As this model is context-driven and student-centered, the pedagogical decisions that teachers make will depend upon each student’s expression (expressive skills) and understanding (receptive skills) during authentic communication. In the following sections, we provide a few scenarios to illustrate how the TFDE can be employed in different communicative contexts involving deaf students. The classroom scenarios are drawn from our collective experience as teachers of deaf students and involve two students, Felix and Gabrielle, who represent two cases of deaf students born into hearing families. Felix comes from Spanish-speaking hearing parents and uses an initial communication system (e.g., gesturing, home signs, vocalizations). Gabrielle has English-speaking hearing parents who started learning and using ASL with Gabrielle when she was identified at birth as deaf. We describe various ways teachers can apply the TFDE with Felix and Gabrielle, who have very different language experiences and skills.
7.2. Felix
7.2.1. Validating Individual Idiolects and Coming to a Shared Understanding
Felix, a new student, just moved to the area. Suzie asks Felix in ASL, “How are you?” Felix looks puzzled by the expressed message. Suzie recognizes the need to learn more about Felix’s idiolect. She begins by drawing upon available semiotic resources with the use of facial expressions, gesturing, and an existing “emotions” anchor chart. She points to the poster on the wall, which has drawings of multiple faces to represent angry, sad, nervous, happy, and tired. In succession, she points to her chest, the picture of the happy face, her face, and then smiles. She gestures without using any named language, indicating for Felix to choose which face on the poster matches his feeling. Felix points to the nervous picture and produces a home sign that was dissimilar from ASL. Suzie nods reassuringly to show that she understands what he means. She points to the nervous picture and copies Felix’s home sign, validating his initial communication system and idiolect. She gestures again, asking Felix to provide his home signs for the rest of the emotions on the poster. In that moment, Suzie marvels at Felix, recognizing him as an innately lingual being who has developed systems of communication with those in his environment even when provided with little accessible language input. Suzie continues to acknowledge and copy each sign produced by Felix and then make connections between those and ASL signs.
Given the visual affordance and clarity in the iconicity and imagery of simultaneously signed meaning units, Suzie uses this approach as much as possible to continue to support Felix’s understanding and language learning. For example, when talking about sea animals in science class, Suzie points to a picture in their book of a whale swimming underwater, and then provides a simultaneous expression to represent this meaning (see Example F). By pointing to the picture first, she ensures that everyone in the class, including Felix, has a shared understanding of what is being communicated. By signing the meaning units simultaneously, she leverages the rich and creative integration of body, facial expression, and space to represent the movement, location, and shape of the sea and the whale. Given Felix’s limited knowledge of ASL, and even more limited knowledge of spoken languages, a simultaneous expression high in imagery is likely more accessible than a sequential expression (as shown in Example G).
|
Example F. [A WHALE SWIMS UNDER THE SEA] |
|
Example G. [WHALE]-[SWIM]-[UNDER]-[SEA] |
7.2.2. Building Metalinguistic Knowledge
Over the next few months, Felix is invited to share more home signs with the teacher and other students in his class. At home, he also begins teaching his family the ASL signs he is learning at school. Because his expressions are always welcome in the classroom and are viewed as valid, albeit different, ways of communicating, he does not feel ashamed of the variety in his language use. In fact, he becomes fascinated with different ways of expressing the same concepts. Felix’s communicative repertoire thus expands through the intentional connecting of semiotic resources and his initial communication system to ASL, and thereafter through the connection of understood words and phrases across languages, modalities, and variations. For example, Suzie begins to add sequential signed expressions to her simultaneous signed expressions, as illustrated in Example D earlier in the paper or through a combination of Examples F and G. In doing this, Suzie is increasing Felix’s ASL linguistic flexibility and also forging linguistic bridges in the direction of English and Spanish (another language used by members of the classroom and Felix’s home community) via the shared linguistic properties of sequential signed expressions and spoken/written language.
