Scott kuntzeira may12012translatingasatechniqueduringguidedreading


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Comment
  • 2012 International Reading Association Convention
    Translation, Guided Reading, and Deaf Students: The Good and Sometimes the Bad
    Tue, May 1, 2012: 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM
    Tuesday 5/1 3:00-4:00
    Hyatt Regency McCormick Place
    Room: Regency Ballroom E
    Capacity: 118
    Clock hours: 1
    The best means of access to English for most deaf students is through the printed word. As a result their reading experience is much different than that of hearing students, who are learning to read in a language they can hear, and for many, can already speak. Deaf children are in effect learning English as a part of the course of learning to read. Through guided reading a social context is created in which the adult and the child interact while the child reads. When the child signs while reading, the adult is provided with a monitor on how the child processes what he/she is reading. This is especially important given the different way that phrasal verbs are expressed in English and American Sign Language (ASL). For example, if the child makes two sign for the phrase 'look for,' it helps the adult detect that the child is not reading with comprehension as the two sign phrase following the English phrase word for word does not make sense. This session will examine the effectiveness in using 'oral' sign language translation during guided reading sessions with deaf children, and outline different levels at which children may translate during reading, from one ASL sign for every English word, up through a full translation into ASL, where not all English words may be accounted for (but the meaning of the original English sentence is preserved). We will also discuss student outcomes in terms of reading comprehension ability among the student participants in this study.
    Short Title
    Translation, Guided Reading, and Deaf Students
    Marlon Kuntze, Boston University
    Jessica Scott, Harvard University
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Scott kuntzeira may12012translatingasatechniqueduringguidedreading

  1. 1. Translating as a technique duringguided reading: The balancing act JESSICA SCOTT, Ed.M., Ed.D. Candidate HARVARD UNIVERSITY MARLON KUNTZE, Ph.D. GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL READING ASSOCIATION MAY 1, 2012
  2. 2. Agenda Background Theoretical framework Participants and data collection Methods Findings Discussion and future directions
  3. 3. Rationale Deaf children, on average, graduate from high school with a fourth grade reading level (Strong & Prinz, 1997; Trezek & Wang, 2006; Wauters, Van Bon, Tellings & Van Leeuwe, 2006) Schools for the deaf seek new methods of teaching reading to their students  But there has been limited research on the use of guided reading and translation between ASL and English as an instructional strategy We focused on a bilingual school where students are being taught in American Sign Language (ASL) and acquiring English as a second language
  4. 4. Why Guided Reading? Guided reading is an instructional strategy designed to create independent readers (Guastello & Lenz, 2005) Guided reading is a small group of children with similar needs reading a text that they would not be able to read without the support of the teacher (Scharer, Pinnell, Lyons & Fountas, 2005; Mooney, 1995) Reaching deaf children in their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) may allow for more targeted reading instruction
  5. 5. Guided Reading and ELLs Guided reading has been used successfully with students learning English as a second language (Chaaya & Ghosn, 2010) Guided reading instruction has been modified to meet the particular needs of the English Language Learners (ELLs), i.e., visual supports and building of background knowledge (Stinnett, 2009) Guided reading provides the ELLs who knows little English with the kind of exposure they need to learn English. (Avalos, et. al., 2007)
  6. 6. Guided reading in deaf education Some schools for the deaf have started using this method Minimal research on how this instructional method is used or modified with deaf students has been done. A few studies to date:  Malik, 1996  Schirmer & Schaffer, 2010a and 2010b  Jeffries, 2010  Kuntze & Scott, 2011
  7. 7. How does it work in deaf education? The approach in this program is one-on-one  The student signs to the teacher as they read However, some important questions arise:  What kind of reading is fostered when the student signs while reading?  Does it help or will it hurt in the long run?
  8. 8. Agenda Background Theoretical framework Participants and data collection Methods Findings Implications and future directions
  9. 9. Static Mediation Access toprinted through Text word ASL
  10. 10. At issue: How does signing during reading help deaf children?  Signing while reading is not representative of good ASL What is the function of signing while reading?  Is it translation?  Is it an unnecessary cognitive burden?  How may it affect the trajectory of reading development?  Does it change as the child develops reading skills?
  11. 11. Motivation of the Study Learning what each word means is an important component of learning an unfamiliar language.  However…signing word for word fosters lexical level reading at the expense of comprehension at the sentence level.
