To ensure smooth communication and collaboration, here are some troubleshooting tips to address common issues:
Check Internet Connection: Verify that you have a stable and reliable internet connection. Use a wired connection when possible, as it tends to be more stable than Wi-Fi. If using Wi-Fi, make sure you have a strong signal.
Update the Browser or App: Ensure that you are using the latest version of the web browser. Developers frequently release updates to address bugs and improve performance.
Clear Browser Cache: Sometimes, cached data can cause conflicts or issues. Clear the browser cache and cookies before joining the meeting.
Test Audio and Video: Before the meeting, check your microphone and camera to ensure they are working correctly. If you are a speaker, you can click on "Start Practice Session" button test to ensure audio and video devices are functioning.
Close Other Applications: Running multiple applications in the background can consume system resources and lead to performance issues. Close unnecessary apps to free up resources for the Dryfta meeting platform.
Restart Your Device: If you encounter persistent issues, try restarting your computer or mobile device. This can help resolve various software-related problems.
Use Supported Browsers: Ensure you are using a browser supported by the meeting platform. Recommended browsers: Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and Brave.
Allow Necessary Permissions: Make sure the Dryfta meeting platform has the required permissions to access your microphone, camera, and other necessary features.
Disable VPN or Firewall: Sometimes, VPNs or firewalls can interfere with the connection to the meeting platform. Temporarily disable them and see if the issue persists.
Switch Devices: If possible, try joining the meeting from a different device to see if the problem is specific to one device.
Reduce Bandwidth Usage: In cases of slow or unstable internet connections, ask participants to disable video or share video selectively to reduce bandwidth consumption.
Update Drivers and Software: Ensure your operating system, audio drivers, and video drivers are up to date. Outdated drivers can cause compatibility issues with the Dryfta meeting platform.
Contact Support: If none of the above steps resolve the issue, reach out to the platform's support team. They can provide personalized assistance and troubleshoot specific problems.
By following these troubleshooting tips, you can tackle many common problems encountered on Dryfta meeting platform and have a more productive and seamless meeting experience.
Ethical dilemmas in educational research with d/Deaf and hard of hearing immigrants
Oral Presentation[SYMP49] Migrant Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Additional Language Learners03:00 PM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/19 13:00:00 UTC - 2024/07/19 16:00:00 UTC
Deaf and hard of hearing learners who have recently immigrated and are multilingual (IDMLs; learners with a home language that varies from the dominant culture spoken language [e.g., English] or sign language [e.g., American Sign Language; British Sign Language] and who have recently immigrated) are a low-incidence, diverse and vulnerable population.. Throughout the research process with IDMLs researchers are confronted with ethical questions and dilemmas (Sivunen, 2019; Duggan & Holmström, in press). Intersecting categories of identity in relation to d/Deaf and hard of hearing people require multiple lenses for addressing issues which cross section this subset of populations and particularly the category of migration status. In addition, power hierarchies within the subset and between majority and minority positions operate from ideologies about language, disability, race and ethnicity. Researchers should conduct ethically sensitive research which scrutinize power inequalities, including their own positions. Furthermore, establishing principles which acknowledge how processes and reviews of what is deemed as ethical research also may contribute to research being hindered or being carried out at all. It is therefore paramount that for example ethics of informed consent which are designed for facilitating communication about research processes must include all levels of communication skills not the least those who are in powers of position regarding which research will be done and unknowledgeable about the situations in the field of education, Deaf Studies etc. So on one hand extensive ethical aspects need to be considered when researching with IDMLs, on the other hand no specific ethical guidelines on this issue exist. According to this desideratum, the goals of this research project are to: (1) define ethical questions and dilemmas in research with IDMLs; (2) delineate specific ethical guidelines for research with IDMLs to establish a much needed standard for researching this vulnerable group. To reach these goals, two types of data collection will be conducted: (1) scoping review on ethical aspects already considered in research on DHH children and adolescents and (ID)MLs; (2) expert interviews with experienced researchers in the field of IDMLs as well as IDMLs themselves, who have already taken part in research.
