Teaching English to Deaf Adults in Myanmar 1 - RIT - People · Teaching English to Deaf Adults in...

Teaching English to Deaf Adults in Myanmar 1

Teaching English to Deaf Adults in Myanmar:

A Focus on Interaction and Dialogue

John A. Albertini

Pre-College Education Network

Center on Access Technology

National Technical Institute for the Deaf

Rochester Institute of Technology

Kathleen Eilers-crandall

Department of Liberal Studies



Thomastine Sarchet

Pre-College Education Network

Center on Access Technology



Kathleen Barry Albertini

27 Chelmsford Road

Rochester, NY 14618

Correspondence should be sent to:

John Albertini ([email protected])

27 Chelmsford Road

Rochester, NY 14618


Abstract

In January 2015, we went to Yangon, Myanmar to teach English to eight adults who were

deaf or hard of hearing (henceforth, deaf). We had three weeks to set up and deliver

intensive English language instruction to students who communicated in spoken

Myanmar, Myanmar Sign Language, and writing. We communicated in English,

American Sign Language, and writing. Given these differences in communication

abilities, we sought to maximize our students’ use of English through interaction and

dialogue. Here we report on the results of using this approach to teaching a foreign

language to deaf students. Based on the results of this pilot, we discuss the implications

of this approach for future teaching and research.


Teaching English to Deaf Adults in Myanmar:

A Focus on Interaction and Dialogue

Background

We traveled to Yangon, the largest city and former capital of Myanmar (also

known as Burma) in January 2015 to deliver a pilot English Language Institute (ELI) to

eight adults who were deaf or hard of hearing (hereafter, deaf). Though we stayed at a

hotel with running water, air conditioning, and clean restaurants our trips to the ELI

classroom displayed the difficulties of life in a country with great economic and political

challenges. In 1990, the National League for Democracy (NLD), the party led by Nobel

Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi won the election. However, the military government

continued ruling the country and placed Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest. In

November of 2015, the NLD again won a majority raising hopes for change once more.

The role of English

As a member of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), Myanmar has

declared that English will be the lingua franca of international conferences and business

meetings. In Myanmar, a knowledge of English is now required to complete secondary

school and to enter university. The “Roadmap For An ASEAN Community 2009-2015,”

articulates the use of the English language as one significant factor in enhancing “the

well-being and livelihood of the peoples of ASEAN” (2009, p. 68). In Myanmar, the

push for English skill development is so intense that the National Center for English

Language, a department of Yangon University, operates 365 days a year in order to

accommodate the demand from government officials and other professionals (T. Aye,

personal communication, January 17, 2014).


Education for children with disabilities

Myanmar has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights for Persons

with Disabilities (UNCRPD) to promote inclusive education placements (Article 24).

However, in a country where over a third of its population lives below the poverty line

(2007 estimate, The World Factbook), access to secondary and post-secondary education

is especially limited for those students who have a disability.

In Myanmar any student with a disability is placed in "special schools." Each of

the special schools provides primary level education, which consists of kindergarten and

five grades or “standards.” It is worth noting that in Myanmar today, education for people

with disabilities is viewed as a social welfare responsibility. This means that special

schools are funded by the Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief, and Resettlement, which

receives a much smaller portion of the national budget than does the Ministry of

Education, which funds all other schools. At the end of the fifth standard, students are

required to sit for a national examination in order to qualify for secondary school.

Students are required to take this examination without accommodations such as

additional time or sign language interpreters, and this greatly reduces the probability of a

deaf student passing. Those students who do pass may enter government-run “normal

schools.” At these secondary schools, accommodations are limited or non-existent.

These conditions contribute to the low overall educational attainment of students

with disabilities. According to the First Myanmar National Disability Survey (2010),

national primary school enrollment was 84% and enrollment for people with disabilities

was 47%. Of that 47%, only 16% of students enrolled in secondary schools whereas the

national rate of secondary enrollment was 38%. At the post-secondary level, out of all


persons with disabilities who entered primary school, 2.2% of them received university

degrees.

Education for deaf children

Until 2014, Myanmar only had two primary schools for the deaf. The older, the

Mary Chapman School for the Deaf, is located in Yangon, and the other is the Mandalay

School for the Deaf in the north. Students with severe to profound hearing loss (classified

as “deaf”) may attend one of these special schools. Students with moderate hearing losses

(classified as “hard of hearing”) enter “inclusive classrooms” at government-run primary

schools beginning with kindergarten. In both situations, the numbers of deaf students

needing to be served is far greater than the school resources available to accommodate

them. In 2010, the Survey estimated that approximately 31,000 children (ages 5-16) had

a hearing disability, but less than 1,000 were enrolled at the two schools for the deaf. In

June of 2014, the government established a third school, the Yangon School for the Deaf,

which enrolled approximately 70 students.

At government-run schools, few of the teachers know a sign language. Those who

do usually use sign and speech at the same time. The national exam required at the

conclusion of high school is written in the Myanmar language (Burmese) and includes a

subject area test in English. Thus, students are required to be proficient in both written

Myanmar and English to complete secondary school and to enter a university.

Overall the vast majority of individuals who were born deaf have very low level

of graduation rates. According to the Deaf Resource Center (2014), only 1.5% of deaf

students typically complete their primary education. Of the number of students who

reach secondary education, only .07% pass the national examination to enter a university,


and from this small group, only .03% of deaf students graduate. Three of the students

who participated in this ELI pilot program had university degrees.

Theoretical context

Successful adult language learning

Success with learning a language is more likely to occur when the learner has a

self-identified purpose for learning the language, is able to devote sufficient time to

learning and using the language, and possesses the study and learning behaviors

necessary for effective learning (Eilers-crandall, 2009; Norton & Toohey, 2002). To

achieve these factors in a classroom setting, instructors need to learn about the students’

goals and reasons for wanting to learn English (Pemberton & Cooker, 2012). It is also

important that instruction include a program of classes with considerable time each day

devoted to learning and using English, along with an atmosphere in which instructors can

assist students in using effective learning and study skills.

From the experiences of individuals and programs in foreign language instruction

we have procedures for determining how long it takes a person to learn a language. The

following guidelines pertain to the time needed to become comfortable with everyday

social communication topics. It will require considerably more learning and studying

time to reach the skill levels needed for professional and/or academic pursuits, and longer

yet to attain the skills needed for contributing to the literature of that language.

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) suggests

guidelines for measuring the time an adult learner should have in a classroom, and

recommends that it takes approximately 500 to 600 classroom hours accompanied by 500

to 600 hours of study time, or about 1000 to 2000 hours to reach a comfortable


conversational level. If a learner is in class three hours a day and then studies three

additional hours that day for five days, the learner would have accumulated 30 hours in

one week, and it would take about 50 weeks (1500 hours) to achieve that level. The

American Council of Teaching Foreign Languages (ACTFL, 2012) indicates it should

take about 1000 to 2500 hours to reach a comparable level. The lower number of hours is

needed for a language more similar to the learner’s first language and the higher for a

language that is very different. Another part of the difference is due to how much time is

actually spent using the target language in the classroom and when studying. Furthermore,

these estimates do not take into consideration the quality of studying, how much

additional time the learner might spend using the language outside of the classroom and

study hours, or how often the learner studies the language in a given amount of time. For

example, when the 1500 hours are accumulated in a period of one year, more learning

will occur than when the 1500 hours are spread over 10 years.

