One thing that I see being brought up over and over is ideas for
activities, projects, homework, games, etc that all involve students
matching an English word with a sign.

I call this word-to-sign correlation.

I want to talk about my opinions regarding word-to-sign correlation.
(If you don't like reading my comments, you know where the delete key is.)

A lot of ASL teachers I've talked with tell me that they never use
"vocab lists" or other forms of word-to-sign correlations. And yet, I
know many do. Perhaps they are truly not aware they're doing it? My
file cabinets that I inherited from a previous ASL teacher is full of
copied handouts. These handouts are pages and pages of English words
attached to signs. Some of it is activities, some is homework, some of
it is simply copied from sign language books. I know some teachers
will copy the teacher's book (such as Signing Naturally) and hand that
out to their students. Those books are not intended for the students'
eyes. The teacher is (theoretically) supposed to be fluent enough in
ASL that they don't have this nasty habit of thinking in English while
signing, and so to save time and space, gloss words are used as a
reference for prompting the teacher on what signs to cover. Eventually
I'll get around to throwing all these copies out, but it's such a huge
waste of paper that I haven't brought myself to do it just yet. And
the dozen-plus sign language dictionaries she ordered? I've locked
them in the bottom of the filing cabinet as well.

Several of you have mentioned activities, games, etc. where, for
example, the student draws a card with an English word on it and must
fingerspell the word to someone else, who will then sign the word. (I
totally made that up off the top of my head to avoid hurting feelings
by mentioning specific examples.)

Some of you might ask - why are word-to-sign correlations such a bad
thing? Why the big deal about it?

Let me ask you this - what is the biggest problem facing students and
(non-native) ASL teachers when it comes to truly mastering ASL? (Or
even being able to have a simple, basic conversation IN ASL? Not PSE,
MCE, etc.)

My opinion - getting over the hump where they stop thinking in English
FIRST, then translating/transliterating it into ASL. In other words,
they struggle to "THINK in ASL."

What causes this problem? My opinion is that excessive use of
word-to-sign correlations is the culprit. Not only excessive use, but
teachers are actually ENCOURAGING and REINFORCING the use of
word-to-sign correlations. Teachers with vocabulary lists, with games
and activities that reinforce this BAD HABIT of matching up English
words with signs, use of sign language dictionaries (books and
online), and so on.

If we, as ASL teachers want to improve our own signing abilities, then
we need to start THINKING in ASL. Stop with the word-to-sign
correlations. Speed does not equal fluency. Just because you have a
big vocabulary and can sign fast, it doesn't mean you have native or
near-native fluency if you're PSE/MCE/etc. In addition, if we want our
students to understand the language, REALLY understand the language,
then we need to stop using word-to-sign correlations in the classroom.

The Signing Naturally curriculum (both the original and the new
release) has addressed this issue DEAD ON. You will not find a single
word-to-sign correlation ANYWHERE in any of the text, videos, or
PowerPoints that the students will see. Why? Because back in the
1980's, the authors saw back then exactly what we're seeing today -
people who continue to think in English FIRST before
translating/transliterating it into sign.

If native signers, master teachers, and leaders in their fields and in
the Deaf world are against word-to-sign correlations, why do we insist
on using it in our classrooms?


Your thoughts?


Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)

)

My thoughts on this matter are based on my experience learning Spanish and German in high school/college, what I was taught regarding teaching a foreign (or second) language to people (as part of my Cross Cultural Language and Development certificate classes, required by the state of California).

In one of the CLAD classes, the teacher mentioned that essentially there are two overall approaches to teaching a new language to a student. Both of these approaches have pros and cons to them. One is to never use the student's first language at all, but teach the new language as "another first language". That is what you describe and use, Rob. In this method, the new language is taught using photos, realia, gestures, mime, etc. , and later, circumlocution (where you use what you know to learn new nouns from context, etc.)

The second approach is to use what a student knows of grammatical and syntactical rules of his own language, and compare/contrast those with the structure and pieces of the new language you are teaching.

I have heard that true fluency means you are able to think in that language, and not go through the "translation" process in the mind before you want to express something int he new language. Language acquisition tables and charts seem to indicate this doesn't usually happen until the learner reaches the 2nd or 3rd level of proficiency.

All of that said, I learned Spanish from various teachers through the years that used both methods. I learned German from a native German who used sort of a drill-and-kill approach using dialogues for us to memorize, and no other German was ever used in class, which annoyed and frustrated me greatly. It's hard for me to compare the two, because I had Spanish from 4th grade, through high school and college, but only took two years of high school German. The remarkable thing is that when I first met my German-born sister-in-law and had to speak German because her English was limited, the German started coming back to me, and I can hold basic conversations in German when I go visit my brother over there.

The other foreign language teachers at my school now, (Spanish and French) use word-correlation vocabulary lists to their students, even though there are many non-equivalents in those languages compared to English. Students are able to understand that in English you say "I am hungry" and in Spanish you say "I have hunger" (Yo tengo hambre).

Yes, sign is visual and the languages I'm discussing are auditory; but I still think both methods can get good results, if they're used properly. My own personal ASL experience is that I learned lots of vocabulary, spent a lot of time with deaf people and practiced the language mentally even when I had nobody to sign to, and yet I never had the break through to sign more "ASL" until I was overtly taught the grammar and syntax rules (through explanations in English). Until then, I didn't know what I was seeing, and then a light bulb went off in my head.

The bottom line to fluency is using the language... whether you introduce and/or drill the vocabulary your way or through word-sign correlation, using the language as much as possible in as many "scenarios" as possible makes the difference. If all you do is teach lists of words (and this could even happen without word-sign correlation per se), the student will be a walking dictionary at best. Whichever method vocabulary is introduced, it is a MUST to have students sign dialogues, poems, conversations, descriptions, etc., and for them to see lots of signing, from lots of different people -- that is what will yield fluency.

Reinforcing vocabulary through these activity/game ideas isn't bad in itself, as long as class work isn't limited to that, and as long as lots of "free-range" signing happens. Unless my students could video-record me introducing signs to them, without a list they have no way to review or study outside of class. We don't have enough books.

Just some thoughts...

Gerrie Louden

On Jun 16, 2011, at 4:31 PM, Rob Nielson wrote:

One thing that I see being brought up over and over is ideas for
activities, projects, homework, games, etc that all involve students
matching an English word with a sign.

I call this word-to-sign correlation.

I want to talk about my opinions regarding word-to-sign correlation.
(If you don't like reading my comments, you know where the delete key is.)

