Elidea L.A. Bernardino, Maria C. da C. Pereira, and Rosana Passos
Good teachers are in constant search for effective strategies to teach language, including vocabulary and grammar, under different contexts. In classrooms where signed language is taught as a second (L2) and additional language (Ln), the learners are largely users of oral-auditory (i.e., spoken) languages. The challenge for teachers is to devise teaching strategies that are effective for teaching a spatial-visual language to the learners who are spoken language users. The issue for the teachers is the technique in teaching that will generate higher learner outcomes.
Brown (2001) defines technique as a “task, activity, procedure, practice, behavior, and even strategy” that “teachers perform in classrooms” (p. 129). The techniques that are used in classrooms are clustered together into pedagogical units and components of a lesson (Brown, 2001). A teaching strategy can be divided into: (a) curriculum, or the content of what is taught; and (b) instruction, or how the curricular content is presented to the learners. In this chapter, we present a brief history of the strategies adopted in the teaching of spoken and signed languages, and propose teaching strategies that we believe can contribute to the effective learning of signed language by the L2/Ln learners. We also discuss issues and challenges in using signed language teaching strategies and indicate future trends in the teaching of signed language as a L2/Ln.
The field of signed language pedagogy has grown dramatically in recent decades in many countries. However, there is scant research in the teaching of signed languages. Research in language teaching has primarily focused on the teaching of spoken and written languages. As Quinto-Pozos (2011) points out, there does not seem to be substantial dialogue between signed language and spoken language scholars. According to Quinto-Pozos (2011), the scarcity of studies in signed language pedagogy may be because most of the professionals in the area focus their attention on teaching activities and leave insufficient time or commitment to engage in research.
McKee et al. (2014) connect the development of signed language teaching with advances in linguistic human rights. According to them, a social commitment to increasing the accessibility to signed language learning for the L2/Ln signed language learners requires that teachers, educators, and service providers acquire proficiency in signed language. This requirement demands the development of a signed language teaching industry, the production of research, and the increased provision of resources. In spite of the increase in the number of learners interested in learning signed language as L2/Ln, the application of signed language knowledge to curriculum and teaching is still minimal compared to what is observed with spoken languages. McKee et al. (2014) point out that while signed language teaching has grown around the world, the number of publications in the linguistic and sociolinguistic aspects of signed languages exceeds the number of publications in signed language teaching and learning. Consequently, the application of theoretical and empirical knowledge about language teaching and learning is under-explored in signed language teaching and learning research and practice.
As the theoretical and empirical knowledge in L2/Ln language pedagogy is little explored in signed languages research and practice, signed language teachers tend to base their methods on their intuition and understanding of language and linguistics that are developed through practical experience, available learning materials, and familiarity with their learners (Cresdee & Johnston, 2014; McKee et al., 2014, Rosen, 2010; Schornstein, 2005).
Although McKee et al. (2014) recognize that this teaching practice can be effective, they claim that it does not systematically lead to evidence-based improvements in practice in the field. According to them, the emerging status of linguistics applied to teaching signed languages reflects some structural realities surrounding the teaching of these languages. Although they recognize that conditions may vary across countries, they identified several common problems such as (a) there are a few deaf teachers of signed language and they often work in nonacademic settings, which restricts the development of a professional infrastructure; (b) signed language teaching classes are often housed under academic disciplines such as communication disorders, special education, and community education, the contexts of which are outside of the domain of L2/Ln teaching; and (c) in many countries there is a lack of specialized teacher preparation programs and qualification requirements for signed language teachers.
Teaching requires planning, organization, and creativity. The teacher’s aim should be to create ideal conditions for learning to occur in the most effective way and in the shortest time possible. Sign language teachers, in particular, not only deal with L2/Ln teaching issues but also with the cultural and socio-historical issues which permeate the teaching of a signed language.
Kumaravadivelu (2003) identifies three groups of teachers: passive technicians, reflective practitioners, and transforming intellectuals. Teachers who are passive technicians tend to transmit the information received from experts to learners without significantly changing its content. Such teachers do not create new knowledge or theories. They only teach what is prescribed to them and return to the expert knowledge when teaching does not result in high learner outcome. Teachers who are reflective practitioners are not passive transmitters of the acquired knowledge. They are critical and imaginative in their teaching and act to solve problems. They continually plan, reflect on their lessons before and after instruction (reflection-on-action), and evaluate the effectiveness of their teaching. Teachers who are transforming intellectuals or agents of change are considered what Freire (1972, cited in Kumaravadivelu (2003)), would call as critical pedagogists. According to Freire, the classroom is socially constructed and historically determined, and teachers incorporate their and their learners’ experiences in the classroom as a part of the teaching and learning of languages.
