Final (Capstone) Project Rachel Steingieser

DED 541: First and Second Language Learning McDaniel College: E. Laird

Proponents of ASL/English bilingualism suggest that Deaf learners who have a well-
established first language in ASL find that this first language base supports access to
English as a second language or additional language.

Global Understanding

“Pettito concludes from her childhood bilingual research and other studies that it is

advantageous for the developing child to learn two languages because there are cognitive,

social, and developmental benefits of bilingualism” (Andrews, Leigh & Weiner, 2004,

p.80). Mahshie (1995) demonstrated the benefits of deaf and hard of hearing children if

they acquire American Sign Language (ASL) as their first language. The benefits include:

 A natural language acquisition (ASL Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills)

 The cognition will be developed, constructing the knowledge and pre-literacy

skills

 Promoting the children’s social-emotional development

A fully evolved bilingual environment is where fluency is occurring in both

languages: ASL and English. Furthermore, when the students demonstrate a well-

established foundation in their first language, which is ASL, how can the educators,

promote students’ English acquisition as a second language?

Research published before the year of 1960 revealed how bilingualism impairs

deaf and hard of hearing children’s ability to acquire ASL and English, “The assumption

that bilingualism was a handicap led to unfortunate practices such as punishing children

for using languages other than English in school, even when the children were at play”

(Lessow-Hurley, 2013, p.48). The stigma of bilingualism has lingered on over the years.

However, the current research shows otherwise, “Quite simply, children can be enriched
Final (Capstone) Project Rachel Steingieser

DED 541: First and Second Language Learning McDaniel College: E. Laird

by knowing more than one language as long as they are additive rather than subtractive

bilinguals” (Lessow-Hurley, 2013, p.48). Lessow-Hurley emphasized strengthening the

child’s first language foundation thus the child will be able to acquire a second language.

The educators need to understand the natural context of the language and to use the

language as a tool; “Our job as teachers is to take the best from each theory and to use

this in our interactions with children who are learning language” (Easterbrooks & Baker,

2002, p.39). First language acquisition varies among children based on the contexts the

children were raised in, “Beyond these basic visual interactions, infants with hearing

losses need to have early visual experiences that form the basis of later language

acquisition” (Owens, 2001, p.41). As Ginsburg (2007) mentions, during play, the children

will be exploring and innovating the world, mastering their skills and conquering their

fears. During play, the children will be developing new capabilities, which builds their

confidence. The children will be confident in solving problems, making decisions and

developing self-advocacy skills.

Core Concepts and Interpretations

The knowledge and understanding of first language (L1) impacts the process of

acquiring a second language (L2); when bilingual children are proficient in second

language, hence the ability of linguistic interference. “Lado (1957) also stressed the

importance of the native language, considering it a major cause of lack of success in L2

learning” (Polio & Shea, 2014, p.118). As explained by Polio and Shea (2014), Mu and

Carrington’s (2007) research demonstrated the strategies children acquired including

Final (Capstone) Project Rachel Steingieser

DED 541: First and Second Language Learning McDaniel College: E. Laird

metacognitive, cognitive, and social/affective strategies transferred from the first

language foundation to the second language development.

Children use several cognition strategies to transfer their L1 proficiency to

develop L2 skills including: context/ schemas, executive function and Basic Interpersonal

Communicative Skills (BICS) and Cognitive/ Academic Language Proficiency (CALP).

Context/ Schemas

“…Understanding issues of language and culture is critical component of

assessing and teaching bilingual children” (Stefankis, 1998, p.20). Owens (1988) in

Christen and Delgado (1993) believed that language competency occurs when the child is

able to acquire the dynamic social interactions within the family, “…a hearing child will

become a native speaker of at least one language through the natural supports that

facilitate language growth intuitively, not by direct instruction” (Easterbrooks & Baker,

2002, p.33). Owens (2004) stated that the environment shapes children’s brains thus the

Deaf and/ or hard of hearing children benefit from Deaf and/or hard of hearing role

models and peer interactions. Lessow-Hurley (2013) justified Owens’ theory of children

acquiring language competence through social interactions called motherese, “Long

before the emergence of the child’s speech, these interactions between mother and infant

apparently teach turn-taking, a basic skill in human communication” (Lessow-Hurley,

2013, p.59). Additionally, Owens (2001) believes that conversations play a major role in

deaf and hard of hearing children’s language development.

Many [deaf and hard of hearing children] could achieve success if adults at school

and home valued the visual culture of people who are Deaf and if home and

school settings were designed to maximize growth in communication and

Final (Capstone) Project Rachel Steingieser

DED 541: First and Second Language Learning McDaniel College: E. Laird

cognition by tapping the visual strengths of Deaf learners (Christensen &

Delgado, 1993, p.25).

