11

Course design for L2/Ln sign language pedagogy

Alejandro Oviedo, Reiner Griebel, Thomas Kaul, Leonid Klinner, and Katharina Urbann

Introduction

Sign language L2/Ln courses are currently offered in many countries from all continents (McKee, Rosen, & McKee, 2014; Mathur & Napoli, 2011; World Federation of the Deaf, 2008). However, there are fewer countries in which curricula for sign languages have been published.¹ There are studies that discussed curriculum issues linked to the countries (e.g., for USA: Swaney, 2015; Quinto-Pozos, 2011; Rosen, 2010; Baker-Shenk & Cokely, 1980. Europe: Fries & Geißler, 2012; Álvarez García et al., 2001; Denmark, 1990; Bouchauveau, 1994; Boyes-Braem, 1994; Bergmann, 1994; Elton, 1994. Brazil: Gesser, 2010, 2006. Australia: Cresdee & Johnston, 2014). A review of these studies allows us to make some generalizations about curricula currently used for the teaching of sign languages. The sign language curricula currently in use are largely adaptations of models developed for teaching spoken languages (Napier & Leeson, 2016; Rosen, 2010). As a matter of fact, second language acquisition (SLA) research has had little impact on the design of L2/Ln sign languages’ courses and curricula (Napier & Leeson, 2016; Rosen, 2010). The choice of approach is frequently shaped by the pedagogical conceptions subscribed to by curriculum designers. The following are theories of course design, including its components, and suggestions for creating courses.

Theoretical perspectives

Course design involves the creation of a curriculum with plans for instruction and assessment of learning. It needs to follow standards for learning and teaching, and include the linguistics of the language that is being taught and the topics that learners can talk about using the language. Course designs change over time, and follow research developments in linguistics, psychology of learning, teaching approaches (Rosen, 2010), and standards. Concepts of learning, instruction, curriculum, and standards that are involved in course design are discussed in the following.

Learning

Learners do not necessarily learn when we teach them, but when they are ready to learn (Pienemann, 1989). However, very little is known about the phases or stages of language development (Ellis, 2008). In such a context, it is expected that learners synthesize the contents in order to develop competences (Richards, 2013). Most curricula present language through communicative activities (Krashen, 1982). Learners analyze the input received, and at their own pace they incorporate it into their language system (Selinker, 1972). Their motivation to develop accuracy leads them to ask about grammar (Lightbown & Spada, 2006; Nunan, 2004). Furthermore, studies show that learning is a spiral, not a linear process (Ellis, 2008): Learning frequently covers the same topics but progresses with increasing levels of linguistic and communicative complexity. Deviations from the norm are a part of the learners’ language development, which by itself argues against designing courses based on content and presented in a linear and cumulative way (Mitchell & Myles, 2004), and for designing courses based on learning outcomes.

The sequence and scope of courses are determined by standards, and oriented to the competencies that learners are expected to develop in accordance with the purposes for using the language. An example of this trend can be found in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001). The levels of language proficiency European individuals need to integrate in the European Union (EU) countries depend on the settings where the language is used. They include “basic user” (A2 level) for daily needs and activities; “independent user” (B1‒B2) who use language to communicate at work; and “proficient user” (C1‒C2) who use language in the production and exchange of academic knowledge (Napier & Leeson, 2016).

Instruction

Instruction is the “how” of teaching. Despite their great variety, L2/Ln teaching approaches are underpinned by two main principles: Focus on form and focus on meaning (Archibald et al., 2006). In the approaches that focus on form, L2/Ln is taught in cumulative and progressive steps. Learners are assisted in learning a certain form, which may be a word, a sentence, or a narration. Once this form is mastered, a new form is presented, and the procedure is repeated. Such approaches are behaviorist in orientation (cf. Hinkel, 2016). Critics of behaviorism in language learning point to empirical evidence that prove that while learning grammar increases accuracy as well as metalinguistic awareness, it does not contribute to the development of communicative competencies in L2/Ln (Swain, 1993).

Under the approaches that focus on meaning, learning occurs in meaningful contexts where language is used to communicate. Classes are organized by situations and tasks in which the learner learns vocabulary and sentences that are thematically linked to each other through simulated dialogues. These approaches are referred to as communicative language teaching (CLT) (Hinkel, 2016). Critics of CLT point out that although learners are able to interact using L2/Ln in the classroom, genuine communication never takes place (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). The teachers prescribed the vocabulary and sentences for their learners to use with each other. As a result, the learners have difficulty interacting with native users in real-life contexts (Fries & Geißler, 2012; Wilcox & Wilcox, 1997).