The view held here is that the signed language teacher is a transformational intellectual who contributes to changing the lives of learners in and out of the classroom. For this to take place, it is up to signed language teachers to encourage learners to immerse themselves into deaf cultures and participate in the activities of the deaf community such as deaf associations, clubs, and social events. Quinto-Pozos (2011) points out that one aspect of deaf culture is the focus on visual communication and avoidance of the use of speech, which is a factor that shapes (diminish) the use of oral language in classrooms. For instance, Schornstein (2005), who is deaf and teaches American Sign Language (ASL), wrote that she not only avoided but also prohibited the use of speech in her class. She used interpreters in her beginning class to help learners communicate with her. She argued that her decision is a matter of respect for signed language and her teaching. Her experience raises the issue of teaching methods that teachers use in their teaching of signed language as L2/Ln.
In order to be able to devise a teaching approach and method, the teachers would first need to have a global understanding of the teaching and learning process and the effect of teaching on learning. The teachers would also need to devise clear objectives, learner learning goals, instructional materials and equipment, lesson procedures, evaluation, and extra-curricular activities (Brown, 2001).
Several teaching approaches and methods were devised in the twentieth century. However, there is no method that deals with all teaching and learning situations, with different languages, and with learners of different interests, cultures, and capacities (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). Teachers often revise their teaching during lessons that are not predicted by a method they use. Kumaravadivelu (2003) suggests that teaching methods should focus on three things, which are language, learner, and learning. The three things constitute a set of principles and procedures that teachers should adopt in order to accomplish the goals of language learning and teaching in the classroom. Kumaravadivelu (2003) groups together the known methods in terms of the common teaching strategies and resources that the different methods offer and classifies them into language-centered method, learner-centered method, and learning-centered method. They are described in the following.
Teachers who follow language-centered methods focus on form and provide the learners with linguistic structures. Vocabulary items and grammatical structures are preselected and ranked from the simplest to the most complex. The teachers teach linguistic structures through exercises. Learning a language is considered linear and additive; that is, learners learn the language cumulatively, going from simpler to more complex structures. Kumaravadivelu (2003) focuses on spoken language teaching, and cites the audiolingual method as an example of the language-centered method.
Teachers who use learner-centered methods focus on not only the form but also the communication function of languages. They focus on intent and meaning behind communication and provide exercises and activities that involve different communication intents. The presumption of the learner-centered method is that, like the learner-centered method, learning a language is linear and additive.
Teachers who use learning-centered methods provide learners with opportunities for meaningful interactions in the classroom through communicative activities or problem-solving tasks. The presumption is that when learners use a language, they focus on their intent for communicating. In this way, they will learn a language more effectively than when their attention is only on learning language structures. Unlike the first two groups of methods, learning-centered methods consider the development of a L2/Ln as casual and unintentional. Kumaravadivelu (2003) cites the Natural Approach, as an example of learning-centered method.
Kumaravadivelu (2003) proposes a Post-method Pedagogy as an alternative approach to the above methods. For him, the teachers should be able to reassess their practice through self-analysis and analysis of learner learning outcomes. The Post-method Pedagogy approach integrates theory with practice and offers teachers the opportunity to experiment with pedagogical solutions including analyzing and evaluating their teaching, learner outcomes, and the sociocultural environment of classrooms. According to Kumaravadivelu (2003), the Post-method Pedagogy implies more than classroom strategies, instructional materials, and curricular goals. It implies a series of historical-political and sociocultural experiences that directly or indirectly influence the teaching of L2. Kumaravadivelu (2003) conceptualizes the Post-method Pedagogy as a set of parameters of particularity, practicality, and possibility.
For a language teaching pedagogy to be relevant, the design of a teaching method needs to be particular to a specific group of teachers and learners, contains particular goals, and is conducted in a specific sociocultural situation, context, and environment. It requires teachers to self-assess, identify problems, and find specific solutions to their particular set of learners and teaching situations, contexts, and environments. This parameter is the opposite of the generic methods and practices that are found in the teaching of L2/Ln.
The parameter of practicality requires the teacher to understand that no theory or practice is useful unless they are effectuated in practice. The teaching needs to be made practical for the learners and classroom settings, that is, the content, vocabulary, and grammar are what the learners can relate to, use in their communications, and reflect their experiences. Practical teaching implies that it is grounded on the content of instruction and the appropriation of signed language vocabulary and grammar based on conversation tasks. The teachers need to continuously reflect on their teaching, identify and understand problems, analyze and evaluate information, and choose the best alternatives. They need to see pedagogy not only as learning opportunities but also as transformative possibilities inside and outside the classroom.
