PATRICIA PRITCHARD

British to-handed alphabet

TEFL for deaf pupils in Norwegian bilingual schools: Can deaf primary school pupils acquire a foreign sign language?

Norwegian one-handed alphabet

Masters Thesis in Special Education Dept. of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences & Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Trondheim, Norway December 2004

Summary TEFL for deaf pupils in Norwegian bilingual schools: Can deaf primary school pupils acquire and understand a foreign sign language?

Both hearing and deaf people in Norway need skills in English to cope with the demands of modern society. The question is how can deaf pupils best acquire English? A National Curriculum was implemented in 1997 (L97) based on sign bilingualism and a socio-cultural approach to language learning. British Sign Language (BSL) was introduced into the English syllabus for Primary School deaf pupils as a first step in foreign language learning, before the introduction of English. The curriculum for deaf pupils (EfDP) was implemented without research underpinning and further education of in-service teachers, although some teaching aids were produced. This study looks at the BSL receptive skills of Norwegian Deaf pupils in class 4. and tries to pinpoint variables that played a part in their acquisition of BSL. The study makes use of theories created for hearing children acquiring a second spoken language. This is seen as defensible because they deal with the acquisition of languages of the same modality. A quantitative method was chosen to answer the research question of whether deaf Norwegian pupils in class 4 understood BSL and three language tests were used to measure their BSL receptive skills. A control group consisting of bilingual deaf Swedish children were given the same tests. Questionnaires were used to collect background information from the pupils’ teachers. The data was analysed using SPSS and Size Effect statistics (Cohen’s d). Results and conclusions: Norwegian deaf pupils’ experiences with BSL in the EfDP classroom have had a positive effect on their BSL receptive skills. Pupils could understand a certain BSL text if they had been given adequate access to BSL. Pupils may be using their knowledge of BSL to solve the task, but also intuitively transferring L1 knowledge, meta- linguistic strategies and world knowledge. There is reason to believe that Norwegian pupils generally have good NSL skills due to early exposure to the language. All the pupils showed interest in BSL and despite shortcomings in the learning environments, 46,6% scored above the standardised score for deaf British pupils of the same age on the Grammar Test. Hearing status seemed to dictate teachers’ organisation of TEFL, choice of teaching aids and, as a consequence, the quantity and quality of access to BSL, which in turn influenced pupils’ test results. Deficiencies in the learning environment revealed in this study are probably widespread and need to be addressed at all levels in the system i.e. in-service teachers particularly need further education in EfDP. More research is necessary into deaf pupils’ SLA and whether aspects of their experiences with BSL are transferable to learning English. Sammendrag TEFL for norske døve elever i tospråklige undervisningsmiljøer. Kan elever i 4. klasse tilegner seg og forstår BSL?

Behovet for kunnskaper i engelsk er stort for så vel hørende som døve personer i Norge i dag. Vi vet lite om hvordan døve best kan tilegne seg engelsk. Etter innføring av L97 og lære- planen engelsk for døve, ble undervisning av et fremmed tegnspråk, Britisk tegnspråk (BSL) en del av pensumet for døve elever på barneskoletrinnet som en introduksjon til fremmed- språkslæring (FLL). Dette ble gjort uten forutgående forskning omkring døve barns FLL eller videreutdanning av lærerne. Imidlertid var en del læremidler produsert. Læreplanen bygger på tospråklighet og en sosiokulturell tilnærming. Denne undersøkelsen er gjort for å utforske hvilke reseptive ferdigheter i BSL norske døve elever i 4. klasse hadde tilegnet seg og hvilke variabler som så ut til å fremme tilegnelse av et fremmed tegnspråk. Teoriene om normalt hørende elevers tilegnelse av fremmede talespråk ble brukt som grunnlag fordi de omhandler tilegnelse av språk som har samme modalitet som morsmålet og betingelsene for døve barn til å lære et fremmed tegnspråk er sammenlignbare med de for normalt hørende barn som lærer et fremmed talespråk. En kvantitativ metode var valgt for å undersøke reseptive ferdigheter i BSL hos alle døve elever i 4. klasse 2003 – 2004. Tre språktester ble brukt. En kontrollgruppe av svenske døve barn gjennomgikk de samme testene. Bakgrunnsinformasjon ble samlet fra lærerne ved hjelp av spørreskjemaer. Data ble analysert ved bruk av SPSS og Effect Size statistikk (Cohen’s d). Resultater og konklusjon: Døve elevers erfaringer i klasserommet har hatt en positiv effekt på deres reseptive ferdigheter av BSL når elevene har fått tilstrekkelig tilgang til BSL. Elevene har brukt sin kunnskap om BSL, og kanskje også overført sin intuitiv kunnskap i norsk tegnspråk (NTS) og sin metalingvistisk kunnskap for å løse oppgaven. Interessen for BSL var tilstede hos alle informanter. På grammatikktesten skåret 46,6% av de norske elevene over det standardiserte skåre for døve engelske elever i samme alder. Uten måleinstrumenter, er det nærliggende å tro at elevene generelt har gode ferdigheter i NTS. Hørselsstatus ser ut til å være det som påvirker lærernes valg av organisering av undervisningen og læremiddelbruk, og dette hadde igjen en sterk innvirkning på elevenes testresultater. Ulike former for svakheter i undervisningsmiljøene som er avdekket bør bøtes på: lærerne har særlig behov for videreutdanning i faget engelsk for døve elever slik at de får en bedre forståelse av prosessene involvert i fremmedspråklæring. Det er behov for mer forskning om hvordan døve elever tilegner seg fremmedspråk og hvordan erfaringer med BSL kan overføres til opplæring i engelsk. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my pupils who set this whole process in motion so many years ago and the staff of Lillesund School who let us find our own way of tackling the subject of English.

Thank you to all the pupils and teachers who so willingly took part in this project!

Thanks to my employer, Vestlandet kompetansesenter for giving me the time and opportunity and to bury myself for periods of time, and to my colleagues for their support, especially Thor-Arne, Torill and Ellinor. I would also like to thank my fellow students, who made student-life very enjoyable!

I would also like to acknowledge and thank Ros Herman, Bencie Woll and Sally Holmes for giving me permission to adapt the BSL Receptive Skills Test for use with Norwegian pupils and Rachel Sutton-Spence and Bencie for permission to use illustrations from their book The Linguistics of BSL. I would like to thank Bencie again and Claire Wickham for invaluable conversations about the study and to Sara Hetherington and Christina Kryvi who never say no when asked for assistance! Thanks also to Randi Natvig for her invaluable help.

Last but not least, thanks to my mentors Per Frostad and Arnfinn Muruvik Vonen, who have given generously of their time and knowledge and guided me throughout …

Haugesund, December 2004

INDEX

Summary (English version) Sammendrag (Norwegian version) Acknowledgements Index List with abbreviations and Norwegian equivalents

Page CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction of the theme 1 1.1 The development of my interest in foreign language teaching for deaf pupils 1 1.2 Deaf pupils and the Norwegian school system 3 1.3 The premise for this study 6 1.4 The aim of this study 8 CHAPTER 2 A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND THE RESEARCH QUESTION 2.0 Who are the deaf? 9 2.1 What is “Sign Language”? 11 2.2 Elements of BSL 12 2.2.1 The phonems of signed language and conventions used in glossing signs 12 2.2.2 The elements of BSL that are assessed in the tests used in this study 13 2.3 Are BSL and NSL related or similar in any way? 16 2.3.1 Similarity in lexicon 17 2.4 Communication between deaf people of different nations 18 2.5 Second language acquisition (SLA) and foreign language learning (FLL). 19 2.6 An overview of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theories 20 2.6.1 Cognitive theories of SLA 22 2.6.2 Linguistic-oriented theories or Universal Grammar Theory 23 2.6.3 Pragmatic approaches to SLA 23 2.6.4 Social theories or theories of discourse 24 2.6.5 Behaviourist learning theory and SLA 25 2.6.6 Krashen’s psycholinguist theory of SLA 25 2.7 Teaching methods used in TEFL 29 2.8 Metalinguistic knowledge and awareness 31 2.9 The definition of curriculum and criticism of the implementation of reforms (R97 and L97) in relation to deaf pupils 31 2.10 The purpose of this study 33 2.10.1 The research question 34

CHAPTER 3 THE METHOD 3.1 The quantitative research approach 36 3.1.1 The sample and gaining access to the field 36 3.2 Why test BSL receptive skills in class 4? 37 3.2.1 Why test the pupils’ receptive skills in BSL and not their expressive skills? 37 3.3 The instruments for assessing receptive skills in BSL 38 3.3.1 The development of Assessing BSL Development Test and criticism 39 3.3.2 A description of the first sub test: BSL Vocabulary Test 41 3.3.3 A description of the second sub test: BSL Grammar Test 43 3.3.4 A description of the third sub test: BSL Story Test 45 3.4 The pilot study of the complete test 49 3.5 The control group 49 3.6 Carrying out the tests in Norway 50 3.7 The questionnaires 51 3.7.1 Questionnaire content and construction 52 3.8 Carrying out the study 53 3.9 Methods used in data analysis 54 3.10 Ethical considerations 54

CHAPTER 4 THE RESULTS 4.0 Introduction 56 4.1 Descriptive analysis of the pupils in the sample 56 4.1.1 Gender 57 4.1.2 Hearing status 57 4.1.3 Pupils’ interest in BSL and behaviour in the EfDP classroom 57 4.1.4 Pupils’ early language development, present usage and skills 58 4.1.5 DCDP 59 4.1.6 Deaf pupils with CI and other diagnosis in addition to deafness 59 4.1.7 Pupils’ behaviour in the EfDP classroom and feelings towards EFL 60 4.2 Descriptive analysis of the teachers 60 4.2.1 Teachers’ qualifications 61 4.2.2 Teachers’ methods, choice of activities and metalinguistic awareness 62 4.2.3 Teachers’ attitudes to EfDP 63 4.2.4 The teachers’ choice of role and EfDP goals and expectations 63 4.2.5 Teachers’ choice of language usage in the EfDP classroom 64 4.3 Descriptive analysis of the pupils’ learning environments 65 4.3.1 Local Schools 65 4.3.2 Schools for the Deaf 65 4.3.3 The organisation of TEFL 65 4.4 Descriptive analysis of EfDP classrooms 67 4.4.1 The amount of BSL experience provided by the learning environments 67 4.4.2 Pupils’ access to BSL conversation partners in and outside the classroom 67 4.4.3 BSL teaching aids used in the EfDP classrooms 68 4.4.4 Cooperation between the school and the home 68 4.5 Descriptive analysis of the BSL test score results of the deaf Norwegian pupils 69 4.5.1 A descriptive analysis of pupils’ errors 71 4.6 An analysis of the differences in the three test results of the deaf Swedish and deaf Norwegian pupils 72 4.6.1 An analysis of the differences in the BSL Story Test results of the deaf Norwegian pupils, the deaf Swedish pupils and the hearing Norwegian pupils 74 4.7 Analysis of the independent variables of the deaf Norwegian pupils and some differences in test results 75 4.7.1 Differences in test results according to gender 75 4.7.2 Differences in test results according to pupils’ hearing status 75 4.7.3 Differences in test results according to the number of years TEFL of tuition 76 4.7.4 Pupils with foreign language home backgrounds 76 4.7.5 The results of deaf children of deaf parents (DCDP) 76 4.7.6 The results of deaf pupils with CI 77 4.8 Differences in test results according to the teachers’ independent variables 77 4.9 Differences in test results according to the learning environments independent variables 78 4.9.1 School placement 78 4.9.2 Classroom setting 79 4.9.3 The usage of teaching aids 80 4.10 Results that answer the research question “Do Norwegian deaf pupils in class 4 (2003 – 2004) understand any BSL?” 80

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY’S FINDINGS 5.1 Discussion of the pupils’ independent variables in relation to SLA 82 5.1.1 Gender 82 5.1.2 Hearing status 82 5.1.3 Interest and Motivation 86 5.1.4 Early language development and SLA 86 5.1.5 Deaf pupils from foreign language backgrounds 88 5.1.6 Deaf children of deaf parents (DCDP) 88 5.1.7 Deaf children with CI and the EfDP syllabus 89 5.1.8 The effects of the combination of early experience of sign language as L1 (NSL or SSL) and classroom experience of an L2 sign language (BSL) 89 5.2 The independent variables of the EFL teachers 90 5.2.1 EfDP teachers’ qualifications 90 5.2.2 Teachers’ choice of teaching methods 91 5.2.3 Teachers’ choice of activities in the EfDP classroom 92 5.2.4 Teachers’ awareness of metalinguistic “spin-offs” 92 5.2.5 The teachers’ choice of role in the EfDP classroom 93 5.2.6 Teachers’ interpretation and adaptation of the EfDP syllabus 93 5.2.7 Teachers’ expectations of success and goals with EfDP 94 5.2.8 Teachers’ language usage in the EfDP classroom 94 5.3 The independent variables of the learning environments for EfDP 95 5.3.1 EfDP, school placement and classroom setting 95 5.3.2 IT and teaching aids 98 5.4 Answering the research question 99 5.4.1 A discussion of sources of error 102 5.5 Recommendations 103 5.5.1 Recommendations for Statped’s role 104 5.5.2 Recommendations for the EfDP classroom: Tearing down classroom walls using IT. 105 5.5.3 Recommendations for teachers 106 5.6 Suggestions for new research 106 5.7 Final Conclusions 108

REFERENCES

APPENDIX

1. Analysis of BSL texts 2. Flyer used at Nordic conference 3. Hearing pupils’ letter to parents 4. Letter to head teachers of deaf pupils 5. Letter parents of deaf pupils 6. Letter to teachers of deaf pupils 7. NSD request form 8. Pilot study letter to parents 9. Pilot study report 10. Questionnaire about the pupils 11. Questionnaire about learning environment 12. Result tables Chapter 4 13. Swedish pupils letter to parents 14. Test Manual

Word List with abbreviations and Norwegian equivalents

Abbreviation English Norwegian

ASL American Sign Language Amerikansk tegnspråk BSL British Sign Language Britisk tegnspråk

DCDP Deaf child of deaf parents Døv barn med døve foreldre DCHP Deaf child of hearing parents Døv barn med hørende foreldre EfDP Syllabus, English for Deaf Engelsk for døve Pupils EFL English as a foreign language Engelsk som et fremmedspråk FAP Peripethetic advisor for a county, Fylkes audiopedagog employed by NSSSE FLL Foreign Language Learning fremmedspråklæring

FSL French Sign Language Fransk tegnspråk KUF The Ministry for Education’s Det kongelige undervisnings- og title in 1997: The Royal Ministry forskningsdepartementet (1997) of Education and Research GCSE O level General Certificate Of Avgangsprøve Secondary Education, Ordinary Level IT Information Technology IKT L1 Language 1 (mother tongue or Språk 1 (morsmål eller første first language that is established språk som er etablert før i 3års before the age of three) alderen.) L2 Language 2. Second language Language 2. Andrespråk L97 Curriculum Læreplan 97 NS Native speaker En person som har L2, i dette tilfelle BSL, som sitt morsmål NNS Non Native Speaker L2 elev NSD Norwegain Social Science data Norsk samfunnsvitenskapelig service datatjeneste NSL Norwegian Sign Language Norsk tegnspråk NSSSE The National Support System for Statped Special Education SSE Sign Supported English Engelsk med tegnstøtte

SSN Sign Supported Norwegian Tegnspråk norsk

SLA Second Language Acquisition Andre språks læring

SSL Swedish Sign Language Svensk tegnspråk TEFL Teaching English as a Foreign Undervisning av engelsk som et Language fremmedspråk TTT Sign Supported Speech Tegn til tale UFD Present tittle of The Ministry of Utdannings and forsknings Education and Research (earlier departement known as KUF)

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction of the theme

This chapter is an introduction to the theme of this study, containing some background information and a brief summary of the study’s aims.

During their early childhood deaf children have had other experiences than those of hearing children. This does not necessarily result in deaf children having worse abilities, skills or knowledge but it does mean that they have different needs to hearing children if they are to reach their full potential (Marschark, Lang & Albertini, 2002). Deaf children cannot choose to be any other way than that which they are, but the learning opportunities the environment provides can and must be tailored to optimise deaf pupils’ chances of success.

This study focuses on the teaching of English as a foreign language (TEFL) to Norwegian deaf pupils in Primary School as prescribed by the L97 National Curriculum implemented in 1997. Paradoxically, as it may seem, the syllabus English for Deaf Pupils (EfDP) begins by presenting another foreign language, British Sign Language (BSL) and allowing pupils to experience foreign language learning (FLL) and develop their own language learning strategies, gradually leading on to the learning of English as a foreign language (EFL). As a first step in evaluating the impact of EfDP and in view of the lack of literature on deaf pupils’ Second Language Acquisition (SLA), this study looks at Norwegian deaf pupils’ BSL receptive skills in class 4 during 2003 – 2004 and the variables affecting their second language acquisition.

1.1 The development of my interest in foreign language teaching for deaf pupils

In 1984 I was working as a teacher in a Local Authority Primary School with a class of five deaf children in Norway. In the classroom, together with a Deaf teaching assistant, we used Norwegian Sign Language (NSL) and Sign Supported Norwegian (SSN) for direct communication and Norwegian written and spoken language. Having regular contact with the neighbouring parallel class, my pupils were aware of what their hearing companions were doing and they always wanted to do the same; be it playing the

1 recorder (not something that lasted very long), playing in a Samba orchestra (which did lead to one pupil taking up drum playing) or learning English in class 4. As in all classes of deaf children the range of abilities and the type and degree of hearing loss varied greatly but I wanted all my pupils to feel that they could succeed with EFL regardless of hearing status. I wanted them to experience English as a language they could use in the real world to interact with others, both deaf and hearing. I made enquiries to find out what other teachers of the deaf were doing. Most deaf pupils were not offered English as an option. It was reserved for the “cleverest”, in other words, those pupils who not only had good abilities but also residual hearing and some speaking skills. Lessons comprised of speech reading and articulation of a very limited vocabulary, reading simplified texts and writing. Others used Norwegian signs together with English speech to make oral work possible. To my mind, this mixed “language code,” which could not be used outside the classroom, was of little practical value. At the same time it allowed pupils, in effect, to carry on decoding NSL signs and ignore English mouthings and aural input.

Having rejected these methods, it was apparent that I had to seek a new approach. Use of a sign language was a logical choice as my experience showed that teaching using NSL was effective. Having seen programs for British deaf people on satellite TV, BSL was the natural choice, especially as the North Sea and ferry traffic to the UK was just outside the classroom window. From satellite TV, I video-recorded some children’s stories in BSL and bought two very small, basic BSL dictionaries, which were all that was available at the time. After the first lesson it was clear that the children were interested and curious to know more about this strange new language: “homework for next week” was learned overnight, BSL finger spelling was used to send secret messages, BSL signs and some Signed English with English translations were presented and absorbed at an astonishing rate. The children’s reactions convinced me that using a foreign sign language was “the way to go.” I did not understand at the time why they were so fascinated by it. We used BSL in games and drama, read English books and did writing exercises. We finally contacted a school in the UK and sent them a video-letter about our class in our “best BSL”. It was an exciting day when the pupils received a reply and understood most of what was “said” in BSL.

…At the class reunion in 2003, the same pupils, now grown up with careers and families, reminisced over all the things they had done at school and then started to see how much BSL they could remember…

2

In light of my experiences with this class and subsequent classes, TEFL for deaf pupils using a foreign sign language (BSL) became an area of interest for me over several years and therefore a natural choice for the theme of this study.

1.2 Deaf pupils and the Norwegian school system

As background for this study it is important to have an overview of the Norwegian school system and the reforms that took place in 1997. The Norwegian school system is a comprehensive one, consisting of three levels: Primary School (classes 1 - 4), Middle school (classes 5 - 7) and Lower Secondary School (classes 8 - 10) which leads on to compulsory Upper Secondary School. Pupils start school at the age of six.

Reform 97 During much of the last century the education of the deaf in Norway, as in most of the western world, was focused on the teaching of spoken language, its modality and form, as an external one-way process, which emphasised learning, practise and training (Ohna et al., 2003). Traditionally, deaf pupils attended schools for the deaf or units for the hearing- impaired. Changes in the way deaf children were perceived1 and how language is acquired, ultimately made possible the enormous changes in the home, the learning environment and the educational opportunities for deaf children in Norway. In 1993 the Ministry for Education (KUF) produced a guide with syllabuses for deaf pupils. In addition to the ordinary subjects, it included the following subjects: Norwegian for Deaf Pupils, Norwegian Sign Language as a First Language, English for Deaf Pupils and Drama & Rhythms (which replaced the subject of music). In 1997 the school reform, R97, increased schooling from 9 to 10 years and introduced a new National Curriculum called L97. The previously mentioned subjects for deaf children were included. In 1998 The Law for Primary and Secondary Education confirmed deaf children’s legal right to education in and about NSL (§2-6). The education of deaf pupils was no longer looked upon as “special education”. All pupils, including deaf pupils, were given the right to

1 Maybe we are experiencing another shift in perspective. In recent years with the increasing use of cochlear implants, the medical/healing perspective has become prevalent once again: “Deaf children should be cured and trained to speak.” Medical personnel question the use of Sign Language and purport that it is damaging to the development of speech, even though research has shown that this is untrue.

3 education adapted to their individual needs irrespective of the school setting. The inclusion of all pupils in their Local School was one of the basic philosophies of the reform. All teachers of deaf pupils, regardless of the school setting, were now required to have a formal qualification in NSL. In addition, to give deaf children the opportunity for early language development, the Norwegian State offered parents of deaf children 40 weeks NSL education free of charge, from the time the child was diagnosed until their sixteenth birthday (ibid.). This measure tries to ensure that the child’s NSL is well developed and age appropriate by the time the child enters school. In L97 Sign Bilingualism is an important educational goal for deaf pupils. Sign bilingualism is the use of two languages in different modalities: one signed and one spoken. The balance of languages will be unique for each pupil according to individual preference, stage of development and demands from the environment (Pickersgill, 1998). The main underpinning of sign bilingualism is distinct language separation, high levels of signing skills and the development of metalinguistic skills through discussion in sign language (Swanwick, 1998; Mahshie, 1995). Through bilingualism the pupils use their L1 to construct L2 and can gain access to the curriculum, and the socio-cultural values and beliefs of the Deaf and hearing communities.

The L97 English for deaf pupils (EfDP) syllabus The Norwegian school system has a long tradition of TEFL for hearing pupils and there have of course been several syllabuses over the years, but which few deaf pupils have been allowed access to. Both the L97 syllabuses English (for hearing pupils) and EfDP are based on a socio-cultural approach to TEFL. The subject matter in the two syllabuses is basically the same, but EfDP has its own progression and structure and also includes knowledge of BSL and the Deaf Cultures of English-speaking countries.

The Primary School EfDP syllabus is intended to build the foundations for English literacy. It provides pupils with experience of FLL through BSL, which in turn offers motivation and experience of creating language learning strategies, experience of English mouthings and borrowings from English and the development of phonological awareness and metalinguistic skills that can be of help to construct English when the aural input is distorted, incomplete or absent. This is only possible because pupils have had access to NSL from early childhood. All these elements plus the pupils’ knowledge of L1 (NSL and Norwegian literacy) form the bridge leading from BSL to English literacy. It must also be born in mind that the modalities of the two languages are very different and there is to date no empirical measure to show

4 exactly how extensive the linguistic transfer from BSL to English literacy can be in this FLL situation. Earlier experiences and anecdotes are the only evidence to hand.

EfDP shows respect for Sign Language and Deaf culture and encourages the expectation that deaf pupils will attain secondary school examinations in EfDP, equivalent to GCSE, O level. Examinations are not based on the notion of comparing deaf and hearing pupils, but to assess deaf pupils’ FLL achievements in accordance to the goals of the syllabus and in the pupils’ own right.

EfDP is a totally new departure both nationally and internationally. The syllabus stresses that language is acquired through social interaction and the pupils’ active use of the language and must be adapted to the needs of each pupil. In light of this perspective, the learning environment must also be adapted so that the pupil’s hearing loss is not a hindrance for reaching the learning goals (Zahl, 2000).

The goals and structure of EfDP EfDP’s main goal is: ”to understand English texts and use written English. Teaching shall stimulate the pupils to interact with people from English-speaking and other cultures and give them some knowledge of British Sign Language (BSL).” (KUF, 1997a. pp. 35) EfDP begins in class 1 when children start school at the age of six. In Primary School, deaf pupils’ first experience with a foreign language is through a foreign sign language since it cannot be taken for granted that undistorted, oral English is easily comprehensible to the pupil: that foreign language is BSL. In Primary School the pupils discover, experience and explore BSL. In Middle School pupils continue to experience BSL and English written and oral language is introduced as BSL is gradually phased out. In Lower Secondary School work is concentrated on English. Pupils can however choose an introductory course on American Sign Language (ASL) or advanced courses in BSL or English if they wish to work on one of these two languages in greater depth. At Upper Secondary School, BSL is again part of the English syllabus.

Because of the great variation in deaf pupils’ oral skills the syllabus states: “Pupils shall develop their skills to communicate with English-speaking hearing and deaf people.” “Training in spoken English must take place in accordance with the individual’s abilities.” (ibid., pp. 31, pp. 35).

5

The role of the teacher and the pupil in the EfDP classroom The teacher’s role in Primary School is that of a guide and organiser, not a language-model; BSL models are to be found on video and by the use of IT. The teacher is “the gatekeeper” who creates situations where pupils can experience and use BSL (ibid.). The curriculum uses a vocabulary that depicts pupils playing an active role in their own language learning process i.e. experiment, experience, discuss, find meaning, discover etc.

Texts and activities in the Primary School EfDP classroom All the BSL texts that are available to Norwegian Primary Schools are authentic in that they are not all made specifically for the EfDP classroom, but chosen for their content and not their form. This is to encourage pupils to develop varied learning strategies and to work top-down i.e. look for the language’s meaning not form and not just bottom-up i.e glossaries and rules of grammar etc. BSL texts are suggested as the starting point for creative, child-centered activities such as play, role-play, drama, art, creating original BSL texts etc.

Cultural knowledge in EfDP EfDP includes some knowledge of Deaf cultures from the English-speaking world. Stone (2000) refers to Bienvenu (1992) who comments that deaf pupils must be taught about their own culture and other cultures like their own. Bienvenu argues that this will enhance the pupils’ self-confidence and self-image. Pupils will develop pride and a strong cultural identity, which is important if deaf pupils are to reach their full potential in the hearing world.

1.3 The premise for this study

I am hearing, a teacher and an “audiopedagog” (a combination of a teacher of the deaf and an audiologist.) I am not a linguist. My mother tongue is English but I did not know any BSL before the need arose in 1984 in Norway. I taught deaf and hard-of-hearing children in a local authority unit for seventeen years and was active in the local Deaf Community. Subsequently, I was a consultant employed by the State to help advise parents, teachers and local authorities about the education of deaf children and adults in the fourth largest county in Norway, for seven years. Now, I am an advisor and member of the development team at one of the four State-owned, regional resource centres responsible for supporting the education of the deaf and hearing-impaired in Norway collectively known as: The National Support System for

6 Special Education (NSSSE or Statped). Each “Statped” Resource Centre consists basically of a school, a peripatetic advisory department and a sign language team.

I chose a quantitative research method to answer my research question. A quantitative method is perhaps the most suitable for measuring and assessing language attainments. All measures of cognitive skills are necessarily indirect, incomplete, imprecise, subjective and relative (Bachman, 1990) and only a small portion of an individual’s total language skills can be observed and measured. As a member of the working party involved in developing the curriculum for the teaching of EfDP I am a stakeholder with a special interest in investigating how EfDP has been used and the reaction of the pupils. With this in mind, the quantitative method seemed to be the best way of securing some level of objectivity, however precarious or tenuous this may be.

BSL was chosen by the working party as the foreign sign language to be included in the curriculum after the pedagogical, cultural, geographical perspectives and the economical practicalities of ASL, BSL and other sign languages used in English speaking countries, were evaluated. The curriculum has received a good deal of criticism by some teachers: “BSL is yet another language for the pupils to fail at,” “The teachers don’t know BSL so how can they teach it?” and “ASL should have been chosen not BSL. It’s more international.”

In view of my own experiences teaching English to deaf pupils using BSL, I needed to find out if my pupils were unique or whether the use of a foreign sign language is one of the keys to unlocking the door to FLL and eventually to English. Norway is the first country in the world to formally include a foreign sign language in its EFL syllabus during the first years of schooling, so there are no international comparisons to be made.

There is very little research, literature or theories about deaf children’s SLA; that which does exist is about deaf children living in homes where deaf parents use two different sign languages. This is of course a different situation to that which exists in the EfDP classroom. I am therefore using SLA theories developed for hearing children learning foreign languages. I base this on the premise that hearing children are learning a foreign spoken language (L2) in the same modality as their mother tongue (L1). Deaf children are also learning an L2 (BSL), which has the same modality as one of their L1s: NSL. Research on sign language development in deaf children of deaf parents has shown that this development is dependent on

7 the same basic needs as in hearing children learning a spoken language (H. Schlesinger & Meadows, 1972., Marschark et al., 2002). Interaction between the parent and child follows a similar, yet different, pattern in deaf/deaf and hearing/hearing dyads.

One of the biggest problems in carrying out this study was the general lack of test materials for evaluating and assessing sign language development. Test materials specifically for assessing the development of sign language learned as a foreign language in the classroom are non-existent.

1.4 The aim of this study

Deaf pupils’ hard won rights to bilingual education, education in and about NSL and knowledge of a foreign sign language (BSL), are already under attack from school leaders, doctors, some teachers and parents even before its effect on pupils’ performance has been documented.

The aim of this study is to document how Norwegian deaf pupils have reacted to one small part of the syllabus for deaf pupils introduced in 1997: exposure to BSL and their understanding of it. Since there is so little research into deaf pupils’ SLA, this will mainly be an exploratory exercise to find out what has happened since Norwegian deaf pupils were given the opportunity to experience a foreign sign language (BSL), measure their acquisition of receptive skills in BSL, give a picture of the learning environments of the deaf pupils in this sample and try to pin point some factors that may have played a part in the results of the language tests used.

8 CHAPTER 2 A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND THE RESEARCH QUESTION

In this chapter I shall define some central concepts and terms concerning deaf pupils and Signed Languages. I shall then conceptualise my research project by describing different theoretical areas of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and the main teaching methods used in TEFL that arise from them. Finally I will present my research question.

2.0 Who are the deaf?

There are several definitions of the deaf, which vary in their perception of deaf people in an attempt to understand and define deafness. Throughout history deafness has been looked upon by the hearing majority as a sickness and the deaf as handicapped and defective (Heiling, 1995). The medical definition of deafness looks upon hearing loss as a pathological impairment and disability, which should be remedied. Emphasis is given to compensatory measures such as special education, speech training etc (Ohna et al., 2003). The deaf are categorised using audiometric measures as those with a hearing loss anywhere from 70 dB to 93dB, depending upon which definition one chooses use. Experience shows however, that audiograms tell us little about how a pupil actually functions auditorily, linguistically and socially.

Paddy Ladd (2003) refers to “The Culturally Deaf”, with a capital D. The core members of this cultural group are those who use a signed language and who are born deaf or lose their hearing at an early age before speech has developed (called prelingually deaf by the medical profession). By means of sign language the Deaf have created linguistic and cultural milieus where they feel at home and that they are proud of (Ladd, 2003). Any individual, even though he does not fulfil the definition of a core member, can choose to be a member of this social- linguistic minority group, as long as the Deaf community accepts him or her. The exceptional quality of this definition is that it is created from within the deaf community itself. It is not a definition projected onto the group by “outsiders”.

A third perspective is a socio-cultural one, which combines the medical-pathological and the linguistic-cultural perspectives. Here the focus is on how individuals and groups interact, using the physical and linguistic resources available in learning, development and communication. This perspective is in keeping with the child-centred pedagogical ideas

9 presented in Norwegian teacher training and it can give new understanding of how hearing- impaired children learn (Ohna et al., 2003).

Deaf pupils were defined by the Norwegian Ministry of Education (then known as KUF) in 1997 as: 2“…(Deaf) pupils (are those) who use sign language in communication with their social environment and to gather information. Functionally bilingual pupils can belong to this group.” (Veiledning - Organisering av opplæring i og på tegnspråk. pp.2). The Ministry does not use a medical definition, but a linguistic one. Deaf pupils are hearing-impaired and have NSL as their first language. By using NSL, one is defined as deaf.

In this study, deaf pupils are defined, necessarily, as those pupils who have chosen the English for Deaf Pupils syllabus L97 (EfDP) syllabus and from which my sample was taken. My own experience shows that the reasons for choosing the curriculum for deaf pupils can be many; a medical diagnosis of actual deafness or severe hearing loss may not be present. Reasons such as ease of access to additional teaching resources, the school setting and/or having sign bilingualism as a goal (in Norwegian and Norwegian Sign Language), may play a part in this decision.

The deaf children in this study, as in the general population of the hearing-impaired, were not a homogeneous group. As the data showed, not unexpectedly, there was variation in pupils’ hearing status, how they utilize any residual hearing, their skills in Norwegian spoken and written language, their NSL skills, their general ability and communication skills, the pupils’ language and learning environments and the resources of, and choices made by each of their families. In addition, with the introduction of the cochlear implant (CI) a new group of deaf pupils has appeared during the last ten years.

(A cochlear implant is an electronic device that restores partial hearing to the deaf. The device directly stimulates the auditory nerve, allowing individuals who are profoundly hearing impaired to receive sound that the brain has to interpret (American Academy of Otolaryngology, 2004). In my experience deaf children with CI have some unique hearing abilities and can profit greatly from bilingual education.

2 My own translation

10 2.1 What is “Sign Language”?

A signed language is a natural visual, gestural and spatial language, which has developed over time because of the fundamental need for language and communication in settings where deaf people have come together. Signed languages develop where schools for the deaf have been established and in consequence a social milieu (Sutton-Spence & Woll, 1999). Earlier it was believed that sign language was international after observations by Bulwer in 1644 (Kyle & Woll, 1985). This idea was founded on the assumption that sign language was based on gestures that were universal. Today we know that this is untrue. The Etnologue index has registered 103 different sign languages throughout the world although this is probably an under-estimate (Woll, Sutton-Spence & Elton, 2001). In several countries in Scandinavia and Europe sign languages are recognised as official languages (Bergh, 2004).

Each sign language has its own vocabulary and grammar, which are different from other sign languages and from spoken languages. Nevertheless, in several countries during the 1970s and 80s attempts were made to visualise the national spoken language by attaching a sign to each word and adding symbols to show inflection etc e.g. Tecknad svenska in Sweden, tegnspråk norsk in Norway and Signed English in the UK. The voice is used simultaneously with signs and follows the grammar of spoken language. When no word sign equivalent existed, signs were invented. The system has proved to be impractical for communication and the deaf communities have not adopted these artificial signed languages (Kyle & Woll, 1985; Heiling, 1995). Nevertheless, they are sometimes used in teaching to illustrate the grammar of a spoken language. A combination of the national spoken language and sign language, which develops through contact between the hearing and the deaf, is usually defined as Pigeon sign language (Vogt-Svendsen, 1987). They use varying degrees of sign and speech in situations where it is necessary to facilitate communication between the hearing and the deaf.

In Fig. 2.1, I have made a simplistic one-dimensional diagram showing the parallel situations that exist in Norway and the UK. Fig. 2.1 does not attempt to describe the many varied reasons for using artificially constructed sign languages or a complete overview of the many forms and combinations of speech and sign.

11 Norwegian “Tegn-til-tale” “Tegnspråknorsk” NSL spoken language

English Sign Supported English Signed English BSL spoken language

Fig. 2.1 Illustration of the parallel situations that exists in Norway and the UK

2.2 Elements of BSL

In this section I will describe conventions used in glossing signs and the elements of BSL that are assessed in the tests used in this study.

2.2.1 The phonems of signed language and conventions used in glossing signs

In USA in the 1960s, William Stokoe was the first researcher in modern times to investigate the linguistics of a sign language, American Sign Language (ASL). His work had an enormous impact and enabled linguists and the Deaf themselves, to claim that sign languages were on a par with spoken languages and fulfil the same functions for deaf people as spoken languages do for the hearing (Vonen, 1997). Stokoe described, amongst other things, the phonemes or building blocks of ASL: the limited number of hand shapes used (Dez), the movements the hands can make (Sig) and the positions in which signs can be made (Tab) (Kyle & Woll, 1985). Researchers have continued to build on Stokoe’s work and have described other aspects of ASL and of other sign languages. For example, non-manual components are important components of all sign languages as elements of the grammar and/or lexicon e.g. movements of the face (eyes, eye brows, cheeks, mouth and forehead), the head and/or body (Brennan, 1992).

Glossing a sign means using an English word or words, which are then written in capital letters e.g. CAT. Many signs cannot be glossed by a single English word, because there is no exact translation. When it is necessary to use several words to give the approximate meaning of an individual sign, the words are joined together by hyphens e.g. I-DON’T-LIKE (Sutton- Spence & Woll, 1999).

12 2.2.2 The elements of BSL that are assessed in the tests used in this study

In the tests used in this research project, Norwegian, deaf pupils were given tasks to assess their understanding of BSL vocabulary, grammar and text. Herman et al., describe The Grammar Test as including spatial verb morphology, number/distribution, negation, size/shape specifiers, noun/verb distinctions, and handling classifiers (Herman et al., 1999). Here follows definitions and examples of these elements of BSL:

Spatial verb morphology All sign languages make use of space in their grammars. The designated signing space is three-dimensional and is like an imaginary stage where the characters and objects to be talked about, are placed and relationships between them are established (Miles 2001). This is termed location. Spatial verbs are complex and include a movement, which begins at the initial location of the object and finishes at the final location. The sign consists also of a handshape, which is a pro-form, chosen depending on the class of object (Fig. 2.2).

Fig. 2.2 BICYCLE-PASS. The classifier for bicycle is similar in BSL and NSL (Sutton-Spence & Woll, 1999).

Objects are classified based on their sharing of a common feature: classifiers are an important category of components in both BSL and NSL. Some spoken languages such as Thai and Mandarin Chinese make use of classifier forms but these are not found in Norwegian or in English. Some of the classifiers used in BSL and NSL are identical whilst others are very different or exist only in one of the languages. As an illustration of the importance of classifiers in BSL and NSL, I refer to McAnnly, Rose & Quigley (1994). They describe Kanator’s study (1980) of nine Deaf children’s acquisition of classifiers. Already by the age of three, Deaf children of Deaf parents understood the necessity of utilising classifiers in certain syntactical situations.

13 Modification including number/distribution, negation, size/shape specifiers, noun/verb distinctions and handling classifiers

In BSL one sign can have many different meanings (Kyle & Woll, 1985). The basic lexicon can be modified to show amongst other things number/distribution, negation, size/shape specifiers, noun/verb distinctions and handling classifiers. The same applies to NSL.

Number/distribution This morphologically complex group of signs can be thought of as representing plurals in BSL (Herman et al., 1999). The base sign is performed followed by a pro-form that is repeated and located along a line or arc moving from left to right (Fig. 2.3).

Fig. 2.3 BEDS (ibid.)

Negation In BSL negation can be shown in three ways: by shaking the head which is glossed as “neg” e.g. WOMAN TELEVISION WATCH neg, by ending a sign with the palms facing upwards (see Fig. 2.4), or by using a multi-channel sign (see Fig. 2.5). Multi-channel signs do not have mouthings that are similar to any spoken word, but are performed together with an expelling of air or other special mouth gestures (Sutton-Spence & Woll, 1999).

Fig. 2.4 DON’T-LIKE. Note how the palms finally face upwards (ibid.).

14

Fig. 2.5 NOT-EXIST is a multi-channel sign. Mouth gesture: ”boo” (ibid.).

The two first forms of negation mentioned are similar in BSL and NSL. Although multi- channel signs exist in both BSL and NSL they are for the most part, dissimilar.

Size/shape specifiers Base signs can be modified to indicate the size and shape of nouns (Fig. 2.6) (Herman et al, 1999).

Fig. 2.6 WIDE-BELT, NARROW-BELT (ibid.)

Distinctions between verbs and nouns Distinctions between verbs and nouns can be shown through the use of totally different signs e.g. TO-FISH, A-FISH (Fig. 2.7) or a base sign can be modified by altering the duration and tempo of the movements used to perform the sign. In NSL the existence of a noun/verb distinction is controversial and under discussion at the moment.

15

Fig. 2.7 A-FISH, TO-FISH, (ibid.).

Handling classifiers In this class of signs the handshape represents how a noun is handled (Fig. 2.8).

Fig. 2.8 CARRY-BAG, CARRY-BABY A sign language verb can also give information about the subject’s attitude and the appearance of the object e.g. (ibid.).

2.3 Are BSL and NSL related or similar in any way?

In this section I will answer this question by looking at the historical and linguistic similarities between BSL and NSL.

Historically, we have anecdotes of a common ancestry between NSL and ASL from contact with L’ Epée’s School for the Deaf in Paris, established in 1770 (Kyle & Woll, 1985; Eriksson, 1993). Sign languages that are historically related are more similar to each other than languages that are not related (Sutton-Spence & Woll, 1999). For example, after a study by Woodward in 1978, comparing ASL and French Sign Language (FSL) it is generally assumed that the two languages do share a common ancestry (Kyle & Woll, 1985). However, after examining the histories of the British and Norwegian deaf communities, there appears to

16 be no documentation of BSL and NSL having a common ancestry or that members of the two deaf communities had contact before during the last century.

2.3.1 Similarity in lexicon

Generally the average mean of similarity between the lexicons of unrelated sign languages is 35 – 40%. This is a much higher figure than one would expect between two unrelated spoken languages. Sign languages that have an historical connection show an even higher percentage e.g. Australian Sign Language (AUSLAN) and BSL: 80% (Kyle & Woll, 1985). Any similarities between BSL and NSL may be accounted for in a number of ways: “These include historical links previously unsuspected, the borrowing of signs through contacts between signers using different sign languages, accidental similarities, or some specific cultural or universal propensities to label concepts in particular ways.” (Woll, 1984. pp. 90). Words from different spoken languages that can be proven to have the same historical root by studying the written records or by systematically comparing existing languages in detail are called cognates. Some words can appear to be cognates, similar in meaning and sound, but in fact any likeness is coincidental. Such words are called chance cognates (Parkhurst & Parkhurst, 2003). It is difficult to study the historical development of sign languages, since there exists little written evidence until comparatively recently with the development of notation systems e.g. Sutton Movement Writing, Stokoe Notation etc (Kyle & Woll, 1985). The introduction of video has made it possible to record and study sign languages in depth. Because of the lack of documentary evidence of contact between the communities and common historical roots of the signs, I have chosen, therefore, to call all signs in BSL and NSL that are similar in appearance and meaning, chance cognates.

The existence of chance cognates can be due to iconicity, which is used a great deal in all sign languages. An iconic sign reflects some of the properties of the object it represents: either its physical appearance or what it is used for or some other aspect. Since many objects can be expected to have a similar appearance and usage in different communities, it is not surprising that signs will also be similar (ibid.). For example, BOOK is a chance cognate in the sign languages of Norway, Spain, Finland, Bulgaria, Great Britain, etc. (Parkhurst & Parkhurst, 2003). The number of chance cognates in the test material used in this study must be taken into account when evaluating pupils’ results in some of the tests in this study. (See analysis of the test vocabulary, Appendix 1).

17

Similarity in lexicon is just one of the factors which will affect Norwegian pupils’ understanding of BSL. Other factors are phonology, morphology, metaphors, cultural understanding etc (Parkhurst & Parkhurst, 2003). There has not been a formal comparison carried out between BSL and NSL, so I had to presume that the two languages have an average mean of similarity in the order of 35 – 40%. Given that BSL and NSL share some similarities, it is expected that Norwegian deaf pupils will use their competence in NSL, their first language or mother tongue (L1), to help in their understanding of BSL, which is their second language in this modality (L2). Earlier, Behaviourists would have called this L1 interference. Today however, it is looked upon more positively: Ellis says that “L1 is a resource of knowledge which learners will use both consciously and subconsciously to help them sift the L2 data in the input and to perform as best as they can in the L2.” (Ellis, 1996. pp. 40)

2.4 Communication between deaf people of different nations

When introducing a sign language into the EFL syllabus it is of interest to investigate how deaf people adapt their signing to facilitate communication with deaf people from other countries and if they acquire new sign languages easily, which it appears that they do (Ladd, 2003; Brennan, 1998). Sign languages share a number of linguistic properties that make this possible such as localisation, iconicity etc. As a result Ladd (2003) argues that the deaf have a form of global communication, which gives a sense of being citizens of the entire world.