  12. 12. Long Term Goal of the StudyWhat is there to know about the act of translation as a feature of reading instruction that will help yield an understanding of and a set of criteria for assessing and indexing reading development among signing deaf students?
  13. 13. Language: Negotiating Meaning How do we make meaning?  Spoken English  Meaning  Written English  Meaning  ASL  Meaning Sometimes we need another language to mediate a less familiar language before meaning can be obtained  Language B  Language A  Meaning Less familiar More familiar For deaf students who are unfamiliar with English, they may need to use their ASL knowledge to mediate meaning making in written English text
  14. 14. Hypotheses of the Study:Current As a child develops written English vocabulary and knowledge of English grammar, the ability to use different levels of translation increasesFuture As the child develops skills to translate at higher levels, the child ideally relies less on translating as a mediative device The more skilled a reader becomes, the more selective he becomes in using translation as an intermediary
  15. 15. Agenda Introduction Theoretical framework Participants and data collection Methods Findings Discussion and future directions
  16. 16. Participants First grade  14 out of 15 students participated  7 Male  7 Female  3 teachers (ranging from 5 to 25 years of experience)  1 student teacher At a large state school for the Deaf
  17. 17. Data Collection Data were drawn from Kuntze’s larger longitudinal study of language and literacy in the deaf education classroom. 36 guided reading sessions 10 minutes in length, collected over a 2-day period in 2010 were selected to create the dataset used in this analysis
  18. 18. Agenda Introduction Theoretical framework Participants and data collection Methods Findings Discussion and future directions
  19. 19. Annotations and Coding Videos viewed and annotated by second presenter  Annotations described the actions of the student and the teacher Coding focused on how closely students were following the English text (how much were they translating into ASL?) Videos were coded by the second presenter, then verified by the PI
  20. 20. Agenda Introduction Theoretical framework Participants and data collection Methods Findings Discussion and future directions
  21. 21. Overall… In general, we found two major sets of translation levels  Lexical Level  Individual words fingerspelled, either lexicalized or non-lexicalized  Individual words either signed word-for-word regardless of meaning, or translated in the case of multiple meaning words  Multilexical Level  Phrasal and sentence level translations
  22. 22. Levels of Translation Level 0 = Fingerspelling – non-lexicalized Level .5= Fingerspelling – lexicalized Level 1 = One to one match (one sign per word) Level 2 = Multiple meaning match (one sign per word) Level 3 = Multiple signs for one word Level 4 = One sign for multiple words Level 5 = Multiple signs for multiple words
  23. 23. Lexical Level 0: Fingerspelling (non-lexicalized) When a student  Example: Student fingerspells a word, fingerspells B-A-G especially one that has when encountering the an ASL sign equivalent English word bag. The student likely spells slowly, letter-for- letter, indicating that  Example: It, are this has not been lexicalized
  24. 24. Level .5: Lexicalized fingerspelling When a student  Text: Stay away, and fingerspells a word that don’t come back. would be fingerspelled in  Student translation: everyday conversation STAY-AWAY AND Often fingerspelled CAN’T COME lexfs- without all letters BACK included, because the fingerspelling form has been lexicalized
  25. 25. Lexical Level 1: One to one match Student signs one ASL  Text: Grandma, why do sign for every English we call the earth our word appearing in the mother? text – signs may not be  Student translation: appropriate for GRANDMA WHY multiple meaning DO(FS) WE SUMMON words THE EARTH OUR MOTHER?