When learning English or other languages that have spoken and written forms,

deaf students are learning an auditory-based language through visual channels, which is a

challenging task. Hearing people usually learn the spoken language of their environment

effortlessly. In school, they learn to recognize that same language in print. Deaf people

will also learn a sign language effortlessly if others in the environment use it regularly.

Deaf students must rely on the printed language form to learn an auditory-based language

such as English, but the printed form is an incomplete representation of the language. For

example, the printed form of spoken languages does not show information about

intonation, timing, and stress. A hearing person learns these features very early in life and

already begins to imitate them in the first year of life, before speaking in words or


phrases. These features assist children in learning the grammar of their environmental

language. During their first year deaf children will learn the equivalent features in a sign

language in their environment. Without hearing, learning to read and write an auditory-

based language, one to which a person does not have full access, is challenging to say the

least. As teachers, we must make a concerted effort to provide deaf students with the best

possible visual access to the language they will use for reading and writing.

Interaction and dialogue

The students told us that they wanted to study English so that they could

communicate with others via social media and at international meetings. In Myanmar and

neighboring Southeast Asian countries, pursuing post-secondary education requires

knowledge of English. Our challenge was to provide a large amount of meaningful

English language input in a short amount of time. According to Ellis (2005), effective

language instruction focuses on “the highly contextualized meanings that arise in the acts

of communication” (2005, 211). Students communicate with each other and with the

teacher about accessible and relevant topics. The instructor provides students the

opportunity to interact and negotiate meaning and also the scaffolds for such interaction

and dialogue.

As noted above, access to the English language for deaf students is primarily

visual. Reading is the most consistent and reliable channel by which to access English

input, and writing is the most reliable for interacting in the language. Making such access

and interaction possible in the classroom requires a pragmatic view of reading and

writing. In the 1970s, a large influx of students speaking non-standard English dialects

and other languages in US universities led in part to a paradigm-shift in American


composition studies (Shaughnessy, 1977). No longer could instructors assume their

students spoke standard English or knew the classics of European and American

literature. To teach writing, instructors needed to make writing relevant to their students’

life experience. Teachers began using the “process approach” or “the writer’s workshop,”

a model based on the principles of teaching the writing process (e.g., Emig, 1971;

Hairston, 1982; Schirmer, 2000; Zamel, 1976). In this approach, teachers and students

used writing to prompt memory and to record and reflect on experience.

Starting in the late 1970s, professionals in mainstream rhetoric and composition

studies and in the field of teaching English as a second language shifted their attention

from grammar and vocabulary to rhetorical variables (e.g., content and organization) and

to the cognitive processes of composing (Flower & Hayes, 1981; Hairston, 1982;

Matsuda, 2011; Shaughnessy, 1977). The focus of writing research in deaf education also

broadened to include content, discourse level structures, and fluency (e.g., Gormley &

Sarachan-Deily, 1987; Klecan-Aker & Blondeau, 1990), and on processes used by young

deaf writers (e.g., Mayer, 1999).

Method

Content

In August of 2014, we visited Yangon for one week to meet with local leaders of

the deaf community and prospective ELI students. The primary goal of the funder of the

ELI (P-CEN) was to train members of the deaf community in Myanmar to become

leaders in social and educational reform. By means of group and individual discussions,

we gathered information on students’ educational and professional objectives, their

reasons for wanting to learn English, and their English language proficiency. From these


discussions, we concluded that students wanted to learn English for conversational (social

media), academic (post secondary education), and professional (attend international

conferences) purposes. We also learned that they wanted desperately to work together to

raise national awareness of Myanmar Deaf Culture and their needs and rights as deaf

citizens of Myanmar. Thus based on the funders’ goals for the ELI project and the social

and political goals of the prospective students, we determined that we would read and

write about Myanmar Deaf Culture, Deaf identity, and disability rights. The students’

task in the ELI would be to teach us about Myanmar culture and Myanmar Deaf Culture.

Our task was to provide the tools necessary to structure interaction and dialogue on these

topics. Together, we would explore the topics of identity and disability rights through

field trips, classroom discussion, and written life histories.

Approach

All of the students were deaf adults over the age of 18 who had completed school

up to the tenth standard and had some familiarity with English. However, interviews and

discussions suggested that the proficiency in reading and writing English ranged from the

ability to understand and use routine daily expressions to the ability to read for new

information and express their opinions in writing. Some of the students had completed a

university degree program; others had entered a university program but had not

completed a degree.

During the first ELI class, we established that some students relied on lipreading

and spoken Myanmar to communicate, whereas others relied on Myanmar Sign Language

and writing. With the help of two interpreters (spoken English to spoken Myanmar and

spoken Myanmar to Myanmar Sign Language), we asked which modes we should use in


the classroom. The students said they preferred voice and sign language (“simultaneous

communication”) or reading and writing. Thus, we agreed that the instructors would use

primarily spoken and written English and the students would use written English,

Myanmar Sign Language, or spoken Myanmar. The students realized that the teachers

and students would exist as a community during classes and that it was very important for

all to understand each other. We adhered to this agreement and printed a written record of

all group discussions. Our students looked forward to receiving this written record each

day.

The students reported that the instructional approach used in their English classes

had consisted primarily of memorization and repetition of vocabulary and sentences in

materials selected by their instructors. Instructors graded students on their ability to

memorize and recite these items and gave little attention to communicating effectively in

English. The students indicated that they had very little choice as to the topics or

situations they used to learn. Based on our need to provide a large amount of quality

input in a short intensive program and our focus on meaningful interaction in English

through reading and writing, we decided to try real-time transcription of classroom

discussion and dialogue journals.

One of our first challenges was to help the students feel comfortable by following

a collaborative, transactional approach rather than one in which a teachers transmits

information to students (Tiberius, 1986). We discussed and modeled active learning and

shared decision-making. The students soon understood that they would be expected to

contribute to designing the curriculum for the ELI activities and that we valued their

ideas whether or not they expressed them in grammatical English. We told them that they


would learn best if they were willing to communicate their own ideas and learn from their

mistakes.

To accomplish this in writing, we used dialogue journals. Dialogue journals have

been used with students in multilingual classrooms (Kreeft Peyton & Staton, 1993), with

adult students learning to read and write (Wagner & Schlenker-Schulte, 2005a,b); with

students who have speech and language impairments (Schlenker-Schulte, 2005); and with

deaf students (Albertini & Meath-Lang, 1986; Kluwin & Kelly, 1991; Witte & Albertini,

1989). Typically in a dialogue journal, teacher and student write back and forth to each

other as partners or correspondents. Each asks the other questions and introduces new

topics. The instructor may ask for the student’s perception of the class, for example. The

focus is on meaningful communication and not the writing itself (although the writing

itself may become a topic of the conversation). Unless asked by the student, the teacher

does not correct the writing.

