Russell S. Rosen and James Woodward
There have been classes in sign language as second and additional language throughout history. There are reports suggesting the learning of sign languages when reporting on Deaf individuals signing to strangers, colleagues, and family members in ancient Greece (Plato, 1997), the medieval era (Saint-Loup, 1993), and the Renaissance era (Montaigne, 1958); the creation of European signing schools for the Deaf in the early modern era; sign language classes in places such as churches, community centers, and agencies in Europe and the US in the 18th and 19th centuries (cf. Bauman, Nelson, & Rose, 2006); and at secondary, collegiate, and university levels since the twentieth century (Rosen, 2008; Wilcox & Wilcox, 1997). That throughout history individuals have been using sign languages to communicate would not have been made possible without teachers of sign languages.
Teachers and practitioners in sign language classes are presumed to have the knowledge and skills not only in the language, but also its transmission to learners. However, they may not have received any preparation or have any foundation by way of coursework and practical experiences in the pedagogy of sign languages as second languages (L2). There were no certification programs or processes for teachers of sign languages for most of the history of sign language pedagogy. The teachers often relied on their intuition and presumptions about sign language, learning processes, curricular topics, and evaluation of their pedagogy and learners. Actually, scholarly literature abounds with studies on the problems and issues of teachers and practitioners who do not have sufficient knowledge or skills in the language, and do not know how to develop a curriculum and assessment of learner performance (e.g., Lopez & Santibanez, 2018; Mungure, 2016).
It was not until the twentieth century that foreign or world language teacher preparation programs, and the late 20th to early 21st centuries that sign language teacher preparation programs were created at colleges and universities worldwide (e.g., Watzke, 2003). The impetus was increased government oversight of education and teacher preparation at the local, regional, and/or national levels, particularly in the US, Europe, and Asia (Watzke, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 2005; Rosen, 2008). Government education departments have increasingly created policies and requirements for individuals to become teachers and grant certifications as an emblem of the satisfactory completion of government requirements for teachers (e.g., Watzke, 2003; Christie, 2014). The preparation of teachers need to be evidence- and data-based (Watzske, 2003; National Research Council, 2010; Bransford, Darling-Hammond, & LePage, 2005; Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Heilig, 2005). Studies showed that certified teachers produced higher learner achievement gains than uncertified teachers, even when controlling for teacher experience, degrees, and learner characteristics (Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, & Gatlin, 2005). Christie (2014) and Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, and Gatlin (2005) found that teachers’ effectiveness is strongly related to the teachers’ teaching preparation.
Scholars in the field of teacher education in general and foreign language teacher education in particular developed the components, experiences, and qualifications of teacher preparation programs for foreign/world languages (Watzke, 2003; Pennington, 1990; Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, & Gatlin, 2005; Richards, 1990; Day, 1990; Lange, 1990; Freeman & Johnson 1998). They made suggestions regarding program design for teacher preparation program (TPPs). This chapter provides information on TPPs for individuals who want to become teachers and practitioners of sign languages as second (L2) or additional languages (Ln). It focuses on the TPPs that provide preservice course work and practicum experiences in places where similar coursework and practicum experiences can be offered to in-service individuals. The following sections discuss theoretical perspectives for model TTP programs and pedagogical applications in selected TPPs.
Based on past research studies on TPPs, educators urge that all TTPs present a clear description of the philosophy, objectives, goals, requirements, and other operational features of the programs (Pennington, 1990; Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, & Gatlin, 2005). Researchers in TPPs such as Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, & Gatlin (2005), Richards (1990), Day (1990), Lange (1990), Freeman and Johnson (1998), and Altstaedter, Smith, and Fogarty (2016) provided suggestions, which are given here. The TPPs should clearly demonstrate the connection between content and pedagogy through coursework, research, and practicum experiences. The coursework should provide the content of teacher education, including topics on learner learning process, subject matters, teaching practices, learner skills assessment procedures, diverse learner populations, and classroom behavior management. The program should be oriented practically to the teaching tools and towards proper teaching skills, and offer opportunities for teacher development, including placement in school sites, clinical experiences with supervision, mentoring, observation and discussion, and development of learner teaching portfolios. The program should also prepare learner teachers to take assessments on teacher performance, content skills knowledge, and pedagogical strategies. The learner teachers should be encouraged to become and think like researchers and inquirers, act as facilitators and thinking coaches, conduct action research, and reflect on their teaching (Ezer, 2007; Gaskins, 1989; O’Dwyer, 2006; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Wallace, 1998; Ramirez, 1992; Gebbard Gaitan, & Oprandy, 1990; Nunan, 1990; Bartlett, 1990).
The program should also give additional consideration to teacher-candidate workload, teaching beyond academics, and preparation for navigating the school systems (Engler & MacGregor, 2018). The duration of teaching practices and time planned for teaching should be lengthy and sufficient to cover all the aspects of the experience. Preservice teachers should also learn how to work with diverse learners (Marbley, Bonner, & McKisick, 2007) and differentiated instruction (Cooper, Kurtts, & Babar, 2008); poverty in some learners (Cho et al., 2015); social justice in classrooms (Convertino, 2016); and individuals with disabilities in regular classrooms (Cramer, Alvarez McHatton, & Little, 2015). Other issues for program consideration are admission requirements for learners, coursework and practicum needed for training, requirements for graduation and possible certification, and job opportunities upon graduation, among others. Certification requirements need to be worked out within countries for in-country training.