Recent alternatives to the binomial focus on form versus focus on meaning are the task-based learning (TBL) approaches whereby learners use L2/Ln to perform tasks (Nunan, 2004; Ellis, 2003), and content-based instruction (CBI) approaches whereby learners use L2/Ln as means to acquire information (Snow, 1998). When learners perform meaningful activities through L2/Ln, they focus on meaning. In the course of such activities learners often reach the limits of their own competencies because they lack words or other structures in L2/Ln, and would need to devise strategies that allow them to express or better understand the contents of the task. At that point, learners move from focus on meaning to what Willis and Willis (2007) call focus on language forms. Teachers provide instruction in vocabulary instruction and explanations for grammatical structures according to context and the needs and requirements of learners, and not for their own sake (Willis & Willis, 2007; Lightbown & Spada, 2006). Following Rosen (2010), the curricula that are based on the percepts of TBL and CBI constitute the current trend in the teaching of spoken languages, what he designates as conversationalism.

There is evidence that shows that, regardless of approaches, the teaching of grammar accelerates L2/Ln acquisition (Pienemann, 1989). In task-based instruction, for example, parts of class activities tend to include instruction in vocabulary and grammatical topics as a corollary to the conversation tasks performed (Willis & Willis, 2007). Additionally, the language chunks that learners learn from the grammatical explanations given by the teachers are helpful for them to process L2/Ln input (Lightbown, 1998).

Curriculum

Curriculum is a guide to prepare, execute, and evaluate a course (Stern, 1983). It is the “what” of teaching. A curriculum has several essential elements. They are contents to be taught and learned, teaching methodology followed, evaluation of learning outcomes (Richards, 2013; Clark, 1987), materials, resources, and schedules (Wiggins & McTighe, 2006). These elements weave together into a curriculum design for a learning context such as L1 and L2/Ln courses for implementation in classrooms (Brown, 2007). Preparing a course requires curriculum design.

Traditionally, course designs follow a fixed order, from selecting contents, to defining a methodology, and then to describing learning outcomes. This process is seen as forward design (Richards, 2013). In some cases, the needs of learners and course topics shape the content and learning outcomes in courses, and the curriculum that follows this process is central design (Richards, 2013; Clark, 1987). In other cases, learning outcomes are emphasized in classes, and teaching methodology and content follow the items in the learning outcomes. The curriculum that follows this process is backward design (Richards, 2013; Wiggins & McTighe, 2006). We assume here that the structure of a course parallels with the elements in a curriculum. While content, methodology, and learning outcomes guide the design of courses, each course design option caters for different needs of the learners and requirements in the courses.

Most traditional curricula follow the forward design. This design works when the contents follow a logical sequence, as is the case of grammar contents, and when the classroom is teacher-centered. Central and backward designs are much more flexible because they are learner-centered. Their contents are not pre-established but driven by the classroom dynamics (Brown, 2007). Central and backward designs are best tailored to the needs of learners and courses. However, much more preparation and autonomy of the teachers are demanded for the development of central and backward-designed curricula (Richards, 2013; Clark, 1987).

Standards

Standards are descriptions of learning outcomes, formulated in terms of what learners can do during and at the end of instruction. Standards provide a common code for communication between the participants in the educational process (Kolomitro & Gee, 2015). A curriculum based on standards is learner-centered (Brown, 2007), and corresponds to a backward design, since it is built on the basis of learning outcomes as the final product of the instruction. While learning outcomes guide standards-based curriculum, details about methodology and contents are determined by programs and teachers. The learning outcomes for L2/Ln tend to include linguistic competencies for interpersonal communication, the use of L2/Ln as a means to acquire, process, and transmit information (specially referring to academic discourses, see Napier & Leeson, 2016; Cummings, 2008), and socio-cultural knowledge. For instance, the standards developed by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (1999) include not only language skills but also socio-cultural and intercultural competencies. All standards include proficiency stages. For instance, as previously mentioned, the CEFR proposes six stages from A1 to C2 for languages in the EU (Council of Europe, 2001).

Pedagogical applications

The development of a course typically includes an outline of standards, course topics, and expectations, linguistic structures of a language being taught, instruction with lesson plans and materials, and assessment items, forms, and procedures. The creation of L2/Ln sign language courses in a number of countries began in the 1980s. Those courses were mostly offered by local Deaf associations and planned and directed by hearing or Deaf people without pedagogical training. Courses largely consisted of lists of signs, and the order of signs often follow the order in majority, spoken languages. The hearing teachers often spoke and signed simultaneously. There are variations in sign systems that were taught, the differences between sign language and manual coding systems of spoken languages were often not clear, and the different sign systems were often used by the teachers in classrooms (Elton, 1994; List, 1994; Mally, 1993; Denmark, 1990).

Sign language courses were offered at schools and universities since the late 1980s to the early 1990s. Sign language curricula were guided by the curriculum design for teaching spoken languages. This allowed the production of the first American Sign Language curricula (Baker-Shenk & Cokely, 1980; Humphries, Padden, & O’Rourke, 1980). They included linguistic structures, socio-cultural information about Deaf people, and exercises in gestural communication (Rosen, 2010). The early American Sign Language curricula were used as a model for developing courses in other countries and their sign languages (Fries & Geißler, 2012; Beecken et al., 2002; List, 1994; Boyes-Braem, 1994; Bouchauveau, 1994; Elton, 1994; Denmark, 1990; Edenas, 1994). While some of those curricula follow the behaviorist approach, other curricula follow the communicative approach (Fries & Geißler, 2012; Gesser, 2010).