Breivik (2001) reports how one Norwegian informant told of an experience learning a foreign sign language as an exchange student in USA at the age of 15. ” It was not that difficult to learn a new (sign) language. …I was present one month before school started up, and by that time I was able to make myself understood and I could capture most of what they told me. Shortly after that (after three months) I was nearly fluent in ASL ” (ibid., pp. 204). The same informant, who likes to travel to international events for the Deaf says: “ I believe that ASL or BSL are becoming more and more a part of a common language repertoire. This will contribute to easier exchange of ideas and meanings, in the same way as English functions in the hearing world. … For everyday purposes, it is okay to use International Signs. But it is difficult to engage in deep conversations.” (ibid., pp. 228). Many Deaf seek social contact across local and international borders (ibid.).

18 2.5 Second language acquisition (SLA) and foreign language learning (FLL).

In this section I explore the concepts of second language acquisition (SLA) and foreign language learning (FLL).

SLA research studies how a second language is learnt (Ellis, 1996), and why L2 pupils rarely achieve the same competence in L2 as in L1 (Gass & Selinker, 2001). Changes in how language is perceived and ideas on how L1 develops have directly affected SLA theory. SLA begins after L1 has been established. The mother tongue (L1) is usually established by the age of three (Berggreen & Tenfjord, 1999). However in the cases of some deaf children, usually of hearing parents, because of the lack of access to spoken language due to deafness, late diagnosis and or the lack of exposure to a signed language, L1 development can be delayed. Deaf children’s L1 can be regarded as sign bilingualism (NTS and Norwegian) (ibid.). Bilingualism can take on many different forms and fulfil many different purposes for different people. However in the case of most Norwegian deaf children, they are exposed to NSL and Norwegian on a daily basis and need both languages to function adequately. L1 development tends to follow a set pattern, often regardless of the environment or individual differences. SLA however, is much more susceptible to individual differences than the development of the mother tongue: differences, such as motivation, personality, mental ability etc. (ibid.).

Roughly speaking, L2 can be learnt in two different situations. The first is in the environment where L2 is the language of the majority e.g. a Vietnamese immigrant child learning Norwegian in Norway where the child has considerable access to L2 NSs. This process is termed SLA. An L2 can also be learned in a classroom situation. In this situation L2 is not used in daily life outside the classroom and the amount of time used for language learning is limited. This is then referred to as Foreign Language Learning (FLL). Berggreen and Tenfjord (1999) refer to Viberg (1987), who describes the general conditions in a classroom situation for FLL as follows: L1 is used to explain the rules of grammar, the pupil is given texts specially chosen because of their form rather than their content, the pupil is taught complex language structures, emphasis is placed on written language whilst oral language is less important. To succeed in the classroom situation demands patience, diligence, the ability to conform and general mental ability, especially a good memory. The foreign language learner can generally manage with a passive understanding of L2 and with few automated spontaneous production skills. Teaching is the main condition for FLL, because the pupil is

19 learning a language that is not the everyday language of the surrounding community. Viberg’s description is, for the most part, not compatible with the intentions of the English for Deaf Pupils syllabus L97 as described previously, where one of the main goals is for the pupil to be able to communicate actively with hearing and deaf English-speakers and where oral and written language have more or less, equal emphasis. In addition, some of the teaching methods described by Viberg are not in line with EfDP, focusing on the “learning” of language rather than “acquisition”. See pp.25.

In Scandinavia SLA and FLL are often separated in two distinct categories because of the differences in learning environments (ibid.). Internationally there is more doubt as to whether this is necessary, as the same processes must inevitably occur independent of the learning environment (Gass & Selinker, 2001). Although communication in the classroom does not resemble communication in natural settings and there are often limited opportunities for pupils to negotiate meaning, the difference between FLL and SLA must not be over- emphasised. The setting is not the important factor, but the quality of input and interaction the L2 learner experiences; which again is dependent on the teaching method used in the classroom (Ellis, 1996). Krashen (1981) describes three classroom activities to enhance the SLA process in the classroom: Group work so that the teacher has an opportunity to adapt L2 teacher talk to the pupils’ level of development; the opportunity to meet and talk with native speakers and experience foreigner talk; and the opportunity for peer interaction in L2 interlanguage. I have chosen to refer to the process Norwegian deaf pupils engage in as SLA.

2.6 An overview of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theories

In this section I define some central SLA terms, give an overview of some relevant SLA theories in respect to this study. I will also present some criticism of the theories.

SLA is seen as a multi-discipline area due to the influence of anthropologists, sociolinguists, psycholinguists and sociologists etc (Gass & Selinker, 2001). Research into SLA is a relatively new and complex discipline, dating back to the 1960’s and 70’s (Nistov, 2000). So far no one theory has managed to cover all the complex factors involved in SLA. SLA research, independent of theoretical foundation, is about actual L2 performance and treating this as evidence for what is going on inside the L2 pupil’s head (Ellis, 1996). The need to understand SLA is two fold: one is an overall need to understand the nature of language, of

20 learning and of intercultural communication. The other is to account for both success and failure in SLA (Mitchell & Myles, 1998). Mitchell & Myles refer to Spolsky who illustrates the SLA process as shown in Fig. 2.9. provides The social context

leads to

attitudes of various kinds

which appear in the learner as

Motivation

which joins with other personal characteristics such as

age, personality, capabilities, and previous knowledge.

All of which explain the use the learner makes of the available

learning opportunities, formal or informal.

The interplay between learner and situation determining

linguistic and non-linguistic outcomes for the learner.

Fig. 2.9 Spolsky’s general model of SLA (1989). This model reflects theoretical views on the overall relationship between contextual factors, individual learner differences, learning opportunities and learning outcomes and summarizes the results of a great variety of empirical language learning research

SLA theory and research has had some influence in the development of teaching methods relevant to this study, which will be covered in 2.7. In this present exposition I will follow Berggreen and Tenfjord (1999) who have chosen to order theories in SLA as follows: Cognitive Perspectives on SLA, Universal Grammar Theory, Pragmatic Approaches and Social Theories.

2.6.1 Cognitive theories of SLA

21

Cognitive theories focus on the learning aspect of SLA and the processing of L2, in the same way as all other types of information are processed. They suggest that the L2 learner forms hypothesis about L2 rules, based on the input or the language he is exposed to (Gass & Selinker, 2001). The part of the input that the learner internalises is then termed intake. The hypothesis or internalised rule is used and tested out in L2 communication (Ellis, 1996).

Feedback plays an important part in creating the resulting interlanguage competence. Inter- language is a term first used by Selinker in 1972 when referring to the pupil’s knowledge of L2, which is independent of both L1 and the target language (Fig. 2.10). Cognitive theory looks upon L1 transfer as a resource for the development of interlanguage (Berggreen & Tenfjord, 1999).

Input attention final intake interlanguage competence L2 production

Comparison of input, own integration rehearsal L2 production and borrowings from L1

Fig. 2.10 Cognitive SLA theory. The process of development. (Adapted from Berggreen & Tenfjord, 1999. pp. 295)

Criticism of Cognitive Theory Cognitive studies have given new insights into understanding the cognitive processes involved in SLA and processes that can help in speeding up the acquisition process (Mitchell & Myles, 1998). In Cognitive Theory it is often a problem to envisage that the L2 learner can create an unlimited number of hypotheses and test them all. The short-term memory sets its own limitations where the processing of new information is involved (Berggreen & Tenfjord, 1999). They do not take into account the development of linguistic competence and the ability to use language or that cognitive processes are not operating in isolation; but are also social and cultural processes. Cognitive strategies are more suitable for the adult learner who can comprehend language as a formal system and consciously study and learn L2 rules (Ellis, 1996). They are not considered suitable for the Primary School L2 classroom.

2.6.2 Linguistic-oriented theories or Universal Grammar Theory

22

Linguistic-oriented theories of SLA tend to emphasize innate mechanisms or Universal Grammars (UG)(nativistic). UG, introduced by Chomsky, is defined as the independent language faculty inherent to the human mind. UG is a set of general principles that apply to all languages and constrain the options from which an L1 learner must choose. An L2 learner comes to the task of SLA with two kinds of knowledge: UG and knowledge of his L1 (Ellis, 1996).

Chomsky also introduced the terms competence and performance. Competence is the internalised set of L2 rules, linguistic rules, the learner has organized into a system. Some linguists such as Hymes, also include the knowledge of how to use these rules in active communication and use the term communicative competence. Performance is the comprehension and production of language, based on the learner’s L2 competence (ibid.).

Criticism of Linguistic-oriented theories or Universal Grammar Theory The UG theory of language learning being innate, rules out the possibility for alternative explanations of SLA, which may be equally valid e.g. the importance of interaction. “UG divorces language from its primary function as communication.” (Ellis, 1996. p 210)

2.6.3 Pragmatic approaches to SLA

Pragmatic theories are based on the need to find meaning and to communicate, which are thought to be the main driving force behind SLA and the development of a formal L2 grammar (Mitchell & Myles 1998). Researchers using a pragmatic approach, study how L2 pupils find meaning and reach their communicative goals. The use of an ever-changing “interlanguage” is not looked upon as a mistake or shortcoming, but as part of a long-term language learning process (Ellis, 1996). Corder (1967) and Selinker (1972) introduced these ideas. Givón has been a central figure in functionalist theory, which is closely linked to cognitive theory. Functionalism is a heuristic approach and looks at the relationship between L2’s form and function as well as the linguistic process of interaction and the cognitive SLA process within the individual. The process develops from satisfying pragmatical needs to develop a grammatical modus (Berggreen & Tenfjord, 1999). Studies have uncovered information about the pragmatics of SLA through longitudinal research projects including the rate and route of

23 SLA and interlanguage systems, including its function as well as its form (Mitchell & Myles, 1998).

Criticism of Pragmatic approaches It is an open question whether functional studies have shown that communication is the general driving force for SLA or if it only fulfils that role up to a “prototype” level of development, when other elements become more important and take over (Berggreen & Tenfjord, 1999).

2.6.4 Social theories or theories of discourse

Social theories focus on interaction with other L2 speakers as the critical dimension in SLA. The L2 learner develops syntactic structures through experience with conversation. The socio- cultural perspective views SLA as a social process and not a process involving the L2 learner in isolation. Hatch introduced this perspective in 1978. In Discourse Theory the focus is on native (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) negotiating meaning through conversation (Foreigner talk), which may influence the rate of SLA. The learner acquires commonly occurring phrases that he analyses later into their component parts (Ellis, 1996). Peer interaction (NNS and NNS) is also part of the SLA process (Mitchell & Myles, 1998). Vygotsky’s teachings, although based on developmental psychology, also fall into this category. Vygotsky describes language learning as an integrated part of social activities where the child interacts with other people, artefacts and the changes in the environment. The learning process follows a set pattern: first social, then individual. First inter-mental, an adult instructing the child, so intra-mental, when the child takes possession of new knowledge and makes it his own. Language is the tool by which the teacher supports the child through asking the right kinds of questions and thereby guiding him to the higher level of understanding (scaffolding). The L2 pupil is looked upon as an active participant, forming his own learning environment through choice of goals and activities (Berggreen & Tenfjord, 1999).

Criticism of social theories or theories of discourse The relationship between negotiated input through interaction and SLA is likely. However, these theories do not accommodate observations where successful SLA takes place without negotiated input e.g. through self-study. The theories focus on external processes, those which

24 can be observed in face-to–face interaction, divorced from internal processes that can only be observed indirectly by how the L2 learner performs (Ellis, 1996).

2.6.5 Behaviourist learning theory and SLA

I have chosen to add Behaviourist Learning Theory to this overview because it has given rise to methods in TEFL. The theory argues that association, reinforcement and imitation are the primary factors in SLA. Learning is viewed as a formation of habits, through specific stimuli leading to specific responses, aided by repetition and rewards. Environmental factors are emphasised rather than individual, internal, cognitive factors (Ellis, 1996). Contrastive Analysis introduced by Lado (1957), supposed that language is habit and language learning was the establishment of new habits. Habits already established in L1 could either hinder or enhance SLA: areas where the target language and L1 were similar would be easily learned and vice versa (Gass & Selinker, 2001).

Criticism of Behaviourist Learning Theory It was maintained that one could predict the success of SLA based on a comparison of L1 and L2. However, research showed that these predictions were often flawed. The one most serious difficulty was the hypothesis that supposed that L1 was the basis for SLA. This was challenged: “Learning was now seen not as imitation but as active rule formation.” (Gass & Selinker, 2001. pp. 73). In this study SLA is not perceived as a series of habit formations although traces of methods based on Behaviourist Theory are found in some EFL classrooms.

2.6.6 Krashen’s psycholinguist theory of SLA

Krashen is included in this overview because his theories and hypotheses have been the basis for much SLA research and the development of later theories and teaching methods based on input and interaction. Also because some of Krashen’s hypotheses and terms will be used in the analysis of the SLA processes experienced by deaf pupils in this study. Krashen has a psycholinguistic approach (Gass & Selinker, 2001) and has five main hypotheses (Ellis, 1996), which are as follows: The acquisition-learning hypothesis Krashen divides SLA into to different processes: learning and acquisition. Krashen defines learning as a conscious process of developing metalinquistic knowledge through formal study

25 (Ellis, 1996). Acquisition is a process that resembles that of a child learning L1 and Krashen hypothesises that this process gives a more intuitive knowledge of L2 (Krashen, 1983).

The natural order hypothesis This hypothesis predicts that pupils acquire L2 in a certain order. The order will not necessarily be linear but research has uncovered an “average” order of acquisition, which is reliable. Krashen supports his hypothesis on studies by Schumann (1978), Dulay & Burt (1977) and Hatch (1978). L2 acquisition resembles L1 acquisition, but is not identical (Ellis, 1996).

The monitor hypothesis This hypothesis is connected to the learning process as defined by Krashen. Krashen states that conscious learning of the rules of grammar can only be of use as a monitor for checking L2 production in situations where the pupil has time to focus on formal L2 structure. During spontaneous L2 production such formal knowledge is of little use. ”In general, utterances are initiated by the acquired system – our fluency in production is based on what we have ”picked up” through active communication. Our “formal” knowledge of the second language, our conscious learning, may be used to alter the output of the acquired system, sometimes before and sometimes after the utterance is produced. We make these changes to improve accuracy, and the use of the Monitor often has this effect.” (Krashen, 1983. pp. 2). For the monitor to function the pupil must of course know the L2 rule he needs, but even so performance may not be perfect. Krashen predicts that pupils who over use the monitor may be hindered in their L2 production for fear of making mistakes. This he calls “increased affective filter.” Other pupils may not utilise the monitor enough, they just “feel” intuitively whether their L2 production is correct. Optimally, the monitor should be used when the situation is appropriate, without it hindering spontaneous L2 performance.

The input hypothesis This hypothesis is connected to the acquisition process as defined by Krashen. The hypothesis describes how L2 acquisition takes place and how the pupil moves from his present competence level (i) to the next (i + 1). Given the correct kind of L2 input, which contains elements marginally above the pupil’s present competence level (i + 1), acquisition happens automatically (Gass & Selinker, 1994).

26 The input hypothesis stipulates that the pupil must understand the general content of the L2 input. The pupil does not have to understand every word and the input may also contain unknown L2 structures (roughly-tuned input); even so, the L2 learner will understand the input by using not only his L2 competence but also knowledge of context, genre, world knowledge, earlier experiences etc. Krashen says that L2 learners must experience large amounts of varied, authentic L2 texts, which are chosen for their content rather than their form, because they are interesting and relevant to the pupil (Krashen, 1983). (It is interesting to note in contrast to Krashen, that in a study of LaSasso & Mobleys (1997), quoted in Marschark et al (2002), 90% of teachers of the deaf thought that simplified texts with controlled vocabulary and grammar were the most effective. Marschark et al. refer also to a study of Stassman (1997) that showed that simplified texts can make the text’s structure uncomplicated but were in fact harder to understand for deaf pupils than authentic texts.) Krashen’s input hypothesis also says that L2 performance should not be forced, and predicts that it will develop naturally when the L2 learner has experienced enough L2 input. The L2 learner’s first attempts will probably not be correct but will improve over time.

The affective filter hypothesis This hypothesis refers to the emotional aspects concerned with SLA. The L2 learner’s feelings (the affective filter) can affect how much input he exposes himself to and how much of it he learns as intake. Feelings and attitude will affect motivation, self-confidence and anxiety levels. The affective filter will affect how quickly the pupil learns but will not change the stages of development he must go through (Mitchell & Myles, 1998). Krashen predicts that the end result of TEFL will depend amongst other things on the pupil’s aptitude and attitude. Aptitude relates to learning and will predict how well a pupil will perform in tests, which call on use of the Monitor. Whilst the aptitude to learn L2 is a specific ability, attitude and interest for L2 can be influenced by several factors. One on which is motivation, which can be defined in terms of the L2 learner’s overall goal (Ellis, 1996). Motivation has several aspects, but one that is of special interest in connection with Deaf pupils is “integrative motivation”. Stevick (1976) says that integrative motivation comes into play when the L2 pupil identifies with the L2 community and wants to become a member of it. The pupil will then not feel anxious or threatened and will seek contact and interaction. This will increase the likelihood of SLA. When L2 is used often, to a practical end, and the pupil is motivated and interested, the learning process will be more problem free (Marschark et al., 2002). Motivation and affective filter are two factors studied in this project.

27

Krashen rejects that L1 interferes in SLA; rather it is used as a learning strategy in the production of L2. He rejects also that drill contributes to the acquisition process; Drill only helps the pupil to outperform his competence. The L2 used in drill, does not become part of the learner’s own creative rule system.

Individual differences will not affect the SLA process only the rate and extent of acquisition. Age has an important influence on SLA. Young people will probably receive more “i + 1” input in L2, through foreigner talk, than adults. Age also affects the way we learn; adults are better suited to learning about L2’s form than children. Age also affects the affective filter; after puberty it is likely to increase in strength.

Criticism of Krashen’s theory Krashen’s theory is criticised because many mean that it is unfalsifiable. Ellis (1996) refers to McLaughlin (1978) who says this is due to the way Krashen defines acquisition and learning as unconscious and conscious processes: processes that cannot be measured. Brumfit (1984) is also concerned with Krashen’s diffuse definition of learning and in addition the definition of how the monitor manifests itself in practise. Brumfit argues that as it stands, The Monitor Theory is unfalsifiable because it is dependent on subjective evidence and anecdotes.

Gass & Selinker (1998) criticise Krashen’s Input Theory which states that given relevant and adequate amounts of input, acquisition takes place automatically. Gass & Selinker say that is insufficient, and the theory ignores the reality of the process that takes place when the L2 pupil has to negotiate meaning through interaction. It is this process they argue, that produces SLA because it enables the pupil to break the L2 code. Gass & Selinker (2001) quote Cook (1996): “Processing language to “get the message” – is not the same as code breaking – the determination of the nature of the linguistic systems used for conveying meaning or the “processing of language to get the ‘rules.’” ( pp. 317). Ellis (1996) criticises also the Input theory because it does not account for the fact that SLA can take place without two-way negotiation of meaning, the variability in L2 learners’ interlanguage and “…it (does not) recognize that output also plays an important role.” (pp.266)

28 Despite the criticism of Krashen’s theory it contains many elements that are of interest for this study e.g. learning v acquisition, input theory, the affective filter and aptitude and attitude. Much of Krashen’s terminology will be used in this study.

2.7 Teaching methods used in TEFL

The main principles of the different EFL teaching methods were presented for the teachers and they were asked to evaluate them in relation to their own teaching goals and practices. Their descriptions of their preferred methods and those used, were later related to the EfDP syllabus. Methods were roughly placed on a continuum from teacher dominated to child- centred methods (Fig. 4.3). Therefore, in this section, I describe the didactic methods of TEFL that have, to some extent, grown out of SLA theories. It must be remembered that both the theories and teaching methods mentioned here have been created for teaching EFL to hearing pupils, and it is not always advantageous to adopt them for use with deaf pupils without critical assessment.

Brumfit argues that learning a foreign language involves many factors and variables: social, psychological, pedagogical and linguistic, so that teaching an L2 must consist of more than just vocabulary and rules of grammar and social interaction should be seen as an important element. Teaching cannot alter the route by which L2 is learnt, but using an effective method can accelerate the rate of SLA by ensuring that input becomes intake (Ellis, 1996).

In Grammar-Translation method, used to teach the ancient classical languages, the main goal is not to use L2 in social interaction but to translate L2 to L1 and read L2 literature. The teacher controls L2 input by question and answer drill (teacher dominated). Explanations of L2 grammar are given in L1. Language learning is looked upon as good mental exercise (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). In some ways this method reflects much of the TEFL deaf pupils have and are receiving.

Behaviourist theories have given rise to a teaching method in TEFL called The Audio- Lingual method. This method focuses on the learning of oral language using drill and repetition. The teacher controls L2 input through repetition of dialogues and drill. One major problem with this method has proved to the pupils’ inability to transfer habits learned in the classroom to natural situations outside (ibid.).

29

The premise underpinning The Silent Way Teaching Method is that teaching should serve the learning process rather than dominate it. Pupils learn those parts of L2 they need to communicate. Pupils use L2 to express their ideas and feelings. They are active, responsible for their own language learning and encouraged to help each other. In The Direct Method the goal is for pupils to think and communicate in L2. Meaning is conveyed directly in L2; new vocabulary is introduced using concrete objects, mime and role-play. L2 is used throughout lessons. Vocabulary is emphasised over grammar, which is taught inductively (ibid).

Total Physical Response method is based on theories of natural acquisition of language in SLA. Pupils show their understanding of L2 by performing physical actions. The teacher does not correct mistakes directly and pupils are not pressured into producing L2 before they are ready, thus reducing stress levels (affective filter) (ibid.).

Several teaching methods appear to be based on social theory or theories of discourse. Community Language Teaching Method is based on active communication in a social setting. The teacher supports the pupils in the L2 learning by taking the role of interpreter. Pupils express themselves in L1, the teacher interprets, and then pupils work on the resulting L2 text. In this way stress levels (affective filter) are reduced and the L2 input is directly relevant to the pupils. Such teaching methods are pupil-dominated. In other words, it is the needs of the L2 pupil to communicate that dictate the glossary used. In The Communicative Language Teaching method teachers create situations where pupils use L2 to communicate with each other and negotiate meaning. This is termed “peer interaction”. The main goal is communicative competence.

Content-based and task-based methods ask the pupils to attend to L2 meaning and not its form. Pupils are engaged in learning subject matter or problem-solving. Learning Strategy Training, included in many teaching approaches, gives pupils experience in discussing different ways of learning EFL and adapting strategies to suit their own learning style that appeal to different intelligences (Gardner, 1999).

30 2.8 Metalinguistic knowledge and awareness

Metalinguistic knowledge is what one believes one knows about language (Gass & Selinker, 2001). It includes the ability to treat language not just as a means of expressing meaning, but also as an object of thought in its own right. Metalinguistic awareness, in the form of enquiring about the languages to which they are exposed, seems to emerge in bilingual deaf children between the ages of four and five. It is important for teachers of deaf pupils to have a clear understanding of the need for language separation and the rules of the sign language and the spoken language they are working with, to help them provide appropriate opportunities for language learning and the transfer of knowledge across two, often bimodal, languages (Lasry, 1997, Swanwick 1998).

2.9 The definition of curriculum and criticism of the implementation of reforms (R97 and L97) in relation to deaf pupils

In this section I look at definitions of curriculum and curriculum implementation. In addition I will explore criticisms of R97 and L97 and their implementation in relation to deaf pupils.

In this study curriculum is defined as an overview of a course of study, whilst a syllabus contains a summary of the main teaching points of a subject.

Koritizinsky (2000) refers to Goodlad’s definition of curriculum as having five levels. The first level is the curriculum’s intentions and the ideas behind it. The second level is the written document reflecting these ideas that becomes legislation. At the third level the curriculum is read and interpreted in different ways. The fourth level is the teaching that takes place based of an interpretation of the curriculum. Finally, at the fifth level, the curriculum is experienced by pupils in the form of the benefit they gain and the type of learning that takes place.

It is not enough to introduce a new curriculum without following up with in-service training and further education for the teachers. In a study by Bachman, Sivesind, Afsar & Hopmann (2003) only 25% of teachers reported that they had drastically changed their way of working after the introduction of the new curriculum. Bachman et al. add that not only do teachers need further education, but teaching aids could also be used more systematically as a way of instigating changes at the classroom level.

31 One of the main goals of L97 for Deaf pupils was to ensure sign bilingualism and it stressed the need for pupils to have an NSL environment. Legislation passed in the wake of R97, confirmed this right. Yet R97 tried also to satisfy the needs of all children to live at home. The main aim of the radical changes that have taken place has been to combine these two needs (Vonen, 2003). For deaf pupils, parent’s choice of school placement can mean that they are often far from a NSL milieu and the only deaf pupil attending their particular Local School. In Preisler & Tvingstedt’s longitudinal study (2003) carried out in Sweden, a country that Norway can compare itself with, is an example of this: parents’ choice of school placement for their deaf children with CI was generally based on the distance of the school from the home and not on other important issues such as the teachers’ competence in SSL and experience of CI pupils, the child’s opportunity to interact in the class’s communal dialogue, or inclusion in the social environment.

It is clear that there is great diversity in the educational needs of Deaf children, and there will never be one school setting that suits all, (Marschark et al, 2002) or one best teaching method but Sørlien Barli (2003) questions whether it is possible to include Deaf pupils in the “public dialogue” of the hearing classroom. She concludes that the situation for Deaf pupils in Local Schools is often precarious, dependent on the local authorities economic situation and a few key adults, often only one, who has or have some sign language competence. The child has to negotiate several different learning arenas, the Local School and the state-run Deaf school, that often have weak communicative and cooperative links. Schools could make more use of the videophone to improve the situation. In her study, Sørlien Barli did find that Local Schools were very willing to take on the challenge of educating a deaf pupil and discovered some other factors that could be helpful in improving the inclusion of a Deaf pupil in a hearing classroom.

The question has also been raised whether it is indeed possible to have classes in Local Schools where pupils use different syllabuses and whether it is necessary to have syllabuses for deaf pupils in Norwegian, English and Drama & Rhythms (Hjelmervik & Grønlie, 2004¸ Ohna et al, 2003). See discussion of this question in 5.3.1.

As mentioned earlier, EfDP has been implemented without any research underpinning into deaf pupils’ SLA and without theoretical further education of in-service teachers. Teachers have been offered a short, intensive course in BSL, which is the tool for teaching TEFL to

32 deaf pupils, but have not been schooled in the theory of SLA for deaf pupils. To illustrate the situation we can say that teachers have been given the tools to do the job, but not the instruction manual.

Qualitative Observations of EfDP after the implementation of L97 The only qualitative observations of EfDP have been done by Ohna et.al. “In Primary Schools, tuition in English/BSL was given in connection with Story Time, where pupils learned an isolated English word and BSL sign. “ (Ohna et al., 2003. pp. 256) They also observed a group of deaf children and their teacher investigating and discussing the content of a BSL text, where the children were highly motivated and active (ibid.). This illustrates the wide range of interpretations of the EfDP syllabus.

There is cause for concern when deaf pupils have been thrown into a giant experiment called “inclusion” when so little is known of the social, emotional and educational consequences and its effect on the NSL milieu.

2.10 The purpose of this study

As there exists no documentation of Norwegian deaf pupils’ reaction to exposure to a foreign sign language in the classroom or of their impressive or expressive performance, it was deemed necessary to explore this new area of deaf education. The purpose of this study is to quantitatively study Norwegian deaf pupils’ receptive skills in BSL and explore and describe some aspects of the pupils’ learning environments in which EfDP is carried out. (There is no focus on the learning of the English language, which is introduced later and that the activities in Primary School lay the foundations for). The study’s purpose is also to try and pinpoint factors that may play a part in Norwegian Deaf pupils’ acquisition of BSL.

I did not find any studies of TEFL for deaf pupils in this age group from other countries, using similar methods as in Norway. Elphick (1989) reported that foreign language teaching is usually ignored in Deaf Schools and special units in England. Teachers argue that they need to concentrate their efforts on English. Elphick regrets this and says that pupils could benefit by achieving “greater awareness in the children of language in general and a beneficial overflow into the children’s understanding of English.” (Elphick, R., and Course Team, 1990. pp. 30). Elphick however, refers to using oral teaching methods and not sign bilingualism.

33 This study has chosen to focus on BSL receptive skills as a means of seeing if the child understands BSL structures (Herman, Holmes & Woll, 1999). One reason is because Wong Filmore (1986), referred to by Engen & Kulbrandstad (1998), argues that individuals can often understand L2 (receptively) better than they are able to express themselves in L2. This can cause teachers to underestimate their pupil’s ability in L2. Another reason is that comprehension is the first “rung on the ladder” of SLA: “Comprehension can range from “an inferential process based on the perception of cues” (Rost, 1990, pp.33) to a detailed structural analysis… …Some sort of comprehension must take place before we can begin to talk about intake and acquisition.” (Gass & Selinker, 2001. pp. 316).

2.10.1 The research question

I have formulated the following research questions and hypotheses:

1. After the implementation of L97 English for deaf pupils, do Norwegian deaf pupils in class 4 understand any BSL?

2. Which variables seem to play an important part in developing receptive skills in BSL?

I hypothesise that pupils will use their knowledge of NSL in the task of understanding BSL and that they will perform particularly well on the Vocabulary Test and BSL Story Test because: • On The Vocabulary Test there are chance cognates and signs that deaf pupils can perceive as iconic • On the BSL Story Test Krashen’s hypothesis of roughly-tuned input predicts that given a rich, relevant and interesting L2 text pupils can transfer their of L1 knowledge and make use of their experience of L2 and world knowledge to comprehend the text BSL Story Test scores, it is hypothesised, will depend on the amount of previous access to adequate BSL input, which will be a necessary and an important variable

I hypothesise also that a complex interaction between some of the following factors may play some part in the process of developing BSL receptive skills, although not all are directly observable and/or measurable (Fig. 2.11):

34

The dependent variable: BSL receptive skills expressed

as test scores

The independent variables of the The independent variables of their pupils in the sample: teachers and learning

environments:

• sex & hearing status • early language development and The teacher’s subject variables: age, knowledge of NSL qualifications, experience, attitudes and • general language ability methods of TEFL • motivation & affective filter • The learning environment’s variables: the amount and type of experience with BSL (input) ●school setting and organisation ●possibilities for participation in the collective communicative space of a classroom using BSL ● access to use of IT & teaching aids designed for deaf pupils using the L97

EFL for the deaf syllabus

Fig. 2.11 A complex interaction between some of theses factors may play some part in the process of developing BSL receptive skills

35 CHAPTER 3 THE METHOD

In this chapter I shall describe the method and sample I have chosen, how I gained access to my sample, the choice and development of test materials and questionnaires, their validity and reliability, the pilot studies and finally the test procedure and questions of ethics in connection with this study.

3.1 The quantitative research approach

I chose a quantitative approach as the best means of answering my research question. Quantitative research design collects evidence in the form of objective observations by using an empirical test to support or refute a knowledge claim (Borg & Gall, 1985). The study consisted of three language tests to gather empirical data on one area of deaf Norwegian pupils’ EFL learning in class 4: that of BSL receptive skills. Questionnaires were also developed to gather background information from teachers about themselves, the pupils in the sample and their learning environments.

3.1.1 The sample and gaining access to the field

After my project description was accepted by NTNU and permission was granted to collect data by the Norwegian Social Science data service (NSD) (Appendix 7), I contacted the Head Teachers, in writing, throughout Norway that had deaf pupils in class 4 and who had chosen to use the English for the Deaf syllabus (EfDP) (Appendix 4). Head Teachers were asked to inform the class teachers, by distributing letters about the study and asking them to take part (Appendix 6). Through my work I had access to information and contacts throughout the National Support System for Special Education (NSSSE) which made it possible to locate the pupils and the schools in question.

The 15 pupils in the sample were invited to take part in the study, and their parents were asked for written consent (See Appendix 5). To ensure anonymity each pupil and teacher was given a code number. A list of pupils’ names and code numbers was given to each teacher to take care of. In the final data, pupils and teachers were known only by their code numbers.

36 3.2 Why test BSL receptive skills in class 4?

The aim of EfDP is for Primary School pupils to discover a foreign language that is easy for them to access so that they can experience foreign language learning. That language is BSL (KUF, 1997). Pupils in class 4 are in their final year of Primary School where BSL is the main focus of the EfDP syllabus. Later, English is introduced and BSL’s role is gradually reduced. “In Middle School pupils start to read English texts. BSL plays a lesser role.” (ibid., pp. 31). I surmised therefore that class 4 was the most appropriate time to measure and assess pupils’ BSL receptive skills.

3.2.1 Why test the pupils’ receptive skills in BSL and not their expressive skills?

As no deaf, Norwegian children have received education in BSL earlier, apart from my own pupils, there was no way of knowing whether or not deaf pupils generally could actually learn any skills in a foreign sign language, without doing some kind of research. Receptive skills, in the form of understanding input, are the first step in SLA, which is one reason why this area was chosen for this project. It may be the case that pupils understand more L2 than they can express in performance and would therefore be a more fruitful avenue of research.

To assess the pupils’ performance in producing BSL would have entailed assistance from BSL-users as assessors. This would have economical and practical consequences beyond the means of this project. Also, Krashen claims that children in a natural SLA situation during the earliest phase go through a silent period, they do not produce L2 for several months, only occasional idiomatic phrases. Krashen claims that the child needs time to develop competence in L2: competence being what the learner knows (Seliger & Shohamy, 1995). In classrooms, pupils are not always allowed a so-called “silent period” and pressure to perform can heighten the affective filter. By testing Norwegian deaf pupils’ performance in BSL, one could be in danger of causing high stress levels.

A test of BSL receptive skills was not considered biased against deaf pupils, as a written or oral test of English would certainly have been. Deaf pupils in class 4 have not the same access to oral English as pupils with normal hearing, and they have not followed the same syllabus as hearing pupils. The syllabus for hearing pupils is focused mainly on oral English and some written language. Testing deaf pupils in English oral and written language would favour

37 pupils in the sample who had useful residual hearing and could use it to acquire some English language. A test of English oral and literacy skills would be invalid and irrelevant, as it would be testing other skills than those focused on in the syllabus EfDP.

There are other ways in which the deaf pupils could show their understanding of BSL than those chosen. One way would be to translate BSL signs and texts to NSL. This was rejected. Translation is a complex process: it could be that although the pupil had understood the BSL text, he may be unable to find an appropriate NSL translation in his NSL lexicon. This form of testing would also require transcribing the pupil’s answer given in NSL from video. This would mean interpreting the pupil’ response and introducing another link in the chain that could lead to mistakes and some degree of subjectivity. The aim of the study was for the pupil to experience the whole test in just one language: “To investigate BSL through experiencing it… to be a part of it and create meaning in the texts they meet.” (KUF, 1997. pp. 34).

3.3 The instruments for assessing receptive skills in BSL

Language tests are a measuring instrument developed to focus on a certain language skill and produce a certain type of response. A test is carried out following a set procedure, which is identical for all the participants in the test sample (Bachman, 1990). Here follows a description of the tests used in this study and reasons for why they were chosen.

There are few tests in existence for assessing the development of BSL. The test battery in this study consisted of three sub-tests. Two of the sub tests were taken from Assessing BSL Development battery and were chosen because the Grammar Test is a standardised language test of BSL. Because the test was standardised, it was possible to compare the results of Norwegian deaf pupils (non-native speakers) and the results of British deaf children of the same age. The tests control the input, the response and the scoring in two areas of BSL receptive skills: BSL vocabulary and BSL grammar. It is also possible to replicate the test regardless of the test setting. This instrument was developed at City University in London and represents the quantitative, objective paradigm. The test was developed to assess pupils’ BSL development and identify pupils with specific language developmental problems. The BSL elements focused upon in the test are those considered important in BSL development, based on research by Woll (Hjelmervik, 2000).

38 A third sub test, BSL Story Test, was developed for this project as no other material was available to test pupils’ understanding of a continuous BSL text. The text contained few chance cognates and should demand a greater knowledge of BSL from Norwegian pupils than the two previous tests, which after analysis (see Appendix 1) were shown to contain numerous chance cognates, enabling pupils to transfer and use their intuitive knowledge of NSL.

The three tests previously mentioned were chosen, adapted or developed • because using a standardised test meant that Norwegian pupils’ results could be compared to British pupils and give valuable information about language standards • to give a picture of the pupil’s understanding on three levels: individual BSL signs, certain elements of BSL grammar and a continuous BSL text containing few chance cognates • so that the tests would be easy to use and administer • so that the tests could be used later by teachers in assessing pupils’ development and advising them in their subsequent language learning

Here follows an overview of the three sub-tests’ development, content, reliability and validity and criticisms.

3.3.1 The development of Assessing BSL Development Test and criticism

Two tests that were used from the Assessing BSL Development battery, The Vocabulary Check List and the Grammar Test, which assess the development of BSL receptive skills in British deaf children aged 3 to 11 years old (Hjelmervik, 2000). The test battery is used widely in Great Britain (Herman, Holmes & Woll, 1999). The Grammar Test is a standardised test which means it has a certain content that does not vary from one test situation to another, there is a set procedure for carrying out the test and it has been tried out repeatedly so that its reliability and validity has been assured and the scale of test results is known (Bachman, 1990).

The BSL signs used in the tests have been chosen for two reasons: they are signs and concepts familiar to the majority of children and there is little variation in how the signs are performed in different dialects of BSL. In the development phase, the test was tried out on a group of

39 hearing children who had no prior knowledge of sign language. If the hearing children managed to guess the meaning of a BSL sign, it was removed (Herman et al., 1999). The test was standardised using a sample of deaf children of deaf parents, and deaf children of hearing parents who had had access to BSL from an early age in Bilingual and Total Communication programmes.

Criticism of the test Johnston (2004) criticises the standardisation procedure for including deaf children of hearing parents, characterising them as Non-native Speakers. He argues that only deaf children of deaf parents should be defined as Native Speakers since they have access to BSL from birth, and it is this group that should be used to set a realistic standard for sign language development. Johnston argues that this is due to the need for a measure to assess whether bilingual programmes are producing pupils with near-native like sign language skills necessary in the bilingual process of constructing an L2 using L1. Johnston admits however that the population of deaf children of deaf parents is extremely small which makes such standardisation procedures extremely difficult to achieve.

On the other hand Hjelmervik (2000) criticises the test because deaf children with additional handicaps were not included in the standardisation process. She interprets the choice of the standardising sample “as an expression for the researchers view of what should be normal sign language development.” (ibid. pp 91). In Hjelmervik’s experience there are comparatively more children with additional handicaps within the deaf population than within the rest of the population. A more representative sample would have given the answer statistically to what the norm truly is today. In this project it was decided not to test deaf pupils with additional handicaps, in either the Norwegian or the Swedish samples, because they do not receive education in BSL. Hjelmervik questions also whether a so strictly structured test can produce results that are representative of a child’s language development. “A test can indicate that the child functions under an expected level for its age, but the test cannot explain the child’s strengths and weaknesses in BSL. Such tests do not go in depth…” (ibid. pp. 90). In Haug’s (2003) assessment of the test, he is generally positive, in that it is based on empirical data, has a standardized procedure and methods for conducting an assessment, covers a broad age range and is easily available for use in Deaf Schools. The test’s weakness in Haug’s view is also that it assesses only certain linguistic structures on morphological and syntactic levels of BSL and not communicative competence. Both these

40 views are true, but the tests are a practical means of gathering information uniformly and effectively and providing a preliminary impression that can be supplemented by individual observation etc if necessary.

For this study it would have been an advantage to have access to a test, standardised to native speaker levels as defined by Johnston. Comparing Norwegian pupils, as foreign language learners to native speakers would give a more realistic picture of their actual receptive skills in BSL (See discussion 5.4).

3.3.2 A description of the first sub test: BSL Vocabulary Test

This part of the assessment test (Vocabulary Check List) was originally developed to ensure that British deaf children were familiar with the test vocabulary so that mistakes made later were due to other factors than the child’s sign vocabulary (pp. 2, Appendix 14). Participants in the test were asked to look at a picture and produce a BSL sign in response, which was assessed at right or wrong.

For this project the test was renamed The Vocabulary Test and adapted so that no BSL production was necessary on the part of the Norwegian pupils. The test was used, not only as a checklist as originally intended, but also as a means of measuring the pupils’ BSL vocabulary. A video was used to present the BSL vocabulary to each test candidate, to ensure that the signs were delivered in the same manner. Pupils responded by pointing to a picture from a selection. The pictures used were those from the original test. The test video was produced at the NRK TV studio in Bergen, Norway and contained the 22 BSL signs, presented one sign at a time. The presenter was a qualified BSL interpreter. A BSL instructor from Bristol University, Sara Hetherington, checked the video for accuracy.

Of the 22 BSL signs in the Vocabulary Test, 12 are chance cognates of NSL (54,5%). They are: APPLE, BALL, BOOK, BOX, CHILD, CAR, COAT, HEARING AID, ICE-CREAM, PENCIL, TABLE, and UMBRELLA. This means that manual components of the BSL signs and the meaning are similar to NSL, but obviously have different oral components. (BSL nouns often have mouthings that are reminiscent of English words (Sutton-Spence & Woll, 1999).) This is a high percentage of chance cognates, but to be expected because of the very basic nature of the vocabulary and the iconicity of signed languages as explained in 2.3.1.

41 Chance cognates give the Norwegian pupils with good skills in NSL an advantage and opportunity to transfer knowledge of their L1 to the understanding of L2. This experience was intended as a positive and motivating start to the test battery for the Norwegian pupils.

A Test Manual was written in Norwegian to ensure that the test procedure for all the sub tests was constant. The Norwegian Test Manual is a translation of the original test manual including the adaptations mentioned in this chapter (See Appendix 14).

Test procedure The test leader carried out the test in a quiet room, alone with the child. The room contained a table and two chairs, and TV and video with a remote control. All the pupils were given instructions in NSL together in the classroom and then individually before each sub test. Pupils were asked not to discuss the tests with each other before they all had completed the tests. The test candidates were told that it might be necessary to point to the same picture twice. The pupils could ask for the video to be stopped or ask for the test to stop. The test leader could repeat a sign if necessary by rewinding the video or performing the sign live. The pupils were shown the video of 22 individual BSL signs. In response to the signs pupils were asked to point to one picture from a set of ten, that they thought corresponded with the BSL sign seen on video. (Two pictures represented two concepts: BOY and CHILD, DOG and COLLAR.) The set of pictures was changed half way through the test and a new set laid out. The pupil’s responses were noted on a score sheet after the test: “right”, “wrong” and “don’t know” in cases where the child failed to respond. Pupils were not allowed to move the pictures or turn them over.

Signs that the pupil did not know were repeated and learned before the next sub test. If a pupil answered wrongly five times consecutively the test was halted. After the test, comments on the pupil’s behaviour and events during the test could be noted and a score calculated, first as a total of correct answers, then as a percentage. The test leader did not have to make any subjective decisions. The same test procedure was used with the samples in Sweden and Norway.

Validity Test validity ensures that the test instrument actually measures what it sets out to do, so that the interpretation of test scores are of practical value. This test was adapted to suit the needs

42 of this study and the aim was to measure the pupils’ knowledge of a very basic BSL vocabulary, which was presented on video. A “non-verbal” method of response was chosen: pointing to pictures. There could be a problem with validity using the test in this way however. The pictures in themselves limited the range of pupil responses. By presenting the pictures in sets of 10, it would be conceivable that pupils could remember which pictures they had pointed to previously and then chosen pictures they had not pointed to; letting this “elimination strategy” determine their answers. The exercise would then become a test of memory. Other test procedures were contemplated. If the test had been used as it was originally intended, pupils would have been shown a picture and asked to perform BSL sign. This was the first option considered, but it was not desirable to cause stress, which such a procedure could do, as BSL was the pupils’ L2. Pupils were not asked to translate test items from the BSL video into NSL or Norwegian either for reasons explained earlier. Presenting all the pictures at once was another option, but this was considered too overwhelming. In retrospect, a picture book format with distracter pictures, such as that used in the Grammar Test, would probably have been a better option.

