Sign of the Times

The Quality Assurance of the

Teaching and Assessment of South
African Sign Language
 SIGN OF THE TIMES
The Quality Assurance of the Teaching
and Assessment of South African Sign
Language
 COPYRIGHT 2018

UMALUSI COUNCIL FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE

IN GENERAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

While all reasonable steps are taken to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the information contained
herein, Umalusi accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever if the information is, for whatsoever reason,
incorrect, and Umalusi reserves its right to amend any incorrect information.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 2
Acronyms and Abbreviations.................................................................................................. 3
Definitions of Terms/Concepts ................................................................................................ 5
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ 7
South African Sign Language Fingerspelling ........................................................................ 8
Executive summary ................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 9
Data and Research Methodology ................................................................................... 10
Findings and Discussion ...................................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER ONE: Background .................................................................................................. 16
1.1 Historical Background .......................................................................................... 16
1.2 Motivation .............................................................................................................. 18
1.3 Purpose ................................................................................................................... 18
1.4 Research Questions .............................................................................................. 19
CHAPTER TWO: Literature Survey – Approaches to Deaf Education in South Africa .. 20
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 20
2.2 What is a Language? ........................................................................................... 20
2.3 What is Sign Language? ...................................................................................... 21
2.4 What is SASL? ......................................................................................................... 21
2.5 Specific Aims of Learning SASL HL ..................................................................... 22
2.6 Notes on Terminology .......................................................................................... 23
2.7 SASL HL Skills ........................................................................................................... 24
2.8 An Integrated Approach – FP ............................................................................ 25
2.9 SASL Approaches to Teaching and Learning .................................................. 25
2.10 Sign Bilingualism as Described by the SASL HL CAPS ...................................... 26
2.11 The Relationship between the LOLT and the LOL ........................................... 27
2.12 SASL HL Teaching Model ..................................................................................... 29
2.13 Formal Assessment and its Purpose ................................................................... 30
2.14 SASL HL Skills and Assessment in the FP ............................................................. 30
2.15 SASL HL Skills and Assessment in the IP .............................................................. 32

iii
 2.16 SASL HL Skills and Assessment in the SP ............................................................. 33
2.17 SASL HL Skills and Assessment in the FET Phase ................................................ 35
2.18 Essential Issues in Sign Language Assessment ................................................. 36
2.19 Moderation of the Sign Language Assessment Tasks .................................... 38
2.20 Standardisation ..................................................................................................... 40
2.21 Minimum Resources Required for SASL Home Language ............................. 41
2.22 SASL Laboratory Descriptions ............................................................................. 42
2.23 Recording and Reporting for Grades 4-12 ....................................................... 44
CHAPTER THREE: Literature Survey – International Approaches to Deaf Education ... 45
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 45
3.2 Deaf Education ..................................................................................................... 45
3.3 Bilingualism in Deaf Education ........................................................................... 45
3.4 Natural Sign Languages and Manual Codes for Spoken Languages ........ 48
3.5 Approaches to Deaf Education in Singapore ................................................. 49
3.6 Instructional Support to Deaf Education in Singapore .................................. 54
3.7 International Approaches to Assessment in Sign Language ........................ 55
CHAPTER FOUR: Methods ....................................................................................................... 62
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 62
4.2 Research Design ................................................................................................... 62
4.3 Research Instruments and Data Collection ..................................................... 62
4.4 Targeted and Accessible Population ............................................................... 63
4.5 Research Sample .................................................................................................. 63
CHAPTER FIVE: Research Results and Discussion ................................................................ 64
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 64
5.2 Results and Discussion of Findings ...................................................................... 64
5.3 Accommodations or Concessions .................................................................... 75
5.4 Challenges ............................................................................................................. 76
CHAPTER SIX: Recommendations ......................................................................................... 77
6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 77
6.2 Areas of Good Practice ...................................................................................... 77
6.3 Areas of Concern ................................................................................................. 78
6.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................... 78
6.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 80
References................................................................................................................................ 82

iv
FOREWORD
In publishing this report, Umalusi wishes to signal its commitment to the ideal of a more
responsible and inclusive national system of education. Through its quality assurance
role, Umalusi aims to support the Deaf community in strengthening South African Sign
Language. Together, we will learn from international best practices, especially from
the innovative work that South Africans are doing in our own country, and use the
lessons and knowledge learnt to strengthen the teaching and assessment of South
African Sign Language as a Home Language.

This report represents not the end, but the beginning of a journey in understanding
and enhancing the South African Sign Language Curriculum. This curriculum has been
constructed not only as the bedrock for learning and teaching in the Deaf
community, but it also provides access to Deaf learners to truly learn and be taught
in their mother tongue.

Umalusi’s work in quality assuring the curriculum and assessments of this new subject
is an important role, and the organisation approaches the task with great seriousness.
As this report reveals, Deaf education has not always been given the respect and
prominence it deserves, and indeed Deaf voices have not always been heard in the
planning of the system of learning and teaching.

It is with great pleasure that Umalusi can report that with the launch of the South
African Sign Language Curriculum, a great step forward has been taken on the road
to equity and equality of learning for the Deaf community. Challenges still remain, as
this report will show, but we can look back on what has been achieved to date with
pride and a feeling of hope as we travel along the road ahead of us.

Dr MS Rakometsi
CEO of Umalusi

1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Umalusi wishes to acknowledge:

The leadership of Dr MS Rakometsi, Mr E Sibanda and Ms E Burroughs, who saw the

need for this project to be undertaken in order to prepare the organisation for quality
assurance of the assessment of South African Sign Language in 2018. A time, which
coincides with the writing of South African Sign Language Home Language by the first
group of Deaf learners for the first time in the country, and the first Home Language
examinations in any sign language in the world.

Dr Stephan Mchunu for conducting the research and writing the report.

The Quality Assurance of Assessments Unit of Umalusi under the leadership of Ms Z

Modimakwane and Ms M Madalane and the middle management for cooperation
about names recommended for potential Umalusi external moderators.

Dr E Sujee, Senior Manager at Umalusi, for her continued support and encouragement
during the dissemination of the research findings and recommendations at Umalusi as
well as at local and international conferences. A sincere gratitude also goes to Mr
Mohau Kekana (QCC Unit Assistant Administrator) for support in various ways during
fieldwork.

Schools for the Deaf in Gauteng Province for opening their doors for the
accomplishment of this huge project. The Gauteng Department of Education Head
Office (Special Needs Education Unit) for making time for Umalusi to gather the
required data for this project.

The Department of Basic Education for the information that was collected during
group interview meetings and for allowing Umalusi to continue with its investigation
during South African Sign Language Home Language teacher training workshops
coordinated by Ms AM Schroeder.

Professor M Kaneko and Ms N Janse Van Vuuren from the School of Literature,
Language and Media at the University of the Witwatersrand for their inputs during the
South African Sign Language teaching, learning and assessment information sharing
that took place at the University.

Professor C Storbeck, the Director: Centre for Deaf Studies at the University of the
Witwatersrand and Ms J Oosthuisen, Umalusi South African Sign Language Home
Language External Moderator, for their input during the information sharing session
that was held at Umalusi.

2
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AAP Annual Assessment Plan
ASL American Sign Language
Auslan Australian Sign Language
AVT Auditory Verbal Theory
CAPS Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement
CODA Child of Deaf adult
CSL Chinese Sign Language
BSL British Sign Language
DBE Department of Basic Education
DCDP Deaf child of Deaf parent
DCHP Deaf child of hearing parent
DeafSA Deaf Federation of South Africa
DGS German Sign language or Deutsche Gebärdensprache
DHH Deaf or hard-of-hearing
DTA Deaf teaching assistant
FAL First Additional Language
FET Further Education and Training
FM Frequency modulation
FP Foundation Phase
GENFETQA General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Act
GSL Greek Sign Language
HL Home Language
HOD Head of department
HOH Hard of hearing
IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
IEB Independent Examination Board
IEP Individual education program
IP Intermediate Phase
ISL Irish Sign Language
JSL Japanese Sign Language
KSL Kenyan Sign Language
LAK Swahili Sign Language
LOLT Language of learning and teaching
LOL Language of literacy
LSF French Sign Language
MID Mild intellectual disabilities
NAD National Association for the Deaf
NAO Natural auditory oral
NDP National Development Plan
NQF Level 5 National Qualifications Framework Level 5
NSC National Senior Certificate
NZSL New Zealand Sign Language
PanSALB Pan South African Language Board
PAT Practical assessment task
PGCE Postgraduate Certificate in Education
QAA Quality assurance of assessments

3
SADeaf Singapore Association of the Deaf
SASA South African Schools Act
SA-SAMS South African Administration Management Systems
SASL South African Sign Language
SBA School-based assessment
SEE2 Signed Exact English 2
SGB School governing body
SgSL Singapore Sign Language
SLED Sign language education and development
SP Senior Phase
SQA Scottish Qualifications Authority
SSD Singapore School for the Deaf
SSE Singapore Signed English
SLN Netherlands Sign Language
TODHH Teacher of Deaf or hard-of-hearing
TSL Thai Sign Language
UK United Kingdom
TASL Test of American Sign Language

4
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS/CONCEPTS
Assistive listening all types of electronic hearing aids, including personal aids, frequency
devices modulation systems, infrared systems, special input devices for
telephone or television, amplified alarms and signals, etc.
Audism an attitude based on pathological thinking which results in a negative
stigma toward anyone who does not hear
Bicultural membership of two cultures, such as Deaf culture and hearing culture
Bilingual being able to use two languages; for some Deaf children this will, for
example, be the use of sign language and English
Classifiers productive morpheme that represents the visual appearance,
placement, movement and/or handling of objects and animate
beings; classifiers do not occur in isolation but must be used with a
noun referent; can be inflected to show pluralisation, position and
verb movement
Cochlear implant an electronic device surgically implanted to stimulate nerve endings
in the inner ear (i.e. cochlea) in order to receive and process sound
and speech
Comprehension same as in English Home Language but presented in sign language.
question It is different from in a spoken home language in the way it is
presented in sign language and the way it is answered in sign
language. Cognitive demands still apply
Contextual same as in English Home Language but presented in sign language
question
Drama Same as in English Home Language but presented in sign language,
however, this is a new concept in sign language. There is no
prescribed sign language drama at present, but the Curriculum and
Assessment Policy Statement gives direction on what is to be taught
in drama.
Essay question same as in English Home Language but presented in sign language
Frequency an assistive listening device that transmits the speaker’s voice to an
modulation system electronic receiver in which the sound is amplified and transmitted to
the student’s ears via small earphones on the student’s personal
hearing aid. The device reduces the problems of background noise
interference and distance from the speaker
Frequency the number of vibrations per second of a sound. Frequency,
expressed in Hertz (Hz), determines the pitch of sound
Gesture movement of any part of the body to express or emphasise an idea,
an emotion, or a function. Not part of a formal communication system
Glossing a way of representing signs and non-manual features in printed words.
For example, a signed word for mother is written as MOTHER (in capital
letters)
Handshape this parameter refers to the shape of the hands at onset; form
adopted by the hand depending on the position of the fingers
Length of a paragraph in sign language is referred to as a chunk and length is
paragraph determined by time in minutes
Location this parameter refers to where the sign is articulated, either on the
body or the signing space

5
Morpheme a linguistic unit of relatively stable meaning that cannot be divided
into smaller meaningful parts
Movement this is the parameter within which the direction, speed, repetition
and manner are important when conveying the meaning in signing
News item this is usually a non-fiction piece that is presented to inform the
audience in sign language
Non-manual these actions are produced by any part of the body from the waist
features up, other than the hands, and carry grammatical meaning by using
movements of the eyes, eyebrows, head, or shoulders and various
kinds of facial expressions using lip, cheek, and tongue movement;
no English equivalent
Palm orientation this is the parameter that describes the direction of the palm and/or
fingertips during the production of the sign
Parameters these are the five characteristics or basic parts of a sign, namely
handshape, location, palm orientation, movement and non-manual
features
question papers SASL ‘papers’ are presented as video texts
Semantics the use in language of meaningful referents, in both word and
sentence structures
Speech a presentation in sign language that communicates to its viewers as
a speech would to a hearing audience
Syntax defines the word classes of language (i.e. nouns, verbs, etc.) and the
rules for their combination (i.e. which words can be combined and
in what order to convey meaning), also known as grammar; major
sign categories i.e. lexical and parts of speech

6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Skills used in SASL HL and English Home Language 24
Table 2.2: SASL Home Language and Description 25
Table 3.1: Singapore Sign Language and Gestures 49

7
SOUTH AFRICAN SIGN LANGUAGE FINGERSPELLING
South African Sign Language fingerspelling is a manual representation of the alphabet
of a written language; there is a one-to-one relationship between the letters of the
spoken language and the handshape. As such, South African Sign Language
fingerspelling is not signed language, but it is used by signers to represent the written
form when needed (e.g. proper nouns, acronyms and technical jargon).

8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction

Historical Background

South African Sign Language (SASL) is one of the visual-spatial native languages used
by the Deaf community in South Africa to learn, communicate, express thoughts,
feelings and abstract ideas. The ability to communicate is a basic human ability,
including those in the Deaf community. SASL is a distinct language which uses special
features for communication different from those in all other spoken languages in South
Africa. The distinguishing feature of signed languages is that they are communicated
through the medium of space, not sound, and that they use hands, face, head and
upper torso for their realisation.

The SASL is at present not an official language of South Africa, but it is recognised and
protected in various legislative and governmental policies and is even acknowledged
as a language equal in status to the 11 official languages in the country. The
Department of Basic Education has recently developed and introduced the South
African Sign Language Home Language Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement
for the Deaf to be offered in schools. The Policy for South African Sign Language
Grade 9 was implemented simultaneously with South African Sign Language in the
Foundation Phase. This means, South African Sign Language was introduced as a
subject to pupils in Grades R to Grade 3 and Grade 9 in 2015. In 2016, South African
Sign Language was introduced to the Intermediate Phase (starting at Grade 4) and
in the Further Education and Training Phase (starting at Grade 10). Grade 12 Deaf
learners will complete the National Senior Certificate with South African Sign
Language Home Language in 2018.

Umalusi has to understand the curriculum for quality assurance purposes, and this was
the impetus behind this research project.

Aim of the Study

The aim of the study was to provide guidance to Umalusi in its role as the quality assurer
for SASL Home Language SBA and examinations. The scope of the SASL Project also
encompassed understanding how Deaf learners are assessed as well as the kind of
resources and materials required for assessment, including identifying potential
national moderators and evaluators.

9
Data and Research Methodology

Data

Data collection involved the following:

Literature review (including of the SASL Home Language CAPS) focusing on teaching,
learning and assessment processes and procedures for SASL as well as the quality
assurance of the assessment of sign language by other countries.

Key informant interviews took place to obtain detailed information relating to formal
assessments, marking of scripts, moderation and verification of SBA, moderation of
question papers, and verification of marking, monitoring and evaluation of the state
of readiness, examination writing and marking. Face-to-face, one-on-one and in-
person interviews were conducted with the DBE (Item Development Unit) specialists
and officials, experts from schools for the Deaf as well as experts from the University of
the Witwatersrand. Interviews were also conducted with the SASL HL curriculum
developers from the DBE.

Observation of teaching and assessment practices with the seven Deaf schools
included in the study. During observation, the researcher’s role remained one of an
impartial, non-participatory observer. All the Gauteng Province schools that were
visited gave permission for photos and videos to be taken. However, these photos
and videos could not be made available for public consumption due to ethical
reasons.

Method

Research Design
The SASL Project is largely located within the qualitative research paradigm and
applies a case study approach involving the DBE (Item Development Unit), seven SASL
schools for the Deaf selected from Gauteng Province and the University of the
Witwatersrand.

Targeted and Accessible Population

In this study, all schools offering SASL HL in South Africa constitute the target
population. These schools form a natural grouping per province and per phase in
respect of this research topic. In terms of the accessible population, this consisted of
all schools offering SASL HL in Gauteng Province.

Research Sample
Non-probability convenience sampling was used to select schools. The sample
consisted of schools offering SASL HL in Gauteng Province. All seven schools for the
Deaf in the Province participated.

10
Findings and Discussion

Results and Discussion of Findings

Seven schools for the Deaf were visited in Gauteng Province. Of these, two had Grade
9 as the highest grade, two Grade 10 and three had Grade 11. One of the schools
has a Grade 10 bridging class. In 2018, Gauteng Province will have two schools with
learners writing SASL HL examinations at an exit level (Grade 12). Two schools offer
Grade 12 over two years. One of these schools will write SASL Home Language in 2019
and another will write SASL Home language in 2020 since its learners started SASL
Home Language in Grade 10 in 2017.

Teacher Qualifications

It is clear that regarding teacher qualifications, expertise in relation to SASL

qualifications is lacking. This is a worldwide challenge. Hearing teachers, most of
whom are not fluent SASL users, continue to dominate the educational process.

Large numbers of teachers may be unaware of the linguistic differences between ASL
and English-based sign systems. In addition, the privileging of English over ASL causes
many teachers to change ASL from a rich, fully formed language to a manually
coded version of English. For this reason, in South Africa SASL HL is strictly promoted
over Signed English or any other spoken language. In other countries, like Singapore,
they have SEE. This dilutes the purity and the linguistics of sign language. To overcome
these risks of dilution, it is important that teacher preparation programmes adequately
instil sign language proficiency (fluency) in their students. The DBE provides ongoing
workshops and training for SASL teachers as does the University of the Witwatersrand.

Teaching and Learning

All the schools that were visited follow the SASL HL CAPS curriculum which has four
learning outcomes: Observing and Signing, Visual Reading and Viewing, Recording,
and Language Structure. The findings show that SASL HL is the LOLT in all the schools
that were observed. In some schools, teaching and learning takes place through
PowerPoint presentations. Teaching and learning focuses on the SASL Parameters
including: reading, viewing, comparing, phonological awareness and the structure of
the language.

The implementation of SASL HL needs teachers with both teaching and SASL skills,
however there is a lack of qualified Deaf teachers to teach SASL as a result of barriers
to tertiary education and teacher training for Deaf South. In the absence of a
qualified Deaf teacher, the Curriculum Management Team (appointed by the
Minister of Basic Education in 2010) proposed a bilingual-bicultural team teaching
model in which a hearing teacher is paired with a DTA. In this model, the DTAs have

11
expertise in SASL and the qualified hearing teachers in teaching methodologies,
classroom practice and the English-based curriculum.

Schools use DVDs from SLED for language structure. Learners watch and observe a
signed story from the video and thereafter relate the story through signing whilst being
videoed. One of the schools indicated that teachers use textbooks borrowed from
English HL. There are no SASL HL textbooks. Whatever textbook is chosen, the
curriculum of the SASL course should reflect four broad areas: grammatical features
of SASL, the lexicon of SASL, practice with SASL conversational skills and cultural
awareness.