Language teaching provides learners with challenges and possibilities in their search for subjectivity and self-identity. Teachers need to be sensitive to the socio-political realities surrounding the learners and incorporate cultural information in their language teaching. This will create possibilities for the teachers and learners to develop cultural subjectivities and identities inside and outside classrooms while teaching and learning signed languages as L2/Ln.
The above three parameters interact with and complement each other. The result of this relationship varies from context to context, depending on what the participants (teachers, learners, and curriculum developers) bring to that relationship. Pedagogical practices in the teaching of signed language to the L2/Ln learners are reviewed in the following in terms of the parameters of particularity, practicality, and possibility.
The history of teaching strategies in signed language as an L2/Ln accompanies the increased research studies in signed language and the general society’s changing views of deaf people and their language that led to their recognition of signed languages. For instance, in Sweden the results of linguistic research have led to the official recognition of Svenskt teckenspråk (STS), or Swedish Sign Language (STS), in 1981 (Nilsson & Schönström, 2014). Since 1995 STS was offered as a foreign language in addition to spoken languages such as French, German and Spanish in Swedish schools for hearing learners. Nilsson and Schönström (2014) argue that governmental support for foreign language education in Sweden caused a change in the Swedish society’s view on deaf people and their language and created a need and desire for hearing individuals to learn STS. In the US, recognition of languages other than English is made at the state government level. In New York State during the late twentieth century, there was a public acknowledgment of the problems signing deaf individuals experienced in communicating with individuals who speak and hear, and the existence of the signing deaf community and organizations within the state, which led the New York State legislature to recognize American Sign Language (ASL) as the language of the deaf, and encouraged public education institutions to offer courses in ASL and deaf community and culture for academic credit (Rosen, 2008).
Rosen (2010) analyzed the curricular materials used by ASL teachers in secondary schools, and found that these materials were based on different psychological and linguistic theories and pedagogical approaches. He identified different paradigms: behaviorist, linguistic, and conversational. In addition, he found that theories in the psychology of learning shape linguistic theories, which in turn influence instructional topics and teaching and learner learning strategies. Shortcomings in teaching and learner learning outcomes inform theories in the psychology of learning, which then shape linguistic theories, with repercussions for teaching and learning, and the cycle repeats (Rosen, 2010). Table 12.1 is a summary of the psychological and linguistic theories and pedagogical approaches.
Table 12.1 Psychological and linguistic theories and pedagogical approaches
|
Psychology of Learning |
Linguistic Theory |
Topics |
Strategies | |
|
Teaching |
Learning | |||
|
Behaviorism |
Traditional grammar |
Linguistic rules (imitative) |
Teachers give vocabulary |
Learners recite, memorize and drill |
|
Linguisticism |
Generative / universal grammar |
Linguistic rules (analysis and conversation) |
Teachers give vocabulary and sentences and explain linguistic rules |
Learners analyze and generate sentences using syntactic rules |
|
Communication |
Sociolinguistics |
Social situations |
Teachers give vocabulary and show how to use in conversations |
Learners generate conversations about social situations in dialogue and monologue formats |
|
Conversationalism |
Content-based instruction (CBI) and task-based language teaching (TBLT) |
Learning organized around content, not linguistic rules or principles |
Teachers ask for concepts on a topic, create vocabulary, hypothesize about grammatical structures and analyze results |
Learners brainstorm for concepts on a topic, engage in true conversations about a topic |
Source: recreated from Rosen (2010).
Rosen (2010) also found that about three-quarters of the teachers used more than one curriculum and a quarter used only one. More than half of the teachers made their own materials and less than half of the others used commercially prepared ASL curricula. There are variations among the teachers in their pedagogical approaches based on their beliefs about learning, language, and pedagogy.
Teachers who are behaviorists believe that people learn by conditioning. They have their learners learn signed language by modeling, recitation, and rote memorization (Rosen, 2010). The teachers reinforce and reward the learners’ learning achievements and do not punish them for their errors. They teach in small steps and work from the simplest to the more complex tasks. Rosen identifies A Basic Course in American Sign Language curriculum (Humphries, Padden, & O’Rourke, 1994) as an example of the behaviorist pedagogical approach.
