4.2 Troubling language policy and curriculum practices at Hilltop School: Where did it all
4.2.3 Implementing the pilot project: A step closer to a dream
The new class of hard-of-hearing learners that comprised 10 Grade 6 learners was started in January 2003. Staff members were unanimous in the goal of providing an education that was on par with that offered to hearing children. We were convinced that the language barriers faced by our hard-of-hearing learners, and not their sensory disability, were the core problems related to their poor academic achievement. It is hypothesised that the academic problems of Deaf learners are characterised by poor communication between Deaf learners and their teachers (Reed, Antia
& Kreimeyer, 2008; Powers, 2003; Akach, 2011). The language of learning and teaching is cited internationally as the single most important contributing factor to poor literacy acquisition for Deaf learners (Glazer & Van Pletzen, 2012).We were therefore convinced that the use of English as a medium of instruction for the hard-of-hearing learners would improve their literacy. As discussed earlier in this chapter, these hard-of-hearing learners were already communicating in English, and had moderate hearing loss. It is for this reason that we felt convinced that English would help them to access written texts and improve their literacy.
My own experience at Hilltop School confirmed that language and communication is considered one of the greatest challenges for teachers of the Deaf. I consider the language system of Deaf learners to be very complex. Many Deaf learners use SASL as their primary language of communication, and at school they are usually introduced to English as a language of teaching and learning. In addition, many Deaf learners may come from families who speak yet another South African language at home. Negotiating between these different language systems can be an area of concern for teachers in Deaf education. With regard to the hard-of-hearing learners, I learned that they were using SASL as their primary language of communication and learning from Grade 0 until Grade 5, and were also able to communicate orally in English. Children who have adequate hearing and an internal language base are able to use these skills to develop a second oral language (Storbeck, 2003; Akach, 2011) It is my understanding that SASL and the residual hearing that they possess is used as a scaffold for them to learn English. I am inclined to believe that the fact that these learners have a fair amount of hearing assists them with acquiring English (written and spoken) as an additional language.
136
With our goal of improving literacy and academic performance firmly in mind, we accessed the National Curriculum as prescribed by the Department of Education for mainstream schools.
The content of this curriculum comprised eight learning areas: Languages, Mathematics, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Technology, Economic and Management Sciences, Life Orientation and Arts and Culture. Detailed assessment criteria for each learning area are included in the policy framework of the curriculum statement.
Since this was not a homogenous group of learners, teachers had to respond to their different degrees of hearing loss, language proficiency and levels of academic achievement; hence, an individualised approach to teaching was adopted. The following factors assisted teachers in implementing individualised instruction: the small class size (10 learners); teachers being entrenched in Deaf culture, for example being fluent in Sign Language; and teachers’ ability and confidence to communicate with learners both in English and Sign Language.
In the delivery of the curriculum, language and literacy took precedence. Our focus in the area of language became listening, speaking, reading, thinking and reasoning, writing, language structure and language use.
Every effort was made to maximise the hearing of learners through technological interventions and speech training. To this end, all learners were fitted with digital hearing aids. This audiological intervention was designed to enhance the development of language by improving acquired language, speech development and auditory awareness. The language therapy sessions conducted by the speech therapists targeted learners’ expressive and receptive language skills.
During these sessions, language and vocabulary associated with different themes (aligned with those in the curriculum) were explained and discussed with the learners. Learners were encouraged to express themselves using the language skills taught and to transfer these skills to other communicative environments.
Speech development was achieved by teaching learners how to produce individual units of sound. This involved instructing learners on lip-reading patterning, placement of articulators (lips, tongue and palates), voice versus voiceless sounds, and airflow control.
Auditory awareness encouraged learners to use their residual hearing optimally. In this regard learners were exposed to different environmental sounds, music and speech sounds. Activities with learners were designed to develop skills in the areas of sound detection, localisation, memory, and the sequencing of everyday sounds.
137
Reading became the cornerstone of the language programme. The reading programme was designed to inculcate in learners a passion for reading. We envisaged that reading would enable learners to access the curriculum, increase their general knowledge and explore links with other areas of the curriculum. An additional hour per day was allocated in the timetable for reading.
This reading programme was designed by the school speech therapist and included independent reading, teachers reading to students, shared reading and writing, and meaning-based vocabulary instruction. Learners were exposed to books and magazines that stimulated their interests. Books were carefully chosen according to the ability of learners
Another vital focus in this pilot class was assessments. As mentioned earlier, detailed assessment criteria were provided in the National Curriculum Statement. Assessments are critical to measure learner achievement levels. Since assessments were designed for hearing learners, teachers had to ensure that while assessments remained comprehensive and equitable, the tests had to be fully accessible to our learners. To this end the language of the instructions in the assessments often had to be adapted. For example, idiomatic language and subordinate phrases embedded within sentences had to be avoided. Often instructions had to be changed to become more ‘Deaf friendly’. For example, ‘left’ or ‘left over’ was changed to ‘how many are left?’ Multiple-choice questions had to provide enough context because learners with limited hearing need more context to answer multiple-choice questions than their hearing peers. Careful consideration had to be taken when testing the content of subjects such as mathematics, social studies, etc.
Teachers had to ensure that assessments did not become a test of the learners’ ability in the English language but instead a direct test of the actual content, unless the test was to test knowledge and skill in English.
In addition, teachers often designed their own methods for assessments, such as interactive interviews and observation scales. Individualised testing was done frequently to ascertain learners’ understanding so that teachers could adjust and review their teaching methodology and levels to suit learners’ needs.
Looking back, we employed what may be described as an action research approach. We held regular monitoring and evaluation meetings, and we were extremely reflexive. We placed the teaching and learning under constant scrutiny and analysis, and made changes and adaptations on the basis of the data obtained. Some of the changes and adaptations were as follows:
138
The new words of the different learning areas were provided to learners in advance so that they had sufficient time to assimilate the language of their subjects.
Often written assignments and projects given to learners had to be modified with simpler instructions or with more visual representations.
Teachers discovered that learners understood them better if their speech was clear, if they provided contextual clues and if they refrained from speaking when writing on the board.
If worksheets were provided before lessons, learners were given sufficient time to read before a lesson and seemed better prepared in class.
The timetable had to be changed as teachers found that contact teaching for the whole day can be tiring for hard-of-hearing learners, as they have to concentrate intently to focus on lip reading and listening. Therefore, group work and independent study had to be built into the timetable.
A successful way of reinforcing lessons was with written notes.
Printed material had to be written in simple English that was easy to understand. For example, ‘the school was founded in 1963’ could be replaced with ‘the school was built in 1963’.
The extensive use of visual aids was very helpful with language since the Deaf are visual learners and do not rely on their auditory memory. As a consequence the school had to invest in overhead projectors and movies and videos with sub-titles.
In addition, every effort was made to create an individualised visual and auditory communicative education environment to maximise the learning potential of our learners. We aimed to create a classroom environment with optimum sound reception. Thus, the classroom was chosen with great care. We ensured that there was no window behind the teacher that could cause a silhouette on her face .The classroom was fitted with good lighting, so that the teacher speaking was visible to all learners. In order to improve the acoustics in the room, carpets were fitted to aid in sound absorption. A print-rich environment was achieved with the display of charts, pictures and the written work of learners displayed on the walls and hallways of the classroom (Fig. 45).
139
Figure 45. The Grade 6 classroom.