Evaluation of students’ English skills.

To assist us in the selection of appropriate reading level materials and activities

and to determine the efficacy of our approach with this group of students, we evaluated

the students’ reading and writing skills at the start and end of ten days of instruction.

To assess the reading skills of our students, we selected short passages designed

for adults learning English (see Appendix A). The passages included information about

general topics at two levels, advanced beginner and mid intermediate, and did not require

specific background knowledge of the topic. Before distributing the passages to students,

we presented a simple demonstration passage to familiarize the students with the

assessment and how they were to respond. The students responded to multiple-choice


questions that required them to use vocabulary and grammar to understand directly stated

and implied information in the passages. They were not permitted to use a computer or a

dictionary during this evaluation. On the last day of classes, we administered a similar

reading assessment (Appendix A). We observed that the students tended to be more self-

confident and comfortable during this assessment and most completed it more quickly

than they had on the initial assessment.

During the afternoon of the first class meeting, we obtained a writing sample from

each of the eight students (Figure 1). Because we wanted writing samples that might

demonstrate their best skills, we asked students to write about a topic based on personal

experience. The topic we used for the initial writing sample was the following: Who is or

was the most important person in your life? Please write about this person. Describe this

person and tell what have you learned from this person? Why was this person important

to you?

[Figure 1 about here]

We asked the students to write as much as they could on this topic for 15 minutes.

Some of the students were reluctant to write in English, because they did not know

necessary vocabulary and sentence structures. We told them to leave a blank space or

draw pictures for words they did not know. To make the students more comfortable with

this evaluation, we indicated that they could write about any person they knew well, like

a parent, a spouse, a friend, a teacher. We also suggested that if they also wanted to write

in Myanmar about the topic, they could do so on another piece of paper.


During the last class session, our students produced another writing sample

(Figure 2). We gave the same directions as for the initial writing sample and chose a topic

they would know from personal experience: What was the most important event in your

life? Please write about this event. Describe what happened and tell what you learned

from this event? Why was this event important for you?

[Figure 2 about here]

Classroom access to technology

Fortunately, we were able to use a classroom at a local training center with 15

desktop PC computers, visual projection capability for presentation from one computer, a

printer, and a copy machine. Such classrooms are rare in Myanmar. The classroom had

wireless Internet connections available through two wireless network systems. We

experienced good reliability with the computers, projector, printers, and copy machines.

However, sometimes the Internet connection was very slow when several students used it

simultaneously. Most students also owned a smartphone, and they could use these at the

center to access course materials. Data connections were limited at other locations, and

only one student had reliable access to a computer or Internet connection outside of the

classroom. Therefore, we did not require students to use the Internet outside of the class;

we printed reading selections for students to use during out-of-class study hours and

distributed notebooks for writing assignments.

Instruction in a typical day of class

A typical class day in this ten-day pilot contained five and one half hours of

English instruction. The day started at 9 AM and ended at 4 PM with short morning and

afternoon breaks and a one-hour lunch break. On three days the class took a one-half day


field trip to gather information about Myanmar culture and Myanmar Deaf culture for

reading and writing activities. Students also received study assignments, which would

take one or two hours to complete after each class. Over the 10 class days of our pilot

program, students had approximately 50 class time hours and approximately 10 to 20

study time hours, or a total of 60 to 70 hours of English language learning.

Activities during a typical class day consisted of a discussion and review of

students’ homework study assignments from the previous day. This discussion was led by

students’ questions or comments. We then introduced a new topic or skill, one that often

had come up during the discussion, while continuing to work on skills from previous

classes. We typically ended the day by writing in our dialogue journals. Students wrote

with an instructor or a classmate. The daily notes recorded the usage of English and were

posted as “Agenda and Notes” for all to consult (See Appendix B).

Materials

We directed students towards several collections of reading materials from which

they could select materials aligned with their interests and goals for learning English (See

Appendix C). The materials in these collections were written at levels slightly above their

present one. It is important to keep students’ motivation for learning strong and present

students with challenging materials that can advance their skills, but not with materials

that would be so difficult that students could not be successful. In a learner-centered

approach (Benson, 2012) with a successive approximation design (Larsen-Freeman &

Long, 2014), students initiate the learning by selecting what they wish to learn about the

target language. As they learn one or more aspects, they begin to learn other aspects. This


is unlike a discrete element design in which specific skills are pre-selected and then

taught to a given level of perfection before continuing.

When students encountered difficult vocabulary, we observed they would rely on

a dictionary that translated English into Myanmar and vice versa. Because this dictionary

provided translations without consideration of context, it often presented students with

incorrect lexical items. Since we did not wish students to continue using a translation

approach to learning English, and we hoped to teach students to use context to predict

meanings of unknown vocabulary, we introduced and taught students how to use the

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Online (Longman, 2015). The definitions

in this dictionary are written using only 2000 common English words, and include

information to lead users to correct context specific meanings.

To teach writing skills that students could use to discuss topics of their own

choosing in a real-life situation, we used journal dialogues (Stillman, Anderson, &

Struthers, 2014). Each student learned how to carry on a written conversation with an

instructor on the second day of the course. Soon after that, we introduced students to

dialogue writing with a classmate. Students preferred the student-teacher journal writing

to the student-student journal writing probably because they realized that the instructors

provided a better models of English usage and English, which was appropriate to the

students’ actual English skill level. The instructor did not point out language elements

directly with students or identify errors students made unless students asked about such

things. When the instructor could not understand a student or a student could not

understand the instructor, the instructor would rephrase the item or ask the student

questions about the meaning intended. Our goal in using these written dialogue journals


was to provide a natural approach (Mitchell, Myles, & Marsden, 2013) to language

learning while still maintaining a student-centered and successive approximation design

(See Appendix D).

Results

To evaluate students’ progress, we assessed their reading comprehension skills

and writing skills on the first and last days of the program. Here we present a summary of

scores from the reading assessments and samples of the writing assessments. As

examples of their less formal, interactive writing, we examine initial and final entries

from the teacher-student dialogue journals. To determine students’ perception of the

quality of instruction and overall satisfaction with the program, we asked students to

complete a course evaluation on the last day of class. Here we also consider the results of

that evaluation.

Reading Comprehension Skills

Table 1 contains the scores students obtained on their initial and final

reading assessments which were administered on the first and the last day of the

10-day ELI pilot course. Each reading assessment consisted of two short passages

followed by either six or eight comprehension questions. The developers of the

passages state, “Each passage reads similar to a newspaper or journal article, and

provides interesting information about some aspect of history, nature, mechanics,

science, art, and more. Questions involve critical thinking with a focus on logic and

inference” (EnglishForEveryone.org/Topics/Reading-Comprehension.htm, n.d.).