A lot of ASL teachers I've talked with tell me that they never use
"vocab lists" or other forms of word-to-sign correlations. And yet, I
know many do. Perhaps they are truly not aware they're doing it? My
file cabinets that I inherited from a previous ASL teacher is full of
copied handouts. These handouts are pages and pages of English words
attached to signs. Some of it is activities, some is homework, some of
it is simply copied from sign language books. I know some teachers
will copy the teacher's book (such as Signing Naturally) and hand that
out to their students. Those books are not intended for the students'
eyes. The teacher is (theoretically) supposed to be fluent enough in
ASL that they don't have this nasty habit of thinking in English while
signing, and so to save time and space, gloss words are used as a
reference for prompting the teacher on what signs to cover. Eventually
I'll get around to throwing all these copies out, but it's such a huge
waste of paper that I haven't brought myself to do it just yet. And
the dozen-plus sign language dictionaries she ordered? I've locked
them in the bottom of the filing cabinet as well.

Several of you have mentioned activities, games, etc. where, for
example, the student draws a card with an English word on it and must
fingerspell the word to someone else, who will then sign the word. (I
totally made that up off the top of my head to avoid hurting feelings
by mentioning specific examples.)

Some of you might ask - why are word-to-sign correlations such a bad
thing? Why the big deal about it?

Let me ask you this - what is the biggest problem facing students and
(non-native) ASL teachers when it comes to truly mastering ASL? (Or
even being able to have a simple, basic conversation IN ASL? Not PSE,
MCE, etc.)

My opinion - getting over the hump where they stop thinking in English
FIRST, then translating/transliterating it into ASL. In other words,
they struggle to "THINK in ASL."

What causes this problem? My opinion is that excessive use of
word-to-sign correlations is the culprit. Not only excessive use, but
teachers are actually ENCOURAGING and REINFORCING the use of
word-to-sign correlations. Teachers with vocabulary lists, with games
and activities that reinforce this BAD HABIT of matching up English
words with signs, use of sign language dictionaries (books and
online), and so on.

If we, as ASL teachers want to improve our own signing abilities, then
we need to start THINKING in ASL. Stop with the word-to-sign
correlations. Speed does not equal fluency. Just because you have a
big vocabulary and can sign fast, it doesn't mean you have native or
near-native fluency if you're PSE/MCE/etc. In addition, if we want our
students to understand the language, REALLY understand the language,
then we need to stop using word-to-sign correlations in the classroom.

The Signing Naturally curriculum (both the original and the new
release) has addressed this issue DEAD ON. You will not find a single
word-to-sign correlation ANYWHERE in any of the text, videos, or
PowerPoints that the students will see. Why? Because back in the
1980's, the authors saw back then exactly what we're seeing today -
people who continue to think in English FIRST before
translating/transliterating it into sign.

If native signers, master teachers, and leaders in their fields and in
the Deaf world are against word-to-sign correlations, why do we insist
on using it in our classrooms?


Your thoughts?


Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)

)

Good comments Gerrie -

A few comments of my own in return.

You're right, there are basically two main approaches to teaching a
non-L1 language: 1) to use the TL only, 2) to contrast TL with L1.

However, what I'm referring to is those teachers who don't do either.
In other words, they cover lots and lots of signs, but they cover very
little grammar, or cover it in such a way that the L1 totally
overpowers/overrides it. Or, they teach it and talk about it, but
don't make it a day-to-day part of the classroom. With constant,
ongoing exposure to it as well as having the students mimic it and
emulate it.

In other words, the teachers teach the students to sign exactly like
them - PSE/MCE/etc.

And I'm not going to pick on just the PSE teachers either... I've had
to tutor advanced college level ASL students who had a Deaf teacher
that had no business being in a classroom because he did not know HOW
to teach. His wife was the interpreter coordinator at the college and
I had sources that told me he was asking her to give him lesson plans.

All of this is a result of teachers that focus heavily on vocabulary,
but grammar is an afterthought.

For example (quoting you) - "The other foreign language teachers at my
school now, (Spanish and French) use word-correlation vocabulary lists
to their students, even though there are many non-equivalents in those
languages compared to English. Students are able to understand that
in English you say "I am hungry" and in Spanish you say "I have
hunger" (Yo tengo hambre)."

Yes, there might be some word-correlation going on such as
hunger/hambre, but that is quickly (and heavily) followed with LOTS of
grammatical work through speaking, listening, reading, and writing
exercises.

How do many ASL teachers give grammatical work? By having students
GLOSS!!! Heaven forbid! That's just making the word-to-sign
correlation more ingrained. Now, I know some of you will say something
like - "But glossing helps my students to see the grammar structure in
a formal way and gives them the opportunity to think through it, etc."
Balderdash!! Remember those advanced ASL students I was tutoring?
Their teacher told them he wanted them to gloss the entire "Princess
and the Pea" story first, then they were to sign it in class,
following their glossing exactly. They literally came to me in TEARS.
Crying out of pure frustration because they couldn't figure out how to
correctly and adequately gloss the story. My response? Ignore the
teacher. SIGN the story first, work out how you want to tell the
story, then after you're comfortable with signing it, gloss it out for
the teacher. In other words, glossing frequently becomes a limit, a
hindrance, a stumbling block rather than a building tool because it
uses English and when students use glossing, they're reinforcing the
"think in English, then translate it to ASL" habit.

When a student is learning how to say something in Spanish, he doesn't
use English to write out how he plans to say it does he? Glossing is
not a written form of ASL. So making students use it as a "tool" for
learning the language is not going to help them. Constantly writing
out word-to-sign correlations using their L1 (glossing) is not
teaching them ASL. Where's the signs? Where's the grammar being SEEN
in action? Writing ASL grammar concepts out in English once in a while
to maybe explain an elusive concept is understandable, but creating
entire assignments and lesson plans based on it? Wow....

If the kids are to learn ASL grammar, the most effective way to do
that is for them to SEE it and USE it. Games and assignments that help
reinforce signs learned is nice (as long as they avoid word-to-sign
correlations) but more games and assignments that focus on grammar are
needed. Things that focus primarily on vocab are not going to help
these kids learn correct ASL.

And, your comment about video-recording. Excellent idea actually. If
you look at my YouTube channel, my students created a video to help
them remember the signs for the colors (I think the video is called
"rainbow of colors" or something like that). If you'll notice, there's
not one single word-to-sign correlation in the video, and yet, the
vocabulary is reinforced very adequately. This is a perfect way for
the kids to create their own review material and have fun doing it at
the same time. Then, videos like this can be put on flash drives or
DVDs, uploaded to private YouTube channels, or put on AMPmoodle (hint,
hint) and shared with other teachers creating similar content to teach
signs and grammar.

Good discussion, let's keep it going...



Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
> My thoughts on this matter are based on my experience learning Spanish and German in high school/college, what I was taught regarding teaching a foreign (or second) language to people (as part of my Cross Cultural Language and Development certificate classes, required by the state of California).
>
> In one of the CLAD classes, the teacher mentioned that essentially there are two overall approaches to teaching a new language to a student. Both of these approaches have pros and cons to them.   One is to never use the student's first language at all, but teach the new language as "another first language".  That is what you describe and use, Rob.  In this method, the new language is taught using photos, realia, gestures, mime, etc. , and later, circumlocution (where you use what you know to learn new nouns from context, etc.)
>
> The second approach is to use what a student knows of grammatical and syntactical rules of his own language, and compare/contrast those with the structure and pieces of the new language you are teaching.
>
> I have heard that true fluency means you are able to think in that language, and not go through the "translation" process in the mind before you want to express something int he new language.  Language acquisition tables and charts seem to indicate this doesn't usually happen until the learner reaches the 2nd or 3rd level of proficiency.
>
> All of that said, I learned Spanish from various teachers through the years that used both methods.  I learned German from a native German who used sort of a drill-and-kill approach using dialogues for us to memorize, and no other German was ever used in class, which annoyed and frustrated me greatly.  It's hard for me to compare the two, because I had Spanish from 4th grade, through high school and college, but only took two years of high school German.  The remarkable thing is that when I first met my German-born sister-in-law and had to speak German because her English was limited, the German started coming back to me, and I can hold basic conversations in German when I go visit my brother over there.
>
> The other foreign language teachers at my school now, (Spanish and French) use word-correlation vocabulary lists to their students, even though there are many non-equivalents in those languages compared to English.  Students are able to understand that in English you say "I am hungry" and in Spanish you say "I have hunger" (Yo tengo hambre).
>
> Yes, sign is visual and the languages I'm discussing are auditory; but I still think both methods can get good results, if they're used properly.  My own personal ASL experience is that I learned lots of vocabulary, spent a lot of time with deaf people and practiced  the language mentally even when I had nobody to sign to,  and yet I never had the break through to sign more "ASL" until I was overtly taught the grammar and syntax rules (through explanations in English).  Until then, I didn't know what I was seeing, and then a light bulb went off in my head.
>
> The bottom line to fluency is using the language...  whether you introduce and/or drill the vocabulary your way or through word-sign correlation, using the language as much as possible in as many "scenarios" as possible makes the difference.  If all you do is teach lists of words (and this could even happen without word-sign correlation per se), the student will be a walking dictionary at best.  Whichever method vocabulary is introduced,  it is a MUST to have students sign dialogues, poems, conversations, descriptions, etc., and for them to see lots of signing, from lots of different people -- that is what will yield fluency.
>
> Reinforcing vocabulary through these activity/game ideas isn't bad in itself, as long as class work isn't limited to that, and as long as lots of "free-range" signing happens.  Unless my students could video-record me introducing signs to them, without a list they have no way to review or study outside of class.  We don't have enough books.
>
> Just some thoughts...
>
> Gerrie Louden
>
> On Jun 16, 2011, at 4:31 PM, Rob Nielson wrote:
>
> One thing that I see being brought up over and over is ideas for
> activities, projects, homework, games, etc that all involve students
> matching an English word with a sign.
>
> I call this word-to-sign correlation.
>
> I want to talk about my opinions regarding word-to-sign correlation.
> (If you don't like reading my comments, you know where the delete key is.)
>
> A lot of ASL teachers I've talked with tell me that they never use
> "vocab lists" or other forms of word-to-sign correlations. And yet, I
> know many do. Perhaps they are truly not aware they're doing it? My
> file cabinets that I inherited from a previous ASL teacher is full of
> copied handouts. These handouts are pages and pages of English words
> attached to signs. Some of it is activities, some is homework, some of
> it is simply copied from sign language books. I know some teachers
> will copy the teacher's book (such as Signing Naturally) and hand that
> out to their students. Those books are not intended for the students'
> eyes. The teacher is (theoretically) supposed to be fluent enough in
> ASL that they don't have this nasty habit of thinking in English while
> signing, and so to save time and space, gloss words are used as a
> reference for prompting the teacher on what signs to cover. Eventually
> I'll get around to throwing all these copies out, but it's such a huge
> waste of paper that I haven't brought myself to do it just yet. And
> the dozen-plus sign language dictionaries she ordered? I've locked
> them in the bottom of the filing cabinet as well.
>
> Several of you have mentioned activities, games, etc. where, for
> example, the student draws a card with an English word on it and must
> fingerspell the word to someone else, who will then sign the word. (I
> totally made that up off the top of my head to avoid hurting feelings
> by mentioning specific examples.)
>
> Some of you might ask - why are word-to-sign correlations such a bad
> thing? Why the big deal about it?
>
> Let me ask you this - what is the biggest problem facing students and
> (non-native) ASL teachers when it comes to truly mastering ASL? (Or
> even being able to have a simple, basic conversation IN ASL? Not PSE,
> MCE, etc.)
>
> My opinion - getting over the hump where they stop thinking in English
> FIRST, then translating/transliterating it into ASL. In other words,
> they struggle to "THINK in ASL."
>
> What causes this problem? My opinion is that excessive use of
> word-to-sign correlations is the culprit. Not only excessive use, but
> teachers are actually ENCOURAGING and REINFORCING the use of
> word-to-sign correlations. Teachers with vocabulary lists, with games
> and activities that reinforce this BAD HABIT of matching up English
> words with signs, use of sign language dictionaries (books and
> online), and so on.
>
> If we, as ASL teachers want to improve our own signing abilities, then
> we need to start THINKING in ASL. Stop with the word-to-sign
> correlations. Speed does not equal fluency. Just because you have a
> big vocabulary and can sign fast, it doesn't mean you have native or
> near-native fluency if you're PSE/MCE/etc. In addition, if we want our
> students to understand the language, REALLY understand the language,
> then we need to stop using word-to-sign correlations in the classroom.
>
> The Signing Naturally curriculum (both the original and the new
> release) has addressed this issue DEAD ON. You will not find a single
> word-to-sign correlation ANYWHERE in any of the text, videos, or
> PowerPoints that the students will see. Why? Because back in the
> 1980's, the authors saw back then exactly what we're seeing today -
> people who continue to think in English FIRST before
> translating/transliterating it into sign.
>
> If native signers, master teachers, and leaders in their fields and in
> the Deaf world are against word-to-sign correlations, why do we insist
> on using it in our classrooms?
>
>
> Your thoughts?
>
>
> Rob Nielson
> ASL Teacher
> Westwood High School
> http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
> http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)
>
>

)

What you describe is what my mentor a long time ago told me is getting "frozen" at a certain level of competency. I think it's a linguistic or language-acquisition term used to describe when someone gets stuck at a certain level of proficiency, and can't seem to get beyond it. The person can recite the grammar rules, and knows them inside and out -- but can't seem to use them in his new language. His language stays at the level (or sometimes more than one level) below what "grammar" he knows.

My first year of teaching I was terrible. Nobody gave me a curriculum, and I had to figure things out. I taught a lot of vocabulary, did the "drill and kill" method, and my kids knew the vocab. But could they sign very well? A few, yes, but the others, no. But in my gut I knew what result I wanted, and so figured out how to give them "things to sign about". I'm a "better" teacher than I used to be, but not as good as I want to be. And I judge how good I am by how my kids sign. For ASL 1 I have used MASL for the past 2 years.