Regarding foreign languages including sign languages, in addition to the above, the teachers should know the language and culture of language users. Culture needs to be added and taught in language classes and programs (Fox & Diaz-Greenberg, 2006). The teachers should immerse themselves into the language community to maintain connections and to update their repertoire of knowledge and skills in language and culture. In particular, for world languages programs, there is a need to have teachers understand the learning processes of second language learners (Tarone & Alblwright, 2005).
A program in the teaching of sign languages as second and additional language (L2/Ln) ought to incorporate findings in the research studies and suggestions by educators in the TPP field. The following is a description of the purpose, objectives, philosophy, knowledge base, and goals of a TPP in L2/Ln sign language.
An L2/Ln sign language TPP ought to prepare individuals to obtain a collegiate degree and teacher certification, when applicable, to teach sign language as L2/Ln as one of the languages other than native language. The program seeks to address critical issues in several areas: (a) the lack of teachers certified to teach sign language as L2/Ln to learners for credit; (b) deficiencies in theory- and research-based studies on effective sign language teaching practices; (c) insufficient knowledge of current research-based teaching practices among sign language teachers; and (d) a general lack of understanding of and sensitivity to Deaf and hard of hearing individuals.
The purposes of the teacher preparation programs are to prepare learners so as to: (a) study, develop, and disseminate theories, methods, materials, and pedagogues needed in the teaching of sign language; (b) prepare professionals to become certified teachers of sign language and are knowledgeable of Deaf culture; (c) provide an opportunity for native speakers of sign language to share their knowledge, skills, and experiences directly with the hearing population; and (d) enhance cross-cultural skills and understanding by increasing public awareness of the society, culture, diversity, talents, and aspirations of members of the Deaf community and to reduce negative attitudes, stigmatization, and misconceptions about deaf people by the general public.
The objectives of a teacher preparation program are that its learners become professionals as teacher-researchers who approach the profession of sign language teaching in a highly scholarly manner and as a contextualized, investigatory, cultural, and problem-solving event. The learners in preparation should obtain a firm foundation in anthropology, linguistics, applied linguistics, pragmatics, social psychology, cognitive psychology and information processing, schema theory, academic assessment, instructional systems design (curriculum development), subject area content, the effective schools movement, and research methodology as appropriate to the notion of teacher-as-researcher/learner, among other skills and knowledge. As a result, these individuals are prepared to instruct learners demonstrating a wide range of cognitive, social, and academic abilities, especially in schools with a high-need classification.
To this end, the program provides coursework, practica experiences, and related projects for learners in the program. Notions associated with pedagogy, school reform, and teacher-as-researchers/learners are infused as well as the direct instruction in the notion of teacher-as-researcher/learner. Both aspects involve course infusion and direct instruction in teacher-as-researcher/learner notions and methodologies.
An ideal sign language teaching preparation program holds certain philosophical viewpoints towards the linguistic status of sign language as a language, the Deaf community and culture, the preparation of learners into teachers of sign language, the teaching of sign language in elementary, secondary and collegiate schools, and the general principles of education, teaching, and learning.
Sign languages are recognized as naturally developed languages of Deaf and many hard of hearing people. They each possess a linguistic system with its own phonological, morphological, syntactic, and discourse structures that are in many ways distinct from spoken languages of the world. In addition, sign language users have developed a literary, albeit generally non-written, tradition in oratory, folklore, and performance art, all recorded either in printed form or in permanent media like film and video. The richness and complexity of sign languages is such that they can afford the status of a foreign language and sufficient information is known about the language that pedagogically it can be approached in manner similar to other foreign languages such as French, Spanish, German, and Latin.
An appreciation of sign languages entails an awareness that within various societies there are Deaf communities. Deaf communities of persons, groups, and organizations provide the basis for cultural identity and group cohesion for millions of Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals, who share a set of characteristics that bind them together, such as knowledge of their sign languages and their traditions for social behavior.
The successful teaching of sign languages requires both communicative and linguistic approaches to the subject matter that are grounded in sound pedagogy and understanding of the characteristics of the learner. Learners in the program will receive extensive practice in curriculum design and instructional strategies based on the pedagogical principles found in different models and standards. The purpose of sign language education is to foster the development of skills in critical thinking, problem solving, discovery, and creativity within learners who may possess different talents, aspirations, developmental and learning differences, abilities, interests, emotions, and personal histories. Learning and teaching are purposeful, intentional, and socially constructed.
With regard to the teaching of sign language, the teachers in preparation and the learners whom they will eventually teach will be instructed in a manner that does not use voice or spoken language, in order to maximize the utilization of eyes, hands, and body postures for transmitting and receiving grammatical information in the development of receptive, expressive, and interactive language skills, while realizing that in the actual day-to-day interactions with Deaf individuals the use of voice and spoken language will vary according to the conversational demands and the preference of individual users. Likewise, it is believed that sign language teachers ought not learn or teach vocabulary or grammatical structures strictly in isolation, but rather they will be taught to approach sign language as a modern living language and as a tool for effective communication with sign language users that will serve specific communicative purposes (functions), in particular settings (situations) about particular subjects (topics), using specific linguistic forms.