Teachers who are linguisticists, and who may or may not be linguists, believe that language is learned through analyzing linguistic rules. The teachers demonstrate and explain “the linguistic rules for sentential constructions and learners’ reciting those constructions and incorporating the linguistic rules” (Rosen, 2010: 361). The Green Books curriculum (Cokely & Baker-Shenk, 1980) is an example of the linguisticist pedagogical approach.
Teachers who are communicationists believe that people best learn language through interaction and socialization, and not by memorizing rules. Teachers create situations and social contexts and have learners engage in and learn how to use vocabulary and grammar in conversations. Rosen (2010) identifies the Signing Naturally curriculum (Lentz, Mikos, & Smith, 1988) as an example of the communication approach.
The curricula used in teaching ASL subscribe to the precepts of either behaviorism, traditional linguistics, and communication. Rosen (2010) notes that some of the curricula currently available endorsed old ideas, while others applied very recent ones. He found that the approaches that are followed by signed language teachers are adopted from spoken L2/Ln approaches. He states that the fact that teachers use different materials, coupled with the inconsistencies in these curricula, raised questions about teachers’ understanding of theoretical, empirical, or pedagogical premises underlying the principles and practices of L2/Ln curriculum development and instructional strategies. Quinto-Pozos (2011) and Rosen (2015) acknowledge that there is a scarcity of studies of the impact on language learning from various teaching pedagogies of ASL as L2/Ln. As was made evident in the previous sections, the theoretically derived methods that are used by the L2/Ln signed language teachers have not been tested for their effectiveness in signed language classrooms. In our opinion, this has led to disenchantment by L2/Ln signed language teachers, who are the main agents in the teaching process, on which approach they should subscribe to.
Currently, the communicative approach is used in many ASL classes (Rosen, 2010). Rosen discussed some of the limitations of the communicationist approach. These refer to the fact that learning a language through communication privileges dialogue construction at the expense of learning linguistic rules or grammatical forms. Rosen (2010) argues that a combination of content-based instruction and task-based instruction may contribute to enhance the learning of signed languages as L2/Ln. He states that a conversationalist approach that involves specific content and tasks is the latest approach used in spoken language instruction. Recent studies have indicated that learners acquired vocabulary and grammatical rules when they are given specific content and tasks are performed better than the learners who learned languages without specific content and tasks. According to Rosen, however, no materials that subscribe this approach are available to teach signed language as a L2/Ln yet.
Dissatisfaction with the current approaches and methods may have led teachers to rely more on their personal experiences and skills. It is for this reason that we support Kumaravadivelu’s (2003) suggestion for the adoption of the postmethod condition since it gives autonomy and freedom for the teacher. It recognizes the teacher’s potential to teach and also to act freely, even within the constraints imposed by institutions, curriculum, and textbooks. The approach enables the teacher to develop a critical approach in order to self-observe, self-analyze, self-assess, and self-improve their practice. Instead of leaving decisions about pedagogical practices in the hands of theorists, the postmethod condition enables teachers to generate innovative strategies oriented to their classroom and specific to their learners and localities.
For instance, Schornstein (2005) described her experience in her teaching of signed language to hearing learners. She wrote that she had to continually evaluate her teaching to meet the different needs of her learners. Her adjustments of teaching strategies meet Kumaravadivelu’s (2003) parameters of particularity, practicality, and possibility. In one case, Schornstein (2005) observed that ASL learners in an interpreter preparation course did not have the intended linguistic competence and were unable to have an in-depth conversation with a deaf adult. After she taught signed language using a signed language curriculum, she realized that the learners used the curriculum only as resource materials. After analyzing her own practices, she decided to make a “process of purposeful and systematic experimentation” (Schornstein, 2005: 399) which drove her to continued modification of her teaching strategies until she came up with a strategy that she now employs in classroom. As a result of her experiments with different pedagogical practices, Schornstein added activities to the curriculum, found that her learners are able to have in-depth conversations with deaf adults, and shared her strategies with other signed language teachers.
In another case, Schornstein (2005) noticed that her learners learned signed language mainly from her and were not exposed to different signing styles in her classroom. This may have consequences for the learners in their ability to interact with different deaf signers. To remedy this, Schornstein (2005) explained to the learners about the expectation that they need to involve in the deaf community, and have the learners paired together, hold conversations, and note different signing styles of different learner-partners. She modified her lesson plans with different goals for the learners to communicate with each other and develop signed vocabulary according to content, task, and their level of signed fluency. Schornstein’s continuing adjustments of her teaching in the above cases shows how a teacher can experiment pedagogical solutions when she self-assesses, identifies problems, and devises specific solutions to her teaching.