References
Duggan, N. & Holmström, I. (in press) “They have no language”: Exploring language ideologies in adult education for deaf migrants. Apples - Journal of Applied Language Studies.
Sivunen, N. (2019) An Ethnographic Study of Deaf Refugees Seeking Asylum in Finland. Societies, 9(2), 1-16.
Perspectives and Trends of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching strategies in classrooms with d/Deaf and hard of hearing learners who have recently immigrated and are multilingual
Oral Presentation[SYMP49] Migrant Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Additional Language Learners03:00 PM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/19 13:00:00 UTC - 2024/07/19 16:00:00 UTC
The goals of this research project are to: (1) understand teachers' perspectives of how to meet the culturally and linguistically responsive needs of d/Deaf and hard of hearing learners internationally who are multilingual (IDML); (2) empower teachers through the process of reflection using video examples that contain culturally and linguistically responsive teaching strategies (CLRT); and (3) examine ways to use video examples to prepare educators to use CLRT. Two types of data collection will be conducted: (1) survey and focus groups (data to explore goals 1-3); and (2) video examples of CLRT (data to explore goals 2 & 3). The survey and focus groups will include teachers and other professionals working with IDMLs. From these data sets, we will gather contact information of teachers who agree to be recorded to capture CLRT strategies. Quantitative survey results will be reported, as well as qualitative analysis of open-ended questions and focus group responses relevant to addressing goals 1-3.
Argument: In the education of of d/Deaf and hard of hearing learners internationally who are multilingual (IDMLs; learners with a home language that varies from the dominant culture spoken language [e.g., English] or sign language [e.g., American Sign Language; British Sign Language]) culturally and linguistically responsive teaching (CLRT) strategies are recommended throughout the literature (McCain & Farnsworth, 2018). Examples of CLRT strategies include: explicit instruction, decodable texts, using prediction, observing patterns in text, using sign language story videos, experiential learning, peer learning, using context clues, and activating background knowledge. Many of these strategies are already recommended for learners who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing, yet there appears to be minimal professional development on how to apply these strategies with IDMLs (Cannon & Luckner, 2016; Scott, et al., 2022). Therefore, our research team sought avenues to increase clarity regarding what CLRT strategies are, how they look in practice, and how we can better provide professional development to encourage utilization of these strategies by educators who work with IDMLs. The team developed three major goals of the project to address this need: (1) understand teachers' perspectives on cultural competence, how to meet culturally and linguistically responsive needs of IDMLs; (2) empower teachers through reflection of video examples of CLRT; and (3) examine ways to use those video examples to prepare educators how to use CLRT. To accomplish these goals we plan to collect two types of data: (1) survey and focus groups ; and (2) video examples of CLRT (data to answer Goals 2 & 3). Data from the surveys and focus groups will be used to explore goals 1-3 and the video examples will be used to explore goals 2 and 3. The survey and focus groups will include teachers and other professionals working with IDMLs. From these data sets, we will gather contact information of teachers who agree to be recorded to capture CLRT strategies. The international research team will have researchers across 4-5 countries/research sites to collect both types of data. Each research team will conduct a pilot study the first year of the project to resolve any issues before collecting further data. Preliminary data from the international pilot study will be presented during this symposium. Quantitative survey results will be reported, as well as qualitative analysis of open-ended questions and focus group responses to determine themes that may be relevant to preparing teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing to use CLRT strategies.
References
Cannon, J. E., & Luckner, J. (2016). Increasing cultural and linguistic diversity in Deaf education teacher preparation programs. American Annals of the Deaf, 161(1), 89-103.
McCain, G., & Farnsworth, M. (2018). Determining difference from disability: What culturally responsive teachers should know. Routledge.
Scott, J., Amadi, C., & Butts, T. (2022). d/Deaf and hard-of-hearing multilingual learners and literacy instruction. In J. E. Cannon, C. Guardino, & & P. V. Paul (Eds.), Deaf and hard of hearing multilingual learners: Foundations, strategies, and resources (pp. 142-174). Routledge.
