Teachers Perceptions of Promoting Sign Language Phonological Awareness in an ASL/English Bilingual Program

Transcription

1 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education Empirical Article Teachers Perceptions of Promoting Sign Language Phonological Awareness in an ASL/English Bilingual Program Peter K. Crume* Georgia State University Received July 24, 2012; revisions received March 19, 2013; accepted April 7, 2013 The National Reading Panel emphasizes that spoken language phonological awareness (PA) developed at home and school can lead to improvements in reading performance in young children. However, research indicates that many deaf children are good readers even though they have limited spoken language PA. Is it possible that some deaf students benefit from teachers who promote sign language PA instead? The purpose of this qualitative study is to examine teachers beliefs and instructional practices related to sign language PA. A thematic analysis is conducted on 10 participant interviews at an ASL/ English bilingual school for the deaf to understand their views and instructional practices. The findings reveal that the participants had strong beliefs in developing students structural knowledge of signs and used a variety of instructional strategies to build students knowledge of sign structures in order to promote their language and literacy skills. A focus of many early childhood educators in the United States is to help children develop a deeper understanding of spoken English and develop literacy skills. One strategy that many teachers use to develop these abilities is to promote phonological awareness (PA) of English. PA is the knowledge of sublexical structures of words used in language, and it helps children understand how words are produced and formed separately from their meanings (Pullen & Justice, 2003). Studies have found that PA helps children develop an explicit understanding of their primary language, and it contributes to vocabulary growth and language proficiency (Leonard, 1998; Nash & Donaldson, 2005). Studies also suggest that PA promotes * Correspondence should be sent to Peter K. Crume, Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 3979, Atlanta, GA ( pcrume@gsu.edu). the normal acquisition of reading (Adams, 1990; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Stanovich, 1992; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987), and others even assert that PA has a causal role in reading development (Ball & Blachman, 1988; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994). Moreover, the National Reading Panel reviewed the large body of research on PA and concluded that promoting PA at home and school can lead to improvements in reading performance for young children (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). Given the relative importance and benefits of PA of English with hearing children, researchers and educators in deaf education have long debated whether PA is necessary to develop reading skills among deaf readers. To date, there seems to be no clear consensus. Some believe that PA is necessary for deaf readers (Paul, Wang, Trezek, & Luckner, 2009; Wang, Trezek, Luckner, & Paul, 2008) and argue that higher levels of PA and processing are found among some proficient deaf readers (Conrad, 1979; Hanson & Fowler, 1987; Hanson, Goodell, & Perfetti, 1991; Hanson & McGarr, 1989; Leybaert & Alegria, 1993). Conversely, others argue that PA of English is not necessary for some proficient deaf readers (Allen et al., 2009) and cite studies that have found many signing deaf children who have higher levels of reading proficiency even though they have very low levels of PA (Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2000; Izzo, 2002; Mayberry, del Giudice, & Lieberman, 2011; McQuarrie & Parrila, 2009; Miller, 1997, 2006; Miller & Clark, 2011; Olson & Caramazza; 2004; Olson & Nickerson, 2001; Treiman & Hirsh-Pasek, 1983). The Author Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please journals.permissions@oup.com doi: /deafed/ent023 Advance Access publication May 15, 2013

2 Promoting Sign Language Phonological Awareness 465 Although the body of research seems to contradict each other, one potential explanation is that deaf children can become successful readers through multiple pathways. Some deaf children may use spoken language based PA to develop reading skills, whereas other deaf children could potentially use a sign language based PA. To date, there has only been limited research conducted on the potential use of American Sign Language PA (ASL PA) in deaf education. Little is known about how teachers might promote ASL PA in deaf education or how its use may parallel and contrast with PA used with hearing children. It would be crucial to understand if ASL PA is an effective means to build students ASL proficiency or enhance their literacy skills in English? The purpose of this study is to examine the potential use of ASL PA in deaf education by investigating how early childhood educators in an ASL/English bilingual school for the deaf perceive the ways that they use and promote ASL PA. Challenges of Promoting Sign Language PA in Deaf Education A review of the literature indicates that there seems to be little emphasis in promoting ASL PA in schools. There are documented efforts of teachers who promote ASL PA, but these efforts seem to be minimal. One potential form of ASL PA in deaf education is the handshape story that has long been used to highlight sign language structure. As the name implies, handshape stories incorporate a group of ASL-based handshapes in a certain order that conveys a story, such as alphabet handshape story that goes from A to Z or a number handshape story that may go from 1 to 10. Handshape stories force the storyteller to blend sign language structure and signs in entertaining and creative ways and have long been used in deaf education since the 1900s (Bahan, 2006). Supalla, Wix, and McKee (2001) also described an approach at ASL/ English bilingual education program where they focused on teaching ASL phonological structures as a means to identify signed structure in signed illustrations and learn an ASL graphemic system as a bridge to help students acquire words in English. Although the approach was innovative, its use appears to be limited. Other than these areas of development, there seems to be little else that has documented the use of sign language PA in deaf education. It is interesting that so little has been documented about ASL PA in deaf education. There could be many potential reasons, but there seems to be three reasons, in particular, that could explain the limited use of ASL PA in deaf education. The first reason is because of the challenge of modality, the second reason is because of the challenge of handshape representation in sign forms, and the third challenge is because of terminology. The remaining portion of this section will describe each challenge and explain its potential significance on limiting the role of ASL PA in deaf education. Challenge of Modality The first challenge that seems to affect the use of ASL PA is that of modality of sign language. Educators and researchers have long believed that it is not possible to use ASL in schools because it is very different language than English (Mayer & Akamatsu, 1999, 2003; Mayer & Wells, 1996). ASL is a language of visual gestural modality and it has a grammar and phonological structure that is distinct from spoken English. Whereas the basic minimal linguistic unit in spoken English is the phoneme, ASL has four minimal linguistic units (handshape, location, movement, and palm orientation) that are collectively referred to as parameters. The difference in the number of elemental units is not necessarily problematic in terms of describing the phonological structure of the conversational language, as these forms represent the different ways that ASL and English are structured and represent lexical items. Where ASL PA seems to have a considerable limitation in education is in literacy. Native structures of ASL are non-alphabetic, whereas the phonological structure of English is alphabetic. Individual phonemes in spoken English map onto corresponding graphemes in written English, providing an alphabetic correspondence that forms the basis of the alphabetic principle, which many educators and researchers consider to be an important realization for children in early stages of literacy development (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001). However, even though the phonological structures of native signs in ASL are non-alphabetic, it has not been clear if deaf readers form a correspondence