Reliability Reliability ensures that test scores are of a certain quality: that they are as correct as possible and as many variables as possible are controlled in the test situation. There are many factors that could lead to mistakes in measurements and calculations but a test design should make allowances for this and control as many variables as possible so that the test functions as it should and measures what it sets out to do (Borg & Gall, 1985). In this test, by using video, all the BSL signs were presented correctly and in the same manner to all the pupils under similar test situations and reliability was secured. However miscalculations can obviously have occurred.

3.3.3 A description of the second sub test: BSL Grammar Test

The second test was a standardised test. Standardised tests are often used to measure proficiency levels and are well suited in collecting data on L2 (Gass & Selinker, 1994). The Grammar Test and the test video used was produced by City University and used as prescribed with no alterations. The presenter was a Deaf BSL-user and member of the development team in London. There are two versions of the BSL grammar test: one uses a BSL dialect from southern England and the other a dialect from the north. Those Norwegian

43 teachers who have attended BSL courses have experienced the dialect from southern England, and I assumed that it was this dialect they used in the classroom with the pupils. Therefore the southern dialect version of the test was used. The test focused on the pupil’s development in understanding BSL grammar and used vocabulary from the previous sub test.

The choice of sentences for the test was based on research into BSL acquisition by deaf children of deaf parents, performed by Woll (1998) and Galvans (1989). The research showed that certain BSL morphology is more difficult for deaf child to acquire when they begin to learn the language comparatively late in life (Herman et al., 1999). It is presumed that this also applies to deaf pupils acquiring BSL as a foreign language. The test contained 40 sentences that assessed linguistic features of BSL including spatial verb morphology, number and distribution, negation, size and shape specifiers, noun and verb distinctions and handling classifiers. See the test manual (pp.11 - 12 Appendix 14) for the list of items. For an overview of the grammatical elements each sentence contains, se the test manual (pp. 24 Appendix 14).

Test procedure The test was carried out as originally intended by the test developers and in a similar manner to the BSL Vocabulary Test mentioned earlier. Instructions were given before the sub test started, following the Vocabulary Test. The test participant was given a picture book that is part of the original test material and instructed to look at the video, and not look away before the presenter was finished and the screen went blank. Then the child pointed to one picture from a selection of 3 or 4 pictures on the designated page in the picture book. The pupil saw three practice sentences before the test actually started to make sure they had understood the instructions. The video could not be rewound once the test began, but it could be stopped. The test leader was not allowed to repeat a BSL sign live either. If the pupil was unsure, he was encouraged to guess. The test leader noted the pupil’s response to each task during the test on the prepared score sheet. After the test the total raw score was converted to a standardised score according to the child’s age using the table on page 8 of the Test Manual and then to a percentage score. The mean standard score for British deaf children in the different age groups was 100 with a standard deviation of 15.

Pilot Study A pilot study using the test was carried out in Great Britain using 68 sentences and was piloted on 41 deaf and hearing children aged between 3 and 11 years old. Test items were

44 analysed and all the pictures were evaluated. Changes were made, amongst other things, in test administration and some dialect signs were excluded. Tasks that all the children in the group used in the standardising process managed, were excluded as being too simple. Tasks that none of the children managed were excluded as being too difficult until the present 40 items remained (Herman et al., 1999).

Validity The test is designed to assess the grammatical elements in BSL that research has shown to be important for BSL development in children (ibid.). Because the pictures in each set in the picture book are very similar, they force the child to attend to the grammatical detail in the BSL sentences, in this way the test should measure receptive skills of BSL grammar. “The validity of the test was investigated using the Snijders-Oomen Test. A significant correlation emerged between Receptive Skills Test scores and the Categories sub-test scores…(which) involves quasi-verbal processing ” (ibid. pp.8). Because NSL has not been extensively described, and there has not been carried out a comparative study of NSL and BSL, it is difficult to say categorically whether the test is measuring grammatical elements specific only to BSL. There is reason to doubt this, as some linguistic features seem to be common to most sign languages and will offer opportunities for the Norwegian and Swedish pupils to use cognitive strategies to solve the tasks.

Reliability The test has been used widely and test reliability was shown to be high. The test’s reliability was investigated using a test-retest procedure and a split-half reliability analysis was carried out. “A significant high correlation (.09) was observed, indicating high internal consistency of the test.” (ibid., pp.8).

3.3.4 A description of the third sub test: BSL Story Test

This final sub test was developed especially for this project, because there was no suitable material available. The aim was to measure deaf, Norwegian pupils’ understanding of an original BSL text, which they had not seen before, that did not contain substantial numbers of chance cognates.

45 Test development The development of the test comprised of three processes: 1. Identifying Krashen’s roughly- tuned input theory, 2. Identifying and defining the receptive BSL skills involved, 3. Establishing a procedure for quantative observation. I chose to use a similar testing procedure as in sub test one and two because: • the procedure was already familiar to the test candidate and would minimise negative test bias by introducing a new element • it was practical and easy to administer in the physical environment of a school • video is a uniform and controlled form of presentation, which should produce uniform types of non-verbal/manual responses from pupils • it was possible to use a uniform objective scoring of the non-verbal/manual responses

Stories are a genre pupils are used to experiencing in the classroom, so a story was created, containing vocabulary and themes found in BSL material used in EfDP. From experience, the length and content of the story was judged to be appropriate for the age group. Key signs in the BSL story were not chance cognates of NSL so that to understand the content of the story fully, the pupil would need some knowledge of BSL. Some of the BSL signs were also included in the two earlier tests for example DOG, NOTHING, LOOK-UP.

The four-minute story video was produced in Norway to save on costs, in the same way as the Vocabulary Test video. Forty cartoon pictures were developed and divided into ten sets of four, and score sheets were also developed. The format was something similar to the BSL Grammar Test. The test score was calculated by measuring the number of correct pictures chosen and the number of correct picture sequences. Results were converted to percentages so that they could be compared to other test results.

Test procedure The test procedure was described in the Test Manual written in Norwegian to ensure that the test was carried out similarly in the different test locations (pp. 8 Appendix 14). Prior to starting the test, instructions concerning this sub test were given in class and then individually. The pupil was instructed to look at a picture first which was intended to provide the pupil with background information about the setting for the story. The pupil was then told to watch the whole story, and if he wished he could see it twice. Afterwards the pupil was to

46 re-construct the story non-verbally by choosing pictures from sets of four from selections provided. The pictures chosen were laid side-by-side to create a cartoon that retold the story, as the pupil had perceived it.

Some of the items were more demanding than others and to find the correct picture, test candidates had to comprehend details from the BSL text and not just “what happened”. The test was not meant to be a test of memory, so leading questions were provided for the test leader to help jog the pupil’s memory if necessary (Test manual pp. 9, Appendix 14). The pupil’s responses were noted on the score sheet (Test Manual pp. 23 Appendix 14) as correct (2 points), nearly correct (1 point) and wrong (0 points), 6 points were given for three correct, consecutive, sequence scores and 8 points for four correct, consecutive, sequence scores. The maximum score was 80 and was converted and expressed as a percent. 60% and over was considered a high score as this was the maximum achieved by the control group and by the informants in the Pilot Studies (Table 4.5).

Validity The aim of the test was to measure the pupils’ understanding of an unfamiliar BSL text. Here again, a non-verbal response was chosen which did not demand translation or BSL performance, which would have involved other processes than those being measured. The choice of vocabulary and story line was carefully thought out, but the pupils’ answers where already limited by the choice they were given of pictures to reconstruct the story. It is possible that different and more distracter pictures could have been chosen and that would have affected the children’s choices and answers. The pilot test showed that hearing pupils, who had not understood anything of the BSL text, managed by chance to score just under 60% (Fig. 3.1). It is relatively high and presents therefore a problem in establishing validity. The test is perhaps not perfect, but is at least a first effort to give an outline of pupils’ receptive skills of a BSL text.

Reliability The BSL Story Test has not been widely used and is not a standardised test. However the test’s format is such that it should be possible to repeat it under similar conditions. The speed of the BSL Story was at a tempo considered suitable for an L2 pupil. The pupils could not adjust the speed of delivery to suit their individual needs in this or any of the videos, only ask for pauses. Adjusting the speed could have affected some children’s scores.

47 If it had been possible, and class teachers could have taken the test with their own pupil, the data would certainly have been different. The test situation would not have been so controlled, but the pupils would not have had to relate to a stranger. This can have influenced their test performance.

The Pilot Study of BSL Story Test A pilot study, using the BSL story test was carried out on a group of six hearing children in class 4 at the Local School in my neighbourhood. The aim was to test the picture material and make sure that in themselves they did not lead pupils into choosing the pictures that retold the whole story on the video. Parents were asked for their permission (See Appendix 3). All the hearing pupils had seen NSL on television, but had no knowledge of the language. They were all very eloquent and enthusiastic. The test was carried out at the school in a small classroom. The test procedure was identical to that to be used with deaf pupils. The hearing children were tested individually, given the same instructions and shown the introductory picture and the story on video. None of the hearing children understood any of the story and could not recount anything that happened in it. They randomly chose pictures and made up their own stories, all of which were different and had little similarity to the BSL story. The mean score for the hearing Norwegian pupils was 42,7%. None of the pupils scored over 60%. See Fig. 3.1

In conclusion the picture materials did not seem to be too leading. None of the test candidates chose all the correct pictures that retold the story on the video. It would appear that their choices were random and arbitrary. The range of their answers ( 38,75), based purely on the appeal of the pictures, was not as great as the other two groups (Norwegian deaf = 75, Swedish deaf = 78,75). This could indicate that some pictures were more appealing or logical choices from the child’s point of view. One boy when asked if there were any special reasons for his choice of pictures explained that he did not choose the pictures with pirates, because “they never teach us about pirates at school.”

48 60 ,0 0 s n ia g e50 ,0 0 rw o N g n40,00 ri a e H f 30,00 o 58,75 s 55,00 re o 46,25 c20,00 s 37,50 38,75 ry to S L10,00 20,00 S B

0,00 24 25 26 27 28 29 Each bar represents one pupil's score

Fig. 3.1 The results of the hearing Norwegian children’s BSL Story Tests as percentages.

3.4 The pilot study of the complete test

All the test materials were tried out in a pilot study with a class of three, class 5 pupils in a local authority unit to assess the tests’ quality and revise and improve them before the actual study began. Because of their age, these pupils were not participating in the actual project. Originally, Class teachers were meant to carry out the tests on their own pupils, so this was also a rehearsal for preparing and instructing teachers. (See Pilot Test Report, Appendix 9). The teacher found that test procedure became easier as she became more familiar with the materials. One pupil gave up half way through the BSL story and the teacher told the rest of the story in NSL so that the pupil could complete the task. This strategy was added to the test manual so that if this should happen again, pupils did not leave the test feeling that they had failed to complete all the tasks. Some practical problems with the sorting of picture cards were uncovered and solved using a box divided into sections.

3.5 The control group

There are certain likenesses between different sign language’s grammar, syntax and lexicons (See 2.3). To investigate whether the Norwegian pupils’ experience with BSL has had any effect on their BSL receptive skills, the tests were carried out on a control group who had a

49 sign language as their L1 but no experience of BSL. Access to the control group was gained through contacts made at a Nordic conference on Deaf Education. Danish and Swedish schools were asked if they would be interested in taking part in the project by way of a flyer (See Appendix 2). Norway, Denmark and Sweden have much the same bilingual philosophy in relation to the education of deaf pupils and are therefore comparable.

The control group were a class of eight, Swedish deaf bilingual children. All were full time pupils at a School for the Deaf where bilingual teaching methods were used. The school has approximately 100 pupils and teaches Primary, Middle and Secondary school pupils. There were 13 classes. The majority of the control group were the same age as the Norwegian pupils, some were a little older: all were eager to take part in the test so all were allowed to join in. The group consisted of 5 boys and 3 girls. Two of the pupils had CI and two pupils regularly used hearing aids. None of the pupils had learning disabilities and all were described, by their teacher, as sign bilingual (SSL and Swedish). Six of the children had had access to SSL before they were three years old and two when they were three years of age. They all had attended pre-school programmes. The class had just started learning English that term, two periods a week (100 minutes). TEFL was carried out together in the classroom and the languages used were SSL and English written language. One of the pupils’ fathers was English and English was used in the home. Otherwise the pupils had very little experience of English and apart from the pupil already mentioned. I assume that their skills in English speech reading were minimal. The pupils had never experienced BSL and had only a little experience of Danish Sign Language.

Testing took place in October in the same manner as with the Norwegian pupils. Of the 22 BSL signs presented in the vocabulary test, 10 were chance cognates of SSL (45%). That is fewer than between NSL and BSL. The key signs in the BSL Story Test were not chance cognate of SSL. Only the nouns TREE and HOUSE were slightly similar in BSL and SSL. The test results are described in 4.6.

3.6 Carrying out the tests in Norway

I carried out all the tests, myself, at Schools for the Deaf during the short-term stays of pupils from Local Schools, during the autumn term 2003. As the pupils from Local Schools were living away from home at the Deaf Schools, the tests were carried out as far as possible

50 towards the end of the week so that the pupils had had time to settle. There was one exception. One pupil was absent during the short- term stay. The class teacher at the Local School using the test material, after guidance from myself and reading the Test Manual carried out that test. This test was performed within the same timeframe as the other tests. The teacher did deviate from the test procedure; the BSL story was shown in short sequences after each sequence the pupil chose a picture.

The tests were easy to administer and took approximately 20 minutes per elev. Pupils were tested individually in similar test situations following the test procedure earlier described. The tests were carried out in the same order: Vocabulary Test, Grammar Test and BSL Story Test. Instructions were given to the whole class at the beginning of the day, and instructions were repeated to each individual at the start of each sub test. The pupils were given the opportunity to stop the test and resume later if they were tired. When the tests were completed the pupils were thanked and praised for their work. Teachers were given a copy of their pupils’ test results and the opportunity to ask questions about the tests and their pupils’ achievements.

3.7 The questionnaires

In addition to the tests, two questionnaires were developed to obtain background information: One questionnaire gathered information about the pupils in the sample where teachers were asked for factual information and their opinions on the pupils’ proficiency in certain areas of language usage and behaviour in relation to EFL; the other collected information about the teachers of EFL in class 4, and the learning environments. It was not always the teachers who had the main responsibility for the pupil who also had responsibility for TEFL. Therefore there are thirteen teachers involved as informants, although only eleven taught EfDP. Finding out who was going to answer which questionnaire was an eye-opener with regard to how many different forms of organisation that exist and how many adults any one pupil may have to relate to. In some cases there appeared to be no clear lines of responsibility or teachers were new and information was therefore not available, or the new teacher views did not coincide with the previous teacher’s.

51 3.7.1 Questionnaire content and construction

The questions asked were in a closed form so that the informants had a limited number of possible answers, although there was also room for teachers to give additional comments if they wished. The first questionnaire asked about the pupils’ gender, hearing status, family background, preferred languages, school placement, social and communications skills, early sign language development, behaviour in the EFL classroom and interest for the subject and the amount of EFL teaching each pupil had received.

The second questionnaire was developed to gather information about the teachers’ formal qualifications and experience of teaching in general and the teaching of EFL to deaf pupils in particular, and the languages used by the respondent at home and in the classroom. I wished to have information about the teacher’s current practise and get an overview of TEFL practises during the previous three years of the pupil’s school life. Questions about the learning environment involved concrete questions about the size of the school and the number of pupils, hearing and deaf, the equipment and teaching aids available, the organisation of TEFL and classroom activities. (KUF, 1997) More abstract questions were also included: evaluating teaching methods and goals as described by Larsen-Freeman (2000), the role of the teacher (KUF, 1997), methods used in connection with the affective filter and the correction of mistakes, (Larsen-Freeman, 2000) teacher attitudes towards EFL for deaf pupils (Borg & Gall, 1989) and the possibilities of overflow from EFL to other subjects and pupils’ usage of metalinguistic knowledge. For every question that was used, I had written notes as to why it was being asked. The questionnaire was written and ready coded for data analyse (Appendix 10 & 11). The questionnaires were sent by post to the respondents who at the same time received a code number. Questionnaires, when returned, contained no names of teachers or pupils, only code numbers showing which pupils the respondent taught. This was done to assure anonymity and so that honest opinions would be given. 100% of questionnaires were returned.

Pilot study of questionnaires The questionnaires were also tested in a pilot study. An experienced teacher of the deaf who teaches EfDP filled out the questionnaires under the same conditions as were to be used in the project. The questionnaire was sent and returned by post. All the items had been answered.

52 Feedback was given in written form on some questions that were leading or ambiguous. Alterations were made to produce the final questionnaire used in the project.

Criticism of the questionnaire Information gathered by questionnaire will only give a limited picture of what is happening in the EFL classroom of deaf pupils. However a more in-depth research method such as interview or observation were outside the scope of this study. Giving the respondents anonymity, made follow-up questions impossible.

Questions about the mother’s education and the social status of the family were not asked in the questionnaire. In other countries it has been found that these variables affect the family’s choice of school (public/private) and mode of communication (oral/total communication/ Bilingual/manual). In Norway however, education is free to all including NSL courses for parents. Currently there are no private Deaf Schools, all advisory services are provided gratis and it was assumed that the parent’s economy and education would not play any deciding role.

Triangulation of the questionnaire by producing a questionnaire for parents would have been useful in corroborating information given by the teachers on certain points i.e. cooperation between the school and the home, information given to parents about the syllabus, family background, the pupils’ early language development etc. In retrospect, it was wrongly assumed that teachers would seek out information about pupils’ early language development as necessary underpinning for their teaching, so that this information unfortunately was not forthcoming. This is information that parents could have provided.

3.8 Carrying out the study

With the formal permission of NSD, the tests were carried out during the autumn of 2003. All the pupils in the sample completed the tests (100%) within the set time frame. Most of the questionnaires were returned by Christmas and the final few just after, giving a 100% result.

53 3.9 Methods used in data analysis

Points of comparison Deaf Norwegian pupils’ receptive skills in a foreign sign language have not been tested before so that there are no comparable results. In this study, although the samples are very small and the data lacks richness, the Norwegian results were compared to the results of the Swedish pupils to see if there was evidence that experience with BSL/no experience with BSL had any effect on results. The Norwegian pupils results can be compared with each other to see if there is evidence to show that certain individual variables or factors in the learning environment play any role.

Data analysis The data was gathered as earlier described and analysed using the SPSS data program and Effect Size (ES) analysis. ES is the name given to indices that measure the magnitude of a treatment effect. ES is independent of sample size and suitable in this study because the sample was so small. “ In general ES can be measured in two ways: as the standardized difference between two means or as the correlation between the independent variable classification and the individual scores on the dependent variable. This correlation is called the ES correlation.” (Becker, 2004). Cohen’s d (d) shows the difference between the means of two groups. Cohen defined effect sizes as small, d = 0,2 medium, d = 0,5 and large, d = < 0,8. Effect sizes can also be interpreted in terms of the percent of non-overlap of the treated group’s scores with those of the untreated group e.g. an ES of 0.0 indicates that the two groups’ scores overlap completely, an ES of 0.8 indicates a non-overlap of 47,4% etc. (See 5.4.1 for a discussion of sources of error.)

3.10 Ethical considerations

Children were used as subjects for the collection of data in this project, so care had to be taken to protect their interests (Seliger & Shohamy, 1995). In a sparsely populated country like Norway the Deaf Community is very small, and “everyone knows everyone.” Every effort has been made to provide anonymity for pupils and teachers by following procedures as laid down by NSD and data has been stored as required.

54 The freedom to decline participation was given to all in the letters of consent sent to parents and teachers. At the same time, details were given as to what participation entailed, including descriptions of the tests and information required in the questionnaires. Everyone was invited to contact me if they had any questions (Appendix 5 & 6). Fortunately all the pupils and teachers in class 4 participated so that no one school or pupil that can be identified for NOT taking part.

A researcher should take every precaution to minimize potential risk to subjects (Seliger & Shohamy, 1995). So as not to cause stress, information was given to all the pupils in NSL before the tests started so that they knew what was going to happen and the atmosphere during the tests was kept as light hearted as possible. All the pupils’ efforts were rewarded with praise. Happily, pupils reported that they were excited and not nervous about taking part.

55 CHAPTER 4 THE RESULTS

4.0 Introduction

This chapter will provide a descriptive analysis of the pupils, their teachers and their learning environments using the background information gathered from the questionnaires. Next there will be a descriptive analysis of the results of Norwegian deaf pupils on the three BSL receptive tests (Vocabulary Test, Grammar Test and BSL Story Test) followed by an analysis which attempts to put the test results in a wider context by comparing them to the control group and the pupils’, teachers’ and learning environments’ independent variables. Finally the research question “Do Norwegian deaf pupils in class 4 (2003–2004) understand BSL?” will be answered.

SLA is a very complex process and there are many aspects of deaf Norwegian pupils’ language development and skills, which we know little about because we have no assessment tests, standardised or otherwise. This means that we have no base line to compare pupils’ BSL skills to. Also, there will inevitably be some variables in the test situation that are impossible to control and some that cannot be measured. As a consequence the test results must be seen as simplifications and imprecise, but which nevertheless may be able to give an exploratory outline of an area of TEFL for deaf pupils which has not been investigated earlier and the new approach to FLL for this group of pupils represented by the EfDP syllabus.

4.1 Descriptive Analysis of the Pupils in the Sample.

In class 4 during the academic year 2003 – 2004 there were 20 pupils who choose the L97 curriculum for deaf pupils and therefore defined as “deaf” according to the KUF definition mentioned in 2.0. Five pupils had individual educational plans (IEP) and were not taught BSL. The remaining 15 pupils used EfDP syllabus and were therefore included in the sample.

Nine pupils (60%) attended their Local Schools and visited a state-run Deaf School for a varying numbers of short-term stays throughout the academic year. The remaining six (40%) were full-time pupils at a one of the state-run Schools for the Deaf. Compared with Ohna et al.’s (2003) statistics, the total number of pupils in this particular age group who now receive their education in their Local School has increased from 45% to 70% over two years.

56 4.1.1 Gender

Usually there are 30% more boys than girls amongst deaf pupils (Marschark et al., 2002). This sample was atypical in that there were twice as many girls (n = 10) as boys (n = 5). All the pupils in class 4 were born in 1994 except for one, born in 1993.

4.1.2 Hearing Status

The pupils’ hearing losses and school placement are presented in Table 4.1. The majority of pupils in the sample had severe hearing losses (71 – 90dB).

Table 4.1 Degree of hearing loss over four frequencies (500, 1000, 2000 and 4000Hz) in the best ear. Results are divided into groups according to their school placement: Local School or School for the Deaf. (n = 15)

School placement Pupils’ hearing losses: calculated as an average of 500-1000-2000-4000 Hz 56 – 70dB 71 – 90dB >90dB moderate (n = 2) severe (n = 7) profound (n = 6) Local School 1 5 3 School for the Deaf 1 2 3

4.1.3 Pupils’ interest in BSL and behaviour in the EfDP classroom

All the teachers reported that their pupil(s) was/were interested in BSL regardless of their degree of hearing loss, school placement or preferred mode of communication (Fig. 4.1). This confirms anecdotes I have collected earlier where teachers of deaf pupils told of pupils’ positive response to BSL and how EFL often became one of the most popular subjects on the timetable. This can perhaps be interpreted as an internal motivating factor in the acquisition of BSL. This is especially interesting seen in the light of Stevick’s (1976) “integrative motivation”. theory (pp.27) as will be discussed later (pp.86).

57 3,0 4 . a little in teres ted 5. interested 6. v ery interested

2,5

2,0 s il p u p f o1,5 . o N

1,0

0,5

0,0 Local school State-run Deaf school School placement

Fig. 4.1 Teachers were asked to evaluate how interested their pupil/s was/were in BSL using a scale from 1 to 6. 1 = very uninterested, 2 = uninterested, 3 = a little uninterested, 4 = a little interested, 5 = interested, 6 = very interested. The results show the number of pupils according to school placement and their interest in BSL. (n = 13, 2 missing cases)

4.1.4 Pupils’ early language development, present usage and skills Less than half of the teachers were able to give information about pupils’ early language development. Nevertheless parents of this generation of deaf pupils have all been offered 40 weeks of systematic training in NSL and it is probable that the pupils have had access to some form of NSL quite early in their lives. Herman, Holmes & Woll (1999) state that the number of years of access to and the quality of the sign language input will influence sign language development. Teachers believed that SSN is used in 10 of the pupils’ homes, NSL in 4 homes and one family used Norwegian.

In the absence of standardised tests of Norwegian deaf pupils’ development in NSL and Norwegian, teachers were asked to give their own assessment of their pupil’s general language ability in NSL compared to their deaf peers. All the pupils were thought to be proficient in NSL, except for one pupil who was assessed as “poor”. Teachers in the Schools for the Deaf assessed their pupils as having very good NSL skills. In the opinion of teachers from Local Schools, their pupils had better spoken language.

58 Teachers were also asked to give their opinion about which language they believed their pupil preferred. In the Local Schools, five pupils were said to prefer spoken Norwegian with sign support (SSN), three preferred NSL and one preferred spoken Norwegian. In the Deaf Schools two pupils preferred SSN and three NSL (n = 14, 1 missing case). Three pupils of the fourteen (21,4%) were reported as being equally fluent in Norwegian and NSL.

In the teachers’ opinion of social and communicative skills, all the pupils were able to adjust their mode of communication to suit their conversation partner: a basic and very necessary communicative strategy. These findings corroborate Ohna et al’s findings (2003) that deaf pupils can switch, easily and elegantly, from one language code to another.

The pupils could also express their opinions and rights (n = 15). Three pupils (20%) had problems making contact with others in an appropriate manner. None of the pupils were reported to be good at language actions that required a high degree of language competence e.g. the use of humour and negotiation. Five of the fifteen pupils (ca 33%) interrupted conversations and demanded a lot of attention. Seven pupils were suspected of pretending to understand what was said. Three (20%) of the pupils had a tendency to use an aggressive mode of expression. One pupil was reported as having been rejected by his classmates.

4.1.5 Deaf children of deaf parents (DCDP)

Two of the pupils had deaf parents and one had other family members who were hearing impaired but many of the teachers had no knowledge of their pupils’ family background. Over half could give no information as to whether pupils had hearing-impaired family members. In one case a pupil was adopted from a foreign country, which explained the lack of knowledge of family background.

4.1.6 Deaf pupils with CI and other diagnosis in addition to deafness

All the pupils in the sample were prelingually deaf but only three of the children had cochlear implants, nine used hearing aids and one did not use any aids (n = 13, 2 missing cases). In addition to having a hearing loss, one pupil had been diagnosed as ADHD. Another had socio- emotional problems and came from a home were another language, other than Norwegian, was used.

59 4.1.7 Pupils’ behaviour in the EfDP classroom and feelings towards EFL

The teachers were asked to assess their pupil’s behaviour in the EFL classroom. There was a tendency, naturally, for pupils who showed a greater degree of interest in BSL to also be the most curious and most active users of BSL. Teachers reported that none of the pupils were passive in EFL lessons and none easily forgot BSL signs. They were all willing to use BSL when given the opportunity. None of the pupils were hindered in using BSL because of the fear of making mistakes, which is perhaps evidence of pupils’ low affective filters. Affective filter levels were otherwise difficult to measure. It appeared that the teachers chose methods of correcting the pupils that did not increase levels of stress or anxiety (Appendix 12, table 1). Teachers working in Deaf Schools were more careful in this respect than Local School teachers, by not drawing direct attention to pupils’ mistakes.

The teachers were asked how they dealt with pupils’ feelings associated with EFL. It was very seldom in Local Schools that pupils received individual attention about their feelings towards foreign language learning. In Schools for the Deaf, feelings were discussed collectively. (See Appendix 12, table 2). It was very seldom that any of the pupils were given the opportunity to give their opinion of EFL lessons or the chance to discuss how language-learning problems could be resolved. (See Appendix 12, table 3).

4.2 Descriptive analysis of the teachers

Here follows a descriptive analysis of the teachers in the sample who taught EFL to deaf pupils including their age, gender, experience, qualifications, their choice of methods and activities, attitudes, choice of role, their TEFL goals and expectations and their choice of language usage in the EfDP classroom.

There were eleven teachers teaching EfDP in class 4 during the academic year 2003 - 2004. All the teachers were women and the majority were aged between 41 – 50 years of age, having worked as teachers on average for 18 years. Four teachers (36%) worked in Schools for the Deaf, and seven (64%) in Local Schools. Special units were not represented in this sample, as they did not have pupils in class 4. Whilst teachers in Local Schools had longer general teaching experience, teachers in Schools for the Deaf had more experience of teaching EFL to deaf pupils (Fig. 4.2).

60

20,0 4. Years of teaching experience 5. How many years have you taught deaf pupils? 15,0 7. How long have you taught English to deaf pupils in p r im a ry school? 10,0 8.How long have you used the L97 EfDP?

5,0

0,0 Deaf School Local School Workplace

Fig. 4.2 Teachers’ teaching experience (n = 13)

Two of the teachers in the sample were post-lingually deaf. One worked at a Local School and the other at a School for the Deaf. Both use Norwegian, SSN and NSL in their daily lives. All the other teachers had normal hearing. One teacher had English as her mother tongue, but used Norwegian at home and at work. All eleven teachers had experienced foreign language learnng and five could make themselves understood in another foreign language besides English.

4.2.1 Teachers’ qualifications

All the teachers were qualified preschool or primary school teachers. (One was a child welfare pedagogue.) All had formal qualifications in NSL (30 credits, 10 vekttall) and one had 60 credits in NSL (20 vekttall).

Eight of the eleven EFL teachers (72,7%) had been on a BSL course, but none had formal qualifications in EfDP for deaf pupils (30 credits). One teacher had 30 credits in English and had worked many years teaching the subject to hearing pupils. A study by Statistics Norway (2002) (Statistisk Sentralbyrå) showed that 70% of Norwegian primary school teachers did not have formal qualifications in the teaching of EFL. In this sample the figure was 91%.

61 4.2.2 Teachers’ choice of method, activities, pupil assessment and awareness of pupils’ metalinguistic skills

Teaching methods and activities in EfDP classrooms It is not to be expected that teachers have an overview of TEFL methods in view of their lack of EfDP qualifications (4.2), but they were asked to give their opinion of the suitability of certain EFL activities and thereby teaching methods. The categories and definitions of TEFL methods used in this study, are as described by Larsen-Freeman (2000), in 2.7.

The attitudes of the teachers towards the Grammar-Translation method and Audio-Lingual methods, which are not completely compatible with the intensions of L97, were not all together negative. (See Appendix 12, table 9). Teachers’ attitudes to more socio- cultural/linguistic methods were more positive. (See Appendix 12, table 10). Paradoxically, deaf pupils were seldom given tasks that corresponded with those methods reportedly preferred by their teachers i.e. methods that are child-centred, where language acquisition can take place and where interaction takes place in L2, as the following will show. Teacher- dominated activities occurred often in both school settings. (See Appendix 12, table 11). The activity that was used most in both school settings was: “pupils answer teacher’s question with a drilled answer.” More child-centred activities seldom occurred, especially in Deaf Schools. (See Appendix 12, table 12). Creative activities using BSL, such as pupils creating their own BSL texts, their independent investigation of BSL texts and BSL conversations on the videophone occurred rarely in either school setting. (See Appendix 12, table 13). I have illustrated the situation in Fig. 4.3

Teacher dominated Child (methods based on centred a learning process as (methods defined by Krashen) based on an acquisition process as Teaching methods: defined by Grammar-translation Audio-lingual Communicative language Socio-linguistic & Learning strategies & Krashen)MI Socio-cultural methods

Methods used by many teacher in the sample

Methods described in L97

Fig. 4.3 Teaching methods proposed by L97 and those used by teachers in this sample.

62 Pupil assessment, metalinguistic knowledge and awareness

Teachers appeared to give their pupils relatively little assessment or feedback in this subject. (See Appendix 12, table 15). In Local Schools there was reportedly, little or no evaluation of the pupil’s efforts in this subject. In Schools for the Deaf the evaluation of pupils’ work was given mostly in the form of individual “oral” feedback quite often.

Eight of the eleven teachers (72,7%) were not aware of pupils using metalinguistic knowledge and/or had not observed the phenomenon. (See Appendix 12, table 16).

4.2.3 Teachers’ attitudes to EfDP

Attitude is very abstract concept, difficult to define and even more difficult to measure. In this study the teachers’ attitudes to the subject English for the deaf were only superficially touched upon. Questions were designed to try and bring out the three aspects of attitude as defined by Borg & Gall (1998): the affective, the cognitive and the behaviouristic (ibid.). The affective factor is a person’s feelings about a group or practise, the cognitive factor is an individual’s knowledge or beliefs and the behaviouristic factor is the way in which the individual behaves in relation to a group or a practise. With a certain degree of caution, it appeared that teachers working in Local Schools have a slightly more positive attitude to using BSL than teachers working in Deaf Schools, but teachers in Deaf Schools liked teaching EfDP more. (See Appendix 12, table 4).

All the teachers reported that they had an academic view of EFL in relation to both hearing and deaf pupils: most were of the opinion that written English is ultimately more important than oral English and/or BSL.

4.2.4 The teachers’ choice of role, EfDP goals and expectations

L97 in EfDP states that teachers take on a special role when teaching EFL in Primary School using BSL: “The teacher is a guide and organiser.” (KUF, 1997a. pp.31). Teachers working in Schools for the Deaf reported that they mainly took on the role of leader and organiser and tended to dominate lessons, while teachers in Local Schools took on the role of organiser. (See Appendix 12, table 5). Teachers were least likely to take on the role of guide and create situations where pupils could use BSL.

63

Teachers working in Deaf Schools had slightly higher goals and expectations related to EfDP than teachers in Local Schools. (See Appendix 12, table 6). They were also had a tendency to accentuate the need for inner motivation, skills in reading and writing and a good grasp of grammar. (See Appendix 12, table 7). Teachers in Local Schools showed a greater tendency to accentuate the need for skills in spoken English than their counterparts. (See Appendix 12, table 8).

4.2.5 Teachers’ choice of language usage in the EfDP classroom

Teachers choose to use a variety of languages and mixed codes in EfDP for deaf pupils with comparatively little active use of the target language, BSL. This is corroborated in qualitative observations of EfDP by Ohna et al: “Communication varied greatly, teachers used partly NSL. In some cases the teacher used English words with speech, simultaneously with BSL (polite phrases in BSL + English speech).)” (Ohna et al., 2003. pp.256).

In both Local Schools and Deaf Schools five different languages and mixed codes were used in EfDP lessons. Local Schools and Schools for the Deaf had different profiles of language usage in EfDP lessons. In Local Schools the teachers mostly used NSL followed by English speech supported by BSL signs, then English written language and least of all, BSL. Nevertheless, between them Local School teachers reported using more BSL than the Schools for the Deaf. But they also used a combination of NSL and English speech more often than in Schools for the Deaf. This mode of communication is not recommended in the L97 curriculum.

In Deaf Schools, teachers used English mouthings supported by BSL signs most, then English written language, followed by NSL, SSN and oral English. BSL was seldom used. This confirms the tendencies shown earlier in teachers’ choice of activities, which did not promote spontaneous use or interaction of the target language, BSL. (See Appendix 12, table 14 and Fig. 1).

64 4.3 Descriptive analysis of the pupils’ learning environments

Nine of the fifteen deaf pupils in this sample (60%) had to negotiate two different educational arenas: their Local School funded by LEAs and a School for the Deaf, which in this sample, are owned and funded by the state.

4.3.1 Local Schools

60% of the pupils attended their Local Schools, which had many more pupils than Schools for the Deaf. An average class in a Local School had 21 pupils in class 4. This must been seen in light of recommendations from The National Support System for Special Education (NSSSE) for class sizes of a maximum of 15 when a hearing-impaired pupil is “included” in a Local School setting. Pupils in this sample were generally the only hearing-impaired person at their Local School. Only one pupil had a hearing-impaired classmate, but the classmate did not use EfDP syllabus. Two other Local Schools had respectively 3 and 4 hearing-impaired pupils, but not in class 4. In five of the seven classes, there were hearing pupils with IEPs. It is presumed that this was an extra challenge for the teachers who also had a deaf pupil with his or her own syllabus and communication needs.

4.3.2 Schools for the Deaf

Two of the four Schools for the Deaf included in this study, had full-time pupils in class 4. The two classes both had five pupils including pupils from Local Schools who joined the classes during short-term stays. The two other Schools for the Deaf had no full-time pupils in class 4, but did have short-term stay pupils: one school had four and the other two.

4.3.3 The organisation of TEFL

Eight of the fifteen pupils were not given BSL tuition during their first year at school (53%). Six schools choose to delay TEFL in favour of additional teaching in NSL and Norwegian (Fig. 4.4).

65 7 Fig 4.4 How many years BSL 6 tuition has the pupil y received? (n = 13, 2 missing c5 n cases) e4 u 7 q3 re F2 4

1 2 0 234 BSL teaching in years However, by class 4, all the pupils had EFL lessons on their timetable (n = 13, 2 missing cases.). Two Local School pupils experienced BSL only during their short-term stays at a School for the Deaf. Unfortunately, there was no information available about the frequency of TEFL or its form during their short-term stays. Of the remaining seven pupils attending Local Schools, only two received TEFL often during their short-term stays at the Deaf School.

Pupils with profound hearing losses (n = 6) generally received their EFL tuition either alone in Local Schools (33%) or in classes at a School for the Deaf (50%). There was nevertheless one profoundly deaf pupil who was placed in a hearing classroom for EFL (17%).

Of pupils with severe hearing losses (n = 7), one received tuition individually in a Local School and one in a class at a School for the Deaf. The other five pupils (71%) received EFL in classroom settings with their hearing peers (Fig. 4.5).

Fig 4.5 Teachers were asked how they 6 Are EFL organised the pupils’ TEFL lessons. lessons n = 15. 5 held alone or in Group work was rarely used as a form of organisation. t4 class? n Alone u o3 6 In class C 5 2 4

1

0 local school deaf school norway norway School setting

66 4.4 Descriptive analysis of EfDP classrooms

In this section will be presented something of what reportedly happens in the TEFL classrooms, whether it is in classes with hearing peers or during individual tuition at a Local School or in class at Deaf Schools.

4.4.1 The amount of BSL experience provided by the learning environments

It was impossible to quantify exactly how much BSL experience each pupil had. For example, pupils may have been given a certain number of EFL lessons but active or passive behaviour during lessons, would obviously affect the outcome. There is no way either, in this study, of measuring the quality of the BSL input pupils received. Although BSL is the target language, it is not the primary language used in interaction in EfDP lessons. (See 4.2.5) BSL is not a language readily accessible in the everyday environment of the majority of Norwegian deaf pupils. Pupils are dependent on their teachers to create situations where they can experience and explore the language. It is therefore assumed that video had to have been the one major source of BSL experience for the pupils. The majority of teachers, eight of the eleven (72,7%), often/always used BSL videos.

However, three pupils (20%) seldom experienced BSL videos. These three were all boys in Local Schools. Their average scores on the three BSL tests were below the average of the rest of the sample. Two of the boys had moderate hearing losses and used SSN, the third pupil had a profound hearing loss (>90dB) and CI, which can imply that their EFL tuition was focused more on oral English than BSL.

4.4.2 Pupils’ access to BSL conversation partners in and outside the classroom

Pupils’ school placement, the way teachers organised their EFL classrooms and the activities they chose affect access to BSL conversation partners. In Schools for the Deaf, EfDP was taught in classroom situations making it theoretically possible for interaction in BSL between teacher and pupils and amongst the pupils themselves. Four of the nine pupils in Local Schools (44,4%) were always alone in a separate room with their teacher as their only conversation partner, which could give opportunities for “teacher talk”. One would need to do

67 qualitative studies to corroborate these assumptions. Data gathered in this study about language usage in EfDP lessons does not support this however. (See 4.2.5).

In regard to accessing conversation partners outside the classroom the L97 curriculum states, “The goal for education in EFL shall… stimulate pupils to interact with people from English- speaking and other cultures … Pupils shall talk about how they can learn BSL and practise using … IT.” (KUF, 1997a. pp.35). Although the schools had videophones, none made use of them in this subject. Very few of the pupils were involved in exchanging video letters in BSL or using IT. Nevertheless, there were plans for seven of the fifteen pupils (46,6%) to have contact with BSL-users during the school year, although in what form, was not specified.

4.4.3 BSL teaching aids used in EfDP classrooms

Information was collected about which specific BSL teaching aids were used in EfDP. Eight of the eleven teachers (72,7%) had chosen to use a textbook called Wow! which is designed for use with deaf pupils in class 3. Wow! encourages the regular use of BSL videotexts and includes a pupil’s workbook with activities connected to the texts and a teacher’s guide. Teachers in Local Schools complained that Wow! was difficult to use in the classroom with hearing and deaf pupils together because it is not voiced-over. Two teachers had also chosen to use Oxford Reading Tree, designed for use in EfDP in class 4. ORT also includes regular usage of BSL videotexts with an English reading text to accompany each text.

Except for school textbooks and the BSL texts, few other teaching aids were used, even though the schools did have IT equipment available and computer programmes are available. Only three of the eleven teachers (27,3%) used computer games and CD-rom often. However, Local Schools did make frequent use of sign language dictionaries.

4.4.4 Cooperation between the school and the home

The majority of parents are informed about EfDP and involved in their child’s work with the subject. (See Appendix 12, Table 22). But there still appears to remain work to be done on both counts.

68 4.5 Descriptive analysis of the BSL test score results of the deaf Norwegian pupils

Originally, the tests were planned to take place during short-term stays at Schools for the Deaf and the class teachers were meant to carry them out with their own pupils. As it turned out, with the reduction in the number of teachers at the Schools for the Deaf, there were not enough members of staff to cover for class teachers to carry out testing, especially when pupils from Local Schools were in attendance for short-term stays. I therefore conducted all the tests myself.

Table 4.2 shows the descriptive analysis of the BSL test results of the pupils. The results of the three tests were converted to percentages, to make them comparable. All the pupils completed trial test items on the Vocabulary and Grammar Test, given to ensure that pupils had understood the instructions correctly. Four pupils did not complete the Grammar Test after giving four wrong answers consecutively.

Table 4.2. Descriptive Analysis of the BSL Test Results of the Deaf Norwegian pupils

Standardis Vocabulary Grammar -ed scores BSL Story Total Mean Test scores Test scores Grammar Test scpres scores % % Test % % N Valid 15 15 15 15 15 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 88,00 73,00 98,93 71,00 76,00 Std. Deviation 5,60 7,20 9,721 18,00 9,3 Range 18,18 20,00 27,00 55,00 31,3 Minimum 77,27 62,50 85,00 45,00 59,6 Maximum 95,45 82,50 112,00 100,00 90,98

All the Norwegian deaf pupils scored over 60% on the Vocabulary Test with a mean score of 88%. There was only one pupil who scored below one standard deviation and who can be called “weak” and two pupils who scored above one standard deviation, here defined as “excellent” (Fig. 4.6).

On the Grammar Test, which is a standardised test, seven (46,6%) of the Norwegian pupils, almost half, performed above the standardised score for English deaf children of the same age. The standardised score for each age group is 100, with a standard deviation of 15. In raw score terms, this means that 46,6% of Norwegian deaf pupils achieved a score of at least

69 29 – 30 out of 40. The standardised scores of the pupils on the Grammar Test are shown in Appendix 12, Table 16. All the Norwegian pupils scored above 70, which is within the normal distribution for British deaf pupils, with a mean standard score of 98. Profoundly deaf children of deaf parents (NSL native speakers) scored 112. (Appendix 12, Table 20). There were three pupils who had weak scores and two who showed excellent performance compared to the British deaf pupils.