Since the 1990s, there was an increased recognition of the lack of standardization of the goals of language learning in many countries. This led to calls for the development of standards for learning outcomes in the learning of the majority languages as L1 and minority languages as L2/Ln. Several countries have responded. The ACTFL created the standards for foreign language learning in the US in the late 1990s and the CEFR created learning standards for the languages of the EU countries in the 2000s. The development of standards has impacted on course design in spoken and sign languages.

The introduction of standards in the teaching of sign languages is in most countries a recent phenomenon, which until now has not really been accompanied by theoretical and empirical studies. There are guidelines (see Leeson et al., 2016; American Sign Language Teachers Association, 2014; Kobylanski, 2011) and curricula (see CNSE, 2010; MEN, 2002; CVAA, 2001). Standards for sign languages are now available (American Sign Language Teachers Association, 2014; Confederación Nacional de Sordos de España [CNSE], 2010; Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale [MEN], 2002; Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority [VCAA], 2001) and they are adopted by an increasing number of sign language programs (cf. Napier & Leeson, 2016). The standards for sign languages are frequently adaptations of the standards that were originally developed for spoken languages. There are a few differences. Because sign languages do not have writing systems, the standards for sign languages must replace the skills related to reading and writing with the skills in “reading” and producing sign languages. The tasks consist of interactions (Leeson et al., 2016; VCAA, 2001), and the test stimuli and responses for test takers appear on videos (ASLTA, 2014). Learning outcomes for signed languages also include socio-cultural knowledge and competences (Rosen, 2010). For more information on standards, the reader is referred to Chapter 1 of this volume.

Since the 2000s, an international movement of curricular renewal for the teaching of spoken languages became widespread. It consisted of the reformulation of standards to include learning outcomes, as they are found in Australia (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2011), and the European Union countries (Council of Europe, 2001). The learning outcomes are formulated for production, comprehension, and interaction. The backward-designed curricula became favored for the teaching of L1 and L2/Ln spoken languages. The movement has impacted on sign languages.

The backward-designed curricula approach is used in the teaching of Auslan (VCAA, 2001) and French Sign Language (MEN, 2002). Each learning outcome in L2/Ln sign language teaching is formulated in general terms (e.g., “the learner should be able to view signed texts, and extract information,” VCAA, 2001, 19), and is complemented by descriptions of the knowledge and skills that need to be demonstrated by learners (e.g., “identify key signs and signed sequences; order, classify and link items from various parts of the text,” ibid.: 20). Both curricula contain topical units such as family, travel, and technology, with lists of grammar, discourse, and socio-cultural contents. The lessons included activities that are related to the topic and its contents. Detailed standards have been published for other sign languages such as ASL (American Sign Language Teachers Association, 2014) and sign languages in European countries (Leeson et al., 2016). In the above curricula, learning outcomes are described in more detail than content and instructional methodology.

In Germany, the CEFR standards are currently used to assess learner outcomes, but there are no CEFR-based German Sign Language curricula. A private language school and a university in Germany could offer the same A2 certificate (basic user) to their learners without any correspondence in content, methodology, and frequency of class sessions. Teachers would differ in their work, with some electing to continue working with traditional curricula, even if they are not compatible with the standards in use (personal communications with German Deaf teachers throughout 2017).

Curriculum design and current pedagogical approaches

We reviewed more than 50 documents that were used as guidelines for teaching sign languages as L2/Ln in 12 different countries. A few documents, however, can be considered as curricula. We found lists of contents and sentences with glosses. A small number were but sketches for courses, and they hardly contained descriptions of methodology or learning outcomes.

The documents that are considered as sign language curricula reveal a design based on linguistic topics, although some socio-cultural topics are included. In one type of curricula, content selection focus either on grammar containing linguistic units, or communication containing uses of grammar in social situations. Such curricula promote a teacher-centered classroom. Following Richards (2013), we label such curricula design as forward design. A second type of curriculum design, which is less followed than the previous one, focuses on learning outcomes in linguistic and cultural skills that learners are expected to attain at the end of a course or program (Napier & Leeson, 2016). Contents are selected according to the competences learners are expected to develop. Classroom activities comprise of tasks that are designed to generate meanings to things and actions. The teaching approach and learning evaluation used in the curriculua are learner-centered. We label such curricula as backward design (Richards, 2013; Wiggins & McTighe, 2006).

For purposes of explication and analysis of different approaches in course design for L2/Ln sign language courses, we selected six curricula from our list.² Four of them are European: “Frankfurt” (Happ & Vorköper, 2006); “Grundkurs” (Beecken et al., 2002); “Desire” (Deaf and Sign Language Research Team [Desire], 2002), and “CNSE” (CNSE, 2010). The fifth is Australian with “Auslan” (VCAA, 2001), and the last one is Brazilian with “LIBRAS” (Felipe & Monteiro, 2004). The Frankfurt curriculum consists of a single large book that serves for both the teacher and the learner. CNSE refers to the manual of Spanish Sign Language grammar (CNSE, 2010: 29). The other four curricula described consist of a curriculum book for the teacher and a workbook for the learner, as well as videos mostly containing signed examples. Table 11.1 is a comparison of the six curricula under review.