3 466 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 18:4 October 2013 between parameters in ASL and whole words in written English. Interestingly, cross-linguistic activation studies have found evidence that there is some level of ASLbased phonological processing in reading (Morford, Wilkinson, Villwock, Piñar, & Kroll, 2011; Treiman & Hirsh-Pasek, 1983). These studies have found that deaf adults seem to have longer reaction times than hearing non-signing adults when they were forced to process semantically unrelated words in English that shared similar ASL phonological features. Moreover, McQuarrie and Abbott (2008) found a strong positive correlation between ASL PA and a word recognition task (r =.47) in a study of 50 deaf children between 7 and 18 years of age, suggesting that ASL phonology may have some role in literacy development. Although difficult to draw broad conclusions about the potential effect of ASL PA related to literacy based on these studies, they do suggest that there may be more influence of ASL phonology on reading than previously thought. Challenge of Handshape Representation A second area where there seems to be considerable challenge to using ASL PA in deaf education relates to how educators and researchers categorize the phonological structure of native and non-native or borrowed signs in ASL. Some researchers have considered nonnative forms such as fingerspelling as English and not ASL (Bornstein, 1978; Klima & Bellugi, 1979; Tweney, 1978). There is certainly justification for this perspective as native signs use handshapes that are non-alphabetic to represent lexical items that originated from ASL. Conversely, non-native signs use the manual alphabet as the handshape in the sign to represent elements of words that originated from English. However, a crucial point that must be addressed is if the manual alphabet English or a part of ASL. The manual alphabet has been difficult to characterize as a phonological structure because it is a hybrid between ASL and written English. Wilcox (1992) described the manual alphabet used in fingerspelling as a tertiary or third-level representation system because it was based on a secondary representation system (written English), which itself was based on a primary representation system (spoken English) (see Figure 1). Even though the manual alphabet represents letters used in lexical items in written English, the manual alphabet did not originate in the United States. Historically, the origin of manual alphabet can be traced back to Spain, where initially it was used to represent spoken Spanish in the 1500s and 1600s. Subsequently, the manual alphabet was adapted into French Sign Language in the 1700s and then into ASL in the 1800s (Lane, 1984; Padden & Gunsauls, 2003). Thus, based on its history, the manual alphabet could be described as a manually based system that represents the Latin alphabet used in the writing systems of Romance languages such as Spanish, French, and English, and even a non-romance language such as Swahili. What makes the manual alphabet a challenge to characterize is that it is a true hybrid of a signed language and an alphabetic writing system. In ASL, the manual alphabet is not used to represent the English language manually, such as it was with the Rochester method or even another manual system such as Cued Speech, but it is highly integrated as a phonological structure within ASL. The handshapes of the manual alphabet use the same handshapes that form native handshapes. There are more than 40 hand configurations or handshapes native to ASL, and 22 of the same handshapes form the 26 letters of manual alphabet (Klima & Bellugi, 1979), as the letters for G and Q, I and J, K and P, and D and Z use the same handshapes but different movement or palm orientation. The 22 shared handshapes that are used in native hand configurations and the manual alphabet produce a dual representation that signing children begin to realize as they get older. When children are first exposed to sign language, they do not perceive a difference between the structure of native and non-native signs. Sign language acquisition studies show that children acquire native and non-native sign forms in very similar ways. In general physical development, children initially become more adept at manipulating joints closer (or proximal) to the body than manipulating joints further (or distal) from the body (Newell & McDonald, 1994). Studies have found that children under the age of two are about 70 80% accurate in their location of signs, followed by about 50% for the movement of signs, and about 25% for their production of handshapes in signs (Bonvillian & Siedlecki, 1996, 2000; Boyes-Braem, 1990; Conlin, Mirus, Mauk, & Meier,

4 Promoting Sign Language Phonological Awareness 467 Figure 1 Comparison of representation systems of ASL and spoken English to written English. Phonemes in spoken English form a direct alphabetic correspondence to graphemes in written English. ASL signs correspond to English print through nonalphabetic parameters. However, fingerspelling provides a manually based alphabetic correspondence to graphemes in written English. Figure based on Wilcox (1992) description of fingerspelling as a third-level representation system. 2000; Marentette & Mayberry, 2000; Meier, Mauk, Mirus, & Conlin, 1998; Siedlecki & Bonvillian, 1997). Children s acquisition of fingerspelling also follows a proximal-to-distal trend of development. Studies of 2-year-old deaf children show that they are more accurate in producing their fingerspelling in the appropriate location and produce movements that are rough approximations of the up-and-down movements of a fingerspelling form (Akamatsu, 1982; Wilcox, 1992), or what Akamatsu termed as movement envelope. However, young children are limited in their ability to incorporate handshapes until they gain more motor control of their fingers, and gain more experience with fingerspelling. What is striking about children s early use of fingerspelling is how they perceive its representational form. Padden (2006) suggests that children initially perceive fingerspelling as a whole form and more like a sign and not a string of manual letters that represent a word in English. In fact, Padden states that it is not until children are about four or five when they begin to learn to fingerspell a second time and realize that is a direct correspondence between the manual alphabet and graphemes in English. Thus, young children perceive fingerspelling and non-native sign forms as just part of the overall lexicon of sign language, and it is only when they are consistently exposed to English print that they learn that there is a structural form in ASL that represents non-native sign forms. One potential argument against categorizing the manual alphabet within the phonological structure of ASL relates to how it fits within the rules that govern the formation of the ASL phonological form. Like all natural languages, signs native to ASL follow a distinct set of rules that dictate how the signs are formed (for review, see Brentari & Padden, 2001). However, there are a high number of non-native signs that are commonly used as a part of the lexicon, such as widely accepted initialized signs (e.g., FAMILY, CLUB, DEPARTMENT), sign fingerspelling compounds (e.g., WATER F-A-L-L), abbreviations (e.g., APT), and fingerspelling forms such as regular or neutral fingerspelling (Haptonstall-Nykaza & Schick, 2007) and lexicalized fingerspelling (Battison, 1978). The rules that govern the phonological form of non-native signs can be different than those for native signs. However, does this mean that non-native signs are not part of ASL phonology because they violate the rules that govern the formation of native signs? Brentari and Padden (2001) examined the rules governing the formation of native and non-native signs, and from their analysis they believed that non-native signs should be considered within overall lexicon of ASL. In their findings, they concluded that although non-native signs do not share all standard phonological rules governing the formation of native signs, non-native signs also have their own standardized and regularized pattern and phonological structure of rules that are constrained, systematic, and