Suzie not only models expressions through linking or “chaining” (
Humphries and MacDougall 1999) sign variations, she also builds students’ metalinguistic knowledge by explicitly talking with students about linguistic variation and shared linguistic properties. She refers to simultaneous expression as “3-D spatial sign” and explains that it allows for the expression of multiple meaning units at the same time through facial expressions, hand and body movements, and use of space around the body. When using sequential signed expressions, Suzie explains how each meaning unit is signed one after the other in a sequence. The class discusses how 3-D spatial signs can support their expression/reception of new or challenging concepts and how sequential signed expressions can serve as an intermediary to reading and writing in English or Spanish (e.g., sharing an idea via a simultaneous expression, chaining this to a sequential signed expression, and then chaining this to sequential written expression).
As she continues to support Felix in making connections between ASL, English, and Spanish, Suzie begins to link ASL vocabulary directly to English and Spanish vocabulary through fingerspelling (e.g., [W-H-A-L-E]/[B-A-L-L-E-N-A]) and words on the board (e.g., “[WHALE]/[BALLENA]-[SWIM]/[NADA]-[UNDER]/[BAJO]-[SEA/MAR]”). She might also discuss unshared linguistic properties of the languages, such as the use of articles in the written languages that are not present in ASL (e.g., “[A]-[WHALE]-[SWIMS]-[UNDER]-[THE]-[SEA]” AND “[UNA]-[BALLENA]-[NADA]-[BAJO]-[EL]-[MAR]”). Suzie could then prompt Felix and the other students to express the written ideas once again in ASL to demonstrate their metalinguistic knowledge of simultaneous and sequential expressions. Because of Felix’s need for expanded linguistic skills that allow for higher levels of engagement in school and home interactions, Suzie understands the importance of providing regular opportunities for Felix to use ASL, Spanish, and English. Felix actively incorporates properties from ASL, Spanish, and English into a single, integrated linguistic repertoire, and Suzie supports the development of metalinguistic knowledge through explicit discussion of the similarities and differences of linguistic properties.
7.2.3. Communicating with External Audiences
The act of composing a written text or signed video for people outside of the classroom, or of reading a text or viewing a video from an external audience, requires additional skills. One needs to consider who the communication is intended for and what languages they know, how the message is being shared (format/mode), and why the communication is occurring (purpose). Part of the composing process (of signed, spoken, or written languages) is the revision and refinement of ideas and the use of specific linguistic features to match the audience, purpose, and publication format for one’s ideas. Each of these variables (audience, format, purpose) has an impact on the language resources one deploys for communication to be successful. Consider, for example, the different communicative resources of an international deaf audience with limited ASL and English knowledge versus a hearing monolingual group of English speakers. In Suzie’s class, she makes sure to expose her students to external audiences that reflect the linguistic diversity of their communities and the world. She is mindful that her course resources (e.g., reading materials and videos), as well as her composing assignments (with specified external audiences), should be varied so that Felix and his classmates can experiment with languages, modalities, and variations that differ based on purpose, audience, and publication format. Her goal is to expand students’ communication resources to facilitate their ability to more flexibly receive/express ideas with external audiences.
After Felix joins her class, Suzie learns that Council de Manos—a Latinx Deaf, DeafBlind, DeafDisabled, Hard of Hearing, and Late Deafened organization in the United States—is collecting stories to preserve and celebrate cultures, values, and heritage. During social studies class, Suzie shares what she has learned with Felix, and he expresses interest in contributing a story about his life. Suzie uses videos and texts of deaf people sharing their stories on the Council de Manos’s website as mentor texts. Some of the texts/videos are entirely in Lengua de Señas Mexicana (LSM) [Mexican Sign Language], some incorporate ASL and Spanish, and some incorporate Spanish and English. With the aim of addressing the ASL standard, “Compare and contrast stories in the same genre on their approaches to similar themes and topics”, Suzie asks students to analyze the purpose of these texts/videos and identify potential audiences of these texts/videos. Suzie points out genre-specific language uses in the texts/videos and explains that the authors are recounting their experiences. For example, she identifies that narrating past experiences requires specific linguistic features, such as first-person pronouns (“I”) and time markers (e.g., 10 years ago, in December, yesterday), which are heavily used in the mentor texts.