Table 11.1 Comparison of curriculum in course design in different sign languages

		Frankfurt	Grundkurs	Desire	LIBRAS	Auslan	CNSE
Content	Vocabulary		x	x	x	x	x
	Grammar contents	x	x	x	x	x	x
	Pragmatic contents		x	x	x	x	x
	Sociocultural contents		x	x	x	x	x
	Visual-gestural communication		x	x	x	x	x
Process	Grammar-oriented	x	x		x	x	x
	Function-oriented		x	x	x	x	x
	Learner-centered		?	?	?	x	x
	Teacher-centered	x	x	x	x
	Focus on form	x	x	x	x	x
	Focus on meaning		x	x	x	x
	Focus on language		?	?	?	x	x
Outcomes	Knowledge	x	x	x	x
	Communication skills		x	x	x
	Follow Standards					x	x

In the following, the orientations of each curriculum are explored.

Curricular orientations to course design

Different curricula have different orientations to L2/Ln course design. The Frankfurt curriculum focuses on grammar. The purpose of the curriculum is not to develop competencies, but to impart knowledge in DGS grammar. Learners play a passive role. They are limited to performing a series of self-assessment exercises. The domain of its learning outcomes consists of knowledge of the content. The Frankfurt curriculum is a classic example of a forward-designed curriculum.

The Auslan and CNSE curricula rely on standards in linguistic knowledge and socio-cultural competences to devise its learning outcomes. Meaningful activities in both curricula contain tasks drawn from real-life communication situations such as requesting and obtaining information using sign language. Both curricula follow a backward design and are conversationalist (Rosen, 2010) in orientation.

The Grundkurs, Desire, and LIBRAS curricula contain linguistic and communication topics in a forward-design approach. The curricula are segmented into class units in the different functions of language, communicative situations, and speech acts. The activities mostly consist of dialogues in different situations such as at home, school, and the market. The methodology and learning outcomes in the curricula revolve around the communication tasks. This is typical of CLT environments. However, these activities usually lead to sessions on grammar. In this case, the learners learn the form of sign language, and are given drills and evaluated by their teachers for comprehension.

Curricular components

Different L2/Ln sign language curricula contain different components. In the following, the different curricula are analyzed for content, instructional methodology, learning outcomes, time distribution, and class planning.

Considering the contents

Curriculum content includes topics and its scope and sequence. The written presentation of course topics and its scope and sequence constitutes the course syllabus (Richards, 2013). In the six L2/Ln sign language curricula, the topics cover mainly the linguistic structures of sign language. With the exception of Frankfurt, where the topics are limited to morphosyntax and some aspects of discourse, all the curricula include linguistic content such as vocabulary, sentence forms, non-manual features, inflections, word order, use of signing space, discourse genres, speech acts, and explanations about the visual and gestural nature of sign languages; socio-cultural content; and elements of visual-gestural communication. The latter are mainly included as a way of facilitating access to visual-spatial modality, and as a tool used to “break the ice” and relax learners before class begins.

The scope and sequence of course topics vary across the six curricula. Frankfurt has the linguistic content in the foreground, while the rest relegates grammar to linguistic functions such as talking about oneself, requesting information, shopping in sign language, and the like. In these cases, linguistic content is connected with the communicative functions. Socio-cultural information about deaf people is not often related to the linguistic content, and appears as complementary readings. Only two curricula (Grundkurs and LIBRAS) provide socio-cultural contents for learner activities, including readings for further discussions and reflections, ideas for field experiences, and primes for task-based activities. The CNSE curriculum provides suggestions for the teachers on course content and leaves them to decide on the scope and sequence of the topics.

Considering the instructional methodology

The six curricula differ in instructional methodology. The Frankfurt curriculum includes the scope and sequence of topical content. It also includes exercises at the end of each topic in which the learners translate, complete clozes in sentences, and conduct grammatical analysis, with solutions and linguistic explanations given at the end of the book, which allows for self-assessment by the learners. In this regard, it is not the curriculum in which the learners can have a central role in their learning process. They are limited to “consume” knowledge.

A learner-centered curriculum takes into account the learning process in which the learners acquire L2/Ln (Hutchinson & Waters, 1990). With the exception of Frankfurt, all curricula contain certain learner-centered features, namely, working with activities fostering a focus on language, like TBL and/or CBI (CNSE, Auslan);³ adopting strategies to avoid stress, such as avoiding corrections, allowing learners to process new information before requiring them to produce statements in it (LIBRAS), and do relaxation exercises before starting class (LIBRAS, CNSE).

