Tweetaligheid en Alfabetisering Van Doven

1998 ◽  
Vol 59 ◽  
pp. 9-18
Author(s):  
Bob Kolsters
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Language Of Instruction ◽  
Educational Method ◽  
Notation System ◽  
Schools For The Deaf ◽  
Metalinguistic Knowledge

Schools for the deaf in the Netherlands are currently looking for ways of converting their current education into bilingual education. The first language of prelingual deaf children in the Netherlands is Sign Language of the Netherlands (SLN); their second language is Dutch. In the first part of the thesis, the bilingual situation of prelingual deaf children is examined with the help of a theoretical framework designed by J. Cummins and a model designed by J. Kurvers. Cummins' theoretical framework takes a thorough look at language development in different bilingual situations. Kurvers' model examines the different ways for bilingual people to obtain literacy. Both theories support the view that in order to stimulate development of the first and the second language, sign language should be the language of instruction in schools for the deaf as well as the language in which prelingual deaf children obtain literacy. Since this implies the use of a notation system for sign language in deaf education, the second part of the thesis deals with the design of a prototype of an educational method that stimulates metalinguistic knowledge with the help of such a notation system.

Language and Reading Comprehension Abilities of Elementary School-Aged Deaf Children

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-169
Author(s):  
Peter K Crume ◽  
Amy Lederberg ◽  
Brenda Schick
Keyword(s):  
Bilingual Education ◽  
American Sign Language ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Sixth Grade ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
American Sign ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
Language Abilities ◽  
Language Of Instruction ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Bilingual education programs for deaf children have long asserted that American Sign Language (ASL) is a better language of instruction English-like signing because ASL is a natural language. However, English-like signing may be a useful bridge to reading English. In the present study, we tested 32 deaf children between third and sixth grade to assess their capacity to use ASL or English-like signing in nine different languages and reading tasks. Our results found that there was no significant difference in the deaf children’s ability to comprehend narratives in ASL compared to when they are told in English-like signing. Additionally, language abilities in ASL and English-like signing were strongly related to each other and to reading. Reading was also strongly related to fingerspelling. Our results suggest that there may be a role in literacy instruction for English-like signing as a supplement to ASL in deaf bilingual schools.

Het Gebruik Van Gebaren In Het Onderwijs Aan Doven

1986 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 90-99
Author(s):  
H. Knoors
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Bilingual Education ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Educational Process ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Empirical Results ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Way

From a psycholinguistic point of view, asking for the reasons for using signs in the education of the deaf has become superfluous, for the answers are by now obvious. There remains however another question to be answered, a question concerning the way in which signs should be used. It is possible to use signs in the form of Signed Dutch; the signs support the spoken Dutch, consequently the order of the signs will be same as the wordorder in Dutch. Another possibility is to use Dutch Sign Language. This leads to bilingual education of deaf children. At this moment a choice between both methods is, as far as the Netherlands are concerned, merely a theoretical matter. Although there are some problems involved in combining speech with support-ing signs and although there is reason to consider the bilingual option seriously, a real choice cannot be made. We first have to wait for empirical results with respect to the use of Signed Dutch in the educational process. We also need more information about the structure of Dutch Sign Language and about the acquisition of aspects of this language. Then, i.e. in the future, a choice can be made if necessary. Meanwhile we have to realise that deaf children are in fact in a bilingual situation and that they have to acquire a sign language without appropriate models. A situation which calls for a solution.

De Nederlandse Gebarentaal En Taalonderwijs

1991 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
pp. 75-82
Author(s):  
Beppie van den Bogaerde
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Language Teachers ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Deaf People ◽  
Teaching Materials ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Language Courses ◽  
Native Signers

Sign Language of the Netherlands (SLN) is considered to be the native language of many prelingually deaf people in the Netherlands. Although research has provided evidence that sign languages are fully fletched natural languages, many misconceptions still abound about sign languages and deaf people. The low status of sign languages all over the world and the attitude of hearing people towards deaf people and their languages, and the resulting attitude of the deaf towards their own languages, restricted the development of these languages until recently. Due to the poor results of deaf education and the dissatisfaction amongst educators of the deaf, parents of deaf children and deaf people themselves, a change of attitude towards the function of sign language in the interaction with deaf people can be observed; many hearing people dealing with deaf people one way or the other wish to learn the sign language of the deaf community of their country. Many hearing parents of deaf children, teachers of the deaf, student-interpreters and linguists are interested in sign language and want to follow a course to improve their signing ability. In order to develop sign language courses, sign language teachers and teaching materials are needed. And precisely these are missing. This is caused by several factors. First, deaf people in general do not receive the same education as hearing people, due to their inability to learn the spoken language of their environment to such an extent, that they have access to the full eduational program. This prohibits them a.o. to become teachers in elementary and secondary schools, or to become sign language teachers. Althought they are fluent "signers", they lack the competence in the spoken language of their country to obtain a teacher's degree in their sign language. A second problem is caused by the fact, that sign languages are visual languages: no adequate system has yet been found to write down a sign language. So until now hardly any teaching materials were available. Sign language courses should be developed with the help of native signers who should be educated to become language-teachers; with their help and with the help of video-material and computer-software, it will be possible in future to teach sign languages as any other language. But in order to reach this goal, it is imperative that deaf children get a better education so that they can contribute to the emancipation of their language.