Executive Function

Christensen and Delgado (1993) believed that most of children’s early language

developed through observations of daily routines, “For many Deaf children of hearing

parents in Sweden and Demark, childhood is a relaxed, play-oriented time…” (Mahshie,

1995, p.75). Piaget shares his theory regarding play; children will be able to create

connections to the world via play. 94% of parents in France, Germany, Great Britain,

Japan, and the United States emphasized their belief that when their children are playing,

they are learning (Singer, Golinkoff & Hirsh-Pasek, 2007). Bergen (2002) explains how

pretend play does not only impact children’s ability to develop social skills and strategies

but academic readiness as well. “Children’s cognitive and social skills affect their

language acquisition” (Andrews, Leigh & Weiner, 2004, p.70). Moreover, as stated by

Vygotsky, the interactions between children and adults stimulate children’s cognitive

development. Through the interactions with adults, children will comprehend the way the

world works and how to use the tools of their culture (Andrews, Leigh & Weiner, 2004).

Furthermore, King and MacKey (2007) demonstrate how children’s language

development is parallel to their parents’ language, “Children’s vocabulary size and use,

on the other hand, is very closely related to how much their caregivers read to them”

(King & MacKey, 2007, p. 302). Furthermore, as Runesson (1999) explains, as a part of

cognitive development, children will need to use the stimuli to process the experience

encountering the specific object multiple times in order to proceed the code through the

executive function (attention, discrimination, organization, and memory). When the

Final (Capstone) Project Rachel Steingieser

DED 541: First and Second Language Learning McDaniel College: E. Laird

students have transferred the code through the executive function, the students have

developed and built semantics within their context. With the opportunities the parents

provide for their children to explore the world, the children will build their schemas

linking to the language scaffold. Thus, when the time comes, the children will be able to

use their coding, in Wernicke and Broca areas, to create connections from their prior

knowledge and experience to the semantics and language used at school, “…researchers

argued that L2 learning takes place mainly through what they called a ‘creative

construction hypothesis,’ according to which learners gradually and inductively

reconstruct rules of the language as they are exposed to it in the course of acquisition”

(Polio & Shea, 2014, p.119). The model exhibited below, called Second Language

Acquisition model, is an adapted version from Krashen’s (1982) The Input Hypothesis

Model of L2 learning and production. The model presents how the student uses their

prior coding in the comprehensible input, the affective filter affects the students’ ability

and motivation to acquire the information and when the students have acquired a new

code of the context, hence the new code will be decoded as a new memory (output).

(Laird, 2008)
Final (Capstone) Project Rachel Steingieser

DED 541: First and Second Language Learning McDaniel College: E. Laird

BICS/ CALP

As Owens (2001) stated the progression of developing the meaning of words and

creating word combinations, “With more experience, knowledge becomes less dependent

upon particular events…Language meaning is based on what we, as individuals, know”

(p.21). The quote justifies Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) and

Cognitive/ Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) as theorized by Cummins (1980).

However deaf and hard of hearing children need to experience ASL acquisition using

BICS before transferring to ASL CALP. “Students’ success in using the strategies

effectively will also be possible if they are aware of writing strategies in both L1 [ASL]

and L2 [English]” (Polio & Shea, 2014, p.130). When deaf and hard of hearing children

are equipped with schemas in both areas, ASL BICS and CALP, the children with a

strong L1 will be able to transfer the context and strategies to L2, which is English. “It

was found that, while some L1 strategies were transferred to the L2 writing processes, the

learners struggled in utilizing all strategies that could have helped them in their writing

process in the L2” (Polio & Shea, 2014, p.128). While acquiring English, it is noteworthy

for the children to experience learning English in a natural environment setting

considered part of BICS development (King & MacKey, 2004). The fluency in BICS

English will promote the deaf and hard of hearing children children to acquire CALP

English. As shown below, an adapted model, from Lessow-Hurley’s (2013) Context and

Cognitive Load model:

Final (Capstone) Project Rachel Steingieser

DED 541: First and Second Language Learning McDaniel College: E. Laird

ASL BICS English BICS

ASL CALP English CALP

(Lessow-Hurley, 2013, p.91)

According to Freeman and Freeman (2009), there are students who struggled with

academic English through the university and graduate level. Why do students struggle?

To answer the question, Christen and Delgado (1993) explained, most of the bilingual

environment does not clearly exhibit the definition and balance of ASL and English.