5 468 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 18:4 October 2013 expressed within the grammar of ASL (p. 117). Thus, there seems to be some support that non-native forms can be considered to be within of an overall spectrum of ASL phonology, because there are standardized rules that govern their form. Challenge of Terminology Lastly, one of the most significant limitations of promoting sign language PA in learning to read is that there is currently no widely accepted term in sign language phonology that characterizes the connection between alphabetic handshapes (i.e., the manual alphabet) and graphemes in written English. ASL linguists do not refer to minimal linguistic units in ASL as phonemes, but use the term parameter instead. As a term, parameter is effective for characterizing the basic linguistic structure of conversational sign language and for describing a sign-to-word connection that exists between ASL and written English. Most educators and researchers also seem to prefer the term manual alphabet instead of a manual phoneme to characterize how handshapes can map to graphemes in print. Although using the manual alphabet is sufficient as a term, it seems to limit the complexity of describing how alphabetic handshapes are used and integrated in very sophisticated ways in ASL, and have an alphabetic connection to print. Thus, what might be beneficial is a term that can describe an alphabetic handshape as a basic sign language structure and signify the alphabetic connection that exists between handshapes and graphemes. One solution is the term chereme, which was originally coined by Stokoe (1960). Stokoe used the term chereme to provide a psychologically and functionally equivalent term to characterize a manual form of a phoneme in spoken language. Although there seems to be resistance to the term chereme among some educators and researchers, the term chereme or some similar term like it would provide deaf educators with a means to show that there is a parallel form of a manual phonemic to graphemic connection that exists in ASL. There is also support in the research that educators utilize alphabetic forms in ASL to make a strong connection between sign language concepts and print. Several studies have found a strong positive relationship between fingerspelling knowledge, ASL proficiency, and reading skills (Emmorey & Petrich, 2012; Hile, 2009; Hirsh-Pasek, 1987; Padden & Ramsey, 1998, 2000). A study by Humphries and MacDougall (2000) found that deaf teachers in their study were more likely than hearing teachers to pair signs to words in English through fingerspelling, a process they termed as chaining. Furthermore, an empirical study by Haptonstall- Nykaza and Schick (2007) found that deaf children were more likely to learn words in English if the sign was paired to a word in print through lexicalized fingerspelling, rather than just from an ASL sign to a written word. They suggested that children seemed to be able to use their knowledge of handshapes and movement to develop articulation patterns to make a connection between signs and print. Rationale for the Study The challenges that seem to limit the potential widespread use of ASL PA in deaf education exist, but these are partially a product educators and researchers still trying to understand how sign language can be developed as a primary language and used as a means to promote literacy. Despite what is currently understood about ASL PA, its use and practice may exist in deaf education in various forms, but may not yet be appropriately documented. Teachers are a potential source to uncover ASL PA in schools because they have to develop their students ASL and English skills. Teachers may also use their own intuitive understanding of language structure to promote structural forms of both languages to facilitate their students language and literacy growth. This study used a qualitative approach to examine teacher beliefs and practices of ASL PA in deaf education from teacher self-reports. A group of early childhood educators was interviewed to understand how they promoted sign language PA with their students, with a particular focus on how they may have promoted the difference between non-alphabetic and alphabetic handshapes. The aim of the study was to develop a theoretical framework of ASL PA that could be tested in subsequent studies. With this goal in mind, this research study sought to answer the following research questions: (1) How do teachers conceptualize the role

6 Promoting Sign Language Phonological Awareness 469 of developing children s knowledge of the structure of ASL? (2) What strategies do teachers use to promote children s handshape awareness? (3) How do teachers promote children s understanding of the representation system of handshapes? (4) How do teachers promote a connection between ASL and English? Methods The study uses a constructivist approach to understand how each of the participants constructs meaning and action through a collaborative effort with the researcher (Charmaz, 2001). The constructivist approach posits that data analysis is situated in a time, place, culture, and context and thus reflects the researcher s worldview. Teachers were interviewed and then had the opportunity to respond to a follow-up survey. Analysis was conducted using a grounded theory based approach (Glauser & Strauss, 1967), which is an approach that aims to explain social and psychosocial processes (Charmaz, 2001). Setting The study was conducted at an ASL/English bilingual school for deaf children located in the United States. The school emphasized ASL as the primary language and written English as the second language. According to the school s website, the emphasis on ASL stemmed from the belief that, for most deaf students, ASL is the accessible and dominant language for communication and thinking. By promoting competencies in both ASL and English, the school gives deaf students opportunities to develop skills and attitudes that help them function effectively with members of both deaf and hearing communities. Participants The participants in this study included nine teachers and one ASL specialist. Four teachers taught in preschool, two in prekindergarten, and three in kindergarten. Teachers typically worked in teams for the specific age level they taught. All the participants were Caucasian women and they were all fluent in ASL. Seven participants were deaf (six teachers and the ASL specialist) and three participants were hearing. The years of instructional experience varied. Some participants taught for less than 5 years, whereas others taught for more than a decade. Each participant was assigned a pseudonym to protect her identity (see Table 1). It is noteworthy to mention that many teachers at the school received training from the Center for ASL/ English Bilingual Education and Research (CAEBER). The aim of CAEBER is to provide professional development for teachers of the deaf all over the United States in order to promote understanding of bilingual educational theory and principles and in how to apply bilingual principles to ASL/English teaching and learning. A majority of the teachers completed a 2-year ASL/English Bilingual Professional Development (AEBPD) in-service training given by CAEBER, which was training designed to help them promote better academic proficiency in both ASL and English. Table 1 Name List of participants in the study Teaching role Hearing status Years teaching AEBPD training Students, deaf parents Students, hearing parents Jennifer Preschool (1st year) Deaf 10 Completed Lisa Preschool (1st year) Hearing 7 Completed Cathy Preschool (2nd year) Deaf 12 Completed Elisa Preschool (2nd year) Deaf 13 Completed Amanda Prekindergarten Hearing 14 Completed Katie Prekindergarten Deaf 7 Completed Stacy Kindergarten Hearing 2 In 2nd year Jane Kindergarten Deaf 9 Not taken Linda Kindergarten Deaf 4 Not taken Carol ASL Specialist Deaf 2 N/A Student totals Students, class total