[Table 1 about here]


Initial scores for the beginning level passages show that one student answered all items

correctly and two others had scores over 80 percent; in the final assessment, three

students answered all correctly and seven of the eight students in the pilot ELI obtained

scores over 80 percent. No students attained 100% scores when they read intermediate

level passages on either the initial or the final assessments. The highest score attained on

the initial intermediate level passage was 67 percent and the highest score on the final

intermediate level passage was 88 percent. This was the only student who achieved a

score above 80 percent.

The score differences between initial and final reading assessments (Table 1)

show that five students were able to read a low beginning passage with greater success

and the student who achieved 100% accuracy on the initial passage did so again with the

final passage. Seven of the eight students demonstrated improved skills when reading an

intermediate passage. One of the two students who did not show improvement when

reading low beginning passages also did not show improvement on the intermediate

passages.

Treptow, Burns, and McComas (2007) suggest a comprehension score of at least

80% indicates the minimum score needed for reading to learn information in an

instructional setting and 100% is needed for successful independent learning. At the onset

of our ELI pilot, three students demonstrated reading skill levels needed for instruction

when reading a low beginning level passage, but none of the students did when reading

an intermediate level passage. After ten days of instruction seven students were able to

read a low beginning level passage and one student was able to read an intermediate level

passage for instructional purposes.


Writing Skills

Figures 1 and 2 contain the writing assessments produced by two students at the

initial and the final class meetings. These examples represent the range of skills we

observed in our students’ writing. We have deleted personal identifying information in

these examples.

When we read student A’s initial and final writing, we can understand the general

content information. However, in the final assessment, student A includes more details

that are comprehensible than in the initial assessment. Student B’s English skills were

more advanced than those of Student A. Student B’s initial and final writing samples

contain content that is organized into subtopics, and this student is also able to

communicate details more clearly in the final assessment. We also see an increase in the

amount of writing in Student A’s final assessment. All of the students produced more

writing in their final example. At the start of the course, most students were quite

reluctant to write in English, but became more willing to share information in writing as

the course progressed and they got to know the instructors and became comfortable with

our teaching method.

Upon inspecting the written English grammar skills demonstrated by the students,

we observed most students appeared to have advanced their skills during the course. For

example, Student A sometimes omits major sentence constituents (subjects and verbs) in

the initial sample, but includes more of these sentence constituents and even attempts a

few multi-clause sentences in the final assessment. Students also used a greater variety of

lexical items in their final writing samples than in their initial samples. We see this very


clearly in the final writing assessment of Student A. Student B also uses a greater variety

of grammatical constructions and lexical items in the final writing assessment.

We observed similar changes in our students’ teacher-student dialogue journals.

After students learned the process of dialoguing with their instructors, we taught and

encouraged students to learn to use student-student dialoguing so that the students could

use this activity to continue their English language studies after they completed the ELI

pilot course. Students found it considerably more challenging to conduct meaningful

written dialogues with each other than with an instructor. Appendix D contains an

example of teacher-student and student-student dialogues collected during the first half of

the course. These examples illustrate the greater ease with which students were

communicating and the more advanced English writing skills that students attempted in

the teacher-student dialogues as compared with the student-student dialogues.

During the last half of the ELI pilot course, students developed bits of their life

histories into autobiographies in their dialogue journals. The instructors prompted the

development through questions and requests for detail. Students wrote these portions of

their autobiographies in class and also in their daily homework assignments. We

encouraged students to include sections in their autobiographies on their educational,

employment, and volunteer experiences. One goal of this activity was to prepare students

for writing similar information when they applied to educational programs or for

employment, joined international organizations, and contributed to social media sites.

After students had completed a first rough draft in their journals, teachers dialogued with

students to clarify information and assist in organizing content. Next, most students also

wanted information about the accuracy of their English grammar. In these cases, the


instructors corrected and edited the students’ writing in the dialogue journal (a departure

from normal dialogue journal practice). Appendices E and F are examples of teacher-

student interactions that mainly resolve English grammar issues. Appendix E illustrates

an example of a section of an autobiography about education (schooling) and Appendix F

illustrates a section about employment (work). By the end of the ELI pilot course, all

students had successfully completed this assignment and had prepared an electronic

document containing their edited and corrected autobiographies.

Course evaluations

On the last day we asked students to rate and comment on classroom

communication and teaching method. In the first question, students rated four modes of

communication on a four-point scale from “excellent” to “poor.” Students rated the two

modes of reading and writing (the agendas/class notes and dialogue journals) more

favorably than the modes of sign language and spoken language. Their written comments

focused on a need for better sign and spoken language interpreting. Students rated the

teaching method (second question) very favorably and commented that the method was

“high level” and they liked it. In response to the question, “Have your ideas about

learning English changed?” all responded “yes.” Their written comments indicated a

strong desire to continue learning spoken and written English. In response to the question,

“Have your reasons for learning English changed?” four students responded “yes” and

one student responded “no.” One student wrote, “Opening brain. Knowledge

development.” Another wrote, “I’m not afraid writing English now.” In response to the

fifth question, “What is the best way for you to continue to learn English?” students

mentioned aspects of the course they would like to continue: using the Longman


dictionary and dialogue journals, writing stories, and learning grammar. One student

mentioned a bigger classroom, which was probably in reference to the crowed condition

of the ELI classroom. Several students wrote they could help each other learn English by

using sign language, writing, speech, and lipreading. One wrote, “The most important

factor is SL (sign language) interpreter.” Others wrote that using the computer to write,

using a “captionist” (transcription) and student-to-student writing and communicating

“with chat” would be helpful. Finally, when we asked for additional comments, for

example what they liked or disliked about the ELI Pilot, several wrote that continuing to

learn English was very important to them personally and to develop the deaf community

in Myanmar. They liked learning about deaf scientists, writing about themselves and

writing dialogue journals with the teacher.

ELI follow-up: Distance learning

During the last two days of class, we began discussing how students might

choose to continue their learning of English reading and writing skills. The students

indicated that they were eager to continue learning and they hoped we would return to

continue teaching them in the near future. We indicated that before we could return, it

would be important for them to continue learning so their newly learned skills would be

reinforced and enhanced. Because the students had been highly motivated to learn during

the 10 days of classes and wanted to continue learning, we thought that the probability of

their learning with direction from afar was reasonably good. Our recommendation was

that they plan to meet as a group every two weeks for the next three months. Because

they had participated in 10 full days of learning, we felt confident several of the students


could take turns leading the group for about two hours every week if we gave them

specific tasks to accomplish in our absence.