Felix participates as the lead author in a collaborative and interactive composition with his classmates and teachers. Felix and the other students understand that the external audience receiving the communicated message will be Latinx deaf people who are likely to know ASL, English, Spanish, and other named signed languages in Latin America such as LSM. They decide that a signed video accompanied by Spanish and English text would make his story accessible to his target audience. Felix shares his ideas, and the class works together to organize and express the ideas in both signed language and written language. While interacting with one another to compose Felix’s story, each student’s idiolect continues to be welcomed and validated in the shared space, and there is a collective commitment to achieving a shared understanding through flexible and creative communication involving unrestricted use of any semiotic and linguistic resources at their disposal.
While composing, Suzie steers students’ attention towards making conscious choices about language use based on the purpose/genre, audience, and publication format of Felix’s story. As students support each other in revision and refinement of the composed video, Suzie continues to build their metalinguistic knowledge by moving back and forth between simultaneous and sequential signed expression of meaning units, making connections between synonyms and phrases, and making linguistic comparisons across languages. Felix’s final publication is mostly in ASL with some inclusion of LSM. For key words such as soccer and food, both English and Spanish text are used in the video (i.e., [soccer]/[fútbol] and [food]/[comida]). Through this project, Felix and his classmates are able to maximize the use of their linguistic resources during collaborative writing, while also expanding their linguistic knowledge through the analysis of mentor texts and through the refinement of their expressed ideas for an external audience and meaningful purpose.
7.2.4. Critically Analyzing Social Context
As evident from the thoughtful and strategic ways that Suzie approached language and content learning in her classroom, Suzie was committed to providing an accessible language environment for her deaf students, and Felix specifically, through signed language. She intentionally did not use ASL or other named languages without first coming to a shared understanding through the use of semiotic resources or Felix’s initial communication system. By embracing and incorporating Felix’s initial system into the classroom discourse, Felix felt empowered to use his existing communication repertoire to participate as an active and engaged class member. Suzie was careful to link shared or understood concepts to simultaneous signed expression, acknowledging this to be a highly accessible form of ASL for acquisition due to signing multiple meaning units in a 3-D spatial sign, which tends to be higher in iconicity and imagery.
Furthermore, Suzie countered deficit-based views of ASL and other minoritized languages such as Spanish by supporting the legitimacy, development, and use of ASL and Spanish in the classroom. Suzie also engaged her students in the interrogation of linguistic hierarchies through discussions about the value of all languages and expressions. Her students were exposed to various external audiences (e.g., persons who do and do not share their identities and idiolects). Suzie provided a meaningful learning experience for her students, and Felix in particular, through the project for Council de Manos and worked towards creating equitable services, systems, and structures.
7.3. Gabrielle
We have just provided an in-depth example of how Suzie supported Felix through instructional decisions outlined in the TFDE. Felix is one student in the class and, naturally, there are other students with their own idiolects. In this section, we broaden the application of the model to another student in Suzie’s class: Gabrielle. Gabrielle’s parents often use sequential signed expression due to the shared linguistic properties between sequentially signed ASL and spoken/written English, and due to their limited linguistic knowledge of simultaneous expression. Gabrielle is comfortable using ASL, as well as English for her written expressions; she can also speak some English words.
In language arts class, Suzie engages students in a lesson to address the following ASL standard: “Integrate information from several texts on the same topic in order to narrate about the subject knowledgeably.” Suzie shows a few informational videos on making pizzas. The first video is of a pizza chef showing each step involved in making pizza. Each step is narrated through spoken English and an ASL interpreter in the corner of the screen. The second video is an interview with two deaf owners of a pizza restaurant called Mozzeria. They were asked in ASL to explain how they made their legendary pizza, the “Margherita”. The third video shows each ingredient that goes into making pizzas, along with their English labels. The class considers the purposes and intended audiences of the videos. They work to understand genre-specific language, such as that of an instructional video versus that of an interview, and what, why, and how languages are being used to relay meaning.