Assessing spoken, written and sign languages of IDML – a multilingual, multimodal approach
Oral Presentation[SYMP49] Migrant Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Additional Language Learners03:00 PM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/19 13:00:00 UTC - 2024/07/19 16:00:00 UTC
Assessing the bimodal-plurilingual language profiles of immigrant d/Deaf and hard-of-hearing learners (IDML), and specifically their languages development, is a major challenge, as it involves considering the spoken, written, and/or sign languages of the host country in addition to learners' home language(s) (Cannon/Marx, submitted 2022). As well as language proficiency, assessments should consider the complexity of multilingual development by considering aspects affecting development such as age of acquisition, opportunities for language use, competencies in further languages, and language varieties (Paradis et al., 2011), and for refugee learners, experiences of limited or interrupted education and trauma (Prawiro-Atmodjo et al. 2020). This complexity results in challenges for language assessment, which is aggravated by the fact that most standardized instruments for spoken and written language are not normed for d/DHH learners, and there is a lack of appropriate instruments for sign languages in general (Pizzo & Chilvers, 2016). Subsequently, the validity of language assessments presently used for IDML is questionable. This is a major issue both for research and for pedagogy. In order to address this issue in the German context, a comparison of different available assessment instruments was carried out. The aim of the reported study was (1) to examine available spoken, written and sign language assessments, both tests and ratings, (2) to test them with the target population of IDML, and (3) to provide recommendations for researchers and teachers. In a number of trials beginning in June 2022, IDML at secondary-school level were tested with instruments developed for German-language contexts to determine inter-test validity. To assess written and spoken language, the instruments PERLESKO (Prüfverfahren zur Erfassung lexikalisch-semantischer Kompetenz, a test for receptive vocabulary knowledge developed for DHH learners), the SFD (Sprachstandsüberprüfung und Förderdiagnostik, a test for listening comprehension developed for L1 and L2 speakers), and 2P (Potenzial & Perspektive – Ein Analyseverfahren für neu Zugewanderte, a diagnostic tool for listening, reading, writing and vocabulary skills developed for newly arrived hearing immigrant learners) were used, while to assess German sign language, PERLESKO and NAKOM (Narrative Kompetenzen, assessing narrative production in sign language) were utilized. Finally, a comparison of skills in different languages was carried out using the SOLOM (Student Oral Language Observation Matrix) to determine use of spoken and signed German and family language(s). The results of the ongoing assessment study shed light on the potential for existing instruments to provide necessary and useful information for research and teaching practice. Bibliography: Cannon, J., & Marx, N. (submitted, 2022). Scoping Review of Methodologies across Language Studies with DHH Multilingual Learners. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. Paradis, J. (2011). Individual differences in child English second language acquisition: Comparing child-internal and child-external factors. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(3), 213–237. Pizzo, L., & Chilvers, A. (2016). Assessment and d/Deaf and Hard of Hearing multilingual learners: Considerations and promising practices. American Annals of the Deaf, 161(1), 56–66. Prawiro-Atmodjo, P., Elsendoorn, B., Reedijk, H., & Maas, M. (2020). Educating DHH migrant children. Kentalis.
“Why the long nose?”: Navigating linguistic and social codes in language learning classrooms for deaf migrants
Oral Presentation[SYMP49] Migrant Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Additional Language Learners03:00 PM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/19 13:00:00 UTC - 2024/07/19 16:00:00 UTC
Language is a social practice with specific linguistic and social codes used in specific contexts and these codes are often inherited at young age, usually within the family and in formal education. Bourdieu (1991) coined the term 'capital' to describe the accumulation of linguistic and social skills that predetermines a person's position in society. For many European countries, linguistic skills are often seen as a valuable capital necessary for migrants to be able to successfully integrate into their societies. This can be seen in Sweden where the government places great emphasis on the importance for migrants to learn Swedish in order to them to be able to participate fully in Swedish society (Fejes & Dahlstedt, 2017). In addition, knowledge of the Swedish language is seen as one of the most important skills for migrants if they were to enter the labour market. However, the migrants' capital, accumulated before coming to Sweden, can be valued differently depending on different contexts (Zschomler, 2019). Blommaert (2007) notes that one of the sociolinguistic effects of mobility is the detachment of language practices from their "original" space as one moves to a new space. Linguistic and social capital may not always be transferrable in new spaces thus one has to learn not just new languages but also new codes.
