This paper introduces our special issue about ideologies in sign language vitality and revitalization and discusses ideologies related to the vitality of sign languages. Rather than taking for granted the notions of vitality and endangerment or developing criteria for measuring sign language vitality, the papers in this issue will provide a discursive construction of sign language endangerment. This construction in turn provides critical and historical reflection on how vitality has emerged as a concern for sign languages in specific local, national, and international contexts, the actors and institutions bringing forward this framing, and in whose interest it is to promote such discourses. The issue will survey how and by whom these ideologies are described, mobilized and legitimized, and what conceptualizations of language are emphasized and by whom.
LINK
Background: Collaboration between Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) and parents is considered best practice for children with developmental disorders. However, such collaborative approach is not yet implemented in therapy for children with developmental language disorders (DLD) in the Netherlands. Improving Dutch SLTs’ collaboration with parents requires insight in factors that influence the way SLTs work with parents. Aims: To explore the specific beliefs of Dutch SLTs that influence how they collaborate with parents of children with DLD. Methods and procedures: We conducted three online focus groups with 17 SLTs using a reflection tool and fictional examples of parents to prompt their thoughts, feelings and actions on specific scenarios. Data were organised using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Outcomes and results: We identified 34 specific beliefs across nine TDF domains on how SLTs collaborate with parents of children with DLD. The results indicate that SLTs hold beliefs on how to support SLTs in collaborating with parents but also conflicting specific beliefs regarding collaborative work with parents. The latter relate to SLTs’ perspectives on their professional role and identity, their approach towards parents, and their confidence and competence in working collaboratively with parents.
DOCUMENT
This article examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the sign language interpreting profession drawing on data from a fourth and final survey conducted in June 2021 as part of a series of online “living surveys” during the pandemic. The survey, featuring 331 respondents, highlights significant changes in the occupational conditions and practices of sign language interpreters due to the sudden shift towards remote video-mediated interpreting. The findings reveal a range of challenges faced by interpreters, including the complexities of audience design, lack of backchanneling from deaf consumers, the need for heightened self-monitoring, nuanced conversation management, and team work. Moreover, the study highlights the physical and mental health concerns that have emerged among interpreters as a result of the shift in working conditions, and a need for interpreters to acquire new skills such as coping with the multimodal nature of online interpreting. While the blend of remote, hybrid, and on-site work has introduced certain advantages, it also poses new challenges encompassing workload management, online etiquette, and occupational health concerns. The survey’s findings underscore the resilience and adaptability of SLIs in navigating the shift to remote interpreting, suggesting a lasting transformation in the profession with implications for future practice, training, and research in the post-pandemic era.
DOCUMENT
In order to optimize collaboration between Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) and parents of children with Developmental Language Disorders (DLD), our aim was to study what is needed for SLTs to transition from the parent-as-therapist aide model to the FCC model and optimal collaborate with parents. Chapter 2 discusses the significance of demystifying collaborative working by making explicit how collaboration works. Chapter 3 examines SLTs’ perspectives on engaging parents in parent-child interaction therapy, utilizing a secondary analysis of interview data. Chapter 4 presents a systematic review of specific strategies that therapists can employ to enhance their collaboration with parents of children with developmental disabilities. Chapter 5 explores the needs of parents in their collaborative interactions with SLTs during therapy for their children with DLD, based on semi-structured interviews. Chapter 6 reports the findings from a behavioral analysis of how SLTs currently engage with parents of children with DLD, using data from focus groups. Chapter 7 offers a general discussion on the findings of this thesis, synthesizing insights from previous chapters to propose recommendations for practice and future research.
DOCUMENT
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a dual-focused educational approach whereby an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language. In the Netherlands, this takes place in bilingual secondary education (tweetalig onderwijs). Policy guidelines, teaching handbooks, research and teacher education primarily focused on how subject teachers implement CLIL. Little was known about the nature and range of the pedagogical and collaborative practices of language teachers in this context. Exploring formal and practical theories of teaching, this dissertation reports on four studies; a literature review, focus group study, survey, and multiple-case study. These generated building blocks for a knowledge base for Teachers of English in Bilingual streams (TEBs) including a theoretical framework for language teaching in CLIL contexts, a set of practices which emerged as a professional development tool for TEBs, eight case descriptions of prototypical practices, and a model of the dynamic interaction of TEBs’ beliefs and practices. Reviewing the findings in the light of developments in conceptualizing what CLIL means for teachers in practice, the discussion highlights four points. Firstly, language teaching in CLIL contexts is not the same as foreign language teaching. Secondly, CLIL achieves integration through subject-specific language. Thirdly, CLIL contexts can lead to transformative change in language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Fourthly, collaboration between language and subject teachers can be beneficial. It concludes that teacher education and policy guidelines can and should do more to support, encourage and enable language teachers to be both creators and agents of change.