We find that, with the exception of Auslan and CNSE, all other curricula include activities that focus on form. However, we find that the activities are not meaningful. The activities that are meaningful are the tasks that enable learners to learn linguistic structures and its uses in conversations. They include activities such as presenting a particular dialogue, explaining the sentences and repeating them one after another, explaining the vocabulary used in sentences, asking learners to repeat sentences, and using sentences as templates to use new vocabulary. In the Grundkurs, Desire, and LIBRAS curricula, the activities, while connected to the topic under instruction, consist of rote memorization exercises that are favored in the behaviorist approaches (Willis & Willis, 2007) and not in learner-centered approaches. The Grundkurs, Desire, and LIBRAS are not learner-centered curricula.

Considering the learning outcomes

The six curricula also differ in learning outcomes. The Frankfurt, Grundkurs, Desire, and LIBRAS curricula contain grammatical knowledge as its learning outcome. In these curricula, learners produce decontextualized sentences and are assessed according to a prescriptive model. The Grundkurs, Desire, and LIBRAS curricula also contain communicative skills, including the selection of speech acts suitable for a certain communicative situation, requesting and obtaining information from an unknown Deaf person, and taking turns in a conversation, as learning outcomes. In addition, with the exception of Frankfurt, all curricula contain socio-cultural knowledge and competencies as learning outcomes. Pragmatic skills needed in daily communication with Deaf people, such as calling someone’s attention and entering into a dialogue that is already started, are taught and assessed. All the six curricula include evaluations in productive and receptive skills. With the exception of Frankfurt, all also include interaction skills and socio-cultural knowledge and competencies. It is important to mention that the learning outcomes in the six curricula differ in the types of skills in the use of sign language. Some of them consider the skills that are needed to acquire and process information, and others consider the skills that are required for interaction.

Time distribution and class planning

In course design, consideration is given to the timeframe for individual class sessions and the coverage of topics, linguistic structures, and activities. The six curricula vary in the temporal length of classes and the time given to content topics. Some curricula describe in detail the time given to individual classes. The Frankfurt curriculum specifies in detail the timeframe for its content units and provides some examples to guide the teachers. The LIBRAS and Desire curricula divide the contents and activities into temporal units, each of which contains a number of classes, and give teachers the discretion to decide on the total number of hours available and frequency of sessions. The Grundkurs and Auslan curricula also give teachers the time to determine how long they need to cover course content units. The CNSE curriculum does not provide suggestions for the time distribution of its content units.

The six curricula also vary in the planning of class sessions. The Desire curriculum suggests two-hour class sessions beginning with a review of the contents of the previous session. The LIBRAS curriculum begins with relaxation activities. The Grundkurs curriculum begins with a dialogue on a certain subject, review of vocabulary and grammar, then continues with exercises, and ends with games and exercises that are not related to the class content. The Auslan curriculum contains activities and assessments related to a topic and include lexical, grammatical, pragmatic, and socio-cultural contents. The CNSE curriculum does not include information on class planning. Frankfurt is the curriculum that is designed for self-learning, and does not offer information for teachers to plan classes.

Remaining issues in L2/Ln sign language in course design

The remaining issues in L2/Ln sign language course design are the weak relationship between theory and practice that impact on course design, and developments in L2/Ln sign language curriculum design.

Studies in the linguistics of language, learning processes, and language acquisition determine pedagogies for L2/Ln. New research developments in linguistics, learning, and acquisition have in general lead to changes in the content, teaching methodology, learning outcomes, and standards in curriculum (Rosen, 2010; Brown, 2007). However, there is a gap between theoretical discourse and educational practices (Krashen, 1982). This gap is due to several reasons. One reason is the lack of efficient channels of communication between scientists and teachers. The scientists are usually not themselves teachers, nor do teachers usually conduct formal research in the classroom. As a consequence, they do not share a common language or a common space. Another reason is that the research studies are mostly inconclusive and they cannot therefore provide prescriptive guidance for teachers (Ellis, 2008). Finally, the lack of coordination between scientists and teachers makes it difficult to apply the findings made in laboratory conditions to the complex realities of an educational setting (Freeman & Richards, 1996).

Teachers of spoken languages as L2/Ln often use curricula previously developed by specialists in curriculum design. These specialists are usually aware of developments in second language acquisition research. In the case of sign languages, the designers are often practitioners. As a consequence, the sign language curricula reflect classroom practices more than research findings. Another interesting aspect in this regard is the strong influence that the socio-cultural developments with Deaf people and ASL in the United States have had on Deaf communities around the world. In some Latin American countries, for example, ASL curriculum remains as the chief model of local programs (cf. Oviedo & Ramírez, 2013; Parks, Williams, & Parks, 2011), and a similar situation was observed in the sign language curricula in European countries before the CEFR (Napier & Leeson, 2016; Kobylanski, 2011; CNSE, 2010). Nonetheless, recent trends in the EU and Asian countries show that the development of curricula that are modeled on the sign languages and culture of their Deaf communities is emerging.