Glossing can be good to introduce the concept that the syntax of ASL is different than English. I haven't used it much, not formally. I've had my students write an English sentence, and then write it in ASL word order.... but then they have to sign it. I'm talking ten sentences at a time, not a whole paragraph, and certainly not a whole story. And the writing is for the purpose of them then signing the sentence in "non English word order". I'm still figuring out this one... I've been tempted to show a dialogue on video from either MASL or from "Learning American Sign Language" (by Humphries & Padden), and having them "practice" signing an exact dialogue. But I don't want to do to them what my German teacher did to me (although all that dialogue stuff did engrain German word order, very similar to ASL, by the way, into my little brain). I think it's good if it's used sparingly in the beginning of teaching them syntax of more complicated sentences than "my name is....
"

What I do NOT like about glossing is that it's very hard to include the non-manual aspects... it's good for getting the "order" of signs right, but lousy for NMS, for spatialization, and for classifiers. I am told that sign-writing is good for that, but lazy me thinks that system is too complicated, and why learn to write it when you can just learn to sign it?

In ASL 2 I use the Humphries Padden book, and the lesson routine is: 1) teach the vocabulary from the chapter. 2)have students chart at least some of the signs, especially if two signs are similar (to sensitize them to notice the 5 parameters). 3)next they get in groups of 4 and write a dialogue using at least 5 vocabulary words and they each have to say something 5 times or more, and then they do the dialogues for me, during which I correct signs and have them sign it over using my suggestions, etc, like closing signal, question-face, etc, use of classifiers, etc. They get an individual grade for this dialogue, which means not all in one group get the same grade.

The next, the 4th step, students have told me, has really affected their signing. I show them the dialogues for the chapter (there are 3), and they transcribe them. Sometimes I help, sometimes i don't. I do point out NMS aspects they are seeing. They are to see the ASL and write what they see in English... NOT a word-for-each-sign transcription. Last year (not the one we just finished) was the first time I did it, and my reason was to make them work more seriously and pay attention to the videos I was showing... and suddenly their signing started changing... I asked a student what happened? Did they start signing more out of class, what was the difference? She said it was the transcribing, that they hate it but it helped.

The 5th step is that I give a test in which I sign random sentences from the dialogues and they write what I sign.

On Wednesdays I often use the fingerspelling receptive practice from the "lifeprint.com" website. I have a projector connected to my computer:) Alas, You Tube, etc., are blocked.

At least half the students taking ASL at my school are taking it only for transfer privileges, and/or because they think it's going to be easier than Spanish. So the writing work I assign is to get through to them the notion that it IS a "real" class with "real work", a "real" final exam and a "real" grade they earn.

I still need to improve, especially to include more voice-off time.

Gerrie


On Jun 16, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Rob Nielson wrote:

Good comments Gerrie -

A few comments of my own in return.

You're right, there are basically two main approaches to teaching a
non-L1 language: 1) to use the TL only, 2) to contrast TL with L1.

However, what I'm referring to is those teachers who don't do either.
In other words, they cover lots and lots of signs, but they cover very
little grammar, or cover it in such a way that the L1 totally
overpowers/overrides it. Or, they teach it and talk about it, but
don't make it a day-to-day part of the classroom. With constant,
ongoing exposure to it as well as having the students mimic it and
emulate it.

In other words, the teachers teach the students to sign exactly like
them - PSE/MCE/etc.

And I'm not going to pick on just the PSE teachers either... I've had
to tutor advanced college level ASL students who had a Deaf teacher
that had no business being in a classroom because he did not know HOW
to teach. His wife was the interpreter coordinator at the college and
I had sources that told me he was asking her to give him lesson plans.

All of this is a result of teachers that focus heavily on vocabulary,
but grammar is an afterthought.

For example (quoting you) - "The other foreign language teachers at my
school now, (Spanish and French) use word-correlation vocabulary lists
to their students, even though there are many non-equivalents in those
languages compared to English. Students are able to understand that
in English you say "I am hungry" and in Spanish you say "I have
hunger" (Yo tengo hambre)."

Yes, there might be some word-correlation going on such as
hunger/hambre, but that is quickly (and heavily) followed with LOTS of
grammatical work through speaking, listening, reading, and writing
exercises.

How do many ASL teachers give grammatical work? By having students
GLOSS!!! Heaven forbid! That's just making the word-to-sign
correlation more ingrained. Now, I know some of you will say something
like - "But glossing helps my students to see the grammar structure in
a formal way and gives them the opportunity to think through it, etc."
Balderdash!! Remember those advanced ASL students I was tutoring?
Their teacher told them he wanted them to gloss the entire "Princess
and the Pea" story first, then they were to sign it in class,
following their glossing exactly. They literally came to me in TEARS.
Crying out of pure frustration because they couldn't figure out how to
correctly and adequately gloss the story. My response? Ignore the
teacher. SIGN the story first, work out how you want to tell the
story, then after you're comfortable with signing it, gloss it out for
the teacher. In other words, glossing frequently becomes a limit, a
hindrance, a stumbling block rather than a building tool because it
uses English and when students use glossing, they're reinforcing the
"think in English, then translate it to ASL" habit.

When a student is learning how to say something in Spanish, he doesn't
use English to write out how he plans to say it does he? Glossing is
not a written form of ASL. So making students use it as a "tool" for
learning the language is not going to help them. Constantly writing
out word-to-sign correlations using their L1 (glossing) is not
teaching them ASL. Where's the signs? Where's the grammar being SEEN
in action? Writing ASL grammar concepts out in English once in a while
to maybe explain an elusive concept is understandable, but creating
entire assignments and lesson plans based on it? Wow....

If the kids are to learn ASL grammar, the most effective way to do
that is for them to SEE it and USE it. Games and assignments that help
reinforce signs learned is nice (as long as they avoid word-to-sign
correlations) but more games and assignments that focus on grammar are
needed. Things that focus primarily on vocab are not going to help
these kids learn correct ASL.

And, your comment about video-recording. Excellent idea actually. If
you look at my YouTube channel, my students created a video to help
them remember the signs for the colors (I think the video is called
"rainbow of colors" or something like that). If you'll notice, there's
not one single word-to-sign correlation in the video, and yet, the
vocabulary is reinforced very adequately. This is a perfect way for
the kids to create their own review material and have fun doing it at
the same time. Then, videos like this can be put on flash drives or
DVDs, uploaded to private YouTube channels, or put on AMPmoodle (hint,
hint) and shared with other teachers creating similar content to teach
signs and grammar.

Good discussion, let's keep it going...



Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
> My thoughts on this matter are based on my experience learning Spanish and German in high school/college, what I was taught regarding teaching a foreign (or second) language to people (as part of my Cross Cultural Language and Development certificate classes, required by the state of California).
>
> In one of the CLAD classes, the teacher mentioned that essentially there are two overall approaches to teaching a new language to a student. Both of these approaches have pros and cons to them. One is to never use the student's first language at all, but teach the new language as "another first language". That is what you describe and use, Rob. In this method, the new language is taught using photos, realia, gestures, mime, etc. , and later, circumlocution (where you use what you know to learn new nouns from context, etc.)
>
> The second approach is to use what a student knows of grammatical and syntactical rules of his own language, and compare/contrast those with the structure and pieces of the new language you are teaching.
>
> I have heard that true fluency means you are able to think in that language, and not go through the "translation" process in the mind before you want to express something int he new language. Language acquisition tables and charts seem to indicate this doesn't usually happen until the learner reaches the 2nd or 3rd level of proficiency.
>
> All of that said, I learned Spanish from various teachers through the years that used both methods. I learned German from a native German who used sort of a drill-and-kill approach using dialogues for us to memorize, and no other German was ever used in class, which annoyed and frustrated me greatly. It's hard for me to compare the two, because I had Spanish from 4th grade, through high school and college, but only took two years of high school German. The remarkable thing is that when I first met my German-born sister-in-law and had to speak German because her English was limited, the German started coming back to me, and I can hold basic conversations in German when I go visit my brother over there.
>
> The other foreign language teachers at my school now, (Spanish and French) use word-correlation vocabulary lists to their students, even though there are many non-equivalents in those languages compared to English. Students are able to understand that in English you say "I am hungry" and in Spanish you say "I have hunger" (Yo tengo hambre).
>
> Yes, sign is visual and the languages I'm discussing are auditory; but I still think both methods can get good results, if they're used properly. My own personal ASL experience is that I learned lots of vocabulary, spent a lot of time with deaf people and practiced the language mentally even when I had nobody to sign to, and yet I never had the break through to sign more "ASL" until I was overtly taught the grammar and syntax rules (through explanations in English). Until then, I didn't know what I was seeing, and then a light bulb went off in my head.
>
> The bottom line to fluency is using the language... whether you introduce and/or drill the vocabulary your way or through word-sign correlation, using the language as much as possible in as many "scenarios" as possible makes the difference. If all you do is teach lists of words (and this could even happen without word-sign correlation per se), the student will be a walking dictionary at best. Whichever method vocabulary is introduced, it is a MUST to have students sign dialogues, poems, conversations, descriptions, etc., and for them to see lots of signing, from lots of different people -- that is what will yield fluency.
>
> Reinforcing vocabulary through these activity/game ideas isn't bad in itself, as long as class work isn't limited to that, and as long as lots of "free-range" signing happens. Unless my students could video-record me introducing signs to them, without a list they have no way to review or study outside of class. We don't have enough books.
>
> Just some thoughts...
>
> Gerrie Louden
>
> On Jun 16, 2011, at 4:31 PM, Rob Nielson wrote:
>
> One thing that I see being brought up over and over is ideas for
> activities, projects, homework, games, etc that all involve students
> matching an English word with a sign.
>
> I call this word-to-sign correlation.
>
> I want to talk about my opinions regarding word-to-sign correlation.
> (If you don't like reading my comments, you know where the delete key is.)
>
> A lot of ASL teachers I've talked with tell me that they never use
> "vocab lists" or other forms of word-to-sign correlations. And yet, I
> know many do. Perhaps they are truly not aware they're doing it? My
> file cabinets that I inherited from a previous ASL teacher is full of
> copied handouts. These handouts are pages and pages of English words
> attached to signs. Some of it is activities, some is homework, some of
> it is simply copied from sign language books. I know some teachers
> will copy the teacher's book (such as Signing Naturally) and hand that
> out to their students. Those books are not intended for the students'
> eyes. The teacher is (theoretically) supposed to be fluent enough in
> ASL that they don't have this nasty habit of thinking in English while
> signing, and so to save time and space, gloss words are used as a
> reference for prompting the teacher on what signs to cover. Eventually
> I'll get around to throwing all these copies out, but it's such a huge
> waste of paper that I haven't brought myself to do it just yet. And
> the dozen-plus sign language dictionaries she ordered? I've locked
> them in the bottom of the filing cabinet as well.
>
> Several of you have mentioned activities, games, etc. where, for
> example, the student draws a card with an English word on it and must
> fingerspell the word to someone else, who will then sign the word. (I
> totally made that up off the top of my head to avoid hurting feelings
> by mentioning specific examples.)
>
> Some of you might ask - why are word-to-sign correlations such a bad
> thing? Why the big deal about it?
>
> Let me ask you this - what is the biggest problem facing students and
> (non-native) ASL teachers when it comes to truly mastering ASL? (Or
> even being able to have a simple, basic conversation IN ASL? Not PSE,
> MCE, etc.)
>
> My opinion - getting over the hump where they stop thinking in English
> FIRST, then translating/transliterating it into ASL. In other words,
> they struggle to "THINK in ASL."
>
> What causes this problem? My opinion is that excessive use of
> word-to-sign correlations is the culprit. Not only excessive use, but
> teachers are actually ENCOURAGING and REINFORCING the use of
> word-to-sign correlations. Teachers with vocabulary lists, with games
> and activities that reinforce this BAD HABIT of matching up English
> words with signs, use of sign language dictionaries (books and
> online), and so on.
>
> If we, as ASL teachers want to improve our own signing abilities, then
> we need to start THINKING in ASL. Stop with the word-to-sign
> correlations. Speed does not equal fluency. Just because you have a
> big vocabulary and can sign fast, it doesn't mean you have native or
> near-native fluency if you're PSE/MCE/etc. In addition, if we want our
> students to understand the language, REALLY understand the language,
> then we need to stop using word-to-sign correlations in the classroom.
>
> The Signing Naturally curriculum (both the original and the new
> release) has addressed this issue DEAD ON. You will not find a single
> word-to-sign correlation ANYWHERE in any of the text, videos, or
> PowerPoints that the students will see. Why? Because back in the
> 1980's, the authors saw back then exactly what we're seeing today -
> people who continue to think in English FIRST before
> translating/transliterating it into sign.
>
> If native signers, master teachers, and leaders in their fields and in
> the Deaf world are against word-to-sign correlations, why do we insist
> on using it in our classrooms?
>
>
> Your thoughts?
>
>
> Rob Nielson
> ASL Teacher
> Westwood High School
> http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
> http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)
>
>

)

Rob,

Do you have some games and assignments (games in particular) to share with the list, that focus on grammar over vocabulary?? I'm sure many people will appreciate the suggestions for relevant activities. The more "tools" in our toolkit, the more flexible we can be with activities to get our students engaged in using the language.

CZ



On Jun 17, 2011, at 12:43 AM, Rob Nielson wrote:

> If the kids are to learn ASL grammar, the most effective way to do
> that is for them to SEE it and USE it. Games and assignments that help
> reinforce signs learned is nice (as long as they avoid word-to-sign
> correlations) but more games and assignments that focus on grammar are
> needed.