  26. 26. Lexical Level 2: Multiple Meaning Match When a student  Text: I love mother identifies the correct earth too, ASL sign for an English grandmother, like I word with multiple love you. meanings  I LOVE MOTHER EARTH SAME GRANDMOTHER SAME I LOVE YOU
  27. 27. Multi-Lexical Level 3: Multiple Signs for One Word The student identifies  The boys walked multiple appropriate  BOY+ WALK FINISH signs to use as a translation for a single English word
  28. 28. Multi-Lexical Level 4: One Sign for Multiple Words The student identifies  Text: Tyrannosaurus one sign for use as Rex went around and translation for multiple around triceratops. words  Student translation: REX GO-OUT AROUND+++ TRICERATOPS
  29. 29. Level 5: Multiple words for multiple signs The student uses  Text: Come in and multiple signs to splash your feet express multiple  Student Translation: English words in an COME IN AND accurate ASL MOVE-FEET-UP- translation: May DOWN SPLASH include up to a full sentence translation
  30. 30. Levels These translations can happen on multiple levels:  Word level (lexical translations)  Phrasal level (multi-lexical translations)  Sentence level (multi-lexical translations) It is possible that more advanced readers could operate on even higher levels, such as the multi- sentence or paragraph level  Future research should look at advanced/older readers in middle and high school
  31. 31. Agenda Introduction Theoretical framework Participants and data collection Methods Findings Discussion and future directions
  32. 32. DiscussionChildren in this data set are beginning readers and used translation relatively infrequently  However, some started to use more translation  Use of multi-word seemed to increase with the difficulty of the reading material  As their knowledge of English words develop, they are prodded to use higher levels of translation.  Teachers are selective when higher level of translation is needed to ensure the needed level of comprehension (e.g., one ASL sign for “look for”)
  33. 33. Discussion Signing while reading provide educators with valuable information and instructional opportunities  How accurately the student is reading  Opportunities to provide instant feedback to help enhance comprehension However, signing while reading create undesirable cognitive load that may affect comprehension  Especially considering the differences in grammar/structure of ASL and English
  34. 34. Discussion Encouraging students to use higher levels oftranslation may help students develop metalinguisticawareness of how ASL and English differ Words, phrases and sentences that may include English or ASL idioms, multiple meaning word choices, etc. The higher level of translation helps the studentdevelop the capability to understand meaning that isbeyond the lexical level by looking for meaning inlarger chunks of English (phrase and sentence levels) As well as allows the teacher and student to focus more energy on comprehension and less on word recognition
  35. 35. Directions for Future ResearchFuture research should: Determine if these levels of translation satisfactorily include all aspects of English to ASL translation Examine the consistency of the extent to which the use of translation to mediate meaning decreases as student English language proficiency increases Determine the usefulness of different translation strategies as a student progresses in reading development including translating a paragraph or a passage after having read the piece. Examine what the translation process from ASL to English during the writing process may look like
  36. 36. Acknowledgements, thanks, and contact info  This study is made possible by a subaward to Kuntze through the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant (number SBE- 05419530) to Gallaudet’s Science of Learning Center on Visual Language and Visual Learning (VL2).  Much gratitude is given to the students, teachers, and parents at the school where the data were collected for their participation and collaboration.  For info on VL2, visit:  For additional information about our study and references, please email:
  37. 37. References Chaaya, D., Ghosn, I. (2010). Supporting young second language learners’ reading through guided reading and strategy instruction in a second grade classroom in Lebanon. Educational Research and Reviews, 5(6), 329-337. Guastello, E.F., Lenz, C. (2005). Student accountability: Guided reading kidstations. The Reading Teacher, 59(2), 144-156. Luetke-Stahlman, B., Hayes, P.L., Nielsen, D.C. (1996) Essential practices as adults read to meet the needs of Deaf or hard of hearing students. American Annals of the Deaf, 141(4), 309-320. Malik, S. (1996). Reading for meaning: A guided reading approach. Volta Review, 98(3), 127-137. Mooney, M. (1995). Guided reading – The reader in control. Teaching Pre k-8, 25(5), 57-59. Scharer, P.L., Pinnell, G.S., Lyons, C., Fountas, I. (2005). Becoming an engaged reader. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 24-29. Schirmer, B.R., Schaffer, L. (2010a). Guided reading approach: Teaching reading to students who are Deaf and others who struggle. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(5), 52-58. Schirmer, B.R., Schaffer, L. (2010b). Implementation of the guided reading approach with elementary school deaf students. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(3), 377-385. Stinnett, M. (2009). The difference a teacher’s approach can make to ELL instruction and modified guided reading. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 37(4), 72-78. Trezek, B.J., Wang, Y. (2006). Implications of utilizing a phonics-based reading curriculum with children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(2), 202-213. Wauters, L.N, Van Bon, W.H.J, Tellings, A.E.J.M, Van Leeuwe, J.F.J. (2006). In search of factors in deaf and hard of hearing children’s reading comprehension. American Annals of the Deaf, 151(3), 372-380.