Fig. 4.6 The distribution of the pupils’ total mean scores in percent

BSL Vocabulary Test Scores BSL Grammar Test Scores

7 4

6 y3 y c c5 n n e 4 e u2 4 u 7 q q e re3 r 3 F F 2 4 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 62,50 67,50 77,50 82,50 77,27 81,82 86,36 90,90 95,45 65,00 72,50 80,00 Scores in percent Scores in percent BSL Story Test Scores Total Mean Scores

2,0 2,0

y1,5 y1,5 c c n n e e u u q1,0 q1,0 re re F F 0,5 0,5

0,0 0,0 25,00 40,00 60,00 65,00 77,50 100,00 59,62 68,94 71,13 72,95 80,98 82,95 89,31 35,00 55,00 62,50 70,00 82,50 59,92 70,45 72,12 76,28 81,44 83,48 90,98 Scores in percent Scores as percent

70 In the BSL Story Test, eight pupils (53%) achieved scores of over 60%. Two pupils (13,3%) of pupils scored the maximum score of 100%. This test had the largest range of all the tests. There were three pupils with weak scores and two with excellent scores (Fig. 4.6).

Finally, the distribution of their total mean scores is shown in Fig. 4.6. The mean score for the group was 76%. All in all there were two pupils with weak scores and two with excellent scores above one standard deviation.

4.5.1 A descriptive analysis of pupils’ errors

In the vocabulary test consisting of 22 items, the few items that were answered wrongly were on tasks where one picture depicted two concepts e.g. BOY/CHILD and DOG/COLLAR. This could indicate the need for alterations in the test materials. TEDDY was also answered incorrectly by 6 of the 15 pupils (Table 4.3). Only one of the signs was a chance cognate.

Table 4.3 The most common errors on the vocabulary test

BSL sign Number of wrong answers Test item n = 15 CHILD (chance cognate) 11 BOY 8 DOG 2) COLLAR (iconic) 9 TEDDY 6

In the grammar test, of the 40 items there were 8 that gave most pupils problems. They dealt with spacial verb morphology e.g items nos. 9, 17, 18, 20, 32, 34, 39 and 40. See Test Manual pp. 24, Appendix 14. Item 36 also caused problems for 12 of the 15 pupils. It was a negation sentence containing a multi-channel sign specific to BSL: HEARING-AID NOTHING. Generally, items that involved chance cognates and other slight similarities between BSL and NSL, were completed correctly; tasks involving specific knowledge of BSL i.e. multi-channel signs were more likely to be answered incorrectly.

Of the ten items in the BSL Story Test it appears that errors were caused when tasks demanded precise understanding of details e.g. names of objects, characters and colours. Understanding the story line was generally not a problem.

71 4.6 An analysis of the differences in the three test results of the deaf Swedish and deaf Norwegian pupils

This analysis was done to ascertain whether the Norwegian pupils’ experience of BSL could be said to have had any effect on their BSL receptive skills by comparing their results to a group who had not had the same classroom experiences.

The three BSL tests used to evaluate the deaf Norwegian pupils’ understanding of BSL, were also used to test a class of eight Swedish deaf pupils as described in 3.5. The Swedish pupils had experience of SSL from pre-school age and it was their first language. They had no experience of BSL and very little experience of English. They had just started EFL that term. It should be noted that on the vocabulary test, 45% of the BSL signs were chance cognates of Swedish Sign Language (SSL), which is a lower percentage compared to NSL (54,5%). This gave the Norwegian pupils a slight advantage on this test.

On all the tests the Norwegian pupils had higher mean scores than the Swedish deaf pupils (Fig. 4.7 and Fig. 4.8).

100,00 vocabulary test mean in percent grammar test 80,00 mean in percent story test mean n 60,00 in percent a e M 87,39 40,00 79,55 73,33 65,50 66,25 52,19 20,00

0,00 Norwegian Swedish Group name

Fig. 4.7 The three BSL test results of the Norwegian pupils (n = 15) and the Swedish (n = 8). The scores are shown as percentages.

72 80,00 Fig 4.8 The total mean scores of the deaf Norwegian (n = 15) and Swedish s pupils (n = 8) shown as percentages. re o c60,00 s n a e m40,00 l 75,57 ta o 65,99 T n a20,00 e M

0,00 Norwegian Swedish ES was used to find the difference between the scores of the deaf Norwegian pupils and the deaf Swedish pupils. The results are summarised in Table 4.4. Large or moderate differences were found between all the scores of the deaf Swedish pupils and the deaf Norwegian pupils.

Table 4. 4 Differences between the three test results and total mean scores of the deaf Swedish and deaf Norwegian pupils.

BSL test Cohen’s d Comments BSL vocabulary test d = 1,38 Large difference. 65,3% non overlapping BSL grammar test d = 0,64 Moderate difference, 38,2% non overlapping BSL Story test d = 0,57 Moderate difference. 33% non overlapping Total mean scores d = 0,91 Large difference. 51,6% non overlapping

Comparing the Grammar Test results of the two groups is interesting. The test was used as originally intended without any alterations, and has a standardised score of 100 as the median for each age group and standard scores between to standard deviations from the mean (70 and 130) are considered to be within the normal distribution of the population of deaf British pupils. Standard scores under 70 are considered to be poor (Herman et al., 1999). The Norwegians clustered around the standard mean of 100. (See Appendix 12, table 16 and Fig. 2). The standard deviation of the Norwegian pupils was only 9,7. None of the Norwegian pupils performed poorly by scoring below 70 at the British level. Calculating two standard deviations at the Norwegian level a score of below 80 would indicate poor performance. The Swedish pupils had a much larger range of scores and a standard deviation of 25. (See Appendix 12, table 17 and Fig. 3). Three of them scored below 70, with one pupil on the “brink” with a score of 71. In other words four of the eight Swedish pupils (50%) showed poor performances at both the British (70) and Norwegian levels (80).

73 4.6.1 An analysis of the differences in the BSL Story Test results of the deaf Norwegian pupils, the deaf Swedish pupils and the hearing Norwegian pupils

This analysis was carried out to determine whether knowledge of sign language as L1 had any effect on understanding a continuous BSL text. A group of Norwegian hearing pupils took part in the pilot study of the BSL Story Test as described in 3.3.4. The hearing pupils had no experience of sign language but had received EFL education consisting of oral and written English since class 1. The results of the BSL Story Test of the deaf Norwegians, the deaf Swedish pupils and the hearing Norwegian pupils are shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Descriptive analyses of the BSL Story Test results in percent, of the three groups.

N Mean Minimum Maximum Range Std. deviation Deaf Norwegians 15 65,5000 25 100 75,00 21,55 Deaf Swedish pupils 8 52,1875 6,25 85 78,75 24,93 Hearing Norwegians 6 42,7083 20 58,75 38,75 13,99

The differences between the BSL Story Test scores of the hearing Norwegian pupils and the deaf Swedish pupils were compared using ES and are summarised in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6 Differences in BSL Story Test results of the hearing Norwegian pupils and deaf Swedish pupils. BSL test Cohen’s d Comments BSL Story test d = 0,46 Small to moderate difference. 27,4% non overlapping

Between the hearing Norwegian pupils and the Swedish deaf pupils, there was a small to moderate difference in favour of the Swedish pupils. When comparing the deaf Norwegian pupils’ results, who had experience of a sign language (NSL) and experience with BSL, with the hearing Norwegians there was a large difference (Table 4.7).

Table 4.7 Differences in the BSL Story Test results of the Norwegian deaf pupils and hearing Norwegians BSL test Cohen’s d = Comments BSL Story test d = 1,25 Large difference. 62,2% non overlapping

74 4.7 Analysis of the independent variables of the deaf Norwegian pupils and some differences in test results

The independent variables of deaf Norwegian pupils hypothesised to affect test scores were: gender, hearing status, early language development, general language ability, motivation, a low affective filter, and finally the amount and type of BSL input. Not all these variables are quantitatively measurable for reasons discussed earlier e.g. early language development, general language ability, motivation, the affective filter, and in part the amount and type of BSL input. In addition, the results of pupils with foreign language background, CI and deaf parents are also analysed.

4.7.1 Differences in test results according to gender

There was a large difference between the total mean scores of the boys and girls, in favour of the girls. Girls also did better understanding BSL grammar than the boys (d = 1,44). Table 4.8 shows the total mean scores of the boys and girls on the three tests and the ES results. Moderate and large differences were found.

Table 4.8 Test results according to gender (n = 15) Boys’ results Girls’ results Cohen’s d Comments Test n= 5 n = 10 Vocabulary test Mean 86,36 88,63 d = 0,47 Small to moderate Range 0,00 18,18 difference, 27,4% non overlapping Grammar test Mean 67,50 76,25 d = 1,44 Large difference. 68,1% non Range 15,00 17,50 overlapping BSL Story Test Mean 60,00 76,00 d = 0,62 Moderate difference, 38,2% Range 25,00 50,00 non overlapping Total Mean Scores Mean 70,28 78,21 d = 0,97 Large difference. 55,4% non Range 16,66 31,06 overlapping

4.7.2 Differences in test results according to pupils’ hearing status

For this analysis the pupils were divided into two groups: moderate/severe (56 – 90 dB) (n = 9) and profound (> 90 dB) hearing loss (n = 6). The test results and ES results are summarised in Table 4.9.

75 The mean scores of pupils, with profound hearing losses, were better on all the receptive tests than pupils with moderate to severe hearing losses; large differences were found on the Grammar Test and the Total Mean scores in favour of the profoundly deaf.

Table 4.9 Test results of pupils with moderate/severe hearing losses (56 – 90 dB) (n = 9) and profound (> 90 dB) hearing loss (n = 6) Test Profound Moderate/severe Cohen’s d Comments hearing loss hearing loss (n = 9) d = (n= 6) Vocabulary test Mean 89,39 86,87 d = 0,447 Small to moderate Range 13,63 18,18 difference, 27,4% non overlapping Grammar test Mean 79,17 69,44 d = 1,86 Large difference. Range 10,00 15,00 77,4% non overlapping BSL Story Test Mean 72,50 60,83 d = 0,55 Moderate difference, 33% Range 60,00 75,00 non overlapping Total Mean Scores Mean 80,35 72,38 d = 0,95 Large difference. Range 18,18 31,36 51,6% non overlapping

4.7.3 Differences in test results according to the number of years TEFL tuition

No differences were found in the scores between pupils’ test results and the number of years TEFL pupils had received.

4.7.4 Pupils with foreign language home backgrounds

I had collected anecdotes earlier about non-European, immigrant deaf children performing very well in EfDP. This was confirmed in this sample with these average scores: Standardised Grammar Test Score 109, BSL Story Test 85%, Total mean scores 83%. (To assure pupils’ anonymity it is not possible to more precise about individual scores.) The scores on the BSL Story Test were amongst the highest achieved by any of the pupils.

4.7.5 The results of deaf pupils with CI

Of the three deaf pupils with CI, two attended their Local Schools and one attended a School for the Deaf.

76

Table 4.10 The results of deaf pupils with CI (n = 3) School Vocabulary test Grammar test BSL Story Test Total Mean Use of placement score in % standardised in % Score in % teaching aids score designed for deaf pupils Deaf School 90 95 100 90,98 Yes, always Local School 95 105 65 76,28 Yes, always Local School 80 109 85 82,95 Yes, often

The medical profession aims to have over 75% of CI operated children attending Local Schools with “some” support in view of cost benefit considerations (Everland, Mjølsnes, Hjørnevik, Rønning Arnesen, 2002). In this sample 66% of CI operated pupils attended their Local School. From the results (Table 4.12) we can see that these pupils as a group have scored very well and this can indicate good language skills in both NSL and BSL.

4.7.6 The results of deaf children of deaf parents (DCDP)

Deaf pupils of deaf parents, defined by Johnston (2004) as native speakers of their national sign language, are generally known to perform better in many areas, both academic and in language, compared to deaf pupils of hearing parents (DCHP). In the sample there were two pupils known to have deaf parents. Although they had the best scores on the Grammar Test (standardised score = 112), their other test results were not amongst the highest reached in the sample. (See Appendix 12, table 20).

4.8 Differences in test results according to the teachers’ independent variables

No differences were found in the pupils’ scores that could be related to the following independent variables of teachers: age, qualifications, teaching experience, attitudes, choice of role and their TEFL goals.

Nonetheless, it was noted that that pupils of three teachers who had not attended a BSL Stage 1 course, had higher average Total Mean scores (80,41%) than teachers who had attended (75,4%). Two of these teachers without BSL Stage 1 qualifications had pupils with Total Mean scores of 82,95% and 89,31%, which were well above average. The teachers had attended BSL courses locally, used Wow! and had access to a lending library of BSL texts.

77 However, there was no measurable ES difference between the their pupils and the other pupils (d = 0,03).

4.9 Differences in test results according to the learning environments independent variables

The data collected seems to indicate that school placement, in a Local School or a Deaf School, does mean that deaf pupils encounter different kinds of EfDP learning environments. Each environment consists of a complex interaction involving the pupil, the teacher’s and schools’ independent variables.

4.9.1 School placement

However there appears to emerge a pattern in the organisation of TEFL offered by the two school types: Deaf schools offered classroom teaching in small classes to all their pupils regardless or hearing status. Local Schools offered one-on-one teaching in a separate room generally for the profoundly deaf and classroom teaching in large classes together with hearing peers for pupils with severe and moderate hearing losses. Therefore the test results of the two school types were compared for differences using ES and the test results of the three classroom teaching situations.

Table 4.11 shows that on the Vocabulary Test there was a moderate difference in favour of the Deaf School pupils. There were only small differences on the BSL Story Test and Total Mean scores. But there was a large difference on the Grammar Test in favour of the Deaf Schools’ pupils.

Table 4.11 ES differences between the three test results according to school placement (n = 15) BSL test Cohen’s d = Comments BSL vocabulary d = 0,5 Moderate difference, 33% non overlapping BSL grammar d = 1,2 Large difference. 62,2% non overlapping BSL Story test d = -0,23 Small, negative difference, 14,7% non overlapping Total mean scores d = 0,1 Small difference. 7,7% non overlapping

78 4.9.2 Classroom setting

For analysis, the pupils were divided into three groups depending on the EfDP classroom setting i.e. class teaching in a School for the Deaf, class teaching in a Local School or individual tuition in a Local School. Fig. 4.9 shows the results.

100,00 Vocabulary test score in percent Grammar test score in 80,00 percent BSL story test score in percent Total mean 60,00 n scores in a e percent M 86,25 40,00 68,33 61,00

20,00

0,00 Class at Deaf School Local School in class Individual tuition, Local School Type of undervisning

Fig. 4.9 Pupils’ test results according to type of classroom settings

Pupils in Local Schools receiving individual tuition had superior scores on the BSL Story Test scores and total mean scores compared to pupils in other classroom settings. Yet ES analysis showed these differences to be small (Table 4.12).

Table 4.12 Differences between some of the test results according to type of classroom setting. BSL test Cohen’s d = Comments BSL Story test d = 0,12 Small difference, Individual tuition at 7,7% non overlap Local School & Deaf School Total mean scores d = 0,125 Small difference, Individual tuition at 7,7% non overlap Local School & Local School class

The classroom settings of pupils with severe hearing losses should be noted. Of these pupils (n = 7), five (71,4%) scored below average. Of those scoring below average, one attended a School for the Deaf and four attended Local Schools. All received TEFL in classroom settings, but the majority of them (60%) were taught in classes with their hearing peers. Pupils

79 with severe hearing losses who scored above average (n = 2) received tuition either alone in a Local School or in a class in a School for the Deaf.

It is important to observe the dissimilarities in school placements and degree of hearing loss of the two pupils who scored best on the tests with total mean scores of 90,89% and 89,31%, (and 100% scores on the BSL Story test): one pupil had a severe hearing-loss and attended a School for the Deaf whilst the other had a profound hearing loss, attended a Local School and received individual tuition.

4.9.3 The usage of teaching aids

ES analysis showed that there was a large difference in the test scores of pupils who had used Wow!, a teaching aid designed for EfDP in class 3, and those who had not (Table 4.13).

Table 4.13 Test results and the use of the teaching aid for class 3 “Wow!” BSL test Cohen’s d Comments d = Total mean scores d = 1,52 Large difference. 70,7% non- overlapping

Only two teachers of the eleven (18%) had chosen to use Oxford Reading Tree (ORT), which is a teaching aid for use with deaf pupils in class 4.

4.10 Results that answer the research question “Do Norwegian deaf pupils in class 4 (2003 – 2004) understand any BSL?”

The following results indicate Norwegian deaf pupils’ understanding of the BSL signs and texts they experienced in the test situation: All the Norwegian deaf pupils scored over 70% on the Vocabulary Test with a mean score of 88% and range of 18. On the Grammar Test, pupils scored a mean of 73% with a range of 20. Almost half of the Norwegian pupils, 46,6%, performed above the standardised scores for British deaf children of the same age. Native-speakers of NSL achieved the highest standardised scores, of 112 and none of the pupils scored below 70 (two standard deviations below the standardised mean) which would indicate “poor performance”. The BSL Story Test results had the largest range of scores for all the tests (75). It contained very few chance cognates and therefore demanded more specific knowledge of BSL than the two previous tests. Over half of the pupils (53%) achieved scores of over 60%, which was the

80 maximum score of the pupils in the control group. The pupils’ mean score was 65,5%. Nevertheless, two pupils (13%) scored the maximum score of 100% on this test.

It would appear from these results that Norwegian deaf pupils in class 4. (2003 – 2004) do understand some BSL and that their experiences in the classroom have had a positive effect.

81 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY’S FINDINGS

In the previous chapter I have presented and analysed the findings of this study in relation to a number of variables that were deemed relevant in deaf Norwegian pupils’ acquisition of BSL. This chapter gives a summary of the results and discusses their meaning within the context of the research question (pp.34). The chapter is structured in the same manner at the previous one:- discussing relationships and comparisons of the independent variables of the pupils, their teachers and the learning environments and the results of the three BSL receptive tests (Vocabulary Test, Grammar Test and BSL Story Test). Finally the results that answer the research question “Do Norwegian deaf pupils in class 4 (2003–2004) understand BSL?” will be discussed. This chapter also includes recommendations necessary to improve the teaching of EfDP, suggestions for new research and final conclusions are drawn.

5.1 The pupils’ independent variables in relation to SLA

Here follows summaries of the study’s findings relating to pupils’ independent variables and discussion of their relevance to the acquisition of BSL remembering that individual differences will not alter the route of SLA, but will affect rate and quality (Ellis, 1996) (pp 29).

5.1.1 Gender

Large differences in scores showed that girls performed better than the boys on all the tests.

It must be remembered that in this sample there were comparatively few boys, nevertheless, these results (pp 75) corroborate previous studies for example Willett (1995) quoted in Mitchell & Myers (1998) and Arnesen’s (2003) study of Norwegian hearing pupils’ examination results. One can pose the question as to whether this is due to the style of EFL teaching favouring girls or whether girls have better innate language abilities at this age.

5.1.2 Hearing status

Pupils with profound hearing losses (n = 6) scored above the average total mean scores for the sample (pp 96 & 76).

82 Pupils with profound hearing losses, all except for one, received their tuition individually in Local Schools or in small classes in Deaf Schools. Both these situations gave them access to BSL texts and teaching aids designed for deaf pupils. The amount and quality of active interaction in BSL these pupils experienced is however unclear. The needs of a profoundly deaf child are perhaps more visible and therefore easier to understand for school leaders and teachers in Local Schools, including the need for an alternative to oral English in Primary School. The needs of other groups of hearing impaired, who have some oral skills and some residual hearing - however small, seem unfortunately less obvious. Teachers have provided the profoundly deaf with more BSL input than the severely deaf and moderately hard-of- hearing.

Pupils (n = 7) with severe hearing losses scored below average. 60% of those were taught EFL in large classes with their hearing peers (pp 69 & 76).

It is hardly likely that the hearing loss in itself has caused below average results. One can only speculate about what kind of EFL tuition this group of pupils received in the classroom, without the corroboration of a qualitative study. Is their education in EFL focused mainly on oral English thereby giving this group of pupils little access to BSL? If so, is the English input accessible? Are deaf pupils included in L2 dialogue of the class? Are their English skills age appropriate or is this group missing out on both BSL and English? On the other hand, is it a question of poor NSL skills, which hinders them in acquiring BSL? If this is so, then there is cause for concern as this group is also probably expected to use a sign language interpreter in school time. Do they have the necessary sign language skills to make proper use of the interpretation of the tuition and classroom dialogue? Without an NSL test instrument it is not possible to answer this question.

In my experience the moderately and severely hearing impaired are often supposed by people in their local milieu to be able to hear better than they actually can, especially in the classroom where there can be many visual distractions and background noise. There were already some teachers in the study airing their suspicions that pupils were pretending to understand what was being said (pp. 59): probably rightly so. In an average class of 21, pupils with severe hearing losses have little or no chance of speech reading and any background noise will make hearing what is being said virtually impossible using CI or hearing aids. The

83 use of radio aids and interpreters can isolate these pupils from classroom discussions as shown in Ohna et al’s study (2003). To actively take part in such an EFL classroom environment where oral English is the main focus, will demand maximum concentration and motivation on the part of the hearing-impaired pupil. In addition, the pupil is required to “listen to and speech read” a foreign language he has no knowledge of. Yet a pre-requisite of speech reading is previous knowledge of the language in question.

If teachers in Local Schools are acting as interpreters “translating” the English oral class work and discourse to NSL with English mouthings, there is little possibility for SLA to take place either in English or in BSL: Pupils will in all probability ignore the mouthings and concentrate on the signs, giving them a false picture of their receptive skills in English. If teachers are translating class discourse into English with BSL sign support, one can speculate on the quality of translation when teachers are using, what is for them, two foreign languages with different modality simultaneously. Also, does the pupil have adequate BSL skills in order to understand the interpreter?

A test of this group’s English oral and literacy skills is required to compare with their BSL skills. Results will depend on the quality of opportunities for SLA this group has been given in BSL and/or English. When considering the criteria set out in Krashen’s input theory (2.6.6), it is difficult to see that they are met for either language. In a classroom where oral English is used, input is reduced by physical obstacles that the deaf pupil has no control over e.g. hearing loss, noise, input in mixed codes (NSL with English mouthings) or distorted codes (oral English without sign support and limited speech reading opportunities) and little access to the class’s interaction in L2.

There are also many pit falls for these pupils in relation to maintaining motivation and reducing the affective filter. Being asked to produce speech sounds one cannot altogether perceive can cause uncertainty and reluctance, raising stress levels and reducing motivation to use L2. Teachers must be able to use visual and tactile techniques in addition to aural/oral means in a safe atmosphere where trial and error is allowed. The feedback the pupil gets from his own L2 production will not be optimal due to the hearing loss. Little opportunity to use L2 in discourse, results in less chance to negotiate meaning and reduced SLA. The pupil becomes embroiled in a “Catch 22” situation. In my opinion it is clear, that severely deaf pupils

84 receiving TEFL in classrooms in Local Schools are at risk and their progress in this subject must be closely monitored. (See Recommendations 5.5.2 & 5.5.3)

All pupils with moderate hearing losses (n = 2), regardless of school placement, scored

below average total mean scores (pp 69 & 76).

In the present system, if hard-of-hearing pupils have educational goals, which include some form of sign bilingualism, without NSL being the “first language”, then there are only two alternatives. One option is to choose the L97 Curriculum for Deaf Pupils with the extra resources that follow with it, and adapt the syllabus. The other option is to follow the ordinary curriculum and apply for extra resources each academic year: which, in my experience, can be difficult to obtain, resources are not predicable and are often reduced as the pupil advances through the school system. It is not surprising therefore, that some pupils with moderate hearing losses do choose the curriculum for deaf pupils as a solution to the problem of gaining access to NSL. It is reasonable to assume, and fitting, that EFL teaching for these pupils is focused on oral English and not BSL. If this is the case then this can explain why this group scored poorly. It is worth considering whether a less ridge wording of the curriculum and greater flexibility in how it can be used and funded would better the education for hard-of- hearing pupils who wish to have access to signed language.

To sum up: “Learning” BSL is not the aim of EfDP, but “knowledge” of BSL is the foundation on which further EFL work will proceed. “It is through active exploration of the environment, experience with people, things, and language that children acquire knowledge – including metalinguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, and learning to learn” (Marschark, 2000 pp.284). Some deaf pupils appear to have been given frail foundations on which to build their SLA. This is mainly due to the fact, in my view, that pupils’ individual needs are not being evaluated sufficiently and they are not being given an environment, which they can “explore” uninhibitedly. L97 gives room for individual adaptations of the syllabus, yet pupils are being classed as either hearing or deaf: sometimes they are neither absolutely one nor the other as experienced teachers of the deaf are aware. This “either or” way of thinking, is reflected in the classroom organisation in Local Schools: teaching takes place either as classroom teaching (in Local Schools this situation will probably cater for the needs of the hearing majority) or as individual segregated teaching. Sometimes other solutions could

85 be more suitable. (See recommendations 5.5.2). Hearing status appears to have been the main factor, which decided the organisation of TEFL and the type of experiences the pupil received and ultimately their test results. Because pupils have the same audiogram, it does not follow that they will have the same needs in the TEFL classroom.

5.1.3 Interest and Motivation

All the Norwegian pupils, regardless of hearing status, test performance, school setting,

teacher’s attitude etc were interested in BSL (n = 13, 2 missing cases) (4.1).

Founded on Krashen’s and Stevick’s theories (pp 25), I assumed interest in BSL to be a motivating factor for SLA. Interest can stem from pupils identifying with the target language users i.e. other deaf people, which is in line with Stevick’s integrative motivation theory (1976) (pp.27). The crucial point is whether teachers can maintain pupils’ motivation in the long term. I would suggest that to accomplish this, methods such as Content-based and Task- based ways of teaching as proposed by Marschark et al (2002) ( pp 30), peer interaction in L2 and establishing contact with BSL and English “native speakers” should be utilized.

5.1.4 Early language development and SLA

Teachers had little knowledge of their pupils’ early language development. On the other

hand, it was reported that all the pupils (n = 15) used NSL and/or varieties of NSL in their communication at school and 92% at home (pp 58).

Unfortunately this study did not manage to gather detailed information about the pupils’ early NSL development so that this could be related to their acquisition of BSL. However all the pupils, except for one, were reported to have good NSL skills; just how good is not known, due to the lack of a test of NSL development.

In a study involving hearing and deaf adults Mayberry, Lock & Kazmi (2002) showed that experience with language (signed or spoken) early during the brain’s development is essential for successful SLA. The average age of diagnosis of deafness in Norway is 2,5 years (Everland et al., 2002), which opens the door to sign bilingual programmes for the child

86 and NSL training for the family. It is therefore seen as defensible to presume that many of the pupils have had access to NSL before the age of five. It is probable that many of the Norwegian deaf pupils in this study therefore can be defined as NSL native speakers who according to Mayberry’s definition (1993) are those who have access to fluent sign language models before the age of five and subsequently appear to achieve native-like signing skills. For this study it follows that it would have been preferable to have tests standardised to show BSL native-speaker levels (pp 39). It is native-speaker proficiency foreign language learners aspire to, even though this is often unattainable. This would have given a clearer picture of the pupils’ understanding of L2 and maybe reduced the chance of pupils’ scores appearing unduly high, as happened in some cases in this study, presumably because of the use of cognitive strategies and the intuitive transfer of L1 knowledge to solve the tasks. This is especially relevant in a group of deaf children, such as these, who have had early access to a signed language. In Johnston’s study (2004) of Australian deaf children, using a somewhat simplified version of the Grammar Test, native-speakers had a standardised mean score of 115 points with a standard deviation of 5.6. In a scenario where Norwegian pupils’ scores were compared only to native-speakers, all would have performed below this median standard score of 115, but would still have been well within the normal distribution. In assessing acquisition of an L2 this appears to be a more realistic result. It is interesting to note that the profoundly deaf Norwegian pupils, who had generally been given most access to BSL, clustered around a mean score of 107,5 and a standard deviation of only 5,3 (See Appendix 12, table 18). They were a more homogenous group than pupils with severe and moderate hearing losses. This group appears by and large, to have been given less access to BSL and had a lower average standardised mean score of 93. Whether this is in fact due to the amount of access they have been given to BSL or poorer L1 skills or other factors, is difficult to say based on the present data. (See Appendix 12, table 19).

The results of the Swedish pupils (pp 74), who also had access to a signed language at an early age, corroborate the importance of early language development. Although not statistically significant, their results can indicate that with knowledge of a sign language (SSL) from early childhood, and without formal teaching or experience of BSL texts, deaf pupils are capable of understanding some BSL. In Heiling’s (1995) study of Swedish deaf children’s development, she states that access to visual/gestural communication through some form of sign language during preschool has had a positive effect on deaf pupils’ levels of knowledge, first and foremost in their understanding of written Swedish but also in Maths. On

87 the basis of the test results here, maybe one could add to this that sign language introduced in early childhood also has a positive effect on the understanding of a foreign sign language.

5.1.5 Deaf pupils from foreign language backgrounds

Deaf pupils from foreign language backgrounds scored very well on the BSL

receptive tests (4.7.4)

In some ways, these results can seem paradoxical: Pupils, who already appear to have too many languages to handle, are the first to be regarded as not needing the burden of more. However, given the opportunity to access BSL, they performed very well. This phenomenon was explained by some teachers in a conversation as follows: The pupil feels that at last he is on an equal footing with his Norwegian classmates because BSL was a new language for all. At last he has a chance to shine! This leads to good performance.

In my opinion these pupils are probably in possession of good metalinguistic skills and that they could be a valuable source of knowledge about deaf pupils’ language learning strategies and the usage of metalinguistic intelligence in language acquisition.

5.1.6 Deaf children of deaf parents (DCDP)

Dcdp achieved the highest scores of any on the BSL Grammar Test (standardised score =

112), but on other tests did not achieve the highest scores (See 4.7.5).

It appears that DCDP had good L1 skills, which can account for their Grammar Test results. (This assumption cannot be substantiated because of the lack of an NSL assessment test). However, when the BSL Story Test required knowledge of specific BSL signs, they did not score as well and their total mean scores were 76,56%. In contrast, profoundly deaf pupils with hearing parents (DCHP) had total mean scores of 82,49%. (Appendix 12, table 20).

It appears that good L1 skills alone are not enough to achieve high scores on the BSL Story Test, and that this can indicate that the combination of the early introduction of NSL in childhood, sign language training for parents and adequate experience of BSL, have had

88 positive effects for BSL comprehension for some DCHP. In periods where oralism has dominated the education of deaf pupils, DCDP have experienced a more adequate and age appropriate language development than DCHP (Heiling, 1995). These results can indicate that DCHP can in fact have equally good development, given early intervention and the introduction of NSL into the family.

5.1.7 Deaf children with CI and the EfDP syllabus

Deaf pupils with CI performed well on the BSL receptive skills tests. (See 4.7.6)

As a group, the deaf pupils with CI scored very well and this can indicate good language skills in both NSL and BSL. In my opinion this raises questions of these pupils’ self-identity. The majority of these pupils attended their Local Schools. Some professionals advise deaf pupils with CI to avoid contact with the deaf community and signed languages and in medical terms they are expected to perform as hard-of-hearing/hearing. Nevertheless this group of pupils have been given access to BSL and have shown interest and acquired good receptive skills. Although numbers in the sample are extremely small, and the evidence for identifying with deaf culture is flimsy, the question of self-identity among deaf children with CI should be investigated more thoroughly.

5.1.8 The effects of the combination of early experience of sign language as L1 (NSL or SSL) and classroom experience of an L2 sign language (BSL)

Large and moderate differences were found on all the test results between the Swedish

and Norwegian pupils (pp 72). On the BSL Story Test there were large differences (d

= 1,25) between the scores of the hearing and deaf Norwegians (pp 74).

The overall comparison of the results of the Swedish and Norwegian deaf pupils indicate that early access to a sign language as L1, coupled with BSL experience in the classroom have had a positive effect on the Norwegians’ understanding of BSL. It seems that acquisition of BSL receptive skills is not an insurmountable task for deaf pupils with good L1 skills, given the

89 right opportunities. The next question is whether teachers can capitalise on deaf pupils’ unique skills in these language areas.

5.2 The independent variables of the EFL teachers

Here follows a short summary of the findings of this study in relation to the independent variables of the EFL teachers and a discussion of their relevance to the SLA process of deaf pupils and test results.

The independent variables of the EFL teachers investigated in this study did not appear to affect pupils’ test results (pp 77).

The teachers’ independent variables investigated in this study using questionnaires, did not appear to play an important part in pupils’ SLA e.g. age, experience, attitude, choice of role or EFL goals. On the other hand, some teachers had pupils who were more successful than others, perhaps due the teacher’s choices of classroom activities, so it is obvious that teachers can play a part in influencing their pupils’ performance. A qualitative study would be more suitable to reveal teaching styles and other factors involving the teachers that enhance pupils’ chances of success in EfDP.

5.2.1 EfDP teachers’ qualifications

91% of teachers had no formal qualifications to teach EFL and none of the teachers had

formal qualifications in EfDP. 27% of the teachers had not attended the intensive course in BSL at Bristol University (pp 61).

Today there are no requirements for teachers to have formal qualifications to teach EfDP and none of the teachers in the study had such qualifications.

The lack of qualified EfDP teachers is hardly surprising, as in-service teachers have not been given the opportunity to acquire qualifications (30 credits), only teacher training students. (Hypothetically, it would have been interesting to compare results of qualified and unqualified

90 EfDP teachers.) Changes in the funding system of the University Colleges seem to have made courses for small, minority groups such as teachers of the deaf, very expensive and have therefore been priced out of the market. The only courses available for teachers in EfDP are half-day or one-day courses given by Statped Resource Centres. Intensive courses in BSL held at Bristol University are also today organised by Statped and not University Colleges as originally envisaged by KUF in 1997.

The questionnaire results paint a picture of some teachers striving to fulfil Viberg’s description of an EFL classroom (pp. 19) without having the necessary L2 fluency to make that possible. At the same time, pupils who had access to BSL texts were more likely to be involved in acquisition processes as described by Krashen and Ellis rather than learning process as envisaged by some teachers. I believe, that given access to BSL and irrespective of the teacher’s BSL skills, pupils have shown their ability to take responsibility for their own language learning process. This confirms my own experiences (pp 2).

5.2.2 Teachers’ choice of teaching methods

There was a good deal of variation in teachers’ choices of methods and activities during

lessons, some of which were not in line with the EfDP syllabus L97. (See Fig 4.3)

Through no fault of their own, it appears that some teachers are falling back on their own experiences as language-learners from Middle and Secondary School because they lack qualifications and therefore insight in modern SLA method. (Brumfit, 1984). A little simple arithmetic shows that most teachers are probably building on experiences from the 1960s and early 70s and possibly the era of Cognitive and Behaviourist methodology. It has been argued that children do not learn EFL in the same way as adults (Ellis, 1996), and Cognitive methodologies are no longer recommended as the most suitable for use in Primary Schools, rather the use of methods allowing acquisition processes. Our unqualified EfDP teachers are missing opportunities to allow pupils to experience and explore a totally accessible L2 and thereby acquire the language and develop metalinquistic skills and learning strategies in the process.

91 5.2.3 Teachers’ choice of activities in the EfDP classroom

There was a miss-match between classroom activities and those suggested in the syllabus. The majority of the chosen classroom activities were teacher-dominated and gave little opportunity for pupils to investigate BSL texts independently or to use BSL

spontaneously in interaction with others and negotiate meaning (pp 62).

Paradoxically, another miss-match appeared: the classroom activities that teachers

reported to prefer did not harmonise with those they actually chose (Appendix 12, tables 10 – 13).

In my opinion these confusing results appear to indicate that teachers need to develop a greater understanding of the EfDP syllabus combined with theoretical knowledge of the SLA process, as well as the adaptation of teaching methods to suit deaf pupils’ needs. (See Fig. 4.3). This would probably result in different choices of activities and pupils gaining greater benefits from the syllabus. The majority of teachers appear to be teaching largely bottom-up strategies: glossaries, drilled question and answer sequences and translating BSL texts to NSL. Translating can of course give rise to metalinguistic discussion, depending on how the teacher and pupils tackle the task. A qualitative study would be necessary to substantiate this. The shortage of pupil evaluation is perhaps also a reflection of teachers’ uncertainty and lack of confidence in teaching this subject area (pp 63).

5.2.4 Teachers’ awareness of metalinguistic “spin-offs”

Few teachers were aware of pupils using metalinquistic knowledge (pp 63).

Metalinguistic “spin-offs” that can overflow into other subject areas such as Norwegian and Sign Language, do not seem to be obvious to teachers and are maybe not taken full advantage of. This may, for example, include questions and discussions about language in general, its form and function, culture and L1 – L2 comparisons or the transfer of learning strategies.

Teachers did report that they compared NSL and BSL, but this study gained no further details about the how this was done. Can teachers today help to guide their pupils to deduce cultural

92 information from L2 signs? Can our unqualified teachers help pupils in the next phase, to maximise and use experiences with BSL in learning English?

5.2.5 The teachers’ choice of role in the EfDP classroom

Many teachers took a dominant role in the EfDP classroom (pp 63).

Ellis (1984) refers to a description by Fillmore (1982) of different teacher styles in the L2 classroom. Fillmore argues that a dominant teacher role is fitting when the teacher is the main source of L2 in a class of NNS: but in the EfDP classroom at this stage, this cannot be said to be the case. A dominant role is inconsistent with the teacher’s role outlined in EfDP syllabus as an organiser and guide.

Vygotsky says “…the student’s personal experience becomes the fundamental basis of pedagogical work. Strictly speaking, and from a scientific point of view, there is no other way of teaching.” (Vygotsky, 1997. pp. 47) By not giving pupils opportunities to explore BSL texts more freely and gain their own personal experiences, pupils are loosing the chance to develop top-down strategies and other more individual learning strategies, which could be used in later language learning situations. If Gardner’s theories of multi-intelligence and different ways of learning are accepted, especially in light of deaf pupils having had different experiences than hearing pupils, more pupil-centred methods should be a logical consequence. Given the positive attitude of the pupils to BSL, the whole exercise could be pupil-dominated and a stimulating educational experience. It could also give teachers insight into how their deaf pupil learns. This is especially valuable as one can expect greater heterogeneity among deaf pupils than amongst hearing pupils.

5.2.6 Teachers’ interpretation and adaptation of the EfDP syllabus

Teachers’ interpretations of EfDP were indicated by the organisation and practise in the

classroom (pp 65).

In a study of the implementation of the L97 Curriculum for deaf pupils Ohna et al. (2003) found that when LEAs and teachers were confused when interpreting the meaning of

93 “tilpasset opplæring” i.e. adapting the syllabus to the needs of the individual pupil in relation to the syllabuses for the deaf. Similar questions are raised by the findings in this study, where sometimes little adaptation is made to accommodate for the needs of individual deaf pupils. For example there is one case of a profoundly deaf pupil placed in oral EFL lessons in a large class with hearing pupils and an “interpreter” (pp 82); on the face of it, it appears that the only adaptation is the introduction of an interpreter into the classroom. As Marschark et al (2002) commented, teaching deaf pupils demands more than just an interpreter. Are the needs of the deaf pupil being weighed against practical and economic considerations or is there a general lack of understanding of deaf pupils’ needs? Are deaf pupils receiving a bilingual education or is it in some cases in name only? Will this generation of deaf pupils achieve the same academic heights of the last generation of deaf pupils who received their education in NSL environments in Deaf Schools and units, many of whom have gone on to higher education?

5.2.7 Teachers’ expectations of success and goals with EfDP

Teachers in Deaf Schools had higher goals and higher expectations of pupils’ English literacy than teachers in Local Schools (pp 63).

Teachers in Local Schools had higher goals in the area of spoken English than teachers in Deaf Schools. (Appendix 12, Tables 6 – 8)

In my opinion “low expectations” are one of the main problems deaf children have to combat often in combination with learning environments that are not adapted to their needs. There is always a danger of unqualified EfDP teachers focusing on spoken English to such an extent that it is to the detriment of other areas of knowledge and literacy. Teachers who have little experience of deaf pupils may be unable to see the deaf pupil in his own right with his unique talents and needs.

5.2.8 Teachers’ language usage in the EfDP classroom

BSL, although being the target language, is not the language used most in EfDP lessons.

(Appendix 12,Table 14 and Fig. 1)

94 Teachers who take the classic role of the dominant, fluent “language teacher” will come in conflict with their own expectations of the role they should fill. This study has shown examples where the lack of teacher fluency in BSL has been compensated by using BSL video to provide sufficient input and quality of L2. It seems there is much talk in NSL about BSL and English, but little active usage of the target language/s. It would be valuable to find out what proportion of EfDP lessons pupils actually experience BSL or English in some form. Mixed codes were used i.e. NSL and English mouthings, English mouthings and BSL. This causes speculation as to whether the language separation principles of bilingual education are being paid enough heed. A qualitative study would perhaps answer this question.

5.3 The independent variables of the learning environments for EfDP

Here follows a summary of the study’s findings related to the independent variables of the pupils’ TEFL learning environments and discussion of what can be learned from them and their implications. The variables were school placement, access to IT and EfDP teaching aids. The organisation of TEFL and the possibility to participate in the collective space of a classroom using BSL and/or English are also independent variables of the learning environments but have been discussed earlier in 5.1.2.

5.3.1 EfDP, school placement and classroom setting

60% of pupils attended their Local School in classes with an average size of 21 pupils. The

amount and type of experiences pupils had with BSL appears to vary greatly (pp 65).

Based on a few qualitative observations, Hjelmervik & Grønlie (2004) question whether it is possible for Local Schools to implement the L97 curriculum, and whether it is necessary for them to do so. This study has shown that there are Local School pupils who are successful in EfDP and have achieved high scores in tests of BSL receptive skills. Without a qualitative study it is not possible to say exactly what these schools, teachers and pupils are doing that others are not. However there are some variables in this study that are conspicuous. The successful Local School pupils were girls with severe to profound hearing losses and whose teachers had given them access to BSL texts and not just glossaries. Some of their teachers had access to and used a regional “Statped lending library” of BSL texts. They have

95 in addition, used teaching aids designed for deaf pupils, which included BSL video material. EfDP did not take place in large classes with hearing pupils, but by individual, segregated tuition. It is not possible to say how much or what kind of BSL interaction these pupils have experienced at their Local School during lessons or short-term stays at Deaf Schools. It was probably the case that BSL was not the primary language used in interaction in these pupils’ EfDP lessons (pp 64). So, despite questions being posed as to the pupils’ experience of interaction in BSL and that their tuition was segregated from the class and hearing peers, some degree of successful SLA has taken place for this group of pupils to attain high degrees of BSL comprehension: for example 100% on the BSL Story Test (pp 80).

Should EfDP be removed from Local Schools, one can envisage the majority of pupils in Primary School with moderate, severe and profound hearing losses left with three alternatives: to attend oral English classes as taught to hearing pupils in large classes (with the inherent problems for pupils using CI, hearing aids or interpreters as already described in 5.1.2), or having to delay their EFL education until Middle School when they can read (which was the case earlier for those fortunate enough to be given EFL opportunities at all) or experiencing EfDP only during short-term stays at Deaf Schools. None of these scenarios are particularly conducive to SLA in either BSL or English for this age group and pupils will loose the benefit of “spin-offs” from the EfDP syllabus as described earlier (pp 92).

In schools that should be “inclusive” and in a political climate where all pupils have a right to be included in their Local School and their individual needs met, there is a need to establish which elements of inclusion function satisfactorily for deaf pupils in Local Schools and in Deaf Schools and which do not. Areas that do not function for deaf pupils must be scrutinised and plausible, compensatory alternatives found. As this study has shown, the majority of profoundly deaf pupils in Local Schools are taught EfDP alone and have been very successful on tests of receptive skills, but we know nothing of their expressive BSL skills. On the other hand, this cannot be defined as “inclusive” education; the alternative is being “excluded” from the dialogue in a large class of hearing peers and tuition influenced by the hearing majority. Results suggest that teachers are probably choosing the lesser of two evils. (See 5.5.2).

Recent Studies (Ohna et al., 2003; Preisler & Tvingstedt, 2003; Sørlien Barli, 2003) warn about the need for caution and vigilance in regard to Deaf pupils in “inclusion” programmes in Local Schools because of the challenges faced when “including” a deaf pupils in the socio-

96 linguistic life of a “hearing” classroom. Pupils with severe hearing losses in this study, have been placed in TEFL classrooms with their hearing peers and many performed below average. If they have not been given adequate access to BSL to succeed on the tests in the study, the burning question is what are their receptive (and expressive) skills like in oral and written English? Have they received adequate English input instead? This question must be answered and quickly. A negative answer on this count must have consequences.