Some signed language teachers in Brazil in recent years have used conversationalism as a teaching strategy. This approach provides opportunities for learners to engage in communicative interactions in Brazilian Sign Language (Libras) in different contexts and in the process becoming more fluent. In an effort to expand the learners’ use of Libras outside of classrooms, some teachers encourage learners to participate in deaf community activities such as parties, meetings, walks, and activities with religious groups. For example, one university professor of Libras took her learners to extra-curricular meetings in a pizzeria. Some of her deaf friends attended these meetings. The learners were forbidden to use voice and instead used Libras and gesture to make themselves understood at the meetings. The learners were able to talk about various subjects, and did not restrict themselves to a pre-elaborated and decontextualized dialogue.
The above considerations lend suggestions for the components of instruction, instructional materials, course design, and lesson plans using the parameters of particularity, practicality, and possibility. They are discussed next.
Learning to sign brings many challenges for adult learners. In addition to the typical requirements of L2/Ln learning, such as the mastery of a new grammar, understanding a new culture, and learning vocabulary, signed language learners must learn to communicate in a different modality. Besides learning signs, they should turn their attention to the handshape, location, palm orientation, movement, and non-manual markers of each sign and develop perceptual and motor skills. They also need to learn new communicative behaviors, such as looking at the signer’s face, since L2 signed language learners tend to focus on the hands, resulting in the loss of important linguistic information expressed by the face (Leite & McCleary, 2008; Jacobs, 1996).
In teaching a visual-spatial language, teachers need to take into account particularities of deaf cultures and communities, as well as the learners’ home cultures and communities. Teachers need to employ strategies that lead learners to use body language and facial expression in the completion of non-manual expressions that are sometimes not natural to learners, but which are part of the grammatical structure of signed language.
In addition, learners need to understand that they are learning a language that uses the whole body in a rule-governed way. This means that learning a signed language is not equivalent to substituting facial and body movements for speech. Bodily movements and facial expressions are constituent parts of signed languages and not signed languages themselves.
One of the main L2/Ln teaching objectives should be to increase learners’ linguistic competence, which includes productive skills, receptive skills, and metalinguistic awareness (Kaul, Griebel, & Kaufmann, 2014). Metalinguistic awareness enables the L2/Ln learners to analyze their own linguistic knowledge and control their own linguistic processing, which may generate a higher level of competence in signed languages for the learners.
Another objective of the teacher should be “to contribute to the understanding of the ‘input’ of the target language” (Wilcox & Wilcox, 2005: 141). The presentation of spiraling content is a strategy that, according to the authors, “helps the learners in the acquisition of concepts of the language” (ibid.: 142). In a spiraling curriculum, teachers undergo a sequence of steps. They first introduce basic signs and grammar, and move to complex signed formations and sentence structures. The teaching of descriptive classifiers, for instance, fits well with the spiral approach (Wilcox & Wilcox, 2005). Instructors first teach vocabulary and grammar pertaining to physical characteristics of the human body and clothing styles right from the start, and then introduce classifiers and classifier sentences. The learners use the vocabulary, classifiers, and grammar they learned to describe other people in daily conversations (Wilcox & Wilcox, 2005).
In addition, Schornstein (2005) also used signed videos as homework. Beginning learners watch ASL videos and film themselves recreating the sentences that are shown in the videos. Advanced learners, having learned how to recreate sentences in signed language, retell the stories and record their signing.
There are instructional materials that are available for the teaching of some signed languages such as ASL. However, there are a few teaching materials available for other signed languages such as Libras (e.g., Libras em Contexto [Libras in Context] (Felipe & Monteiro, 2001); Curso de Libras [Libras Course] (Pimenta & Quadros, 2006)). According to McKee et al. (2014), it is the responsibility of signed language teachers to prepare learners not only to become proficient in the language, but also to provide learners with the pragmatic and cultural knowledge needed to interact with deaf signed language users in real-world settings.
Cresdee and Johnston (2014) propose that signed language teachers and curriculum planners use signed language corpus. Corpus is a system of utterances that are used within a language community and they are annotated and organized into linguistic structures for analysis. Instead of teachers following their intuitive knowledge about signed language linguistic structures in teaching signed language as an L2/Ln, Cresdee and Johnson (2014) propose that the teachers use corpus-based signed language data. According to Cresdee and Johnston (2014), data registration, organization, and storage of the structures of a language into a corpus have the potential to become tools and contribute to teachers’ teaching and learners’ learning of languages. The documentations and annotations of language structures in a corpus serve two functions. They serve as a data for research in L2/Ln signed language teaching and learning, and a resource for teachers to teach the language and for the learners to learn the language. Corpus records and annotation archives are invaluable teaching and learning materials (Cresdee & Johnson, 2014). For further discussion on the use of corpus on signed language teaching, the reader is referred to Leeson, Fenlon, Mesch, Grehan, and Sheridan in Chapter 23 of this volume.