Assessing SASL Home Language

The findings show that the learners’ signing skills are assessed through Recording,
Observing and Signing, and Visual Reading and Viewing. All assessments are
recorded and rubrics are used for marking. No pen and paper were used during the
assessment of SASL HL. One of the schools observed used a hard copy question paper
and learners signed the answers. This situation is not ideal for SASL HL assessments.
Preferably, learners should have access to laptops with webcams and all questions
should be signed and recorded using the laptops. In all of the schools observed, SASL
HL assessment takes place in a SASL laboratory and in the presence of both the
qualified hearing teacher and the DTA.

The learners’ SBA portfolios are kept on memory sticks and on computer hard drives.
The memory sticks are retained by the school for security reasons. The teachers’ files
are kept as hard copies (memo) and digital copies of question papers. The learners’
files are also kept as hard copies of marked answer sheets and digital copies of
answers.

Internal and External Moderation

Schools use pre- and post-moderation tools for the internal moderation of the learners’
assessments. Some schools have School Assessment Teams (SATs) that are responsible
for the quality assurance of the internal assessment and moderation. In some schools,
teachers teaching senior classes/grades moderate question papers for teachers
teaching junior classes/grades. Information provided by one of the national
examiners for SASL HL indicates that the HOD or another SASL teacher usually does
internal moderation at school level. The requirement is that the moderator should
have SASL HL proficiency and be knowledgeable about phase-specific content. The
tools for internal moderations (SASL pre- and post-assessment moderation) were
circulated to SASL HL teachers nationwide to use during moderation.

The SASL subject advisors had not been appointed during the time of the writing of
this report. As a consequence, provincial or national external moderation had not

12
taken place. But, the DBE uses the spoken language subject advisors in the interim to
check if schools comply with the CAPS policy.

Sources of Expertise

Data from the schools relating to sources of expertise to moderate the assessment
tasks indicate that Deaf schools from the Gauteng Province draw their expertise from
the University of the Witwatersrand and SLED. The University of the Witwatersrand and
the University of the Free State are the only two universities in the country currently
offering SASL training to teachers.

In terms of expertise for internal moderation, the HODs, and in some schools the
principals, do pre- and post-assessment moderation of the SBAs. Teachers also
moderate each other’s work. However, the lack of qualified SASL HL teachers means
this expertise is spread very thinly. Some schools draw additional expertise from
teachers for other subjects such as English HL; however such teachers can only
moderate the written form of the assessment since they are neither fluent in sign
language nor are they sign language experts.

Some schools have teachers that are qualified in special needs education or inclusive
education but with no specialisation in Deaf education or in SASL. One school had
three qualified DTAs, two with SASL NQF Level 5 and one had a BEd, Honours in Deaf
Education and SASL NQF level six. This is commendable. However, some schools rely
on DTAs as native and fluent signers to do the moderation of the SBA tasks. Teachers
in one of the schools visited confessed that they are unsure if they are moderating the
assessment tasks correctly and would value some guidance in this regard.

Management of Mark Lists

HODs and principals moderate mark sheets and check if marks are correctly entered
into the mark lists. Teachers stated that marks are weighted and captured into the
mark lists. Schools use the SA-SAMS or administration system to capture marks for SASL
HL assessments and assist teachers to follow assessment guidelines provided in the
SASL CAPS. In some schools, mark lists are checked during the class visits.

Recommendations

This study makes the following recommendations:

External moderation
a) For the delivery of the SASL Home Language curriculum, the DBE also
encourages a team-teaching model. A panel or team of external moderators is
encouraged for SASL HL moderation. Each panel or team should comprise one
Deaf SASL professional and two qualified SASL hearing professionals.

13
Training (Umalusi staff)
a) It is recommended that Umalusi should give staff members basic training in SASL,
especially those that will be dealing with question paper moderation, monitoring
and evaluation as well as management of assessments in SASL HL.

Expertise
a) The urgent appointment of SASL HL provincial subject advisors is recommended,
since there are relatively few schools for the Deaf in South Africa and subject
advisors are required by the SASL HL CAPS for IP, SP and FET Phase to moderate
samples of tests and examinations to verify the standard of the tasks and internal
moderation from 2018 going forward.

The SASL HL teachers should all be qualified in SASL HL and/or in Deaf education.
In addition, the SASL teachers should be trained in SASL literature on an ongoing
basis.

Teacher development
a) SASL teacher development should be prioritized and should include training in
literature and the teaching of poetry, drama and short stories.

Assessment and question paper moderation

a) The following expertise should be involved during test development or
examination question paper setting: native signers (could be qualified Deaf
academics or qualified CODAs) and qualified, hearing SASL professionals.

b) Teaching, learning and assessment should help learners develop the following
skills: comprehension, narrative, receptive and expressive skills. To achieve this,
teachers should use text-based approach more frequently during teaching and
learning with the use of DVDs and other resources.

c) Discrepancies in the different assessment methods for SASL HL should be

addressed. It is recommended that these be aligned to make use of only sign
language with questions presented via laptops and answers recorded on
laptops with webcams. No paper and pen should be used. This should be the
practice from the FP to the FET Phase.

Marking
a) The SASL markers must be fluent signers and should include Deaf persons.

b) Marking should be done at national level because the number of candidates

will always be very small as there are only a few schools for the Deaf in the
country.

14
Technical
a) The DBE should ensure that resources, such as the SASL laboratory, are
technologically flawless and ready for the first Grade 12 SASL HL examination in
2018.

b) Each school should employ a technical person to deal with any technological
challenges that may arise while the SASL examinations are in progress.

c) The DBE must appoint technical experts to deal with the editing of question
papers that are developed in PowerPoint.

SASL FAL
a) The curriculum for SASL FAL should be developed and be introduced in the
mainstream schools so that hearing people can also communicate with Deaf
people.

15
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND
1.1 Historical Background

Deafness and Deaf people are as old as humanity itself but the earliest recorded
history of communication and education of Deaf people was in the 16th century. Deaf
children of very rich parents in Spain were placed under the care of a monk to be
taught how to speak. Speech was required in order to acquire wealth. The oral
method involves teaching or communicating with Deaf people through the medium
of spoken language (speech). This method was highly developed in Germany and
became known as the "German Method".

However, little is known about the history of the Deaf in South Africa prior to
colonisation (Heap, cited in Aarons and Akach 2002). After colonisation, and at the
onset of government-funded education, the state authorities took little or no
responsibility for establishing schools for the Deaf, and this was left almost entirely to
the various churches. However, a major influence on signed languages was
experienced when a worldwide Deaf education conference was held in Milan in
1880. The year 1880 was a watershed year in deaf education when oralism (non-use
of signed languages) became the formally adopted system of education. During the
debate around oralism, all Deaf delegates were excluded from the voting process
and the result was that the World Congress of Educators of the Deaf voted for a policy
of strict oralism in schools for the Deaf. This was an attempt to eradicate Sign
Language from the face of the earth. This led to signed language going
“underground”. However, Deaf people did not stop signing to one another. Another
result of the decision to follow the oralism approach was that Signed languages
became stigmatised, and Deaf people, particularly those who wanted to consider
themselves educated, did not sign in public (Aarons and Akach 2002:131). The
decisions that were taken in Milan Congress affected South African schools a few
years later. More and more teachers were trained using oral methods, and Sign
Language became marginalized in terms of its use as a language of communication
and education (Storbeck, Magongwa & Parkin, 2009). Sorbeck, et al (2009) further
report that within the teaching community, conflict arose as the modality debate
heightened, and within the broader Deaf communities (including parents and
extended families), there were splits on the basis of their acceptance or rejection of
sign language and the oral method. Furthermore, Storbeck, et al (2009:135) report
on the first establishments of the schools for the Deaf in South Africa as follows:

In answer to this international declaration, The Worcester School for the Deaf
and Blind was established in 1881 (by the Dutch Reformed Church in the
Western Cape) and combined oral and manual methods. In 1884, German
Dominican nuns established a school at King Williams Town in the Eastern Cape,
which followed a policy of strict oralism. Both these schools were for “European
deaf children” only. In 1933, the Dutch Reformed Church set up another school

16
 in the Cape, this time for “colored deaf” children known as Nuwe Hoop, and
it, too, combined oral and manual methods. The first school for Black deaf
children, Kutlwanong, was opened in 1941 in Gauteng. This school used a
system of signs invented in Britain known as the Paget-Gorman System, a sign
system that is a manually coded form of English using 37 basic hand signs and
21 distinct hand postures. Although it did not correspond to the natural signs of
the Deaf community, it did allow for the development of a strong visually based
communication code that facilitated rather than repressed a strong Deaf
culture.

In addition, Minna Steyn (2014), coordinator of the Deaf Education pilot project,
reported to the IOL (Independent Online) news and Cape Argus (daily newspaper)
that Deaf children were taught in the language of instruction at their school – for
example, English or Afrikaans – combined with signs, but were not offered sign
language as a mother tongue. Deaf children in schools were not taught in their first
language, South African Sign Language. This was the practice before the
development of the South African Sign Language Home Language curriculum.

Based on the given background the history of Deaf education in South Africa is
influenced by apartheid, which characterized the country from the 1940s. During
apartheid, segregation was based on race and culture (Magongwa, 2017).
Magongwa (2017) further asserts that this situation affected both language
development and access to education by Deaf people. Today however, most Deaf
people take pride in their signed language – a complete turnaround from the stigma
attached to its use in the past. The history of the signed language used in South Africa
is closely linked to the development of schools for the Deaf in this country (Aarons and
Akach 2002:130). As time went by, South African Sign Language was developed.

South African Sign Language (SASL) is one of the visual-spatial native languages used
by the Deaf community in South Africa to learn, communicate, express thoughts,
feelings and abstract ideas. The ability to communicate is a basic human ability,
including those in the Deaf community. SASL is a distinct language which uses special
features for communication different from those in all other spoken languages in South
Africa. The unique structure and grammar of the language makes it a special case
for investigation with the hope of understanding its history, development, use and
status in the Deaf community and the broader South African context in order for
Umalusi to fulfil its mandate as the Quality Assurer of General and Further Education
and Training (GENFET).

The National Development Plan (NDP) emphasises the importance of African (or
‘mother tongue’) languages as integral to education, science and technology, and
the development and preservation of these languages. SASL has historically been
excluded from this ‘mother tongue’ emphasis due to the non-availability of SASL

17
curriculum. This in turn has resulted in the marginalisation of Deaf learners in respect of
their access to information and quality education.

Umalusi has to understand the curriculum for quality assurance purposes. The quality
assurance processes include moderation and verification of School-Based
Assessments (SBA), moderation of final examination question papers, and discussion
of marking guidelines, verification of the marking of final examination scripts, post-
examination analysis and standardisation of marks. The quality assurance process also
includes monitoring and evaluation of the state of readiness of provincial
departments, districts and schools. The writing and marking phases also need to be
monitored and evaluated for quality assurance purposes. These standard practices
will have to be adapted to deal with SASL Home Language (HL). Adaptation will also
mean modifying or reviewing some of the instruments that are used during, for
example, monitoring and evaluation of the state of readiness.

1.2 Motivation

SASL is at present not an official language of South Africa, but it is recognised and
protected in various legislative and governmental policies and is even acknowledged
as a language equal in status to the 11 official languages in the country. SASL is also
not the only sign language used in South Africa, however it is being promoted as the
language to be used by all Deaf people in South Africa.

Since SASL has been used as a mode of communication and learning, it therefore
becomes important for Umalusi to understand the curriculum on which it is grounded
and how it is being assessed.

SASL is a visual gestural language which has significant implications for its assessment.
Currently, there are no nationally approved signed question ‘papers’ and assessments
available to provide a picture of the standard and level of competence required to
achieve the minimum requirements for SASL at a particular phase of learning. The
Department of Basic Education (DBE) is, however, in the process of developing SASL
exemplar papers for Grade 10. Once these papers are finalised, they will provide
insightful information on how the learners are to be assessed.

1.3 Purpose

The purpose of this research, was to provide guidance to Umalusi in its role as the
quality assurer for SASL Home Language SBA and examinations. In doing so, the
research sought to understand the theoretical framework that underpins the SASL
curriculum, how the content of that curriculum materially differs from other HL
curricula, and how this impacts on delivery and implementation. The scope of the
SASL Project also encompassed understanding how Deaf learners are assessed as well
as the kind of resources and materials are required for assessment, including
identifying potential national moderators and evaluators.

18
1.4 Research Questions

Since the Curriculum Assessment and Policy Statement (CAPS) curriculum for SASL HL
is the first of its kind, and since the assessment of SASL presumably takes on novel forms,
this research was designed to provide answers to the following research questions:

 What is the structure of the new South African Sign Language Home Language
curriculum?
 What recommendations are given to Umalusi regarding the quality assurance of
assessments of the South African Sign Language Home Language?

The answers to these questions are intended to inform how Umalusi understands the
process and responds to these new challenges.

19
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE SURVEY – APPROACHES
TO DEAF EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA
2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the document analysis of the CAPS for SASL HL curriculum. The
CAPS for SASL HL was published in 2014, covering all four phases of education –
foundation, intermediate, senior and FET. CAPS are developed for each subject by
the DBE with the purpose of outlining the knowledge, skills and values learners should
develop through the subject teaching. Since teaching and assessment are regarded
as two sides of the same coin, the quality assurance of a subject must find its roots in
its CAPS. Thus, whilst this study focuses primarily on the assessment of the SASL HL
curriculum, understanding its CAPS must be the starting point. This chapter provides a
review of the SASL CAPS document, highlighting its specific aims, approach to
teaching and learning, assessment and the nature of the learning and teaching
support materials (LTSM). Suitable environments for testing and examining Deaf
candidates and information from best practice are also discussed. Lastly, this chapter
discusses the development and quality assurance (pre- and post-assessment
moderation) of SASL assessment or examination tasks, the expertise involved in the
development of the assessment tasks and the training required. Formal assessment
provides educators with a systematic way of evaluating learners’ progress in a grade
and in a particular subject. Examples of formal assessments include tests,
examinations, practical tasks, projects, signed presentations, demonstrations and
performances. Formal assessment tasks form part of a year-long formal Programme of
Assessment (POA) in each grade and subject. Learners enrolled in Schools for the
Deaf often face multiple barriers to learning, e.g. autism, physical and mental
challenges, mild intellectual disabilities (MID). Their degree of deafness also varies,
some may have severe hearing disabilities or be completely deaf whilst others are
partially deaf. Both hearing and deaf teachers with differing levels of subject and/or
SASL knowledge teach these learners.

2.2 What is a Language?

Many researchers especially the linguists have defined language in various ways.
Chomsky (1957:13, as cited in Lyons, 1981, p. 7)) defines language as “a set (finite or
infinite) of sentences, each infinite in length, and constructed out of finite set of
elements”. According to Bloch and Trager (1942): “A language is a system of arbitrary
vocal symbols by means of which a social group co-operates”. Halliday (2003) states
that “A language is a system of meaning- a semiotic system”. Ergin(1990) defines
“Language is a natural means to enable communication among people, a living
entity that it has its own peculiar laws, by means of which alone can it develop, a
system of contracts whose foundation was laid in times unknown, and a social
institution interwoven with sounds”.

20
According to the DBE (2017), a language is a system of symbols and grammatical
signs that is used and shared by members of a community. The DBE also indicates that
language changes over time and differs according to place. Furthermore, DBE (2017)
maintains that language is used for interaction, communicating ideas, emotions and
intentions as well as passing on of culture between generations. Schembri (2013)
states that spoken languages are naturally developed, complex systems that use a
set of conventionalised sound-based symbols and grammatical rules. They are used
to express an open-ended range of ideas, thoughts and feelings. Schembri (2013)
argues that spoken languages are used in combination with a range of vocal
elements – changes in volume, intonation – and non-vocal elements, such as hand
gestures, facial expressions and body postures.

Sign languages are no different from spoken languages in the majority of the key
features listed above, except in terms of the channel in which the language occurs.
Instead of sound-based symbols (words), sign languages use signs. According to
Schembri (2013), signs are a set of specific handshapes, produced in particular
locations on or around the signer’s body, combined with specific movements.

2.3 What is Sign Language?

Sign language is “the Language used by the Deaf in which hands and body gestures
are the forms of morphemes and words. Sign language is a visual-gestural system that
uses hand and body gestures as the forms used to represent words” (Fromkin, 1998).
Sign language has its own grammar and linguistic structure which is different from
those of spoken languages (SADeaf, 2008-2017). Sign language does not refer to
miming or gestures alone, though it does incorporate these. Sadler and Lillo Martin
(2006) argue that sign languages arise spontaneously whenever Deaf people have
an opportunity to meet regularly. They are acquired by children raised in Deaf families
without instruction, and a long timetable, similar to that of hearing children acquiring
spoken language, exists for the acquisition of sign language. Sign language appears
as effortless and as user-friendly as its spoken counterpart.

Many people have the impression that sign language is a universal language. It is not
universal and sign languages differ across countries (Goy, 2017). Each Deaf
community around the world has its own unique sign language with its own lexicon
and grammar (SADeaf, 2008-2017). Sign language can, thus, be defined as a general
term which refers to a group of languages that are manually produced and visually
understood (SADeaf, 2008-2017). Signed language is natural to Deaf persons, who do
not orientate their lives to the world of sound.

2.4 What is SASL?

SASL is a visual-gestural language created and used by Deaf South Africans to

communicate with one another. SASL is the language typically utilised in Deaf
communicative interactions in South Africa and is unrelated linguistically to any of the

21
spoken languages in the country (Reagan, 2008). Reagan (2008) maintains that SASL
is a distinct language in its own right, not a derivational, pidgin or contact language.
It is a rule-governed, grammatical, systematic and non-arbitrary communication
system similar in nature to other natural sign languages. According to Sutton-Spence
and Woll (1999), SASL is the natural language of signs that has developed in South
Africa over centuries.

SASL is a language that is perceived through the eyes (visually) and not through the
ears (aurally). That explains the ‘visual’ nature of SASL. Signs are made up of specific
hand-shapes at precise locations with particular hand orientation and movements.
Apart from these obvious movements of the hands and arms, the entire face and
upper body are also used in the formation of signs and the grammar of sign language.
Facial expressions and movements of the head and upper body play a central role in
the grammar and intonation of sign language. This is in contrast to aural-oral
languages that use the voice and mouth to articulate and the ears to perceive
(Moskovitz, 1996). An important aspect of SASL is that signers are able, by using space,
to show multiple ideas simultaneously (e.g. one hand can be used to show a person
approaching someone and at the same time the other hand shows the other person
sitting down). This is not possible in spoken language which is linear in construction.

