Cooper (1989) explains that acquisition planning “sets up methods and incentives for acquisition of the desired language”. It involves efforts to influence the number of users, and it improves opportunities to learn the desired language (Cooper 1989). According to Cooper (1989), acquisition planning promotes and spreads the desired language. An example of acquisition planning can be seen in the American Sign Language Teacher Association (ASLTA). ASLTA is the only national organisation in the United States dedicated to the improvement and expansion of the teaching of ASL and “Deaf studies” at all levels of instruction (Nover 2006). Nover (2006) explains that ASLTA is “an individual membership organisation of more than 1,000 ASL and Deaf Studies educators from elementary through graduate education, as well as agencies”.
118
According to Nover (2006), a “Summer Intensive Bilingual Mentor Training” programme was held, at which mentors and university instructors provided ASL-English bilingual professional development of educators at their schools. Nover (2006) explains that the ASL-English Bilingual Professional Development In-service Training lasted two years.
Facilitators met for 12 seminars each semester. The seminars lasted for two hours and were conducted in ASL and written English. According to Nover (2006), the primary aim was the maintenance of the ASL-English bilingual education programme, which was to ensure that all deaf and hard-of-hearing students acquired, developed and enhanced ASL-English bilingual proficiency and English literacy skills, in order to achieve academically in content areas in both English and ASL, and so that students could reach their full potential as far as access is concerned and participate in both the deaf world and the hearing world (Nover 2006). It was important to encourage language proficiency in each language. Nover (2006) argued that each language should be given equal importance in both the curriculum and in instruction. Students should be encouraged to produce equal amounts of signed work and written work in each language, and the languages should not be mixed within schoolwork (Nover 2006). According to Nover (2006), students should be encouraged to become “equally proficient” in both varieties. The curriculum content should be rich in both languages, “with language acquisition and language learning and language use opportunities interwoven with content instruction in multiple disciplines” (Nover 2006). Nover, Christensen and Cheng (1998) adapted the source on Bilingual Ability of the Eleven Language Abilities for Deaf Children. The table is as follows (Nover, Christensen & Cheng 1998):
119
Made Signacy Special
abilities Literacy Oracy Receptive skills Watching or attending (ephemeral); Viewing (durable) Finger- reading; Lip- reading Reading (durables) Listening (ephemeral when appropriate) Productive skills Signing (ephemeral & durable) Finger- spelling; Typing Writing (durable) Speaking (ephemeral)
According to the ASL-English Bilingual Education Program, Nover (2006) maintains that the languages should be separated, that is, that ASL should be the only language. There should be concurrent use of ASL and English. Literacy should focus on reading, writing and sign writing (future plan). Signacy should focus on signing, and oracy on listening and speaking (Nover 2006). According to Nover and Ruiz (2005), the primary goal of an ASL-English Bilingual Programme is “to develop language and academic proficiency in both ASL and English for deaf and hard-of-hearing students, in order for cognitive and academic advantages to accrue”. According to Nover and Ruiz (2005), this means that a bilingual programme needs one of the two full-maintenance and dual-language models that supports and facilitates the complete development of both languages over an extended period of time, in order to reap the cognitive and academic advantages (Nover & Ruiz 2005). Nover and Ruiz (2005) argue that educational leaders and practitioners should demonstrate their knowledge of language planning by separating and monitoring the two languages used,
120
rather than using them throughout daily classroom instruction. Educational leaders and practitioners also need to encourage deaf students to use the language, that is, ASL or English, during certain instructional activities (Nover & Ruiz 2005). According to Nover and Ruiz (2005), educational leaders and practitioners should ensure that they create a learning environment where ASL and English skills can “flourish”. According to Reagan (2005), “the primary focus of attitude planning activities is on the development of positive or negative attitudes toward the target language, or toward bilingualism or
multilingualism involving some particular set of languages.” 4.14 SASL in education
According to Morgan (2008), most teachers at Deaf schools are hearing, and are not “proficient” in SASL. They use Total Communication, which involves signing and talking at the same time. This communication is known as “sign- supported English or Zulu or Sotho”, for example, if the sentence is spoken in English, signs are simultaneously made for each English word (Morgan 2008). The signs used are invented by the hearing educators and are usually different from the signs that have developed naturally in the Deaf community. There are no natural signs for English words, and they therefore use artificial signs. Facial expressions are used as grammatical markers (Morgan 2008). Signs end up being dropped due to the rapid speed of speech. This results in the message being misunderstood by deaf people, because the message is incomplete, and therefore “incomprehensible”. Learners end up leaving high school with a low literacy level (Morgan 2008). In the US, the average reading age of a Deaf adult is Grade 4, and in South Africa it could be lower (Morgan 2008). Deaf people are arguably the most disadvantaged group in South Africa, and very few deaf people in the country have university or college degrees.
121
If deaf learners are admitted to universities or colleges, they experience problems in understanding and communicating in the language medium of the university or college. Most universities and technikons do not have funds to employ SASL interpreters. The new policies and changes legislated in the Constitution have not benefited the majority of deaf South Africans, because they have not been implemented. According to (Morgan 2008), SASL is not taught as a subject in most deaf schools. Most teachers are not competent in sign language. As a result, there is a lack of communication between teachers and learners. DeafSA organised a protest march in 2003, where they demanded “quality deaf education”. The march took place in three cities simultaneously, targeting various provincial departments of education. Legislation was being processed to require teachers at deaf schools to be proficient in SASL (Morgan 2008). Morgan (2008) explained that “once this legislation is passed, teachers who do not have the proficiency will no longer be able to work at these schools” (Morgan 2008).