Under the postmethod condition, in developing a course teachers need to take into consideration the needs and motivations of learners, the availability of resources, the teachers’ qualifications, the learning environment, and the time available for instruction (cf. Wilcox & Wilcox, 2005). This applies to courses in signed language.
An important component of signed language teaching, which should be included in the design of a course is the use of videos recorded by the learners. This has been proposed by Bienvenu (as cited in Quinto-Pozos, 2011) and Schornstein (2005). Learners would need to be trained in new and current technologies for the creation of quality videos. Teachers would need to set aside the time to assess learners’ videotaped works. Videos serve as a useful resource for assessing the teachers’ teaching development and learners’ signed language development.
Feedback is another aspect that should be considered in signed language course design. Feedback as a teaching strategy is described by Willoughby et al. (2015). Willoughby et al. (2015) interviewed six teachers of beginner Auslan classes and asked them what strategy they preferred to adopt for correction. They analyzed the strategies used by the teachers in correcting learners’ mistakes and whether the strategies supported language learning. They found that correction is more likely to be effective when it focuses on skills, is made explicitly, and is a part of a structured language teaching lesson. They also found that all teachers except one did not find that reformulation is effective as a correction strategy. Willoughby et al. (2015) continue that the teachers seemed well aware of the importance of explicit feedback to beginning learners, and most of them made use of it as their preferred correction strategy. Because they were also aware of the need to balance the desire to correct with the possibility of some learners becoming embarrassed or unmotivated, teachers developed strategies such as talking to the class about common errors rather than addressing each individual about their errors. However, some teachers believed that it was necessary to correct all the errors that they detected but, as a result, learners had few opportunities to practice the use of the language in the classroom. Other teachers did not correct every mistake but were consistent in correcting mistakes immediately and explicitly when they detected learner errors. Taken together, the observations and interviews with teachers showed that teachers adopted approaches for correcting mistakes, which reflected their teaching philosophies (Willoughby et al., 2015).
When preparing a lesson, it is important for teachers to use authentic language materials, especially the videos that are produced by native signing deaf individuals. Teachers should avoid outdated videos (Schornstein, 2005). The use of video is an activity which needs to be monitored by the teachers in order to avoid inappropriate uses of the language going unnoticed. For example, Schornstein describes the use of a video in which a deaf person signs according to spoken language structure and not according to ASL structure. Although both are structured in the subject-verb-object order, some ASL structures differ considerably from English. This needed to be explained to learners watching the video. Still, the use of authentic material is recommended for learners to have contact with different signers.
A relevant element that may help learners retain the content they learned is the use of glosses (Buisson, 2007; Quinto-Pozos, 2011). Many teachers do not accept the use of spoken language to teach signed language. However, Buisson (2007) evaluated the use of glosses by learners in ASL learning. A group of learners was instructed to write ASL sentences using English glosses. The other group read articles on deaf education. At the end of the study, the learners were asked to recall. The learners who used glosses showed better performance in ASL and English grammar tests. According to Buisson, the comparison between languages made it possible for learners to contrast the grammars and improve their knowledge of both languages.
Based on the premise that one of the main objectives of teaching foreign or world languages is to extend learning beyond the classroom, Rosen (2014) has studied the nature of outside-of-class spaces where learners used ASL. This author identified spaces where learners used ASL in response to interpersonal situations, such as the need to practice and to recover what had been taught in class, to share knowledge and signed songs, and to teach signs and sentences in ASL to their friends and family members. Learner participants in Rosen’s (2014) study also mentioned use of ASL in spaces where it was difficult or impossible to use oral language, such as when sharing secrets or communicating without being noticed, or even in environments where they could not use their voice. A variety of signed language forms were observed, such as fingerspelling, isolated signs, phrases, and sentences. Also, the types of interaction were quite varied, including orders, questions and answers, simple narratives, and dialogues. When they signed phrases, some learners used ASL grammatical order while a few signed in English order. The learners presented variations in their use of mouth morphemes (Rosen, 2014). However, Rosen (2014) found that some learners were not accustomed to using ASL outside the classroom, for reasons including their preference to talk and listen in spoken language only, or because they believed that ASL was used only to communicate with deaf signers who the learners did not encounter outside of class. Despite the learners’ varying ASL abilities, a striking finding in this study was that in the end of the study all the learners created spaces outside the classroom to use ASL, sometimes with their hearing mates. By doing so, they were appropriating the language for their own purposes (Rosen, 2014). Observations of learners’ signing also revealed that the ways in which they used ASL depended on their abilities.