In addition, sign language teachers ought to provide insights into the nature of language, sensitivity to Deaf cultural values, customs, and traditions, and foster a sense of humanity and friendship, while placing this culture within the proper context of the Deaf and hard-of-hearing population at large and society in general. The primary goals of the teaching of sign languages to largely hearing learners is to develop functional communication abilities so as to interact with Deaf people, to develop greater understanding and appreciation of Deaf cultures, as well as their own cultures, and to expand one’s definition and understanding of inter- and intra-group cultural diversity.
A model program emphasizes an analytic-diagnostic approach to instruction. Such an approach is highly learner centered, is process oriented, and emphasizes a social-cognitive information processing approach to learning. Furthermore, the program emphasizes applied linguistic and psycholinguistic approaches to the teaching of sign languages and an anthropological orientation when considering the organization of Deaf cultures and their values. Learners in the proposed program in the teaching of sign language will be “schooled,” trained, and oriented to the area of “teacher-as-researcher,” a notion that entails a learner-centered, cooperative learning. It also entails a constructivist’s approach to pedagogy, operating ostensibly out of a framework that employs both qualitative as well as quantitative approaches in an attempt to understand the knowledge base and learning processes of learners. In doing so, teachers ought to actively investigate questions and problems that arise out of the classroom, the educational environment, and the learners that he or she teaches. In addition, the teacher should be able to consume and apply intelligently basic research to the instructional process as presented formally within journals and texts on the teaching of sign language and other second and additional languages, communication skills, Deaf Studies, curriculum design, and the cognitive, social, and affective development of the learner.
Based on the recommendations of researchers in teacher education (e.g., Bransford, Darling-Hammond, & LePage, 2005) and foreign language educators (e.g., Nunan, 1990) discussed above, the epistemological orientations of a model sign language TPP is the knowledge base it provides to teachers in preparation, which includes coursework in linguistics, anthropology, foreign language teaching, bilingual-bicultural education; curriculum development; Deaf Studies; sign languages; anthropological approaches to communication and culture; and theories, methods and approaches in second and additional language acquisition and second language teaching. They are described below.
The course is an introductory survey of some of the major sign languages, sign language families, and Deaf communities around the world. Learners are introduced to concepts in the fields of linguistics, anthropology, and sociology of sign languages and Deaf communities and cultures. Topics include multilingualism; codeswitching; diglossia; language attitudes; language maintenance and shift; language and educational policy; language variation and change due to region, social class, ethnicity, gender and age; and sign language in arts and literature.
The course is an introduction to the study of the cultures of Deaf people in selected countries throughout the world. Particular emphasis will be placed on the differences in cultures of deaf and hearing people within the same national contexts. This course introduces the historical and contemporary perspectives of Deaf people. Topics addressed include cultural identity, core values, group norms, communication, and the significant role sign languages play in Deaf cultures.
The course is a study of the histories of Deaf people in selected countries throughout the world from prehistory to the modern era. Particular emphasis will be placed on the differences in histories of Deaf and hearing people within the same national contexts and on the interpretation of historical events from the perspectives of Deaf cultures. This course will provide an in-depth investigation into the history of Deaf people as a community and its composition and connections with deaf education.
Concepts in phonetics, morphology, and syntax and a basic overview of the world’s major spoken and sign languages and language families, with particular reference to universal and unique characteristics of human languages, are introduced in the course. The readings in this course provide an overview of several key areas in the study of language; areas to be covered include languages diversity, language change and variation, the brain and language, as well as issues in language medium and modality. The readings in the linguistics module invite learners to explore the central components of linguistics.
Theories of linguistics are introduced in the course. Information about the historical development of languages and about sociolinguistic variations in language communities that are related to region, social class, age, and gender are included. Comparisons of the linguistic structures of languages are offered.
This course is an introductory study of generative phonology, phonological structures, and sign language phonology. Topics cover the articulatory features and non-manual expressions; the “phonotactic” processes is sign production; and changes in phonological processes. Learners will analyze how sign language phonology interacts with the perceptual and production system involved in the visual-gestural modality and other areas of grammar such as morphology and syntax.
The course covers basic concepts in the study of the sign language lexicon. It focuses on the componential features specific to the vocabularies in sign languages, including its lexical semantics and semantic features. It also covers related topics such as taxonomy, hyponymy, meronymy, synonymy, ethnosemantics, and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Examples are drawn from spoken and signed languages lexicon for exposition and analysis.
Concepts of the morphology of sign languages from a cross-linguistic and cross-modal perspective are introduced in the course. Topics include inflection and derivation morphology; modality-specific features such as the use of space and availability of paired manual articulators; and interfaces between non-manual signals and signs.
This course introduces syntactic features of sign languages that govern word order. Topics include word order, sentence types, simple and complex clauses, interrogatives, fronting, negation, and confirmation. Examples are drawn from sign language and spoken/written languages for exposition and analysis.