According to Penn (1993:12), “Sign Language is a real language, equivalent to any

other language. Deaf persons can sign about any topic, concrete or abstract, as
economically and as effectively, as rapidly and as grammatically as hearing people
can. Sign language is influenced by equivalent historical social and psychological
factors as spoken language – there are rules for attention-getting, turn-taking, story-
telling; there are jokes, puns, and taboo signs; there are generational effects observed
in Sign Language and metaphors and ‘slips-of-the-hand’”.

Signs in SASL are made up of five parameters: hand-shape, location, movement, palm
orientation and the non-manual features such as specific facial expressions that carry
important grammatical information. SASL has its own distinct linguistic structure that
includes syntax, morphology, phonology and language conventions. It is not based
on any written or spoken language.

2.5 Specific Aims of Learning SASL HL

According to CAPS, learning a language should enable learners to (DBE, 2014a;

2014b; 2014c; and 2014d):

 Acquire the language skills required for academic learning across the curriculum
 Observe, sign, ‘read’/view and record the language with confidence and
enjoyment. These skills and attitudes form the basis for life-long learning
 Use language appropriately, taking into account audience, purpose and
context

22
 Express and justify, in sign, their own ideas, views and emotions confidently in
order to become independent and analytical thinkers
 Use language and their imagination to find out more about themselves and the
world around them. This will enable them to express their experiences and
findings about the world
 Use language to access and manage information for learning across the
curriculum and in a wide range of other contexts. Information literacy is a vital
skill in the ‘information age’ and forms the basis for life-long learning
 Use language as a means for critical and creative thinking; for expressing their
opinions on ethical issues and values; for interacting critically with a wide range
of texts; for challenging the perspectives, values and power relations embedded
in texts; and for ‘reading’ texts for various purposes, such as enjoyment, research
and critique

The CAPS documents for other HL curriculum, such as that for English HL, do not
indicate the specific aims of a HL. However, the specific aims of SASL HL were adapted
from the specific aim for learning additional languages. For example, a First Additional
Language (FAL) should enable learners to:

 Acquire the language skills necessary to communicate accurately and

appropriately, taking into account audience, purpose and context
 Use their Additional Language for academic learning across the curriculum
 Express and justify, orally and in writing, their own ideas, views and emotions
confidently in order to become independent and analytical thinkers
 Use Additional Language and their imagination to find out more about
themselves and the world around them. This will enable them to express their
experiences and findings about the world orally and in writing
 Use Additional Language to access and manage information for learning across
the curriculum and in a wide range of other contexts. Information forms the basis
for lifelong learning
 Use their Additional Language as a means of critical and creative thinking: for
expressing their opinions on ethical issues and values; for interacting critically with
a wide range of texts; for challenging the perspectives, values and power
relations embedded in texts; and for reading texts for various purposes, such as
enjoyment, research, critique

2.6 Notes on Terminology

Deaf (with a capital D) is used to denote a distinct cultural and linguistic group of Deaf
people who use SASL as their language of choice. The Deaf community has a distinct
identity and their experience of the world is particularly shaped by the fact that their
communication is expressed by their bodies and perceived visually. This group may
include hearing children of Deaf parents and other hearing people who are users of
SASL and immerse themselves in the Deaf community e.g. SASL interpreters.

23
However deaf (with a lower case d) is an adjective referring to hearing loss from an
audiological point of view. Many deaf people use spoken language to
communicate. This group includes people who have lost their hearing through age,
illness and trauma, for example.

Some verbs in common usage have a connotation of being associated only with
spoken languages. These verbs appear in the curriculum documents in inverted
commas and must be used and understood in a signed context. Examples: ‘listen to’,
‘tell’, ‘listening’, ‘say’, ‘a speech’, ‘something to say’, ‘read’, ‘voice’.

Throughout the SASL CAPS document, the term ‘text’ is used to denote a body of work
which should be understood as signed texts. These texts, e.g. stories, poems, reports,
are presented in live SASL or may be recorded in SASL. These are NOT written texts.

Where it is necessary for clarity, the capitalised first letter of the word is used to denote
the skill or outcome and the one in lower case is the action or the verb i.e. Signing (the
skill) versus signing (the action). Where SASL GLOSS (the signs represented in English
written form) is used, it is presented in upper case as per convention.

2.7 SASL HL Skills

The skills outlined in the CAPS English HL document were used and adapted for SASL
HL. The skills are shown in the table below.

Table 2.1: Skills used in SASL HL and English HL

CAPS English HL CAPS SASL HL
Phonological awareness (FP only) Phonological awareness (Grades 2 and 3)
Language structure and use (not for FP) Language structure and use (not for FP)
Tone Signing mode
Oral Observing and Signing
Listening and speaking Observing and Signing
Writing Recording
Speaking Signing
Listening Observing
Novel Longer story
Writing and presenting Recording
Visual Reading and Viewing Reading and viewing
Poetry: The length of the literary essay is Poetry: The length of the literary essay is
measured in words (count the number of measured in time (minutes)
words)

There is an important distinction between Observing and Signing and Visual Reading
and Viewing skills, i.e. live signing versus recorded signed texts.

24
Table 2.2: SASL HL Skills and Description
CAPS SASL HL Description
Observing and Signing This skill is used with live (face-to-face) signing of a variety of
signed texts
Visual Reading and This is used with recorded SASL materials
Viewing
Phonological Distinction between spoken and signed language phonology –
Awareness (working with phonemes (smallest building blocks/units of a language) sound
parameters) vs. parameters.
Recording Signed texts are presented and recorded by learners
Language Structure and From Intermediate to FET Phase. In the FP, this skill is integrated in
Use the other skills and not taught separately.

The content (knowledge, concepts and skills) contained in the NCS has been
organised in the CAPS per term.

2.8 An Integrated Approach – FP

The SASL HL CAPS document indicates that the language programme in the FP is
integrated into all other subject areas and language is used across the curriculum
(DBE, 2014a). The DBE (2014a) further states that many of the Observing and Signing
language skills are developed within Mathematics and Life Skills, which is made up of
many subjects such as Creative Arts and Beginning Knowledge including Personal
and Social Well-being, Natural Sciences and Technology and the Social Sciences.
Themes and topics can be selected from these subject areas to provide contexts for
teaching the language skills. In the FP, the focus is on Observing and Signing since
many learners are being introduced to SASL HL for the first time. For this reason, there
is no bilingualism in the FP in Deaf schools. Children are constantly developing their
Observing and Signing skills for the acquisition of SASL HL. The DBE (2014a) states that
Observing and Signing are skills crucial to all learning and it is important that these skills
are developed early in a child’s academic life. Hence, in the FP, there is time
specifically dedicated to the development of these two important skills.

2.9 SASL Approaches to Teaching and Learning

The DBE (2014b; 2014c and 2014d) indicates that the approaches to teaching
language are text-based, communicative- and process-orientated. The text-based
and communicative approaches are introduced in the IP and the process approach
is introduced in the SP (Grades 7-9). The text-based approach and the
communicative approach are both dependent on the continuous use and
production of texts.

According to the DBE (2014b; 2014c and 2014d), a text-based approach explores how
texts work. The DBE further maintains that the purpose of a text-based approach is to
enable learners to become competent, confident and critical ‘readers’, authors,
viewers and designers of texts. It involves observing, ‘reading’, viewing and analysing
texts to understand how they are produced and what their effects are. Through this

25
critical interaction, learners develop the ability to evaluate texts. The text-based
approach also involves producing different kinds of texts for particular purposes and
audiences. This approach is informed by an understanding of how texts are
constructed.

A communicative approach suggests that when learning a language, a learner

should have an extensive exposure to the target language (SASL) and many
opportunities to practise or produce the language by communicating for social or
practical purposes. Language learning should be carried over into the classroom,
where skills are learned through frequent opportunities to view and record texts (DBE,
2014b; 2014c and 2014d).

Furthermore, the DBE (DBE, 2014b; 2014c and 2014d) states that language teaching
happens in an integrated way, with the teacher modelling good practice and the
learners practicing the appropriate skills in groups before applying these skills on their
own. The structure of each lesson should be one that engages the whole class, before
practising in groups and applying the new skill individually.

The process approach is used when learners produce signed and recorded texts. The
learners engage in different stages of the Observing, Signing, Visual Reading and
Recording processes (DBE, 2014c and2014d). They must think of the audience and the
purpose during these processes. This will enable them to communicate and express
their thoughts in a natural way. For example, the teaching of recording does not focus
on the product only but also focuses on the process of recording. Learners are taught
how to generate ideas, to think about the purpose and audience, to record drafts, to
edit their work and to present a recorded product that communicates their thoughts
(DBE, 2014c and2014d).

2.10 Sign Bilingualism as Described by the SASL HL CAPS

According to the DBE (2014b; 2014c and 2014d), sign bilingualism is the use of two
languages in different modalities, that is a signed and either a spoken or written
language, and is distinctly different from using two spoken languages. In Deaf
education, sign-bilingualism uses the signed language of the Deaf community and
the written/spoken language of the hearing community amongst whom the Deaf live.
In South Africa, the signed language is SASL and the written/spoken would be one or
more of the several indigenous languages, such as Afrikaans, isiZulu, Sesotho, Xhosa
or English. Acquisition of the signed language is prioritised and there is a parallel strong
influence on teaching reading and writing of the second language which is
introduced through the signed language to explain syntax and abstract concepts.
The intention of the sign bilingualism philosophy is to enable Deaf children to become
bilingual and bicultural, and to participate fully in both the hearing society and the
‘Deaf World’. Rather than regard deafness as an obstacle to linguistic development;
educational achievement, social integration and linguistic pluralism is encouraged.

26
The DBE (2014b; 2014c and 2014d) further states that researchers are of the view that
for the Deaf child to achieve first language competence in the formative years, the
child must be assured the right of access to signed language early in life in an
environment with skilled signers. The national signed language should be the
language of teaching and learning (LOLT) for all subjects in the academic curriculum,
while one of the spoken languages will be the language of literacy (LOL). In facilitating
bilingual educational programmes, both languages should exist independently but
be equal in status. Learners are taught face-to-face through the medium of SASL and
will read text and write in English or in the indigenous spoken language of the
respective ethnic group in which they were born or raised.

For the IP (Grades 4-6), learners are taught face-to-face through the medium of SASL
and will read and write in the language approved by the school governing body
(SGB). Cripps and Small (not dated) maintain that bilingual education increases the
chances of success for all children, Deaf and hard-of-hearing, when it comes to
acquiring and mastering of a language.

2.11 The Relationship between the LOLT and the LOL

According to the DBE (2014b; 2014c and 2014d), for Deaf learners the medium of
learning and teaching is SASL. Since SASL does not have a written form, the FAL serves
as the language of literacy. Therefore, both languages are used alongside each other
in a bilingual-bicultural approach to teaching and learning. The DBE (2014b; 2014c
and 2014d) further states that all face-to-face teaching and learning takes place
through the medium of SASL while written text is in the FAL (such as English or any other
spoken/written language).

In addition, the DBE (2014b; 2014c and 2014d) asserts that in South Africa many
children start using their additional language, English, as the LOLT in Grade 4. This
means that they must reach a high level of competence in English by the end of
Grade 3, and they need to be able to read and write well in English. For Deaf learners,
however, the LOLT remains SASL through to Grade 12, alongside a written language
which is the LOL and which provides access to written text. For this reason, Deaf
learners, too, need to be able to read and write well in English. SASL is used as the
vehicle to convey the knowledge and skills contained in all subjects across the
curriculum. This is done with the aim of improving the quality and the equality of
education. The DBE (2017) indicates that teachers should be competent, fluent in
signing and have content knowledge for the subject. The introduction of the FAL helps
Deaf children to be able to communicate with the hearing community. The FAL is
introduced to learners in the IP, i.e. from Grade 4.
SASL should also be used as the LOLT to teach the additional language. The following
specific guidelines should be followed (DBE, 2017) while teaching the additional
language:

27
a) Avoid signing in English word order
b) Mixing languages makes neither accessible
c) Use SASL fully to explain content
d) Contrast structure of SASL with written English
e) Use written English as much as possible
f) Stress that although the two languages have different structures, the meaning is
the same
g) Do not expect the learner to read aloud when teaching reading but rather to
read silently and express the meaning in correct SASL structure

In the IP and SP, Deaf learners begin to learn and to strengthen their reading and
writing skills in the FAL (DBE, 2014b; 2014c and 2014d). At this stage, the majority of
Deaf children are learning both through the medium of SASL and through their FAL.
The SASL CAPS for the IP indicates that greater emphasis is, therefore, placed on using
SASL and the FAL for the purposes of thinking and reasoning (DBE, 2014b). The
emphasis is on bilingualism. This enables learners to develop their cognitive academic
skills or cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) which they need to study
subjects like Science. They also engage more with signed and written literary texts and
begin to develop aesthetic and imaginative ability.

The SASL HL CAPS for Intermediate, Senior and FET Phases indicates that SASL is offered
as a subject at HL level. This is in anticipation of the officialisation of SASL at which time
it can be offered as a language (DBE, 2014b, 2014c and 2014d). HL is the language
first acquired by learners. However, many South African schools do not offer the HLs
of some or all of the enrolled learners but rather have one or two languages offered
at HL level. As a result, the labels HL and FAL have come to refer to the proficiency
levels at which the language is offered and not the native (home) or acquired
(additional) language. For the purposes of this research report, any reference to HL
should be understood to refer to the level of the language and not to whether the
language is used at home or not. SASL is offered as a HL as it is the language in which
Deaf learners are most naturally proficient (DBE, 2014b, 2014c and 2014d).
Furthermore, DBE (2014b, 2014c and 2014d) argues that the HL level provides for
language proficiency that reflects the basic interpersonal communication skills
required in social situations and the cognitive academic skills essential for learning
across the curriculum. Emphasis is placed on the teaching of Observing, Signing, Visual
Reading and Recording skills, and provides learners with the opportunity to develop
a literary, aesthetic and imaginative ability to recreate, imagine and empower their
understandings of the world they live in.

The focus in the first few years of school is on developing learners’ ability to understand
and speak the language – basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS). In Grades
2 and 3, learners start to build literacy on this oral foundation. They also apply the
literacy skills they have already learned in their HL. However, for the majority of Deaf
learners the FAL can only be accessed in its written form and is their LOL.

28
By the time learners enter the SP, they should be reasonably proficient in their FAL in
regard to both interpersonal and cognitive academic skills (DBE, 2014b; 2014c and
2014d). Nonetheless, the reality is that many Deaf learners are still not adequately
competent in the FAL at this stage. The challenge in the IP, therefore, is to provide
support for these learners at the same time as providing a curriculum that enables
learners to meet the standards required in further grades. These standards must be
such that learners can use the FAL at a high level of proficiency to prepare them for
further or higher education or the world of work.

2.12 SASL HL Teaching Model

The literature indicates a lack of qualified Deaf teachers to teach SASL. In the absence
of a qualified Deaf teacher, a bilingual-bicultural team teaching model is
encouraged in which a hearing teacher is paired with a Deaf teaching assistant (DTA)
(Morgan, Glaser and Magongwa, 2016; Akach, 2010). Morgan, Glaser and
Magongwa (2016) maintain that a proficient Deaf SASL teacher is a role model to
Deaf learners and that for cultural reasons it is imperative that no hearing teachers
teach SASL alone. Learners improve performance in language acquisition,
grammatically correct signing structures and skills as well as academic and social
adaptation and improvement through the benefits of team teaching (DBE, 2017). DBE
(2017) further posits that team teaching provides both teacher and teaching assistant
with greater opportunity to capitalise on the unique, diverse and specialised
knowledge, skills and instructional approaches of each other. Moreover, DBE (2017)
states that no child is left behind as the teaching assistant can assist where a learner
needs more explanation or guidance.

According to DBE (2017), team teaching can broadly be defined as the interaction
between two individuals encompassing a variety of behaviours. This interaction
includes communication, information sharing, coordination, cooperation, problem
solving and negotiation. DBE (2017) maintains that joint planning, decision making
and problem solving may occur in a variety of formal or informal group configurations
for accomplishing common goals.

SASL HL is a subject that ideally requires a teacher who is a native user of sign
language with the linguistic proficiency to teach SASL. However, qualified hearing
teachers who are the children of Deaf adults (CODAs) or hearing children of Deaf
parents (HCDP) may teach without a DTA, but, for the sake of role modelling, they
may also need a DTA. Qualified hearing teachers who are CODAs are native signers
and have the methodology to teach the SASL subject.

Many hearing teachers, although qualified to teach SASL as a subject, might not have
native/fluent signing skills. Learners need exposure to native SASL signing in order to
acquire SASL, use it fluently to relate to others and participate in the Deaf community
and wider society. Team teaching in the SASL class consists of (DBE, 2017):

29
  Pairing a teacher (qualified) and a Deaf person (native signer) but not a
qualified teacher. It should be a joint effort
 Assisting each other bilingually i.e. spoken language/SASL

Learners make academic gains on curriculum-based assessments. Team teaching

leads to teachers being innovative and coming up with solutions that traditional class
teaching often fails to provide. Team teaching provides empowerment by having the
opportunity to collaboratively make decisions while simultaneously sharing and
increasing skills of SASL teachers, DTAs and Deaf learners.

2.13 Formal Assessment and its Purpose

Referring to international practice, Herman, Holmes and Woll (1999) state that a
number of assessments have been developed for different sign languages. They
explain that sign language assessments serve a variety of functions, such as to support
linguistic research; to facilitate comparisons of Deaf children’s knowledge of sign
language structures with literacy performance; to provide functional tools for use in
educational settings; as a means of recording a child’s progress; and to assist in
planning intervention.

The DBE in South Africa (DBE, 2014a; 2014b and 2014d) maintains that the purpose of
designing a POA is to ensure validity, reliability, fairness and sufficiency of assessment
by giving explicit guidance on the types of activities and the percentage allocated
to each language skill within a task. All assessments should meet criteria of validity and
reliability (Herman, Holmes and Woll, 1999). Herman, Holmes and Woll (1999) further
maintain that the assessors themselves should ensure that assessment methods are
valid and that the assessment indeed measures what it claims to measure. The
procedure must be reliable; it must provide comparable results if repeated. Formal
assessment must also cater for the range of cognitive levels and abilities of learners.
Regarding cognitive demands in tests/assessments, SASL HL as other written/spoken
languages, use Barret’s Taxonomy.

2.14 SASL HL Skills and Assessment in the FP

According to the DBE (2014a), assessment is a continuous planned process of

identifying, gathering and interpreting information about the performance of learners.
It involves four steps: generating and collecting evidence of achievement; evaluating
evidence; recording the findings and using information to understand and thereby
assist the learner’s development in order to improve the process of learning and
teaching.