Thus, how can educators diminish deaf and hard of hearing children’s struggle with

acquiring English? “Rather, first language learning is pleasurable, intimate, and

interwoven with everyday life in meaningful ways. To be optimally successful, learning a

second language should be much the same” (King & MacKey, 2007, p. 219).

Unfortunately, as Lessow-Hurley (2013) pointed out the cognitive demands from the

classroom are focusing on written and verbal explanations rather than focusing on

students’ context to scaffold their knowledge towards context-reduced method. “Deaf

students with normal intellectual abilities are seldom provided with early access to
Final (Capstone) Project Rachel Steingieser

DED 541: First and Second Language Learning McDaniel College: E. Laird

natural (primarily visual) communication. Early natural language deprivation may

explain the reason why these children often do not reach their potential in English

language usage…” (Christensen & Delgado, 1993, p.18). Moreover, Lessow-Hurley

(2013) emphasized, to function, as appropriately in academic situations, the students need

to develop their CALP skills. However before developing CALP skills, the students need

to have strong cognitive base in order to be able to transition their first language

development to second language development. Furthermore, in Dr. Laird’s (2008)

PowerPoint presentation, Cummins (1980) explained the threshold hypothesis as a tool to

promote students’ second language acquisition. Cummins’ (1980) threshold hypothesis

emphasized on students’ linguistic and conceptual knowledge acquisition in their first

language in order to promote the students’ second language development. As shown

below is a model of Cummins’s (1980) threshold hypothesis, developed by Baker (2011).

Final (Capstone) Project Rachel Steingieser

DED 541: First and Second Language Learning McDaniel College: E. Laird

(Pananaki, 2015)
“Once again, [researchers] are led to the conclusions that additive bilingualism

had positive effects and that language minority children should be provided with

instruction in their primary languages” (Lessow-Hurley, 2013, p.92). Lessow-Hurley

explained, for a bilingual program to be successful, schools must promote the students’

first language by providing instructions in students’ first language…

The distinction (BICS & CALP) is important and useful because it reminds us

that English learners may appear to be proficient in English when [teachers]

encounter [students] in the schoolyard, but they may not have the skills necessary

to succeed at academic tasks, which Cummins reminds us are, new, challenging,

and often lacking in context clues (Lessow-Hurley, 2013, p.103)

The children acquire the literacy skills via their play experience with their parents and

other adults (Singer, Golinkoff & Hirsh-Pasek, 2007). Nowadays children are starting

school with fewer literacy skills than in the past. “For instance, children often have many

more chances to use English outside the home—in school, in the neighborhood, and

playing with peers—than their parents” (King & MacKey, 2007, p. 58). Moreover,

Lessow-Hurley (2013) stated, children with limited English proficiency are able to

acquire BICS in English rapidly from their day-to-day experience including listening to

media or peers’ conversations. Unlike hearing children, deaf and hard of hearing are not

accustomed to using English as a social language out of the classroom. Thus, deaf and

hard of hearing children have not received as much mircopragmatics, marcopragmatics

and metapragmatics opportunities out of the classroom as the hearing children. “There is

so much structure happening in speech, writing, or signing that deaf children can get lost
Final (Capstone) Project Rachel Steingieser

DED 541: First and Second Language Learning McDaniel College: E. Laird

if there are no bridging strategies that help them move from one language to the other”

(Andrews, Leigh & Weiner, 2004, p.71). What the educators can do is spark deaf and

hard of hearing children’s interest in reading and writing in parallel with their prior

context. “When [students] are ready, their natural curiosity—and the fact that they have

come to recognize that the written word holds lots of information and fun—gets them

interested in reading” (Mahshie, 1995, p.3). Numerous studies have shown when literacy

materials are incorporated within play settings, the children’s interest was sparked and the

children were motivated to engage in the literacy acts. “[Student] identified with the

experiences, the characters, and the theme of the book because it was so much like [the

student]’s own story” (Freeman & Freeman, 2009, p. 163). Freeman and Freeman (2009)

emphasized on the importance of integrating students’ context within the instructions and

lesson plans to promote students’ ability to transfer their L1 schemas and strategies to L2.