The importance of using signed language in settings outside classrooms is also emphasized by Schornstein (2005). In her article, this deaf researcher and ASL teacher reports that she encouraged learners of signed language as an L2/Ln to film their interactions with deaf communities and recommends that they watch the material that is recorded. Their films become a visual record of the development of their signed language skills. Teachers can use them to evaluate not only learners’ learning but also teaching. In addition to guiding learners to film their interactions with deaf communities, Schornstein (2005) recommends that teachers help learners envision the narration as a whole, and not focus on isolated signs. When learners find signs or classifiers that they do not recognize, they should consider the context in which they are being used to figure out the meaning of signs and classifiers.
This section identifies some gaps in current research on L2/Ln teaching approaches and strategies. There are no studies of the impact on language learning from various teaching pedagogies of signed languages as L2/Ln (Rosen, 2015; Quinto-Pozos, 2011). As we have seen, Rosen (2010) and Wilcox and Wilcox (2005) discussed different pedagogical approaches underlying teaching books used in ASL classes as well as psychological and linguistic theories associated to them. However, it is necessary to have studies about teaching pedagogies of other signed languages, as well as other learning materials, such as books, videos, games and the impact of using them to teach signed language as L2/Ln. More studies on L2/Ln signed language teaching strategies, especially considering the diversity of learners and class time, are needed. Quinto-Pozos (2011) suggests investigating instructors’ intuitions, the beliefs which ASL instructors hold and what they feel, which is effective in the teaching of that language, or what they suggest (in terms of research) for the advancement of this field of study. Works of this type may allow signed language instructors to contribute to language pedagogy discussions within the SLA research and practice field.
Most researchers of signed languages are hearing spoken language users. In this respect, it is fundamental to have deaf researchers. In Brazil, for instance, the number of deaf researchers of Libras is still very small. The presence of deaf researchers in discussions about teaching a signed language as L2/Ln is relevant for several reasons, including deaf people’s knowledge of signed language use and cultural practices. More collaboration between Deaf and hearing researchers, as well as more integration between applied and theoretical signed language linguistics knowledge, can increase the number and quality of studies in signed language teaching pedagogy.
The use of technology in classrooms has been studied in L2 spoken language studies. However, there are few studies that discussed the application of technology in the teaching and learning of signed language as L2/Ln. Fischer and Müller (2014) and Kaul, Griebel, and Kaufmann (2014) advocate the use of technology to improve learners’ signed language skills and metalinguistic awareness. Fischer and Müller (2014) analyzed the use of two exercises designed as working tools in an e-learning format in order to improve the learners’ receptive and metalinguistic competencies in dealing with constructed action. Kaul, Griebel, and Kaufmann (2014) developed and tested a video transcription task to increase participants’ metalinguistic awareness of the non-manual features of eyebrow activation and mouth gestures. The role of technology in signed language classrooms is explored in Chapter 22 by Kose and Uluer in this volume. Cresdee and Johnston (2014) propose the use of technology to build a linguistic corpus in order to improve the knowledge base that can be used to inform language curricula and pedagogical practice. Using a digital video annotation software program, the studies show that it is possible to identify certain signed language features, such as nonmanual features of facial and bodily expressions, which are difficult for the learners to notice without the help of technology. The role of corpus in signed language classrooms is explored in Chapter 23 by Leeson et al. in this volume.
The studies presented some of the possibilities technologies can offer to improve the teaching and learning of signed languages as L2/Ln. Beyond these possibilities, the use of technology may contribute to the expansion of courses in L2/Ln signed languages in geographically large countries such as Brazil which has few schools and universities to meet the needs of its population and operate with scarce financial resources. Some Brazilian universities have chosen to offer distance learning courses to teach Libras. The use of technology in education makes it possible for signed languages to reach small and distant cities, elementary and high school teachers, university professors, and deaf learners of different ages, who have no other access to learning signed language other than by means of a distance education course. In short, the use of technology can contribute to expanding the possibilities of teaching signed languages as L2/Ln beyond the urban areas.