The CAPS for SASL HL states that assessment should be both informal (Assessment for
Learning) and formal (Assessment of Learning) (DBE, 2014b; 2014c and 2014d)). In
both cases, regular feedback should be provided to learners to enhance the learning

30
experience. Assessment in SASL can either be conducted through live signing or
signing that is recorded.

Regarding Observing and Signing, the Policy Statement notes that “for SASL all
Observing and Signing activities are done with live (face-to-face) signing (as opposed
to recording texts)” (DBE, 2014a: 10). Observing and Signing tasks replace the orals;
Recording tasks are the equivalent of Writing tasks. Observing and Signing skills are
considered as crucial skills to all learning. With regard to Visual Reading and Viewing,
the DBE (2014a:10) further states “for SASL all Visual Reading and Viewing activities are
done with recorded SASL materials (as opposed to live texts)”. For Observing and
Signing and Visual Reading and Viewing the learner always produces live signing.
Assessment can be made either during the live signing or immediately after by
recording on a rubric/checklist; or the live signing can be recorded by the educator
for assessment later on. These recordings can also be used for moderation, as a basis
for feedback to the learner and can become part of the learner’s portfolio of work.

For Recording, all work produced is recorded by the learner and handed to the
educator for assessment. Learners’ Observing skills, signing competence, ability to
answer questions, participation in discussions and Recording skills should be observed
daily where necessary. Recording (as a skill) is a process involving children in
planning/pre-recording, drafting (recording), revising, editing, final recording and
publishing texts for others to read (DBE, 2014a). Children are taught to be effective
viewers and authors. Visual reading is either shared, group guided, paired or
independent.

It is important, too, that learners’ understanding of what they are viewing is assessed
and not just their ability to recognise signs. Assessment of Visual Reading should,
therefore, also take place regularly and not just be a once-off assessment. Formal
Visual Reading assessment should focus on activities which help the educator to
determine how much the learner has understood, for example “retelling” a story or
answering questions (Herman, Holmes and Woll, 1999).

The SASL HL for FP curriculum indicates that there is no formal assessment in Grade R
with formal assessment starting from Grade 1. Formal assessment is formative and is
incorporated in the teaching plans. There is no summative assessment in the FP. The
following skills are tested: Observing and Signing, Visual Reading and Viewing,
Recording and Phonological Awareness.

The DBE (2014a) indicates that Grades R-1 learners do not learn Phonological
Awareness skills; hence this is not assessed in Grade 1. Phonological Awareness skills in
Grades 2 and 3 encompass the knowledge of sub-lexical structures of words/signs
used in language. For spoken language, phonological awareness is the knowledge
of sounds used in words, such as syllables, rhymes, alliteration and phonemes. For
signed language, it is the knowledge of basic parameters, such as handshape,
movement, location, palm orientation and non-manual features (DBE, 2014:15).

31
Phonological Awareness focuses on understanding, identifying, differentiating and
manipulating. Phonological Awareness allows children to understand how a
word/sign is produced separately from its meaning.

The section on FP in the SASL HL CAPS does not deal explicitly with assessment. The
points cited above form an extension to the teaching plans in Section 3.4 for Grades
1-3. It is presumed from the document that all assessment in FP would be undertaken
as continuous assessment during the course of class activities. The Policy Statement
also makes no reference to qualitative reporting to the children and their parents
regarding learner performance in SASL during the FP. This appears to be an omission
as feedback would presumably be of value to both.

2.15 SASL HL Skills and Assessment in the IP

The CAPS for SASL HL indicates that “the formal Programme of Assessment for Grades
4-6 comprises of seven (7) tasks which make up 75% of the promotion mark and one
end-of-year examination for the final 25%” (DBE, 2014:42). This is identical to the
assessment requirement for other HL in the IP.

2.15.1 Examinations

The DBE (2014b) states that the content for the examination should be drawn from the
work done in the period preceding the examination and should be a selection of skills
and activities that will enable the learner to show that he/she is ready to engage with
the work in the next period/year.

The examination will consist of the following (DBE, 2014b):

 Visual Reading Comprehension, including vocabulary work

 Recording of a short creative text, including appropriate and correct usage of
SASL grammar and conventions
 Recording of a short transactional (information/media/social) text, including
appropriate and correct usage of SASL grammar and conventions
 Language Structures and Conventions to show knowledge and understanding
of SASL grammar and conventions
 Observing and Signing skills are assessed as Paper 1, prior to the formal
examination time-table. However, it is expected that a summative mark, based
on the formal assessments done for Observing and Signing, is allocated as an
examination mark

The last bullet suggests that Observing and Signing marks are used for SBA as well as
summative marks, however this constitutes double dipping. Circular S4 of 2017
(paragraph 4) for FET Phase Languages corrected this erroneous use of the “Oral” or
Observing and Signing mark as part of the SBA as well as part of the examination
component. Circular S4 of 2017 should be amended accordingly for the IP. The Policy

32
Statement further provides the POA for the IP showing the expected tasks per term
per grade (Grades 4-6). In Grade 6, Recording (essays and transactional texts) is a
stand-alone paper and Visual Reading (comprehension and language in context) is
a stand-alone paper. The weightings are also different except for the weighting of
Paper 1 (Observing and Signing).

The CAPS also indicates the number and types of tasks to be included in the SBA per
term and the weighting of SBA.

The end-of-year examination for Grades 4-5 comprises two papers - Paper 1:
Observing and Signing; Paper 2: Integrated Paper (Comprehension, Language and
Recording – essays and transactional texts). The weightings are as follows: SBA weighs
75% and examination weighs 25%. Grade 6 has three papers - Paper 1: Observing and
Signing, Paper 2: Recording – essays and transactional texts, and Paper 3: Visual
Reading Comprehension and Language in context. The weightings of SBA and
examination for Grade 6 are the same as the weightings for Grades 4-5.

Generic descriptions for moderation are included in the CAPS. It notes that
moderators at school level must give quality comments, based on the requirements,
to ensure that the assessment practice at school is enhanced (DBE, 2014b:55). With
regard to SASL, this would require the moderator commenting on (amongst others):
the level of questioning in comprehension testing; the frequency of extended
recording; the quality of assessment instruments; the developmental opportunities
afforded; and the teacher’s engagement with the learner’s recorded work as
evidence of performance (DBE, 2014b:55).

2.16 SASL HL Skills and Assessment in the SP

According to the SP CAPS document for SASL HL, assessment in SASL can be
conducted either on live signing or on signing that is recorded. However, for Observing
and Signing, and Visual Reading and Viewing, the learner always produces live
signing. It can either be assessed during the signing or immediately after by recording
on a rubric/checklist or the live signing can be recorded by the teacher for assessment
later on. These recordings can be used for moderation, as a basis for feedback to the
learner and can become part of the learner’s portfolio of work. For Recording, all work
produced is recorded by the learner and handed to the teacher for assessment (DBE,
2014c:66).

Furthermore, assessing the different language skills should not be seen as separate
activities but form part of an integrated activity. Assessment rubrics should, thus,
address the different language skills in the task (DBE, 2014c:66). In this respect, the
approach to assessment is no different to that taken in the other HLs.

Learners’ Observing skills, signing competence, ability to answer questions,

participation in discussions and Recording skills should, where necessary, be observed

33
daily (DBE, 2014c:66). Formal visual reading assessment should focus on activities that
help the teacher to determine how much the learner has understood, for example
“retelling” a story or answering questions (DBE, 2014c:66). Assessment of recorded
work will focus primarily on the learner’s ability to convey meaning as well as on how
correctly they have signed, for example correct language structures and conventions
used (DBE, 2014c:66).

2.16.1 Formal Assessment

All assessments in the SP are internal. The formal POA for Grades 7-9 comprises of
eleven formal assessment tasks which make up 100% of the mark. The SBA accounts
for 40% of the total and the end-of-year examination 60% (DBE, 2014c). Once again,
the number of tasks is the same as that in the other HLs.

Each Grade in the SP has ten formal assessment tasks for SBA packaged as follows:

 Grade 7 – four Observing and Signing tasks, two Recording tasks, three Visual
Reading tests and a June examination (Paper 2: Visual Reading Comprehension,
Language and Paper 3: Recording).
 Grade 8 and 9- four Observing and Signing tasks, three Recording tasks, two
Visual Reading tests and a June examination (Paper 1: Observing and Signing,
Paper 2: Visual Reading Comprehension, Language and Paper 3: Recording).
 Grade 9 - four Observing and Signing tasks, three Recording tasks, two Visual
Reading tests and a June examination (Paper 1: Observing and Signing, Paper
2: Visual Reading Comprehension, Language and Paper 3: Recording, Paper 4:
Response to Literature).

2.16.2 End-of-year Examination

The DBE (2014c) states that the end-of-year examination should comprise of
Observing and Signing, Visual Reading and Recording tasks. The Observing and
Signing task, which is Paper 1, accounts for 20.8% of the final mark. This should be
generated from the four Observing and Signing tasks undertaken during the course of
the year (DBE, 2014c). This, however, constitutes double dipping. The Recording tasks,
which should be administered under controlled conditions, comprise of two papers
for Grades 7 and 8 and three for Grade 9.
Examination Papers:

Grade 7 and 8
 Paper 1 – Observing and Signing
 Paper 2 – Visual Reading Comprehension, Language
 Paper 3 – Recording

Grade 9
 Paper 1 – Observing and Signing

34
 Paper 2 – Visual Reading Comprehension, Language
 Paper 3 – Recording
 Paper 4 – Response to Literature

Recording, reporting and moderation are done the same way as in the IP (DBE,
2014c:68) as well as in the same manner as for other HLs.

2.17 SASL HL Skills and Assessment in the FET Phase

2.17.1 Formal Assessment Grades 10 -11

SBA comprises 25% and the end-of-year examination 75% of the final mark. The end-
of-year examination has four papers.

 Paper 1 – Language in context

 Paper 2 – Literature
 Paper 3 - Recording
 Paper 4 – Observing and Signing (tasks also form part of SBA)

All assessment tasks that make up the formal POA for the year are regarded as formal
assessment. Formal assessment tasks are marked and formally recorded by the
teacher for progression and certification purposes. All formal assessment tasks are
subject to moderation for the purpose of quality assurance and to ensure that
appropriate standards are maintained. While preparations for formal assessment tasks
can be done outside the classroom, the final version should be done under controlled
conditions in the classroom.

2.17.2 Content to be Covered during Examination

Assessment addresses the content that is covered. Due to the conceptual progression
of the content across the grades, content and skills from Grades 10-12 will be assessed
in the external papers at the end of Grade 12.

Observing and Signing Assessment Tasks: Paper 4

The Observing and Signing assessment tasks undertaken during the course of the year
constitute the end-of-year external assessment for Grade 12. It makes up 50 of the 300
marks in the end-of-year external assessment. The details for the Observing and
Signing tasks, which are administered during the year, are as follows:

Observing and Signing tasks undertaken during the course of the year constitute part
of the end-of-year internal assessment as well as part of the SBA. Circular S4 of 2017
(paragraph 4) for FET Phase Languages corrected this erroneous use of the ‘Oral’ or
Observing and Signing mark as part of both components. By way of correction,
Circular S4 of 2017 states that the marks attained for all the oral tasks should not form
part of the final SBA mark but should be used for the oral examination component

35
instead. The circular further states that the oral mark will still be used for term reporting
but only accrue to the oral examinations component.

Formal assessment in Grade 12 is the same as for Grades 10 and11, except that there
are two examinations and one test.

2.18 Essential Issues in Sign Language Assessment

The literature indicates that, in regard to test development, certain guidelines need
to be followed. Haug et al (2016), in their document entitled: “Guidelines for sign
language test development, evaluation and use”, provide the ethical issues in testing
and working with Deaf communities including specific aspects relating to sign
language test development as well as general issues around testing Deaf children in
different contexts. Haug et al (2016) also give guidelines pertaining to technical issues
for test takers that use technology-based testing. A summary of the main issues raised
by Haug et al (2016) is presented below.

Ethical Issues in Testing and Working with the Deaf Community

Test administrators should be qualified to use sign language tests, e.g. level of sign
proficiency, adequate training in sign language assessment and interpretation of
test results etc. They should set and maintain high personal standards of
competence in the delivery of sign language assessments and interpretation of test
results. It is important that they should also keep up to date with relevant changes
and advances relating to test use and development. These may include changes
in legislation and policy which may impact on tests and test use as well as test norms.
Test administrators are responsible for ensuring that test materials (e.g. test
instructions and items) and test data are kept secure at all times with limited access.
In addition, they should respect any relevant copyright law and agreements,
including any prohibitions on the copying or transmission of materials in electronic
or other forms to other people, whether qualified or otherwise.

Issues Regarding Sign Language Test Development

Native signers should be involved at each stage of the process, from development
to dissemination. These should ideally include Deaf native signers with academic
training or other relevant training or experience. This is motivated by the fact that,
for some sign languages, limited research is available. Input is required from native
signers to ensure that test items appropriately reflect the structure of the particular
sign language. It is also essential to involve Deaf/hearing people with different areas
of expertise (such as linguists) psychologists, high-level interpreters, media design
experts and computer programmers (for Web-/mobile-assisted sign language
testing). The materials used in test development should be age appropriate for the
test-takers, and be visually clear and accessible to the target population, e.g. avoid
high memory load, do not require written response.

36
Test developers should assure that the choice of elicitation techniques, item formats, test
conventions and procedures are readily accessible to all intended populations (e.g.
children, adults). They should also ascertain that item content and stimulus materials are
familiar to all intended populations (e.g. images that are suitable for children might not
be appropriate to be used with adults and vice versa). The language used in the
directions and items themselves, as well as in the handbook/manual, should be
appropriate for all cultural and language populations for whom the test or instrument is
intended. In case of a test adaptation, test developers/publishers should ensure that the
adaptation process takes full account of linguistic and cultural differences among the
populations for whom adapted versions of the test or instrument are intended.

General Issues in Testing Deaf Children in Different Contexts

When carrying out assessments, it is important to use different approaches to obtain as
much information as possible about the child’s language skills. Instruments, test
environment and the varying of tests are some elements to consider:

 Instruments: the assessors should include both receptive and productive

instruments to assess sign language. Whenever possible, different instruments that
focus on different aspects of sign language, such as vocabulary, grammar,
narrative skills, should also be included.
 Environment: the child is likely to be most relaxed in a familiar setting and will likely
respond differently depending on the test environment, e.g. clinical, school or
home settings). It is important to realise that all testing is ‘inauthentic’ to a degree,
however the closest to natural setting as possible should be the goal.
 Varying tests: assessors should try to use more than one sign language test, if
available. Different tests may yield different results or test slightly different aspects
of a child’s language skills.

Appropriate Standards for the Assessors

Assessors should have a high level of sign language skills, preferably fluency in the given
sign language. They should also have the ability to communicate flexibly to meet the
needs of individual Deaf children - many Deaf children today have exposure to a sign
language (e.g. BSL) /sign system (e.g. Signed English skills) /sign accompanying spoken
language (e.g. Sign Supported English). In addition, they should also have experience
of working with Deaf children. Deaf and hearing teamwork is important when carrying
out language assessments as each member of the team will have a different set of skills.

37
 The competent test administrator makes necessary practical arrangements by
ensuring that:
 Locations and facilities for testing are arranged well in advance, and the
physical environment is accessible, safe, quiet, free from distractions and
appropriate for the purpose
 The staff involved in the administration are familiar with the test and have the
language skills required
 Appropriate arrangements should be made for the testing of people with
additional needs, e.g. visually accessible stimuli, slower presentation rate of
test items, support in place to assist with test takers who have additional
needs
 Invigilators should preferably be sign language experts or specialists qualified
in the subject
(Adapted from Haug et al, 2016, p.10-11)

2.19 Moderation of the Sign Language Assessment Tasks

According to the DBE (2014b; 2014c and 2014d), moderation refers to the process of
ensuring that all assessment tasks are fair, valid, reliable and sufficient. Validity means
that the task should measure the attainment of skills that were taught in line with the
skills indicated in the CAPS document. The task must measure the level of
achievement of specific skills. In setting comprehension questions, for example, the
learners’ ability to analyse and synthesise information given in a signed text followed
by general knowledge related to the text should be tested.

Evaluation or moderation of the sign language assessment tasks is an essential task to

be undertaken in all formal assessments. The quality assurance of the assessment tasks
involves pre- and post-assessment moderation done by school Heads of Departments
(HODs). Pre-assessment moderation is the moderation of the test instrument or test
question paper. Post-assessment moderation is the moderation of the learners’ scripts
or responses after being marked. In case of an overcrowded class, the moderator
takes a sample of learners’ scripts to moderate. In regard to sign language class
enrolment or teacher-learner ratio, the acceptable ratio is 1:5. In such cases, the
moderator may moderate all the learners’ work.

As pertains to the pre-assessment moderation, Haug and Mann (2008) assert that test
developers need to provide evidence for the effectiveness of their instrument based
on appropriate psychometric measures. They further state that the measures most
commonly applied to describe how test takers’ behaviour relates to the evaluation of
their performance are reliability, validity and standardisation. The reliability of a test
over time is known as ‘test-retest reliability’ (Kline, 2000: 7), for which subject scores
that were obtained on two or more different occasions are correlated. The higher the
correlation, the more reliable the test is. ‘Interrater reliability’ refers to the level of

38
agreement between two or more raters on a test taker’s performance (Davis, Brown,
Elder, Hill, Lumley, McNamara and Milanovic, 1999:88). For example, to compare the
scoring of certain grammatical features that a Deaf child performed on a production
task that has been videotaped, then rated by two different raters and then
compared.

The main claim for test validity is that it really measures what it claims to measure (Kline,
2000). For a Deaf test taker, this could mean whether an assessment of sign language
vocabulary really measures the vocabulary knowledge in Deaf children or not. There
are several types of validity, for example item or content validity, concurrent validity,
predictive validity and construct validity. Each of these types of validity requires
different evidence. One of the prerequisites for assuming ‘item’ or ‘content validity’ in
a test of sign language skills is the close collaboration with Deaf native signers during
the development (Singleton and Supalla, 2003:297). Literature, however, indicates
that only a few tests for ASL or other sign languages have any measures of reliability
and validity compared to tests for spoken English, such as the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test (Dunn and Dunn, 1997), making this one of the major drawbacks for
current sign language research.

2.19.1 Moderation of Assessment Tasks Grades 4-9

Moderation should be implemented at school, provincial and national levels.