Future trends

Future research studies

The course designs for teaching sign languages as L2/Ln are mostly based on models developed for spoken languages. There is a need for research to assess whether the designs work in the teaching of sign languages. There are currently little empirical research studies available to assess the effectiveness of the newer curricula described above. For instance, there are studies conducted with learners of spoken and written languages, and they found in favor of TBL and CBI. However, there are no studies on the use of TBL and CBI in the teaching of sign languages. Research is also needed to assess the effects of new technologies and virtual learning environments on the teaching and learning of sign languages as L2/Ln. If research demonstrates its effectiveness, the new technologies and virtual learning environments should be incorporated into course designs.

In addition, future developments in course designs in L2/Ln pedagogy depend on research findings in L2/Ln sign language acquisition. Longitudinal studies on the acquisition of sign languages as L2/Ln focusing on the development of communicative competences in real interaction (Braidi, 1995), for instance, may have a great impact on the design of courses and curricula. An important variable to consider here is the effect of the acquisition of previously acquired signed or spoken languages on the acquisition of another signed language (cf. Chen Pichler & Koulidobrova, 2015; de Angelis, 2007).

Future pedagogical applications

Figure 11.1 captures our suggestions for future course design based on Richards (2013).

Figure 11.1Map of course design

Source: Based on Richards 2013.

Modeling after Richards (2013), our starting point is the standards for learning since they shape learning outcomes. We have mentioned three standards available for sign languages CEFR (Leeson et al., 2016), American Sign Language Teachers Association (2014), and VCAA (2001). All standards share similar competences, which are socio-cultural, linguistic and information processing skills in production, comprehension, and discourse.

As described earlier, courses content includes linguistic, communicative, and socio-cultural topics. The selection and arrangement of content are first made with classroom activities (from methodology to content) and communicative skills that learners are expected to achieve (from outcomes to content). During the course of instruction, learners show their capabilities and difficulties in activities. It is at this point that teachers would be in a better position in ascertaining strategies for teaching language. It is important for teachers to ensure that the learners develop two cognitive and communicative competences related to the use of sign languages. The first competency pertains to visual-spatial thinking (Wilcox & Wilcox, 1997). The learners, particularly those who are hearing, can sharpen their abilities to perceive and produce such spatial representations through activities such as drawing scenes or representing them with the help of toy figures. This practice can be progressively replaced by gestural representations, classifier-predicates, and constructed action. The second competency pertains to gestural expression. Training learners to perform gestural and facial expressions can help the learners overcome inhibitions of using the body as a means of communication. This activity would need to be performed in beginner courses, as it may sensitize learners about the importance of gestural expression as well as the ability to communicate without using their voices, prior to learning the vocabulary and grammatical constructions of sign languages (cf. Carver & Kemp, 1995).

The teaching and learning of L2/Ln signed languages may be buttressed using external contexts as resources where the learners can learn beyond the classroom, such as involvement in the Deaf community and communicating with signing Deaf people (Wilcox & Wilcox, 1997). This type of learning opportunity outside of classrooms should be anchored in the curriculum. In a study by two of the authors of this chapter, Kaul and Griebel, the learners participated in the community and signed with Deaf people, and kept learner diaries and transcribed signed videos.⁴ Kaul et al. found that they made positive self-learning experiences (Kaul, Griebel, & Kaufmann, 2014; Buisson, 2007).

The following are suggestions for teachers in L2/Ln sign language classrooms. Low-anxiety learning environments are found to be conducive to positive learning (Krashen, 1982), and need to be promoted in the classrooms. We suggest four strategies for teachers and other education practitioners to create low-anxiety learning environments for the L2/Ln sign language learners:

(1)Introduce relaxation routines such as playing games with gestures in classrooms to allow learners to “switch on” the learning mode (Felipe & Monteiro, 2004).

(2)Adapt language to the level of learners. When learners realize that they are following what they are being told, they feel empathy and confidence (Wilcox & Wilcox, 1997).

(3)Repeat to reinforce newly acquired information, vocabulary in particular. This should not be seen as giving support to the behaviorist orientation. Giving feedback is found to be more helpful to learning than making corrections on learner errors (Russell & Spada, 2011).

(4)Caution should be made when correcting learner productions. Offer examples of accepted linguistic constructions until learners become aware of their own mistakes and ask to be corrected. Opportunities for correction should arise spontaneously when learners reflect on the forms of language during class activities (Willis & Willis, 2007).

Sign language curricula largely follow the percepts of forward designs, are teacher-centered, and focus on form. They do not reflect what we know about language acquisition. Both empirical evidence and theoretical arguments suggest the appropriateness of starting with learning outcomes and adopting backward designs for teaching sign languages (Napier & Leeson, 2016). Recent studies in language learning favor task- and content-based teaching in L2/Ln classrooms. Sign language curricula should be revisited, revised, and reflect the current TBL-CBI pedagogical approach. This requires the curriculum to be backward designed so that teaching becomes learner-centered, and learners can perform communicative tasks under different contexts and focus on meaning using sign languages.

