped with signing skills, they can communicate and make friends Deaf parents

37. What are the feedback of hearing and Deaf parents and teachers in general ?

38. Teachers’ General Attitude to the Programme Questionnaire collected from teachers in kindergarten = 6 Questionnaire collected from teachersin primary school = 13

39. Parents’ General Attitude to the Programme Questionnaire collected from parents of hearing students in kindergarten = 25 Questionnaire collected from parents of hearing studentsin primary school = 63 Questionnaire collected from parents of D/hh students in kindergarten = 6 Questionnaire collected from parents of D/hh students in primary school= 13

40. Parents’ Comments about the Learning Progress of the Students Questionnaire collected from parents of hearing students = 88 Questionnaire collected from parents of D/hh students = 19

41. Feedback from Parents of D/HH Students He became more proactive to learn and more willing to communicate with others Sign language helps him to understand things better My child became more outspoken and have more self-confidence The programme nurtured her interests to read and she got great improvement in Chinese Literacy She can get along well with her hearing classmates, sometimes using sign, sometimes using spoken language. Surprisingly, she even make friends with students from other classes

42. Feedback from Parents of Hearing Students He learnt to communicate using spoken, sign and written language with others, even with deaf strangers in the street He learnt to accept and help other classmates He became very interested in learning sign language He learnt how to communicate with D/HH classmates and the idea of “Everybody has different strengths and weaknesses” He became more proactive in learning and reading, and accepting to other children with different abilities

43. Feedback from Teachers I think mixing with hearing students broadens deaf students’ learning opportunities. It gives hearing students more time to consolidate their learning as well. The students learnt how to support each other and love each other Not only students’ spoken and sign language abilities have good progress, their language comprehension and production improves too The programme promotes classroom participation of the students in class

44. Conclusion As a parent of a deaf son, Dr. Susanne Nubbeck (2005) shared her view in the 20th International Congress on the Education of the Deaf (ICED) that “(m)any children do not easily learn to speak. This leads parents work very hard with their children and feel guilty if they do not succeed to the same degree as others do…The strong efforts to integrate the child by forcing speech sometimes may turn into the opposite: The deaf child may turn away from his/her parents more than ever (p.60).

45. Conclusion D/HH students have very great individual differences. Options should be given to meet their diverse needs. Other than oral approach to Deaf education, the JC-SLCO Programme aims to develop an effective alternative model of Deaf Education in Hong Kong. A longitudinal study is conducted in order to understand empirically the needs of our D/HH children and to explore possible strategies that can alleviate their difficulties in communication and education effectively.

46. References • Antia, S. & Stinson, M.S. (1999). Some Conclusions on the Education of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students in Inclusive Settings. Journal of Deaf studies and Deaf Education, 4(3), 246-248. • Knoors, H. (2005). Bilingualism and Inclusion. The 20th International Congress on the Education of the Deaf – Programme and Abstract book. The Netherlands: ICED2005 Organizing Committee, 60-62. • Marschark, M. (2005). Literacy of Deaf Children, More Than Literacy. The 20th International Congress on the Education of the Deaf – Programme and Abstract book. The Netherlands: ICED2005 Organizing Committee, 63-65. • Nubbeck, S. (2005). Experiences and Expectations of Parents. The 20th International Congress on the Education of the Deaf – Programme and Abstract book. The Netherlands: ICED2005 Organizing Committee, 59-60. • Schirmer, B. (2005). Literacy and deaf children: what do we know?. The 20th International Congress on the Education of the Deaf – Programme and Abstract book. The Netherlands: ICED2005 Organizing Committee, 65-67. • Stinson, M.S. & Antia, S.D. (1999). Considerations in Educating Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students in Inclusive settings. Journal of Deaf studies and Deaf Education, 4(3), 163-175. • Tvingstedt, A. (1993). Social conditions of hearing-impaired pupils in regular classrooms (Monograph 773) Malmo, Sweden: University of Lund, Department of Education and Psychological Research.

47. Thank you! I’m acquiring Hong Kong Sign Language and Cantonese！！

48. Why Sign Bilingualism? Deaf children of deaf parents outperformed deaf children of hearing parents • academic achievement, reading and writing (Ewoldt, Hoffmeister & Israelite 1992, Corson 1973, Ritter-Brinton & Stewart 1992, Mayberry 2001, among others) • social adjustment, self image, speech intelligibility and speech-reading (Corson1973)

49. Why Sign Bilingualism? Early exposure to 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 of mental states, theory of mind (Courtin 2000b; Courtin & Melot 1998; Morgan & Kegl 2006) - emergence of cognitive flexibility in thinking (Courtin 1997, 2000a)

50. Why Co-enrolment? A bilingual environment • Deaf and hearing students can interact with teachers in signed and spoken language (code alternation). • Linguistic equality: Both spoken and signed language have equal status at school and in the society at large. • Both the hearing and deaf students can become cross- as well as intra-modal bilinguals.