Comprehensive and appropriate moderation practices must be in place for the
quality assurance of all subject assessments (DBE, 2014b and 2014c). Moderation
should be done at least once per term. Moderators at school level must give quality
comments based on the requirements above to ensure that the assessment practice
at school is enhanced. Moderation cannot simply be a monitoring exercise to check
the number of tasks completed or the correct application of a memorandum. In SASL,
it means that the moderator must give good comments on the levels of questioning
in comprehension testing; the frequency of extended recording; the quality of
assessment instruments and the developmental opportunities afforded; and the
teacher’s engagement with learners’ recorded work as evidence of performance.

The moderation process must also ensure that the ratings given are consistent across
all classes in the grade and all grades in the phase. For example, a rating of three
given by one teacher should represent the same level of skill and knowledge as the
same rating given by another teacher. It is, therefore, important for subject heads to
do internal moderation regularly.

2.19.2 Moderation of Formal Assessments (SBA) in Grades 10-12

The DBE (2014d: 60) states that subject advisors must moderate samples of tests and
examinations to verify standards and guide teachers on the setting of these tasks. The
Grade 10 and 11 tests and examinations are internally moderated. The provincial
subject advisor must moderate a sample of these tasks during his/her school visits to

39
verify the standard of tasks and the internal moderation. Grade 12 tests and
examinations must be moderated at provincial and national level. The provincial
education departments manage the moderation process at Grade 12 level.

Each Observing and Signing task used in the POA must be submitted to the subject
head for moderation before learners attempt the task. Teachers assess the Observing
and Signing assessment tasks. The provincial subject advisor must moderate a sample
of Observing and Signing assessment tasks during his/her school visits. In Grade 12,
Observing and Signing tasks should be internally set, internally assessed and externally
moderated.

At the time of research, the DBE had yet to appoint the SASL HL subject advisors. As
an interim measure, the spoken/written language advisors were being used to monitor
compliance to CAPS by the Deaf schools.

2.20 Standardisation

The process of standardisation is another issue that can affect the psychometrics of a
test (Haug and Mann, 2008). This process depends on several variables including:

a) The size of the population that the sample represents (here, the population of
Deaf children)
b) The homogeneity (or heterogeneity) of the population (Kine, 2000:51; e.g.
differences in parents’ hearing status and diverse cultural and linguistic
backgrounds)

However, the standardisation process used by Haug is different to the standardisation

process used by Umalusi. Haug and Mann (2008) raise two questions for the
developers of sign language tests: (a) what sample size is ideal to be representative
of the entire population?; and (b) what is the reference group for which the test will
be standardised, taking into consideration the heterogeneity within the Deaf
population? They assert that most of the originally developed tests to measure Deaf
students’ skills in a natural sign language (e.g. ASL) do not meet the standardisation
requirements. In addition, Haug (2011) maintains that in many countries the sign
language evaluation carried out in preschools and primary schools is far from
satisfactory. Singleton and Supalla (2003:289) point out that in practice many schools
in the US use informal descriptive evaluations of Deaf children’s signing skills, but these
“assessment approaches are inadequate because they introduce multiple threats to
the reliability and validity of the assessment results”. Haug et al (2016) further make
the following assertion:

40
One of the ethical issues in testing and working with the Deaf community is determining
whether the test’s technical and user documentation provides sufficient information to
enable evaluation of the following:

a) Coverage and representativeness of test content, representative norm groups,

difficulty level of content, etc.
b) Accuracy of measurement and reliability demonstrated with respect to relevant
populations
c) Validity (demonstrated with respect to relevant populations) and relevance for the
required use
d) Freedom from systematic bias in relation to the intended test taker groups
e) Practicality, including time required, costs and resources needed
f) Whether the test avoids judgement solely on the basis of face values, test-user
testimonials, or advice from those with a vested commercial interest

(Adapted from Haug et al, 2016:4)

2.21 Minimum Resources Required for SASL Home Language

In order for a school to offer SASL as a subject, schools, teachers and learners need to
have the following minimum resources (DBE, 2017):
The school minimum resources are at least five laptops with webcam; digital versatile
disc (DVD) player/recorder; computer laboratory; software; and internet access (1
gigabyte per month).

The teacher’s minimum resources are:

 A CAPS document
 Language in Education Policy
 Language textbook for resource purposes
 SASL dictionary
 Literature genres
 Laptop with webcam
 Video/DVD player/recorder
 Software for editing, e.g. Photo Shop
 Memory stick or external hard drive
 Data projector and digital camera
 Whiteboard

41
The learner minimum resources are:

 A memory stick
 A range of SASL materials/texts for Visual Reading and Viewing

2.22 SASL Laboratory Descriptions

Recommendations from the teacher workshops held as part of this research study
suggested that the set-up for the examination room/SASL HL laboratory used for
assessment should include:

 Blinds or curtains
 Adequate light
 Partitions for candidates’ cubicles
 Laptops with a webcam
 Memory sticks

General observations of SASL HL laboratories made during the school field visits in
Gauteng Province support these recommendations. The following was observed:

 Cubicles should be set up or erected in such a way that candidates cannot

copy the answers from each other. Cubicles should have a plain and simple
background of a preferred colour. The background and colour should not have
a negative effect on the signed answers and should not give challenges to the
markers
 The SASL laboratory should have curtains or blind on the windows to minimize the
sunrays entering whilst allowing sufficient light into the SASL laboratory
 SASL HL assessments should make use of laptops with webcams. There should be
no hard copy question papers. All questions should be signed and answers
signed as well

Haug et al. (2016:11) argue that, whilst computer-based assessments are becoming
more and more popular due to their efficiency, they do not always capture the child’s
ability to use language interactively. In this regard, they provide the following
technical issues or guide to technology-based testing for competent test
administrators:

42
  Ensure the system (e.g. computers to be used for test administration) meet
the hardware and software requirements defined by the test developer prior
to administering any tests. For web-based tests, this includes making sure
there are no browser (type of browser like Firefox or Chrome and version of
browser) or operation system (e.g. Windows, Linux, Apple) restrictions
 Make sure to have high-speed Internet access when the test includes sign
language videos
 In cases where the test includes online video-recording, check if a webcam
is available and works with the used browser. Make sure to have appropriate
lighting conditions and background when sign language videos are
recorded
 Know how to access technical support (online as well as at the testing site) in
case of any problems
 Have read in advance the instructions and looked at any supporting
materials needed to successfully complete the test. This includes completing
any online tutorials (where available)
 Be familiar with operating the computer or other device and the software
functions required by the test
 Inform test takers about the purpose of the test, the content included in the
test and the type of test (e.g. picture-matching, multiple choice), where
appropriate
 Provide clear instructions on how to take the test
 Make sure the test is administered in a comfortable and quiet environment
with minimal distraction and appropriate lighting conditions
 Make sure to follow the standard administration procedures
 Make sure that the test takers do not have access to other programmes on
the computer to look up information while being tested (i.e. they should only
have access to the test)
 Make sure that the test takers cannot store/copy the test on devices they
bring (e.g. external hard-drive)
 If possible, make sure that the computer has some sort of logbook file to
prevent a test takers claim that ”the recording is lost”
 Make sure that test takers do not see each other as information in sign
language is easily passed through over a distance, for example when
assessing an adult learner in a sign language interpreter training program

(Adapted from Haug et al, 2016:11)

In brief, the SASL laboratory should have private spaces for each individual candidate
and be technologically flawless.

43
2.23 Recording and Reporting for Grades 4-12

Recording is a process in which the teacher documents the level of a learner’s

performance in a specific assessment task. It indicates learner progress towards the
achievement of the knowledge as prescribed in CAPS.

Reporting is a process of communicating learner performance to learners, parents,

schools and other stakeholders. Learner performance can be reported in a number
of ways. These include report cards, parents’ meetings, school visitation days, parent-
teacher conferences, phone calls, text messages, emails, letters and class or school
newsletters. Teachers in all grades report in percentages against the subject. Seven
levels of competence have been described for each subject listed for Grades R-12.

The statement of results and certificate will reflect or indicate performance in the SASL
HL subject.

44
CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE SURVEY –
INTERNATIONAL APPROACHES TO DEAF EDUCATION
3.1 Introduction

This chapter reviewed the international practice relating to sign language teaching,
learning and assessment. A summary of the main findings, concentrating on global
practice relating to teaching, learning and assessment, and approaches to Deaf
education was presented. This chapter looked at the teaching, learning and
assessment of the following countries: Singapore, America, Netherlands, United
Kingdoms and Scotland, the intention being that South Africa should also learn from
the international practice. The last sections of this chapter looked at SASL assessment
in South Africa and also the challenges associated with SASL assessment
internationally and nationally.

3.2 Deaf Education

Simms and Thumann (2007) report that:

for more than a century, educators have recognised the low academic
achievement of Deaf children in the US. They further state that teacher training
programmes in Deaf education have historically emphasised medical-
pathological views of Deaf people and Deaf education, rather than appropriate
pedagogies that draw upon and build on Deaf students’ linguistic and cultural
knowledge (p. 302).

The pathological perspective continues to be perpetuated in many teacher training

programmes. This history of Deaf education suggests that audism (placing a higher
value on hearing and oral/aural education (Lane, 1992)) continues to significantly
affect Deaf people. Specifically, audism affects teacher preparation and teaching
practices by impeding student achievement through low expectations; emphasising
English over American Sign Language (ASL) in instruction; tolerating poor ASL skills; and
sustaining a field dominated by hearing researchers, administrators and teachers
(Simms and Thumann, 2007). They also indicate that these factors have deleterious
effects on the educational, social and personal development of Deaf individuals.
Furthermore, Simms and Thumann (2007) report that a recent and growing interest in
educating Deaf children bilingually acknowledges the value of ASL and English in the
classroom. This approach is in line with South African practice.

3.3 Bilingualism in Deaf Education

Reagan (2008) posits that a growing number of educators of the Deaf have
suggested that the most appropriate approach to Deaf education is one that is
essentially bilingual and bicultural in nature – utilising sign language and at least one

45
spoken language, and teaching children to function in both the Deaf and hearing
worlds. The Bilingual-Bicultural Approach incorporates ASL as the LOLT and English as
a second language. Deaf culture is also imparted to the children through lessons on
Deaf history as well as the contributions, values and customs of the Deaf community.
In this approach, the deaf child learns language mainly through the visual mode. ASL,
which Gallimore and Woodruff (1996) believe is the only complete language that is
entirely visible, allows the child access to a complete language. Speech reading (also
known as lip reading) and manually coded English systems do not.

According to Simms and Thumann (2007), since 1990 there has been a growing shift
toward the ASL/English bilingual approach to education of the Deaf. Historically, this
approach was referred to as the bi-bi (bilingual-bicultural) approach to education of
the Deaf, but it is now referred to as ASL/English bilingual education. In following the
ASL/English approach, teachers in the schools serving deaf and hard of hearing (HOH)
children are expected to use ASL as the language of instruction and teach English
through writing and reading, rather than require children to learn to speak or use
signed English (Simms and Thumann, 2007). This approach provides a potential means
of surmounting the linguistic and educational barriers that are faced by deaf and
HOH children and establishes a bilingual perspective (Johnson, Liddell and Erting,
1989). The impetus for the ASL/English bilingual movement began as a genuine desire
of the Deaf community, Deaf educators and their hearing allies to address the
persistent low achievement levels among Deaf children. Cummins (1986) expressed
the belief that students who were empowered by their school experiences developed
the ability, confidence and motivation to succeed academically. Simms and
Thumann (2007) further assert that this empowerment occurs when the teachers and
the students share common language; when communication is effective, expedient
and clear; and when a sense of belonging and group identity is instilled. In addition,
they also state that natural communication through ASL provides Deaf children with
the opportunity to interact freely with knowledge about the subject matter as well as
with teachers and peers.

It is within this understanding that South Africa encourages team teaching models for
Deaf education whereby a qualified hearing educator works together in the class
with a DTA. The pedagogically equipped educator and the DTA, who is a fluent signer,
together allow teachers and students to share a common language. This in turn
facilitates the students’ sense of belonging. In this model, the DTA also serves as a role
model for the Deaf child.

Children acquire sign language through different modalities. Deaf children of native
signing Deaf parents may acquire this as their first language whereas Deaf children of
hearing parents may only acquire sign language when they enter school (Haug,
2011). Haug (2011) notes that this latter group of Deaf children, who are born Deaf
and have hearing parents, might have delayed first language acquisition. As such,
they comprise a special population for whom language is a crucial variable. Research
has revealed that Deaf children who acquire a sign language as their first language

46
from their Deaf parents constitute only about 5% of the population of Deaf children
(Mitchell and Karchmer, 2004). For the remaining 95% who come from hearing families,
acquiring a language is often a great challenge (Marschark, 2002). Haug (2011)
argues that the majority of Deaf children of non-signing hearing parents do not have
full access to a sign language until after they have passed the most critical early ages
of language acquisition.
The ASL/English model of staff development was designed to improve the language
teaching practice of teachers who work with Deaf and HOH children. The model
includes not only theories of bilingualism (Collier, 1995; Cummins, 1979, 2000; Krashen
and Terrell, 1993) but also theories about first- and second–language acquisition,
English as a second language (ESL), language planning, literacy development and
bilingual assessment. This implies that ASL is offered as the HL and is the LOLT. In this
understanding, it is equally true, when using South African terminology, to say that
English is offered as the FAL. Indeed, sign language education in the US and in South
Africa have much in common. Research indicates that the ASL/English bilingual
movement has been adopted by several schools for the Deaf in states including
Indiana, California, Massachusetts, Texas, New Mexico, Maryland, Minnesota,
Colorado, Utah, New York, Kansas, and Arizona (Reynolds and Titus, 1991; Strong,
1995).

Regarding ASL teacher preparation, Gallaudet University has offered teacher

preparation for those wishing to teach Deaf children since 1891 (Simms and Thumann,
2007). In South Africa, both the University of the Witwatersrand and the University of
the Free State offer teacher preparation for the teaching of SASL. Simms and Thumann
(2007) believe that educators of the Deaf must be fluent in ASL and English as well as
have an understanding of Deaf culture. Furthermore, they believe that educators
must demonstrate knowledge and application of linguistics, human development,
curriculum and instruction, and ASL/English bilingual Deaf education. This approach
has been adopted in South Africa for SASL HL.

In American colleges and universities, ASL is one of the most commonly taught second
languages (Goldberg, Looney and Lusin, 2015). It is widely used by both hearing and
Deaf people and taught in numerous primary, secondary and post-secondary
academic programmes. ASL is a native language for many individuals and is
considered the core language of the Deaf community in the US (Padden and
Humphries, 1988). With regard to the assessment of ASL, Bochner, Samar, Garrison and
Searls (2015) maintain that the assessment of language proficiency is necessary for
appropriate course placement, measurement of educational attainments over time,
research and other academic purposes. ASL assessment is done using video
recording of a conversation between an interviewer and the respondent.

The key premise upon which all bilingual Deaf education programmes are based is
establishing a first language foundation in a natural signed language (Enns and
Herman, 2011). Bilingual programmes emphasise first language acquisition in signed
language because these languages are considered the most natural and accessible

47
languages for Deaf children (Johnson, Liddell and Erting, 1989). Enns and Herman
(2011) further posit that without an established first language, the entire programme
is brought into question. They assert that the primary objective of bilingual Deaf
education programmes is to facilitate the normal acquisition of language, cognition
and social structures through an accessible first language and to build the skills of
academic learning and literacy upon this foundation. Therefore, if Deaf students enter
school without an established language base, developing their signed language skills
must be the focus of education before proceeding with other curricular areas.

Plaza-Pust and Morales-Lopez (2008:350) list the shortcomings of existing bilingual

programmes: “The status assigned to the different languages and communication
systems, teacher training, the materials used and assessment methods available strike
us in their potential negative effects concerning the eventual outcome”. Plaza-Pust
and Morales-Lopez (2008) further maintain that there is a dire need for sign language
tests for bilingual programmes.

3.4 Natural Sign Languages and Manual Codes for Spoken Languages

Reagan (2008:172) argues that not all signing constitutes sign language and that the
diversity amongst sign languages is significant. According to Reagan (2008), not only
are different natural sign languages used amongst Deaf people and hearing people
in their interactions, even manual sign codes for spoken languages are used in
educational settings (cf. Bornstein, 1990). Reagan suggests that: (a) a variety of
different sign languages have developed that are independent of each other and of
any other spoken or written languages; (b) some signing that is not related to any of
these sign languages is nonetheless used to code a spoken or written language, such
as English (this coding is an alternative mode of communicating a non-sign language
and takes note of the structure of the language being coded); and (c) pidgins which
use features of both sign languages and coding and are often used in signing
between the Deaf and the hearing communities.

Singapore Sign Language (SgSL) is an interesting example of a sign language

developed from a tapestry of languages, each with its own unique syntax, history and
ideology (Goy, 2017). The Singapore Association for the Deaf (SADeaf) (2008-2017)
states that SgSL is Singapore’s native sign language which has developed over the
last six decades, since the founding of the first school for the Deaf in 1954. It is
influenced by Shanghainese Sign Language (SSL), ASL, Sign Exact English (SEE) and
locally developed signs. The table below describes how each of these
languages/gestures has influenced SgSL (SADeaf, 2008-2017).

