An Interactive-Interaction Bilingual/Bicultural Program Model
Jo Anna Liedel
(Abridged Version for Proceedings)
Introduction
The premise of a bilingual/bicultural program for deaf children is that communicative competency will be developed in two languages: American Sign Language (ASL) and English. The interactive component of this model reflects the tenets of the interactive theory of reading as an instructional model for developing literacy in English. Cued Speech is considered as an instructional tool in providing deaf children with a more accurate representation of English. The interaction component draws from second/foreign language learning concepts to develop literacy in English as a second language for deaf students.
Interactive Theories of Literacy
Interactive theorists state that good readers (and writers) integrate information from the text with their prior knowledge through the use of both bottom-up and top-down skills. Bottom-up skills refer to the development of rapid word identification skills, letter clusters, and letter-sound correspondences. These skills allow the student to spend time on higher-level top-down comprehension processes that are necessary for constructing meaning. Top-down skills are the use of socio-cultural information, prior knowledge, and the ability to monitor comprehension of the text.
Cued Speech and Bottom-Up Skills
Present methods of imparting bottom-up skills consist of representing English in a visual model via some type of sign system. These methods are inadequate in that they convey only the spelling, root word plus endings or whole word representations, instead of the phonemic information required for developing grapheme-sound correspondence. A visual phonemic system, such as Cued Speech, is needed to adequately develop an internal representation of speech sounds.
Interaction in ASL
The interaction component plays a major role in the development of reader-based skills, which is dependent upon the development of a first, or native language. Since many deaf children do not auditorially assimilate English adequately (if at all), and since sign systems do not adequately represent English visually, a visual LANGUAGE is needed. This visual language, in the form of ASL, is able to provide deaf students with a language that they can easily assimilate, thereby developing a language base from which experiences can be gained and communicated.
Through the use of ASL, deaf students are able to expand experiences and knowledge gained to manipulate language. ASL could be used for story-telling, thereby giving deaf students an understanding of the structure and components of stories, which could later be transferred to understanding stories in English. Deaf students also need to be taught ASL as a language. Once a vocabulary base is built up in ASL, deaf students could begin, through the use of Cued Speech, to make grapheme-sound-sign correspondences.
Interaction in English
To learn English as a second language, deaf students must learn those socioeconomic and cultural variables unique to the culture of English users, that of the mainstream of society. This information is critical to deaf students’ ability to use context and make predictions and inferences about written English text. Although this information could be imparted through instruction in ASL, a true understanding and assimilation can only occur from interactions with native users of English, especially peers. Vocabulary for specific purposes, especially educational/teaching purposes, is more limited than that acquired to achieve social integration (through interaction). Both types of vocabulary are critical to achievement in reading.
A common visual communication mode in English in education is the use of spoken English with signs in the form of various sign systems (as opposed to American Sign Language). The attempt to simultaneously speak and sign presents physical and psychological problems. The use of Sign Supported Speech1 can be seen to be inadequate for communicating visually in English, or as a model of English, and therefore not appropriate for use in developing English skills in deaf children. Pidgin Signed English (PSE) is not an acceptable alternative, due to the fact that the use of ASL features and structures makes it difficult to have corresponding simultaneous communication. Also, PSE does not provide an acceptable model of either ASL or English.
For the purpose of learning English as a language and communication through English, a more effective visual mode of English needs to be used on a regular basis. The effectiveness of sign systems in which signs are used in English grammatical order, but without accompanying speech, needs to be explored. Any use of sign systems needs to be carefully considered and monitored.
A Bilingual/Bicultural Program Model
The early stage of a bilingual/bicultural program would take the form of minority language (ASL) immersion, in which instruction would take place in ASL. ASL would be used not only to develop a language base and provide communication experiences, but also to develop beginning literacy skills, as previously mentioned. As fluency in ASL develops, deaf students can begin to be exposed to pre-literacy activities, including learning Cued Speech. During the primary grades, formal instruction in English would commence through the use of Cued Speech and ASL. As skill in English improves, English could be used in other content areas in various ways. Communication experience could be provided through Cued Speech (and possibly “voiceless” sign systems) in predetermined situations and activities, as well as through printed/typed simultaneous dialogue.
Team teaching in ASL and English should occur on a regular basis with both deaf and hearing students. Deaf native users of ASL paired with hearing native users of English will provide optimum bilingual/bicultural interaction. Such interaction would be on both a formal instructional basis and an informal conversational basis. Not only will both languages be shared, but students will also be exposed to each other’s cultures, which is imperative for full understanding of communication.
About the Presenter
Jo Anna Liedel is currently an educational consultant with the Division of Special Education in the State Department of Ohio. She has an M.Ed. in deaf education from the University of Cincinnati. She is now a Ph.D. student in educational administration at Ohio State University. She serves as the president of the Central Ohio S.I.G.N. chapter.
1. See Johnson, R., Liddell, S., & Erting, C. (1989). Unlocking the curriculum: Principles for achieving access in deaf education (Gallaudet Research Institute Working Paper 89-3). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.