Sign Lang12.docx

INTRODUCTION In proposing the case for linguistic inclusion as well as inclusion of the especially abled ,we propose sign language as a mandatory part of the curriculum both in school and colleges. Linguistic inclusivity is viewed in the sense of recognizing, diversifying and expanding languages taught, learnt and acquired .Adding sign language to a classroom of heterogeneous learners will aid in generating a positive learning environment ,inclusive and interactive for varied learning needs and styles The benefits of using sign language are manifold and entail 1) becoming more expressive2)provides visual stimulation and manual dexterity 3) not only empowers hearing/speech impaired but for all students 4) served in building meaningful connections with peers and teachers 4) users of sign language become equipped with multiple modalities of thinking and communication(Heslinga,2012). The basic idea behind this project is to understand the need for introducing Sign Language as an essential component of teacher education curriculum in order to equip future teachers and teachers to be more inclusive .Another key idea is to view Sign Language as a ‘Language for all’ and not only for hearing and speech impaired .Moreover , as we know as per the Three language Formula , foreign language functions as the third language , we propose the use of sign language as third language in order for the learners to become inclusive.To also realize that it is our own inability if we fail to understand Sign Language and not of the hearing or speech impaired. In order to be inclusive we have to equip ourselves .Through this project ,we also want to explore the prevalent notions of the the students of teacher education and to acquaint them with alternative views

GROUP DISCUSSION To get a better understanding of the levels of awareness of Sign language amongst students of CIE, we conducted group discussions in CIE. Due to busy schedule of students and their unavailability for a formal GD, we had to modify our strategy to interact with them. Instead of a one Formal Group discussion, we planned three rounds of interaction with three different groups in an informal setting. The discussions were video recorded and minutes were registered. To elicit the responses we planned the GD into three parts. In the first introductory part we showed them a short video of two men conversing in ASL (with no subtitles). After the video, we posed some probing questions to initiate the discussion. The questions asked were:

   

What are your first thoughts after watching the video? Can you tell few characteristics of the two men appearing in the video? Who do you think uses this mode of communication? What makes you think (if at all) that this mode of communication is a valid language?

After collecting responses on these questions, we showed them another video in which two men are having usual conversation in ASL and speaking at the end of the video. This video was chosen to challenge the stereotype that only "Disabled" people use SL to converse. We tried to make our participants aware of the fact that a language is a language by the virtue of its ability to communicate ideas and not by the virtue of it being phonetically sound/ verbal in nature. Following the video we had a small discussion explaining our initiative of proposing Sign language as one of the second languages in curriculum. We also asked the participants that would they like to join such language course if offered. Also, we asked them for their suggestion for such course manual. GD1 The first group we interacted was a mixed group with 6 students from PhD, M.ed and B.ed program. After showing them the video we started with our probing questions. To which most of them answered, contrary to our anticipation, that it is not necessary that the two men in the video necessarily be deaf of mute as SL can be used by anyone. We asked additionally about the general utility of SL, to which one of the participants replied that this language is used by those who want to communicate with the disabled or challenged group. Another member soon realised that the utility of SL is not limited to people who are challenged or are surrounded by challenged people, she suggested that this language can be used by us if someone is standing at a distance from us and we want to communicate without shouting. The discussion thereafter became inclusive of the fact that like every other language this language is also a systematic structured language and it can be used to communicate without any special conditions and obligations. At the end we asked if they would like to join such course. All of them showed great levels of enthusiasm to learn SL as a language of communication. GD2

The second group was a homogenous group comprising of 9 girls from M.ed (1st year). After watching the video they reacted in confusion asking what the video was about. We asked the probing question on how can they characterise those two men in the video. Yet again contrary to our anticipation the group was very informed and sensitised. They too collectively responded that the two men need not necessarily be challenged to be using SL. Moreover, the girls responded that SL is used by anyone who has some exposure of Deaf and Mute community. We then informed them about the structure and wider utility of SL, to which they seemed staggered. At the end when we asked them if they would join such course, we received mixed responses. 3/9 girls were unsure about learning such language, when asked about reasons, one girl replied saying that she doesn't see any utility of SL in her life while the other two were unsure as they needed more time to think about such a proposal. The rest 6/9 were very willing to learn SL if offered. One of them even suggested to organise a workshop on the basics of SL in the department. She expressed the desire of bringing SL into mainstream and also suggested few gestures which can be used in our daily lives instead o shouting or raising our voice enough to grab everyone's attention.

GD3 This was the shortest GD with only 2 participants from M.ed 2nd year. After watching the video the two immediately engaged in a discussion how with people, their languages too get marginalised. They extended the discussion to the marginalisation of Tribal languages as they arent part of majority. We did not feel the need to show them the second video as they themselves arrived at the conclusion that there is dire need of mainstreaming of languages and their linguistic community. They also showed willingness in joining such language programs if offered.

IMPLICATIONS  As explained in the project, we propose an introductory curriculum on the use of sign language so that future teachers and teacher educators are equipped to be more inclusive teachers.  Sign language needs to be included as an essential component in the school curriculum as a third language.  Sign language needs to be included as an essential component in the curriculum of teacher education.  Sign language needs to be given exposure in conferences in the field of education  Sign language needs to used as a concurrent language during lectures and presentations in teacher education colleges.  Workshops should be organised on the use of sign language