This course gives an overview of non-manuals in sign languages. It looks at its linguistic functions at the phonological, morphological, and syntactic levels. Topics focus on three areas: (1) mouth gestures and mouthings, (2) non-manuals as adjectives and as adverbs, and (3) non-manuals as markers of negation and interrogatives. Learners will analyze individual signs, sign utterances, and sign discourses and learn how to identify and code different non-manuals.
In the course, learners will conduct extensive readings and discussion in applied linguistics, including instruction, curriculum, assessment, and acquisition. They will present and lead class discussion on selected readings, and write summaries on the readings and class discussion.
Theories related to first, second, and additional language acquisition, and the difference between foreign language and native language learning, are featured in the course. Concepts such as sources of language acquisition, processes and stages, and triggers in the acquisition of higher forms, are exemplified. Similarities and differences between first, second, and additional language acquisition are highlighted.
This course covers the main concepts and theories of sign language acquisition of deaf first language and hearing second language learners. Focus will be given to the developmental stages deaf and hearing individuals typically go through in acquiring a visual-gestural language, the errors they make, and the extent to which such a developmental pattern is parallel to that of spoken language acquisition by hearing first, second, and additional language learners.
The course introduces learners to seminal works in applied linguistics with particular reference to language teaching. Focus is given to the principles of language teaching and syllabus design. Learners will participate in reading activities, apply the principles and methods in teaching spoken language to the teaching of sign language, and evaluate the principles and methods outlined in the works.
The course is a study of methods of teaching sign languages. Material development and analysis, lesson planning, course objectives, and evaluation methods are featured. Demonstrations in teaching sign language are given. Learners will develop lessons and demonstrate various teaching methods in the classroom. Classroom management techniques and ideal classroom features will be discussed.
The course is a survey of various curricula, materials, and media used in sign language instruction. Learners will select, prepare, and adapt tasks and materials for sign language teaching. They will present and discuss different curricula and materials. They will be required to develop their own curriculum and materials for use in classrooms.
This course is a review of the theories, history of methods of testing, and assessment. Techniques for learners to develop and administer sign language assessment tests and procedures for class placement interviews, course examinations, diagnosis, and proficiency levels are featured. This course also provides an overview of available sign language test batteries.
Different technologies and online platforms that are used in sign language classes are introduced in the course. Learners will learn how to use technology and online platforms to upload learning units, and record, analyze, and provide feedback to learners’ work on video and online platforms. They will select a technological or online platform tool, devise lesson units, and install them in classrooms, and provide support to aid learning.
The course is supervised practicum in which learners will observe, team-teach, and participate in actual classroom teaching under the supervision of an experienced cooperating teacher. The learners are assigned to an appropriate course level. Learners will incorporate their knowledge and skills in pedagogy, sign language, and Deaf community and culture in their learner teaching. They will be observed and given feedback on their progress. The learners are required to attend a one-hour weekly seminar conducted by the project coordinator.
The course is supervised learner research in sign language pedagogy. Learners will learn about the notion of “teacher-as-researcher” in the course. Theories and methods in research designs are introduced. Learners select a topic of study in consultation with and under close direction of the supervisor, design, carry out a simple research project, and report their findings in class and at professional conferences. They will attend two-hour weekly seminars.
Learners are expected to participate in the local Deaf community and their cultural activities. They will use and develop their sign language skills and knowledge and understanding about the diversity of the Deaf population, communities, and cultures.
Learners who successfully complete a teacher preparatory program and who meet the requirements for state or national certification are encouraged to apply for certification as a teacher of sign language(s). Government certification requirements vary by countries and localities with countries. If a country has an association of sign language teachers, learners are encouraged to participate and join as a member. If the association provides a teacher certification, the learners should also be encouraged to apply for the association certification.
Learners must pass all certification examinations before a government agency will grant teacher certification. Such examinations may include a test of general knowledge, a test inspecific to Deaf community and culture, test of sign language content knowledge and skills, receptive and expressive language skills, and written assessment of languages used in the majority culture.
To enter the program, an applicant would need to be at least 18 years old, have completed the highest level of formal education available to deaf individuals in the country. He or she would need to be a signer with native or native-like proficiency; a member of or willing to become a member of the national Deaf associations; is extensively knowledgeable about, and participating in, the Deaf community; and is demonstrably committed to a career in sign language teaching and/or research.
The following are some exemplars in TPPs in L2/Ln sign language in the US and in Asia. Additional exemplars in Asia and New Zealand can be found in McKee and Woodward (2014). Not every TPP includes all courses described above; TPPs vary by national and local education regulations where TPPs are located. For each section, the sociolinguistic situation of sign language, education available to culturally Deaf people, establishment of teacher training programs, availability of qualified trainers, and coursework are described.
There are other sign languages native to what is now the US, such as Martha’s Vineyard Sign Language, Hawai’i Sign Language, and Creolized Hawai’i Sign Language. Some of them became extinct, and others continue to be used by small numbers of people in the United States. American Sign Language (ASL) is the dominant sign language in the United States and all TPPs in the US focus on teaching ASL as L2/Ln.