48
Table 3.1: Singapore Sign Languages and Gestures
Language/Gesture Description
Singapore Sign Language  A language of the Deaf community in Singapore
(SgSL)  Visual mode of communication
 Has own grammar and linguistic structure which is different
from those of spoken/written languages
 Does not relate grammatically to any spoken language
Shanghainese Sign  Old version of current Chinese Sign Language (CSL) used
Language (SSL) in 1950s before it evolved to CSL used by Deaf community
in China
 Visual mode of communication
 Does not relate grammatically to any spoken language
American Sign Language  A language of Deaf community in the US and most of
(ASL) Canada
 Visual mode of communication
 Has own grammar and linguistic structure which is different
from those of spoken/written languages
 Does not relate grammatically to any spoken language
Sign Exact English (SEE)  Not a language
 Manually coded English system
 Expanded with prepositions, pronouns, affixes, tenses and
finger-spelled words to visually represent the English
language
 A sign system which, as its name implies, follows English
exactly in terms of word order and grammar
 Similar to Morse code, Braille in English
Pidgin Sign English (PSE)  Not a language
 Mixture of sign language and English, in English order
 Used by most people
 Used by Deaf people and hearing people to
communicate with each other in both social and formal
situations

3.5 Approaches to Deaf Education in Singapore

Over the years, a number of changes in Deaf education in Singapore have taken
place with several approaches to Deaf education now being used. This was made
possible by an increased awareness of hearing loss management and, consequently,
more Deaf children being enrolled in schools. The choices of educational
programmes for the Deaf in Singapore parallel those in the US. The manuscript written
by Phua Su Yin (2013) examined the language production of Deaf children in
Singapore, where English is the medium of instruction in all schools. In schools for the
Deaf in Singapore, Signing Exact English 2 (SEE 2) is the language of instruction in
classes. SEE 2 is a manually coded English sign system, meant to represent formal
English language, with one sign for each morpheme. It is a system of word-for-word
signing that follows the English sentence structure (Goy, 2017). SEE 2 was originally
developed to help Deaf learners improve their grasp of English (Gustason and
Zawolkow (1993). In South Africa, SASL Home language is the medium of instruction
in the schools for the Deaf. It is therefore interesting to know how Deaf children
acquire sign language in Singapore. Singapore is a multicultural and multilingual
society and hence the Singapore Sign Language (SgSL) is influenced by

49
Shanghainese Sign Language (SSL), American Sign Language (ASL), Signing Exact
English 2 and locally developed signs.

Phua Su Yin (2003:13) gives the following narrative regarding the language challenges
in Singapore: “In a multicultural and multilingual society such as Singapore, there are
also normal hearing children who have never been exposed to English before
beginning school, as they speak another language at home. Some common home
languages are Mandarin, Malay and Tamil. Even if English is spoken, it is usually the
colloquial variety – Singapore Colloquial English (SCE), so it is no surprise that normal
hearing children are also unfamiliar with Standard Singapore English (SSE). Many deaf
children’s parents at Singapore School for the Deaf (SSD) do not speak English, so they
find it immensely difficult to learn SEE 2, and they are not able to teach their children
SEE 2. Most of the deaf children have never been exposed to Standard English before
coming to SSD, and most will never use it at home. Imagine what an effort it is for them
to learn the rules of a spoken language such as English in order to learn new concepts
in school, and how frustrating it is for parents who cannot help their child with school
work. Inevitably, most deaf children in SSD do not perform well in primary school.”

The study by Phua Su Yin (2003) recommends that, before a bilingual (native sign
language and English) educational approach can even be considered, it is necessary
to establish the presence of a possible native sign system. Given that this takes time,
the next best solution is to work on the identified difficulties that the children have with
either signed or written English. Efforts to improve their English will give the SSD children
more opportunities later in life. Furthermore, Phua Su Yin (2003) suggests that remedies
to overcome the difficulty of learning English and to improve literacy levels often
include a bilingual approach, where Deaf children are allowed to develop their
native sign language alongside SEE 2. This approach in the classrooms has much
support elsewhere (Petitto et al., 2001; Prinz et al., 1996; Hall, 1995).

According to Phua Su Yin (2003), there are different programmes and approaches to
Deaf education including the Auditory-Verbal Approach, the Bilingual Approach,
Cued Speech, the Oral Approach and Total Communication. Several of these
programmes are available to Deaf children in Singapore, however Phua Su Yin’s
research focused on the language of children using Total Communication. The
following is a summary of the different approaches to language learning as listed by
Phua Su Yin.

3.5.1 Auditory-Verbal Approach

One of the approaches to managing hearing-impairment in the US is the Auditory-

Verbal Approach, where children utilise their hearing potential by using powerful
hearing aids or cochlear implants to learn to talk through listening. Estabrooks (1996)
sums up the goal of Auditory-Verbal practice for hearing-impaired children as the
opportunity to grow up in a regular learning and living environment that allows
hearing-impaired children to become independent, participating and contributing

50
citizens in mainstream society. The Auditory-Verbal therapist and the parent(s) work
together to help the child develop auditory, speech, language, cognitive and
communication skills, such that the hearing-impaired child will subsequently
participate in mainstream society and attend a regular school.

Very few schools in South Africa, such as Eduplex School, use the Auditory-Verbal
Approach. Eduplex High School is an inclusive, private and mainstream school that
caters for the HOH and completely deaf learners. The Deaf learners are mixed with
hearing learners during teaching and learning. Teaching and learning takes place in
specialised classrooms to cater for the Deaf learners. This school does not offer SASL
HL. Learners write their examinations as in any other mainstream school. However,
Deaf learners and hard-of hearing learners are granted concessions/
accommodations, such as extra time, separate venues and rephrasing of questions
in the question paper during examinations.

3.5.2 Bilingual Approach

Phua Su Yin (2003) maintains that a key issue in literacy development for the Deaf,
especially in the US, is bilingual education. In response to a growing body of research
evidencing that learning two languages is not detrimental to the development of one
particular language, global advocacy efforts are increasingly emphasising bilingual
education for Deaf children (Phua Su Yin, 2003). For instance, Petitto et al., 2001 show
in their videotaped study of three children learning Langues des Signes Quebecoise
and French and another three learning English and French, that both groups of
children attain their early linguistic milestones in the languages at the same time.

Research on Deaf children’s education and literacy often examines the role of a
native sign language, such as ASL, and its relation to the children’s mastery of the
English language (Prinz et al., 1996; Rinne, 1996; Everhart and Marschark, 1988). Many
have suggested that a bilingual-bicultural education, such as the use of both English
and ASL in pedagogy, will help Deaf children in school. In this approach, the goal is
the mastery of both English through an English-based sign system (such as SEE) and
ASL. For example, Prinz, Strong, Kuntz, Vincent, Friedman, Moyers and Helman (1996)
tested the hypothesis that competence in ASL facilitates the acquisition of English
literacy. Their sample of six girls and three boys was measured in their ASL proficiency,
English literacy and cognitive abilities. They found preliminary evidence in support of
a significant correlation between broad reading and writing achievement and
fluency in ASL, with those who are proficient in ASL achieving high levels of literacy in
tests.

Prinz and Strong (1998) also conducted a larger study to investigate the relationship
between ASL and English literacy skills among 155 students at a residential school for
the Deaf in California. An ASL test battery and an English literacy test battery were
administered. The results showed a significant relationship between English literacy skill
and ASL proficiency. The researcher’s interpretation was that ASL skill may be a

51
predictor of English literacy performance, with the suggestion that more research on
bilingual-bicultural programmes for Deaf children is needed since existing models of
bilingual instruction (developed for hearing populations) are not suitable for the Deaf.
Advocates of a bilingual education approach, Nover, Christensen and Cheng (1998),
believe that bilingual education empowers students with a more active role in their
own literacy development making them independently engaged learners.

The school of thought advocating for bilingual Deaf education is not limited to the use
of ASL and English. Hall (1995) suggests that a bilingual instruction model would benefit
Deaf children in Jamaica. In Hall’s (1995) study, 12 deaf children completed tasks in
writing, reading and sign language. They were found to have the ability to express
complex ideas in sign language which they had difficulty expressing in writing. It was
suggested that there was a diglossic language situation that resulted in the children’s
limited facility with English and that there was a need for a non-traditional approach
in the teaching of the written language.

3.5.3 Cued Speech

Cued Speech, a method used to supplement speech-reading, uses handshapes that

are phonemically-based to show the exact pronunciation of words in connected
speech. Williams-Scott and Kipila (1996) describe it as a system that allows the child to
‘see-hear’ every spoken syllable that a hearing person hears very precisely. This system
was developed to help make reading lips clearer as many English words look alike
when spoken.

3.5.4 Oral Approach

The Oral Approach is not a single method but rather a group of methods that places
emphasis on the different aspects of the communication process (Gatty, 1996). These
methods collectively emphasise that hearing-impaired children should only use
spoken language in face-to-face communication. Emphasis is also placed on the
child’s use of residual hearing as an important factor in how well the child understands
and produces spoken language. Audiological management is, hence, an important
consideration in this approach.

Parents of children with hearing impairments in Singapore who want an Oral

Approach for their children have the option of enrolling them in the Canossian School
for the Hearing Impaired (CSHI). The Directory of Services for the Disabled states that
students at CSHI are taught using the Natural Auditory-Oral philosophy, which
emphasises the use of audition. Children do not use sign language, unlike the children
at SSD, the only other school for Deaf children in Singapore.

There are also hearing-impaired children in mainstream schools. These children access
the school curriculum mainly through auditory input – using their residual hearing from
hearing aids or cochlear implants. Some of the children may receive therapy for

52
language development through services such as CSHI’s programme or the Listen and
Talk Programme at the Singapore General Hospital. The Listen and Talk Programme
uses the Auditory-Verbal Approach which helps children access speech and
language primarily through auditory input. It aims to integrate children into
mainstream schools so that their hearing peers can be good language models.

3.5.5 Total Communication

Bodner-Johnson (1996) describes Total Communication as a communication

philosophy where signs, speech, gestures, speech-reading, amplification and/or
finger-spelling may be used to provide linguistic input to Deaf children. Children
taught using this approach are allowed to express themselves in the mode of their
choice. The philosophy of Total Communication assumes that different children
benefit from using different modalities in various situations. Thus, one description of
Total Communication could be the simultaneous use of speech and signs to represent
English. In this instance, manual systems used with Total Communication in the past
include invented systems such as Signed English, SEE, Seeing Essential English and
Linguistics of Visual English, amongst others. Another description could be the choice
of sign or speech and the use of speech-reading and residual hearing for
communication purposes.

Kuntze (1998) argues that an undercurrent of change is beginning to take shape in

Deaf education. Research on bilingual education has shifted Deaf education towards
a combination of ASL and English to help children access the curriculum better. Nover,
Christensen and Cheng (1998) noted that in the US, many educators of the Deaf are
turning to ASL for a linguistic foundation that would enhance the learning of English as
a second language.

The present SSD was established in 1963 and offers classes from pre-school to primary
six and is the only Deaf school that employs the Total Communication approach in
Singapore. The School is managed by the Ministry of Education (which oversees all
public education in Singapore) and, thus, follows the local mainstream education
system. Speech therapy, audiological services and counselling are also provided at
the school. Teachers at SSD utilise all potentially available resources of linguistic
communication which may include sign, speech and amplification through the use
of hearing aids in the classroom.

A ‘no-voice’ teaching method is used to reinforce the learning experience at the SSD.
Participants learn through classroom instruction and role-play, as well as storytelling
and handouts (SADeaf, 2008-2017). The same method of teaching applies to teaching
and learning for SASL. Educators and learners are not permitted to use voice in the
classroom so as to avoid the possible confusion of SASL and the spoken language,
and to foster the development of expressive skills in students. All in-class teacher
communication should be conducted in SASL. However, the teacher should not

53
demand that the learners express themselves in SASL until they have had ample,
meaningful receptive exposure to the language.

3.6 Instructional Support to Deaf Education in Singapore

Regarding the literacy issues of Deaf children, Phua Su Yin (2003) states that, in
Singapore, English is the main medium of instruction in schools. Key subjects, such as
Mathematics and Science, are taught in English and examinations are taken in
English. It is also the official language used in commerce and administration. English
plays an important role in cross-cultural communication between the different ethnic
groups in Singapore. Without a good grasp of English, opportunities for the Deaf
population will remain limited (Phua Su Yin, 2003:25).

3.6.1 SEE 2 and Sign Language

SEE 2 is used as the language of instruction in class (Phua Su Yin, 2003). SEE 2 is a
manually coded English sign system, meant to represent formal English language, with
one sign for each morpheme. According to Gustason and Zawolkow (1993), SEE 2 was
originally developed to help Deaf students improve their grasp of English. It was hoped
that children exposed to English in a gestural mode would master the structure of the
language better if complete sentences and formal syntax were signed.

Unlike SEE 2, sign languages do not always share the vocabulary and syntax of the
equivalent local spoken language. Sign language is a visual gestural language that is
based on the use of the hands, eyes, face, mouth and body. It may include the use
of a manual alphabet. Deaf people all over the world are said to have their own
native sign language (World Federation of the Deaf, 1993). However, since SEE 2 is
essentially the English language coded in signs (SEE 2 merely substitutes signs for words
in full English sentences), it is a version of English and not a sign language in its own
right. At present, there is no official documentation of a native sign language in
Singapore.

3.6.2 SEE 2 in Singapore Education

The use of SEE 2 in Singapore is complicated because not everyone understands or

uses SSE. Deaf children who do not come from English-speaking homes are likely to
struggle with SEE 2 as their parents are not able to communicate with them in this
language. Not only are they deprived socially, they are like the children in Padden
and Humphries’ (1988) observation of Deaf children in the US lacking the adult models
for learning a natural language. DTAs, like those used in South Africa, are not provided
in the SSD. School should be a place for children to learn and develop intellectually,
yet most of the SSD children have not mastered the medium of instruction, English.

54
3.7 International Approaches to Assessment in Sign Language

Internationally, the main skills that are assessed in Deaf education are receptive and
expressive skills.

3.7.1 Assessment in Singapore

With regard to assessing Deaf children’s language in Singapore, Phua Su Yin (2003)
argues that assessing the language and literacy abilities of Deaf children provides
educators and parents of Deaf children with more information to help promote these
skills. Testing of the subject is carried out in the four major components of syntax,
semantics, pragmatics and phonology. There are two ways of assessing Deaf
children’s language. The first includes predominantly standardised tests for language
(usually administered by speech-language specialists) and the second includes
informal sampling of language (conducted mostly by educators). Schirmer (2001)
notes that the advantage of the former is the ease of administration and consistency
of use, while the latter offers the best opportunity to understand the Deaf child’s use
of language within a natural setting and provides a better link to remediation
strategies.

3.7.2 Assessment in Scotland

According to the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) (2008; 2011 and 2016), when
a candidate who uses sign is being assessed, the subject teacher and the educator
of the Deaf will need to work closely together. Thus, the team assessment model is also
encouraged in Scotland. For oral evidence, SQA (2008; 2011 and 2016) notes that the
sign communicator (educator of the Deaf) provides the ‘voice’ for the learner’s
signed presentation to allow the subject teacher to access the content. SQA (2008;
2011 and 2016) also states that if a candidate who uses sign wishes to write their
responses to an assessment they should be allowed to do so and it should be assessed
in the same way as any other assessment. If a candidate who uses sign wishes to sign
their responses to an assessment, then this should be filmed and a transcription
produced for the assessor to mark (both the film and the transcription should be kept
for verification purposes) (SQA, 2008; 2011 and 2016).

3.7.3 Research on Sign Language Assessment in the UK

In the UK most research on assessment has taken place in Bristol (Herman, 1998).
Jansma (1994) evaluated the suitability of traditional methods for eliciting features of
British Sign Language (BSL). The merits of three different tasks in producing
morphosyntactically rich samples of children’s BSL were investigated. The three
assessment tasks were set up as follows:

 Children were asked to either retell a story after seeing a Deaf adult tell it in BSL
 Retell a cartoon story after viewing it, or

55
 Describe a story told in a picture

The results indicated that of the three tasks, the picture description task was least
effective in producing verb modification. Many of the targeted verbs were not
elicited at all or produced in unmodified forms. In addition, in retelling the story
children referred directly to the picture, incorporating reference points to parts of it in
their narrative, rather than setting up arbitrary locations in space, which is an
important part of BSL grammar. The cartoon task provided most opportunities to apply
grammatical mechanisms in BSL, suggesting that it was the story content here rather
than the elicitation method itself, which was significant. The results suggest that
materials used to elicit samples of BSL need to be carefully selected in order to
produce a representative sample on which to base the assessment of children’s BSL
skills.

3.7.4 BSL Assessment Battery

The BSL assessment battery (Herman, 1998) developed at City University is the result of
collaboration between three individuals: a speech and language therapist (a
specialist within the field of deafness), an expert in BSL and sign linguistics, and a deaf
researcher with considerable experience of working with Deaf children. It is designed
to assess aspects of morphology and syntax in children aged three to eleven years
and consider both receptive and expressive skills. Assessors are qualified and
experienced in Deaf education and at least one must be a Deaf person.

The assessment battery includes the following assessment tasks:

 Picture naming task which identifies signs which vary from those used in the test
 The picture naming task is followed by a receptive assessment which has a video
presentation format
o Children watch Deaf adult signing instructions to them on video and
respond by selecting the most appropriate picture from a choice of three
or four in a picture booklet
o The video format was designed to eliminate variation in presenting test
items which emerged in the pre-pilot stages where a live presentation was
used
o In certain circumstances, the tester may present items live, e.g., when it is
felt that vocabulary differences will interfere with the child’s performance
or when the child is unable to cope with responding to the video
o The receptive test consists of 40 items, organized in order of difficulty, which
assess children’s knowledge of a range of BSL structures, e.g. negation,
number/distribution, verb morphology and noun/verb distinction
o Test time varies from 12 minutes for children able to work through the test
without stopping the tape to 20 minutes for children who require more time
to respond

56
 o Scoring is possible at two levels: pass/fail analysis which yields raw score
(eventually to be converted to a standard score) and an error analysis
which allows the tester to look in more detail at the pattern of response.

 Samples of signing are elicited in two subsequent tests

o Certain BSL structures are elicited using similar pictures to those of receptive
test
o Initially the order of the test was varied but a problem arose in that use of
this expressive test before the receptive test led to a great variation in the
type of responses produced by the children
o By completing the receptive test first, children have a better idea of what
is expected of them and the range of responses is constrained to those
being targeted

 The final part of the assessment battery is a story recall task

o The child views a short video clip of three minutes duration involving two
Deaf children acting out a story sequence, and then retells the story to a
Deaf adult
o The particular story was selected because of its repetitive story-line which
has a correspondingly light load on memory and its effectiveness in eliciting
aspects of BSL grammar which relate to story-telling (e.g. role shift) and
which extend across sections of discourse (e.g. setting up locations in
space for use with verb morphology)
o A few questions are then asked to look at the child’s ability to respond to
selected ‘wh-‘ questions
o Both expressive tests are video-recorded for later analysis

The BSL assessment battery has elements that are found in SASL assessment.

3.7.5 The BSL Receptive Skills Test

Developed in 1999 by Herman, Holmes and Woll this test is designed for children aged
three to eleven years and focuses on selected aspects of morphology and syntax of
BSL (pilot study conducted in the United Kingdom (UK) – Haug, Herman and Woll,
2015). The test consists of a vocabulary check and video-based receptive skills
assessment consisting of 40 items, ordered by level of difficulty. In this assessment, the
children see a signed stimulus and are then asked to select the right answer among
the four multiple-choice answers that are provided as colour drawings in a booklet.
The BSL Receptive Skills Test is presented to participants using DVD.

Due to regional variations in signs in the UK (a worldwide challenge), assessments

normally contain two or more versions of the same task. For the BSL Receptive Skills
Test, there is a version for the north of the UK and another for the south. Regional
variations are also taken into account in assessment in South Africa. A glossary

57
explaining concepts in the test is added to the test question paper to account for
provincial variations in concepts.