I propose that the large difference found in the Grammar Test results of pupils from Deaf Schools and Local schools (d = 1,2) indicates that regular exposure to a natural sign language is necessary to understand well the grammar of the native sign language (NSL) and a foreign sign language (BSL) (pp 78). If pupils are intuitively transferring their L1 knowledge to solve this task, then Deaf School pupils appear to have a better knowledge of NSL grammar than most isolated pupils in Local Schools where both the learning and home environments in some cases use only SSN: Deaf School pupils presumably have access to a richer NSL environment. In view of the fact that we do not have test materials to assess pupils’ NSL development, it is difficult to substantiate this although the large difference in test scores suggest that this is a reasonable conclusion.

77% of pupils from Local Schools (n = 9) do not experience EfDP during short-term stays

at the Schools for the Deaf very often, even though, for many deaf pupils attending Local Schools, this is one of the few opportunities they have of experiencing peer interaction in BSL (pp 66).

Since 1997 Deaf pupils placed in Local Schools have attended Deaf Schools for short-term stays. A critical look at their content is perhaps due. Even if the formal responsibility for pupils’ education lies with the Local School, Deaf Schools may perhaps need to think of themselves as a provider of deaf-specific educational opportunities. Until now, their main function has principally been considered as providing a sign language milieu and social meeting place. This is a situation that could easily be remedied if Deaf Schools evolve a concept of “inclusion” that envelops not only their full-time pupils but also their short-stay pupils.

97 5.3.2 IT and teaching aids

None of the schools used the videophone in EfDP for L2 interaction and few used IT,

despite having the equipment available (pp 67).

Interaction using L2 is hypothesised to be an important factor in SLA (Ellis, 1996). Krashen has been criticised for not including social interaction as a factor in his SLA theories. For many deaf pupils there was little opportunity for L2 interaction for negotiating meaning and experimenting med BSL (4.4.2), “peer talk”, “foreigner talk” or “teacher talk”. Yet in many instances, deaf pupils in this study have acquired receptive skills despite little L2 interaction. This does not mean that it is not an important factor, rather that by enhancing pupils’ interaction opportunities using videophones, video letters and IT, results could possibly be even better.

Large differences were found in the test results depending on whether or not pupils had access to teaching aids designed for deaf pupils (pp 80).

Bachmann, Sivesind, Afsar & Hopmann (2003) argue that if a school reform is to be successful one factor is that teaching aids must be used systematically as a tool for change. In this study we have seen that teachers who have chosen to use teaching materials especially designed to introduce BSL into TEFL for deaf pupils, generally have pupils who are successful on the BSL receptive tests. But the question remains: Why were the majority of teachers using class 3. text books in class 4? It was not feasible to ask follow-up questions so it is only possible to speculate. The textbook for class 3 deals only with BSL and includes English as “word-pictures”. It contains more themes than can be used in one year, to make room for choice and individual adaptations. Are teachers using the book for more than one year, starting at page one and working their way through to the end? Or has BSL tuition been delayed? Is the class 4 book too difficult? Why are they delaying the introduction of English written language which is presented in the class 4 book combined with BSL texts? Are pupils not ready for the introduction of English and why not? What or who is holding who back?

98 5.4 Answering the research question “After the implementation of L97 English for deaf pupils, do Norwegian deaf pupils in class 4 understand any BSL?”

To summarize the results of the three BSL receptive tests: All the Norwegian deaf pupils scored over 60% in the Vocabulary Test. In the Grammar Test, 46,6% of the Norwegian pupils (almost half) performed above the standardised scores for English deaf children of the same age and none of the pupils had scores of less than 70, which marked the boundary for “poor performance”. In the BSL Story Test, over half (53%) of pupils achieved scores of over 60%, the maximum score of the pilot control group. 13% of pupils scored the maximum score, 100%. This test contained very few chance cognates and results showed the largest distribution of all the three tests (pp 69 – 71).

It would be too sweeping to conclude that Norwegian deaf pupils understand BSL, but certainly many did understand something of the language. There will be need for more research to find out how pupils advance over and above the simple understanding of content and how pupils perform in a communicative situation. Nevertheless, the pupils’ experiences with language learning and the test results should also be seen in a broader perspective: as giving pupils a feeling of mastery and competence in FLL. Feelings of mastery and competence may not be measurable but can be an important “spin-off” of BSL acquisition, that can give pupils a positive self-image and motivate them to continue with their next task: to learn English. Pupils can also have gained insight into their L1 and their own unique language learning capabilities. In relation to BSL, deaf pupils have some skills often unlike and superior to hearing classmates and teachers.

Depth of comprehension, as defined by Gass & Selinker (2001) can vary: from grasping only the general gist of an L2 statement to understanding it at a structural analytical level. Pupils’ varying levels of comprehension of BSL that have emerged in this study can be caused by the complex interaction of several factors. One important factor seems to be the actual basic structure of signed languages interacting with the individual pupil’s intuitive knowledge of sign language (NSL) producing a certain degree of understanding of L2. Taking into consideration that the average mean of similarity between the lexicons of unrelated sign languages is 35 – 40% (Kyle & Woll, 1985), this can infer that the cognitive strategy of transferring L1 (NSL) knowledge to the task of understanding L2 (BSL) is likely to have been

99 brought into play; pupils can have used their L1 knowledge of NSL in recognising iconic signs and other similarities in lexicon, morphology and syntax to solve the task in hand. The results of the Swedish pupils seem to corroborate this (pp 72). There was however only a small difference between the BSL Story Test scores of the deaf Swedish pupils and the hearing Norwegians, who based their answers solely on the appeal of the picture materials. This can lead one to wonder if the Swedish pupils, to some extent, also were relying on the picture materials to solve the task combined with cognitive strategies; although the larger range of answers amongst the Swedes argues against this (pp 74). This strategy was of course, also available to the deaf Norwegian pupils.

A second factor is the amount and quality of BSL experience (input), which appears to be a deciding factor in the pupils’ varying degrees of comprehension, as predicted by Krashen’s input theory: those with most access to BSL texts, scored best (pp 98).

A third factor of importance in SLA, and by inference of BSL comprehension, and which was reportedly constant for all the pupils, is that of high motivation and a low affective filter. (For discussion of motivation and affective filter see 5.1.3). Teachers should certainly take advantage of both these factors in EfDP teaching and encourage pupils to use BSL by creating situations that utilize and maintain it.

Understanding BSL vocabulary The high Vocabulary Test results (mean = 88%) indicate that the task of understanding isolated BSL signs was not difficult, for pupils with knowledge of NSL and SSN, given the basic nature of the signs, the degree of iconicity and number of chance cognates. Also, this is the format in which many pupils were most used to seeing and experiencing BSL: in other words as glossary lists.

Understanding BSL grammar The fact that nearly half of the Norwegian deaf pupils scored above the standardised score for English deaf pupils on the Grammar Test, may indicate two things. The first is that the programmes set in place in 1997 to help stimulate deaf pupils’ early development of NSL have been successful (see 1.2), as good results were achieved by DCHP and not only DCDP. This is indicated by the test results, where Norwegian pupils’ skills are compared with pupils from the UK that does not have the same uniform programmes in place for deaf children and

100 their families. The second is the Grammar Test had many chance cognates and items that were similar to NSL or transparent for sign language users. It is conceivable that Norwegian pupils transfer their intuitive knowledge of NSL to solve the tasks. The results of the DCDP seem also to confirm this (4.7.5).

On the other hand, if the Grammar Test had been standardised as suggested by Johnston (2004) using native speakers, and his mean standard score of 115 was adopted, the comparison of Norwegian and NS could be called “more realistic” remembering that BSL is not the Norwegian pupils’ L1. Native speakers of NSL scored 112 whilst the mean standard score for the whole group, including those who appear to use SSN rather than NSL, was 98,9 which would still be quite acceptable as a measure of L2 receptive skills, lying just on the border of one standard deviation for the normal distribution of BSL NSs.

The analysis of pupils’ errors indicate that problems with spatial verbs morphology were common (pp 71). Whether Norwegian pupils have yet to develop this grammatical element only in BSL or if it is also deficient in their NSL is difficult to know without appropriate material for assessing their NSL Development.

Understanding a BSL text The large distribution of scores in the BSL Story Test can be interpreted as an illustration of pupils’ varying degrees of understanding and may be related to their prior amount of access and experience of BSL texts (pp 80) and pupils’ specific knowledge of BSL vocabulary. For example there were instances of pupils achieving high scores in both the Vocabulary and Grammar Tests, yet low scores on the BSL Story Test. Pupils appear to need more than just their L1 knowledge and exposure to BSL glossary lists or intermittent opportunities to experience BSL, if they are to reach good levels of understanding. Evidence of BSL being presented as isolated glossary has been reported in this study and observed in Ohna et al’s study (2003) (pp 33). However, the large distribution of scores could also be due to shortcomings in the test itself.

The text analysis shows a limited number of chance cognates (Appendix 1) in the BSL Story Test. There were nevertheless, some similarities between BSL and NSL verbs. This appeared to enable pupils to follow the story line, but not answer more detailed questions. That some pupils achieved scores of 100% is remarkable. On the other hand, the test has not been widely

101 used and can contain weaknesses, particularly in the amount and choice of distracter material provided and the format.

I had hypothesised that pupils would perform very well on the BSL Story Test if they were given adequate access to BSL, made use of “roughly-tuned input”, transferred knowledge of L1 and used their experience of L2 and world knowledge (2.10.1). As expected, pupils who did not have regular access to BSL video material (input) or interaction in BSL, performed poorly (pp 80). They were generally severely deaf pupils receiving tuition in large hearing classes at Local Schools. Pupils, who had been given the opportunity to experience BSL, although not always to use the language in interaction to any large extent, attained higher scores. They were usually profoundly deaf pupils in Deaf Schools or in Local Schools providing individual tuition and using teaching aids designed for deaf pupils. Krashen’s input hypothesis (2.6.6), demanding relevant input and enough exposure to L2, seems to be confirmed as one reasonable explanation for the results. Although confirming Krashen’s theory, this study can in no way give an exact empirical measure to say how much exposure to L2 is necessary for SLA to take place.

There were interesting examples of pupils deducing content from grasping “roughly-tuned” clues in the text. For example in task 8, if the BSL sign SQUIRREL was not understood, but the child had deduced that “something” was sitting in a tree, BIRD was chosen.

Areas of BSL tuition that need to be focused on are the development of non-chance cognate BSL vocabulary: especially “nouns” and “adjectives” and multi-channel signs. These elements by far and away, give stimulus to the most interesting metalinguistic discussions. Teachers should also observe their pupils’ spatial verb morphology in NSL and ascertain whether the problems observed in the BSL Grammar Test is a question of development or due to an omission in EfDP teaching.

5.4.1 A discussion of sources of error

The Language Tests The small size of the sample can mean that results are due to coincidence and can be imprecise. By collecting more data using the same tests over time this could be remedied.

102 Norwegian deaf pupils, who have scored below average on BSL tests, can have developmental language deficiencies. Instead of measuring their attainment in BSL receptive skills, the tests may actually be measuring language problems that exist also in their development of NSL and Norwegian. This is a problem that is difficult to check due to the lack of assessment materials in NSL. The tests measure not only BSL receptive skills, but also pupils’ metalinquistic skills. Pupils, who have had little experience of BSL texts, will have had less opportunity to develop and utilize such skills.

The adapted Vocabulary Test could be improved by using the picture book format rather than individual pictures, which gave opportunities for pupils to use elimination strategies. The BSL Story Test could probably be improved by providing more distracter material.

The Questionnaires As in all questionnaire surveys there are several possible sources of error. Although the questionnaire was tested and wording etc adjusted before it was used, the fact that multi- choice or scales were used, can have influenced the results and made them less well defined. Room was given for teachers to write additional comments, but very few did so. It is clear that a more open type of interview could give added, in-depth information. Also, including a questionnaire to the parents could have triangulated some of the teachers’ information and given information that teachers lacked.

The interpretation of results It is obvious that in interpreting the results one’s judgment is coloured by personal experience of having seen both ends of the scale: successful deaf learners of BSL and English and others who have not had positive experiences with FLL, have no belief in their own language competence and no hope left of ever mastering English literacy. One pupil who is a typical example wrote, “i hat english”. Therefore I believe it is important to give all deaf pupils some FLL experiences that are positive and motivating: and more often than not BSL, because it is in the same modality as NSL, gives precisely that.

5.5 Recommendations

This study has given a quantitative overview of some of the factors affecting the teaching of EFL to Norwegian deaf pupils in class 4, during 2003 – 2004. Here are some recommend- ations that spring out of the study’s findings.

103 General recommendations One of the shortcomings of this study was not being able to measure pupils’ NSL development giving a comparative base line to assess their BSL. I support the view of Hjelmervik (2000) that the development of an instrument for NSL development assessment is essential so that in future studies of deaf pupils’ development researchers have an underpinning for their work.

5.5.1 Recommendations for Statped’s role

Spreading more information about EfDP The combined resources of the Statped resource centres (FAP, Schools for the deaf and support teams) should play a larger role in collecting and spreading informing to parents and teachers of the intensions of EfDP. More information and discussion are necessary so that teachers and parents can whole-heartedly and confidently support their children who have unique learning capabilities.

Enriching Local School pupils’ BSL experiences Although some Local School teachers have developed BSL skills, it would enrich pupils’ BSL experiences if efforts were concentrated on increasing competence in TEFL teaching of teachers at the Deaf Schools. Over time, these teachers will amass more experience with EfDP than teachers in Local Schools. They could then offer both, group tuition to their own pupils and pupils in Local Schools via video conferences, and provide EfDP related activities during short-term stays. In this way all pupils could experience peer interaction in L2, which is lacking in the classroom for many of the pupils in this study and seems underestimated as a factor in SLA. Socio-linguistic theory suggests that SLA demands a much more complex interaction of factors than a simple teacher (input) pupil (output) relationship.

Experience with contact with native speakers (NS) is something that few Statped Resource Centres have made available for deaf pupils, although for hearing pupils it is common place i.e. pen pals, visits to language schools, EU projects etc. Experience shows that where contact has been made with BSL NS, the effects have been extremely beneficial, as can be expected seen in a socio-linguistic perspective. This is certainly something that parent and pupils cannot arrange for themselves. Departments within the Resource Centres need to pool their assets to be able to work internationally.

104 BSL Lending Libraries Not all pupils in the study had access to BSL materials. This can be a question of an LEA’s economic situation or teacher’s choice. Statped Resource Centres could provide a “lending library service” of BSL texts. One of the Resource Centres already does this and it seems to have proved helpful. Teachers need access to a variety of BSL texts that they can use in their teaching to enrich the pupils’ experiences of BSL.

Network building The curriculum was interpreted in different ways as predicted by Goodlad (2.9), maybe because there are few forums wherein-depth discussion can take place about the curriculum’s structure and content. This is another job for the Statped Resource Centres. Teachers need regular regional courses and networks to aid in developing teachers’ EfDP teaching methods and BSL skills. A few teachers in the sample have shown that formal qualifications in BSL are not necessarily the be all and end all of requirements but that it is equally important to have an understanding of the EfDP goals, the teacher’s role and teaching methods.

5.5.2 Recommendations for the EfDP classroom: Tearing down classroom walls using IT.

“Inclusion” in L2 dialogue was deemed essential for all pupils by Hatch in 1978. Whether in Deaf Schools or Local Schools interaction in L2 was found to be lacking in this study. As mentioned earlier, videophone conferencing of groups of pupils at regular intervals to supplement the teaching of Local Schools would be beneficial. This would provide real inclusion for deaf pupils in L2 interaction and metalinguistic discussion in L1.

Teaching a deaf pupil EFL can be a rare occurrence for many Local School teachers and LEAs. Experience shows that LEAs often do not plan far enough ahead. This in turn means that the Local School teacher usually do not have time to acquire the necessary competence in EfDP, so important during the first years of TEFL, when the deaf pupils begins Primary School.

Ohna et al. (2003) stated that the need for videophone communication is felt most in Local Schools but with the falling numbers of full-time pupils the need for L2 conversation via videophone may become as important for Deaf Schools too. At the same time, experience

105 shows that it is the Statped Deaf Schools who will ultimately have to take the initiative in organising and administering such networks. Solutions like these, are however, totally reliant on a mutual understanding at all levels in the system of the necessity of such action and sufficient resources being allocated.

5.5.3 Recommendations for teachers

Qualifications It is obvious that EfDP teachers need formal education (30 credits) to increase the use of up- to-date teaching methods and greater understanding of the larger perspectives associated with the curriculum such as metalinguistic “spin offs”, development of pupils’ language learning strategies and social and cultural knowledge. Statped will probably have to initiate work in creating such courses, as this subject is not a priority with the University Colleges. Course fees must be set at an acceptable level to facilitate teachers’ participation.

Classroom organisation Local School teachers should also consider and experiment with different ways of organising EFL teaching to meet the needs for SLA in deaf pupils, based on an assessment of the deaf pupil’s individual needs and the conditions needed for successful SLA. This could, for example, include more group-work in quiet surroundings with content determined by the deaf pupil’s needs and adaptations made to include hearing classmates. More L2 interaction should be encouraged and catered for.

Pupils in all school settings need greater freedom to develop a wider range of learning strategies whilst at the same time maintaining a balance between bottom-up and top-down strategies and to ensure that pupils have the maximum opportunity to acquire L2.

5.6 Suggestions for new research

Results refute the suggestion that it is not possible for Local Schools to use the syllabus English for deaf pupils. It is possible for pupils in Local Schools to perform well as this study has shown and with certain the changes, as suggested in 5.5, pupils’ tuition can be more “inclusive” and more active interaction can take place. An in-depth qualitative study is required to investigate what successful Local Schools and Deaf Schools are doing in the

106 classroom so that this knowledge can be used to improve the learning environments of all deaf pupils irrespective of school placement.

The pupils There is virtually nothing in the literature about deaf pupils’ EFL learning and teaching methods for this age group. It would be helpful to study which learning strategies deaf pupils use in acquiring BSL and utilise this knowledge to further develop teaching methods and materials and thereby enhance EfDP. Also, are pupils’ experiences with BSL beneficial in relation to English literacy and if so, how can strategies used in BSL acquisition be harnessed in learning English? Is it possible that this kind of research could also shed light on deaf children’s L1 acquisition?

With increased L2 interaction in the EfDP classroom, studies of pupils’ expressive use of BSL would be possible. This could perhaps provide information on some cognitive and socio- linguistic processes involved in SLA in deaf pupils.

The question raised earlier of the consequences of placing the severely hearing-impaired in large classes with hearing peers for TEFL should be studied and critically evaluated.

The teachers The study showed that the teachers were prolific users of English syntax and mouthings (voiced and unvoiced) combined with BSL signs. Educators must assume this to be an efficient way of providing deaf pupils with visual information about oral English, helping pupils to acquire English vocabulary and syntax whilst still attempting to maintain the communicative oral aspect of EFL. Deaf Schools appeared to reinforce this using written English to a larger extent than Local Schools, perhaps providing opportunities for visual re- call. It is probable that this method of TEFL is not used outside Norway with this age group. Research needs to be done to support or refute teachers’ assumptions about language usage in the EfDP classroom and evaluate its effectiveness and whether or not there is a need for more language separation. It is essential that research findings be made known at grass root level.

107

5.7 Final Conclusions

Norwegian deaf pupils’ experiences with BSL in the classroom, regardless of school placement, have had a positive effect on their BSL receptive skills. Pupils can understand a foreign sign language (BSL) text if they have been given access to adequate amounts of understandable (BSL) input. Pupils may also be using their knowledge of BSL coupled with the transfer of intuitive knowledge of NSL, metalinguistic strategies and world knowledge in solving the tasks. There is reason to believe that Norwegian pupils generally have good NSL skills although there exists no assessment test of NSL to empirically confirm this.

It is probable that Deaf pupils feel affinity with other deaf people and their languages and a foreign sign language is therefore a highly motivating place to start with FLL. Learning BSL, which is in the same modality as NSL, does not seem to be a daunting task for deaf pupils and the motivation they display should be put to good use.

Since we know so little about deaf pupils’ SLA, it is important that they are allowed to develop their own language learning strategies and in this way inform teachers how best to adapt their teaching of EFL. There is a need to accept that in some subject areas, such as EfDP, some deaf pupils need to follow a different route to reach the same goals as hearing pupils. Lack of social interaction in L2, is an area that teachers and Statped need to address, perhaps using IT.

Seven of the eleven Norwegians (46,6%) scored above the standardised score for deaf British pupils of the same age on the Grammar Test. This may be interpreted as a positive result of Norwegian pupils’ early development of NSL due to the sign language program for parents that were put in place in 1997.

It is questionable whether many pupils experience an optimal EfDP programme and whether teachers are making the most of the “metalinguistic spin-offs” created by EfDP. Hearing status was apparently the one important variable that dictated the teachers’ organisation of TEFL, choice of teaching aids and as a consequence the quantity and quality of access to BSL, which in turn influenced pupils’ test results. The boundaries for when a deaf pupil is placed in a large class with hearing peers have been stretched to a limit that gives cause for

108 concern and must be carefully monitored. Pupils, especially those with severe hearing losses, who have not been given full access to the EfDP syllabus, must be guaranteed that the alternatives they have been offered, have resulted instead in age-appropriate acquisition of English if they are to be acceptable.

Short-comings in the EFL learning environments of deaf pupils, both in Local Schools and Deaf Schools, appear to be widespread and need to be addressed creatively at all levels in the system. In-service teachers particularly need further education to facilitate a better understanding of the SLA process in deaf pupils. Nevertheless, this study has shown that Local Schools can provide good conditions for EfDP, refuting earlier claims of Ohna et al (2003) and Hjelmervik & Grønlie (2004).

Given that certain deaf pupils can have acquired a degree of understanding of BSL and experience of FLL, the next question is, can this knowledge and experience be harnessed and used in learning English? …

109 REFERENCES

Arnesen, C. Å. (2003). Grunnskolekarakterer våren 2003. NIFU skriftserie nr 32/2003

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press. Oxford

Berggreen, H & Tenfjord, K. (1999). Andrespråkslæring. Ad Notam Gyldendal. Oslo.

Bergh, G. (2004). Norsk tegnspråk som offisielt språk. ABM-utvikling, Oslo.

Borg, W. R. & Gall M. D. (1989). Educational Research. Longman. New York.

Breivik, J. (2001). Deaf identities in the making. Metaphors and narratives in translocal lives. University of Oslo.

Brennan, M. (1992). The visual world of BSL: An introduction. Dictionary of British Sign Language/English. British Deaf Association.

Brennan, M (1998). Paper 4. See what I mean? Exploiting BSL visual encoding in teaching and learning. Scottish Sensory Centre. Edinburgh

Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching. The roles of fluency and accuracy. Cambridge University Press. London.

Cawthorn, I., & Chambers, G. (1993). The special needs of the deaf foreign language learner. Language Learning Journal No. 7 March. s. 47 – 49

Chamberlain, C., Morford, J. P., Mayberry, R. I. (2000). Language Acquisition by Eye. Lawrence Erlbaum ass. London

Det kongelige kirke-, utdannings- og forskningsdepartement. (1997a). Læreplanverket for den 10-årige grunnskolen. Norsk, engelsk og drama og rytmikk for døve. Oslo. Det kongelige kirke-, utdannings- og forskningsdepartement

Det kongelige kirke-, utdannings- og forskningsdepartement. (1996). Læreplanverket for den 10-årige grunnskolen. Oslo. Det kongelige kirke-, utdannings- og forskningsdepartement

Det kongelige kirke-, utdannings- og forskningsdepartement. (1997b). Veiledning- L 97. Engelsk for døve. Oslo. Det kongelige kirke-, utdannings- og forskningsdepartement

Det kongelige kirke-, utdannings- og forskningsdepartement. (1997c). Veiledning. Organisering av opplæring i og på tegnspråk. Oslo. Det kongelige kirke-, utdannings- og forskningsdepartement

Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development: A study of classroom interaction and language acquisition. Oxford. Pergamon Press.

Ellis, R. (First published 1985, eleventh impression 1996). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

110

Elphick, R. (1989). Some implications of the national curriculum in the education of hearing- impaired children. Journal of British Association of Teachers of the Deaf (13), 5, 119 – 125.

Elphick, R., and Course Team (1990). The national curriculum and hearing-impaired children. Unit 24. Distance learning course for teachers of hearing-impaired children, School of Education, University of Birmingham.

Engen, T.O. & Kulbrandstad, L.A. (1998). Tospråklighet og minoritetsundervisning. Gyldendal. Oslo.

Eriksson, P. (1993). The History of Deaf People. SIH Laromedel.

Galvan, D. (1989). A sensitive period for the acquisition of complex morphology: Evidence from ASL. PRCLD 28, 107 – 114.

Gardener, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: multi intelligences for the 21st century. Basic Books.

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (1994). Second Language Acquisition. An introductory Course. Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Inc.

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition. An introductory Course. Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Inc.

Hargie, O., Saunders. C., & Dickson D. (1987). Social Skills in Interpersonal Communication. Routledge. London.

Heiling, Kerstin. (1995). Døva barns utveckling. Kunskapsnivå och sociala processer. Pedagogiske Punkten. Malmø.

Herman, R., Holmes, S. & Woll, B. (1999). Assessing British sign language development. Tester’s manual for the receptive skills test. Gloucester. Douglas McLean at the Forest Bookshop.

Hjelmervik, E. (2000). Måles tegnspråk i desimeter? En analyse av ulike redskap som kartlegger dove barns tegnspråk. Hovedoppgave ved ISP. UiO. Oslo.

Hjelmervik, E., Grønlie, S. (2004). Å ikke høre i en hørende skole. Fag og arbeidsformer i endring? Tidsbilde fra norsk grunnskole. Klette, K. (Red)

Johnston, T. (2004). The assessment and achievement of proficiency in a native sign language within a sign bilingual program: The pilot Auslan receptive skills test. Deafness and Education International, 6 (2). pp. 57-81. Whurr Publishers Ltd.

Koritizinsky, T. (2000). Pedagogikk & politikk i L97. Læreplanens innhold og beslutningsprosessene. Oslo Universitetsforlag

Krashen, S. (1983). The input hypothesis. Issues in language testing research. Oller, J. W. Newbury house publishers, Massachusetts. 357 – 366.

111 Kyle, J.G. & Woll, B. (1985). Sign Language. The study of deaf people and their language. Cambridge University Press.

Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding Deaf Culture. In Search of Deafhood. Multilingual Matters Ltd. Clevedon.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

MacAulay, M. (1997). Empower ’97: International conference on deaf education. Workshop 3: Foreign language learning and deaf children. Scottish Sensory Centre. www.ssc.mhie.ac.uk

Mahshie, S.N. (1995). Educating deaf children bilingually. Gallaudet University Press. Washington DC.

Marschark, M. (2000). Education and development of deaf children – or is it development and education? Spencer, P., Erting, C., Marschark, M. (Eds). The deaf child in the family and at school. pp. 275 – 291. Erlbaum Assoc.

Marschark, M., Lang H. & Albertini, J. A. (2002). Educating deaf students. From research to practice. Oxford University Press.

Mayberry, R.L. (1993). First-language acquisition after childhood differs from second- language acquisition: The case of American Sign Language. Journal of speech and hearing research, 36 (6), 1258 - 70

Mayberry, R.I., Lock, E. Kazmi, H. (2002). Linguistic ability and early language exposure. Nature 417, 38.

McAnally, P. Rose, S., & Quigley, S. (1994). Language learning practices with deaf children. Texas. Pro-ed Ltd.

McLagan, P. (ed). (1994). Languages for the hearing impaired by the Cornwall County Audiology Service. Steps to learning. Modern languages for pupils with special educational needs. 49 – 51 CILT. London.

Miles, D. (2001). British sign language. A beginner’s guide. London. BBC books.

Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (1998). Second Language Learning Theories. Arnold. London

Moores, D. F.(1987). Educating the Deaf. Psychology, principles and practices. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston.

Ohna S, E., Hjulstad O., Vonen A. M., Grønlie S. M., Hjelmervik E., Høie G. (2003). På vei mot en ny grunnskoleopplæring for døve elever. Evaluering etter Reform 97. Oslo. Skådalen publications.

Parkhurst S., Parkhurst, D. (2003). Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session, vol. 47. Lexical Comparisons of Signed languages and the Effects of Iconicity. www.und.edu/dept/linguistics/wp/2003ParkhurstParkhurst.PDF

112 Pickersgill, M. (1998). Bilingualism – current policy and practice. Gregory, S., Knight, P., McCracken, W., Powers, S., Watson, L. (Eds). Issues in deaf education. pp. 88 – 99. Fulton Publishers. London

Pocock, C. J., (1992). Some factors involved in the successful study of a modern foreign language. Journal of British Association of Teachers of the Deaf. (16), 3. 57 – 69

Preisler G. & Tvingstedt A. (2003). Sammanfattning av en psyko-social uppføljningsstudie av barn med cochlea implantat i førskola og skola. Nordisk tidskrift før hørsel- og døvundervisning, 4, 13 – 19.

Senghas, A., Sotaro, K. & Øzyurek A. (2004). Children creating core properties of language: Evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science vol. 305 no. 5691.

Seliger, H. & Shohamy, E. (1995). Second language research methods. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Schlesinger, H. S., & Meadows, K.P. (1972). Sound and sign. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press

Smith, C. (1990). Signs make sense. A guide to British sign language. Souvenir Press (Educational & Academic) Ltd. London

Stevick, E. (1976). Memory, meaning and method. Rowley. Ma. Newbury House.

Stone, R. (2000). A Bold Step: Changing the Curriculum for culturally deaf and hard of hearing students. Spence, P., Erting, C. & Marschark, (Eds.), The deaf child in the family and at school. Ed. M. Erlbaum Associates. (pp. 229 – 238)

Sutton-Spence. R., & Woll, B. (1999). The Linguistics of British Sign Language. An introduction. Cambridge University Press.

Swanwick, R. (1998). The teaching and learning of literacy within a sign bilingual approach. Gregory, S., Knight, P., McCracken, W., Powers, S., Watson, L. (Eds). Issues in deaf education. pp. 111 – 119. Fulton Publishers. London

Sørlien Barli, K. (2003). Døve i ”den inkluderende skole”. Skådalen publication series.

Vogt-Svendsen, M. (1987). Tegnspråk og norsk og blandningsformer av de to språkene. Spesialpedagogisk artikelserie, nr 2. Oslo. Statens spesiallærerhøyskole

Vonen, A. M.. (1997). Et merkeår i døveundervisningens historie. Oslo. Skådalen kompetansesenter.

Vonen, A. M. (2003). Describing and evaluating bilingual deaf education: current research and policies in Norway. Signed bilingualism. What does the concept mean today? European Days of Deaf Education. Ørebro.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Educational Psychology. Florida. St. Lucie Press.

113 Woll, B. (1984). The comparative study of different sign languages: Preliminary analyses. Loncke, F., Boyes-Braen, P., Lebrun, Y (Eds.), Recent research on European sign languages. (p 79 – 92)..Swets & Zeitlinger BV., Lisse

Woll, B. (1998). In Gregory, S & Powers, S. Issues in Deaf Education, Multilingual Matters.

Woll, B., Sutton-Spence, R. & Elton, F. (2001). Multilingualism: The global approach to sign languages. Ceil Lucas. (Ed.), The Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages. (pp. 8 – 32) Cambridge University Press.

Zahl, T. S. (2000). Døves tospråklighet. Hvordan skriver døve barn av døve foreldre andrespråket norsk? Hovedoppgave. Universitet i Oslo

Øzerk, K. (1992). Om tospråklig utvikling. En teoretisk studie av fenomenet og begrepet tospråklighet. Oslo. Oris forlag

Internet references http:// program.forskningsradet.no. Bachman, K., Sivesind, K., Afsar, A. & Hopmann, S. (2003). Hvordan formidles læreplanen? En komparativ evaluering av læreplanbaserte virkemidler – deres utforming, konsistens og betydning for læreres praksis. Høyskole forlag as. Downloaded 23.05.04 http://web.uccs.edu/lbecker/psy590/es.htm. Becker. L. Effect Size. Downloaded 07.06.04 http://www.tidsskriftet.no Everland, Mjølsnes, Hjørnevik, Rønning Arnesen. (2002). Tidlig diagnose av døvhet og alvorlig hørselstap. Download 30.11.04 http://www.signlang-assessment.info Haug, T. (2003). Review of Signed Language Assessment Instruments. Download 011204 http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/Products/Sharing-Ideas/becoming/mtawr.html. Lasry, S. Becoming Bilingual: Facilitating English Literacy Development Using ASL in Preschool. Metalinguistic Awareness. (1997). Downloaded 21.10.04

114 Appendix 1. An Analysis of the BSL texts used in the Tests.

Comparing the lexicon of different sign languages presents a new challenge. Because of the differences in modality, techniques used in comparing spoken languages cannot be used (Parkhurst & Parkhurst 2003). Iconicity is one of the reasons for this. Iconic signs give a direct association to the article it represents. The lexicon used in the different tests were analysed using a system described by Parkhurst & Parkhurst (2003), comparing BSL and NSL signs and dividing them into four categories: chance cognates, transparent iconic signs, signs that have some elements of similarity and signs that are totally different.

VOCABULARY TEST

BSL items Categories

Chance Transparent Quite Totally Cognates Iconic signs similar different

APPLE X BALL X BED X BOOK X BOX X BOY X CHILD X CAR X COAT X CUP X DOG X COLLAR X HAT X HEADPHONES X HEARING-AID X ICE-CREAM X LETTER X MOTHER X PENCIL X TABLE X TEDDY X UMBRELLA X Total 22 12 3 2 5

The analysis shows that 54,5% of the signs are chance cognates and 22,5% are totally different. The only differences between the chance cognate signs are the mouthings. However it should be noted that the recipient focuses on the mouth when perceiving sign language.

The next test, BSL grammar test, was analysed using the same model as earlier. In this analysis grammatical likenesses were compared. The informants were by now familiar with the lexicon which they had experienced in the previous test.

1 BSL Grammar Test

The sentence’s BSL item Chance Trans- Quite similar Totally cognate parent different grammatical Iconic form Sign Spacial verb 2 CAR ROW ROW ROW X morphology 5BOOK ON X 9BALL TABLE ON X 10 TWO-PEOPLE-MEET X 11 DOG IN X 12 PERSON-GO-DOWN- X ESCALATOR 13 CHILD LOOK-UP X 15 CAR BEHIND X 17 BOX UNDER BED X 18 BOOK-GIVE-TO-CHILD X 20 BOY HIT-GIRL FACE- X HURT 27 POUR-WATER-OTHER- X BOY HAIR-WET 29 MOTHER LETTER GIVE X 32 CHILD BOOK-SHOW-TO X SIDE 34 DOG-IN-FRONT X 38 ROW-CAR-BOTTOM- X LEFT 39 DOG-LIE-INSIDE-RIGHT X 40 HOUSE-TOP-RIGHT X Number/distribution 1 LOTS APPLE X 6 ONE-TEDDY X 14 FEW-CUP X 24 QUEUE X Negation 3 ICE-CREAM NOTHING X 4 NOT-LIKE EAT X 8 HAT NOTHING X 23 NOT-SLEEP X 28 HEADPHONES NOTHING X 30 CHILD COAT RAIN X NOTHING 31 CAN’T-REACH X 33 DOG NO COLLAR EAT- X BIG-BONE 35 NOT-DROP-CUP X 36 HEARING-AID NOTHING X Size/shape specifiers 16 CURLY-HAIR X 21 PENCIL THICK X 22 THICK-STRIPES-DOWN- X TROUSERS Noun/verb 7 DRIVE X distinction 19 BOY-DRINK X

2 26 PENCIL X Handling classifiers 25 HOLD-UMBRELLA- X OPEN-WALK 37 EAT-THIN-SANDWICH X Total 40 8 5 19 8

20% of BSL items are chance cognates of NSL. 12,5% are transparently iconic. 47,5% are quite similar and 20% are totally different. This test was a little more demanding than the first although it is expected that many of the items are quite transparent for sign language users.

In the final test, The BSL Story Test, the key signs were chosen because they were NOT chance cognates of NSL. These are more often than not, nouns and adjectives. Verbs that are not chance cognates were more difficult to find because sign language verbs often reflect reality (Brennan, 1992) and can be quite transparent and easily understood by experienced sign language users i.e. EAT, RUN. Nevertheless some verbs in the text are arbitrary i.e. WANT, HURRY-UP, THANK-YOU and demand more specific knowledge of BSL.

BSL Story Test

BSL TEXT Other Other Translated Nouns Verbs sign sign into classes classes Chance Quite Totally Chance cognates Totally English that are that are cognate similar different different totally chance different cognates MONDAY LEAVING HURRY- LATE BYE 1. It’s Monday. COAT EIGHT UP SOON It’s half past RAN- DOWN-THE STAIRS eight and A BAG BOY QUICK little boy is SCHOOL BUTTER-BREAD THANK going to school. BUS “Hurry up Mum, BREAD BUTTONED-HIS-COAT I’ll be late for school. The bus CHEESE THREW-HIS- SATCHEL- is leaving soon!” MUM (RANSEL) –ONTO- HIS- Mum buttered SANDWICH SHOULDER. two slices of PAPER bread, put a PUT –THE- SANDWICH-IN- thick slice of A –PAPER-BAG cheese on one, and then put the THE-BOY PUSHED-IT other slice of INTO-HIS POCKET bread on top. “Quick, quick!” THE-BOY RUSHED- OUT- signed the boy OF THE -HOUSE, HIS - as he buttoned JACKET -FLAPPING. up one button on his coat and threw his satchel (ransel) onto his shoulder. Mum put the sandwich in a paper bag and The boy pushed it into his pocket. “Bye,” signed Mum as The boy rushed out of the house, his jacket flapping. CHILD- BUS HE RAN DOWN THE ROAD RED He ran down 2. REN SANDWICH DOUBLE- the road. At the THE OTHER CHILDREN bus stop he DECKER

3 could see the HAD ALREADY STARTED big, red, double TO GET ON. decker bus. The other children FELL had already started to get on. The boy ran as fast as he could. He didn’t notice when the sandwich fell out of his pocket. SUN CHEESE IT WAS STARTING TO GET BLACK WARM 3. The sun NOSE DOG WARM PINK SHINY shone and it was starting to get TO DRY OUT warm inside the bag. The cheese AND CURL UP began to dry out and curl up at CAME ALONG the corners. Just then a dog came along. It had long, black hair covering its eyes and a big, pink, shiny nose. TREE HOUSE HOME PICKED UP THE BAG IN LIVE 4. The dog HIS MOUTH picked up the GARDEN bag in his mouth FLOWER and ran home. The dog lived in a small red brick house with a big garden full of flowerbeds and surrounded by a high hedge and trees. DINNER- RAN INTO THE GARDEN 5. The dog ran SAVE TIME AND PULLED THE BAG TO into the garden PIECES and pulled the bag to pieces AND TOOK A BIG BITE and took a big OUT OF THE SANDWICH. bite out of the sandwich. STARTED TO DIG A HOLE. “Yum, yum. I know, I’ll save it until dinner time,” he thought and started to dig a hole. WOMAN ANGRY 6. Just then an GRABBED SILLY angry lady DESTROY appeared at the THREW-IT-OVER-THE door of the HEDGE. house. “What are you doing, you silly dog! You’re destroying my flowers!” The woman grabbed the sandwich and threw it over the hedge.

4 SKY FLEW -THROUGH –THE- DARK HALF 7. The DAY AIR-AND-LANDED-IN- SPOTTY sandwich flew THE GRASS-IN-FRONT-OF through the air NIGHT A- TREE GREY and landed in the grass in front LOOKED- UP of a tree. The sandwich looked THEN-A-NEW-DAY - up at the sky. It DAWNED. was half-eaten, all grey and spotty. It saw the day turn into night and then a new day dawned. FOOD SQUIRREL SITTING-IN A-TREE. 8. A squirrel was sitting in a HURRIED-DOWN-FROM tree. “Food!” THE-BRANCH AND – thought the STARTED-TO-EAT-IT. squirrel and hurried down from the branch and started to eat it. STOMACH MOUSE WATCHING BROWN BIGGER 9. From behind the tree, a little - AND- brown animal SCURRIED- BIGGER had been OVER -TO watching. It was a mouse. As NIBBLED- &- NIBBLED. soon as the squirrel had gone, he scurried over to the remains of the sandwich. He nibbled and nibbled. His stomach got bigger and bigger.

BREAKFAST SCAMPERED-OFF NOTHING- NICE 10. At last LEFT. there was EAT nothing left. Not FIND WHAT even one little crumb. “That was a nice breakfast!” thought the mouse and scampered off to find something else to eat.

Because of simultaneity it can be difficult to divide signs into the classes one usually uses in spoken language. This is only a superficial analysis and does not include all the different classes of signs. It appears that there are more similarities between signs classed as verbs than nouns.

Nouns Verbs Other sign classes Chance cognates 11 (32%) 35 (79%) 5 (25%) Totally different 23 (68%) 9 (21%) 15 (75%) Sum 34 44 20

5 The text meets up to requirements for this test, as the number of totally different nouns is comparatively high. It is expected that pupils who are sign language users will understand the story line, but have problems understanding details about the subjects and objects.

6 Appendix 2. Flyer zVi trenger din hjelp i et forskningsprosjekt om engelskundervisning for døve eleverz

Prosjektet er en del av et hovedfagsstudiet i spesialpedagogikk. Temaet for forskningsprosjektet er engelskopplæring for døve og sterkt tunghørte elever i grunnskolen. Britisk tegnspråk (BSL) ble innført som en del av læreplanen engelsk for døve i 1997. Prosjektet er en kvantitativ undersøkelse som skal måle om elevene har tilegnet seg BSL på 4. klassetrinnet. zForskningsdesign Utvalget: Hele populasjon av døve og sterkt tunghørte elever som får undervisning etter L 97 læreplanen engelsk for døve.

Instrumentene • BSL Assessment Test er utarbeidet og standardisert av City University, London. Testen skal kartlegge tegnspråkutvikling hos engelske døve barn i alderen 3 – 11 år. Elevene presenteres for et utvalg av BSL-vokabular og BSL-grammatiske elementer på video. Eleven svarer ved å velge et bilde fra et utvalg av 4 illustrasjoner. Resultatet presenteres som en standardisert skåre. • BSL Story Test har som mål å undersøke om elevene kan forstå en sammenhengende BSLtekst på video. Elevene responderer på samme måten som på BSL Assessment Test. • Et spørreskjema skal gi noe bakgrunnsinformasjon om elevene og bl. a. hvilke undervisningsmetoder læreren bruker.

Datainnhenting Lærerne skal utføre testene på sine egne elever i løpet av høsten 2003.

Evt. videre forskning Har kjennskap til BSL noe innvirkning på døve barns • motivasjon og holdninger til å tilegne seg engelsk? • tilegnelse av engelsk? • metalingvistiske ferdigheter? zBehov for en kontrollgruppe Vi har liten forskning på døve barn og deres tilegnelse av et fremmedtegnspråk i klasserommet. Vi vet ikke hvor mye BSL-elevene kan forstå simpelthen fordi de har et annet tegnspråk (NTS) som morsmål. Tegnene som er brukt i BSL Assessment Test er valgt fordi hørende barn som ikke hadde kjennskap til tegnspråk, ikke klarte å gjette hva tegnene betydde. Det er i denne sammenhengen av stor betydning å få vite om døve barn som ikke er blitt utsatt for BSL, klarer å gjette seg til tegnenes betydning. Derfor er det ønskelig å få en gruppe døve barn i alderen 10 – 11år som har et tegnspråk som morsmål, f eks svensk- eller dansk tegnspråk til å delta i forskningsprosjektet. Det vil innebære at en lærer som elevene kjenner, utfører BSL Assessment Test og BSL Story Test

7 sammen med elevene enkeltvis i løpet av høsten 2003. (Ca 30 min per elev.) Læreren vil få materiell, veiledning og støtte fra prosjektlederen. zVil du delta, ta kontakt med: Pat Pritchard, Vestlandet kompetansesenter, Pb 463, 5501 Haugesund e-post: [email protected]. Tlf: 0047 52 71 10 22. Mob: 00 47 95 74 70 98

8 Appendix 3 Til foreldre/foresatte til elever i klasse 4A ved xxx skole

Kan ditt barn være med på utprøving ut materiell til et forskningsprosjekt? Jeg kontakter deg fordi jeg er hovedfagsstudent i pedagogikk og skal skrive en oppgave om britisk tegnspråkferdighetene (BSL) til døve og sterkt tunghørte elever på 4. klassetrinn. Til daglig er jeg audiopedagog og ansatt på Vestlandet kompetansesenter.