Formal education has been available to deaf people since the early 1800s, and university education since the late 1800s. There are BA or MA programs to train sign language teachers. Having the possibility of training at university level entails a high probability that sign language teachers obtain certification or licensure for teaching sign language as a L2/Ln.
Harris and Thibodeau (2016) summarized the history of sign language TPPs in the United States. All graduate-level TPPs in sign language in the US were established in the 1990s and 2000s: they are Gallaudet University, the University of Colorado at Boulder, Teachers College, Columbia University, and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Gallaudet established the first degree program in sign language teaching in 1983, a BA degree program in Sign Communication, which was renamed as BA in American Sign Language in 1996. Gallaudet University established the Master of Arts Program in Sign Language Education in 2011.
Due to the long history of deaf education in the United States, there are an ample number of qualified trainers in the United States.
Gallaudet University’s TPP in sign language is used as an example of coursework. Following is a list of courses in Gallaudet University’s Master of Arts in Sign Language Education.
ASL 709 Sign Language Media Production (3) [required]
ASL 724 Sign Language Linguistics for Sign Language Professionals (3) [required]
ASL 741 Methods of Sign Language Teaching (3) [required]
ASL 743 Curriculum Development for Sign Language Teaching (3) [required]
ASL 745 Sign Language Teaching, Culture, and History (3) [elective]
ASL 750 Assessing Sign Language Skills (3) [required]
ASL 752 Sign Language Practicum (3) [required]
ASL 760 Connecting Sign Language Research to Practice (3) [elective]
ASL 761 Seminar in Sign Language Education: Professional Preparation (1) [required]
ASL 762 Seminar in Sign Language Education: EPortfolio (1) [required]
ASL 770 Sign Language Planning and Advocacy (3) [required]
ASL 777 Digital Pedagogy in the Sign Language Field (3) [elective]
ASL 790 Sign Language Internship (3) [required]
DST 705 Sign and the Philosophy of Language (3) [elective]
DST 710 Literary Traditions in the Deaf Community (3) [required]
DST 714 Critical Pedagogy (3) [elective]
LIN 510 Introduction to First and Second Language Acquisition (3) [required]
The program of study at Gallaudet University is not designed to give teacher certification. State education departments award teacher certifications. Each state education department prepares a list of coursework, practicum experiences, a demonstration of signing skills, and a teacher certifying examination for individuals who wish to become teachers of American Sign Language. The requirements for teacher certification vary by state. Some states require certain coursework, practicum experiences and teacher certifying examination, which includes sign skills assessment. Some states rely on ASLTA for sign skills assessment. Rosen (2008) provided information on teacher certification requirements by US states.
When the first Thai Sign Language Teacher Training Program was established in 1997, four distinct sign languages in had been identified in Thailand: Ban Khor Sign Language, Original Bangkok Sign Language, Original Chiang Mai Sign Language, and Modern Thai Sign Language. These four sign languages have been classified into three different language families based on lexicostatistical analysis of core basic vocabulary (Woodward, 2000). Ban Khor Sign Language is a language isolate. Original Bangkok Sign Language and Original Chiang Mai Sign Language share 65% cognates in basic core vocabulary. Modern Thai Sign Language developed out of the creolization of American Sign Language with indigenous sign languages in Thailand and has less than 30% cognates with either Original Bangkok Sign Language or Original Chiang Mai Sign Language. All of these sign languages are highly endangered, except Modern Thai Sign Language (Nonaka, 2007; Woodward & Suwanarat, 2015; Woodward & Wongchai, 2015). Modern Thai Sign Language is used throughout Thailand by up to 67,000 signers under the age of 60 (Woodward, Danthanavanich, & Janyawong, 2015). Modern Thai Sign Language is officially recognized as a national language by the Thai Government and is used in a number of schools in Thailand. While Modern Thai Sign Language is currently robust, the fact that fewer than 100,000 people use it marks it as a potentially endangered language.
Formal education has been available to culturally Deaf people in Thailand since the 1950s. By 1997, most culturally Deaf people had finished M-3 (9th Grade) Education, while only a tiny number of people under the age of 25 had completed M-6 (12th Grade) Education. While Ratchasuda College Mahidol University at Salaya had been established in 1992 for blind learners and for deaf learners, no formal university education for Deaf learners was begun until 1997, when the first university certificate program, a Certificate Program in Teaching (Modern) Thai Sign Language, began in 1997.
Woodward (1997) discussed the establishment of the first sign language teacher training program begun in Thailand in 1997 as a result of a cooperative effort between Gallaudet University, Ratchasuda College, Mahidol University at Salaya, and The National Association of the Deaf in Thailand, funded by a grant from The Nippon Foundation in Tokyo to Gallaudet University. This cooperative effort was called The World Deaf Leadership Program, Thailand Project.
A professionally trained sign language linguist who had previously worked with Gallaudet University was working at Ratchasuda College at the time the program was established. Skilled, professionally trained, deaf sign language teachers from Gallaudet University were brought in to do the initial training of the Thai Deaf people.
Following is a list of courses in the Certificate Program in Teaching Thai Sign Language.