7 470 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 18:4 October 2013 Students were not involved in the study, but teachers were asked to briefly describe their students to understand their potential communication and instructional choices. Each participant reported that she had between four to seven students with the exception of the ASL specialist, who rotated between all the classes and provided assistance as needed. Many of the teachers had more students with deaf parents than with hearing parents. A total of 28 of the 50 students had deaf parents, or 56% of the students. Teachers described a wide variability of language proficiency among their students. Some students had high levels of ASL skill, whereas others had more beginning level abilities because they were just learning sign language or they had additional special needs. Materials Two types of materials were used for the study, interview questions and a follow-up response form. A list of interview questions was used to guide the interviews (see Appendix A). The interview questions were clustered around two interconnected themes to assist with the thematic analyses. The first thematic category focused on the teachers philosophical beliefs about teaching in an ASL/English bilingual program. The second thematic category focused on the teachers instructional practices related to developing the basic structure of ASL to promote language and literacy skills. A follow-up response form was also used (see Appendix B). The form was divided into four sections: ASL hand configuration (handshape), Manual Alphabet, Emergent Literacy, and Decoding English. Within each section there was a listing of the different types of instructional strategies associated with that section that had emerged from the analysis of the interviews. Teachers were asked to rate the frequency with which they used each instructional strategy. Teachers could add an additional instructional activity they may have used that was not listed (see Appendix B). Data Collection The teacher interviews were conducted using a semistructured format. The semistructured format was beneficial because it allowed participants to respond freely to interview questions and explain their perspectives and beliefs. The participants were interviewed individually or with another teacher from their grade level (e.g., first or second year of preschool, prekindergarten, or kindergarten). The preschool teachers, Jennifer and Lisa, a kindergarten teacher, Stacy, and the ASL specialist, Carol, were interviewed individually. In addition, the second-year preschool teachers, Elisa and Amanda, the prekindergarten teachers, Amanda and Katie, and two of the kindergarten teachers, Jane and Linda, were interviewed together. One teacher, Stacy, was interviewed via a web-based video chat program, and the rest of the teachers were interviewed at the school. The researcher, a hearing native signer fluent in ASL (with RID CI/CT certification), conducted the interviews and then transcribed the interviews from oral English or ASL into printed English transcript. Each participant had the opportunity to review the transcript, discuss any discrepancies, and approve the accuracy of the transcript. The items used in the follow-up response were developed from the teachers self-report data in the interviews. The follow-up response form served two purposes. The first was to corroborate the findings in the interview as teachers had to identify whether they used an activity and report its frequency. A second purpose of the follow up was to understand the trajectory and frequency of use of an instructional activity. This information helped identify what instructional strategies teachers used more with children of certain age levels. Data Analysis The analysis of the data was conducted on the interviews with the 10 participants and on the follow-up response that was filled out by 6 of the 10 participants. The analysis was performed according to the constant comparative method (Charmaz, 2001; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Analysis using the constant comparative method was done at several different levels in order to identify relevant categories and themes that occur within the data. The first level of analysis used action coding, which identified what was happening and what people were doing (e.g., words that end in -ing, such as teaching, making) in each line of the transcript. Next, focused coding sorted and

8 Promoting Sign Language Phonological Awareness 471 categorized large portions of data and identified ways that the action codes fit together. Memo writing helped define categories and describe how each category was developed, maintained, changed, and related to each other. The next level of analysis, theoretical sampling, provided a deeper level of analysis and defined how a category functioned and compared and contrasted to other categories. Lastly, the integration of findings helped synthesize how the findings represented the participants experiences. The themes reported in the results represent the common beliefs and processes described among the participants in the study. The quotations selected represent those that illustrate the themes found in the data analysis. In order to ensure validity and reliability of the findings, the data were triangulated from multiple sources of information, an approach common in qualitative research (Greene, 2007). The comments of the participants were compared to their responses on the survey and/or responses of other participants to ensure accuracy and consistency of the data. Any significant inconsistency was not included in the analysis. Results The analysis of the interviews focused on two overarching themes: teaching beliefs and instructional strategies. The teaching beliefs theme described the views the teachers used to guide their instructional practices and highlighted what teachers believed contributed to their students development. The instructional strategies theme described the approaches that teachers used to build ASL and English literacy skills. The instructional strategies theme was further divided into two sub-categories. These are shown in Figure 2. Teaching Beliefs Theme The teaching beliefs theme detailed the teachers perspectives about teaching and learning. During the interviews, teachers described beliefs that formed the basis for how they interacted with their students and educated them. The teachers views, regardless if they were hearing or deaf, were similar and consistent with each other. Three major perspectives emerged from the Teaching beliefs theme and these include Figure 2 Overarching themes and grouping

9 472 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 18:4 October 2013 (1) incorporate an additive bilingual philosophy; (2) build basic awareness of sign language structure; and (3) repeat and reinforce sign language, and these three areas will be described next. Incorporate an additive bilingual philosophy. All the teachers instructional beliefs were grounded in an additive bilingual philosophy. An additive bilingual approach seeks to build on the native and primary language of students and then use the school language to complement and add to what the students already know (Cummins, 2000). The teachers additive view contrasted with a subtractive bilingual view that is prevalent in some bilingual programs where the primary language of society is used to replace the students primary language (Baker, 2001). The teachers believed that ASL served as the native and primary language for students and provided students with a foundation that promoted their social, emotional, and language development. The teachers were also aware that the students lived in a society where English was a daily part of the students lives. Lisa, one of the teachers in the first-year preschool, stated a common sentiment among teachers, English is everywhere, we can t get away from it, they re seeing it, they re using it. The teachers felt that it was important to balance ASL and English instruction simultaneously to promote a persistent development of both languages. This belief was supported by Cathy, a teacher in the second-year preschool class who stated: When I teach throughout the day, I try to make sure that there s a similar proportion between ASL and English. I will sign stories in ASL, we will also use the LCD, and project the text of the stories and will point to the words in English. We will show that. So there is a balance. The teachers also stressed English because they felt that it was vital to the students academic success and their future job prospects. However, in order to learn English effectively, the teachers felt that students needed intense exposure to ASL to build a strong primary language. With a strong primary language intact, the students could acquire English as a second language more effectively. It is interesting that one teacher described that the school had shifted to a more balanced focus from an approach that used to emphasize developing ASL first before English. Lisa, one of the preschool teachers, had a son that went through the preschool at the school a decade before. During her son s time, she recalled that the school focused exclusively on developing a strong foundation in ASL and began teaching English after students had a strong grasp of ASL. She felt that this approach may have limited her son s acquisition of English because it was introduced much later than it should have been. It may be that the teachers at the school changed their approach based on personal observations or because many of the teachers learned through their AEBPD training that a balanced approach was more effective. Lisa stated that AEBPD training helped her understand that, although ASL was important part of student s development, early and consistent exposure to English was equally important for the students development. Build basic awareness of sign language structure. Another underlying belief that served as a basis for the teachers instruction was a focus on the progressive development of their students knowledge of sign language structure. The teachers felt that developing awareness of language structure helped highlight consistencies in sign language that made language learning more concrete. The teachers stressed that promoting knowledge of ASL structure also helped students make connections between words in language and provided them with roots to grow and develop. Elisa, a teacher in the second-year preschool class, described in the following excerpt why they promoted an awareness of sign language structure: It s like teaching the letter A, then making the connection to the sound /a/ and pointing out how it s the same in other words. It s the same in sign language, where you show the A-HS (handshape) and then describe how it s used in the sign HUG, or you can describe the C-HS, and how it s found in the sign COP. The C is in the English word for cat, but it s also in the sign POLICE or DRINK (in ASL). These things help the students help think about the language and continuously build to it.