)

Sorry the other message was so long... Ignore everything after which book I use!!!

Gerrie

On Jun 17, 2011, at 5:33 AM, "C Z" <> wrote:

> Rob,
>
> Do you have some games and assignments (games in particular) to share with the list, that focus on grammar over vocabulary?? I'm sure many people will appreciate the suggestions for relevant activities. The more "tools" in our toolkit, the more flexible we can be with activities to get our students engaged in using the language.
>
> CZ
>
>
>
> On Jun 17, 2011, at 12:43 AM, Rob Nielson wrote:
>
>> If the kids are to learn ASL grammar, the most effective way to do
>> that is for them to SEE it and USE it. Games and assignments that help
>> reinforce signs learned is nice (as long as they avoid word-to-sign
>> correlations) but more games and assignments that focus on grammar are
>> needed.
>

)

Gerrie and Rob,

Thanks for your posts. As a newbie teacher, I love learning from you guys.

Rob, question: how does one learn to THINK in ASL? Specifically, how does one
TEACH how to think in ASL? Clearly, there those who are native language users
and those who are masters, but that involved years and years of learning and
using the language. How do we, who only have two years at best with the
students, teach them this critical component?

kat

)

With the Jenga game, I will also have student use language to get the student to sign the word. For example, ME FEEL SICK GO-TO WHERE? The student has to some up with HOSPITAL. That's a good way to avoid signs to lists and focus more on receptive skills and comprehension. I do that too. I do a little of everything. I personally don't think lists are that bad. Yes, if that's all you use. But right before a test to reinforce the key words, I actually think it helps the students. Because regardless of if you give them a list or not, they will all make a mental list anyways of what each word means. If I sign YELLOW, they are all going to mentally think Oh, that's the sign for yellow, the association is made. I don't use lists at all when introducing vocabulary and during the class activities, but only in the chapter review right before a test. I like it.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 16, 2011, at 9:43 PM, "Rob Nielson" <> wrote:

> Good comments Gerrie -
>
> A few comments of my own in return.
>
> You're right, there are basically two main approaches to teaching a
> non-L1 language: 1) to use the TL only, 2) to contrast TL with L1.
>
> However, what I'm referring to is those teachers who don't do either.
> In other words, they cover lots and lots of signs, but they cover very
> little grammar, or cover it in such a way that the L1 totally
> overpowers/overrides it. Or, they teach it and talk about it, but
> don't make it a day-to-day part of the classroom. With constant,
> ongoing exposure to it as well as having the students mimic it and
> emulate it.
>
> In other words, the teachers teach the students to sign exactly like
> them - PSE/MCE/etc.
>
> And I'm not going to pick on just the PSE teachers either... I've had
> to tutor advanced college level ASL students who had a Deaf teacher
> that had no business being in a classroom because he did not know HOW
> to teach. His wife was the interpreter coordinator at the college and
> I had sources that told me he was asking her to give him lesson plans.
>
> All of this is a result of teachers that focus heavily on vocabulary,
> but grammar is an afterthought.
>
> For example (quoting you) - "The other foreign language teachers at my
> school now, (Spanish and French) use word-correlation vocabulary lists
> to their students, even though there are many non-equivalents in those
> languages compared to English. Students are able to understand that
> in English you say "I am hungry" and in Spanish you say "I have
> hunger" (Yo tengo hambre)."
>
> Yes, there might be some word-correlation going on such as
> hunger/hambre, but that is quickly (and heavily) followed with LOTS of
> grammatical work through speaking, listening, reading, and writing
> exercises.
>
> How do many ASL teachers give grammatical work? By having students
> GLOSS!!! Heaven forbid! That's just making the word-to-sign
> correlation more ingrained. Now, I know some of you will say something
> like - "But glossing helps my students to see the grammar structure in
> a formal way and gives them the opportunity to think through it, etc."
> Balderdash!! Remember those advanced ASL students I was tutoring?
> Their teacher told them he wanted them to gloss the entire "Princess
> and the Pea" story first, then they were to sign it in class,
> following their glossing exactly. They literally came to me in TEARS.
> Crying out of pure frustration because they couldn't figure out how to
> correctly and adequately gloss the story. My response? Ignore the
> teacher. SIGN the story first, work out how you want to tell the
> story, then after you're comfortable with signing it, gloss it out for
> the teacher. In other words, glossing frequently becomes a limit, a
> hindrance, a stumbling block rather than a building tool because it
> uses English and when students use glossing, they're reinforcing the
> "think in English, then translate it to ASL" habit.
>
> When a student is learning how to say something in Spanish, he doesn't
> use English to write out how he plans to say it does he? Glossing is
> not a written form of ASL. So making students use it as a "tool" for
> learning the language is not going to help them. Constantly writing
> out word-to-sign correlations using their L1 (glossing) is not
> teaching them ASL. Where's the signs? Where's the grammar being SEEN
> in action? Writing ASL grammar concepts out in English once in a while
> to maybe explain an elusive concept is understandable, but creating
> entire assignments and lesson plans based on it? Wow....
>
> If the kids are to learn ASL grammar, the most effective way to do
> that is for them to SEE it and USE it. Games and assignments that help
> reinforce signs learned is nice (as long as they avoid word-to-sign
> correlations) but more games and assignments that focus on grammar are
> needed. Things that focus primarily on vocab are not going to help
> these kids learn correct ASL.
>
> And, your comment about video-recording. Excellent idea actually. If
> you look at my YouTube channel, my students created a video to help
> them remember the signs for the colors (I think the video is called
> "rainbow of colors" or something like that). If you'll notice, there's
> not one single word-to-sign correlation in the video, and yet, the
> vocabulary is reinforced very adequately. This is a perfect way for
> the kids to create their own review material and have fun doing it at
> the same time. Then, videos like this can be put on flash drives or
> DVDs, uploaded to private YouTube channels, or put on AMPmoodle (hint,
> hint) and shared with other teachers creating similar content to teach
> signs and grammar.
>
> Good discussion, let's keep it going...
>
>
>
> Rob Nielson
> ASL Teacher
> Westwood High School
> http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
> http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
>> My thoughts on this matter are based on my experience learning Spanish and German in high school/college, what I was taught regarding teaching a foreign (or second) language to people (as part of my Cross Cultural Language and Development certificate classes, required by the state of California).
>>
>> In one of the CLAD classes, the teacher mentioned that essentially there are two overall approaches to teaching a new language to a student. Both of these approaches have pros and cons to them. One is to never use the student's first language at all, but teach the new language as "another first language". That is what you describe and use, Rob. In this method, the new language is taught using photos, realia, gestures, mime, etc. , and later, circumlocution (where you use what you know to learn new nouns from context, etc.)
>>
>> The second approach is to use what a student knows of grammatical and syntactical rules of his own language, and compare/contrast those with the structure and pieces of the new language you are teaching.
>>
>> I have heard that true fluency means you are able to think in that language, and not go through the "translation" process in the mind before you want to express something int he new language. Language acquisition tables and charts seem to indicate this doesn't usually happen until the learner reaches the 2nd or 3rd level of proficiency.
>>
>> All of that said, I learned Spanish from various teachers through the years that used both methods. I learned German from a native German who used sort of a drill-and-kill approach using dialogues for us to memorize, and no other German was ever used in class, which annoyed and frustrated me greatly. It's hard for me to compare the two, because I had Spanish from 4th grade, through high school and college, but only took two years of high school German. The remarkable thing is that when I first met my German-born sister-in-law and had to speak German because her English was limited, the German started coming back to me, and I can hold basic conversations in German when I go visit my brother over there.
>>
>> The other foreign language teachers at my school now, (Spanish and French) use word-correlation vocabulary lists to their students, even though there are many non-equivalents in those languages compared to English. Students are able to understand that in English you say "I am hungry" and in Spanish you say "I have hunger" (Yo tengo hambre).
>>
>> Yes, sign is visual and the languages I'm discussing are auditory; but I still think both methods can get good results, if they're used properly. My own personal ASL experience is that I learned lots of vocabulary, spent a lot of time with deaf people and practiced the language mentally even when I had nobody to sign to, and yet I never had the break through to sign more "ASL" until I was overtly taught the grammar and syntax rules (through explanations in English). Until then, I didn't know what I was seeing, and then a light bulb went off in my head.
>>
>> The bottom line to fluency is using the language... whether you introduce and/or drill the vocabulary your way or through word-sign correlation, using the language as much as possible in as many "scenarios" as possible makes the difference. If all you do is teach lists of words (and this could even happen without word-sign correlation per se), the student will be a walking dictionary at best. Whichever method vocabulary is introduced, it is a MUST to have students sign dialogues, poems, conversations, descriptions, etc., and for them to see lots of signing, from lots of different people -- that is what will yield fluency.
>>
>> Reinforcing vocabulary through these activity/game ideas isn't bad in itself, as long as class work isn't limited to that, and as long as lots of "free-range" signing happens. Unless my students could video-record me introducing signs to them, without a list they have no way to review or study outside of class. We don't have enough books.
>>
>> Just some thoughts...
>>
>> Gerrie Louden
>>
>> On Jun 16, 2011, at 4:31 PM, Rob Nielson wrote:
>>
>> One thing that I see being brought up over and over is ideas for
>> activities, projects, homework, games, etc that all involve students
>> matching an English word with a sign.
>>
>> I call this word-to-sign correlation.
>>
>> I want to talk about my opinions regarding word-to-sign correlation.
>> (If you don't like reading my comments, you know where the delete key is.)
>>
>> A lot of ASL teachers I've talked with tell me that they never use
>> "vocab lists" or other forms of word-to-sign correlations. And yet, I
>> know many do. Perhaps they are truly not aware they're doing it? My
>> file cabinets that I inherited from a previous ASL teacher is full of
>> copied handouts. These handouts are pages and pages of English words
>> attached to signs. Some of it is activities, some is homework, some of
>> it is simply copied from sign language books. I know some teachers
>> will copy the teacher's book (such as Signing Naturally) and hand that
>> out to their students. Those books are not intended for the students'
>> eyes. The teacher is (theoretically) supposed to be fluent enough in
>> ASL that they don't have this nasty habit of thinking in English while
>> signing, and so to save time and space, gloss words are used as a
>> reference for prompting the teacher on what signs to cover. Eventually
>> I'll get around to throwing all these copies out, but it's such a huge
>> waste of paper that I haven't brought myself to do it just yet. And
>> the dozen-plus sign language dictionaries she ordered? I've locked
>> them in the bottom of the filing cabinet as well.
>>
>> Several of you have mentioned activities, games, etc. where, for
>> example, the student draws a card with an English word on it and must
>> fingerspell the word to someone else, who will then sign the word. (I
>> totally made that up off the top of my head to avoid hurting feelings
>> by mentioning specific examples.)
>>
>> Some of you might ask - why are word-to-sign correlations such a bad
>> thing? Why the big deal about it?
>>
>> Let me ask you this - what is the biggest problem facing students and
>> (non-native) ASL teachers when it comes to truly mastering ASL? (Or
>> even being able to have a simple, basic conversation IN ASL? Not PSE,
>> MCE, etc.)
>>
>> My opinion - getting over the hump where they stop thinking in English
>> FIRST, then translating/transliterating it into ASL. In other words,
>> they struggle to "THINK in ASL."
>>
>> What causes this problem? My opinion is that excessive use of
>> word-to-sign correlations is the culprit. Not only excessive use, but
>> teachers are actually ENCOURAGING and REINFORCING the use of
>> word-to-sign correlations. Teachers with vocabulary lists, with games
>> and activities that reinforce this BAD HABIT of matching up English
>> words with signs, use of sign language dictionaries (books and
>> online), and so on.
>>
>> If we, as ASL teachers want to improve our own signing abilities, then
>> we need to start THINKING in ASL. Stop with the word-to-sign
>> correlations. Speed does not equal fluency. Just because you have a
>> big vocabulary and can sign fast, it doesn't mean you have native or
>> near-native fluency if you're PSE/MCE/etc. In addition, if we want our
>> students to understand the language, REALLY understand the language,
>> then we need to stop using word-to-sign correlations in the classroom.
>>
>> The Signing Naturally curriculum (both the original and the new
>> release) has addressed this issue DEAD ON. You will not find a single
>> word-to-sign correlation ANYWHERE in any of the text, videos, or
>> PowerPoints that the students will see. Why? Because back in the
>> 1980's, the authors saw back then exactly what we're seeing today -
>> people who continue to think in English FIRST before
>> translating/transliterating it into sign.
>>
>> If native signers, master teachers, and leaders in their fields and in
>> the Deaf world are against word-to-sign correlations, why do we insist
>> on using it in our classrooms?
>>
>>
>> Your thoughts?
>>
>>
>> Rob Nielson
>> ASL Teacher
>> Westwood High School
>> http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
>> http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)
>>
>>
>

)

I second that. Give us some examples of what you do to avoid using ANY English.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 17, 2011, at 5:33 AM, "C Z" <> wrote:

> Rob,
>
> Do you have some games and assignments (games in particular) to share with the list, that focus on grammar over vocabulary?? I'm sure many people will appreciate the suggestions for relevant activities. The more "tools" in our toolkit, the more flexible we can be with activities to get our students engaged in using the language.
>
> CZ
>
>
>
> On Jun 17, 2011, at 12:43 AM, Rob Nielson wrote:
>
>> If the kids are to learn ASL grammar, the most effective way to do
>> that is for them to SEE it and USE it. Games and assignments that help
>> reinforce signs learned is nice (as long as they avoid word-to-sign
>> correlations) but more games and assignments that focus on grammar are
>> needed.
>