RSTS 010 Introduction to Sign Languages and Deaf Communities (4)
RSTS 011 Methods of Teaching Sign Languages (4)
RSTS 012 Curriculum Design & Materials Development for Sign Language Instruction (4)
RSTS 020 Introduction to the Structure of Thai Sign Language (4)
RSTS 021 Practicum: Teaching Thai Sign Language I (4)
RSTS 022 Practicum: Curriculum Design and Materials for Thai Sign Language Instruction I (4) RSTS 030 Research on Sign Languages in Thailand (4)
RSTS 031 Practicum: Teaching Thai Sign Language II (4)
RSTS 032 Practicum: Curriculum Design and Materials for Thai Sign Language Instruction II(4) RSTS 033 Methods of Evaluating Sign Language Skills (4)
The Certificate Program in Teaching Thai Sign Language is modeled after an existing educational model that had been used in Thailand to train people with 9th Grade education in rural areas of Thailand to become professional nurses and later to matriculate to formal university training if they desired. The Program allowed Deaf people with 9th grade to become certified teachers of Thai Sign Language who could be employed in the Thai government system and to matriculate to a BA degree program at Ratchasuda College.
When the first Teacher Training Program for sign languages in Viet Nam was established in 2000, three sign languages had been identified and classified into the same language family based on lexicostatistical analysis of core basic vocabulary (Woodward, 2000). Hai Phong Sign Language shares 54% cognates in basic core vocabulary with Ho Chi Minh City Sign Language and 54% cognates in basic core vocabulary with Ha Noi Sign Language. Ho Chi Minh City Sign Language and Ha Noi Sign Language share 58% cognates in core vocabulary.
Hai Phong Sign Language and Hai Noi Sign Language are endangered. There is no government recognition of these languages. The government is attempting to create “common signs” to use in the grammar of spoken Vietnamese for teaching purposes. Ho Chi Minh City Sign Language is used in Ho Chi Minh City, in the areas south of Ho Chi Minh City and as far North at Da Nang. There are up to 45,000 users of Ho Chi Minh City Sign Language (Woodward, Nguyen, Nguyen, Le, Luu, & Ho, 2015). There is no government recognition of this language. There is one school that begun in 2000 that uses this sign language variety at the Junior High School level, Senior High School level, and College level.
Formal education had been available to a limited number of culturally Deaf people since 1896. However, from 1896 to 1975 there was only one school for deaf people in Lai Thieu, Binh Duong Province in the South of Viet Nam. From 1954–1975 Viet Nam was partitioned into North Viet Nam and South Viet Nam by the 1954 Geneva Conference. During this time Deaf people from the North Viet Nam could not attend the school in South Viet Nam. After reunification of Viet Nam in 1975 the number of schools for Deaf people increased, but the highest grade offered by the schools to deaf learners was 5th grade. In the year 2000, the Project on Opening (High School) and University Education Through Sign Language Analysis, Teaching, and Interpretation began in Bien Hoa City, Dong Nai Province in the southern part of Viet Nam. This goal of this project, funded by The Nippon Foundation in Tokyo, was to provide full bilingual education to culturally Deaf learners.
Woodward, Nguyen, and Nguyen (2004) discussed the establishment of the first sign language teacher training program begun in Thailand in 2000. Unlike Thailand, in 2000 Viet Nam did not have any official organizations recognized by the Vietnamese government; and despite efforts by Vietnamese Deaf people and the World Federation, it still does not have any associations that have legal status with the Vietnamese government.
Because the sign linguist, Woodward, involved in the Thai Sign Language Training Program, moved to Viet Nam for this training program and because two faculty and one graduate from the Thai Sign Language Training Program agreed to teach in Viet Nam, there was an ample number of qualified trainers for the program. Sign linguists working in Southeast Asia and professional deaf sign language teachers make periodic visits to Viet Nam to ensure the program will continue to have an adequate number of qualified trainers.
Following is a list of courses in the Certificate Program in Teaching Vietnamese sign languages.
VNSLL 111 Introduction to Deaf Cultures (2)
VNSLL 112 Introduction to Deaf History 1 (2)
VNSLL 113 Introduction to Languages and Linguistics (2)
VNSLL 114 Introduction to the Formational Structure of Vietnamese Sign Languages (3)
VNSLL 115 Introduction to the Grammatical Structure of Vietnamese Sign Languages (3)
VNSLL 116 Introduction to the Lexical Structure of Vietnamese Sign Languages (3)
VNSLT 121 Communication in Gestures (2)
VNSLT 122 Methods of Teaching Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 1 (2)
VNSLT 123 Instructional Design for Teaching Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 1 (2)
VNSLT 124 Materials Development for Teaching Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 1 (2) VNSLT 125 Practicum in Teaching Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 1 (7)
VNSLT 221 Sign Language Assessment for Teaching Vietnamese Sign Languages (3)
VNSLT 222 Methods of Teaching Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 2 (2)
VNSLT 223 Instructional Design for Teaching Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 2 (2)
VNSLT 224 Materials Development for Teaching Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 2 (2)
VNSLT 225 Practicum in Teaching Vietnamese Sign Languages, Level 2 (6)
Viet Nam, like Thailand, had a certificate program for graduates of 9th grade. However, none of the Deaf learners had graduated from 9th grade. In this case, the Provincial Departments of Education and Training issued professional certificates that were valid within that Province. The Dong Nai Provincial Department of Education and Training agreed to issue certificates until the learners reached 9th grade, when Dong Nai University began issuing certificates, which are valid inside and outside Dong Nai Province. The Program allowed Deaf people who completed 9th grade education to become certified teachers of Vietnamese sign languages who could be employed throughout Viet Nam and eventually assisted Deaf people in matriculating to a BA degree program in education at Dong Nai University. In addition, certificates offered were readily approved by government officials.