10 Promoting Sign Language Phonological Awareness 473 Teachers were also asked to comment about the potential benefit of having an awareness of handshape structure. Cathy, the other teacher who taught in the second-year preschool class, described handshape awareness as sort of like a pre-guide to an advanced understanding. Her comment reflected a common belief among the teachers that students needed to understand the basic uses of handshapes before they could develop a more sophisticated understanding of the ways that handshapes could be used within in ASL. Repeat and reinforce sign language. The third belief espoused by the teachers was a desire to make the acquisition of ASL as effective and efficient as possible. The teachers seemed to feel that it was not enough to promote just a basic knowledge of structure, but it was also vital to increase the depth and breadth of students awareness of ASL by repeating structures in a variety of informal and formal contexts. The teachers felt that as students became more familiar with recurring structures they increased their ability to manipulate and form connections with the structures and become more creative with it. The teachers also exposed students to structures in signs across content areas. Part of this practice reflected the project approach used in the school, where the teachers followed the students lead and developed lesson plans that focused on a theme for a short period of time (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1998; Katz & Chard, 2000). Jennifer highlighted this practice in the following excerpt: For example, when we talk about wheels or maybe driving. I will discuss the S-HS or the 1-HS, like in the sign for WHEEL, or the S-HS in the sign for DRIVING. That kind of thing is student based and student centered. I expose them to it and try to understand what they like and give them some handshapes. For example, from teaching them the concept of cars backed up traffic, I would use the 5-HS. This shows them how to use the 5-HS within the sign (CARS BACKED UP IN TRAFFIC). Some kids get it (does sign for CARS BACKED UP IN TRAFFIC). Perhaps, I ll do the sign for CARS CRASH so the students can see how the S-HS is used in the sign. The kids learn things based on their interest. The benefit of this approach was that it was relevant to the students lives. Teachers used the students interests to motivate and help them identify ways that a specific phonological structure, such as handshape, could be used in multiple ways in sign language. This gave students a means to understand different ways that signs could express ideas and increase their knowledge of sign structures in ASL. Instructional Strategies Theme The instructional strategies theme was broken into two sub-categories, developing linguistic structure and connecting to English print. The developing linguistic structure Subcategory described how teachers promoted students knowledge of handshapes that were used in the structure of ASL, and these were further divided into two approaches, promote native handshapes awareness and promote manual alphabet awareness. The connecting to English print Subcategory described how teachers sought to establish a relationship between ASL and English to develop literacy skills, and this Subcategory was divided into two approaches, promote emergent literacy and promote word decoding (see Figure 2). Developing Linguistic Structure Subcategory Promote native handshape awareness. This approach highlighted the ways that teachers sought to enhance students knowledge of how signs incorporated handshapes as a part of the structure of signs. Overall, preschool classes emphasized handshape awareness the most, and the teachers aimed to build a strong ASL foundation by focusing on the basic structure and function of handshapes in ASL. As students transitioned into prekindergarten and kindergarten, the teachers in these classes focused less on handshape awareness because many students had already developed a strong foundation in a variety of handshapes, and teachers began to focus on other areas of sign structure. One of the most prominent activities that teachers used to promote handshape knowledge was the ASL handshape of the week activity. The preschool

11 474 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 18:4 October 2013 teachers routinely used this activity to highlight different signs that used the same handshape structure. Teachers asked students to bring in an object or picture that incorporated the use of a handshape in the sign for the item. For example, when the A-Handshape (HS) was featured, students brought in items such as a hairbrush or a picture of a hug, because these incorporated the A-HS in the sign (i.e., BRUSH and HUG). The teachers felt this activity had several benefits. First, it encouraged parent involvement and helped parents learn more about ASL, especially the hearing parents of the deaf students. Second, it helped students understand that certain signs shared the same handshape. Lastly, it made PA more concrete for students because they could apply their understanding of handshapes in ASL to their daily environment. Jennifer: I feel that [the ASL handshape of the week activity] helps [students] develop a fuller understanding and it helps them develop sign language. This is especially true of the deaf students of hearing parents. This really helps them a lot. This is still true too for the deaf (students) of deaf (parents). I can see this from those years where I taught the letter of the week when the kids were three years old, I really had to repeat myself again and again. It didn t really make a connection. For example, for the sign DOLL (X-HS moving up and down on the tip of the nose), they would bring a doll to school and they wouldn t understand the connection with the D in doll because they couldn t hear the letter D in the spoken word doll because of English. It was too abstract for them. Jennifer felt that switching from the Letter of the week activity to the Handshape of the week made a significant difference in her preschool students ability to acquire and retain new sign vocabulary. The Handshape of the week activity helped her students make connections between signs that used the same handshape because they could use their emerging knowledge of the language they used daily. By comparison, Jennifer felt that the Letter of the week activity forced her students to identify structural features of words of English, a language that many of them had limited experiences with in their daily lives. Furthermore, Jennifer observed that the Handshape of the week activity promoted her students interest in learning about handshapes as her students loved to review and discuss the chart with each other during downtime in class. In addition, teachers also incorporated instruction of ASL handshape awareness through a variety of language play activities. One popular activity teachers used was handshape stories built on students knowledge of handshapes taught in class. For example, one teacher developed a handshape story that used handshapes that were taught in class (A, B, S, C, O, 1, 5, and F-HS). Translated literally, the handshape story is about a person who KNOCKS [A-HS] (on a) DOOR [B-HS], ENTERS [B-HS] (the) WALLS (of a building) [B-HS], (feels) COLD [S-HS], SEARCHES [C-HS] (around for something), (sees) NOTHING [O-HS], (and then is) SURPRISED [1-HS] (and) SCARED [5-HS] (by a) CAT [F-HS]. The students loved this activity and wanted their teacher to retell it repeatedly, and then students also retold the story to others. In addition, some teachers described language play activities that they used individually or with another teacher. Lisa described a Sign rhythm activity she used with the younger preschool students. This activity featured one or two basic handshapes with rhythmic movement to develop a basic foundation for understanding handshapes. Similarly, both teachers in the second-year preschool class also reported using a Handshape tracing activity for language play. The teachers had students trace and cut out an outline of their hand in the form of a handshape and then encouraged students to use the handshape to form signs based on objects in the room. The teachers were amazed that students came up with ways to make signs in very creative ways. For example, Elisa described an instance when one of her preschool students cleverly used a tracing of a 5-HS to form the sign of a WEBCAM that he spotted on a teacher s desk. Teachers also used a variety of resources to develop handshape knowledge. Almost all the teachers described using a poster of ASL handshapes. The teachers used the poster to give students a running total of ASL handshapes they learned in class that they could use as a reference. Teachers also used an ASL English dictionary in a variety of formats. Many of the preschool teachers created their own dictionary from a compilation

