CONFIANZA EMPRESARIAL EN EL PAÍS

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Levels A1-A2) is used in the P2P Deaf Literacy project as “a modified scale” (P2P Deaf Literacy Project Proposal), that is, it is adapted to Deaf learners’ needs. As suggested in the project proposal, it is not only for assessing the learning achievements but also for guiding the teaching and learning. Since the learning outcomes are benchmarked against the modified CEFR, this enables the evaluation of Deaf learners’ performance in India against the internationally-recognized external standards (P2P Deaf Literacy Project Proposal). Learners and peer tutors took three tests (pre-, post-, delayed post-tests) as well as self- assessment questionnaires benchmarked against the modified CEFR. The post-test at the end of the intervention shed light on their English proficiency while the delayed test indicated the retention of learning.

Besides the tests, the CEFR was also expected to be embedded in each learning session via Can-Do statements. The Can-Do checklist was viewed as the last component of each session (Project meeting, June 2015). In this way, learners can practice their self- assessment ability, while peer tutors and UK researchers can discover learners’ strengths and weaknesses. However, it seems that this was not a successful exercise in the field. It is potentially due to limited knowledge of the CEFR among the Indian field research team as well as the practice of developing self-assessment checklists being unusual for learners and peer tutors. This may imply that the training of the CEFR was

93

insufficient, and more training should be arranged. This point is addressed in the next section.

Concerning the aspect of guiding learning and teaching, the UK researchers constructed a syllabus (see Appendix 12) to guide learning and development of learning materials (Project Meeting in October 2015). The syllabus is modified from the descriptors of the CEFR A1-A2 in the format of Can-Do statements. Each Can-Do statement is explained further with three other aspects: functions, example exponents and lexical fields. For example, for the Can-Do statement of “can understand short, simple text message”19_{, it}

can be interpreted as the functions of “giving information, locating key information, making arrangements, saying hello and closing”. The example exponents exemplify the sentence patterns involved, such as “I’m_______ /Class is on Friday, 10 am/Come on/10 July/See you Friday./What time shall we meet? Hello/Hi/How are you? Thanks for the information/See you soon/then, BYE”. The inclusion of the example exponents in the syllabus echoes UK Researchers’ design concept of treating grammar learning as identification and practice of sentence patterns in Section 4.1.2. A range of lexical fields regarding this Can-Do statement is also provided in the syllabus. By interpreting the Can- Do statements through functions, example exponents and lexical fields, the intention was that the peer tutors and learners will be able to understand the syllabus and refer to it when needed in the process of materials development. It is by no means to impose a prescriptive syllabus on Deaf learners; instead, it provides insights for learners to create a dynamic syllabus naturally.

In fact, the development of functions, example exponents and lexical fields was attributed to the feedback from peer tutors and research assistants. They failed to understand the CEFR and Can-Do statements in depth. Meanwhile, identification of certain statements, functions, example exponents and lexical fields tends to be extremely challenging. One UK researcher who is an expert in Deaf education in India explained this phenomenon and expressed UK researchers’ stance during the project meeting in October 2015, “It is a skill to look for patterns; Indian deaf learners have often been told to memorise and reproduce, and we do not want them to simply reproduce what they see on the SLEND.”

By January 2016, a summarized matching map (see Appendix 13) was available and discussed during the project meeting. Even though the CEFR-based syllabus provided by researchers was only partially covered in teaching and learning, the UK researchers confirmed that they did not intend to enforce the syllabus onto the field teaching and learning. They prioritised learning needs (Project meeting in February 2016). That is to say, learners and peer tutors were free to choose and develop the learning materials based on their own interests. To this effect, a dynamic syllabus emerges from the learning content created by learners and runs parallel to the one provided by researchers. Learners are able to create learning content and form a dynamic syllabus based on their own needs, and at the same time, cross-check what they have developed with the CEFR-based syllabus without sacrificing the ethnographic approach. In the end, by comparing learner-created content to the CEFR-oriented syllabus, the tension between the local ethnographic literacy approach and the global CEFR framework is revealed. Under the auspices of the New Literacy Studies mentioned in Section 2.3.3,

19 _{This is adapted from a descriptor of level A1 in consideration of Deaf learners’ usual practice in a technology-}

94

English literacy is viewed as being deployed for local and everyday purposes (Wallace, 2002). In this way, English literacy is not regarded as the ‘global’ and ‘universal’ skills possessed by learners; instead, it is perused as a contextualized practice (Barton, 1994). In other words, English literacy is local practice in private domains such as family life, in contrast with public ones like media and education (Wallace, 2002).