3.7.6 The Test of American Sign Language (TASL)

TASL has been developed within the framework of a larger cooperative research
project investigating the relationship between ASL and English literacy skills (Prinz et
al., 1995; Strong and Prinz, 1997, 2000). TASL allows an in-depth investigation of specific
linguistic structures and, thus, does not provide a screening mechanism for Deaf
children. At the time of writing, TASL had been reported to have been used with 155
Deaf students aged 8 –15 years.

TASL consists of two production and four comprehension measures, administered

individually:

a) Production measures
i. Classifier Production Test: a short cartoon movie is shown to the test takers.
The cartoon is then presented again in 10 segments. Participants are asked
to sign each segment in ASL. The videotapes of their signed responses are
scored for the presence of different size, shape and movement markers in
the classifiers.
ii. Sign Narrative: pictures from a children's book (Good dog Carl; Day, 1996)
without text are given to the participants with the task to tell a story using
the pictures. Their signed versions of the story are videotaped and scored
for the use of specific ASL grammar and narrative structures using a
checklist.

b) Comprehension measures
i. Story Comprehension: an ASL narrative presented by a native signer is
shown on video. While watching the video, the participants are asked
questions about the content. Their responses are videotaped.
ii. Classifier Comprehension Test: pictures of objects with a variety of visual
features are shown to the participants. Next, they see a Deaf person
describing each object in four different ways. Following these descriptions,
participants are asked to select, from different video still frames in their text
booklet, the description that best matches the picture stimulus.

3.7.7 Assessment Instrument for Netherlands Sign Language

In the Netherlands, the SLN was developed as a standardised language test for Deaf
children in primary education. The Instrument tests both receptive and expressive skills
(Hermans, Knoors, and Verhoeven, 2010) and can be considered as an instrument for
in-depth investigation across different domains of language. The target group for this
test is Deaf children aged four to twelve years old.

58
The SLN Assessment Instrument consists of nine different computerised tests that focus
on receptive and expressive SLN skills across different domains, i.e. phonology,
morpho-syntax and narrative skills. Not every test is expected to be appropriate for
every age group, for example the receptive and phonology tests were only
developed for the children 4 to 8 years old since it was expected that children older
than 8 years have already mastered the phonological system of SLN (Hermans et al.,
2010). All expressive tasks are scored live by the test administrator, in order to keep
avoid time-consuming analysis after the testing (Hermans et al., 2010).

The final test version of the SLN assessment instrument contains the following tasks:

 Receptive phonology task (Video 1): In this task, two signs were shown one after
the other on a computer screen. The signs were produced by two deaf native
signers. Children were asked to decide whether or not the signs had the same
meaning (press the green button with the mouse) or a different meaning (press
the red button). A certain number of the signs are minimal pairs in SLN, and are
different (predominantly) in respect to one phonological parameter: either the
mouthing pattern, the handshape, or the movement. The rationale behind the
task was that if children had not yet acquired this phonological parameter, they
would have difficulties in discriminating these minimal pairs. The receptive
phonology task consisted of 36 items.
 Expressive phonology task: The children’s expressive phonological skills were
assessed in an imitation task. In this task, a sign was presented on a computer
screen. Children were instructed to repeat the sign. The test-administrator
judged the correctness of one parameter of the sign produced by the child
(e.g., handshape, movement, oral component). The test materials also included
an information sheet for test the administrator on which the possible correct
responses for each sign were depicted.
 Receptive vocabulary task (Video 2): In the receptive vocabulary task, a sign
was presented on the computer screen followed by four pictures. Children were
asked to select the picture that matched the meaning of the sign, by using the
computer’s mouse. This test consisted of 61 items in total. One of the major
problems in developing a sign language vocabulary test concerns the iconicity
of signs (e.g., Jansma et al., 1997; White and Tischler, 1999). The problem is that
children who encounter a sign which they have not yet acquired may exploit
the iconic features of the sign to correctly guess its meaning, and select the
appropriate picture. The authors of this test used two strategies to reduce this
problem: (1) distractors were added (pictures) that did not match the meaning
of the target sign, but which resembled the shape of the target sign and (2) the
picture that matched the target sign in meaning was drawn from such a
perspective that its shapes no longer resembled the iconic features of the sign
(Hermans et al., 2010).
 Narrative comprehension and production skills task: The narrative
comprehension and production skills of the children were assessed in two tasks.
In the narrative comprehension task a story was presented in SLN. After each

59
 story, four questions were presented in SLN on the screen, and children were
instructed to answer these questions. Some of these questions referred to
information mentioned in the stories. The test-administrator scored whether or
not the children had correctly answered each question. The narrative
comprehension task consisted of five stories and 20 questions. The average
length of the stories was 53 seconds (range 39 – 83). In the narrative production
task, a story was depicted on the screen. Children were instructed to watch the
story. Then the depicted story disappeared from the screen, and children were
asked to retell the story in SLN. The retelling of the story was scored live.

3.7.8 SASL Assessment

SASL learners are assessed continuously through term tests, mid-year and final
examinations. SASL is also assessed in institutions of higher learning such as the
University of the Witwatersrand, University of the Free State and Stellenbosch University.

The SASL assessment at the University of Free State involves:

 A video camera is used to record the students’ expressive skills (from the script)
that the assessors mark as they would mark written scripts
 Receptive skills are assessed by the learners observing (listening with their eyes)
and writing in spoken language what they perceive or understood the signed
stimuli meant. This is marked in a traditional way

At school learners are also video-recorded during the assessment of their expressive
skills and this is done in Paper 3 – Recording. The learners’ receptive skills are assessed
under Visual Reading and Viewing learning outcome and this is done in Paper 2 –
Literature.

Akach and Naude (no date) suggest that it could also be of value to develop a
system to involve members of the Deaf community in the assessment of students
during the training of the sign language students and sign language interpreters as
they have first-hand experience of the language.

3.7.9 Challenges with Assessment in Deaf Education

Although some standardised tests have been developed, Mann and Marshall (2010)
argue that the following will remain challenges in sign language assessment: the
overall scarcity of available, standardised sign language tests, and limited time and
resources available for sign language test development.

A study by Herman (in press) in relation to BSL indicates that speech and language
therapists, teachers of the Deaf and a small portion of other Deaf and hearing
professionals and parents are being involved in the assessment of the Deaf children’s
signing skills (Herman, 1998). However, much additional training is felt to be needed

60
to fulfil the role of assessor adequately. This encompasses high level training in BSL,
knowledge of sign linguistics and language development in BSL, transcription skills and
elicitation techniques (Herman, 1998). Similarities can be drawn between the British
and the South African one in terms of training needs for assessment.

One of the schools visited for this study had two DTAs qualified in SASL education (SASL
NQF Level 5). The literature indicates that trained Deaf adults have a role to play in
the assessment process. However, few such individuals exist (Herman, 1998). Herman
(1998) states that most hearing professionals working with Deaf children lack sufficient
fluency in sign language, and few have knowledge of sign linguistics or sign language
acquisition. He goes on to note that increasingly Deaf professionals have these skills
but lack the experience in assessment which speech and language therapists possess.
Research (Strong, 1988) also highlights the extent to which Deaf children are sensitive
to the language skills of their interlocutor to the extent that modifications are made
towards spoken language syntax where the listener is hearing with non-native signing
skills. This emphasises further the need to involve Deaf people in the assessment of the
sign language (Herman, 1998).

Sign language is widely used by both hearing and Deaf people. It is taught in
numerous primary, secondary and post-secondary academic programmes as a
second language, especially in the US. It is possible for the South African hearing
learners to take SASL as FAL. One of the challenges indicated by the literature,
including for Deaf children in South Africa, is the delay in first language (sign
language) acquisition by Deaf learners born to hearing parents. This is also the case
in South Africa. A large percentage of Deaf learners come from hearing families.
These learners do not have full access to a sign language until after they have passed
the most critical early ages of language acquisition. Acquiring a language for this
special population is often a great challenge.

61
CHAPTER FOUR: METHODS
4.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the research methods that were used in this research report.
The focus was on the following research methods: instruments, data collection, target
and accessible population, sample, and limitations.

4.2 Research Design

The SASL Project is largely located within the qualitative research paradigm and
applies a case study approach involving the DBE (Item Development Unit), seven SASL
schools for the Deaf selected from Gauteng Province and the University of the
Witwatersrand.

A case study constitutes an important and useful means for gathering data in
qualitative research. It is a technique the researcher uses to observe the
characteristics of an individual unit, for example a school (as in this study), child or a
community (Manion, 1990). Kahn (1989) maintains that a case study is a way of
organising social data for viewing the social reality. The case studies for the research
focused on seven schools for the Deaf from Gauteng Province.

4.3 Research Instruments and Data Collection

Data collection involved the following:

Literature review (including of the SASL HL CAPS) focusing on assessment processes

and procedures for SASL as well as the quality assurance of the assessment of sign
language by other countries.

Instrument construction took place on the following basis: teaching, learning

assessment and quality assurance of assessments, that is, pre- and post-assessment
moderation. Structured interviews that investigated the following aspects were
constructed: teaching of SASL Home Language, activities that are part of the learners’
signing skills, assessment of learners’ signing skills, monitoring of the implementation of
the annual assessment plan and quality assessment, internal moderation of
assessments and the expertise required for teaching and assessing SASL Home
language. Over and above, semi-structured interviews were conducted with certain
individuals.

Key informant interviews took place to obtain detailed information relating to formal
assessments, marking of scripts, moderation and verification of SBA, moderation of
question papers, and verification of marking, monitoring and evaluation of the state
of examination readiness, examination writing and marking. Face-to-face, one-on-

62
one and in-person interviews were conducted with the DBE (Item Development Unit)
specialists and officials, experts from schools for the Deaf as well as experts from the
University of the Witwatersrand. Interviews were also held with the SASL HL curriculum
developers from the DBE.

Review of public documentation and audio-visual materials. For the latter, ethical
considerations required that permission for use was granted before use. All the
Gauteng Province schools that were visited gave permission for photos and videos to
be taken.

Observation of teaching and assessment practices with the seven Deaf schools
included in the study. During observation, the researcher’s role remained one of an
impartial, non-participatory observer.

The Umalusi Qualifications, Curriculum and Certification (QCC) Senior Manager,

Executive Management and other experts in the field checked the validity and the
reliability of the research instruments.

4.4 Targeted and Accessible Population

Muyangwa and Imenda (2006) defines a target population as the group of subjects
to whom the findings of a given study can be generalised. In this study, thus, all schools
offering SASL HL in South Africa constitute the target population. These schools form
a natural grouping per province and per phase in respect of this research topic. In
terms of the accessible population, this consisted of all schools offering SASL HL in
Gauteng Province.

4.5 Research Sample

Non-probability sampling specifically known as convenience sampling was used to

select schools. Convenience sampling “takes people or other units that are readily
available for selection” (Leedy and Ormrod, 2005:206). This method was used to limit
travel and any other associated and ad hoc costs that might be incurred. The most
convenient sample for the research project were schools offering SASL HL in Gauteng
Province. All seven schools for the Deaf in the Province participated.

63
CHAPTER FIVE: RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the major results from data collected during fieldwork. The
focus in this chapter is on the following aspects: teacher qualifications, teaching and
learning, assessment and monitoring, internal and external moderation, sources of
expertise, management of mark lists, teachers’ training recommendations for SASL
Home Language moderators, accommodations or concessions and challenges.
Participants were teachers and principals from seven schools for the Deaf in Gauteng
Province, the DBE and the Gauteng DOE Head Office, and academics from the
University of the Witwatersrand.

5.2 Results and Discussion of Findings

Seven schools for the Deaf were visited in Gauteng Province. Of these, two had Grade
9 as the highest grade, two Grade 10 and three had Grade 11. One of the schools
has a Grade 10 bridging class. In 2018, Gauteng Province will have two schools with
learners writing SASL HL examinations at exit level (Grade 12). Two schools offer Grade
12 over two years because of slow pace in learning. One of these schools will write
SASL Home Language in 2019 and another will write SASL Home language in 2020
since its learners started SASL Home Language in Grade 10 in 2017.

5.2.1 Teacher Qualifications

It is clear that regarding teacher qualifications expertise in relation to SASL

qualifications is lacking. This is a worldwide challenge. Referring to ASL, Newell
(1995:27) comments “Certification is another indicator of involvement in the
profession. The percentage of certified to non-certified teachers remains low”. Kanda
and Fleischer (1988:193) suggest that the answer to the question, “What makes one
qualified to teach ASL?” includes the following:

Linguistic and cultural competence undergirded by interaction with members of

the Deaf community and accompanied by proper attitudinal characteristics are
prerequisites. In addition, an ASL teacher should be educated, demonstrating
knowledge and application of educational and pedagogical principles along with
formal study of the language being taught. Sign language teachers should be
able to integrate second language teaching theory and methodology in their
classrooms. They should be engaged in activities leading to personal and
professional growth and development.

The above statement provides some valuable guidelines for selecting sign language
teachers. Referring to ASL, Reagan (2002), further provides the following
characteristics of a sign language teacher:

64
 The individual, first and foremost, must be a fluent user of ASL, and must be able
to demonstrate a high level of contact with and integration in the Deaf
community. He or she must also have some degree of formal training in ASL;
native speakers may well become outstanding teachers, but formal study of the
language is nonetheless necessary, especially in a case such as ASL where the
linguistic norms of the language are not always clear-cut. Pedagogical training
also plays a key part here; mere knowing a language well does not always
translate into effective second language teaching.

Luckner (1991) argues that the issue of teacher’s sign language skills is fundamental to
the failure to educate Deaf children. Lane, Hoffmeister and Bahan (1996); Vernon and
Daigle (1994); Woodward and Allen (1987) maintain that the poor quality of discourse
in Deaf classrooms is because the overwhelming majority of teachers do not possess
the ASL (or any other relevant sign language) competence needed to instruct Deaf
children effectively. Yet hearing teachers, most of whom are not fluent ASL users,
continue to dominate the educational process (Simms and Thumann, 2007). This
preponderance of teachers lacking in ASL fluency limits the visual-spatial benefits that
develop in natural language to minimise the transmission of information visually.

Simms and Thumann (2007) note that one reason for the inadequacy of teachers’ ASL
skills is that many in American society find it difficult to see Deaf people as members
of a linguistic minority. For teachers, this translates into large numbers being unaware
of the linguistic differences between ASL and English-based sign systems. In addition,
the privileging of English over ASL causes many teachers to change ASL from a rich,
fully formed language to a manually coded version of English. For this reason, in South
Africa SASL HL is strictly promoted over Signed English or any other spoken language.
In other countries, like Singapore, they have SEE. This dilutes the purity and the
linguistics of sign language. To overcome these risks of dilution, it is important that
teacher preparation programmes adequately instil sign language proficiency
(fluency) in their students. The DBE provides ongoing workshops and training for SASL
teachers as does the University of the Witwatersrand.

5.2.2 Teaching and Learning

Teachers commented that many newly admitted learners arrive at school with no
language. Learners use gestures at home and acquire language only later at school.
This observation is in agreement with the literature on SASL. Morgan, Glaser and
Magongwa (2016:20) argue that “for most Deaf learners SASL is not used at home due
to the reluctance of family members to acknowledge and use SASL; it is the language
that the Deaf learners acquire from other Deaf learners and adults at school”. It has
also been observed that CODAs are more proficient with SASL HL as compared with
learners that are born to hearing parents.

65
The implementation of SASL HL needs teachers with both teaching and SASL skills,
however the literature indicates that “there is a lack of qualified Deaf teachers to
teach SASL as a result of barriers to tertiary education and teacher training for Deaf
South Africans” (Morgan, Glaser and Magongwa, 2016:20). In the absence of a
qualified Deaf teacher, the Curriculum Management Team (appointed by the
Minister of Basic Education in 2010) proposed a bilingual-bicultural team teaching
model following Akach (2010) in which a hearing teacher is paired with a DTA. In this
model, the DTAs have expertise in SASL and the qualified hearing teachers in teaching
methodologies, classroom practice and the English-based curriculum (Morgan,
Glaser and Magongwa, 2016).

The schools observed in this study are using the team teaching model from FP to FET
Phase. The DTAs are employed as teaching assistants and as teachers, but they also
serve as role models for the promotion of SASL. Morgan, Glaser and Magongwa (2016)
maintain that it is important to provide proficient, deaf SASL role models to Deaf
learners. For cultural reasons, it also imperative that no hearing teachers teach SASL
alone. Furthermore, Morgan, Glaser and Magongwa (2016) argue that the reality on
the ground is that most hearing teachers are not native sign language users and do
not have the linguistic proficiency to teach SASL HL on their own. The DTA are often
proficient and fluent sign language users and are able to position signs, use facial
expressions and formulate sentences clearly and to high standards.

All the schools that were visited follow the SASL HL CAPS curriculum which has four
learning outcomes: Observing and Signing, Visual Reading and Viewing, Recording,
and Language Structure. The findings show that SASL HL is the LOLT in all the schools
that were observed. In some schools, teaching and learning takes place through
PowerPoint presentations. Teaching and learning focuses on the SASL Parameters
including: reading, viewing, comparing, phonological awareness and the structure of
the language syntax.

The teaching philosophy for SASL HL is based on three key principles outlined by
Akach, Aarons and Matabane (2007b):

 Students learn the language best when the language is presented in context
 Students retain the language best when activities are meaningful and
experiential
 Students develop comprehension skills more quickly than expressive skills

Akach, Aarons and Matabane (2007b) further argue that lessons must be designed to
be presented in SASL, avoiding the use of voice, written English or glosses, and
teachers are encouraged to always sign slightly beyond what they think is the
students’ expressive ability. Reagan (2002) states that voicing, or using spoken
language at the same time that one signs, or even simply mouthing the words of the
spoken language, takes place as a mandatory feature of manual sign codes and is
generally an option in contact sign languages. Reagan (2002) further maintains that

66
for a variety of reasons, including differences in word order, it is not possible to use a
natural sign language in conjunction with spoken language. Thus, voicing and the use
of sign language are generally mutually exclusive activities.

With regard to the nature of the lexical items, Reagan (1986) maintains that individual
signs can be either conceptual or word-based in nature. In natural sign languages
and contact sign languages, signs are generally conceptual in nature. That is, a given
sign will correspond to a specific concept in another language. Depending on the
usage and context, the ASL sign CONTROL, for instance, can be translated into English
as “control,” “manage,” administer,” “govern,” “operate’” “regulate’” or even
“manipulate.” On the other hand, there are instances in which the spoken language
uses a single word to express a number of different concepts. In such situations, one
finds that conceptually-based signs in natural language may be more precise than
the spoken language allows. In ASL, for example, the English word “run” requires
different signs for each of the following contexts:

 Run in race
 Run for Congress
 A run in a stocking
 To run a business
 Running water
 A running engine
 A runny nose

In other words, if one is trying to manually encode English, all of the different signs for
“run” will be collapsed into a single sign. Similarly, if English requires separate words for
“control”, “govern” and so on, then the manual sign code must find a way to
represent each of these terms as a separate lexical item (Baker and Padden, 1978).
Word Order, presence or Absence of Inflectional Markers

In SASL HL, the sentence is glossed, meaning it is written in capital letters or block letters
to indicate that the sentence is signed. The order in which lexical items occur in a
natural sign language differs from word order in a spoken language, just as word order
varies among different spoken languages. SASL HL does not follow the normal English
grammatical order rather the subject, object, verb (SOV). For example,

 English HL: “I am going to town.”

