Native-User Contact & Signed English Transcription

UPA1rA4. Research Report : Native-User Contact & Signed English Transcription Barbara Luetke-Stahlman Contact with native users of the language is one of many factors that promote successful second-language learning. Although signed English is not a second language for the usual university student, it would be interesting to see whether learning it from a native speaker makes any difference in a student's ability to understand signed English utterances. To determine the effect of native-user contact, students in four sign classes at a university were tested. Two of the classes were taught by a deaf native signer; the other two by teachers who were nonnative signers. Subjects were selected from these classes if they indicated that they knew no deaf adults, did not have deaf relatives, and had not attended a deaf club. Sixty were so selected. Three of the four classes were for beginners, with 21, 10, and 12 subjects in them; the advanced class yielded 17 subjects. One of the beginner-level classes was taught by the native signing deaf teacher. The test used was devised by the author in 1982; it presents on videotape 20 signed English sentences without voice, which were written by a hearing principal at a midwestern school for the deaf. After seeing each sentence signed twice by a registered interpreter, the students wrote the sentence (i.e. transcribed it) in standard English orthography. A perfect score on the test is 0: one error point is added for each incorrect or omitted lexical item and five points for an untranscribed sentence. In the present study the best score was 0 (no errors) and the the worst was 89. Subjects were grouped according to teacher. Groups A, B, and C had hearing teachers; Group D had the deaf native signer as teacher. The teachers were rated very similar in overall acceptability of signing on regular university course evaluation forms (See Table 1). Other things being equal, then, student scores Fall 1987 SLS 56 Luetke-Stahiman should relate to exposure or non-exposure to a native signer. The advanced group scored higher on the test than the three beginner groups (p <0.001; F - 23.0492, df - 1,58). In Table 2 the mean scores for the results of the ANOVA for the three beginner groups is displayed (F = 15.3219, df = 2,40). The difference between the scores of those in the deaf native signer teacher's group and the others is significant (p< 0.001). Teacher Group Rating Non-native signer A(beg.) 4.7 over two B (beg.) 4.7 courses Non-native signer C(adv.) 4.4 - 4.8 over 4 courses Native signer D (beg.) 4.7 over 2 courses Table 1. Overall rating of instructors on the university course evaluation forms, Source df sum squares mean squares f ratio f prob Between groups 2 10640.4168 5320.2084 15.3219 0.0001 Within groups 40 18889.1595 347.2290 Total 42 24529.5763 N X SD SE Min score Max score Group A 10 65.80 16.70 5.28 40. to 89 Group B 12 60.42 18.00 5.19 20. to 78 Group D 21 31.80 19.76 4.31 4.5 to 76 Totals 43 47.61 24.17 3.68 41.87 to 53.35 Table 2. Comparisons among beginner groups. Fall 1987 Report SLS 56 ...