The students expressed a willingness to try this plan for distance learning, even

though it would probably be difficult for all of them to meet at the same time and to find

a place where they had access to computers and the Internet. In addition to attending

meetings, they would need to assume leadership tasks, such as communicating with one

another to find a meeting place and arrange a time, and then to follow our plans for their

meetings. This was a significant change from the familiar routine of the ELI. For example,

they would no longer have free transportation to and from the meeting site; an

instructional location that had computers with Internet and printing facilities the students

could use without charge; course materials including binders, notebooks, flash drives;

and home-cooked, nutritious meals for lunch every day.

Two of the students had considerable experience assuming leadership roles in the

deaf community, and we asked these two individuals to serve as instructional models

after we departed. Since one of the objectives students had for learning English skills was

to enable them to serve as leaders in improving the conditions deaf individuals

encountered in Myanmar and other ASEAN countries, we hoped that learning how to

organize, plan, and lead instructional activities would prove useful. We anticipated that

eventually this group of 8 students could become leaders within the deaf community and

be instrumental in implementing a program in Myanmar for promoting English language

learning for deaf students.

We provided plans for the first meeting while allowing flexibility as to topics and

specific activities. We suggested a leader for the first meeting and asked the leader to


prepare a brief summary of the meeting and examples of the reading and writing

activities that occurred.

Conclusions and Implications

Reading and writing assessments and the course evaluation suggest that students

advanced in their knowledge of English and that attitudes towards learning English

changed. At the end of the pilot, seven students could read beginning level materials at an

instructional level. Students wrote longer writing samples and dialogue journal entries at

the end of the pilot were longer. Their writing contained more comprehensible details,

sentences with more major constituents or, in some cases, sentences with more than one

clause. Some used a greater variety of lexical items. For these students, the increase in

quantity and quality reflects either an increase in English skills, an increase in confidence

in writing or both.

The observed increase in confidence may be due in part to a sense of

accomplishment. All students completed edited final drafts of their life stories. Writing

about family life, education, and professional life began as responses to questions in the

dialogue journals. Reading about deaf scientists in class provided examples of

biographical writing and vocabulary, which students could use in their own writing.

Students proudly shared their autobiographies with their classmates and teachers.

Students were satisfied with the teaching approach and highly motivated to continue

learning English.

Occasionally, classroom communication broke down and this was sometimes due

to the lack of experience of the interpreters. Fortunately, we had the same sign language

interpreter for the whole ELI, but two different spoken language interpreters. The spoken


language interpreters were not familiar with the content, nor accustomed to working with

deaf students. None of the interpreters had been trained to interpret in a classroom setting.

Interpreter training in Myanmar is in its infancy and there are very few professional

interpreters available. In addition, our sign language interpreter was trained to use a new

standardized version of Myanmar Sign Language, which was unfamiliar to many of the

students in the class.

Another limitation of the instruction was the time it took to translate a

participant’s utterances twice, for example, from spoken English to spoken Myanmar and

then to Myanmar Sign Language. This slowed the pace of instruction thus reducing the

actual hours of English usage and learning. On the other hand, repeating all of the

classroom interactions communicated in multiple ways provided a natural repetition,

reinforcement, and dual coding of the information, which may have avoided some

misunderstandings.

As professionals and leaders of the local deaf community, our students

occasionally had competing demands on their time and sometimes missed classes. This

may have had an impact on their learning during the ELI; it did have an impact on their

participation in the follow-up activities planned for the group after ELI classes ended.

The prospects for continuing the ELI in Myanmar depend on several factors apart

from the motivation and skill level of these students. An international non-governmental

organization sponsored this ELI pilot in full. Continuation of the ELI in Myanmar in the

future will depend on the Myanmar Ministry of Education and collaboration seems more

likely given the results of the November 2015 elections. This would, of course, depend


on the extent to which the government of Myanmar supports the ASEAN Initiative to

make English the language of higher education throughout the region.

The results of this pilot suggest that the ELI could be a model for further English

language training for the deaf community in Myanmar. Two factors would be crucial for

success of such training: the government must support deaf leaders who are politically

adept and proficient in English; and deaf and hard-of-hearing organizations in the country

must join forces to support projects like ELI. Without local deaf and hard-of-hearing

advocacy, governments can easily turn their attention to other louder and more organized

voices in the country.


References

ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012. The American Council of Teaching Foreign

Languages. URL:

http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FI

NAL.pdf [Aufruf am 19.11.15].

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations Secretariat. (2009): Roadmap for an ASEAN

community 2009-2015: One vision, one identity, one community. Jakarta, Indonesia:

ASEAN Secretariat. URL:

http://www.asean.org/images/2012/publications/RoadmapASEANCommunity.pdf

[Aufruf am 09.12.15]

Benson, P. (2012): Learner-centered teaching. In: Burns, A. & Richards, J. (Hrsg.): The

Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice in second language teaching (30-37).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching,

Assessment. Language Policy Unit, Strasbourg, URL:

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf [Aufruf am 19.11.15]

Deaf Resource Center (2014): Deaf education in Myanmar [PowerPoint slides].

http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf

http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf


Department of Social Welfare. (2010): First Myanmar national disability survey 2010.

Yangon, Myanmar: The Leprosy Mission International (Myanmar).

Eilers-crandall, K. (2009): Learning Behaviors Related to Deaf Students' Success in

College. L1 - Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 10, 1, 23-40. URL:

http://l1.publication-archive.com/publication/1/328. [Aufruf am 19.11.15]

English for Everyone. (n.d.). URL: http://www.englishforeveryone.org/Topics/Reading-

Comprehension.htm [Aufruf am 15/12/15].

Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1981): A cognitive process theory of writing. College

Composition and Communication, 22, 365-387.

Gormley, K. & Sarachan-Deily, A. (1987): Evaluating hearing impaired students’

writing: A practical approach. Volta Review, 89, 157-170.

Hairston, M. (1982): The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the

teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 1, 76-88.

Klecan-Aker, J. & Blondeau, R. (1990): An examination of the written stories of hearing-

impaired school-age children. Volta Review, 92, 275-282.

Kluwin, T. & Kelly, A. (1991): The effectiveness of dialogue journal writing in

http://l1.publication-archive.com/publication/1/328


improving the writing skills of young deaf writers. American Annals of the Deaf 136, 3,

284-291.

Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. (2014): An introduction to second language acquisition

research. London: Routledge.

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Online. URL:

http://www.ldoceonline.com/. [Aufruf am 19/11/15].

Matsuda, P. (2011): Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated

historical perspective. In: Matsuda, P., Cox, M., Jordan, J., & Ortmeier-Hooper, C.

(Hrsg.): Second-language writing in the composition classroom. New York: Bedford/St.

Martins.

Mayer, C. (1999): Shaping at the point of utterance: An investigation of the

composing processes of the deaf student writer. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf

Education, 4, 37-49.

Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013): Second language learning theories.

London: Routledge.

http://www.ldoceonline.com/


Norton, B. & Toohey, K. (2002): Identity and language learning. In: Kaplan, R. (Hrsg.):

The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (115-123). New York: Oxford University

Press.