We thank Cleber José da Matta e Silva (Licentiate in English and Bachelor in English Language Applied Linguistics – UFMG) for translating the chapter to English.
Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: 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.
Capovilla, F.C., Raphael, W.D., & Marques, S. (2008). Dicionário enciclopédico ilustrado trilíngue da língua de sinais brasileira [Trilingual Illustrated Encyclopaedical Dictionary of the Brazilian Sign Language] (3rd ed.) (Vols. 1–2). São Paulo, Brazil: Edusp.
Cokely, D., & Baker-Shenk, C. (1980). American Sign Language: A Learner’s Text, Units 1–9. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press.
Cresdee, D., & Johnston, T. (2014). Using corpus-based research to inform the teaching of Auslan (Australian Sign Language) as a second language. In D. McKee, R. Rosen, & R. McKee (eds.). Teaching and Learning Signed Languages – International Perspectives and Practices (pp. 85–110). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Felipe, T.A., & Monteiro, M.S. (2001). Libras em contexto: curso básico – Livro do professor [Libras in Context: Basic Course – Teacher’s Book] (6th ed.). Brasília, Brazil: SEESP/MEC.
Fischer, R., & Müller, A. (2014). eLCA – An e-learning unit for acquiring constructed action. In D. McKee, R. Rosen, & R. McKee (eds.). Teaching and Learning Signed Languages – International Perspectives and Practices (pp. 111–28). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Humphries, T., Padden, C., & O’Rourke, T. (1994). A Basic Course in American Sign Language (2nd ed.). Silver Spring, MD: Linstok.
Jacobs, R. (1996). Just how hard is it to learn ASL? The case for ASL as a truly foreign language. In L. Ceil (ed.),. Multicultural Aspects of Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities (pp. 183–217). Washington, DC: Gallaudet 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. Rosen, & R. McKee (eds.). Teaching and Learning Signed Languages – International Perspectives and Practices (pp. 129–44). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Leite, T.A., & McCleary, L. (2008). Estudo em diário: fatores complicadores e facilitadores no processo de aprendizagem da Língua de Sinais Brasileira por um adulto ouvinte [Study in Diary: Complicative and Facilitative Factors in the Learning Process of Libras by a Hearing Adult]. In R.M. de Quadros, & M.R. Stumpf (eds.). Estudos Surdos IV [Deaf Studies IV] (pp. 242–76). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Editora Arara Azul.
Lentz, E.M., Mikos, K., & Smith, C. (1988). Signing Naturally: Teacher’s Curriculum Guide. Level 1. Berkeley: DawnSignPress.
McKee, D., Rosen, R.S., & McKee, R. (2014). Introduction. In D. McKee, R. Rosen, & R. McKee (eds.). Teaching and Learning Signed Languages – International Perspectives and Practices (pp. 1–7). Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nilsson, A-L., & Schönström, K. (2014). Swedish Sign Language as a second language: Historical and contemporary perspectives. In D. McKee, R. Rosen, & R. McKee (eds.). Teaching and Learning Signed Languages – International Perspectives and Practices (pp. 11–34). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pimenta, N., & Quadros, R.M. (Producers), Freitas, L.C. (Director). (2006). Curso de Libras 1 [Libras Course 1, Motion Picture]. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: LSB Vídeo.
Quinto-Pozos, D. (2011). Teaching American Sign Language to hearing adult learners. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 137–58.
Rosen, R.S. (2008). American Sign Language as a foreign language in US high schools: State of the art. Modern Language Journal, 92 (1), 10–38.
Rosen, R.S. (2010). American Sign Language curricula: A review. Sign Language Studies, 10 (3), 348–81.
Rosen, R.S. (2014). Between-learners’ outside-of-classroom uses of American Sign Language as a foreign language. Sign Language Studies, 14 (3), 360–81.
Rosen, R.S., Turtletaub, M., DeLouise, M., & Drake, S. (2015). Teacher-as-researcher paradigm for signed language teachers: Towards evidence-based pedagogies for improved learner outcomes. Sign Language Studies, 16 (1), 86–116.
Schornstein, R.A. (2005). Teaching ASL in the University; One teacher’s journey. Sign Language Studies, 5 (4), 398–414.
Wilcox, S., & Wilcox, P.P. (2005). Aprendendo a ver: O ensino de ASL como segunda língua. [Learning to See: Teaching American Sign Language as a Second Language]. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Arara Azul.
Willoughby, L., Linder, S., Ellis, K., & Fisher, J. (2015). Errors and feedback in the beginner Auslan classroom. Sign Language Studies, 15 (3), 322–47.