scholarly journals Deaf Education as Intercultural Communication: Different Discourses About Deaf Education

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristian Skedsmo
Keyword(s):  
Intercultural Communication ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
Deaf Education ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Linguistic Minority ◽  
Minority Discourse ◽  
Cultural Minorities ◽  
The Status ◽  
Schools For The Deaf

The traditions, the development, and the objectives of deaf education in Norway and Russia are different. One of the main differences is whether deaf education is in itself seen as intercultural communication, meaning to what degrees the sign language communities are treated as linguistic and cultural minorities or simply as disabled. Neither the Russian nor the Norwegian practice is internationally unique, but the two become recognizable in light of each other, and internationally, they represent two common ways of dealing with education for the deaf today. This article will discuss what are some of the differences and similarities in deaf education between Norway and Russia related to the status of the two countries’ signed languages and whether the deaf populations are viewed either as disabled or as a linguistic minority. The discussion is based on some historical occurrences leading to the current situations in the two countries. Two different discourses, a disability discourse and a minority discourse, will be presented. The disability discourse generally seems to be the most intuitive one among adult newcomers to this field, while the minority discourse more often needs a fair bit of elaboration. Therefore, more space will be devoted to the minority discourse in this article. Furthermore, the description of the differences and similarities in deaf education will draw on the writings of the Russian scholar Lev Vygotsky on (Russian) deaf education and look at what Joseph Stalin wrote about deaf people and language. I shall argue that Vygotsky’s suggestions seem to have had more impact in Norway than in Russia, while Stalin’s writings seemingly had a great impact on the view on Russian Sign Language (RSL1) and the practice and objectives of the Russian schools for the deaf. I will argue that a hundred years of experience of attempting to make the spoken majority language the first language of deaf children should lead to a change in direction. 

scholarly journals Teaching a Language in Another Modality: A Case Study from Swedish Sign Language L2 Instruction

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 659
Author(s):  
Ingela Holmström
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Action Research ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Deep Knowledge ◽  
L2 Instruction ◽  
Metalinguistic Knowledge ◽  
Further Development

This study focuses on a Swedish Sign Language (STS) interpreting education, in which the students learn a second language (L2) that is expressed in the visual-gestural modality instead of the auditory-vocal one. Due to the lack of research on sign language L2 instruction, the teachers have limited scientific knowledge and proven experience to lean on in their work. Therefore, an action research-based project was started with the aim to enhance teachers’ knowledge about effective ways of teaching STS as an L2, and to examine how teaching can lead to students making good progress and attaining deep knowledge in STS. The article presents results from one of the projects’ sub-studies, Initial teaching through different primary languages, where a hearing STS L2 teacher’s approaches are examined when teaching the hearing students the new language in another modality than their previous language(s). The results show how this teacher uses her own knowledge from learning STS as an L2 and how she, through using spoken Swedish, provides rich metalinguistic knowledge that contributes to the students’ deeper theoretic knowledge about STS in addition to their practical STS learning. This had pedagogical implications for the further development of the instruction at the interpreting program.

Focused Tasks, Mental Actions and Second Language Learning. Cognitive and Connectionist Accounts of Task Effectiveness

2006 ◽  
Vol 152 ◽  
pp. 35-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Machteld Moonen ◽  
Rick de Graaff ◽  
Gerard Westhoff
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Second Language Learning ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Depth Of Processing ◽  
Mental Actions ◽  
Involvement Load Hypothesis

Abstract This paper presents a theoretical framework to estimate the effectiveness of second language tasks in which the focus is on the acquisition of new linguistic items, such as vocabulary or grammar, the so-called focused tasks (R. Ellis, 2003). What accounts for the learning impact offocused tasks? We shall argue that the task-based approach (e.g. Skehan, 1998, Robinson, 2001) does not provide an in-depth account of how cognitive processes, elicited by a task, foster the acquisition of new linguistic elements. We shall then review the typologies of cognitive processes derived from research on learning strategies (Chamot & O'Malley, 1994), from the involvement load hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001), from the depth of processing hypothesis (Craik & Lockhart, 1972) and from connectionism (e.g Broeder & Plunkett, 1997; N. Ellis, 2003). The combined insights of these typologies form the basis of the multi-feature hypothesis, which predicts that retention and ease of activation of new linguistic items are improved by mental actions which involve a wide variety of different features, simultaneously and frequently. A number of implications for future research shall be discussed.

English as the second language of deaf children.

1974 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 463-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. R. Charrow ◽  
J. D. Fletcher
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Deaf Children
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document