Lesslow-Hurley (2013) justified the significance of using students’ schemas to expand

their pragmatics knowledge and ability. “Much as we may try to mediate our lessons with

hands-on activities, objects, and illustrations, we are often several steps removed from

real-life experience” (p.91). Since there are a variety of theories and methods, it is

noteworthy to recognize students’ language acquisition and learning strategies in order to

promote their language development. “Understanding a little about these [Gardner’s 8

intelligences] can help in understanding your child’s strength, style, and preference for

learning” (King & MacKey, 2007, pp. 207-208). As the students’ learning style varies, the

table chart presented below is generated from the tips shared by Lessow-Hurley (2013).
Final (Capstone) Project Rachel Steingieser

DED 541: First and Second Language Learning McDaniel College: E. Laird

Instruction Supporting Second Language Learners

Strategies Language Abilities Communication Classroom

management/
environment

Integrate Create Students’ Activities to Comfortable

students’ prior opportunities language promote real
knowledge in for non-verbal development interactions, real
lesson plans responses varies events

Thematic Group Students’ social Empower Low-stress

instructions activities to skills varies students to
practice the facilitate
language conversations

Delivery, Modify the Recognize and Include Establish

scaffold instruction utilize students’ individual and routines
instructions language to strengths group work
with ensure opportunities
experience, accessibility
demonstrations for all students
and illustrations

Assessment, Define roles

check for and tasks
understanding

(Lessow-Hurley, 2013, p. 107)

“One way of doing this is to focus on second language topics and areas that your child is

enthusiastic about in his or her first language...” (King & MacKey, 2007, p.192). As there

are numerous of objects and experience, Easterbrooks and Baker (2002) explain how

children put the information into meaningful chunks of categories in their brain. “In

effect, children who come to school speaking more than one language, or who learn a

second language in school, benefit academically as long as both languages are nurtured

and developed to the fullest extent” (Lessow-Hurley, 2013, p.48). With that said, the
Final (Capstone) Project Rachel Steingieser

DED 541: First and Second Language Learning McDaniel College: E. Laird

educators need to collaborate with deaf and hearing families in order to support families’

ability to facilitate the deaf and/or hard of hearing children’s language learning at home;

“In general, the more [children] know about the word and the more [they] use it, the

easier it is to access” (Owens, 2001, p.22).

Final (Capstone) Project Rachel Steingieser

DED 541: First and Second Language Learning McDaniel College: E. Laird

References

Andrews, J., Leigh, I., & Weiner, M. (2004). Deaf people: Evolving perspectives from
psychology, education, and sociology. Boston: Pearson.

Christensen, K. & Delgado, G. (1993). Multicultural issues in deafness. White Plains,

NY: Longman.

Cummins, J. (1980). The Construct of Language Proficiency - ResearchGate. Retrieved

June 25, 2018, from
https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/555473/GURT_
1980.pdf?sequence=1#page=93

Easterbrooks, S. & Baker, S. (2002). Language learning in children who are deaf and
hard of hearing: Multiple pathways. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Freeman, Y. & Freeman, D. (2009). Academic language for English language learners
and struggling readers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Retrieved
from https://bb.mcdaniel.edu/bbcswebdav/courses/2018GSP_ASL_535_OL/Mod
ule%2002/Readings%20Teaching%20Academic%20Language%20and
%20SubjectArea%20Content%20%28Freeman%20%26%20Freeman%2C
%202009%29/Freeman%20%26%20Freeman%202009%20Chapter%207.pdf

Ginsburg, K., Committee on Communications, & Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of

Child and Family Health. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy
child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics, 182-
191. Retrieved June 19, 2018, from
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/119/1/182.full.pdf

King, K. & MacKey, A. (2007). The bilingual edge: Why, when, and how to teach your
child a second language. New York: HarperCollins.

Laird, E. (2008). Language Learning and Language Acquisition for Deaf and Hard of
Hearing Children: Foundational Issues [PPT].

Lessow-Hurley, J. (2013). The foundations of dual language instruction. New York:

Longman.

Mahshie, S. (1995). Educating deaf children bilingually. Washington, DC: Gallaudet

University.

Owens, R. (2001). Language development: An introduction (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and
Final (Capstone) Project Rachel Steingieser

DED 541: First and Second Language Learning McDaniel College: E. Laird

Bacon.

Pananaki, M. (2015). Bilingual Theories and the Swedish Bilingual Profile Reflected in
the Classroom: A Comparative Case-Study in two Swedish Bilingual Schools. 15-
18. Retrieved July 3, 2018, from https://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:855126/FULLTEXT01.pdf.

Polio, C., & Shea, M. C. (2014). An investigation into current measures of linguistic
accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 26, 10-27. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.003

Samuelsson, I. P., & Carlsson, M. A. (2008). The playing learning child: Towards a
pedagogy of early childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 52(6), 623-641. doi:10.1080/00313830802497265

Singer, D., Golinkoff, R., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2007). Play = learning: How play motivates
and enhances childrens cognitive and social-emotional growth. Choice Reviews
Online, 44(07), 3-10. doi:10.5860/choice.44-4152

Stefankis, E. (1998). Whose judgment counts? Assessing bilingual children, K-3.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.