12 Promoting Sign Language Phonological Awareness 475 of handshapes used in the ASL handshape of the week. The prekindergarten and kindergarten teachers reported using a formally published ASL/English dictionary (i.e., Tennant & Brown, 1998), and the ASL specialist used an ASL/English dictionary computer program. The ASL/English dictionary served as an important resource for students because they could use their knowledge of ASL phonology to look up signs in the dictionary in order to learn words in English. Promote knowledge of the manual alphabet. This category details the instances in which teachers promoted knowledge of the manual alphabet with their students. As described earlier, the manual alphabet serves two functions in ASL: (1) a handshape structure of fingerspelled forms and signs in ASL, and (2) as a manual representation of letters in English orthography. The teachers sought to develop both aspects simultaneously to help students understand how the manual alphabet was used in ASL. The most basic way that teachers exposed students to the manual alphabet was through direct instruction. Teachers reviewed letters of the manual alphabet in class and used an illustrated manual alphabet chart as a visual aid to support their instruction. The teachers believed that direct instruction provided students with a basic understanding that handshapes could represent letters in words in their environment. Although this insight was beneficial, the teachers felt that many of the preschool and prekindergarten students had a limited understanding that the manual alphabet actually represented a language that was very different from ASL. Teachers provided students with a significant exposure to the manual alphabet through regular and lexicalized fingerspelling in their daily conversation conducted in ASL. Teachers exposed their students to fingerspelling early and often in order to provide them with consistent exposure to fingerspelling, though they knew they were limited in their ability to spell words. The teachers felt that students, even at the preschool level, were capable of producing the overall fingerspelling movements, even if they were not yet able to produce the individual letters in the fingerspelled word. Jennifer, one of the preschool teachers, shared a poignant example of one of her students who, a novice signer, began to express his understanding of different sign forms through play: Once I finished (my lesson) I was amazed by something a student did. The student got up and pretended to play teacher, and went up to the board and started signing the names of the animals. He signed COW (the sign was a close approximation of COW with using the 1-HS on the location of cow, instead of the proper Y-HS), and I signed to the student YES. The student then made fingerspelling-like movements while trying to fingerspell the word cow. That example is really fascinating. The teachers also noticed variability when their students used lexicalized fingerspelling. The preschool teachers observed that the youngest preschool students rarely used lexicalized fingerspelling forms other than basic letter combinations, such as B-U-S. The prekindergarten and kindergarten teachers reported that their students made greater use of lexicalized fingerspelling and produced forms with more letters, such as B-E-A- C-H, which seemed to reflect on their increasing level of physical dexterity and experiences with ASL. The teachers stressed that exposing children to regular and lexicalized fingerspelling was crucial to their students language and literacy development. The teachers felt that providing students with continuous exposure to handshape and movement forms allowed them to see recurring structural patterns that would become more refined as they got older. Carol, the ASL specialist, felt strongly about exposing students to fingerspelling and believed that it was vital to students language and literacy development. She described a weekend when she provided a workshop to a group of teachers for the deaf in her state. Carol was taken aback by a teacher s comment and her response indicated just how deeply she believed in the power of early fingerspelling exposure: Then one of the participants asked me, you mean you fingerspell to the children? And I said, Well, Yes. She looked at me and said I thought it was too hard. I said that s not the point. Suppose you re talking about the park, and you produce a sign code for PARK (produces a sign with P-HS in the outline of a square), why would you do that? You shouldn t do that because you think they can t fingerspell. They will learn eventually.

13 476 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 18:4 October 2013 They might do something like PK or PRK, and eventually make it more of a lexicalized PRK. It s the same with spoken English. At first the child might say da, and then they d increase it to dad, and then eventually to daddy. It s the same as spoken language. Why would you decide to take that from them, and decide you think you know best and give them a sign instead? What business do you have! They looked at me embarrassed. Don t you hurt their English reading! Don t you recognize how there s a connection? Don t do that. If you see a word and there s no sign, and it s lexicalized, go ahead and use it. Don t think because I m not comfortable and I m not skilled, I m not going to do it. So be it. You wanted to become a teacher of the deaf. I expect that you are the expert. You are THE language role model for these children. They were really shocked. This excerpt reveals several important connections between fingerspelling and language and literacy development. First, Carol believed that teachers of deaf children should incorporate fingerspelling in their signing, whether they were comfortable with it or not, because many deaf children needed to learn to fingerspell and were often dependent on their teachers as a significant language model. Second, Carol s comments also conveyed a belief among the teachers that it was important to be consistent in the use of fingerspelling because its development was an ongoing and emergent process. Lastly, Carol s comments indicated that she believed that there was a relationship between early exposure to fingerspelling and reading proficiency. She argued that without early exposure to fingerspelling deaf children s acquisition of reading could be severely limited. As students progressed in their understanding of the handshapes in ASL, the teachers in prekindergarten and kindergarten shifted their focus to helping students understand the representational uses of handshapes. The teachers exposed students to ways that handshapes could represent words in conversational sign language and written English through a compareand-contrast technique. For example, if teachers were focusing on the letter F during their Letter of the week instruction, they might highlight that there is sometimes a correspondence between the F-HS between signs and the letter F in words, such as FAMILY, FRUIT, and FRIDAY, but no correspondence at other times, such as FISH and FIX. Conversely, teachers could also point how the F-HS was used in the signs for CURIOUS, EARRING, and CAT, which did not have the letter F in the word in English. A goal of the activity was to help students understand that there was difference when the F-HS represented a sign used in ASL from one that could be used to represent a letter in a word in English. The teachers reported that students in their classes often struggled to make the distinction. Students did seem to make the connection eventually. Jane, one of the kindergarten teachers, observed in her experience that students often struggled with the distinction until they were in second grade. Connecting to English Print Subcategory The last two approaches promote emergent literacy and promote word decoding represent the teachers efforts to make a connection between ASL and written English. The teachers exposed students to English print in many ways that are consistent with the current understanding of emergent literacy development (Clay, 1991; Williams, 2004), but with more of an emphasis on maximizing students sign language abilities to make a connection to print. This section will first describe teachers efforts to expose students to print to build their awareness of the structure and combination patterns of graphemes in English and then describe how they tried to help students bridge their knowledge of ASL to English print. Promote emergent literacy. The teachers exposed their students to ASL and English print and believed that students would eventually learn to decode words in English. Teachers provided a connection between signs and print to help students understand that written English uses orthographic symbols to express ideas and concepts in similar ways that signs represented ideas manually. Ultimately, the goal was to establish a connection between ASL and English, and this was indicated in this comment by Jennifer, If I introduce the [text] word blue, and sign BLUE, and sign it repeatedly, then they will start to understand. They should remember it. I have to make a connection first. The key is to make the connection.