Pemberton, R. & Cooker, L. (2012): Self-Directed Learning: Concepts, Practice, and a

Novel Research Methodology. In: Mercer, S., Ryan. S., & Williams, M (Hrsg.).

Psychology for Language Learning: Insights from Research, Theory and Practice (203-

219). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Schlenker-Schulte, Christa (2005): Faszination Dialog – interaktional-kommunikatives

(Sprach-)Lernen mit Dialog-Journalen. In: Kaul, T. & Jann, P. (Hrsg.): Kommunikation

und Behinderung. Festschrift für Heribert Jussen (229-246). Villingen-Schwenningen:

Neckar-Verlag.

Shaughnessy, M. (1977): Errors and expectations. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stillman, J., Anderson, L., & Struthers, K. (2014): Returning to reciprocity: Using

dialogue journals to teach and learn. Language Arts, 91, 3, 146-160.

Tiberius, R. (1986): Metaphors underlying the improvement of teaching and learning.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 17, 2, 144-156.


Treptow, M., Burns, M., McComas, J. (2007): Reading at the frustration, instructional,

and independent levels: the effects on students' reading comprehension and time on task.

School Psychology Review, 36, 1, 159-166.

United Nations. (2006): Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. URL:

http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=259 [Aufruf am 09.12.15]

Wagner, S. & Schlenker- Schulte, C. (2005a): Dialog- Journale – ein neuer Ansatz für die

Alphabetisierung? In: Bundesverband Alphabetisierung: Alphabetisierung – Kultur –

Wirtschaft, Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Sprachen. S. 125-132.

Wagner, S. & Schlenker-Schulte, C. (2005b): Mit Herz und Verstand: Schreiben lernen

durch Dialog-Journale. In: Alfa Forum. Zeitschrift für Alphabetisierung und

Grundbildung. 59/2005. 18. Jahrgang/Sommer 2005. S. 25-28.

Witte, U. & Albertini, J. (1989): Dialogue Journals: Es geht gut dir? Es gut Mir.

Briefwechsel mit deutschen gehörlosen Schülern: Ein Versuch. Hörgeschädigten

Pädagogik, 43, 84-92.

http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=259


Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Theresa Dela Torre, Raphael Domingo, Thidar Aye, Emy Lun,

Esther Po, Thinzar Soe, the Myanmar Independent Living Initative, and the Deaf

Resource Center for their assistance at various points in this project.

Preparation of this report was supported by the Pre-College Education Network (P-CEN),

National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology and a grant

from the Nippon Foundation of Japan. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the

authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of P-CEN or the Nippon

Foundation.


Table & Figures

Table 1. Initial and Final Reading Comprehension Assessment Scores

Figure 1. Two students’ initial writing samples representing the range of skills in the ELI

class.

Figure 2. The same two students’ final writing samples.

Appendices

Appendix A. Reading passages and questions used for the initial and final reading

assessments.

Appendix B. Daily notes from the seventh day of class.

Appendix C. References for reading materials used for instruction in our ELI pilot

program.

Appendix D. Examples of teacher-student and student-student dialogues

Appendix E. Journal entry with teacher-student interaction about schooling during

last stages of autobiography.

Appendix F. Journal entry with teacher-student interaction about work during last

stages of autobiography.


Table 1. Initial and Final Reading Comprehension Assessment Scores

Students

Initial Reading Comprehension

Score (% Correct)

Final Reading Comprehension Score

(% Correct)

Low Beginning

Passage - Ocean

Low

Intermediate

Passage -

Cactus

Low Beginning

Passage -

Alligators

Mid Intermediate

Passage - Marco

Polo

S1 63 50 83 63

S2 63 34 100 63

S3 63 50 100 88

S4 75 67 83 75

S5 88 34 83 75

S6 75 17 100 75

S7 88 67 34 50

S8 100 50 100 75


Figure 1. Two students’ initial writing samples representing the range of skills in the ELI

class.

Writing Prompt

Directions:

Write your name at the top of the paper.

Write as much as you can about the topic. Don’t be afraid. You can write a list

of words, sentences, or draw pictures if you don’t know words. Or leave a blank

space if you don’t know words.

Topic:

Who is or was the most important person in your life? Please write about this person.

Describe this person and tell what have you learned from this person? Why was this

person important to you?

Student A

Student B (personal information deleted)


Figure 2. The same two students’ final writing samples.

Directions:

Write your name at the top of the paper.

Write as much as you can about the topic. Don’t be afraid. You can write a list

of words, sentences, or draw pictures if you don’t know words. Or leave a blank

space in a sentence if you don’t know words.

Topic:

What was the most important event in your life? Please write about this event. Describe

what happened and tell what you learned from this event? Why was this event

important for you?

Student A (personal information deleted)

Student B (personal information deleted)


Appendix A. Reading passages and questions used for the initial and final reading

assessments

Initial Assessment: Passages were selected from the informational readings found at

http://www.englishforeveryone.org/Topics/Reading-Comprehension.htm,

accessed January 2015.

Passage used for example and practice - Low Beginning Level

The Sun (http://www.englishforeveryone.org/PDFs/The_Sun.pdf)

First passage used for assessment - Low Beginning Level

The Ocean (http://www.englishforeveryone.org/PDFs/The_Ocean.pdf)

Second passage used for assessment - Low Intermediate Level

The Cactus

(http://www.englishforeveryone.org/PDFs/Informational%20Passages%20

RC%20-%20Cactus.pdf)

Final Assessment: Passages were also selected from the informational readings

found at http://www.englishforeveryone.org/Topics/Reading-

Comprehension.htm, accessed January 2015.

First passage used for assessment - Low Beginning Level

Alligators (http://www.englishforeveryone.org/PDFs/Alligators.pdf)

Second passage used for assessment - Mid Intermediate Level

Marco Polo

(http://www.englishforeveryone.org/PDFs/Informational%20Passages%20

RC%20-%20Marco%20Polo.pdf)

http://www.englishforeveryone.org/Topics/Reading-Comprehension.htm

http://www.englishforeveryone.org/PDFs/The_Sun.pdf

http://www.englishforeveryone.org/PDFs/The_Ocean.pdf

http://www.englishforeveryone.org/PDFs/Informational%20Passages%20RC%20-%20Cactus.pdf

http://www.englishforeveryone.org/PDFs/Informational%20Passages%20RC%20-%20Cactus.pdf



http://www.englishforeveryone.org/PDFs/Alligators.pdf

http://www.englishforeveryone.org/PDFs/Informational%20Passages%20RC%20-%20Marco%20Polo.pdf

http://www.englishforeveryone.org/PDFs/Informational%20Passages%20RC%20-%20Marco%20Polo.pdf


Appendix B. Daily notes from the seventh day of class.

This day’s notes include preparation for a field trip to the Native Races Village.

Students’ names were included in the daily notes students received, but these

names have been changed to S1, S2, etc. here. Instructors’ initials remain.