The presentation is based on data from an ongoing research project 'The multilingual situation of deaf refugees in Sweden' which focuses on deaf migrants' language learning, specifically Swedish Sign Language and Swedish, in four folk high schools across Sweden. The data is generated using an ethnographic approach of classroom observations and semi-structured interviews with the migrants and the teachers. For this presentation, the focus will be on the relation between deaf migrants' backgrounds, particularly their language background, and the classrooms' communication and teaching practices.
The presentation will show how learning new languages, for deaf migrants, sometimes requires specific previous knowledge. For instance, the migrants not only need to understand the meanings behind metaphors, they also need to know what metaphors are and how to use them. In addition, certain tasks assigned by the teachers are culturally-related and require the migrants to know the Swedish way of life in order to be able to do these tasks. These instances show that some communication practices as well as teachings in the classrooms require migrants to have certain linguistic and social capital that need to be accumulated beforehand.
References Blommaert, J. (2007) Sociolinguistic scales. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4-1, 1-9.
Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Polity Press.
Fejes & Dahlstedt (2017) Popular education, migration and a discourse of inclusion. Studies in the Education of Adults, 49(2), 214-227.
Zschomler, S. (2019) 'Language is your dignity': Migration, linguistic capital, and the experience of re/de-valuation. Languages, 4(3), 64.
Communicative Practices and Competencies of Deaf Migrants in Austria
Oral Presentation[SYMP49] Migrant Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Additional Language Learners03:00 PM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/19 13:00:00 UTC - 2024/07/19 16:00:00 UTC
Deaf migrants are confronted with many linguistic and social challenges but also demonstrate a unique communicative potential. The presented ongoing research study explores the language background and current language use and competencies of ten D/deaf migrant signers through semi-structured interviews conducted by a Deaf signer of Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Specifically, the following research questions will be addressed: (1) Which communication practices and strategies do the participants employ and what are their usage preferences? (2) How competent are they according to their own and others' assessment? (3) To which experiences could observed differences be attributed? The aim is, on the one hand, to explore and acknowledge the complex semiotic repertoires (Kusters et al., 2017) of the participants and, on the other hand, to aid in creating environments that promote the well-being and successful communication of this group. The concept of semiotic repertoires includes two important notions: firstly, that languages are not bounded systems and secondly, that repertoires are not solely "linguistic". The differences between participants are explored through a two-fold approach: First, each participants' general (functional) as well as ÖGS-specific (formal) competence is rated both by the participants themselves as well as two expert Deaf native ÖGS signers (in a procedure adapted from the SLPI; e.g., Newell et al., 1983). Secondly, participants' non-ÖGS-based communicative strategies are analyzed, whereby instances of, for example, innovative and broad use of iconicity, international sign resources, or resources from previously acquired languages are coded, categorized and interpreted through an inductive, data-driven approach. Findings demonstrate the heterogeneity of this unique demographic and provide a first understanding of the way different linguistic experiences and socialization shape the current practices of D/deaf migrants in Austria. Additionally, they reveal insights into the participants' processes of social and cultural integration. Their semiotic repertoires include different sign languages alongside other ways of meaning-making such as gesture, literacy-based strategies and interactions with the environment. Most participants report on competencies in at least four languages and actively use at least two sign languages as well as German. Usage preferences reveal, among other things, a tendency to sign ÖGS even with signers from the same country of origin and participants' own children. Potential explanations for differences in competencies are discussed and include age of acquisition, knowledge of structurally similar sign languages and extent of contact with signing communities which is also connected to predominant attitudes about signing. References Kusters, A., Spotti, M., Swanwick, R. & E. Tapio (2017). Beyond Languages, Beyond Modalities: Transforming the Study of Semiotic Repertoires. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(3), 219-232. Newell, W., Caccamise, F., Boardman, K., & Holcomb, B.R. (1983). Adaptation of the Language Proficiency Interview (LPI) for Assessing Sign Communicative Competence. Sign Language Studies, 41, 311-352. Sivunen, N. & Tapio, E. (2020). "Do you understand (me)?" negotiating mutual understanding by using gaze and environmentally coupled gestures between two deaf signing participants. Applied Linguistics Review. Zeshan, U. (2015). "Making meaning": Communication between sign language users without a shared language. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(2), 211-260.