14 Promoting Sign Language Phonological Awareness 477 The teachers wanted to make written English accessible to their students and develop their appreciation for it. The teachers in the preschool and prekindergarten classes translated storybooks in ASL and incorporated sociodramatic elements to allow students to assume the role of the characters in the book. Teachers also highlighted words and passages in the text to help students make connections between signs and words in print. Teachers also wanted to make English personal to students and they promoted emergent writing activities. They encouraged students to write in their journals by drawing pictures and writing letters or words based on their experience. The teachers wanted to create a positive writing experience for their students. The goal was to let students express themselves in whatever means that could be successful for them. As Jennifer stated, You feel confident when you write. When the children paint or do artwork, I encourage them to write even if they write the letter J-O. even if it s not perfect I ll leave it. The students get excited, and it builds their self-esteem. I really encourage them to write. Teachers also let students sign their stories and then wrote down their ideas in English. Elisa described that this was important because it allowed the students to see it in ASL, and then (look) down at the print on the page. They are able to understand it is the same because the English is there and then they can look up and get the communicated message in ASL. Promoting word decoding. Teachers reported that they helped students use their knowledge of ASL as a bridge to understanding similar concepts that were expressed in English. What distinguishes this section from the previous section is that teachers sought to target students understanding of the sublexical structure of words and word combinations in English, rather than just exposing students to letters and words in English. A highlight of the interviews occurred when several teachers described a golden moment when some of their students began to understand that fingerspelling was more than just as a whole signed form, but instead was the sum of individual parts that represented letters in English. The teachers reported instances of this occurring when students asked the teachers to spell out the lexicalized fingerspelling they were using, without realizing they were already spelling the word. For example, Stacy described a moment when one of her kindergarten students seemed to make the connection between the manual alphabet and print, He asked me how do you spell bus and I told him that he knew. He looked at me and said, I don t know! Then, I told him to sign it slow, and he made the letters in the lexicalized fingerspelling, B-U-S, and then he looked his hand again as he spelled B-U-S, and then he said Wow! and he had gotten it. Linda estimated that her kindergarten students with advanced language proficiency began to make the connection between the manual alphabet and English print, Probably around November, December, to January. Although there are many factors involved, this suggests that children with more advanced sign language proficiency are cognitively ready to make the connection between the English print and fingerspelling forms approximately around their fifth birthday. A key insight of this is that deaf students also began to understand that there is a correspondence between the manual alphabet onto graphemes in written English, thus achieving a manual version of the alphabetic principle. One vital instructional strategy that served an important role in connecting ASL to English was chaining. In chaining, teachers linked words in English to ASL signs through the use of fingerspelling, and pictures if available (Humphries & MacDougall, 2000). Stacy felt that chaining was beneficial for some of her kindergarten students who were better at kinesthetic and visual forms of memory. With chaining, I think that helps some. Those who seem to benefit are those who are tactile learners. They re more physical and benefit from the manual fingerspelling movements the feel of it. Some kids might not understand the [printed] spelling, but then remember the fingerspelling. Vocabulary words have contours to them, like the outline of the height of the word the word shapes. The kids can recognize the letters. Carol felt that most of the students who benefitted from chaining were those in kindergarten with good language skills, but that it could take students longer before they start to realize the connection between fingerspelling and English print.

15 478 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 18:4 October 2013 (Chaining) can happen in kindergarten, if they have a strong language I think they ll respond. If they don t have that, then it s perhaps in the first grade when they respond. Yeah, I ve noticed that happening between the kindergarten and first grade in my analysis. I know one kid he just seemed to get it immediately in kindergarten. It s like his eyes were opened, and his mind was just receptive to the possibilities, and he just made lots of connections (between signs and print). The teachers reported using other activities that were directed toward developing students knowledge of how to use and decode words in English. These included instructional activities that focused on comparative and contrast analysis and instruction that exposed students to phonological patterns of fingerspelled words commonly used in English. One of the uses of the compare-and-contrast analysis was beginning reader books. These books incorporated highly repetitive phrases and structures (e.g., the boy is walking, the boy is running) with pictures, which gave students the opportunity to learn the different structures of English. Two kindergarten teachers reported using a formalized approach to teach frequent words in English. The teachers used spelling tests to expose their students to words that were commonly used in English and not in ASL, such as articles, pronouns, and prepositions. The teachers used high-frequency word lists in English and chose words that they felt their students did not know in order to boost their familiarity with the words. Finally, collaborative guided reading was a comparative and contrast analysis technique that was used mostly in kindergarten. The ASL specialist reported she regularly used collaborative guided reading with some students. In these sessions, she read books with the students to give them an understanding of the story and then helped them analyze morphosyntacic structures in English and then used fingerspelling as necessary to make a connection to signs in ASL. This personal interaction seemed to provide students with the ability to conduct a deeper level of word analysis of structure beyond just a semantic connection. Follow-up Response The purpose of the follow-up response was to understand how frequently an instructional strategy was used in a teacher s classroom. In the interviews, teachers reported using various instructional strategies and approaches, but it was difficult to know if the teachers used a particular activity, daily, monthly, or even not at all. The rating scale in the responses was as follows: 0 = never, 1 = monthly, 2 = biweekly, 3 = weekly, and 4 = daily. A teacher s score of 4 indicated that she used a strategy daily, whereas a score of 0 meant she never used the strategy. With six teachers responding, the total score for each item could range from 0 to 24. The results of the response corroborated the majority of the responses provided by the teachers during the interviews. A relevant finding of the response was that there were five instructional strategies that received a score of 23 or 24, which meant these strategies were used daily by all the responding teachers, and these activities included (1) natural conversation in ASL, (2) display of manual alphabet in the classroom, (3) use of (regular) fingerspelling in signing, (4) use of lexicalized fingerspelling in signing, and (5) chaining. Conversely, there were three activities that received very low overall scores, and these include (1) student video self-critique, (2) the computerized ASL dictionary, and (3) tracing handshapes on paper, which reflected that only a limited number of teachers used the activity. Although it was difficult to draw broad generalizations from such small sample, the information provided by the participants revealed that some instructional practices seemed to be more prevalent in certain classes and not in others. The preschool classes made more use of the ASL handshape of the week and referred to posters of ASL handshapes more than the other classes. The prekindergarten and kindergarten classes used more direct instruction of the manual alphabet and emphasized book reading activities more than the preschool class. Moreover, the kindergarten teachers focused much more on the frequent English word list and collaborative guided reading than preschool and prekindergarten classes. The teachers responses in the follow-up response