Notes

1This description applies only to internationally accessible publications written in the main European languages. We assume that outside this linguistic landscape there are publications that we did not take into consideration here.

2In the countries of the selected six curricula, they share similar characteristics that are related to the status of sign languages and their teaching. They are officially recognized sign languages, well-organized deaf communities, rich linguistic descriptions, and numerous sign language teaching programs.

3Desire, LIBRAS and Grundkurs curricula do not mention TBL and CBI, but all of them include content-centered activities such as presenting expositions, discussing a topic, among others, that focus on language learning and use.

4This has proved useful to stimulate metalinguistic awareness, which plays an important role in the acquisition of L2/Ln (Thomas, 1988).

References

Álvarez García, M., Losada Martínez, B., Juncos Rabadán, O., Camaño Hermida, A., & Justo Piñeiro, M.J. (2001). Algunas reflexiones sobre la enseñanza de la lengua de signos española (L.S.E.) como segunda lengua. Universidad de Alicante.

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (2012). Assigning CEFR Ratings to ACTFL Assessments. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from: www.actfl.org/publications/additional-resources/assigning-cefr-ratings-actfl-assessments

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (1999). National standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.

American Sign Language Teachers Association (2014). Standards for Learning American Sign Language. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from: https://aslta.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/National_ASL_Standards.pdf

Angelis, G. (2007). Third Or Additional Language Acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Archibald, J., Roy, S., Harmel, S., Jesney, K., Dewey, E., Moisik, S., & Lessard, P. (2006). A Review of the Literature on Second Language Learning. Edmonton: University of Calgary. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from: www.acpi.ca/documents/litreview.pdf

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2011). The Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Languages. Sydney: Author.

Baker-Shenk, C., & Cokely, D. (1980). American Sign Language: A Learner Text. Units 1–18. Silver Springs, MA: T.J. Publishers.

Beecken, A., Keller, J., Prillwitz, P., & Zienert, H. (2002). Grundkurs Deutsche Gebärdensprache. Lehrbuch für lehrende. Hamburg: Signum.

Bergmann, A. (1994). Teaching sign language communication and interpretation. In C.J. Erting, R.C. Johnson, D.L. Smith, & B.D. Snider (eds.). The Deaf Way: Perspectives from the International Conference on Deaf Culture (pp. 437–40). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Bouchauveau, J. (1994). Educational methods for teaching sign language. In: C.J. Erting, R.C. Johnson, D.L. Smith, & B.D. Snider (eds.). The Deaf Way: Perspectives from the International Conference on Deaf Culture (pp. 441–45). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Boyes-Braem, P. (1994). An overview of current sign language projects in Switzerland. In: C.J. Erting, R.C. Johnson, D.L. Smith, & B.D. Snider (eds.). The Deaf Way: Perspectives from the International Conference on Deaf Culture (pp. 382–87). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Braidi, S.M. (1995). Reconsidering the role of interaction and input in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 45, 141–75.

Brown, H.D. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman.

Buisson, G.J. (2007). Using online glossing lessons for accelerated instruction in ASL for preservice Deaf education majors. American Annals of the Deaf, 152 (3), 331–43.

Carver, R.J., & Kemp, M. (1995). Visual Gestural Communication: Enhancing Early Communication and Literacy in Young Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children. Paper presented at 18th International Congress on Education of the Deaf. Tel Aviv, July 16–20, 1995. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED390208

Chen Pichler, D., & Koulidobrova, E. (2015) Acquisition of sign language as a second language. In: M. Marschark, & P.E. Spencer (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies in Language (pp. 218–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clark, J.L. (1987). Curriculum Renewal in School Foreign Language Learning. New York: Oxford University Press.

Confederación Nacional de Sordos de España (2010). Propuesta curricular de la lengua de signos española. Nivel usuario básico A1-A2. Madrid: Author.

Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Language: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Cresdee, D., & Johnston, T. (2014). Using corpus-based research to inform the teaching of Auslan (Australian Sign Language) as second language. In D. McKee, R.S. Rosen, & R. McKee (eds.). Teaching and Learning Signed Languages: International Perspectives and Practices (pp. 85–110). New York: Palgrave/MacMillan.

Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In: B. Street, & N.H. Hornberger (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 71–83). New York: Springer Science.

Denmark, C. (1990). British Sign Language tutor training course. In S. Prillwitz, & T. Vollhaber (eds.), Sign Language Research and Application (pp. 253–60). Hamburg: Signum.

Deaf and Sign Language Research Team (2012). Deutsche Gebärdensprache (DGS) fliegende Hände. Aachen: RWTH Aachen.

Edenas, C. (1994). How to improve the sign language skills of hearing teachers. A Swedish experiment. In C.J. Erting, R.C. Johnson, D.L. Smith, & B.D. Snider (eds.). The Deaf Way: Perspectives from the International Conference on Deaf Culture (pp. 615–20). Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2008). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Elton, F. (1994). Teaching across modalities. BSL for hearing people. In C.J. Erting, R.C. Johnson, D.L. Smith, & B.D. Snider (eds.). The Deaf Way: Perspectives from the International Conference on Deaf Culture (pp. 432–36). Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Felipe, T., & Monteiro, M. (2004). Libras en contexto. Curso básico. Livro do professor. Brasilia: Ministerio de Educação.