The linguistic profiles of deaf migrants with different language acquisition backgrounds – an account of their syntactic production
Oral Presentation[SYMP49] Migrant Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Additional Language Learners03:00 PM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/19 13:00:00 UTC - 2024/07/19 16:00:00 UTC
Previous research on deaf late learners suggests that these individuals' language learning takes a different path that seems more similar to that of child L1 learners regarding syntactic development (e.g., Cheng & Mayberry, 2019). However, we do not know about these learners' syntactic production compared to L2 learners of a sign language. Therefore, this study aims to describe the syntactic production in two groups of sign language learners, of whom one group consists of adult late learners who are learning a formal sign language for the first time, i.e., Swedish Sign Language (STS) and one group who have acquired a sign language since early childhood and now is learning STS as an L2. Our analysis focus on the use of syntactic arguments and word order patterns. Our preliminary results revealed that the late learners' syntactic profile differs from L2 learners'. Furthermore, despite the more prolonged exposure to STS, the late learners exhibited a basic word order pattern compared to the L2 learners. The preliminary findings support previous knowledge about the effects of Age of Acquisition (AoA) on the outcomes for language learning. The findings are discussed in light of educational interventions for the deaf migrant group.
In Sweden, many deaf migrants are enrolled in education programs that teach them Swedish Sign Language (STS) and Swedish. Within our 4-year research project on deaf migrants' multilingual situation in Sweden (Mulder), we have collected STS linguistic data from 39 migrants with different linguistic experiences and backgrounds. Among those, we could identify two groups of learners with two separate but similar backgrounds: 1) those who have undergone formal education and have an appropriate language development background (n=9), and 2) those with limited education experience and delayed language acquisition background (n=9). Participants of group 1 (L2 learners) have resided in Sweden for an average of 4,5 months. Group 2 (late learners) has lived there for an average of 5,4 years. Both groups are enrolled in non-formal adult education programs learning STS in an STS-rich and deaf-friendly environment. In addition, we have comparison data consisting of 9 Swedish L1 signers. In previous studies on late sign language learners, their syntactic patterns are known to differ from L1 sign language users, specifically regarding basic word order (e.g., Lillo-Martin & Berk, 2003; Cheng & Mayberry, 2019). While these studies have focused on late vs. native ASL users, our study includes late learners, L2 learners, and L1 signers. The aim is to examine the two groups' syntactic constructions in STS, focusing on syntactic arguments and word order patterns. For this, we used data from an elicitation task. The participants watched a short video clip from "The Plank" and retold the story in STS. The data were transcribed using ELAN software and coded for sign glosses, clause units, and syntactic arguments (subject, verb, object, etc.). The arguments and word order patterns were analyzed and compared across the groups. The preliminary findings revealed that group 2's word order pattern is more basic, consisting of SV. In contrast, group 1's word order is more complex, consisting of more advanced word order, similar to Swedish L1 signers. This is interesting concerning the difference in length of STS exposure between group 1 and group 2. Thus, our findings support previous general findings linked to AoA effects on language learning, i.e., the importance of a robust language acquisition background for further learning an additional language. Furthermore, we suggest that the deaf migrant group cannot be treated and educated following a "one size fits all"-model. Still, more resources must be given to those with limited education and language background to promote language learning for better social integration. References Cheng, Q., & Mayberry, R. I. (2019). Acquiring a first language in adolescence: the case of basic word order in American Sign Language. Journal of child language, 46(2), 214-240. Lillo-Martin, D., & Berk, S. (2003). Acquisition of constituent order under delayed language exposure. In B. Beachley, A. Brown, & F. Conlin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 2, pp. 484–95). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Caroline Guardino