16 Promoting Sign Language Phonological Awareness 479 were consistent with what they described in the interviews. Discussion The goal of this study was to understand how teachers of the deaf in an ASL/English bilingual school conceived of and promoted PA of sign language to develop students language and literacy abilities. Overall, the findings suggest that the teachers at the school did use activities to promote PA of sign language as a means to facilitate their students language and literacy abilities. The teachers used a variety of approaches to build their students understanding of native ASL structure and promote students awareness of the manual alphabet. The goal of this study was to answer four questions. First, how do teachers conceptualize the role of developing children s knowledge of the structure of ASL? Second, what strategies do teachers use to promote children s handshape awareness? Third, how do teachers promote children s understanding of the representation system of handshapes? Fourth, how do teachers promote a connection between ASL and English? In regard to the first question, the teachers responses indicate that they viewed developing students knowledge of the structure of ASL as important and as a part of an overall language strategy that would contribute to their proficiency in sign language. The teachers felt that promoting knowledge of sign language structure helped students build a stronger understanding of their native language. The teachers also felt that it provided a strong foundation that would serve as a pre-guide to an advanced understanding. It was noteworthy that teachers did not seem to explicitly label their efforts as promoting sign language PA even though they all espoused a strong belief in building their students knowledge of sign language structure and provided an array of instructional activities to build this awareness. This view seems to be in stark contrast to educators of hearing children who often focus heavily on promoting PA. The difference seems to be a reflection of the relative lack of emphasis placed on sign language PA in deaf education. Although a significant amount of research on sign language phonology has been done by linguists (e.g., Brentari, 2010; Brentari & Padden, 2001; Liddell & Johnson, 1989; Stokoe, 1960), there has been a limited amount of translational research of ASL PA in deaf education that is used to promote standardized practice for teachers. With minimal standards to guide them, the teachers seemed to develop their own intuitive practices based on their knowledge and experiences with ASL and of visual learning, which has also been documented in other studies (Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2000; Crume & Singleton, 2008; Humphries, 2004). The teachers also seemed to use their training from AEBPD and the resources and expertise available to them, like the ASL specialist. The teachers felt that the ASL specialist was valuable in helping them understand the benefits of promoting the awareness of sign language structure. It was also apparent from the interview that the ASL specialist was very knowledgeable about ASL phonology and believed that there was much more that could be done. At one point during the interview, she stated that there was 1,000 different ways to promote sign language phonological awareness. Thus, it seems that ASL PA is used in deaf education to some degree, but its use has been underutilized in deaf education. The second question this study has sought to answer is what strategies teachers used to promote children s handshape awareness. These strategies have been outlined in detail in the Results section and will be briefly mentioned here. What is revealing about the instructional strategies is that the teachers used these strategies to help native signers convert their implicit awareness into an explicit awareness. For the students with delayed language, the teachers strategies were geared toward providing them with basic handshapes awareness to build their sign language PA in order to help them acquire and learn new vocabulary. The third question this study has sought to answer is how teachers promoted children s understanding of the representation system of handshapes. First, teachers provided exposure to build awareness of structural forms in sign language. Once a strong foundation of basic handshape awareness was in place, the teachers focused on how handshapes had different functions in ASL. The most essential function of handshapes was to serve as a basic element of the structure of signs used in conversation. As teachers increasingly exposed students to English print, teachers provided a compareand-contrast approach to highlight when structures in

17 480 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 18:4 October 2013 signs were used solely in ASL, or when they could also be used to make a connection to English print. This exposure to English print highlighted an important metalinguistic function. It promoted an understanding that handshapes could be used to represent ASL and English orthography in different contexts. In some instances, handshapes were only non-alphabetic and were used primarily in conversation. However, in other instances, handshapes were alphabetic and could be used as a means to map onto English print. The fourth question this study has sought to address is how teachers promoted a connection between ASL and English. The teachers appeared to use a combination of signed forms to establish a connection from ASL to English. The teachers used signs to provide semantic information, but also used regular and/or lexicalized fingerspelling forms to establish an alphabetic connection, in essence, establishing a manually based linguistic bridge between ASL and written English. When paired together, students had the means to utilize an efficient and effective means to transfer semantic information from ASL to written English that would not be possible with either sign or fingerspelling forms alone (see Figure 3). Mapping signs to print may provide only a limited connection initially because there is a non-alphabetic correspondence, whereas mapping fingerspelling to print provides an alphabetic connection to print, which may be limited because readers may have limited access to semantic information of the word. Recent studies also suggest that fingerspelling may have other important contributions in the early acquisition of reading with deaf children. Haptonstall-Nykaza and Schick (2007) found that deaf children were more effective at acquiring vocabulary in written English when a sign was paired with a lexicalized fingerspelling and English print. This approach was much more effective compared to other conditions where a sign was just paired with a word in English and when no signed forms were paired with a word in English. They argued that a lexicalized fingerspelled form, in particular, may be more effective because its form is more sign-like and may include additional semantic and/or syntactic information that is not available only on the regular or neutral fingerspelled form. Emmorey and Petrich (2012) also found strong correlations between fingerspelling and reading ability. They suggested that fingerspelling patterns seemed to be more reflective of orthographic patterns in written English, and that fingerspelling and print seem to share a functional relationship because both systems are used to represent the words of English via alphabetic Figure 3 Signed pathways to English print. Part A shows a limited connection between sign forms and English print when they are used separately. Part B shows that chaining a sign to a fingerspelling form provides deaf readers with a more robust connection to written English because they can utilize both alphabetic and semantic connections to words in print.