Keeping in mind that Gabrielle’s family is more familiar with sequential expression, Suzie intentionally builds in metalinguistic knowledge of ASL linguistic variation. She makes connections between simultaneous and sequential signed expressions and points out these differences to her students. Together, they combine a sequential signed expression with a simultaneous expression such as, “[FIRST]-[SPREAD]-[DOUGH]-[CIRCLE]-[SPREAD DOUGH INTO A CIRCLE]”, “[SECOND]-[ADD]-[TOMATO]-[SAUCE]-[ON]-[TOP]-[DOUGH]-[ADD TOMATO SAUCE ON THE TOP OF THE DOUGH]”, “[THIRD]-[PUT]-[CHEESE]-[ON]-[TOP]-[TOMATO]-[SAUCE]-[PUT CHEESE ON THE TOP OF THE TOMATO SAUCE].” Gabrielle’s knowledge of and comfort with ASL linguistic variation increases as she practices producing multiple meaning units simultaneously and sequentially. With a similar focus to the one maintained for Felix in terms of being able to connect with his family, Suzie provides some Spanish equivalents of key vocabulary, such as “[tomato]-[sauce]”/”[salsa]-[de]-[tomate]” and “[cheese]”/”[queso]”.
7.4. Pitfalls and Solutions: What If Suzie Was Mary?
What if Suzie was not teaching Felix, Gabrielle, and the other students, but instead there was a teacher named Mary? Additionally, what if Mary used spoken/written English and had limited exposure to ASL (from taking one semester of ASL in college) and had no knowledge of other named languages? What if Mary said in English, “How are you?” to Felix, and when she saw he was puzzled she did not have the linguistic tools to communicate differently with him? What about Gabrielle? She might understand a little more of what Mary could communicate to her in spoken English, but it would take a tremendous amount of effort on her part, and she would still likely struggle to fill in what she missed due to her restricted auditory access and speech comprehension. What if there was also a hard of hearing student in the same class who was able to access even more, but not all, of Mary’s expressions in spoken English? Because of Mary’s reliance on spoken language for communication, she is most assuredly creating asymmetries in language access for her students, as some students have greater access than others.
Individuals are differentially positioned with access to languages that carry power. Hearing children can physically access spoken language no matter where they are, even if it is not the spoken language that they know or use at home. Deaf children, on the other hand, have highly variable access to spoken language, even with listening devices such as hearing aids and cochlear implants. Signed language is the only language modality that is fully accessible at all times to sighted deaf children in the same ways spoken language is accessible to hearing children. When there are limiting interactions with spoken language in the classroom, asymmetries in accessing communication learning are created.
Access asymmetries can be addressed by centralizing signed language in the education of deaf students, even if some students do not know or use signed language at the time. By enacting instructional decisions as presented in the TFDE to reach a shared understanding, the teacher ensures that no students are lost in communication they do not understand (whether spoken or signed); rather, there is a concerted effort to use all linguistic and semiotic resources to achieve comprehension of educational concepts and then to link understood concepts to fully accessible language (in this case signed language). Further, by welcoming students to use their existing linguistic repertoire (including speech) to express meaning in class, while also enacting translanguaging pedagogies to purposefully expand their linguistic resources and linguistic flexibility, all students are seen as valued members of the class and come to view their classmates as equally valued. Over time, students become more resilient users of languages, language variations, and modalities (sign, writing, and for some, speech) and develop tools to communicate successfully with those around them. Language asymmetries will eventually diminish. However, how can Mary enact the TFDE as a model and guide for her students when her own linguistic resources are limited?