LINK
In times of stability, it is relatively easy – or so it seems – to educate students for a ‘known’ future. My argument in this chapter is that we live in a time of multiple transitions (Rotmans, 2015), multiple crises (Capra & Luisi, 2014; Wahl, 2016; Sayer, 1994; Harvey, 2000; Jessop, 2012) and an unknown future. We are heading for an unknown future which, because of climate change, in its two extremes may either end in complete destruction or may be shaped by a shift towards a new sustainable balance: either a breakdown or a breakthrough (Wahl, 2016). Turbulent times tend to be fertile podia for a wide array of narratives that seek to make sense of the crisis, and which present imaginaries about the future. According to Jessop (2002), capitalism develops in a sequence of spatio-temporal fixes that each end in a crisis and then lead to competing narratives. This chapter claims that it is important for the educational community – and for society at large – to develop sufficient critical language awareness in order to be able to both critically analyse and evaluate existing narratives. In addition, it is important to be able to articulate our own narratives so as to be empowered to participate in this process of imagining and co-creating the future (Kress, 2000; Harvey, 2000).
DOCUMENT
This research report contains the findings of an international study consisting of three online ‘living’ surveys. The surveys focused on how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted sign language interpreters’ working practices, how this was experienced by them, and how digital disruption caused by the pandemic is impacting and innovating the sign language interpreting profession. The study was carried out between April 2020 and July 2020; the largest contingent of respondents over all three surveys were from the U.S., followed by the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland and Belgium. Respondents commented that the crisis will probably accelerate the need for remote interpreting training in interpreter training programs. Another resurfacing issue was the perceived need for sign language interpreting students to have face-to-face practice and live mentoring. Respondents commented on what benefits they thought remote interpreting might bring to the table, both for themselves and for deaf people. In general, the most significant benefits that were mentioned were flexibility and the possibility to improve efficiency and availability of sign language interpreting services. Notwithstanding these benefits, a significant number of respondents claimed that remote interpreting is more stressful than face-to-face interpreting and requires a heavier cognitive load.
DOCUMENT
Across the globe, linguistically heterogeneous populations increasingly define school systems at the same time that developing the ability to communicate cross-culturally is becoming essential for internationalized economies. While these trends seem complimentary, they often appear in paradoxical opposition as represented in the content and execution of nationwide education policies. Given the differing geopolitical contexts within which school systems function, wide variation exists with regard to how policymakers address the challenges of providing language education, including how they frame goals and design programs to align with those goals. Here we present a cross-continental examination of this variation, which reveals parallel tensions among aims for integrating immigrant populations, closing historic achievement gaps, fostering intercultural understanding, and developing multilingual competencies. To consider implications of such paradoxes and parallels in policy foundations, we compare language education in the US and in the EU, focusing on the Netherlands as an illustrative case study.
LINK
Children with DLD in special education show improvement in language performance. No differences in improvement between: • Children with receptive expressive disorders and expressive disorders • Children with low and high IQs • Mono and multilingual children Intervention is important for all children with DLD. Contact: gerda.bruinsma@hu.nlThere is a paucity of information on the effects of special education provisions on the language skills of children with DLD. Specifically , it is unclear 1. if (and how ) school based intervention impacts various language domains 2. to what extent child characteristics modulate outcomes Method We traced the trajectory of 154 children with DLD at 18 schools for special education that provide systematic language oriented interventions . Mean age 4;10 at the start of the study; range 3;11 5;7 yrs
DOCUMENT
Introduction The CEFR offers a framework for language teaching, learning and assessment for L2 learners. Importantly, the CEFR draws on a learner’s communicative language competence rather than linguistic competence (e.g. vocabulary, grammar). As such, the implementation of the CEFR in our four years bachelor program Teacher of Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) caused a shift in didactic approach from grammar-based to communication-centered. It has been acknowledged that didactic approaches associated with the CEFR are scarcely documented (Figueras, 2012) and the effectiveness on learner outcomes have not been investigated systematically. Moreover, for many languages the levels of the CEFR are not supported by empirical evidence from L2 learner data (Hulstijn, 2007). Purpose We will i) describe our communication-centered approach in detail and iii) present some preliminary findings on the effectiveness of this approach on student’s outcomes. Method We followed four student cohorts longitudinally: students in the first cohort (n=14) were taught in a grammar-based curriculum, students in the second (n=6), third (n=9) and fourth (n=14) cohort in a communication-centered curriculum. Data involved production (interviews) videos that are transcribed using ELAN. Results Comparing students in their first and second year, results show that students who followed a communication-based curriculum show more grammatical variability as compared to students who followed a grammar-based curriculum. Conclusions Interestingly, the communication-centered approach stimulates the development of linguistic competence. We attempt to fit the empirical evidence of L2 learners within the CEFR-levels. References Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66, 477 – 485. Hulstijn, J. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: quantitave and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 663 – 667.
DOCUMENT