Jeg har utviklet videomateriell som skal brukes i forskningsprosjektet. Jeg trenger sju normalt hørende elever til utprøving av materiellet. Elevene må ikke har kjennskap til tegnspråk. Utprøving vil foregå på Lillesund skole slik:

Barnet vil se på en videofortelling på britisk tegnspråk. Etterpå vil han/hun prøve å gjenfortelle fortellingen ved å peke på bilder. Resultatene skrives på et resultatsark. Det vil ta ca 10 minutter.

All opplysninger blir behandlet konfidensielt. Jeg får ikke vite barnets navn eller andre personopplysninger. Det er bare jeg som har tilgang til de innsamlede opplysningene. Det vil ikke være mulig å gjenkjenne enkelte elever eller skoler i den ferdige oppgaven. Det er frivillig å delta og dere kan trekke tilbake samtykke når som helst uten grunn.

Prosjektet er meldt til Personvernombudet for forskning, Norsk samfunnsvitenskapelig datatjeneste AS og jeg følger gjeldende regler. Prosjektet er blitt godkjent av fagstyret ved Norges teknisk- og naturvitenskapelig universitet, Trondheim og får støtte fra Vestlandet kompetansesenter og fra Læringssenteret, Oslo.

Jeg håper at ditt barn kan være med på utprøvingen.

Vennligst returner svarslippen til barnets lærer innen fredag onsdag 10 desember. Har du noen spørsmål, ta gjerne kontakt med meg. På forhånd takk! Med vennlig hilsen

Pat Pritchard Førstekonsulent, FoU team, Vestlandet kompetansesenter. Pb 463, 5501 Haugesund, Norge. Tlf: 52 71 10 22. Mob. tlf: 95 74 70 98. E-post: [email protected]

9 ------Svarslipp

Returneres til barnets klasselærere innen 10 desember 2003.

Jeg/vi samtykker i at ______barnets navn kan delta i utprøving av BSLmateriellet som beskrevet i informasjonsbrevet.

Underskrift. ______

Dato ______

10 Appendix 4

Rektor XXXX skole,

Forskningsprosjekt om døve og sterkt tunghørte elevers britisk tegnspråkferdigheter (BSL).

Jeg kontakter deg fordi skolen har en elev som følger læreplanen engelsk for døve L97 på skolen. Jeg er audiopedagog ansatt på Vestlandet kompetansesenter, FoU teamet. Som en del av min hovedfagsoppgave skal jeg utføre en kvantitativ undersøkelse av BSLferdighetene til døve og sterkt tunghørte elever på 4. klassetrinn. Målet er å kartlegge BSLferdigheter hos ALLE elever i 4. klasse skoleåret 2003 –2004 som får undervisning etter læreplanen engelsk for døve.

Læringseffekten i dette faget ble ikke evaluert under Forskningsrådets evalueringsprosjekt om innføring av L97 og Norge er det eneste landet som gir undervisning i et fremmed tegnspråk. Resultatene blir derfor av stor interesse.

Jeg ber om at innen uke 34: 1. læreren som underviser etter læreplanen engelsk for døve på 4. klassetrinn får informasjonsbrevet (vedlegg 1), 2. elevens/enes foresatte får en kopi av informasjonsbrev (vedlegg 2)

Prosjektet har fått godkjenning av fagstyret ved NTNU, Trondheim, støtte fra Vestlandet kompetansesenter og fra Læringssenteret. Prosjektet er meldt til Personvernombudet for forskning, Norsk samfunnsvitenskapelig datatjeneste.

Prosjektet vil kunne gi oss kunnskap om denne elevgruppen som kan komme dem til gode. Har du noen spørsmål, ta gjerne kontakt med meg. På forhånd takk!

Med vennlig hilsen

Pat Pritchard 11. august 2003

Førstekonsulent, FOU team, Vestlandet kompetansesenter Pb 463, 5501 Haugesund. Tlf: 52 71 10 22. Mob tlf: 95 74 70 98 e-post: [email protected]

Vedlegg 1 og 2.

11 Appendix 5 Vedlegg 2

Til foreldre/foresatte til elever i 4. klasse som får BSLundervisning

Kan ditt barn være med i et spennende forskningsprosjekt?

Jeg kontakter deg fordi jeg er hovedfagsstudent i pedagogikk og skal skrive en oppgave om britisk tegnspråkferdighetene (BSL) til døve og sterkt tunghørte elever på 4. klassetrinn. Til daglig er jeg audiopedagog og ansatt på Vestlandet kompetansesenter.

Målet med hovedfagsoppgaven er å kartlegge BSLferdigheter hos ALLE 4. klassinger i denne elevgruppen skoleåret 2003 –2004 som får undervisning etter læreplanen engelsk for døve. Elevenes ferdigheter i dette faget ble ikke evaluert under Forskningsrådets evalueringsprosjekt om innføring av L97 og Norge er det eneste landet som gir undervisning i et fremmed tegnspråk. Resultatene blir derfor av stor interesse bl a om hvordan skolene lykkes med opplæringen og hva som er viktig for tilegnelse av språk m.m.

Kartlegging av BSLferdigheter vil foregå slik:

Barnet vil se på en BSLvideo i avslappet omgivelse sammen med sin lærer og vise hvor mye han/hun forstår ved å peke på bilder. Det vil ta ca 20 min. Resultatene skrives på et resultatsark. For elever som mottar sin undervisningstilbud på hjemmeskolen, vil kartleggingen foregå under deltidsopphold ved kompetansesenteret høsten 2003. I tillegg vil barnets lærer fylle ut et spørreskjema om elevens hørselsstatus, evt tilleggsvansker, atferd i engelsktimene, språkutvikling, kommunikasjonsferdigheter og om det er andre familiemedlemmer som er hørselshemmet. Læreren skal også gi generell informasjon om organisering av undervisningen og undervisningsmetoder.

All opplysninger blir behandlet konfidensielt. Jeg får ikke vite barnets navn og det er bare jeg som har tilgang til de innsamlede opplysningene. Det vil ikke være mulig å gjenkjenne enkelte elever i den ferdige oppgaven. Opplysninger blir anonymisert når prosjektet er ferdig i september 2004. Det er frivillig å delta og dere kan trekke tilbake samtykke når som helst uten grunn. Prosjektet er meldt til Personvernombudet for forskning, Norsk samfunnsvitenskapelig datatjeneste AS og jeg følger gjeldende regler.

Prosjektet er blitt godkjent av fagstyret ved Norges teknisk- og naturvitenskapelig universitet, Trondheim og får støtte fra Vestlandet kompetansesenter og fra Læringssenteret, Oslo.

12 Det er få barn i denne elevgruppen og jeg håper derfor at ditt barn kan være med på prosjektet slik at vi høster kunnskap som kan komme elevene til gode.

Vennligst returner svarslippen til barnets lærer eller rektor.

Har du noen spørsmål, ta gjerne kontakt med meg. På forhånd takk!

Med vennlig hilsen

Pat Pritchard 11. august 2003 Førstekonsulent, FOU team, Vestlandet kompetansesenter. Pb 463, 5501 Haugesund. Tlf: 52 71 10 22. Mob. tlf: 95 74 70 98. E-post: [email protected]

------

Svarslipp

Returneres til barnets klasselærere

Jeg/vi samtykker i at ______barnets navn kan delta i prosjektet om BSLferdigheter hos elever på 4. klassetrinn som

beskrevet i informasjonsbrevet.

Underskrift. ______

Dato ______

13 Appendix 6 Vedlegg 1

Til læreren som underviser engelsk for døve i 4. klasse

Vil du være med i et spennende forskningsprosjekt? Jeg kontakter deg fordi du underviser en elev/er som følger læreplanen engelsk for døve L97 og jeg trenger din hjelp. Jeg er audiopedagog ansatt på Vestlandet kompetansesenter, FoU team. Jeg skriver en hovedfags-oppgave som handler om britisk tegnspråkferdigheter hos døve og sterkt tunghørte elever på 4. klassetrinn. Målet er å kartlegge BSLferdigheter hos ALLE 4. klassinger i denne elevgruppen skoleåret 2003 –2004 som får undervisning etter læreplanen engelsk for døve. Læringseffekten i dette faget ble ikke evaluert under Forskningsrådets evalueringsprosjekt om innføring av L97 og Norge er det eneste landet som gir undervisning i et fremmed tegnspråk. Resultatene blir derfor av stor interesse.

Deltakelse i prosjektet medfører at du skal svare på et spørreskjema om undervisning i dette faget og om den enkelte eleven. Det tar ca 30 min. All opplysning blir behandlet konfidensielt. Det er bare jeg som har tilgang til de innsamlede opplysningene som blir anonymisert når prosjektet er ferdig i september 2004. Det vil ikke bli mulig å gjenkjenne enkeltelever eller lærere i den ferdige oppgaven. Det er frivillig å delta og du kan trekke deg når som helst og uten grunn.

Undersøkelsen av elevenes BSLferdigheter vil foregå mens deltidselever er på opphold ved kompetansesenteret, høsten 2003. Lærere ved kompetansesenter skoler vil få opplæring og støtte i gjennomføring av kartleggingsprøven som han/hun skal utføre. Det vil ta ca 20 min per elev. Kartleggingsprøven er i form av en video og et ferdiglaget resultatsark som fylles ut. Prøven kan brukes senere slik at deltakelse i prosjektet vil ha verdi utover dette prosjektperioden.

Prosjektet har fått godkjenning av fagstyret ved NTNU, Trondheim, støtte fra Vestlandet kompetansesenter og fra Læringssenteret. Prosjektet er meldt til Personvernombudet for forskning, Norsk samfunnsvitenskapelig datatjeneste.

Jeg håper at du vil være med på prosjektet slik at vi få kunnskap som kan komme elevene til gode. Vennligst returner svarslippen innen 1. september eller send en e- post melding. Gi også beskjed om foresatte har gitt sin samtykke. Har du noen spørsmål, ta gjerne kontakt med meg. På forhånd takk!

Med vennlig hilsen

Pat Pritchard 11. august 2003 Førstekonsulent, FoU team, Vestlandet kompetansesenter, Pb 463, 5501 Haugesund. Tlf: 52 71 10 22. Mob tlf: 95 74 70 98. Faks: 52 71 15 47. e-post: [email protected]

14 Svarslippen returneres innen mandag 1. september.------Undersøkelse av BSLferdighetene til døve og sterkt tunghørte elever på 4. klassetrinn.

Sett ett kryss:

Ja, jeg blir med! Nei, jeg vil ikke være med på prosjektet

Navn: ______

Skole: ______

Skolens adresse:______

Fylke: ______

Tlf nr i arbeidstid:______

e-postadresse: ______

Foreldrene til ______elev/er har gitt sitt samtykke for at antall eleven/ene kan være med på undersøkelsen av BSLferdigheter.

Besvares av lærere som arbeider i ordinær grunnskole, ikke de som arbeider på kompetansesenterskoler.

Vi tilhører følgende kompetansesenter:______

Min elev skal til kompetansesenter på deltidsopphold i uke ______, (høsten 2003). Skal du være med din elev til kompetansesenter under hans/hennes korttidsopphold?

…………………………………………...…………………….. Ja …. Nei

Hvis du skal være med din elev på deltidsopphold, har du lyst å gjennomføre BSLundersøkelsen med eleven selv?…… …...…………Ja ... Nei

Returneres innen 1. september til: Pat Pritchard, Vestlandet kompetansesenter, Pb 463, 5501 Haugesund. Faks: 52 71 15 47. E-post: [email protected]

15 Appendix 7

Meldeskjemai for forsknings- og studentprosjekt som medfører meldeplikt eller konsesjonsplikt (jf. personopplysningsloven med forskrifter)

Meldeskjema sendes Norsk samfunnsvitenskapelig datatjeneste AS i ett eksemplar til: Personvernombudet for forskning Hans Holmboesgate 22 5007 BERGEN

Telefon: 55 58 21 17 / Telefaks: 55 58 96 50 / [email protected]

Veiledning bakerst

ii BEHANDLINGSANSVARLIG Navn (fornavn- etternavn): Dato for innsending: Per Frostad 030703 Arbeidssted (avdeling/seksjon/institutt): Stilling: Pedagogisk institutt, NTNU, Førsteamanuensis Adresse: Dragvoll Postnr.: Poststed: N 7491 Trondheim Telefon: Telefaks: Mobil: E-postadresse: 73551151 [email protected]

DAGLIG ANSVARiii Navn (fornavn - etternavn): Patricia Pritchard Arbeidssted/studiested (avdeling/seksjon/institutt): Stilling/grad: Pedagogisk institutt, NTNU, Student Adresse – arbeidssted/studiested: Postnr.: Poststed: Dragvoll N7491 Trondheim Adresse – privat (gjelder kun studenter): Postnr.: Poststed: Kontikivn 18 5519 Haugesund Telefon: Telefaks: Mobil: E-postadresse: 52 71 10 22 95 74 70 98 [email protected] PROSJEKTTITTEL Hvilken ferdigheter i britisk tegnspråk har norske, døve elever i 4. klasse tilegnet seg? Hvilken faktorer spiller en viktig rolle i å fremme denne prosessen?

FORMÅL MED PROSJEKTETiv

16 Etter innføring av L97 og læreplanen engelsk for døve ble undervisning av et fremmed tegnspråk (Britisk tegnspråk heretter BSL) obligatorisk for døve elever på barneskoletrinnet. Døve barn i Norge får anledning til å tilegne seg et fremmed tegnspråk i klasserommet. Dette er et enestående tilbud. Undersøkelsen vil kartlegge hvilken ferdigheter i BSL norske, døve elever i 4. klasse har tilegnet seg. Prosjektet skal forsøke å finne ut om det er noen variabler som peker seg ut som signifikante i å fremme elevens tilegnelse av BSL f eks barnas hørselsstatus, undervisningsmetoder, skoleplassering (statlig døve skole, hørselsklasse, hjemmeskolen) og muligheter for samhandling på BSL, lærerens kompetanse og holdninger m.m.

PROSJEKTPERIODE

Planlagt start for datainnsamlingen (ddmmåååå): 01082003 Planlagt prosjektslutt (ddmmåååå): 15112004

UTVALGSBESKRIVELSEv Dersom flere utvalg inngår i undersøkelsen, gi en beskrivelse av hvert utvalg for seg.

Beskrivelse Hele populasjonen av norske elever på 4. klassetrinnet som mottar undervisning etter læreplanen L97 Gi en kort beskrivelse engelsk for døve. En liten kontrollgruppe av ca 6. svenske, døve 4. klassinger. av utvalget.

Rekruttering og trekking Elevene skal rekrutteres gjennom det statlige spes. ped. kompetansesentersystemet. Oppgi hvor utvalget rekrutteres eller trekkes fra og hvem som foretar rekrutteringen eller trekkingen.

Førstegangskontakt vil skje skriftlig med en henvendelse til rektorene ved skoleavdelingene. Rektorene bes om å formidle kontakt med foreldre og aktuelle lærere. Disse vil få skriftlig informasjon om prosjektet og muntlig tilleggsinformasjon om de ønsker det. Førstegangskontakt Oppgi hvem som oppretter førstegangskontakt med utvalget.

personer Inngår det under 18 år ⌧ Ja eller andre umyndige i utvalget? Nei

INFORMASJON OG SAMTYKKE

17 Oppgi hvordan Informasjon til elevene som blir med i prosjektet blir gitt ”muntlig” på norsk tegnspråk av dere lærere. informasjon til utvalget gis.vi Dersom informasjonen gis skriftlig, legg ved informasjonsskriv (eventuelt utkast). Dersom det gis muntlig informasjon, beskriv hva det informeres om.

Innhentes det samtykke Hvordan innhentes samtykke fra den registrerte? Det innhentes et passivt samtykke fra de foresatte. vii Ja fra den registrerte? Legg ved eventuell samtykkeerklæring

Nei Dersom det ikke skal innhentes samtykke, stiller personopplysningsloven strengere krav til nødvendigheten av behandlingen. Gi en redegjørelse for hvorfor det er viktig at prosjektet gjennomføres og hvorfor det ikke kan innhentes samtykkeviii:

ix METODE FOR INNSAMLING AV PERSONOPPLYSNINGER Dersom flere utvalg inngår i undersøkelsen, gi en beskrivelse av metodebruk for hvert enkelt utvalg

Gi en kort beskrivelse av alle 1. Skriftlig spørreskjema til lærerne som underviser engelsk til elevene som er med i prosjektet. metoder og datakilder som 2. ”Assessing British Sign Language Development”. Testen gjennomføres av elevens lærer. Testen er gitt på brukes i datainnsamlingen. video. 3. “British Sign Language Story”. Testen gjennomføres av elevens lærer. Testen er gitt på video.

DATAMATERIALETS INNHOLD Gjør kort rede for hvilke 1. Spørreskjemaet skal kartlegge: opplysninger som skal samles a. elevenes hørselsstatus, språkmiljø, holdning til faget m.m. inn. b. lærerens kvalifikasjoner, undervisningsmetoder m.m (se vedlegg) Legg ved spørreskjema, 2. ”Assessing British Sign Language Development” er en standardisert test som måler ferdigheter i forståelse av intervjuguide, registreringsskjema grammatiske elementer i BSL (se registreringsskjerma) e. a., som foreligger ferdig utarbeidet eller som utkast. 3. “British Sign Language Story” skal kartlegge elevenes forståelse av en sammenhengende BSLtekst (se registreringsskjerma)

Behandles det sensitive Ja Eventuelle merknader: Det er vesentlig for undersøkelsen å vite om elevenes hørselsstatus x ⌧ personopplysninger? Nei

Behandles det opplysninger Ja Eventuelle merknader: Det er vesentlig for undersøkelsen å vite om eleven kommer fra en familie som bruker xi ⌧ om tredjeperson? norsk tegnspråk som morsmål. Nei INFORMASJONSSIKKERHETxii

Hvor skal opplysningene Isolert pc Digitalt lyd/bildeopptak Annet: oppbevares og bearbeides? Dersom opplysningene Pc i nettverkssystem Analogt lyd/bildeopptak oppbevares flere steder, Pc tilknyttet Internett Manuelt kartotek merk av hvor. ⌧

18 Merk av Navn, adresse, fødselsdato Eventuelle merknader: identifikasjonsopplysninger 11-sifret fødselsnummer

Dersom datamaterialet ⌧ Direkte personidentifiserbare opplysninger erstattes med et referansenummer som viser til en navneliste (manuell eller behandles elektronisk, elektronisk) som oppbevares atskilt fra det øvrige datamaterialet. oppgi hvordan direkte Navnelisten skal oppbevares av skolene, ikke hos studenten. personidentifiserbare opplysninger (navn, 11-sifret Begrunnelse: xiii Direkte personidentifiserbare fødselsnummer) registreres. opplysninger registreres sammen med det øvrige materialet.

Annet:

Inneholder datamaterialet Ja Hvilke? opplysninger som indirekte kan xiv identifisere de registrerte? ⌧ Nei

Oppgi navn og adresse på Institusjon: Patricia Pritchard, Kontikivn 18, 5519 Haugesund databehandler.xv Vil personopplysningene bli Ja Til hvem? utlevert til andre? ⌧ Nei

Utføres behandlingen i henhold Ja til sikkerhetsbestemmelsene i ⌧ personopplysningsforskriften?xvi Nei

Utføres behandlingen i henhold Ja Hvilken? til annen lov eller forskrift som xvii regulerer sikkerheten. ⌧ Nei

Er risikovurdering foretatt?xviii Ja ⌧ Nei

Overføres Ja personopplysningene i eksternt datanett (f.eks. Internett)?xix ⌧ Nei LAGRING ETTER PROSJEKTSLUTTxx

Hvordan skal datamaterialet ⌧ Datamaterialet skal anonymiseres oppbevares etter

prosjektavslutning? Datamaterialet skal oppbevares med personidentifikasjon Begrunnelse:

Hvor skal datamaterialet lagres?xxiPC fil hos studenten

SPESIELLE TILLATELSERxxii

Er det nødvendig å søke om Ja Hvis ja, legg ved eller ettersend kopi av tillatelse fra: dispensasjon fra taushetsplikt for å få tilgang til data? ⌧ Nei

Er prosjektet Ja Hvis ja, legg ved eller ettersend kopi av tilråding. fremleggelsespliktig for Regional komité for medisinsk ⌧ Nei forskningsetikk?

19 FINANSIERING

Dersom prosjektet mottar Produksjon av videomateriell for ”BSL story” er finansiert av Læringssenteret, avd. for vurdering. finansiering, før opp den/de institusjoner som finansierer prosjektet (Forskningsrådet/område, departement, organisasjon e.l.). TILLEGGSOPPLYSNINGER

ANTALL VEDLEGG

Oppgi hvor mange vedlegg 1. Utkast til spørrreskjemaet til lærerne som legges ved 2. Registreringsark til BSL Assessment Test meldeskjemaet. 3. Registreringsark til BSL Story. 4. Informasjonsskriv til rektorer

20

Appendix 8

Til foreldre/foresatte til elever i 5. klasse ved Hørselsklassen,xxxx skole

Kan ditt barn være med i en førsøksrunde i utvikling av et språktest?

Jeg kontakter deg fordi jeg er hovedfagsstudent i spesial pedagogikk og skal undersøke britisk tegnspråkferdighetene (BSL) til døve og sterkt tunghørte elever på 4. klassetrinn. Til daglig er jeg audiopedagog og ansatt på Vestlandet kompetansesenter.

Målet med den endelige undersøkelsen er å kartlegge BSLferdigheter hos ALLE 4. klassinger i denne elevgruppen skoleåret 2003 –2004 som får undervisning etter læreplanen engelsk for døve. Elevenes ferdigheter i dette faget ble ikke evaluert under Forskningsrådets evalueringsprosjekt om innføring av L97 og Norge er det eneste landet som gir undervisning i et fremmed tegnspråk. Resultatene blir derfor av stor interesse bl a om hvordan skolene lykkes med opplæringen og hva som er viktig for tilegnelse av språk m.m.

Til forskningsprosjektet tilrettelegges og utvikles en kartleggingstest av elevenes BSLferdigheter. Det er håp om at testen kan brukes av lærere til denne elevgruppen også senere. Det er denne testen jeg trenger å prøve ut i praksis før den skal brukes i den egentlige undersøkelsen.

Kartlegging av BSLferdigheter vil foregå slik:

Barnet vil se på en BSLvideo i avslappet omgivelse sammen med sin lærer og vise hvor mye han/hun forstår ved å peke på bilder. Det vil ta ca 20 min. Resultatene skrives på et resultatsark.

Elevenes resultater i denne forsøksrunden skal ikke brukes i forskningsprosjektet eller oppbevares. Det er frivillig å delta og dere kan trekke tilbake samtykke når som helst uten grunn. Prosjektet er meldt til Personvernombudet for forskning, Norsk samfunnsvitenskapelig datatjeneste AS. Prosjektet er blitt godkjent av fagstyret ved Norges teknisk- og naturvitenskapelig universitet, Trondheim og får støtte fra Vestlandet kompetansesenter og fra Læringssenteret, Oslo.

Vennligst returner svarslippen til barnets lærer innen mandag 1. september. Har du noen spørsmål, ta gjerne kontakt med meg. På forhånd takk! Med vennlig hilsen

Pat Pritchard 13. august 2003 Førstekonsulent, FOU team, Vestlandet kompetansesenter. Pb 463, 5501 Haugesund.

21 Tlf: 52 71 10 22. Mob. tlf: 95 74 70 98. E-post: [email protected]

22 Appendix 9 Pilotsstudierapport. Uke 36 2003 Utprøving av BSLtestene.

Sted: En 5. klasse med fem elever. Hørselsklassen ved en ordinær barneskole Antall elever: Fire elever gjennomførte testene. Bakgrunns informasjon: Alle er ”§2.6” elever og tospråklige. I klasserommet brukes flere koder: NTS, norsk og blandingsformer. Alle foreldrene deltar på foreldreopplæring i tegnspråk ved et kompetansesenter. En elev var ikke tilstedet. Alle elevene er jenter.

Veiledning av læreren Veiledning av den døve læreren som skulle utføre testen tok 1 ½ timer. Veiledning ble gitt på NTS. Veiledning bestod av: Gjennomgang av testprosedyre og informasjonen i testmanual Gjennomsyn av materiell (bildemateriell + videoene) Gjennomgang av skåringsark og innføring av sluttresultater Spørsmål fra læreren ble besvart underveis. Læreren fikk beholder materiell fra fredag til mandag for gjennomsyn på egenhånd. I etterkant mente læreren at det hadde vært bedre å fått veiledning dagen i forveien, slik at informasjonen var ferskt i minne.

Gjennomføring av testene. Læreren opplyste at foreldrene til 4 av de 5 elevene hadde gitt sitt samtykke. Ingen av elevene som ble testet hadde CI. På skåringsarkene som jeg fikk innlevert, stod det et tall og ikke elevenes navn. Læreren opplyste at elevene hadde hatt lite BSLundervisning det siste året pga lærermangel. Elevene hadde derimot fått besøk av en Australsk døv person nylig og hadde kommunisert livlig på BSL. De viser stor interesse for faget. Ingen av elevene har tilleggsvansker.

Prosjektleder fungerte som lærervikar i klassen. Elevene sa at de synes det var spennende, de gledet seg til å se videoene og var ikke nervøse. Testing av de fire elevene tok mellom 45 minutter og 1 timer. De som brukte lengst og som fikk de beste resultatene var de som så BSL Story videoen to ganger. Det kan være noe å opplyse andre lærere om.

Læreren gjennomførte testene i en språk laboratorium ved siden av elevenes faste klasserom.

Lærerens kommentarer Gjennomføring: Den første testen som ble gjennomført var litt stressende for læreren, men det ble bedre etter hvert når hun ble kjente med testmateriellet. Det hadde kanskje vært en fordel å informere alle elevene samtidig i begynnelsen av dagen om det som skulle skje slik at man slipper å bruke så mye tid med å informere hver enkelt. BSL Vocabulary Test: Tegnet for ”TEDDY” var for noen forvirrende. Det kunne tolkes som ”FENGSEL”. Utførsel av dette tegnet ble kommentert av Sara Hetherington, Bristol University også. Men som den eneste feil, ble den ikke rette på. En elev svarte feil på dette testelement. Det er viktig å understreke for elevene at et bilde kan forestille flere ting f eks BOY/CHILD. Noen ble litt forvirret av det, men klarte å svare riktig på de fleste av disse elementene likevel. BSL Assessment Test: Her fungerte alt greit. En elev så vekk fra TVen og dermed fikk ikke alt med seg. Læreren måtte gjenta det som eleven hadde gått glipp av. Alle elevene hadde resultater over gjennomsnittet. Læreren mente at hun skulle ha vært mer oppmerksomme på hvor slitne elevene ble. Kanskje det hadde vært en ide å gjennomføre de to første testene alle

23 først og så gjennomført den siste, slik at alle fikk en pause. Læreren mente det var vanskelig å være objektivt og være uberørt av feil svar. Som et resultat av utprøvingen ble det oppdaget at en av elevene hadde problemer med lokalisasjon, spesielt venstre/høyre plasseringer. BSL Story Test: Elevene synes at dette var den vanskeligste delen av testen. En av elevene ga opp, selv om hun hadde oppnådd bra resultater på de to andre testene. Læreren oversatt BSLteksten til NTS slik at elevene kunne finne bildene og gjennomføre testen, uten å føle seg mislykket. Læreren tror ikke at elevene har mye erfaring med sammenhengende tekster. BSL er sannsynligvis blitt presentert som enkle glosser. De to andre var mer standhaftige og så videoen to ganger. De skåret henholdsvis 12/20 og 20/20. Ingen av elevene hadde problemer med å tolke bildene fortalte de. Det er en fordel om bildene legges stående i kassen med baksidene ut mot eleven. Læreren trenger da å bare vri på kortene som eleven skal velge blant, uten å avsløre det neste bilde. Læreren ville gjerne ha en kopi av testmaterialet slik at hun kunne bruke det senere og gjerne dele det med sine kolleger.

Mine kommentarer: Det må understrekes til lærerne i veiledningstimen at det er BSLforståelse testen tar for seg og ikke produksjon. Denne læreren var ganske opptatt av at elevene kunne reprodusere tegnene de så i BSL Vocabulary Test. Imidlertid, kom det fram at elevene brukte ofte BSLtegn men norske munnformer, noe som var en viktig oppdagelse for læreren som hadde nylig overtatt klassen. Dette var noe som læreren ikke hadde lagt merket til og skulle arbeide med, slik at elevene kunne overføre de engelske munnformene som hører til BSLsubstantivene til engelsk senere.

Oppsummering • I utgangspunkt var det mening at lærerne skulle gjennomføre testene selv. Erfaringene med pilotstudie har vist at for å få mest mulig like betingelse bør jeg utfører testene selv • Elevene får en fellesinformasjon samlet før testingen tar til • Bildene skal stå i kassen, ikke ligger • Hvis klasselærerne utfører testene blir det ikke lett å kontrollere at testene blir utført likt

Testresultater: Elev A: BSL Vocabulary Test: 19/22 BSL Assessment Test: Råskåre: 35 Standardisert skåre: 116 BSL Story Test: 12/20

Elev B: BSL Vocabulary Test: 21/22 BSL Assessment Test: Råskåre: 36 Standardisert skåre: 123 BSL Story Test: 20/20

Elev C: BSL Vocabulary Test: 20/22 BSL Assessment Test: Råskåre: 36 Standardisert skåre: <119 BSL Story Test: 0

24 Appendix 10 Om eleven Fyll ut ett skjema for hver elev som får undervisning i faget engelsk for døve og som har gjennomført ”BSL Assessment Test” m.m. Læreren som har hovedansvar for elevens undervisning i dette faget fyller ut skjemaet. Kom gjerne med kommentarer. Skriv bak på arket dersom du trenger mer plass.

SVARFRIST: 28. november 2003

Skolensnummer: ______Elevens undersøkelsesnummer: ______

Dato eleven gjennomførte ”BSL Assessment Test”.m.m.: _____

Elevens testresultater: 1. Vokabular sjekkliste: ___/ 22 (antall riktige svar) 2. BSL Assessment Test: Råskåre _____ Standardisert skåre: ______3. BSL Story: ______/ 20

Sett ett kryss på hvert spørsmål.

1.Kjønn...... Gutt 1 Jente 2 2. Fødselsår: ______

3. Barnets hørselstap: Moderat tap (41-55 dB) ...... 1 4. Bruker barnet Ja ...... 1 (regnet ut som et Moderat/alvorlig tap (56-70 dB)... 2 høreapparat? Nei...... 2 gjennomsnitt av 500- Alvorlig tap (71-90 dB)...... 3 Cochlea Implantat.... 3 1000-2000-4000 Hz) Døv (>90 dB) ...... 4

5. Er eleven: Døvfødt ...... 1 6. Har barnet Ja ...... 1 Døvblitt ...... 2 tilleggsvansker? Nei...... 2

Hvis ja, hvilke tilleggsvansker har eleven?

______

7.Er det andre hørselshemmede i elevens familie? Ja 1 ...…………. Nei 2…………Vet ikke 3

Hvis ja, hvilke familiemedlemmer er hørselshemmet?______

8. Hvilket skoletilbud har eleven?

Eleven har et kombinert tilbud som består av ordinær grunnskole

og deltidsopphold ved en statlig kompetansesenter ...... 1

Eleven er fulltidselev på en skole ved et kompetansesenter...... 2

Eleven er fulltidselev i en hørselsklasse ved en ordinær grunnskole ...... 3

Annet: ______

25

Hvilken beskrivelse av sosiale- og kommunikasjonsferdigheter passer best for denne eleven?

Ett kryss på hver linje. Helt Ganske Litt Litt Ganske Svært upassende upassende upassende passende passende passende 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. Eleven kan tilpasse sin kommunikasjon til samtalepartneren ...... 10. Eleven har lett for å kontakte andre på en passende måte...... 11. Eleven ignoreres av medelevene ...... 12. Eleven avbryter samtaler ofte og krever mye oppmerksomhet...... 13. Eleven avvises av medelever ...... 14. Eleven er passiv og tar ikke kontakt...... 15. Eleven anstrenger seg lenge for å forstå...... 16. Eleven mistenkes ofte for å late som om han forstår ...... 17. Eleven kan gi klart uttrykk for sine meninger og rettigheter ...... 18. Eleven bruker ofte en aggressiv uttrykksmåte ...... 19. Eleven bruker ofte humor ...... 20. Eleven er flink å forhandle ......

Elevens språk

Sett ett kryss på hver linje.

21. Eleven er tospråklig og bruker norsk og norsk tegnspråk like godt...... Ja .. 1...... Nei.. 2

22. Hvis nei, hvilke språk tror du at eleven foretrekker å bruke? Norsk talespråk...... 1

Norsk tale med tegnstøtte ...... 2

Norsk tegnspråk...... 3

Foretrekker eleven å bruke et annet språk enn de nevnte? Hvilket da?______

23. Hvilke språk brukes i hjemmet, tror du? (Flere kryss er mulig): Norsk talespråk...... 1

Norsk tale med tegnstøtte ...... 2

Norsk tegnspråk...... 3

Hvis annet, skriv hvilke språk:______

24. Hvor gammel var eleven da han/hun brukte sitt første tegn? _____ år …………. Vet ikke

26

Hvordan vil du beskrive elevens ferdigheter i det følgende, sammenlignet med andre døve jevnaldrende?

Ett kryss på hver linje Svært Ganske Litt Litt Ganske Svært dårlig dårlig dårlig bra bra bra 1 2 3 4 5 6 25. Norsk talespråk...... 26. Norsk skriftspråk (lesing og skriving)...... 27. Norsk tegnspråk......

Eleven og BSL Ett kryss på hver linje Svært Uinteres- Litt Litt Interes- Svært Uinteresser t sert uinteressert interessert sert interessert 1 2 3 4 5 6 28. Hvor interessert er eleven i BSL?...... 29. Hvor interessert er eleven i britisk kultur?......

Hvilken beskrivelse av adferd i klasserommet passer best for denne eleven?

Ett kryss på hver linje. Helt Ganske Litt Litt Ganske Svært upassende upassende upassende passende passende passende 1 2 3 4 5 6 30. Eleven er passiv i timene ...... 31. Eleven er nysgjerrig i timene ...... 32. Eleven glemmer lett BSLtegn ...... 33. Eleven bruker lite BSL fordi han/hun virker redd for å gjøre feil ...... 34. Eleven bruker gjerne BSL ...... 35. Eleven skiller klart mellom BSL og NTS ......

Organisering av undervisning 36. På hvilke klassetrinn har eleven fått BSLundervisning? (Sett flere kryss.)

1.kl 1 2.kl 2 3.kl 3 4.kl 4

Hvis ikke eleven har fått undervisning i BSL f.o.m. 1. klasse, hva er årsaken?

______

Svært Svært Aldri sjeldent Sjeldent Ofte ofte Alltid 1 2 3 4 5 6

37. *Hvor ofte får eleven BSLundervisning under korttidsopphold ved kompetansesenteret? ...... * Besvares av lærere som arbeider på ordinære bostedsskoler Tusen takk for hjelpen Skjemaet returneres innen 28. november til: Pat Pritchard, Kontikivn 18, 5519 Haugesund.

27 Appendix 11 SPØRRESKJEMA TIL LÆRERE SOM UNDERVISER DØVE OG STERKT TUNGHØRTE ELEVER ETTER LÆREPLAN ENGELSK FOR DØVE PÅ 4. KLASSETRINN SVARFRIST: 28. november 2003

Dette spørreskjema er en del av en hovedfagsoppgave. Undersøkelsen skal kartlegge undervisning av engelsk for døve og sterkt tunghørte elever etter innføring av L97 og lærerplanen engelsk for døve. Til dette trengs din hjelp. Det er du som vet hva som skjer i klasserommet. Kom gjerne med kommentarer. Skriv bak på arket dersom du trenger mer plass.

I dette spørreskjema brukes uttrykkene: ”hørselshemmet” som et samlebegrep for alle typer og grader av hørselstap ”BSLbrukere” for å omfatter mennesker som har BSL som morsmål ”døve” for å omfatte alle elever som er får undervisning etter læreplanen engelsk for døve ”tekst” som et samlebegrep for skriftlig- og videotekster

Skolens nummer: ______Din/e eleven/es undersøkelsesnummer: ______

______

Sett ett kryss på hvert spørsmål.

Om deg selv.

1. Kjønn Mann ...... 1 2. Alder 20-30 år...... 1 Kvinne ...... 2 31-40 år...... 2 41-50 år...... 3 51-60 + år ...... 4

3. Utdannelse:

Førskole- eller lærerutdanning ...... 1 BSLkurs på Bristol Universitet...... 2 10 vekttall i tegnspråk...... 3 10 vekttall i engelsk ...... 4 10 vekttall i engelsk for døve...... 5 Mer enn 10 vekttall f eks engelskgrunnfag eller mer...... 6

Annen utdanning eller erfaring som har relevans for engelskfaget:______

______

4. Ansiennitet som lærer: _____ år

5. Hvor mange år har du undervist døve og sterkt tunghørte elever? ____ år

6. Hvor lenge har du undervist hørende og/eller døve elever på grunnskoletrinnet i engelsk? ___år

7. Hvor lenge har du undervist døve elever i engelsk ? ______år

8. Hvor lenge har du undervist etter læreplanen engelsk for døve L97? ______år

28

9. Din hørselsstatus: Normal hørsel ( 0-20 dB) ...... 1 (regnet ut som et gjennomsnitt av 500-1000-2000- Lett tap ( 21-40 dB)...... 2 4000 Hz) Moderat tap (41-55 dB)...... 3 Moderat/alvorlig tap (56-70 dB).. 4 Alvorlig tap (71-90 dB)...... 5 Døv (>90 dB)...... 6

10. Hvis du er døv, er du? Døvfødt...... 1 Døvblitt ...... 2

Om dine språk (Flere kryss er mulig) 11.Hjemme bruker Norsk talespråk...... 1 12. I forhold til de/n døve Norsk talespråk...... 1 jeg Norsk tale med tegnstøtte... 2 eleven/e bruker jeg Norsk talespråk med tolk.... 2 Norsk tegnspråk ...... 3 følgende muntlige språk Norsk tale med tegnstøtte .. 3 (flere kryss er mulig) Norsk tegnspråk...... 4 Annet: ______BSL ...... 5

13.Hvis du bruker flere muntlige språk i klasserommet, anslå prosentvis fordeling av språkene:

Norsk talespråk ...... ______% .1 Norsk talespråk med tolk ...... ______% .2 Norsk tale med tegn støtte...... ______% .3 Norsk tegnspråk ...... ______% .4 BSL...... ______% .5

14. Kan du gjøre deg forstått på et annet fremmedspråk enn engelsk? Ja 1 …. Nei 2

Hvis ja, skriv hvilke språk: ______

Om skolen (Flere kryss er mulig.) 15. Hvilken skoletype arbeider du på? Ordinær grunnskole...... 1 Hørselsklasse v/ ordinær grunnskole ...... 2 Skoleavdeling v/ et statlig kompetansesenter...... 3 Utadrettetavdeling v/ et kompetansesenter...... 4

16. Hvor mange elever er det på din skole totalt? ...... ______elever

17. Hvor mange hørselshemmede elever er det på din skole totalt? ...... ______elever

18. Hvor mange hørselshemmede ansatte er det på din skole totalt? ...... ______ansatte

19. Brukes tegnspråktolk regelmessig i undervisningstimene? Ja …. Nei Hvis ja, er tolken en annen lærer ...... 1 en profesjonell tolk ...... 2 annen...... 3

20. Hvis du arbeider ved en hørselsklasse eller skoleavdeling på et kompetansesenter, hvor mange elever er det i din klasse totalt? ...... ______elever

29 Spørsmålene 21 – 23 besvares av lærere som arbeider i ordinær grunnskole, ikke de som arbeider i hørselsklasser eller kompetansesenterskoler. 21. Hvor mange elever er det i klassen til den døve eleven? ____elever

22. Er det flere hørselshemmede i klassen? …………………………………………...…………………….. Ja 1 …. Nei 2

Hvis ja, hvor mange? ...... ____elever

23. Er det andre elever i klassen som har IOP som ikke er hørselshemmet? ………….. Ja 1 …. Nei 2

Hvis ja, hvor mange? ...... ____elever

De resterende spørsmål besvares av alle.

Hvilke muligheter har døve elever for å bruke IKT og få kontakt med BSLbrukere?

Ett kryss på hver linje. Ja Nei 1 2 24. Har klassen videoutstyr lett tilgjengelig? ...... 25. Har klassen PC i klasserommet?...... 26. Har skolen tilkobling til Internett?...... 27. Har klassen lett tilgang til Internett? ...... 28. Har skolen billedtelefon?...... 29. Har klassen hatt kontakt eller planer om kontakt med BSLbrukere dette skoleåret?...... 30. Er skolen eller klassen involvert i et EU-prosjekt?......

Kommentarer :______

Organisering

31. Anslå hvor mange undervisningstimer som blir avsatt til faget engelsk for døve. i løpet av dette skoleåret: ...... ____ timer

32. Underviser du engelsk for døve samme antall timer hver uke? ………….… Ja 1 …. Nei 2

33. Hvis ja, hvor mange timer?...... ____ timer

34. Underviser du engelsk for døve mer uregelmessig, f. eks i bolker…..……. Ja 1 …. Nei

35. Hvis ja, anslå hvor mange perioder i løpet av skoleåret . ………………………______perioder

36. Inngår engelsk som et fag i tverrfaglige temaer noen ganger? ……..… Ja 1 …. Nei 2

30

Hvilke form for organisering bruker du i undervisningstimene?

Ett kryss på hver linje. Brukes Svært Svært Brukes aldri sjeldent Sjeldent Ofte ofte alltid 1 2 3 4 5 6

37. I samlet klasse ...... 38. I grupper i klasserommet ...... 39. Med en gruppe av elever i eget rom ...... 40. Med en elev i eget rom ......

Kommentarer om organisering:______

41. Har du regelmessig kontakt med andre lærere som underviser engelsk for døve?……….... Ja 1 …. Nei

Kommentarer:______

Om dine undervisningsmetoder i faget engelsk for døve

Hvor enig er du i følgende utsagn?

Ett kryss på hver linje. Helt Ganske Litt Litt Ganske Helt uenig uenig uenig enig enig enig 1 2 3 4 5 6 42. Jeg gleder meg til timene i engelsk for døve...... 43. Jeg tror at BSLundervisning vil hjelpe eleven/e i engelskopplæring senere ...... 44. Jeg tror at min holdning til faget engelsk for døve vises i måten jeg underviser......

Hvilken lærerrolle inntar du i timene i dette faget?

Ett kryss på hver linje. Brukes Svært Svært Brukes aldri sjeldent Sjeldent Ofte ofte alltid 1 2 3 4 5 6 45. Jeg gir direkte instruksjoner ...... 46. Jeg er en tilrettelegger av ferdig undervisningsmateriell...... 47. Jeg er en veileder, jeg skaper situasjoner hvor elevene kan bruke BSL……………………………......

Kommentarer: ______

31 Hvilke av disse pedagogiske målene synes du er viktig? Eleven skal……

Ett kryss på hver linje. Helt Ganske Litt Litt Ganske Svært uviktig uviktig uviktig viktig viktig viktig 1 2 3 4 5 6 48. ha et stort tegnforråd på BSL...... 49. ha kunnskap om grammatikk ...... 50. kunne snakke engelsk ved endt skolegang ...... 51. kunne lese engelsk litteratur ved endt skolegang...... 52. kunne skrive engelsk ved endt skolegang ...... 53. kunne rette sine egne feil ...... 54. kunne arbeide med læremidler uavhengig av læreren ...... 55. kunne forstå BSL og kommunisere om hverdagslige emner...... 56. utvikle tro på seg selv gjennom å bruke BSL ...... 57. ha kunnskap om og erfaring med egen språklæring ...... 58. utvikle ønsker om å lære engelsk......