Freeman, D., & Richards, J.C. (eds.). (1996). Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fries, S., & Geißler, T. (2012). Gebärdensprachdidaktik: DGS lehren und lernen. In H. Eichmann, M. Hansen, & J. Heßmann (eds). Handbuch Deutsche Gebärdensprache. Sprachwissenschaftliche und anwendungsbezogene Perspektiven (pp. 357–80). Seedorf: Signum.

Gass, S.M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Gesser, A. (2006). “Um olho no professor surdo e outro na caneta”: ouvintes aprendendo a Língua Brasileira de Sinais. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Universidade de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.

Gesser, A. (2010). Metodologia de ensino em LIBRAS como L2. Florianópolis: Universidade Federal de Santa Catalina.

Happ, D., & Vorköper, M.O. (2006). Deutsche Gebärdensprache. Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch. Frankfurt: Fachhochschulverlag.

Hinkel, E. (ed.). (2016). Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. New York: Routledge.

Humphries, T., Padden, C., & O’Rourke T.J. (1980). A Basic Course in American Sign Language. Silver Springs, MA: T.J. Publishers.

Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1990). English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kaul, T., Griebel, R., & Kaufmann, E. (2014). Transcription as a tool for increasing metalinguistic awareness in learners of German Sign Language as a second language. In D. McKee, R.S. Rosen, & R. McKee (eds.), Teaching and Learning Signed Languages: International Perspectives and Practices (pp. 85–110). New York: Palgrave/MacMillan.

Kobylanski, M. (2011). Adaptation du CECR pour la LSF: principes et pistes pour une évaluation. Unpublished Masters thesis, Université Stendhal. Retrieved from https://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-00631574

Kolomitro, K., & Gee, K. (2015). Developing Effective Learning Outcomes: A Practical Guide. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from: www.queensu.ca/ctl/about-us/ctl-publications

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (4), 537–60.

Leeson, L., Bogaerde, B.v.d., Rathmann, Ch., & Haug, T. (2016). Sign Languages and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from: www.ecml.at/Portals/1/mtp4/pro-sign/documents/Common-Reference-Level-Descriptors-EN.pdf

Lightbown, P. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (eds.). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 177–96). Cambridge University Press.

Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). How Languages Are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

List, G. (1994). Sign language research in Germany. In C.J. Erting, R.C. Johnson, D.L. Smith, & B.D. Snider (eds.). The Deaf Way: Perspectives from the International Conference on Deaf Culture (pp. 388–93). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Mally, G. (1993). Redewendungen der Deutschen Gebärdensprache (München). Eine Gehörlose erforscht und lehrt ihre Sprache. Hamburg: Signum.

Mathur, G., & Napoli, D.J. (2011). Deaf Around the World: The Impact of Language. New York: Oxford University Press.

McKee, D., Rosen, R.S, & McKee, R. (eds.). (2014). Teaching and Learning Signed Languages: International Perspectives and Practices. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale (2002). Référentiel sur la langue des signes. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from: http://venlsf.free.fr/referentiel_lsf.pdf

Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004) Second Language Learning Theories. London: Hodder Arnold.

Napier, J., & Leeson, L. (2016). Sign Language in Action. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oviedo, A., & Ramírez, Ch. (2013). Das Projekt LESCO – Entstehung und Durchführung eines Forschungsprojekts für eine erste Beschreibung der Costa-ricanischen Gebärdensprache (2011–2013). Das Zeichen, 27, 358–64.

Parks, E., Williams, H., & Parks, J. (2011). A Sociolinguistic Profile of the Deaf People of Panama. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from: www-01.sil.org/silesr/2011/silesr2011-031.pdf

Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 52–79.

Quinto-Pozos, D. (2011). Teaching American Sign Language to hearing adult learners. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 137–58.

Richards, C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central and backward design. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5–33.

Rosen, R.S. (2010). American Sign Language curricula: A review. Sign Language Studies, 10 (3), 348–81.

Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2011) The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In M. Norris., & L. Ortega (eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 133–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10 (1‒4), 209‒32.

Snow, M. (1998). Trends and issues in Content-Based Instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 243–67.

Swain, M. (1993). The Output Hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50 (1), 158–64.

Swaney, M.G. (2015). American Sign Language Curriculum and Materials. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Tennessee. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from: http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4792&context=utk_gradthes

Stern, H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thomas, J. (1988) The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and third language learning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 9 (3), 235–46.

Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (2001). Languages other than English: AUSLAN. Victoria: Author.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

World Federation of the Deaf (2008). Global Education Pre-planning Project on the Human Rights of Deaf People. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from: https://wfdeaf.org/our-work-2/development-cooperation/project

Wilcox, S., & Wilcox, P. (1997). Learning to See: Teaching American Sign Language as a Second Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing Task-based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.