Individuals’ competence and flexibility with communication in the classroom can lead to translanguaging practices being restricted, channeled, or expanded (
Iturriaga and Young 2022). When there are constraints on using whole linguistic repertoires to make meaning among communication partners, translanguaging is “restricted”. When communication partners make choices that are guided by linguistic hierarchies centering English, translanguaging is “channeled” to focus solely on the use of English. When communication partners freely use all linguistic resources at their disposal to make meaning, translanguaging is “expanded”, leading to the widening of repertoires during communication.
In the world outside of the classroom, interactions occur with various people where translanguaging is restricted, channeled, or expanded. However, within the classroom when developing an understanding of new concepts during learning activities, expanded translanguaging practices are paramount.
Iturriaga and Young’s (
2022) study noted that deaf students’ translanguaging practices were expanded when having direct communication with signing deaf people, signing hearing staff, and/or non-signing hearing tutors meditated by signing support staff. In these interactions, deaf students used various semiotic and linguistic resources creatively and flexibly to facilitate shared understanding, which was also equally reciprocated by their communication partners. Conversely, when communication partners such as teachers are not competent or flexible users of signed language, it is challenging for deaf students to widen their repertoires, which can lead to restricted or channeled translanguaging practices.
Swanwick et al. (
2022) explain,
If we understand translanguaging to be a natural component of bilingual classroom pedagogy that is hospitable to the full communicative repertoires of learners, meaning-making practices associated with this framework that include the integration of different modes in classroom communication need to be problematized in the context of deaf education. Translanguaging in this context does not guarantee an inclusive experience for learners, and indeed can give rise to confusion and a fragmented language experience if the semiotic resources are not sufficiently coordinated in both space and time around the sensorial asymmetries of the interlocutors. At best, translanguaging can provide the ‘understructure’ (Prada 2019) for inclusive practices that then need to be enacted with an understanding of the sensory conditions of the interaction.
(p. 13)
In Mary’s case, we identify some of her interactions as “restricted” and “channeled”. Her limited ASL resources and heavy reliance on spoken language restrict communication between Mary and her students and force many interactions to occur through English. Mary is in a difficult situation in which she is both (1) the source of causing inequitable language experiences among her students, two of whom are Felix and Gabrielle, and (2) the source of ensuring equitable access for all of the students in her classroom. It is critical that Mary can identify and strategically address the asymmetries that exist, even if she is part of the reason asymmetries are occurring in the first place.
As Mary recognizes the inequitable learning environment she has created due to having limited linguistic resources, she commits to taking more ASL classes to improve her signing. This does not mean that Mary should wait to enact translanguaging pedagogy. Waiting would cause further detriment to her current students’ language development and learning. Rather, it is possible for Mary to create inclusive spaces for students to leverage what they know, even while she is limited in her own ASL expression. Mary must innovate ways to effectively communicate with students immediately, such as primarily using semiotic resources that are visually oriented. Mary can role play, use drawing, show pictures/videos, use conceptually accurate gestures, or even invite more flexible language users, such as deaf interpreters, to mediate communication either through speech-to-text software or other hearing interpreters. In the meantime, Mary is committed to developing connections with deaf communities, having meaningful interactions with signing deaf adults, and working diligently towards improving her signing skills.
In addition to her conscious communication choices to support Felix and Gabrielle in the classroom, Mary can critically interrogate the social context that allowed this circumstance to happen. For one, asymmetries in language access leading to language deprivation should not be tolerated in language learning spaces. To combat systemic inequities, Mary can advocate for her deaf students to be around other deaf peers and adults who use signed language to ensure whole child development (e.g., mental and emotional health, identity development, shared access needs, and shared experiences). Mary can also advocate for quality interpreters within and outside of her classroom while recognizing that interpreters only provide partial access (
Caselli et al. 2020). Mary can share resources with her students’ families about what deaf communities have to offer, such as free signing classes, deaf mentors, deaf organizations, and deaf events. Through her commitment to act against inequity, despite not knowing ASL yet, Mary can uphold the spirit of the critical translanguaging stance.