Andre mål som du har, men som ikke finnes her:______

Hvor ofte bruker du følgende aktiviteter i din undervisning av dette faget?

Ett kryss på hver linje. Brukes Svært Svært Brukes aldri sjeldent Sjeldent Ofte ofte alltid 1 2 3 4 5 6 59. Rollespill og frilek på BSL...... 60. Drama på BSL med innøvde replikker på BSL...... 61. Spontane samtaler mellom elevene på BSL...... 62. Elevene svarer på spørsmål etter et fast mønster gitt av læreren ...... 63. Elevene svarer spontant på lærerens spørsmål ...... 64. Eleven avleser læreren som tolker engelske tekster til BSL ...... 65. Organiserte spill, lek og konkurranser...... 66. Undervisning fra tavla...... 67. BSL gloselister...... 68. Sammenligning av språkene NTS og BSL...... 69. Presentasjon av nye tegn ved hjelp av bilder, miming o.l . uten forklaringer på NTS ...... 70. Elevene får nøkkeltegn og utforsker en BSLtekst på egen hånd. Diskuterer innholdet...... 71. Ser på en BSLvideo som oversettes til NTS eller norsk ...... 72. Elevene avleser instruks på BSL og viser deres forståelse ved å utføre en handling eller oppgave ...... 73. Prøver og tester ......

32 Hvor ofte bruker du følgende aktiviteter i din undervisning av dette faget? forts.

Ett kryss på hver linje. Brukes Svært Svært Brukes aldri sjeldent Sjeldent Ofte ofte alltid 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. Skriftlige oppgaver ...... 75. Undervisning om BSLs grammatiske regler ...... 76. Arbeid med engelske munnformer og uttale ...... 77. Jeg forteller elevene hvordan jeg selv tenker når jeg arbeider med en ukjent tekst ...... 78. Samtale på BSL med bruk av billedtelefon ...... 79. Samtale på muntlig engelsk ...... 80. Elevene spiller inn egne BSLtekster på video ...... 81. Elevene lager videobrev på BSL ......

Andre aktiviteter som du bruker ofte:______

______

Hvor ofte bruker du følgende læremidler og tekniske utstyr i din undervisning av dette faget?

Ett kryss på hver linje. Brukes Svært Svært Brukes aldri sjeldent Sjeldent Ofte ofte alltid 1 2 3 4 5 6 82. Diverse BSLvideo fortellinger ...... 83. Læreverket Wow! ...... 84. Læreverk: Oxford Reading Tree ...... 85. Engelsk læreverk beregnet for hørende elever ...... 86. Dataspill, CD rom eller spill fra Internett ...... 87. Tegnordbøker ...... 88. Spill som vi har laget selv ...... 89. Pedagogiske brettspill ...... 90. Billedtelefon...... 91. Teksttelefon ...... 92. Internett nettsteder ...... 93. FM-utstyr ......

Annet som du bruker ofte: ______

______

33 Hvor ofte bruker du følgende metoder for å snakke om elevenes følelser i forbindelse med dette faget?

Ett kryss på hver linje. Brukes Svært Svært Brukes aldri sjeldent Sjeldent Ofte ofte alltid 1 2 3 4 5 6 94. Vi snakker om elevenes følelser i forhold til BSLundervisning ...... 95. Jeg observerer elevene og hjelper dem individuelt å overvinne eventuelle negative følelser ...... 96. Ved slutten av timene få elevene anledning til å fortelle hvordan de har opplevd timen og vi diskuterer hvordan vi kan løse eventuelle problemer ......

I den grad elevene gjør feil på BSL, vurder følgende metoder for å rette på feilene.

Ett kryss på hver linje. Helt Svært godt uegnet egnet 1 2 3 4 5 6 97. Jeg påpeker feilen og gir det riktige svaret ...... 98. Jeg oppmuntrer eleven til å rette på seg selv ved å gi flere mulige svar ...... 99. Elevene retter på hverandre ...... 100. Jeg gjentar det eleven har sagt på en riktig måte, uten å si direkte at eleven har gjort feil...... 101. Jeg retter ikke på noe fordi det ødelegger kommunikasjonsflyt...... 102. Jeg observerer elevenes feil og retter på dem i fellesskap etterpå......

Kommentarer:______

Hvor ofte brukes følgende språk i timene i engelsk for døve?

Ett kryss på hver linje. Brukes Svært Svært Brukes aldri sjeldent Sjeldent Ofte ofte alltid 1 2 3 4 5 6 103. Norsk skriftspråk...... 104. Norsk talespråk ...... 105. Norsk tale med tegnstøtte...... 106. Norsk tegnspråk ...... 107. Norske tegn med engelske munnformer ...... 108. BSLtegn med støtte av engelsk tale ...... 109. BSL ...... 110. Engelsk skriftspråk ...... 111. Engelsk talespråk......

Annet: ______

34

Hvor enig er du i de følgende påstander om undervisning i BSL og engelsk (fremmedspråketsundervisning) for døve?

Ett kryss på hver linje. Helt Ganske Litt Litt Ganske Helt uenig uenig uenig enig enig enig 1 2 3 4 5 6 112. Elevene må assosiere mening med fremmedspråket, uten å gå veien om grammatikkregler eller oversettelser ...... 113. Å lære et fremmedspråk og dets grammatikk er god kognitiv trening...... 114. Elevene lærer fremmedspråk best gjennom repetisjon av faste setningsstrukturer...... 115. Det er best hvis elevene oppdager fremmedspråkets grammatiske regler selv...... 116. Eleven må være aktiv og ta ansvar for egen læring...... 117. Elevene må møte mange autentiske, varierte tekster ...... 118. Elevene lærer best ved å bruke fremmedspråket i samhandling med andre...... 119. Opplæring må tilpasses elevenes kommunikasjonsbehov, evner og interesser...... 120. Det er min jobb å presentere for eleven det som står i læreverket ...... 121. Læreren behøver ikke å kunne BSL flytende for å undervise, bare være åpen og positiv ...... 122. Det er viktig å ha en systematisk innlæring av BSL- og engelskgrammatikk...... 123. Selvtillit og vilje til å kommunisere er viktigere enn å kunne de riktige tegnene og grammatikken ...... 124. Det er viktig å arbeide med BSLs munnformer slik at noe av dette kan overføres til engelsk senere...... 125. Elevene må ha en indre motivasjon hvis de skal mestre et fremmedspråk. Den motivasjonen får de gjennom å oppleve at de kan bruke språket til noe. Det er min jobb å gi dem disse opplevelsene......

Hva er ditt syn på døve elevers behov for et ”muntligspråk” (BSL) og et ”skrift- og talespråk” (engelsk) ved endt skolegang?

Ett kryss på hver linje. Helt Ganske Litt Litt Ganske Helt uenig uenig uenig enig enig enig 1 2 3 4 5 6 126. BSL er viktigst...... 127. Engelsk er viktigst...... 128. BSL og engelsk er like viktige ......

35

Hva er ditt syn på muntlig engelsk og skriftlig engelsk for hørende elever?

Ett kryss på hver linje. Helt Ganske Litt Litt Ganske Helt uenig uenig uenig enig enig enig 1 2 3 4 5 6 129. Muntlig engelsk er viktigst...... 130. Engelsk skriftlig er viktigst...... 131. Muntlig og skriftlig engelsk er like viktige ......

Hvordan evalueres eleven/es ferdigheter og fremgang i BSL?

Ett kryss på hver linje. Brukes Svært Svært Brukes aldri sjeldent Sjeldent Ofte ofte alltid 1 2 3 4 5 6 132. Tester og prøver ...... 133. Jeg observerer eleven/e og gir en muntlig tilbakemelding ...... 134. Eleven gir en vurdering av sin egen prestasjon ...... 135. Elevene gir vurderinger av hverandres arbeid...... 136. Elevene får ingen vurdering i dette faget......

137. Merker du at eleven overfører kunnskap han/hun har ervervet seg gjennom BSLundervisning til andre fag?

Ja .1 ...... Nei .2 ………….….. Vet ikke .3

Hvis ja, gi gjerne et eksempel: ______

138. Har du observert at elevene har brukt BSL utenfor klasserommet?...... Ja .1 Nei .2

Hvis ja, gi gjerne et eksempel: ______

Samarbeid med hjemmet

139. Har foreldrene fått informasjon om læreplanen engelsk for døve? …Ja 1 …. Nei 2…. Vet ikke.. 3

Hvis ja, hvem har gitt denne informasjonen og når? ______

140. Er eleven/es foreldrene involverte i elevens arbeid i dette faget? ...... Ja 1 …. Nei 2

Hvis ja, på hvilken måte? ______

Tusen takk for hjelpen

Skjemaet returneres innen 28. november 2003 til: Pat Pritchard, Kontikivn 18, 5519 Haugesund.

36 Appendix 12 Result tables. Chapter 4

The information presented in the tables 1- 15 has been collected from questionnaires for teachers, as nominal or ordinal data. Teachers have answered questions using various scales from 1 to 6 e.g. from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree), 1 (never) to 6 (always), 1 (not suitable) to 6 (very suitable) or from 1 (very inapplicable description) to 6 (a very applicable description) etc. Although slightly unorthodox, the data has been used to find the mean tendencies in teachers’ opinions and actions. A mean of 3 or over implies a positive tendency, fewer than 3 a negative one.

Table 1. Correcting mistakes and the affective filter Evaluate the following methods for correcting pupils’ mistakes 1 = not suitable, 6 = very suitable

97. I point 98. I 99. The 100. I repeat 101. I don’t 102. I observe out the encourage pupils correct what the pupil correct the pupils and Type of n mistake and the pupil to each other said in the anything correct mistakes school correct it correct correct way, because it can in class himself by without saying affect afterwards. giving directly that he communication several was wrong choices of answer School for n = 4 Mean = 1,5 Mean = 3 Mean = 2 Mean = 5 Mean = 3 Mean = 1,75 the deaf Std dev. = 1 Std dev. Std dev. = Std dev. = 1,2 Std dev. = 1,6 Std dev. = 0,96 =0,82 1,2 Local n = 7 Mean = 3,17 Mean = 4,8 Mean = 3 Mean = 5,17 Mean = 2,83 Mean = 3,33 School Std dev. = Std dev. = Std dev. = Std dev. = 0,75 Std dev. = 1,3 Std dev. = 1,63 0,98 0,75 1,67

Table 2. Pupils’ feelings towards EFL How often do you use the following methods for addressing pupils’ feelings towards learning BSL? 1 = never, 6 = always

Type of school 94. We discuss pupils’ 95. I observe the pupils and feelings towards learning BSL help them individually to overcome any negative feelings School for the Deaf N = 4 Mean = 2,75 Mean = 2,5 Std dev. = 1,5 Std dev. = 1,732 Local School N = 7 Mean = 2,67 Mean = 3,6 Std dev. = 1,03 Std dev. = 1,34

Table 3. Pupils’ opinions of lessons and proposals for problem solving How often do you use the following method? 1 = never, 6 = always

Type of school 96. At the end of lessons we discuss what pupils have experienced and how we can solve any problems. School for the Deaf N = 4 Mean = 2,25 Std dev. = 1,5 Local School N = 7 Mean = 2,67 Std dev. = 1,033

37

Table 4. Teachers’ attitudes Do you agree with the following statements? 1 = totally disagree, 6 = totally agree

Type of school N 42. I look forward to 43. I think that BSL will 44. I think that my teaching EfDP help pupils to learn attitude to the subject is English reflected in my teaching School for the Deaf n = 4 Mean = 4,5 Mean = 4,75 Mean = 5,67 Std dev. = 1,73 Std dev. = 1,89 Std dev. = 0,58 Local School n = 7 Mean = 4 Mean = 5,14 Mean = 4,71 Std dev. = 1,83 Std dev. = 0,9 Std dev. = 0,76

Table 5. Teachers’ choice of role Which role do you assume during EfDP lessons? 1 = never, 6 = always

Type of school N 45. I give direct 45. I am a organiser 46. I am a guide and instructions and present material create situations where from the text book pupils can use BSL School for the Deaf n = 4 Mean = 4,25 Mean = 4,25 Mean = 4,0 Std dev. = 0,5 Std dev. = 0,5 Std dev. = 0,816 Local School n = 7 Mean = 3,6 Mean = 4,5 Mean = 3,5 Std dev. = 0,89 Std dev. = 0,55 Std dev. = 1,64

Table 6. Teachers’ goals. Which of these goals do you think are important? 1 = totally unimportant, 6 = very important

Type of school N 48.Pupils should have a 55. Pupils should be 56 Pupils should large BSL vocabulary able to understand BSL develop belief in and communicate themselves through about ordinary daily using BSL topics School for the Deaf n = 4 Mean = 4,75 Mean = 5,25 Mean = 5,5 Std dev. = 0,96 Std dev. = 0,96 Std dev. = 1,0 Local School n = 7 Mean = 4,43 Mean = 5,0 Mean = 5,0 Std dev. = 0,98 Std dev. = 0,58 Std dev. = 0,82

Table 6 continued. Teachers’ goals. Which of these goals do you think are important? 1 = totally unimportant, 6 = very important

Type of school 57. Pupils should have 58. Pupils should develop a knowledge and experience of wish to go on to learn English their own way to learn language School for the Deaf Mean = 6,0 Mean = 6,0 Std dev. = 0 Std dev. = 0 Local School Mean = 5,29 Mean = 5,86 Std dev. = 0,49 Std dev. = 0,38 Deaf School Mean = 5,5 Local School Mean = 5,0

38

Table 7. Teachers’ expectations of literacy skills and independence. Which of these goals do you think are important? 1 = totally unimportant, 6 = very important

Type of school 49. Pupils should 51. Pupils should 52. Pupils should 54. Pupils should have knowledge of be able to read be able to write in be able to work grammar English literature English when they with teaching when they leave leave school materials without school the aid of the teacher School for the Deaf n = 4 Mean = 4,25 Mean = 5,5 Mean = 5,5 Mean = 5,25 Std dev. = 1,71 Std dev. = 1,0 Std dev. = 1,0 Std dev. = 0,96 Local School n = 7 Mean = 3,71 Mean = 5,14 Mean = 5,0 Mean = 5,14 Std dev. = 1,11 Std dev. = 0,38 Std dev. = 0,58 Std dev. = 0,38 Deaf School Mean = 5,1 Local School Mean = 4,7

Table 8. Teachers’ goals and spoken English. Which of these goals do you think are important? 1 = totally unimportant, 6 = very important

Type of school N 50. Pupils should be 76. To work with 79. To work with able to speak English English mouthings and conversations in when they leave school English articulation spoken English School for the Deaf n = 4 Mean = 3,25 Mean = 4,25 Mean = 2,75 Std dev. = 2,22 Std dev. = 1,26 Std dev. = 2,07 Local School n = 7 Mean = 4,57 Mean = 4,29 Mean = 3,71 Std dev. = 1,52 Std dev. = 1,25 Std dev. = 2,14 Deaf School Mean = 3,4 Local School Mean = 4,2

Table 9. Teachers’ attitudes towards Grammar Translation Method and Audio Lingual Method Do you agree with the following statements? 1 = totally disagree, 6 = totally agree

Type of school 48. Pupils should 49. Pupils should 51. Pupils should 52. Pupils should have a large BSL have knowledge of be able to read be able to write in vocabulary grammar English literature English when they when they leave leave school school School for the Deaf n = 4 Mean = 4,75 Mean = 4,25 Mean = 5,5 Mean = 5,5 Std dev. = 0,96 Std dev. = 1,71 Std dev. = 1,0 Std dev. = 1,0 Local School n = 7 Mean = 4,43 Mean = 3,71 Mean = 5,14 Mean = 5,0 Std dev. = 0,98 Std dev. = 1,11 Std dev. = 0,38 Std dev. = 0,58 Deaf School Mean = 5.0 Local School Mean = 4,5

Table 10. Teachers’ attitudes towards Social Linguistic Methods Do you agree with the following statements? 1 = totally disagree, 6 = totally agree

Type of school 53. Pupils should 54. Pupils should 55. Pupils should 56. Pupils should be able to correct be able to work understand BSL develop confidence their own mistakes independently of and be able to in themselves by the teacher communicate with using BSL others about everyday topics School for the Deaf n = 4 Mean = 4,5 Mean = 5,25 Mean = 5,25 Mean = 5,5 Std dev. = 1,29 Std dev. = 0,96 Std dev. = 0,96 Std dev. = 1,0 Local School n = 7 Mean = 4,43 Mean = 5,14 Mean = 5,0 Mean = 5,0 Std dev. = 0,79 Std dev. = 0,38 Std dev. = 0,58 Std dev. = 0,82

39

Table 10 continued. Teachers’ attitudes towards Social Linguistic Methods Do you agree with the following statements? 1 = totally disagree, 6 = totally agree

Type of school 57. Pupils should have 58.Pupils should knowledge and develop the wish to experience of their own learn English language learning strategies School for the Deaf Mean = 6,0 Mean = 6,0 Std dev. = 0 Std dev. = 0 Local School Mean = 5,29 Mean = 5,86 Std dev. = 0,49 Std dev. = 0,38 Deaf School Mean = 5,4 Local School Mean = 5,1

Table 11. Teacher dominated activities. How often do you use the following activities in EfDP? 1 = never, 6 = always

Type of school 60. Drama in BSL 62 Pupils answer 64. The teacher 65. Organised with drilled lines questions with interprets English games and drilled answers texts to BSL for the competitions pupil School for the Deaf n = 4 Mean = 3,25 Mean = 4,5 Mean = 2,25 Mean = 3,75 Std dev. = 1,71 Std dev. = 0,58 Std dev. = 1,5 Std dev. = 0,96 Local School n = 7 Mean = 2,29 Mean = 4,0 Mean = 1,29 Mean = 4,0 Std dev. = 1,5 Std dev. = 1,41 Std dev. = 0,76 Std dev. = 1,0

Table 11 continued. Teacher dominated activities. How often do you use the following activities in EfDP? 1 = never, 6 = always

Type of school 66. Blackboard 67. BSL glossary 71. Watch BSL 73. Tests teaching lists texts and translate to NSL or Norwegian School for the Deaf Mean = 2,5 Mean = 3,0 Mean = 3,25 Mean = 2,25 Std dev. = 1,0 Std dev. = 1,41 Std dev. = 1,5 Std dev. = 0,96 Local School Mean = 2,86 Mean = 4,14 Mean = 3,86 Mean = 1,71 Std dev. = 1,57 Std dev. = 0,69 Std dev. = 1,35 Std dev. = 0,95

Table 11 continued. Teacher dominated activities. How often do you use the following activities in EfDP? 1 = never, 6 = always

Type of school 75. The teaching of 76. Work with English 77. I tell pupils how I BSL grammar mouthings and think when I work on a articulation new text. School for the Deaf Mean = 2,0 Mean = 4,25 Mean = 2,25 Std dev. = 1,16 Std dev. = 1,26 Std dev. = 1,5 Local School Mean = 2,0 Mean = 4,29 Mean = 2,57 Std dev. = 1,16 Std dev. = 1,25 Std dev. = 1,13 Deaf School Mean = 3,0 Local School Mean = 3,0

40

Table 12. Child centred activities. How often do you use the following activities in EfDP? 1 = never, 6 = always

59. Role 61. 63. Pupils 69. Presentation 70. Pupils are 72. Pupils show play in Spontaneous answer of new signs given key signs their Type of n BSL conversations teacher’s through mime, and explore understanding of school in BSL questions pictures etc. BSL text BSL by between pupils spontaneously without NSL independently. performing a task explanations Discussion of content School for n = 4 Mean = Mean = 3,0 Mean = 3,5 Mean = 3,5 Mean = 2,0 Mean = 3,75 the deaf 2,5 Std dev. = Std dev. = 1,8 Std dev. = 1,7 Std dev. = 1,0 Std dev. = 1,7 Std dev. = 1,9 1,9 Local n = 7 Mean = Mean = 2,86 Mean = 3,83 Mean = 4,17 Mean = 2,57 Mean = 3,5 School 3,29 Std dev. = Std dev. = 1,9 Std dev. = 0,9 Std dev. = 1,7 Std dev. = 1,6 Std dev. = 0,84 1,4

Table 12 continued. Child centred activities. How often do you use the following activities in EfDP? 1 = never, 6 = always

Type of school 78. Conversations in 80. Pupils make their 81. Pupils make video BSL using video own BSL text on video letters in BSL telephone School for the Deaf Mean = 1,25 Mean = 1,75 Mean = 1,5 Std dev. = 0,5 Std dev. = 0,96 Std dev. = 0,58 Local School Mean = 1,0 Mean = 2,14 Mean = 1,29 Std dev. = 0 Std dev. = 1,57 Std dev. = 0,76 Deaf School Mean = 2,1 Local School Mean = 2,7

Table 13. Creative activities using BSL How often do you use the following activities in EfDP? 1 = never, 6 = always

Type of school 59. Role play in 61. Spontaneous 63. Pupils answer 70. Pupils are BSL conversations in teacher’s questions given key signs BSL between spontaneously and explore BSL pupils text independently. Discussion of content School for the Deaf n = 4 Mean = 2,5 Mean = 3,0 Mean = 3,5 Mean = 2,0 Std dev. = 1,9 Std dev. = 1,8 Std dev. = 1,7 Std dev. = 1,7 Local School n = 7 Mean = 3,29 Mean = 2,86 Mean = 3,83 Mean = 2,57 Std dev. = 1,4 Std dev. = 1,9 Std dev. = 0,9 Std dev. = 1,6

Table 13 continued. Creative activities using BSL How often do you use the following activities in EfDP? 1 = never, 6 = always Type of school 78. Conversations in 80. Pupils make their 81. Pupils make video BSL using video own BSL text on video letters in BSL telephone School for the Deaf Mean = 1,25 Mean = 1,75 Mean = 1,5 Std dev. = 0,5 Std dev. = 0,96 Std dev. = 0,58 Local School Mean = 1,0 Mean = 2,14 Mean = 1,29 Std dev. = 0 Std dev. = 1,57 Std dev. = 0,76 Deaf School Mean = 2,2 Local School Mean = 2,4

41

Table 14. Languages used in EfDP classroom How often do you use the following languages in EfDP lessons? 1 = never, 6 = always

Type of school n 103. Written Norwegian 104. Norwegian speech 105. Norwegian speech with sign support School for the Deaf n = 4 Mean = 2,67 Mean = 2,0 Mean = 3,0 Std dev. = 2,1 Std dev. = 1,41 Std dev. = 1,83 Local School n = 7 Mean = 2,83 Mean = 2,43 Mean = 2,57 Std dev. = 1,16 Std dev. = 1,27 Std dev. = 1,39

Table 14 continued. Languages used in EfDP classroom How often do you use the following languages in EfDP lessons? 1 = never, 6 = always

Type of school 106. NSL 107. NSL with English 108. BSL and English mouthings speech School for the Deaf Mean = 4,75 Mean = 2,5 Mean = 4,25 Std dev. = 0,5 Std dev. = 1,29 Std dev. = 2,22 Local School Mean = 4,57 Mean = 3,57 Mean = 4,29 Std dev. = 0,78 Std dev. = 0,78 Std dev. = 0,76

Table 14 continued. Languages used in EfDP classroom How often do you use the following languages in EfDP lessons? 1 = never, 6 = always

Type of school 109. BSL 110. Written English 111. English speech School for the Deaf Mean = 3,5 Mean = 5,0 Mean = 2,75 Std dev. = 2,38 Std dev. = 0,82 Std dev. = 2,1 Local School Mean = 3,57 Mean = 3,86 Mean = 3,0 Std dev. = 1,9 Std dev. = 1,22 Std dev. = 1,53

5 106. How often do you use NSL in EfDP? 107. How 4 often do you use NSL with English mouthings? 108. How 3 often do you n use BSL with a e English M speech? 109. How 2 often do you use BSL i EfDP? 110. How often do you 1 use written English? 111. How often do you use English 0 speech In EfDP? Deaf School Local School Workplace

Fig. 1. Teachers’ language usage in EfDP lessons

42

Table 15. Pupil assessment How often do you use these methods of pupil assessment? 1 = never, 6 = always

Type of school N 132. Tests 133. I observe the 134. Pupils evaluate pupil and give oral their own performance feedback School for the Deaf n = 4 Mean = 2,5 Mean = 5,0 Mean = 2,25 Std dev. = 1,0 Std dev. = 1,16 Std dev. = 1,5 Local School n = 7 Mean = 1,5 Mean = 3,5 Mean = 2,67 Std dev. = 0,84 Std dev. = 1,22 Std dev. = 1,03

Table 15 continued. Pupil assessment How often do you use these methods of pupil assessment? 1 = never, 6 = always

Type of school 135. Pupils evaluate 136. The pupils are each others work not assessed in this subject School for the Deaf Mean = 2,25 Mean = 2,0 Std dev. = 1,5 Std dev. = 1,41 Local School Mean = 2,0 Mean = 3,5 Std dev. = 1,27 Std dev. = 1,52

Table 16. Standardised scores of deaf Norwegian pupils’ Grammar Test

N Valid 15 Missing 0 Mean 98,93 Std. Deviation 9,72 Range 27 Minimum 85 Maximum 112

Norwegians' Standardised scores Grammar Test

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5 3 3

1,0 2 2 2

0,5 1 1 1

0,0 85 88 92 95 98 105 109 112 Scores Fig. 2. Norwegians’ standardised scores, Grammar Test

43

Table 17. Deaf Swedish pupils’ standardised Grammar Test scores

N Valid 8 Missing 0 Mean 82,38 Std. Deviation 25,05 Range 56 Minimum 56 Maximum 112

Swedish Standardised Grammar Test Scores

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5 3

1,0

0,5 1 1 1 1 1

0,0 56 71 98 101 109 112 Scores Fig. 3. Swedish standardised Grammar Test scores

Table 18. Norwegian profoundly deaf pupils’ standardised scores on the Grammar Test

Hearing Status Standardised scores on Grammar Test Profound hearing loss n = 6 Valid 6 Missing 0 Mean 107,5 Std. Deviation 5,32 Range 14 Minimum 98 Maximum 112

44

Table 19. Norwegian deaf pupils’ with severe and moderate hearing losses, standardised scores on the Grammar Test

Hearing Status Standardised scores on Grammar Test Moderate/severe hearing loss n = 9 Valid 9 Missing 0 Mean 93,22 Std. Deviation 7,48 Range 20 Minimum 85 Maximum 105

Table 20. The test results of deaf children of deaf parents

Standardis- Total mean Vocabulary Test Grammar test ed score scores scores in Grammar BSL Story Test In % in % % Test scores scores in % N Valid 2 2 2 2 2 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 76,05 93,18 82,50 112,00 65,00 Std. Deviation 6,97 3,22 ,00 ,00 14,14 Range 9,85 4,55 ,00 00 20,00 Minimum 71,13 90,90 82,50 112 55,00 Maximum 80,98 95,45 82,50 112 75,00

Table 21. Test results of the profoundly deaf pupils of deaf parents (n = 2) and hearing parents (n = 4).

Pupil Family Vocabulary Grammar Story score Total Mean Standardised background Score in % score in % in % score in % Grammar score 1 DCDP 90,90 82,50 55 71,13 112 2 DCDP 95,45 82,50 75 81,98 112 3 DCHP 81,82 80,00 85 81,44 109 4 DCHP 86,36 77,50 65 76,28 105 5 DCHP 86,36 80,00 85 82,95 109 6 DCHP 95,45 72,50 100 89,31 98

DCDP total mean score = 76,56% DCHP total mean score = 82,49%

Table 22. Co-operation between the school and the home (n = 11). School placement Answer 139. Have parents been 140. Are the parents informed about EfDP involved in the syllabus? pupil’s work with EfDP? Deaf School (n = 4) Yes 3 2 No 0 2 Don’t know 1 0 Local School (n = 7) Yes 6 5 No 1 2 Don’t know 0 0

45 Appendix 13 Vedlegg 2 Til foreldre/foresatte til elever i 4. klasse ved XXX Sverige

Kan ditt barn være med i et spennende forskningsprosjekt? Jeg kontakter deg fordi jeg er hovedfagsstudent i pedagogikk og skal skrive en oppgave om britisk tegnspråkferdighetene (BSL) til norske, døve og sterkt tunghørte elever på 4. klassetrinn. Til daglig er jeg audiopedagog og ansatt på Vestlandet kompetansesenter, Bergen, Norge.

Målet med hovedfagsoppgaven er å kartlegge BSLferdigheter hos ALLE norske 4. klassinger i denne elevgruppen skoleåret 2003 –2004 som får undervisning i BSL som en del av dere engelsk undervisning. Elevenes ferdigheter i dette faget er ikke blitt evaluert etter nye læreplaner ble innført i 1997. Norge er det eneste landet som gir undervisning i et fremmed tegnspråk. Resultatene blir derfor av stor interesse. Kartlegging av BSLferdigheter vil foregå slik:

Barnet vil se på en BSLvideo i avslappet omgivelse sammen med sin lærer og vise hvor mye han/hun forstår ved å peke på bilder. Resultatene skrives på et resultatsark.

All opplysninger blir behandlet konfidensielt. Jeg får ikke vite barnets navn og det er bare jeg som har tilgang til de innsamlede opplysningene. Det vil ikke være mulig å gjenkjenne enkelte elever eller skoler i den ferdige oppgaven. Det er frivillig å delta og dere kan trekke tilbake samtykke når som helst uten grunn.

Prosjektet er meldt til Personvernombudet for forskning, Norsk samfunnsvitenskapelig datatjeneste AS og jeg følger gjeldende regler. Prosjektet er blitt godkjent av fagstyret ved Norges teknisk- og naturvitenskapelig universitet, Trondheim og får støtte fra Vestlandet kompetansesenter og fra Læringssenteret, Oslo. Det er få barn i denne elevgruppen og jeg håper derfor at ditt barn kan være med på prosjektet slik at vi høster kunnskap som kan komme elevene til gode.

Vennligst returner svarslippen til barnets lærer innen mandag 1. september. Har du noen spørsmål, ta gjerne kontakt med meg. På forhånd takk! Med vennlig hilsen

Pat Pritchard Førstekonsulent, FoU team, Vestlandet kompetansesenter. Pb 463, 5501 Haugesund, Norge. Tlf: 00 47 52 71 10 22. Mob. tlf: 00 47 95 74 70 98. E-post: [email protected]

46

47 Appendix 14 Assessing British Sign Language Development, receptive skills. Rosalind Herman, Sallie Holmes & Bencie Woll (Adaptert utgave) City University, London og British Sign Language Story Test, reseptive ferdigheter Audiopedagog Pat Pritchard Vestlandet kompetansesenter Med støtte fra Læringssenteret, Oslo

Test Manual 1. Introduksjon 1.1 Hvorfor evaluere Britisk tegnspråkutvikling? Britisk tegnspråk (BSL) brukes i engelsk undervisning av norske døve barn. Det er behov for å evaluere suksessen av et slikt undervisningstilbud, og å følge utviklingen av elevene som skal tilegne seg BSL og senere engelsk. I tillegg kan denne evalueringen være en del av en diagnostisering av elever som har vansker med sin generelle språkutvikling.

Fram til i dag er det begrenset med forskning om og vurdering av døve barns tegnspråkutvikling. Det er også få standardiserte prøver. Assessing BSL Development - Receptive Skills Test representerer den første standardiserte test av BSLutvikling. Testen ble utviklet i Storbritannia.

BSL Story Test for reseptive ferdigheter derimot er en test utviklet spesielt for dette prosjektet, og er ikke standardisert.

1.2 Hva brukes testene til? Testene måler elevenes reseptive ferdigheter i BSL. Assessing BSL Development - Receptive Skills Test er beregnet for engelske døve barn i alderen 3 til 11 år som bruker BSL. Den kan også brukes med eldre barn som man føler er sen i utviklingen. Eller som i dette tilfelle, med døve elever som tilegner seg BSL som et fremmedspråk i en skolesituasjon.

1.3 Hvem kan utføre testene? Lærer og andre profesjonelle som har arbeidserfaring med døve elever kan utføre testene. Det er ikke nødvendig å være BSLbruker selv for å administrere testene. Det er selvsagt ønskelig at lærere har en CACDP BSL Stage 1 kvalifikasjon. Imidlertid er det et minstekrav om 10 vekttall i norsk tegnspråk for å kunne forklare testinstruksjonene. Testinstruksjoner blir også gitt på BSL på testvideoen.

1.4 Hvem har utviklet testene? Assessing BSL development - Receptive Skills Test ble utviklet på City University i London av: • Rosalind Herman, en logoped og spesialist i døve barns kommunikasjon • Sallie Holmes, en senior, kvalifiserte BSLinstruktør • Professor Bencie Woll, en tegnspråk lingvist. BSL Story Test ble utviklet av audiopedagog Pat Pritchard i forbindelse med et hovedfagsstudie på NTNU, Trondheim. Testen er ikke en del av den opprinnelige testen og er ikke standardisert.

48

1.5 Hvilke barn var med i utvikling og standardisering av testen Assessing BSL development - Receptive Skills Test? Døve barn fra døve familier som er BSLbrukere var med i utvikling og standardisering av Assessing BSL development - Receptive Skills Test. For å standardisere testen trengts et stort antall barn. Populasjonen av døve barn fra døve familier er liten. For å øke antallet og samtidig begrenser variasjoner ble følgende grupper også inkluderte: • hørende barn fra døve familier • døve barn fra hørende familier som hadde brukt BSL i tidlig alder og som fikk et tospråklig undervisningstilbud (BSL/engelsk) • døve barn fra hørende familier som fikk et total kommunikasjons- undervisningstilbud

Testen er brukt hovedsakelig i arbeid med døve barn fra hørende familier. Det er vanskelig å standardisere en test for denne gruppen pga stor variasjon i deres språklige ferdigheter og erfaringer. (Kyle 1990) Forskning indikerer imidlertid at døve barn som får jevnlig tilgang til et tegnspråkmiljø og gode språkmodeller før de fyller 5 år, tilegner seg språket til et ”morsmålsnivå.” (Mayberry 1993)

2. Testenes innhold Testene består av tre deler, alle presentert på video: 1. Vokabular sjekkliste 2. Reseptiv ferdighetstest av BSLs grammatiske element: Assessing BSL development - Receptive Skills Test 3. Reseptiv ferdighetstest av BSL i en sammenhengende tekst: BSL Story Test

2.1 Vokabular sjekkliste Sjekklisten skal sikre at elevene kjenner til vokabularet som blir brukt i Assessing BSL development - Receptive Skills Test. Når dette er bekreftet, betyr feilsvar på testen at eleven har problemer med annet enn vokabular. Vokabularet er valgt med omhu av to grunner: • Det skal være tegn som er brukte i hverdagslige situasjoner • Det skal være lite dialektsforskjeller Tegnene er presentert på video og eleven peker på bilder. (Se tabell 1, side 3.) Noen tegn kan variere pga dialektforskjeller. F eks er APPLE, BALL. MOTHER og BOY utført forskjellig i nord- og sør-England. I testen som blir brukt i Norge, brukes dialekten fra sør. MOTHER har artikulasjonssted på hode og BOY bruker pekefinger på haken. Tabell 1. Testvokabular

1. APPLE 12. COLLAR 2. BALL 13. HAT 3. BED 14. HEADPHONES 4. BOOK 15. HEARING-AID 5. BOX 16. ICE-CREAM 6. BOY 17. LETTER 7. CHILD 18. MOTHER 8. CAR 19. PENCIL 9. COAT 20. TABLE 10. CUP 21. TEDDY 11. DOG 22. UMBRELLA

49 Sjekklisten kan gi en oversikt over norske elevers kjennskap til hverdagslige BSLtegn. De fleste av disse BSLtegnene ligner på norske tegn både i form og innhold (”cognates”). Følgende er særskilt for BSL: BED, BOY, COAT, DOG, LETTER, MOTHER, TEDDY (bamse).

2.2 Reseptiv ferdighetstest av BSLs grammatiske elementer: Assessing BSL development - Receptive Skills Test Testen er presentert på BSL på video. Eleven ser på videoen sammen med læreren. Testen består av 40 testsetninger som evaluerer elevens forståelse av spesielle aspekter av syntaks og morfologi i BSL. Eleven responderer ved å velge det mest passende bildet fra et utvalg av tre eller fire i et bildehefte. Elevens skåre er konvertert til et standardskåre ved å bruke standardiseringstabellen på side 8. Standardskåre indikerer elevens forståelsesnivå sammenlignet med gjennomsnittsskåre for jevnaldrende, engelske barn i standardiseringsgruppen. Mønster i elevens resultater kan peke på områder hvor eleven har vansker i BSL. Se vedlegg 1. Hvorvidt resultatene i BSL kan overføres til elevens NTS ferdigheter vet vi ingenting om.

Testen fokuserer på utviklingen av elevens forståelse av BSLs grammatiske elementer. Testsetningene var utviklet på basis av tilgjengelige forskningsresultater om BSLtilegnelse blant barn med døve foreldre. (For en oversikt over BSLutvikling, se Woll 1998.) I tillegg er det bevis for, at visse morfologiske aspekter av tegnspråk kan være spesielt vanskelig for den som lærer tegnspråk sent i livet. (Galvin 1989). Testen inneholder derfor noen setninger som evaluerer dette. For en detaljert beskrivelse av lingvistiske aspekter av BSL inkludert i testen, og hvordan testen ble utviklet, se Assessing BSL Development Tester’s manual (1999) side 5 – 8.

2.3 Reseptiv ferdighetstest av BSL i en sammenhengende tekst: BSL Story Test Læreren må vurdere om eleven greier å gjennomføre denne testen samme dagen som Assessing BSL development - Receptive Skills Test eller om den skal utsettes. Alle testene må gjennomføres innen en uke. Fortellingen introduseres ved hjelp av ett bilde som elevene ser på før fortellingen begynner. Fortellingen er presentert på BSL på video. Eleven skal respondere ved å gjenfortelle fortellingen gjennom å velge bilder fra flere utvalg av fire illustrasjoner. Bildene settes sammen til en tegneserie.

En studie av Fransen og Gormley (1980) beskrives i boka Language Development in Deaf Children s 47. Studiet indikerer at døve barn viser bedre oppfattelse av kompliserte setningsstrukturer når disse forekommer som en del av en tekst. Teksten gir setningene en sammenheng. Pga disse forskningsresultater blir elevene presentert for en slik sammenhengende tekst.

Vokabular som brukes i fortellingen er valgt med omhu. Fortellingen inneholder ingen ”nøkkeltegn” som ligner på norske tegn (cognates). Det forventes derfor at elevene må ha noe kjennskap til BSL for å kunne finne den fullstendig meningen i teksten.

Elevene blir ikke bedt om å oversette BSLfortelling til NTS. I denne undersøkelsen er det viktig at eleven viser at opplevelsen, forståelsen og tenkningen foregår på BSL uten at NTS trekkes inn. Oversetting er en annen og mer komplisert prosess enn den testen skal undersøke. I tillegg, å registrere elevenes svar på NTS ville kreve

50 videoopptak og avlesing av NTS. Avlesing kan føre til subjektive tolkninger og feil tolkninger.

3. Instruksjoner for administrering av testene Det kan være en fordel å gi fellesinformasjon til klassen om hvordan testen gjennomføres. Deretter kan hver enkelt få informasjon repetert etter hvert som de gjennomgå deltestene. Det er en fordel at elever ikke forteller hverandre hva de har sett på videoene før alle har gjennomført testen.

3.1 Vokabular sjekkliste

Materiell: 20 bildekort Skåringsark (kopier side 16, 17 og 18) og penn Testvideoen 1 Videoavspillingsutstyr (med fjernstyring) i et avskjermet lokale med et bord og to stoler

Mål: • å kontrollere at eleven kjenner til vokabularet som skal brukes i den neste testen • å få en oversikt over norske elevers kjennskap til noen hverdagslige BSLtegn

Prosedyre: Vokabularsjekklisten tar mellom 5 og 10 minutter å gjennomføre og administrere. Det er 20 bilder som skal fremstille 22 BSLtegn. (Bildet av BOY brukes også som CHILD, og bildet DOG for COLLAR.) Gjør eleven oppmerksom på dette før testen begynner.

Legg følgende bildekort på bordet i en tilfeldig rekkefølge mens eleven ser på: 1. APPLE 2. BOY 3. COAT 4. DOG 5. HEADPHONES 6. ICE-CREAM 7. PENCIL 8. TEDDY 9. TABLE (Kortene er market med en rød flekk.) Eleven ser på videoen og peker på bildet som representerer BSLtegnet. Etter BSLtegnet for TABLE (bord), trykk på pauseknappen, fjern bildene og plasser de resterende bildene på bordet foran eleven på samme måten som før: 10. BALL 11. BED 12. BOOK 13. BOX 14. CAR 15. CUP 16. HAT 17. HEARING-AID 18. LETTER 19. MOTHER 20. UMBRELLA

51

Hvis eleven har problemer, kan læreren stanse videoen, gjenta videosnutten eller gjenta BSLtegnet selv slik at eleven får god tid til å tenke. Hvis ikke dette nytter, viser læreren bildet og BSLtegnet. Bildet plasseres diskret til sides. Etter at sjekklisten er gjennomgått, kan læreren repetere de tegnene som eleven hadde problemer med. F eks kan bildene legges på bordet og læreren viser BSLtegn for alle bildene. Deretter viser læreren tegnene ”hulter til bulter”, og eleven peker på det riktige bildet. Læreren må gjengi tegnene på sammen måten som på videoen hvis test standardiseringen skal opprettholdes.

Å gjengi elevens respons Fyll ut arket umiddelbart etter at eleven er ferdig med sjekklisten. Ikke skriv mens eleven holder på, han/hun kan miste motivasjon hvis han føler at han ikke lykkes.

Skåringsarket har flere kolonner. Se det ferdig utfylt eksempelet på side 11. Skriv 0 (nei) ved de tegnene hvor bildene ble satt til siden (feil svar/vet ikke). Hvis eleven gjenkjente BSLtegnet skrives X (ja).

3.2 Reseptiv ferdighetstest av BSLs grammatiske element: Assessing BSL development - Receptive Skills Test Materiell: Test videoen 2 Skåringsark (kopier side 19 og 20) og penn Bildehefte Video avpillingsutstyr (med fjernstyring) i avskjermet lokale Et bord og to stoler

Mål: Å undersøke om elevene forstår BSLsetninger som er presentert på testvideoen

Prosedyren Testen tar ca 15 minutter å administrere per elev. Lokalene skal være i et område uten forstyrrende elementer. Eleven skal sitte godt og skal kunne se TV skjermen og bildehefte. Læreren sitter ved siden av eleven og observerer at elevene ser på videoen til riktig tid. Det er viktig at eleven ser på skjermen inntil bildet forsvinner. Om nødvendig kan læreren peke på TV-skjermen inntil testsetningen er gjennomført.

Eleven ser på en testsetning på videoen og responderer ved å velge det mest passende bilde fra et utvalg av tre eller fire i bildeheftet. Læreren fyller ut skåringsarket etter hvert som eleven svarer. Nummeret på testsetningen står på TV skjermen før tegnet vises.

Introduksjon til testen Læreren forklarer til eleven på NTS hvordan testen skal foregå før han/hun går inne i testlokalene. Læreren bør understreke: • Det er viktig å se veldig nøye på personen som viser èn og èn ”tegnsetning” • Vent til personen er ferdig å vise tegnene før du ser vekk. Vent til skjermen er blank • Du må peke tydelig på det bilde du mener er riktig • Ikke være bekymret hvis du ikke er sikker hvilke bilde som er riktig. Det er lov å gjette Når eleven er kommet inn i testlokalene skal man helst bruke BSL. En introduksjon og instruksjoner gjentas på BSL på videoen.

52 Øvelsessetninger Etter introduksjonen kommer tre øvelsessetninger. Hvis eleven gjør feil er det lov å gjenta tegnene, enten ved å spole tilbake på videoen eller læreren kan utføre tegnene selv. Når testen begynner er det IKKE lov å gjenta. Bruk øvelsessetningene til å minne eleven om å ikke se vekk før skjermet er blank. Hvis ikke eleven klarer å samarbeide eller svarer feil på alle øvelsessetninger skal ikke testen gjennomføres.