AGENDA & NOTES - ELI Pilot, 22 Jan 2015

Day 7, Thursday – morning, 9:00 – 11:30; afternoon, 12:30 – 3:45

Transportation and time plans for Tuesday’s field trip to Native Races Village

JA & KE - On Tuesday transportation will be slightly different.

o A bigger van will pick up 6 of us in the morning and bring us here as usual. The van will pick up

the first person at 7:00 AM.

o S3 and S5 will walk to the center and be here at 8:45.

o S2 will ride his bike to the center and be here at 8:45.

Then we will all together leave the center at 8:45 to go to the Native Races Village.

Lunch on Tuesday will be at 1:00 PM here at the center.

Questions and Comments

S3 - I think it takes about 2 hours to drive so we should bring our lunch on that day.

S7 - I have been there and I think it depends on the driver. It should take only 1 hour.

S2 - Traffic can be very slow; it may take more than 1 hour.

JA & KE - The van driver thinks it will be okay to leave the center at 8:45 to arrive at the Village at 10 AM.

S3 - In the village, there are many places to see. It is not possible for us to see everything in 2 hours.

KA, JA, KE - We have discussed this and we will let you choose one or two houses to visit.

S5 - I understand what I am reading.

KE - That is wonderful. Keep on reading.

JA - We decided to visit for a half day so we will have time in the afternoon to discuss our visit in English.

KE - Remember, this is an English class.

S3 - How about having the discussion in the village.


KE - That would be nice, but we don’t have computers there! Do you want to use American fingerspelling?

STUDENTS ANSWER - No.

S1 - I have some information. I have to tell you that I have an Advocacy meeting with MPs in Nay Pyi Taw

on Wednesday, January 28, and 4 people, S1, S3, S5, S7, need to leave on Jan 27 in the evening to go to

the meeting.

KA - Can these people stay until 3:30 PM on Jan 27?

STUDENTS ANSWER - Yes

S1 - Do we have permission to miss class on Jan 28?

KE - Would you need to miss class all day?

S1 - The meeting is in the morning and it takes all afternoon to drive back.

S7 - Can we have the day off on Jan 28 and have class on Jan 30?

KE - Can everyone come here on Jan 30?

STUDENTS ANSWER - Yes

JA - Everyone can come on Jan 30. Great! Terrific (wonderful) !!!

The Native Races Village (NRV)

KE - Now, we should discuss how to plan for our visit to the NRV.

S7 - There is a lot to see. The village is very big. There are 14 things to see; it is not easy to walk. We

should use the van inside the village.

JA - Is the van allowed to drive into and around the village?

S7 - Yes, it is.

JA & KE - We know there is a fee for foreigners and one for Myanmar people, and for the van also. We

don’t know the fee for the van. We know the fee for the people and we will pay all fees. You do not need

to pay.

S3 - When do we leave from the center?

JA - We leave at 8:45 AM.


JA - Let’s talk about what we will see at the Village now. Each of us will visit one house at NRV. You will

select a tribal area you want to see at the National Races Villages (NRV). And, we will give you an article

about one house in NRV.

KE - I will show the different houses on the screen now. KA will print and give you information about your

house from the website, http://myanmartravelinformation.com/yangon-where-to-visit/national-races-

village.html.

S1 - I have visited Kayin. I like the store there. It is not very expensive.

JA & KE - Three of you have visited the NRV before. Now, you can decide which house you want to visit on

Tuesday.

S2 - I will visit Kachin.

KE - No one will visit Kayah.

S1 and S8 - We will visit Kayin.

S3 - I volunteer to visit the house of Chin.

KE - No one wants to visit the Bamar house.

S4 - I want to see the house of Mon.

S6 - I will visit the house of Rakhine.

S7 and S5 - We will see the Shan house.

KE - Great! Everyone has selected a house to visit. We will take a short break now.

KA is printing information for you about the house you will visit. After the break, we will discuss how you

can prepare.

BREAK until 10:20

JA & KE - Now, please look at the general paragraph about the National Races Village. We would like to

know if you have questions about the vocabulary.

KE - To learn a new word, always look at the words nearby (around the new word). The nearby words can

help you figure out the meaning of the new word. Then, you can use the Longman Dictionary to check the

meaning to see if you are correct.

JA - What are some words in the paragraph you want to discuss?

http://myanmartravelinformation.com/yangon-where-to-visit/national-races-village.html



STUDENTS -

[new word] constructed - [nearby words] They constructed the NRV. [meaning] built

[new word] landscape - [nearby words] The landscape compound presents … [meaning] area with

green grass and plants

[new word] compound - [nearby words] The landscape compound presents. [meaning] a place,

community, with people staying there

[new word] idealistic - [nearby words] The compound presents an idealistic view. [meaning] not

real, how things would be if all was perfect (Example -- people living together peacefully).

S4 - So, all tribes staying together without war in Myanmar is idealistic.

S1 - Idealistic would be different tribes with different cultures and thinking living together in one place.

S3 - I think idealistic is not real, only pretending (not true).

KE - Idealistic is a difficult word. We can’t see or touch it. It is a concept (a thought or idea). Do you have

other words that are new?

[new word] climb up - [nearby words] When you arrive, climb up the tower. [meaning] go up

(walk up) to the top of

[new word] basin - [nearby words] They live in the Irrawaddy basin. You know Irrawaddy is a river.

They live in the Irrawaddy river basin. - [meaning] place that is lower at the center than at the

edges; land where water runs down into a river.

The Longman Dictionary example is the Amazon basin.

JA & KE - Now we will explain your homework to prepare for the field trip to the National Races Village.

There are two things for you to do.

1. Select 3 or 4 words from the paragraph about your house at the village. In your journal write 3 or 4

words and some of the words nearby. Then try to figure out the meaning and use the Longman

Dictionary, http://www.ldoceonline.com/, to check the meaning.

http://www.ldoceonline.com/


For example --

S6 will pick one word from his paragraph about Rakhine.

o [new word] unmarred

o [nearby words] and unmarried sons

o [meaning] not married, single, bachelor

S2 can pick one word now from his paragraph.

o new word] utensils

o [nearby words] Traditional utensils are depicted on the pillars of the house.

o [meaning] ?

S2 - What if we have no Internet dictionary? I have a book dictionary at home; can I use that? Is the

Oxford the same as Longman?

KE & JA - If you have an English-to-English dictionary, you can try it.

S8 - Do I need to pick a word and then explain it?

JA - Yes

S1 - I have seen a loom made of wood, and I know the meaning, but I don’t not know what it looks

like.

KE & JA - If you know what it is, you do not need to write it in your journal. But, it would be a great

question for the next part (part 2 of your homework about the National Races Village.

2. In your journal, write 3 or 4 questions about things you want to see at NRV in your house.

For example --

S1’s QUESTION - What does a back strap loom look like?

KE & JA - All of you know how to write questions; remember, you wrote questions before we visited the

School for Disabled Children and the Association for Aid and Relief this week.