)

Amen brother. My exact thoughts.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 16, 2011, at 5:30 PM, "Gerrie Louden" <> wrote:

> My thoughts on this matter are based on my experience learning Spanish and German in high school/college, what I was taught regarding teaching a foreign (or second) language to people (as part of my Cross Cultural Language and Development certificate classes, required by the state of California).
>
> In one of the CLAD classes, the teacher mentioned that essentially there are two overall approaches to teaching a new language to a student. Both of these approaches have pros and cons to them. One is to never use the student's first language at all, but teach the new language as "another first language". That is what you describe and use, Rob. In this method, the new language is taught using photos, realia, gestures, mime, etc. , and later, circumlocution (where you use what you know to learn new nouns from context, etc.)
>
> The second approach is to use what a student knows of grammatical and syntactical rules of his own language, and compare/contrast those with the structure and pieces of the new language you are teaching.
>
> I have heard that true fluency means you are able to think in that language, and not go through the "translation" process in the mind before you want to express something int he new language. Language acquisition tables and charts seem to indicate this doesn't usually happen until the learner reaches the 2nd or 3rd level of proficiency.
>
> All of that said, I learned Spanish from various teachers through the years that used both methods. I learned German from a native German who used sort of a drill-and-kill approach using dialogues for us to memorize, and no other German was ever used in class, which annoyed and frustrated me greatly. It's hard for me to compare the two, because I had Spanish from 4th grade, through high school and college, but only took two years of high school German. The remarkable thing is that when I first met my German-born sister-in-law and had to speak German because her English was limited, the German started coming back to me, and I can hold basic conversations in German when I go visit my brother over there.
>
> The other foreign language teachers at my school now, (Spanish and French) use word-correlation vocabulary lists to their students, even though there are many non-equivalents in those languages compared to English. Students are able to understand that in English you say "I am hungry" and in Spanish you say "I have hunger" (Yo tengo hambre).
>
> Yes, sign is visual and the languages I'm discussing are auditory; but I still think both methods can get good results, if they're used properly. My own personal ASL experience is that I learned lots of vocabulary, spent a lot of time with deaf people and practiced the language mentally even when I had nobody to sign to, and yet I never had the break through to sign more "ASL" until I was overtly taught the grammar and syntax rules (through explanations in English). Until then, I didn't know what I was seeing, and then a light bulb went off in my head.
>
> The bottom line to fluency is using the language... whether you introduce and/or drill the vocabulary your way or through word-sign correlation, using the language as much as possible in as many "scenarios" as possible makes the difference. If all you do is teach lists of words (and this could even happen without word-sign correlation per se), the student will be a walking dictionary at best. Whichever method vocabulary is introduced, it is a MUST to have students sign dialogues, poems, conversations, descriptions, etc., and for them to see lots of signing, from lots of different people -- that is what will yield fluency.
>
> Reinforcing vocabulary through these activity/game ideas isn't bad in itself, as long as class work isn't limited to that, and as long as lots of "free-range" signing happens. Unless my students could video-record me introducing signs to them, without a list they have no way to review or study outside of class. We don't have enough books.
>
> Just some thoughts...
>
> Gerrie Louden
>
> On Jun 16, 2011, at 4:31 PM, Rob Nielson wrote:
>
> One thing that I see being brought up over and over is ideas for
> activities, projects, homework, games, etc that all involve students
> matching an English word with a sign.
>
> I call this word-to-sign correlation.
>
> I want to talk about my opinions regarding word-to-sign correlation.
> (If you don't like reading my comments, you know where the delete key is.)
>
> A lot of ASL teachers I've talked with tell me that they never use
> "vocab lists" or other forms of word-to-sign correlations. And yet, I
> know many do. Perhaps they are truly not aware they're doing it? My
> file cabinets that I inherited from a previous ASL teacher is full of
> copied handouts. These handouts are pages and pages of English words
> attached to signs. Some of it is activities, some is homework, some of
> it is simply copied from sign language books. I know some teachers
> will copy the teacher's book (such as Signing Naturally) and hand that
> out to their students. Those books are not intended for the students'
> eyes. The teacher is (theoretically) supposed to be fluent enough in
> ASL that they don't have this nasty habit of thinking in English while
> signing, and so to save time and space, gloss words are used as a
> reference for prompting the teacher on what signs to cover. Eventually
> I'll get around to throwing all these copies out, but it's such a huge
> waste of paper that I haven't brought myself to do it just yet. And
> the dozen-plus sign language dictionaries she ordered? I've locked
> them in the bottom of the filing cabinet as well.
>
> Several of you have mentioned activities, games, etc. where, for
> example, the student draws a card with an English word on it and must
> fingerspell the word to someone else, who will then sign the word. (I
> totally made that up off the top of my head to avoid hurting feelings
> by mentioning specific examples.)
>
> Some of you might ask - why are word-to-sign correlations such a bad
> thing? Why the big deal about it?
>
> Let me ask you this - what is the biggest problem facing students and
> (non-native) ASL teachers when it comes to truly mastering ASL? (Or
> even being able to have a simple, basic conversation IN ASL? Not PSE,
> MCE, etc.)
>
> My opinion - getting over the hump where they stop thinking in English
> FIRST, then translating/transliterating it into ASL. In other words,
> they struggle to "THINK in ASL."
>
> What causes this problem? My opinion is that excessive use of
> word-to-sign correlations is the culprit. Not only excessive use, but
> teachers are actually ENCOURAGING and REINFORCING the use of
> word-to-sign correlations. Teachers with vocabulary lists, with games
> and activities that reinforce this BAD HABIT of matching up English
> words with signs, use of sign language dictionaries (books and
> online), and so on.
>
> If we, as ASL teachers want to improve our own signing abilities, then
> we need to start THINKING in ASL. Stop with the word-to-sign
> correlations. Speed does not equal fluency. Just because you have a
> big vocabulary and can sign fast, it doesn't mean you have native or
> near-native fluency if you're PSE/MCE/etc. In addition, if we want our
> students to understand the language, REALLY understand the language,
> then we need to stop using word-to-sign correlations in the classroom.
>
> The Signing Naturally curriculum (both the original and the new
> release) has addressed this issue DEAD ON. You will not find a single
> word-to-sign correlation ANYWHERE in any of the text, videos, or
> PowerPoints that the students will see. Why? Because back in the
> 1980's, the authors saw back then exactly what we're seeing today -
> people who continue to think in English FIRST before
> translating/transliterating it into sign.
>
> If native signers, master teachers, and leaders in their fields and in
> the Deaf world are against word-to-sign correlations, why do we insist
> on using it in our classrooms?
>
>
> Your thoughts?
>
>
> Rob Nielson
> ASL Teacher
> Westwood High School
> http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
> http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)
>

)