Testen Pass på at eleven ser på skjermet for hver setning. Det er ikke lov å gjenta en tegnsetning selv om eleven er usikker på hva han/hun har sett. Si til eleven at han skal peke på bildet som han tror er riktig eller å gjette. Det er ikke farlig om han/hun gjør feil.

Å gjengi elevens respons Elevens respons gjengis på skåringsarket. Se det utfylte eksempelet på sidene 12 og 13. På arket står det etter hver testsetning tre eller fire tall arrangert i rekkefølge som korresponderer med bildene til testsetningen i bildeheftet. Tallet med framhevet skrift er det riktige svaret. Tegn en sirkel rundt tallet som korresponderer med elevens svar til testsetningen mens testen foregår men skriv ikke kommentarer da. Hvis eleven er nysgjerrig, vis han/hun at man sirkler inn noen tall og fortell at hun/han gjør det bra.

Å gi eleven tilbakemeldinger Hvis eleven spør om et svar er rett eller feil, skal læreren være forsiktig med å vise hvordan eleven egentlig presterer gjennom ansiktsmimikken. Hvis eleven er engstelig må læreren gi positiv tilbakemeldinger og forklare at noen deler av testen er mer vanskelig enn andre.

Å avslutte testen før den er slutt Hvis eleven er ukonsentrert, stans videoen og gi eleven en pause. Noen elever vil kanskje ønske å fortsette senere. I slike tilfeller, skriv det i kommentarene på skåringsarket. I slike tilfeller må testen gjennomføres innen en uke.

Noen elever vil ikke greie å gjennomføre testen. Hvis eleven svarer feil på fire testsetninger på rad, stopp testen. Hvis eleven svar feil på tre testsetninger og så en riktig, forsetter testen inntil eleven svarer feil på fire på rad. (Se eksempelet side 12 – 13.)

Å skåre testen og konvertere råskåre til standardskåre Nå testen er ferdig, regn ut summen av antall riktige (X) svar i kolonnene på arket. Summen er elevens råskåre. Se på tabell 3 på side 8 og konverter elevens råskåre til standardskåre. Da må du finne elevens råskåre i kolonne til venstre og elevens aldersgruppe øverst på tabellen. Der hvor disse punktene møtes vises elevens standardskåre.

På denne testen har eleven vist sin forståelse av BSL grammatikk. Det er viktig å understreke at standardskåre indikerer elevens prestasjoner sammenlignet med engelske døve barn i samme alderen. Blant engelsk døve barn er gjennomsnittsskåre i hver aldersgruppe 100 og skårer mellom 70 og 130 viser den normale spredningen. For informasjon om tolking av feilsvarene se vedlegg 1.

53 Tabell 3 Standardskårer

ALDERS INTERVALLER BSL 3.00 – 3.11 4.00 – 4.11 5.00 – 5.11 6.00 – 7.11 8.00 – 9.11 10.00 – 12.11 råskåre 36 123 35 129 119 118 34 146 116 116 33 123 112 112 32 130 109 101 31 122 117 105 95 30 120 114 102 90 29 117 111 98 84 28 114 108 95 78 27 111 105 92 73 26 108 102 88 67 25 105 99 85 61 24 121 103 96 81 56 23 119 100 93 78 22 116 97 90 74 21 113 95 87 71 20 110 92 84 19 121 108 89 81 18 118 105 86 78 17 115 103 83 75 16 113 100 80 72 15 110 97 78 69 14 108 94 75 66 13 105 91 73 12 102 89 11 100 86 10 97 83 95 80 92 89 87 84 81

Gjennomsnitt for engelske døve barn er 100. Normal spredning ligger mellom 70 og 130.

54 3.3 Reseptive ferdighetstest av BSL i en sammenhengende tekst: BSL Story Test Materiell: Introduksjonsbilde Bildekasse til BSL Story Test Skåringsarket (kopier side 21 og 22) Testvideoen 3 Avspillingsutstyr med fjernkontroll Et bord og to stoler

Mål: • Å undersøke hvor mye eleven forstår av en sammenhengende BSLtekst

Prosedyre Testen tar ca 10 – 15 minutter å administrere per elev. Lokalene skal være i et område uten forstyrrende elementer. Eleven skal sitte godt og skal kunne se TV skjermen, introduksjonsbildet og bildene i kassen. Læreren sitter ved siden av eleven og observerer at elevene ser på videoen til riktig tid.

Først ser eleven på introduksjonsbildet, deretter på videoen av BSLfortellingen. Eleven kan se på fortellingen opptil to ganger. Etterpå velger eleven bilder fra flere utvalg av fire bilder som etter hvert skaper en tegneserie som gjengir BSLfortellingen.

Introduksjon Før eleven går inne i testlokalene forklarer læreren på NTS hva testen går ut på: • Du skal først se et bilde og deretter en BSLfortelling på video som handler om bildet • Du kan se fortellingen to ganger hvis du vil • Etterpå skal du velge noen bilder som gjenforteller hva du har sett • Til slutt har du laget en tegneserie som viser hele BSLfortellingen • Hvis eleven er engstelig si at han/hun ikke skal bekymre seg og bare velg bilder han/hun mener er riktige, eller bare gjette.

Testen Vis eleven introduksjonsbildet som gir eleven bakgrunnsinformasjon om BSLfortellingen. Gi han/hun god tid til å se på bildet.

Pass på at eleven sitter godt og ser på skjermen under hele fortellingen ved første visningen. Hvis eleven har lyst kan han/hun ser fortellingen om igjen. Deretter er det ikke lov å gjenta fortellingen eller deler av den flere ganger, selv om eleven er usikker på hva han/hun har sett. Si til eleven at han skal peke på bildet som han tror er riktig eller å gjette. Det er ikke farlig om han/hun gjør feil. Gi eleven god tid til å tenke.

Læreren presenterer utvalgene med fire bilder fra bildekassen f eks 1A, 1B, 1C og 1D. Eleven velger ett bilde fra hvert utvalg; ti i alt. Bildene legges på bordet i leseretningen. Det er ikke lov å forandre på bildevalget.

Sier eleven at han ingenting forstår, kan læreren fortelle historien på NTS og la eleven lage en tegneserie slik at han føler at han har gjennomført oppgaven.

Testen er ikke en hukommelsestest. Står eleven fast, kan læreren hjelpe ved å stille følgende ledende spørsmål først på BSL eller på NTS.

55 Bildesett nummer Ledende spørsmål 1 What did mother give to the boy? Hva gav mor til gutten? 2 Where did the boy go? What happened to the bag? Hvor gikk gutten? Hva skjedde med posen? 3 Who found the bag? Hvem fant posen? 4 Where did the person (dog) go? Hvor gikk personen (hunden)? 5 What did the person (dog) do? Hva gjorde personen (hunden)? 6 What happened to the sandwich? Hva skjedde med smørbrødet? 7 Where did the sandwich land? Hvor havnet smørbrødet? 8 Who found the sandwich and ate some of it? Hvem fant smørbrødet og spiste noe av det? 9 Who found the sandwich and ate it? Hvem fant smørbrødet og spiste det? 10 What happened finally? Hva skjedde til slutt?

Å gjengi elevens respons Etter testen, tegnes sirkler på skåringsark på side 23 og 24, rundt tallene på de bildene eleven valgte. Riktige svar er skrevet med understreket og framhevet skrift. Nesten riktige svar er skrevet i understreket kursiv skrift. Se eksempelet side 15 - 16.

Å skåre testen Riktige svar gis 2 poeng. Nesten riktige svar gis 1 poeng. Feil svar får ingen poeng.

Bruk skåringsarket s. 25 og overfør elevens resultater fra s. 23 og 24 og regn ut slutt summen: Gi 4 poeng for hver sekvens av 2 riktige svar. Gi 6 poeng til slutt summen hvis eleven har greid en sekvens på 3 riktige bilder. Gi 8 poeng til slutt summen hvis eleven har greid en sekvens på 4 riktige bilder. Skriv summen som prosent. Se eksempelet side 17.

4. Å gjenta testene Testene bør ikke gjentas innen en seksmåneds periode. Endringer i testresultater kan skyldes øvelser og ikke en virkelig utvikling av reseptive ferdigheter.

Referanse Woll, B. 1998. BSL Development. Issues in Deaf Education Gregory, S.& Powers, S., Mulitilingual Matters Herman, R. The need for an assessment of deaf children’s signing skills. Deafness and Eduaction, 22 (3), 3-8 Herman, R., Holmes, S., Woll, B. 1999. Assessing British Sign Language Development. Tester’s Manual. D. McLean at the Forest Bookshop. Kyle, JG. 1990. BSL Development: Final Report. Centre for Deaf Studies, University of Bristol. Mayberry, R. L. First-language acquisition after childhood differs from second-language acquisition: The case of ASL. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. 36 (6), 1258-70 1993

56 Eksempel: Utfylt Assessing BSL development - Receptive Skills Test. Vokabular sjekkliste.

Skolens nr: 4 Elevens test nr: 6___ Dato: 030903

Vokabular Riktige svar Feil svar Vet ikke Kommentarer Apple X

Ball X

Bed O

Book O

Box X Gjentok selv og da fikk han riktig svar Boy* X

Child* 0

Car X

Coat X Ga riktig svar men sa ”vet ikke” først Cup X

Dog* X

Collar* X Var usikker, så ut som om han gjettet Hat X

Headphones X

Hearing-aid X

Ice-cream X

Letter O

Mother X

Pencil X Begynner å bli trøtt.

Table X

Teddy O

Umbrella X

Sum av 17/22 riktige svar

57 Eksempel utfylt Assessing BSL development - Receptive Skills Test skåringsark • Tegn en sirkel rundt elevens svar. Det riktige svaret er uthevet. Når testen er over, skriv evt. kommentarer og R = riktig eller F = feil. Regn ut hvor mange riktige svar eleven hadde og gjør denne råskåren om til standardskåre. (Se Test manual side 8.) • Ikke la eleven vær oppmerksom på sine resultater under testen. Dette kan påvirke elevens motivasjon. • Det er ikke lov å gjenta en setning etter at testen har begynt. Hvis dette skjer skåres det som ”feil”. • Hvis elevene svarer feil fire ganger på rad, stanses testen.

Tekst Elevsvar R F Kommentarer Prøve 1 Gjentok videoen. CHILD EAT 1 2 3 Prøve 2 1 2 MOTHER READ 3

Prøve 3 1 2 TEDDY SMALL 3 4 1. LOTS APPLE 1 2 R

3 4 2. CAR ROW ROW ROW 1 2 R

3 4 3. ICE-CREAM 1 2 R NOTHING 3 4. NOT-LIKE EAT 1 2 R

3 4 5. BOOK ON 1 2 R

3 6. ONE-TEDDY 1 2 F Dårlig oppmerksomhet, så vekk, så gjentok tegnet selv på BSL 3 7. DRIVE 1 2 F Uinteressert.. Begynte å gjette? Stanset testen kl 1030 3 4 8. HAT NOTHING 1 2 R Begynte testen igjen etter matpausen.

3 4 9. BALL TABLE ON 1 2 R

3 4 10. TWO-PEOPLE-MEET 1 2 R

3 4 11. DOG IN 1 2 F

3 12. PERSON-GO DOWN- 1 2 R ESCALATOR 3 4 13. CHILD LOOK-UP 1 2 R

3 4 14. FEW-CUP 1 2 R

3 15. CAR BEHIND 1 2 F

3 4

16. CURLY-HAIR 1 2 F

3 4 17. BOX UNDER BED 1 2 R 3 4 18. BOOK-GIVE-TO- 1 2 R CHILD 3 4

58 19. BOY-DRINK 1 2 R

3 4 20. BOY HIT-GIRL FACE- 1 2 R HURT 3 4 21. PENCIL THICK 1 2 R

3 4 22. THICK-STRIPES- 1 2 R DOWN-TROUSERS 3 4 23. NOT-SLEEP 1 2 F

3 24. QUEUE 1 2 R

3 4 25. HOLD-UMBRELLA- 1 2 R OPEN-WALK 3 4 26. PENCIL 1 2 R

3 4 27. POUR-WATER- 1 2 F OTHER-BOY HAIR- WET 3 4 28. HEADPHONES 1 2 R NOTHING 3 29. MOTHER LETTER 1 2 F GIVE 3 4 30. CHILD COAT RAIN 1 2 F NOTHING 3 4 31. CAN’T REACH 1 2 F

3 32. CHILD BOOK-SHOW- 1 2 F Stanset testen TO-SIDE 3 4 33. DOG NO COLLAR 1 2 EAT-BIG-BONE 3 4 34. DOG-IN-FRONT 1 2

3 4 35. NOT-DROP-CUP 1 2

3 4 36. HEARING-AID 1 2 NOTHING 3 4 37. EAT-THIN- 1 2 SANDWICH 3 4 38. ROW-CAR-BOTTOM- 1 2 LEFT 3 4 39. DOG-LIE-INSIDE- 1 2 RIGHT 3 4 40. HOUSE-TOP-RIGHT 1 2

3 4 Råskåre 21 (sum av rette Standardiserte skåre 71 svar) Eksempel: Ferdig utfylt skåringsark. BSL Story Test

59 Mål i teksten Elevsvar Riktig Nesten Feil Kommentarer riktig 1. It’s Monday. It’s 1. X Så videoen to ganger. half past eight and A little boy is going to A B school. “Hurry up Mum, I’ll be late for school. The bus is C D leaving soon!” Mum buttered two slices of bread, put a thick slice of cheese on one, and then put the other slice of bread on top. “Quick, quick!” signed the boy as he buttoned up one button on his coat and threw his satchel (ransel) onto his shoulder. Mum put the sandwich in a paper bag and The boy pushed it into his pocket. “Bye,” signed Mum as The boy rushed out of the house, his jacket flapping. 2.He ran down the 2 X road. At the bus stop he could see the big, A B red, double decker bus. The other children had already started to get C D on. The boy ran as fast as he could. He didn’t notice when the sandwich fell out of his pocket. 3. The sun shone and it 3 X was starting to get warm inside the bag. A B The cheese began to dry out and curl up at the corners. Just then a C D dog came along. It had long, black hair covering its eyes and a big, pink, shiny nose. 4. The dog picked up 4 X Tok ikke tid til å se nøye på the bag in his mouth and ran home. The dog A B bilde. lived in a small red brick house with a big garden full of C D flowerbeds and surrounded by a high hedge. 5. The dog ran into 5 0 the garden and pulled A B the bag to pieces and took a big bite out of the sandwich. “Yum, C D yum. I know, I’ll hide it until dinner time,” he thought and started to dig a hole.

Elevsvar Riktig Nesten Feil Kommentarer riktig

60 6. Just then an angry 6 X Begynte å bli urolig. Sliten? lady appeared at the door of the house. A B “What are you doing, you silly dog! You’re digging up my C D flowers!” The woman grabbed the sandwich and threw it over the hedge. 7. The sandwich flew 7 X through the air and landed in a tall bed of A B weeds.

C D 8. A squirrel was 8 X Så ut til å gjette. sitting in a tree. Its tail was large and bushy A B and twitched slightly. “Food!” thought the squirrel and hurried C D down from the branch and started to eat it. 9. From behind a tall 9 X Brukte ledende spørsmål på weed, a little brown animal had been A B BSL. watching. It was a Veldig usikkert. mouse. As soon as the squirrel had gone, he C D scurried over to the remains of the sandwich. He nibbled and nibbled. His stomach got bigger and bigger. 10. At last there was 10 X nothing left, not even one little crumb. “That A B was a nice breakfast!” thought the mouse and scampered off to find C D something else to eat.

61

Skåringsark for sluttresultat BSL Story Test

1 2 Sekvens av 2 Sum bilder 1 2 4 7

2 3 Sekvens av 2 Sum bilder 2 2 4 8

3 4 Sekvens av 2 Sum bilder 2 1 4 7

4 5 Sekvens av 2 Sum bilder 1 0 0 1

5 6 Sekvens av 2 Sum bilder 0 2 0 2

6 7 Sekvens av 2 Sum bilder 2 1 4 7

7 8 Sekvens av 2 Sum bilder 1 0 0 1

8 9 Sekvens av 2 Sum bilder 0 1 0 1

9 10 Sekvens av 2 Sum bilder 1 1 4 6

Poeng % Sum Av maks 80 100 x sum av poeng = _____ % 80 Navn: ______

Dato: ______0 = feil 1 = nesten korrekt 2 = riktig 4 = riktig sekvens av 2 bilder 6 = riktig sekvens skåre 3 ganger 8 = riktig sekvens skåre 4 ganger

62 Skåringsark til 1. Vokabular sjekkliste 2. Assessing BSL development - Receptive Skills Test 3. BSL Story Test

Skolens nr: ______

Elevens nr: ______Elevens alder (måneder/år):______

Test dato/er: ______

Bruksanvisning 1. Ta en kopi av dette heftet til hver elev. 2. Gjennomfør testen Vokabular sjekkliste. Se test manual side 4 om gjennomføringen. 3. Gjennomfør Assessing BSL development - Receptive Skills Test. Se test manual side 5 om gjennomføringen. 4. Gjennomfør BSL Story Test. Se testmanual side 9 om gjennomføringen. 5. Skriv alle testresultatene på denne siden.

• Resultater

1. Vokabular sjekkliste: ___ /22 (Antall riktige svar)

2. Assessing BSL development - Receptive Skills Test råskåre: ______

Assessing BSL development - Receptive Skills Test standardisert skåre: ______

3. Reseptive ferdigheter, BSL Story.: ___ / 20

Kommentarer til testgjennomføringen:

______

63

1. Vokabular sjekkliste

• Legg følgende bildekort på bordet i tilfeldig rekkefølge mens eleven ser på (Kortene er merket med en rød flekk.): 1. APPLE 2. BOY 3. COAT 4. DOG 5. HEADPHONES 6. ICE-CREAM 7. PENCIL 8. TEDDY 9. TABLE

Eleven ser på videoen og peker på bildet som representerer BSLtegnet. Hvis eleven har problemer, kan læreren hjelpe ved å stanse videoen, og gjenta videosnutten, eller gjenta BSLtegnet selv.

Legg til sides bilder som eleven har svart feil på.

Etter BSLtegnet for TABLE (bord), trykk på pauseknappen og fjern bildene. Plasser de resterende, nye bildene på bordet: 10. BALL 11. BED 12. BOOK 13. BOX 14. CAR 15. CUP 16. HAT 17. HEARING-AID 18. LETTER 19. MOTHER 20. UMBRELLA

• Repetere de tegnene som eleven hadde problemer med. • Fyll ut skåringsarket.

64 1. Vokabular sjekkliste.

Vokabular Riktige svar Feil svar Vet ikke Kommentarer Apple

Ball

Bed

Book

Box

Boy*

Child*

Car

Coat

Cup

Dog*

Collar*

Hat

Headphones

Hearing-aid

Ice-cream

Letter

Mother

Pencil

Table

Teddy

Umbrella

Sum riktig svar ______/22

* BOY og CHILD, DOG og COLLAR frembringes gjennom bruk av samme bilde.

65 2. Assessing BSL development - Receptive Skills Test skåringsark • Tegn en sirkel rundt elevens svar. Det riktige svaret er uthevet. Når testen er over, skriv evt. kommentarer og R = riktig eller F = feil. Regn ut hvor mange riktige svar eleven hadde og gjør den om til standarskåre. (se Test manual side XX) • Ikke la eleven vær oppmerksomme på sine resultater under testen. Dette kan påvirke elevens motivasjon. • Det er ikke lov å gjenta en setning etter at testen har begynt. Hvis dette skjer skåres det som ”feil”. • Hvis elevene svarer feil fire ganger på rad, stanses testen.

Tekst Elevsvar R F Kommentarer Prøve 1 CHILD EAT 1 2 ______3 Prøve 2 1 2 MOTHER READ 3 ______

Prøve 3 1 2 TEDDY SMALL ______3 4 1. LOTS APPLE 1 2

3 4 2. CAR ROW ROW ROW 1 2

3 4 3. ICE-CREAM NOTHING 1 2

3 4. NOT-LIKE EAT 1 2

3 4 5. BOOK ON 1 2

3 6. ONE-TEDDY 1 2

3 7. DRIVE 1 2

3 4 8. HAT NOTHING 1 2

3 4 9. BALL TABLE ON 1 2

3 4 10. TWO-PEOPLE-MEET 1 2

3 4 11. DOG IN 1 2

3 12. PERSON-GO DOWN- 1 2 ESCALATOR 3 4 13. CHILD LOOK-UP 1 2

3 4 14. FEW-CUP 1 2

3 15. CAR BEHIND 1 2

3 4

16. CURLY-HAIR 1 2

3 4 17. BOX UNDER BED 1 2

3 4 18. BOOK-GIVE-TO-CHILD 1 2

3 4

66 19. BOY-DRINK 1 2

3 4 20. BOY HIT-GIRL FACE- 1 2 HURT 3 4 21. PENCIL THICK 1 2

3 4 22. THICK-STRIPES- 1 2 DOWN-TROUSERS 3 4 23. NOT-SLEEP 1 2

3 24. QUEUE 1 2

3 4 25. HOLD-UMBRELLA- 1 2 OPEN-WALK 3 4 26. PENCIL 1 2

3 4 27. POUR-WATER-OTHER- 1 2 BOY HAIR-WET 3 4 28. HEADPHONES 1 2 NOTHING 3 29. MOTHER LETTER 1 2 GIVE 3 4 30. CHILD COAT RAIN 1 2 NOTHING 3 4 31. CAN’T REACH 1 2

3 32. CHILD BOOK-SHOW- 1 2 TO-SIDE 3 4 33. DOG NO COLLAR EAT- 1 2 BIG-BONE 3 4 34. DOG-IN-FRONT 1 2

3 4 35. NOT-DROP-CUP 1 2

3 4 36. HEARING-AID 1 2 NOTHING 3 4 37. EAT-THIN-SANDWICH 1 2

3 4 38. ROW-CAR-BOTTOM- 1 2 LEFT 3 4 39. DOG-LIE-INSIDE- 1 2 RIGHT 3 4 40. HOUSE-TOP-RIGHT 1 2

3 4 Råskåre Standardisert svar

(antall (se s. 8 Testmanual) riktige svar)

67 3. BSL Story Test skåringsark

BSLteksten Elevsvar Riktig Nesten Feil Kommentarer Riktig 1. It’s Monday. It’s half past eight and A 1. little boy is going to school. “Hurry up Mum, I’ll be late for school. The bus is leaving soon!” Mum buttered two slices of bread, put a thick slice of cheese on one, and then put the other slice of bread on top. “Quick, quick!” signed A B the boy as he buttoned up one button on his coat and threw his C D satchel (ransel) onto his shoulder. Mum put the sandwich in a paper bag and The boy pushed it into his pocket. “Bye,” signed Mum as The boy rushed out of the house, his jacket flapping. 2.He ran down the 2. road. At the bus stop he could see the big, red, double decker bus. The other children had A B already started to get on. The boy ran as fast as he could. He didn’t C D notice when the sandwich fell out of his pocket. 3. The sun shone and 3. it was starting to get warm inside the bag. The cheese began to dry out and curl up at A B the corners. Just then a dog came along. It had long, black hair C D covering its eyes and a big, pink, shiny nose. 4. The dog picked up 4. the bag in his mouth and ran home. The dog lived in a small red A B brick house with a big garden full of flowerbeds and C D surrounded by a high hedge. 5. The dog ran into 5. the garden and pulled the bag to pieces and took a big bite out of A B the sandwich. “Yum, yum. I know, I’ll hide it until dinner time,” he C D thought and started to dig a hole.

68 BSLtekst Elevsvar Riktig Nesten Feil Kommentarer Riktig 6. Just then an angry 6. lady appeared at the door of the house. “What are you doing, A B you silly dog! You’re digging up my flowers!” The woman C D grabbed the sandwich and threw it over the hedge. 7. The sandwich flew 7. through the air and landed in a tall bed of weeds. A B

C D

8. A squirrel was 8. sitting in a tree. Its tail was large and bushy and twitched slightly. A B “Food!” thought the squirrel and hurried down from the branch C D and started to eat it. 9. From behind a tall 9. weed, a little brown animal had been watching. It was a mouse. As soon as the A B squirrel had gone, he scurried over to the remains of the C D sandwich. He nibbled and nibbled. His stomach got bigger and bigger. 10. At last there was 10. nothing left. Not even one little crumb. “That A B was a nice breakfast!” thought the mouse and scampered off to find C D something else to eat.

Poeng sum __• 2 = __•1 =

Sum totalt = ____ + _____ = ______

69 Skåringsark for sluttresultat BSL Story Test

1 2 Sekvens av 2 Sum bilder

2 3 Sekvens av 2 Sum bilder

3 4 Sekvens av 2 Sum bilder

4 5 Sekvens av 2 Sum bilder

5 6 Sekvens av 2 Sum bilder

6 7 Sekvens av 2 Sum bilder

7 8 Sekvens av 2 Sum bilder

8 9 Sekvens av 2 Sum bilder

9 10 Sekvens av 2 Sum bilder

Poeng % Sum Av maks 80 100 x sum av poeng = _____ % 80 Navn: ______

Dato: ______

0 = feil 1 = nesten korrekt 2 = riktig 4 = riktig sekvens av 2 bilder 6 = riktig sekvens skåre 3 ganger 8 = riktig sekvens skåre 4 ganger

70 Vedlegg 1. Å se på elevens feilsvar Oppgavene eleven har svart feil på kan indikere hvilke områder eleven sliter med. F eks BSLvokabular, blanding av substantiv og verb, spatial verb morfologi osv. Dette kan være viktig hvis eleven har oppnådd et lavt skåre. Hvorvidt de samme problemene eksisterer i elevens forståelse av NTS, kan vi ikke si noe om. Imidlertid kan disse resultatene gi et grunnlag for nærmere observasjoner av elevens NTSutvikling. Tabellen under viser de lingvistiske karakteristikkene av de BSLsetningene i BSL Assesment test.

Lingvistiske karakteristikk BSLsetningen spasial verb morfologi 2 CAR ROW ROW ROW 5BOOK ON 9BALL TABLE ON 10 TWO-PEOPLE-MEET 11 DOG IN 12 PERSON-GO-DOWN-ESCALATOR 13 CHILD LOOK-UP 15 CAR BEHIND 17 BOX UNDER BED 18 BOOK-GIVE-TO-CHILD 20 BOY HIT-GIRL FACE-HURT 27 POUR-WATER-OTHER-BOY HAIR-WET 29 MOTHER LETTER GIVE 32 CHILD BOOK-SHOW-TO SIDE 34 DOG-IN-FRONT 38 ROW-CAR-BOTTOM-LEFT 39 DOG-LIE-INSIDE-RIGHT 40 HOUSE-TOP-RIGHT Antall/distribusjon (Number/distribution) 1 LOTS APPLE 2 CAR ROW ROW ROW 6 ONE-TEDDY 12 PERSON-GO-DOWN-ESCALATOR 14 FEW-CUP 24 QUEUE 38 ROW-CAR.BOTTOM-LEFT Nektelse (Negation) 3 ICE-CREAM NOTHING 4 NOT-LIKE EAT 8 HAT NOTHING 23 NOT-SLEEP 28 HEADPHONES NOTHING 30 CHILD COAT RAIN NOTHING 31 CAN’T-REACH 33 DOG NO COLLAR EAT-BIG-BONE 35 NOT-DROP-CUP 36 HEARING-AID NOTHING Størrelse/form (Size/shape specifiers) 16 CURLY-HAIR 21 PENCIL THICK 22 THICK-STRIPES-DOWN-TROUSERS Substantiv/verb distinksjon (Noun/verb distinction) 7 DRIVE 19 BOY-DRINK 26 PENCIL Håndterings “classifier” (Handling classifiers) 25 HOLD-UMBRELLA-OPEN-WALK 35 NOT-DROP-CUP 37 EAT-THIN-SANDWICH

Assessing British Sign Language Development Test kan kjøpes fra Forest Bookshop. www.forestbooks.com.

71

1 Meldeskjema skal sendes personvernombudet dersom

1. Det skal foretas behandling av personopplysninger som helt eller delvis skjer med elektroniske hjelpemidler 2. Det skal opprettes et manuelt personregister som inneholder sensitive personopplysninger.

Med personopplysninger forstås opplysninger og vurderinger som kan knyttes til en enkeltperson (den registrerte). Med uttrykket ”enkeltperson” menes en person som direkte eller indirekte kan identifiseres, f.eks. ved hjelp av navn, identifikasjonsnummer eller et annet kjennetegn som er spesielt for personens fysiske, psykiske, økonomiske, kulturelle eller sosiale identitet. Hvilket lagringsmedium som benyttes, er uten betydning så lenge identifikasjon er mulig. Hvor stort utvalget er, og hvor mange i utvalget som kan identifiseres er også uten betydning. Behandling av personopplysninger omfatter enhver formålsrettet bruk av personopplysninger. Behandlingen kan gjerne bestå av flere former for bruk, f.eks. innsamling, bearbeiding og lagring. Med et personregister forstås registre, fortegnelser m.v. der personopplysninger er lagret systematisk slik at opplysninger om den enkelte kan finnes igjen. Med sensitive opplysninger menes opplysninger om rasemessig eller etnisk bakgrunn, politisk, filosofisk eller religiøs oppfatning, at en person har vært mistenkt, siktet, tiltalt eller dømt for en straffbar handling, helseforhold, seksuelle forhold, medlemskap i fagforeninger.

Veiledning for utfylling av meldeskjemaet 2 Behandlingsansvarlig Behandlingsansvarlig er den som alene (eller sammen med andre) har bestemmelsesrett over personopplysningene. For forskningsprosjekt vil behandlingsansvarlig være forskeren. For studentprosjekt vil behandlingsansvarlig være studentens faglige veileder. Faglig veileder skal som hovedregel være tilknyttet samme institusjon som studenten. Dersom student og faglig veileder ikke er tilknyttet samme institusjon, må det redegjøres særskilt for dette. 3 Daglig ansvar Den som har daglig tilgang til og ansvar for det innsamlede datamaterialet, og eventuell kontakt med de registrerte, har daglig ansvar for materialet. For forskningsprosjekt vil det være forskeren som skal gjennomføre prosjektet som har daglig ansvar, for studentprosjekt vil det være studenten. 4 Formål med prosjektet Det skal redegjøres for formålet med behandlingen av personopplysningene. Det vil ikke være tilstrekkelig å oppgi «til forskningsformål». v Utvalgsbeskrivelse Beskrivelse: Her skal det gis en beskrivelse av hvem som deltar i undersøkelsen. Eksempler er et representativt utvalg av befolkningen, barn, skoleelever med lese- og skrivevansker, pasienter, innsatte, organisasjonsmedlemmer, psykisk utviklingshemmede. Dersom utvalget har kjennetegn som er spesielt for utvalget, gjøres dette rede for. Rekruttering og trekking: Gjør rede for om utvalget skal trekkes fra bestemte registre (for eksempel Folkeregisteret, pasientregister, registre ved sosialkontor), rekrutteres fra et eller flere miljø (for eksempel bedrifter, skoler, idrettsmiljø eller eget nettverk) eller om det er andre måter forsker skal komme i kontakt med eller få tak i dem som utgjør utvalget i prosjektet. Gjør også rede for hvem som foretar trekkingen/rekrutteringen. Førstegangskontakt: Førstegangskontakt er første gang utvalget blir kontaktet og får kjennskap til prosjektet. Oppgi hvem det er som oppretter førstegangskontakt. Eksempel er om førstegangskontakt går gjennom lærer, behandlende lege, prosjektleder. Informasjon og samtykke 6 Oppgi hvordan informasjon til utvalget gis Her skal det beskrives hvordan informasjon til utvalget blir gitt, det vil si om informasjonen blir gitt skriftlig eller muntlig, og hvilket medium som benyttes, for eksempel brev, e-post, telefon, avis, tidsskrift eller ansikt-til-ansikt. Dersom informasjonen gis skriftlig, skal informasjonsskriv eller utkast til informasjonsskriv, legges ved meldeskjemaet. Dersom informasjonen gis muntlig, skal det oppgis hvilken informasjon som vil bli gitt. Informasjonen bør inneholde følgende punkt: 1. Prosjektets tittel. 2. Prosjektets bakgrunn og formål. 3. Hvilke metoder som skal benyttes for å innhente opplysninger, og hvilke opplysninger som innhentes. 4. Hva opplysningene om respondentene konkret skal brukes til. 5. Navn og adresse på den behandlingsansvarlige. 6. Navn og adresse på databehandler.

72

7. Finansiering av prosjektet. 8. At det er frivillig å delta og at det er mulig å trekke seg på et hvilket som helst tidspunkt. 9. At det å trekke seg ikke medfører erstatnings- eller begrunnelsesplikt, eller andre konsekvenser. 10. Tid for prosjektslutt, om opplysningene skal anonymiseres eller oppbevares videre med personidentifikasjon og begrunnelser for eventuell lagring med personidentifikasjon. 11. At foresatte/verge har rett til å se spørreskjema som skal forelegges en umyndig før det besvares. 12. Om opplysningene vil bli utlevert til andre og eventuelt til hvem. 13. At forsker er underlagt taushetsplikt og at data behandles konfidensielt. 14. Om opplysningene som framkommer i sluttrapporten kan tilbakeføres til enkeltpersoner. vii Innhentes det samtykke fra den registrerte? For å kunne svare ja på dette spørsmålet, må samtykket være en frivillig, uttrykkelig og informert erklæring fra den registrerte om at han eller hun godtar behandling av personopplysninger om seg selv. At samtykket skal være frivillig, betyr at det ikke må være avgitt under noen form for tvang fra den som retter forespørselen eller andre involverte aktører. Vær oppmerksom på at måten kontakten blir opprettet på, kan få betydning for om samtykket kan vurderes som frivillig. Dette spørsmålet må ses i sammenheng med maktforholdet mellom den som retter forespørselen og den som blir forespurt, for eksempel i relasjonen mellom saksbehandler og klient. Hvordan prosjektet blir presentert, kan også tilsløre frivillighetsaspektet, for eksempel ved at deltakelse i forskningsprosjektet framstår som en videreføring eller utvidelse av et eksisterende behandlingstilbud. At samtykket skal være uttrykkelig, betyr at det ikke skal herske noen tvil om det avgis samtykke. Et passivt samtykke er derfor ikke et uttrykkelig samtykke i lovens forstand. Retur av spørreskjema vil være å betrakte som et uttrykkelig samtykke. At samtykket skal være informert, betyr at den registrerte skal gis tilstrekkelig informasjon til at vedkommende vet hva det samtykkes til. Informasjonen må imidlertid ikke være så detaljert at det virker forvirrende eller at fokus flyttes fra det som faktisk kan true personvernet. I prosjekt der det deltar personer med norsk som andrespråk, bør informasjonen så langt det lar seg gjøre, gis på morsmålet. Informasjonen bør som hovedregel gis skriftlig. Muntlig informasjon kan supplere eller erstatte den skriftlige informasjon. Loven stiller ikke krav til formen på samtykket, dvs. om det skal være skriftlig eller muntlig. Et skriftlig samtykke vil likevel være å foretrekke for å kunne sannsynliggjøre i ettertid at samtykke faktisk er innhentet. Samtykke som er gitt elektronisk er å betrakte som et skriftlig samtykke. Det finnes imidlertid tilfeller der muntlig samtykke vil være å foretrekke, for eksempel dersom det er sannsynlig at deltakerne på bakgrunn av sin alder, kulturelle tilhørighet eller lignende, vil oppfatte et skriftlig samtykke som en kontrakt som ikke kan brytes. Samtykket skal i utgangspunktet gis av den registrerte selv. For mindreårige og umyndiggjorte skal samtykke innhentes fra verge. Dersom det svares ja på spørsmålet om samtykke innhentes, skal det oppgis hvordan frivillighetsaspektet er ivaretatt og på hvilken måte samtykke innhentes, for eksempel skriftlig erklæring, muntlig erklæring, retur av spørreskjema. viii Dersom det svares nei på spørsmålet om samtykke innhentes, skal det oppgis hvorfor det ikke lar seg gjøre å innhente slikt samtykke. Dette kan for eksempel være fordi det praktisk ikke lar seg gjøre, at det er så store etiske betenkeligheter knyttet til det å innhente samtykke eller at det ikke lar seg forsvare. Begrunnelsene må være konkrete. Dersom det benyttes andre former for samtykke, for eksempel generelt samtykke, passivt samtykke, stedfortredende samtykke, samtykke innhentet etter at behandlingen har funnet sted eller dispensasjon fra taushetsplikten, skal dette oppgis her. Dersom en behandling av personopplysninger ikke skal baseres på samtykke, setter personopplysningsloven strengere krav til nødvendigheten av behandlingen enn dersom behandlingen er basert på samtykke. Dersom det ikke skal innhentes samtykke til behandling av opplysningene, skal det gis en redegjørelse for hvorfor behandlingen er av en så stor allmenn og/eller samfunnsmessig interesse at behandlingen overstiger ulempene for enkeltindividet. 9 Metode for innsamling av personopplysninger Personopplysningene kan innhentes på flere måter. De kan innhentes direkte fra den registrerte gjennom for eksempel personlig intervju, postale spørreskjema, deltakende observasjon, medisinske undersøkelser/tester. Personopplysninger kan også innhentes fra eksisterende registre (for eksempel Kreftregisteret, Medisinsk fødselsregister) eller ved dokumentgjennomgang (for eksempel sakspapirer hos PPT, sykejournaler etc.). Ofte kombineres ulike metoder. Husk å oppgi alle kilder til informasjon om personene som inngår i utvalget. Datamaterialets innhold x Med sensitive opplysninger menes opplysninger om: Rasemessig eller etnisk bakgrunn, eller politisk, filosofisk eller religiøs oppfatning. At en person har vært mistenkt, siktet, tiltalt eller dømt for en straffbar handling. Helseforhold. Dette er opplysninger om personers tidligere, nåværende eller fremtidige fysiske og psykiske tilstand, inkludert opplysninger om medisin- og narkotikabruk. Genetiske opplysninger omfattes også av begrepet helseforhold. Også opplysninger om sosiale forhold kan vurderes til å falle inn under begrepet helseforhold dersom det kan antas at de sosiale forholdene påvirker helsa. Seksuelle forhold

73

Medlemskap i fagforeninger xi Med opplysninger om tredjeperson menes opplysninger som kan spores tilbake til personer som ikke inngår i utvalget. Eksempler på opplysninger om tredjeperson er opplysninger om spesifiserte familiemedlemmer til en registrert, som mor, far, onkel, bestemor. xii Informasjonssikkerhet Personopplysningsloven pålegger den behandlingsansvarlige, gjennom planlagte og systematiske tiltak, å sørge for at personopplysningene til enhver tid er underlagt tilfredsstillende tekniske og organisatoriske sikkerhetstiltak. Eksempler på tekniske tiltak er å skjerme informasjonssystemet i forhold til eksterne datanett, passordbeskyttelse, oppbevaring av direkte identifiserbare personopplysninger og avidentifiserte opplysninger atskilt og automatisk nedkobling av skjermbilder med personinformasjon. Eksempler på organisatoriske tiltak er å etablere klare ansvars- og myndighetsforhold i organisasjonen med hensyn til hvem som håndterer persondata og hvem som har tilgang til persondata. I personopplysningsforskriften kapittel II blir det redegjort nærmere for krav til sikring av personopplysninger. Sikkerhetstiltakene bør alltid vurderes i relasjon til i hvor stor grad den registrerte er identifiserbar, som for eksempel om det behandles direkte eller indirekte personidentifiserbare opplysninger. xiii Direkte personidentifiserbare opplysninger er opplysninger som direkte kan identifisere den registrerte. Navn og 11-sifret fødselsnummer regnes som direkte personidentifiserbare opplysninger. Direkte personidentifiserbare opplysninger bør ikke registreres sammen med det øvrige datamaterialet. Dersom det er nødvendig å registrere opplysningene sammen med de direkte personidentifiserbare opplysningene, skal det gis en begrunnelse for det. xiv Indirekte personidentifiserbare opplysninger er opplysninger som kan identifisere den registrerte uavhengig av om dataene er tilknyttet direkte personidentifiserbare opplysninger. Eksempler på variabler som indirekte kan være med å identifisere deltakerne, er bruk av bosted sammen med alder, kjønn og eventuelt diagnose, yrke, idrettsaktivitet. Andre eksempler som kan medføre at en registrert er indirekte identifiserbar, er spesifikasjon av for eksempel organisasjonstilhørighet, arbeidsplass, sykehus og avdeling, kirke- eller moskétilhørighet sammen med ulike bakgrunnsvariable. xv Databehandler er den som behandler personopplysninger på vegne av den behandlingsansvarlige. Dersom et forskningsprosjekt setter bearbeidingen av personopplysningene ut til andre, skal navn på behandlingsforetaket oppgis. Et behandlingsoppdrag skal være avtaleregulert jf. § 15 i personopplysningsloven. For forskningsprosjekt vil forskeren/studenten vanligvis være databehandler. xvi Utføres behandlingen i henhold til sikkerhetsbestemmelsene i personopplysningsforskriften? Forskriftene ligger på våre hjemmesider www.nsd.uib.no/personvern. xvii Utføres behandlingen i henhold til annen lov eller forskrift som regulerer sikkerheten? Med dette menes om behandlingen er regulert av andre lover eller forskrifter som regulerer sikkerheten og som går foran eller gir liknende krav som personopplysningsloven. Eksempler er Sikkerhetsloven, IT- forskriftene til børsloven og regnskapsloven. xviii Risikovurdering Den behandlingsansvarlige plikter å holde oversikt over hvilke personopplysninger som skal behandles med elektroniske hjelpemidler og som må sikres spesielt mot at uvedkommende får adgang til dem. Den behandlingsansvarlige skal også vurdere sannsynligheten for at sikkerhetsbrudd kan forekomme: Er f.eks. pc-tilgangen beskyttet med brukernavn og passord og står pc- en i et låsbart rom? Videre skal den behandlingsansvarlige vurdere hvilken skade det vil volde den registrerte dersom sikkerhetsbrudd inntreffer: Kan sikkerhetsbrudd f.eks. føre til tap av personlig integritet eller anseelse? Vurderingene som gjøres skal dokumenteres. xix Overføres personopplysningene i eksternt datanett? Med dette menes om personopplysningene skal samles inn eller overføres til andre gjennom eksternt datanett, f. eks. via e-post fra respondenten. xx Lagring etter prosjektslutt Dersom datamaterialet skal anonymiseres etter prosjektslutt skal alle personopplysninger, både direkte og indirekte, slettes eller skrives om/kategoriseres, slik at det ikke lenger er mulig å føre opplysningene tilbake til enkeltpersoner i datamaterialet. Data kan oppbevares med personidentifikasjon etter prosjektslutt i påvente av eventuelle oppfølgingsundersøkelser og for historiske, statistiske og vitenskapelige formål. Hovedregel for lagring av data med personidentifikasjon er samtykke fra den registrerte. Det må videre gis konkrete begrunnelser for hvorfor data skal lagres med personidentifikasjon og om dette vil medføre noen ulemper for den registrerte. Det vil ikke være tilstrekkelig å begrunne lagringen med ”for oppfølgingsstudier”. Dersom lagringen av personopplysningene ikke skal baseres på samtykke setter personopplysningsloven strengere krav til nødvendigheten av lagringen. Dersom det ikke skal innhentes samtykke til lagringen, skal det gis en redegjørelse for hvorfor lagringen er av en så stor samfunnsmessig interesse at den overstiger ulempene for enkeltindividet, og hvorfor det ikke skal innhentes samtykke.

74 xxi NSD arkiverer data fra forskningsprosjekt innen samfunnsvitenskap, humaniora, psykologi, medisin og helsefag. Data som er egnet for arkivering hos NSD, er anonyme kvantitative data lagret på diskett eller CD samt kvantitative og kvalitative persondata. xxii Spesielle tillatelser For å få utlevert taushetsbelagte opplysninger fra offentlige forvaltningsorgan, sykehus, trygdekontor, sosialkontor m.m., må det søkes om dispensasjon fra taushetsplikten. Dispensasjon søkes vanligvis fra aktuelt departement. Søknad om utlevering av helseopplysninger rettes til Sosial- og helsedirektoratet. For mer informasjon om hvorvidt et prosjekt er fremleggelsespliktig for Regional komité for medisinsk forskningsetikk, vises det til www.etikkom.no

75