On Tuesday next week at the National Races Village, try to find answers to your questions.

We will break for lunch now.

Lunch - 11:30-12:30


Life Story part 1 (This was yesterday’s homework.)

JA - We did a lot of planning and some reading this morning; now we will do some writing. We asked you

to finish writing part 1 of your life story for homework. Was everybody able to write a full page.

S5 - I tried to write a full page, but I only have ¾ of a page.

JA - That’s ok

S1 - I wrote a draft.

JA - That is exactly what we call this. We call this (the page in your journal about your life) a draft;

sometimes it’s called a rough draft.

S5 - What does ‘rough’ mean?

JA - Can anybody guess?

S1 - I know what ‘draft’ means.

S3 - And, ‘rough’ is not smooth.

S5 - I remember now.

JA - S3 is right; ‘rough’ is not smooth. Here we mean a ‘first draft’, not a ‘final draft’. You final draft will be

clean and closer to perfect. So we’d like you to begin. Some people have written part 1 and some have

finished more than part 1, maybe part 2. WOW! S3 already has 1 1/3 pages for part 1. It is his ‘second

draft’.

S3 - It’s not final yet.

JA - So, we will start by asking everyone to type your second draft. And we want you to save it on a USB

stick. Type it and save it; it’s important to save very often. Then, during the break, the teachers would like

to read your second draft. Then, we will do some teacher-to-student dialoguing

S4 - I need to write part 1 again.

JA - You only need to type it on the computer now.

S4 - I have no USB stick.

JA - We will give you one. We would like you just to type from your journal. You don’t need to look up

new words or make changes. Just copy what you wrote in your journal.

S6 - I think some of the people can type very fast, but not others. It may take a long time.


JA - That’s okay. We will type until the break. Does everyone have a computer here to use?

S6 - I will move near S2.

JA - Any questions?

STUDENTS - We don’t have questions.

JA - We need to give you a USB stick now. Your USB stick has your initials on it.

S3 - Can I start part 2?

JA to S3 - First copy it on your USB stick. Then you have it on two places and it is safe. Then, you can start

part 2. Would you like to write in the journal first and then type?

S3 - I prefer typing first. I will type my first draft of part 2

JA - When you finish, you can take a break.

Short Break

JA - Good, everyone typed draft 2 (second draft). That’s great. Everyone has their USB stick now. You need

to bring it to class every time. So you don’t lose your stick, you can keep it on a ring in your binder, or you

can tie it on a string. Now, I have a question.

JA - Can you type at home or some place outside of this center on a computer? Please raise your hand if

you can.

JA to S8 and S4 - Can you type at Mary Chapman School?

S8 and S4 - We can sometimes use computers at MCS

JA - If we ask you to type part 2, can you do it for homework?

Students answers - Yes.

S7 - We have days off, can we go ahead?

JA - Yes, then your homework will be to write the first draft of part 2. If you finish part 1 and part 2, and

you have time, you can do part 3.

JA - Now, we would like to dialogue about draft 2 of part 1. We can use both your dialogue journal and

your printed page. Any questions?

S4 & S8 - We might have difficulty using a computer. We just want to write in our journal for homework.

JA - If you have difficulty using a computer, write part 2 in your journal.


JA - We will do teacher-student dialogue now. Let’s write.

JA & KE - Here is the homework. We will print this homework list and distribute it; you do not need to

copy it. There are four things to do for homework because of the long weekend.

HOMEWORK FOR THE LONG WEEKEND

Life Story part 1 - If possible, type part 1 (Draft 3) on a computer, and save it on your USB stick.

Life Story part 2 - Write a rough draft of part 2. (You can type it or write it in your journal book.)

Famous Deaf Scientists - reading and writing (Select one scientist from those KA has printed.)

Answer the same questions as before. It will probably be easier for you this time.

Native Races Village reading and writing questions

o Pick 3 or 4 vocabulary items from your house description. Write the word, nearby words,

and the definition in your journal.

o Write 3 or 4 questions that you have about the house you will see at NRV.

--

For Tuesday morning at NRC, here is the list (from above notes) of the houses students will visit.

S2 - Kachin.

S1 and S8 - Kayin.

S3 - Chin.

S4 - Mon.

S6 - Rakhine.

S7 and S5 - Shan house.

--

JA, KE, & KA - Good bye. Enjoy the long weekend. And, try to read and write some English every day.

--CLASS ENDED--


Appendix C. References for reading materials used for instruction in our ELI pilot

program.

NEWS IN LEVELS - This is a world news site specifically designed for students of

English. Three different levels of the same news item are offered in three different levels.

Along with the news article, there are pictures, glossaries, and questions. After reading,

discussing, and writing about the first level of an article, students are encouraged to read

the second level, and then the third level to get more information about the topic.

(http://www.newsinlevels.com/

DEAF SCIENTIST CORNER - This site has readings for intermediate English language

learners and includes over 30 readings about famous deaf scientists. Students are able to

select short biographies for these deaf individual according to the field in which they

made contributions. http://www.twu.edu/dsc/

MYANMAR CULTURE - This site has information about several of the festivals

celebrated within the different states and includes photos and descriptions of the

celebrations. The readings are available in English and other languages.

(http://www.myanmars.net/myanmar-culture/index.htm)

MYANMAR NATIONAL RACES VILLAGE - Readings on this site include

descriptions and brief histories for each of eight groups of peoples found in Myanmar.

Student learned vocabulary to read about the village they wished to visit within the

museum and for a writing activity following the field trip.

(http://myanmartravelinformation.com/yangon-where-to-visit/national-races-village.html)

ASSOCIATION FOR AID AND RELIEF, JAPAN (AAR Japan) - This is an

international organization founded in 1979; it delivers assistance services to people in

need. In Yangon, Myanmar, this organization opened a Vocational Training Center for

http://www.newsinlevels.com/

http://www.twu.edu/dsc/

http://www.myanmars.net/myanmar-culture/index.htm



Persons with Disabilities in 2000. During our field trip, we saw students learning hair

styling, sewing, and computer skills. (http://www.lrcmyanmar.org/en/ngo-donor-

profiles/association-aid-and-relief-japan-aar-japan)

http://www.lrcmyanmar.org/en/ngo-donor-profiles/association-aid-and-relief-japan-aar-japan

http://www.lrcmyanmar.org/en/ngo-donor-profiles/association-aid-and-relief-japan-aar-japan


Appendix D. Examples of teacher-student and student-student dialogues.

Teacher - Student Dialogue

Student - Student Dialogue


Appendix E. Journal entry with teacher-student interaction about schooling during

last stages of autobiography.


Appendix F. Journal entry with teacher-student interaction about work during last

stages of autobiography.

Teaching English to Deaf Adults in Myanmar 1 - RIT - People · Teaching English to Deaf Adults in...

Documents

Transcript of Teaching English to Deaf Adults in Myanmar 1 - RIT - People · Teaching English to Deaf Adults in...