This chapter discussed the characteristics of a model sign language TTP and reviewed selected L2/Ln sign language TPPs in the US, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Many countries offer sign language classes but only a few offer TPP in L2/Ln sign language. Teachers of L2/Ln sign languages in countries without TPPs tend to either enroll in TPPs in other countries, or do not receive training. In addition, not one form of TPP can work in all countries. This presents issues for future research studies and pedagogical practices.
Unfortunately, there are few research studies on the development of TPPs in sign languages as L2/Ln languages. TPPs should continually conduct research studies to assess the achievements of its program offering in preparing effective teachers of sign languages. In this light, L2/Ln sign language students and teacher trainers should conduct research studies on program development, teaching knowledge and skills, and L2/Ln learning in order to improve the preparation of future teachers who will teach sign languages as L2/Ln languages. In addition, in the future there may be new TPPs established in an increasing number of countries. In this case, future research studies need to investigate the political, social, and cultural conditions of the different countries that shape government policies for program development and qualifications for learners and teacher trainers, and mechanisms for program relationships with governments, particularly in the areas of teacher certification and funding for learners and programs.
While there is worldwide growth in L2/Ln sign language classes, there is also a growing awareness that the number of TPPs in L2/Ln sign languages needs to increase. There are still a number of basic issues regarding L2/Ln sign language TPPs that need to be addressed. One is that a number of learners who are native users of L1 sign languages are taking different sign languages as L2/Ln. A course in learning foreign sign languages, which will make learners understand how learners feel and experience when learning a foreign sign language, may need to be added to the list of courses in a TPP. There are sign language teachers and teacher trainers who migrate across countries, particularly in EU countries and Southeast Asia. TPPs need to reorient teacher preparation to avail themselves to sign language users from different countries and that take into consideration the sociolinguistic situations of sign languages in different countries. The TPPs also need to work out teacher certification requirements with governments from different countries. Whether this can be accomplished by different TPPs, a multi-national TPP, or a regional TPP for L2/Ln sign language teaching needs to be investigated. The determination of the national scope of a L2/Ln sign language TPP depends on the number of individuals who are interested and qualified in becoming teachers and trainers, connections with local, regional, and multi-national sign language communities, and the finances of the TPP.
Altstaedter, L.L., Smith, J.J., & Fogarty, E. (2016). Co-teaching: Towards a new model for teacher preparation in foreign language teacher education. Hispania, 99 (4), 635–49.
Bartlett, L. (1990). Teacher development through reflective teaching. In J.C. Richards & D. Nunan (eds.), Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 202–14). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bauman, H. D.-.L., Nelson, J., & Rose, H. (2006). Introduction. In H.-D.-L.Bauman, J.L. Nelson, & H.M. Rose (eds.). (2006). Signing the Body Poetic: Essays on American Sign Language Literature (pp. 1–18). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling Hammond, & J. Bradsford (eds). Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do (pp.1–39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cho, M-H., Convertino, C., & Khourey-Bowers, C. (2015). Helping preserve teachers (PSTs) understand the realities of poverty: Innovative curriculum modules. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63 (2), 303‒24.
Christie, K. (2014). Education Commission of the States: Effectiveness focused teacher preparation. The Progress of Education Reform, 15 (5), 1–11. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S.L. (2009). Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Convertino, C. (2016). Beyond ethnic tidbits: Toward a critical and dialogical model in multicultural social justice teacher preparation. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 18 (2), 125–42.
Cooper, J.E., Kurtts, S., & Baber, C.R. (2008). A model for examining teacher preparation curricula for inclusion. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35 (4), 155–76.
Cramer, E.D, Alvarez McHatton, P., & Little, M.E. (2015). Constructing a new model for teacher preparation: A collaborative approach. Action in Teacher Education, 37 (3), 238–250.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond, & J. Bradsford (eds). Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do (pp. 390–441). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D.J., Gatlin, S.J., & Heilig, J.V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13 (42), 1–48.
Day, R.R. (1990). Teacher observation in second language education. In J.C. Richards, & D. Nunan, op. cit. (pp. 43–61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Engler, K.S., & MacGregor, C.J. (2018). Deaf education teacher preparation: A phenomenological case study of a graduate program with a comprehensive philosophy. American Annals of the Deaf, 162 (5), 388‒418.
Ezer, H. (2007). Empowering the teacher-inquirer: Narrative inquiry as a vehicle of empowerment for teachers in a multicultural society. Teacher Education and Practice, 20 (2), 191–203.
Fox, R.K., & Diaz-Greenberg, R. (2006). Culture, multiculturalism, and foreign/world language standards in U.S. teacher preparation programs: Towards a discourse of dissonance. European Journal of Teacher Education, 29 (3), 401–22.
Freeman, D., &. Johnson, D. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–418.
Gaskins, I.W. (1989). Teachers as thinking coaches: Creating strategic learners and problem solvers. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 4 (1), 35–48.
Gebbard, J.G., Gaitan, S., & Oprandy, R. (1990). Beyond prescription: the learner teacher as investigator. In J.C. Richards, & D. Nunan, op. cit. (pp. 16–25). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Harris, R.I. & Thibodeau, R. (2016). Sign language teaching: Training. In P. Boudreault & G. Gertz (eds.), The Deaf Studies Encyclopedia (pp. 859–61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lange, D.L. (1990). A blueprint for a teacher development program. In J.C. Richards & D. Nunan (eds.), op. cit. (pp. 245–68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
López, F., & Santibañez, L. (2018). Teacher preparation for emergent bilingual learners: Implications of evidence for policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26 (36), 1–39.
Marbley, A.F., Bonner, F.A., II, & McKisick, S. (2007). Interfacing culture specific pedagogy with counseling: A proposed diversity training model for preparing preservice teachers for diverse learners. Multicultural Education, 14 (3), 8–16.
McKee, D., & Woodward, J. (2014). Developing Deaf communities through sign language teacher training. In D. McKee, R. Rosen, & R. McKee (eds.), Teaching and Learning Signed Languages: International Perspectives and Practices (pp. 35–64). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Montaigne, M. de. (1958). The Complete Essays of Montaigne. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Mungure, D.M. (2016). An exploration of the preparation and organization of teaching practice exercise to prospective science and mathematics Teachers toward improving teaching profession at Morogoro Teachers’ College. Journal of Education and Practice, 7 (33), 212–20.
National Research Council. (2010). Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy. Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Nonaka, A. (2007). Emergence of an Indigenous Sign Language and a Speech/Sign Community in Ban Khor, Thailand. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.
Nunan, D. (1990). Action research in the language classroom. In J.C. Richards, & D. Nunan (eds.), op. cit. (pp. 62–81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
O’Dwyer. S. (2006). The English teacher as facilitator and authority. TESL ‒ EJ, 9 (4). 1–15.
Pennington, M.C. (1990). A professional development focus for the language teaching practicum. In J.C. Richards & D. Nunan (eds.), op. cit. (pp. 132–54). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Plato. (1997). Cratylus. In Cooper, J.M. (Trans.), Plato: Complete Works. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishers, Inc.
Ramirez, S. (1992). Teacher as facilitator: Preserving the “multi” in the multi-level ESL classroom. Adult Learning, 3 (6), 19–20.
Richards, J.C. (1990). The dilemma of teacher education in second language teaching. In J.C. Richards, & D. Nunan (eds.), op. cit. (pp. 3–15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rosen, R. (2008). American Sign Language as a foreign language in US high schools: State of the art. Modern Language Journal, 92 (1), 10–38.
Saint-Loup, Aude de (1993). Images of the Deaf in Medieval Western Europe. In R. Fischer, & H. Lane (eds.), Looking Back: A Reader on the History of Deaf Communities and Their Sign Languages (pp. 379–402). Germany: Signum Verlag.
Tarone, E., & Alblwright, D. (2005). Second language teacher learning and learner language learning: Shaping the knowledge base. In D.J. Tedick (ed.), Second Language Teacher Education: International Perspectives (pp. 5–24). Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wallace, M.J. (1998). Action Research for Language Teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Watzke, J.L. (2003). Lasting Change in Foreign Language Education: A Historical Case for Change in National Policy. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Wilcox, S., & Wilcox, P.P. (1997). Learning to See: Teaching American Sign Language as a Second Language (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Woodward, J. (1997). Case study 8: A university-level Thai Sign Language Certificate Program. In United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. Management of Self-help Organizations of People with Disabilities (pp. 65–74 & 111–15). Bangkok: UNESCAP.
Woodward, J. (2000). Sign languages and sign language families in Thailand and Viet Nam. In K. Emmorey and H. Lane (eds.), The Signs of Language Revisited: An Anthology in Honor of Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (pp. 23–47). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Woodward, J., Danthanavanich, S., & Janyawong, P. (2015). Modern Thai Sign Language. In J. Hansen, G. De Clerck, S. Lutalo-Klingi, & W. McGregor (eds.), The World’s Sign Languages: A Comparative Handbook (pp. 629–48). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Woodward, J., Nguyen, T.H., & Nguyen, T.T. (2004). Providing higher educational opportunities to Deaf adults in Viet Nam through Vietnamese sign languages: 2000–2003. Deaf Worlds, 20, 232–63.
Woodward, J., Nguyen, T.H., Nguyen, D., Le, T., Luu, N., & Ho, T. (2015). Ho Chi Minh City Sign Language. In J. Hansen, et al., op. cit. (pp. 391–408). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Woodward, J., & Suwanarat, K. (2015). Original Bangkok Sign Language. In J. Hansen, et al., op. cit. (pp. 677–86). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Woodward, J., & Wongchai, T. (2015). Original Chiangmai Sign Language. In J. Hansen, et al., op. cit. (pp. 687–700). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2015.