 SASL HL: “ME TOWN GO.” – SOV order and the sentence is glossed.

 English HL: “The boy talks to the girl.”

 SASL HL: “BOY GIRL TALK-TO.”

 English HL: “The girl talks to the boy.”

 SASL HL: “GIRL BOY TALK-TO.”

67
 English HL: “I like pizza but I don’t like cheese.”
 SASL HL: “ME PIZZA LIKE BUT CHEESE DON’T LIKE.”

 English HL: “Do you like pizza or hamburgers?”

 SASL HL: “YOU PIZZA LIKE OR HAMBURGERS?”

 English HL: “I like pizza and hamburgers.”

 SASL HL: “ME PIZZA HAMBURGER LIKE.”

 English HL: “I like pizza because it is delicious.”

 SASL HL: “ME PIZZA LIKE WHY? DELICIOUS.”
(South African Sign Language Training Manual, 2017:23)

Regarding inflectional markers, Reagan (2002) states that manual codes designed to
represent English will contain inflectional markers for such morphological items as -ing,
-s (plural), -‘s (possessive), -ed, and so on. Further grammatical irregularities in spoken
language will be maintained in the manual sign code, as in the use of distinct,
initialised signs for “am,” “is,” and “are.” Such inflectional markers are absent in natural
sign languages altogether, and are only rarely used in contact sign languages.

For hearing children, the third-person singular –s, plural –s, past tense –ed and
progressive –ing are considered the most important among the morphological errors,
according to James (1998). Shaughnessy (1977) observed that all learners of English
learn –s more successfully when it is syllabic, and thus, more salient. James (1998)
noted that this is phonological in cause but grammatical in effect. Shaughnessy (1977)
also found that the plural –s is often omitted when preceded by quantifiers and other
numerals.

Mogford (1988) found that Deaf children use mostly content words (like nouns and
verbs) and fewer function words (such as conjunctions, auxiliaries, prepositions and
pronouns). These function words, which are not often used, are less familiar to them
and hence the children are more prone to committing errors when using them.
Quigley and King (1982) found that Deaf children have particular difficulties with the
morphology of English, especially verb and noun inflections. Citing the work of Taylor
(1969), where the written productions of Deaf children up to 16 years of age were
examined, morphemes were noted to be difficult for children even at this advanced
age.

Schools use DVDs from SLED for language structure. Learners watch and observe a
signed story from the video and thereafter relate the story through signing whilst being
videoed. One of the schools indicated that teachers use textbooks borrowed from
English HL. There are no SASL HL textbooks. Reagan (2002) maintains, in reference to
ASL, that it is important to emphasise that the teaching of ASL requires carefully
designed texts and materials intended for the teaching of ASL. Whatever textbook is
chosen, the curriculum of the ASL course should reflect four broad areas: grammatical

68
features of ASL, the lexicon of ASL, practice with ASL conversational skills and cultural
awareness (Cokely and Baker-Shenk, 1980). The same requirement applies for SASL
HL.

5.2.3 Assessment and Monitoring

The finding show that the learners’ signing skills are assessed through Recording,
Observing and Signing, and Visual Reading and Viewing. All assessments are
recorded and rubrics are used for marking. No pen and paper were used during the
assessment of SASL HL. One of the schools observed used a hard copy question paper
and learners signed the answers. This situation is not ideal for SASL HL assessments.
Preferably, learners should have access to laptops with webcams and all questions
should be signed and recorded using the laptops. In all of the schools observed, SASL
HL assessment takes place in a SASL laboratory and both the qualified hearing
teacher and DTA are present.

Teachers stated that SBA portfolios are kept electronically using memory sticks and on
computer hard drives by the teachers. The memory sticks are retained by the school
for security reasons. The teachers’ files are kept as hard copies (memo) and digital
copies of question papers. The learners’ files are kept as hard copies marked answer
sheets and digital copy of answers.

Haug et al. (2016) provides some useful commentary regarding SBA portfolios
including:

 They note the merits of creating a language portfolio for each child to include
reports, observations and scores from assessments collected over time as well as
language background
 They also recommend creating a scoring grid to assess language competency
and fluency that can be used cross-linguistically (i.e. for sign and spoken
languages) and this should link up to learning outcomes

Haug et al (2016) also give some useful advice on the involvement of children in the
assessments/ giving feedback:

a. Older children can be involved in understanding the results of their assessments

b. They can be involved in discussions about new targets for them to achieve and
how they can achieve those new targets
c. It would be excellent for them to see their own progress over time and reflect on
their own language skills

Haug, et al, (2016) posit that there should be several learning outcomes from assessing
the child. They further assert that schools may aim to assess both academic
achievement and language proficiency (the two aren’t necessarily the same).
Assessing academic achievement covers curriculum-related aspects, which may not

69
be appropriate for all Deaf children. Assessing language proficiency tests level of
language fluency and it should be possible to see individual progress over time. In the
same notion, Reagan (2008) states that sign language can be used effectively to
teach both academic content and literary skills in the spoken language, and finally,
for Deaf children as for all children.

5.2.4 Internal and External Moderation

During the school visits, it was found that schools were using their own pre- and post-
moderation tools which differed from school to school. It was only at the national SASL
teacher training conducted by the DBE in 2017 that teachers were given pre- and
post-assessment moderation tools to use during moderation. Some schools have SATs
that are responsible for the quality assurance of the internal assessment and
moderation. In some schools, teachers teaching senior classes/grades moderate
question papers for teachers teaching junior classes/grades.

Information provided by one of the national examiners for SASL HL indicates that
internal moderation at school level is usually done by the HOD or another SASL
teacher. The requirement is that the moderator should have SASL HL proficiency and
knowledgeable about phase-specific content. The tools for internal moderations
(SASL pre- and post-assessment moderation) were circulated to SASL HL teachers
nationwide to use during moderation.

Regarding national or provincial external moderation, the examiner indicated that

there is a challenge regarding the appointment of national external moderators by
the DBE. There are no provincial or national SASL HL Subject Advisors so the DBE is using
the spoken language subject advisors in the interim. South Africa only has three SASL
HL Provincial Officials (KwaZulu-Natal, Western Cape and Gauteng Provinces).

The SASL HL CAPS document indicates that moderation should be implemented at

school, provincial and national levels (DBE, 2014b, 2014c and 2014d). The document
further states that comprehensive and appropriate moderation practices must be in
place for the quality assurance of all subject assessments and this should be done at
least once per term. Moderation should ensure that all assessments are valid, fair,
reliable and sufficient (DBE, 2014b, 2014c and 2014d). Furthermore, the CAPS clearly
stipulates the following (DBE, 2014b, 2014c and 2014d):

Moderators at school level must give quality comments based on the requirements
above to ensure that the assessment practice at school is enhanced. Moderation
cannot simply be a monitoring exercise to check that the number of tasks has been
done or that a memorandum has been applied correctly. In SASL it means that the
moderator will give good comments, among other things, on the levels of
questioning in comprehension testing; the frequency of extended recording; the
quality of assessment instruments and the developmental opportunities afforded

70
 and the teacher’s engagement with learners’ recorded work as evidence of
performance.

The moderation of Observing and Signing is the same as the moderation of orals in
other spoken HLs. However, the moderation practice in schools is at odds with the
Policy Statement as it is not happening at provincial and national levels. Likewise,
checklist and tick-box (yes or no) instruments are used for school level moderation
even though the SASL HL CAPS (DBE, 2014b and 2014c) clearly states “moderation
cannot simply be a monitoring exercise to check that the number of tasks has been
done or that a memorandum has been applied correctly”. The external moderation
procedure exists to ensure that students from different schools and provinces receive
comparable grades for comparable work and that the same standards apply from
year to year.

Regarding pre-assessment moderation of the assessment tasks, Haug et al. (2016:4)

provide the following guidelines:

Determine that the test’s technical and user documentation provides sufficient
information to enable evaluation of the following:

a. Coverage and representativeness of test content, representative norm

groups, difficulty level of content, etc.
b. Accuracy of measurement and reliability demonstrated with respect to
relevant populations
c. Validity (demonstrated with respect to relevant populations) and relevance
for the required use
d. Freedom from systematic bias in relation to the intended test taker groups
e. Practicality, including time required, costs, and resource needs
f. Avoid judging a test solely on the basis of face value, test-user testimonials, or
advice from those with a vested commercial interest

(Adapted from Haug et al, 2016:4)

The SASL HL CAPS document states that moderation should ensure that all assessments
are valid, fair, reliable and sufficient. The task must measure the level of achievement
of specific skills. Moderation cannot simply be a monitoring exercise to check that the
number of tasks has been done or that a memorandum has been applied correctly.
When assessed against these criteria, the pre-assessment moderation tool circulated
by the DBE needs some improvement to make it fit for purpose as a monitoring tool.
Furthermore, the pre-assessment moderation tool does not use the cognitive levels for
a language. These cognitive levels are a combination of the 1956 version of the Bloom
Taxonomy and the 2001 version of the revised Bloom Taxonomy. According to the

71
SASL HL CAPS document, the required cognitive levels are Literal, Reorganisation,
Inference, Evaluation and Appreciation.

Moderators at school level must give quality comments based on the requirements
above to ensure that the assessment practice at school is enhanced. Moderation
cannot simply be a monitoring exercise to check that the number of tasks has been
done or that a memorandum has been applied correctly. In SASL HL, this means that
the moderator will comment on the levels of questioning in comprehension testing;
the frequency of extended recording; the quality of assessment instruments and the
developmental opportunities afforded and the teacher’s engagement with learners’
recorded work as evidence of performance (DBE, 2014c:55).

5.2.5 Sources of Expertise

Data from the schools relating to sources of expertise to moderate the assessment
tasks indicate that Deaf schools from the Gauteng Province draw their expertise from
the University of the Witwatersrand and SLED. The University of the Witwatersrand and
the University of the Free State are the only two universities in the country currently
offering SASL training to teachers (Reagan, 2008).

In terms of expertise for internal moderation, the HODs, and in some schools the
principals, do pre- and post-assessment moderation of the SBAs. Teachers also
moderate each other’s work. However, the lack of qualified SASL HL teachers means
this expertise is spread very thinly. Some schools draw additional expertise from
teachers for other subjects such as English HL; however such teachers can only
moderate the written form of the assessment since they are neither fluent in sign
language nor sign language experts. Some schools have teachers that are qualified
in special needs education or inclusive education but with no specialisation in Deaf
education or in SASL. One school had three qualified DTAs, two with SASL NQF Level 5
and one had a BEd Honours in Deaf Education and SASL NQF level 6. Some schools
rely on DTAs as native and fluent signers to do the moderation of the SBA tasks.
Teachers in one of the schools visited confessed that they were unsure if they are
moderating the assessment tasks correctly and would value some guidance in this
regard.

5.2.6 Management of Mark Lists

HODs and principals moderate mark sheets and check if marks are correctly entered
into the mark lists. Teachers stated that marks are weighted and captured into the
mark lists. Schools use the SA-SAMS or administration system to capture marks for SASL
HL assessments and assist teachers to follow assessment guidelines provided in the
SASL CAPS. In some schools, mark lists are checked during the class visits.

72
5.2.7 Recommendations for Training of SASL Home Language Moderators

It has been mentioned elsewhere in this report that expertise in SASL HL is lacking. In
this regard, teachers also indicated the need to train SASL HL moderators at school
level with the following training areas identified:

 PGCE qualification with the University of Witwatersrand

 Competency in sign language
 Signing skills level five qualification
 Knowledge of SASL
 Didactics of teaching SASL HL
 Experience in teaching sign language
 Interpreting skills
 More training in SASL HL literature e.g. poetry is needed for teachers
 Intensive knowledge of SASL CAPS curriculum and knowledge of SBA
requirements
 Know SASL as HL and different dialects that are used
 Knowledge of SASL linguistics and should have attended moderation courses
 Fluency in SASL HL
 Ongoing workshops, training and networking with teachers from other schools in
Gauteng Province

The above list is a summary of the training requirements for moderators as proposed
by teachers working hands-on with SASL HL teaching.

Gauteng Department of Education’s views on assessment

An interview with the Gauteng DOE officials responsible for inclusive education in the
Province was held as part of this research. The Gauteng DOE Head Office officials
interviewed conceded that, with the exception of the subject teachers, the
Department lacks SASL expertise. They promote networking amongst the teachers as
a means of mitigating this. Regarding the form of training required by SASL HL
moderators, they indicated that moderators need training on the principles of
moderation, understanding the purpose and the process of moderation, and need to
understand the nature of SASL HL.

The Department also made the following recommendations for Umalusi:

 Umaluisi should draw the SASL experts from Universities, provinces and/or schools
for external moderation of the assessment/examination question papers at exit
point or Grade 12 level
 A panel of moderators is encouraged for SASL HL moderation
 The provincial SASL HL project coordinators should be part of the panel because
of their expertise in the language

73
 Umalusi will also need consultants who are experts in SASL to do the monitoring
of the state of readiness as well as the writing and the marking phases

Department of Basic Education’s views on assessment

A meeting with the DBE was organised with the aim of establishing a common
understanding in regard to the management and assessment of SASL HL. The following
is a summary of what transpired from the meeting with national SASL HL examiners
and DBE officials. They indicated that the estimated number of centres for SASL HL
examinations in 2018 will be 24. Some schools have introduced a Grade 10 bridging
class for SASL HL. These schools will write SASL HL for matric in 2019. It was also indicated
that provinces do not have SASL HL subject advisors. The DOE, likewise, also does not
have subject advisors or subject experts for SASL HL. Hence, no physical monitoring is
currently happening. The current recommendation is to get SASL HL subject advisors
to assist with the SASL HL basics and to support teaching and learning.

In terms of the consideration of different dialects in question paper setting, the

examiners are developing a glossary for each question paper for SASL HL to cater for
different variations. The glossary explains concepts in the question paper, however
every candidate should understand standardised signing for assessment purposes. In
addition, the examination panel consists of persons from all nine provinces for
purposes of standardisation of SASL HL question papers. It was also noted that when
setting question papers, examiners require the assistance of a Deaf person for the
signing of questions, with the exception of CODA examiners who may not require this.

University of the Witwatersrand’s views on assessment

A discussion on SASL took place with two officials from the University of the
Witwatersrand. The meeting promoted the idea of using academics with a linguistic
understanding of SASL as examiners and moderators and to take the lead in setting a
national standard.

The shortage of SASL qualified Deaf people was raised during the discussion. High
levels of variation in SASL HL were also noted as a challenge. In this regard, there
should be a study on variations to establish the most commonly used signs in South
Africa. According to Akach and Morgan (1999), there is no detailed linguistic analysis
of variations, which gives rise to the misperception that there are many different sign
languages in South Africa as a result of variation at the lexical level. Akach and Naude
(not dated) states that it has been observed that variation in vocabulary does not
prevent coherent communication among the Deaf. Akach and Naude further
maintain that Deaf people all over the country watch the same signers on television
shows, which will also contribute to the standardisation of SASL across regions and
ethnic groups.

74
Other important points raised included: the need to focus on developing
Comprehension and Narration skills in SASL as well as poetry teaching skills in
educators. The interview participants affirmed the team teaching model as a solution
for Deaf education in South Africa.

5.3 Accommodations or Concessions

Government Gazette, No. 37652, 16 May 2014, indicates that, depending on the
severity of the barrier experienced, the following accommodations or concessions
can be made available at the discretion of the Provincial Assessment Committee:
adaptation of questions, additional time, computer, oral examination, reader, rest
breaks, scribe, separate venue, sign language interpreter, spelling, and video/DVD
recorder/webcam. However, not all these accommodations/concessions apply to
SASL HL candidates. The following are the approved accommodations for SASL HL
candidates:

 Extra time – 30 minutes

 Sign language Interpreter

Other accommodations may apply for other subjects (Geography, Life Sciences, etc.)
such as adaptation of questions, use of video, DVD recorder and webcam.
Regarding the matter of extra time, SQA (2008; 2011 and 2016) maintains that it is
important that teachers, assessors and invigilators understand the candidates’ or
learners’ needs. Appropriate evidence can be gathered from class work and from
class assessments to help the teacher or the assessor to determine how much extra
time will be needed in assessment, and where appropriate, eventually for prelims and
the external examination (SQA, 2008; 2011 and 2016). The following points should be
remembered when considering extra time (SQA, 2008; 2011 and 2016):

 Give candidates sufficient time to complete their assessments and, where they
wish, to review their signed assessment responses
 Allow yourself (invigilator or technical expert) extra time for the technical
requirements involved when candidates review their signed assessment
responses (this time does not count towards the time allowed for the assessment
concerned)

However, in regard to candidate fatigue SQA (2008; 2011 and 2016) maintains that
assessments that last for more than three hours can cause tiredness and may
ultimately disadvantage the candidate.

75
5.4 Challenges

Some of the challenges raised by the participating schools for the Deaf include: skills
shortages, lack of support from education districts, diversity in classes, learners with
little or no language on admission, etc. Teachers also indicated that having one
service provider (SLED) in the country is not enough.

The Chief Examiner shared the following envisaged challenges for SASL HL during the
information-sharing meeting at Umalusi:

 Technical Readiness
o Teacher training/technical person
o Compatibility issue – question papers
o PowerPoint question papers may not work for some laptops – IT challenge
o Storage – memory sticks, CD (video clips)
 Environmental Readiness
o Layout of the examination rooms
o Lighting
o There should be no direct light from outside through the window
o Reduction of distractors
 Human Resources
o No provincial/national subject advisors for SASL HL

Regarding the school-based internal moderation, the Chief Examiner stated that this
is usually done by HODs or other SASL HL teachers. She mentioned that schools do
have pre- and post-internal moderation tools and that there are no SASL
provincial/national moderators or subject advisors. The interim measure to date has
been to use the spoken language subject advisors.

The Chief Examiner also indicated that the guidelines for Practical Assessment Tasks
for SASL HL are the same as those for English HL. Guidelines for SBA are available.
Teacher’s file should be a hard copy with memoranda and the teacher should also
have a digital copy that contains his/her SBA work. The learner’s file should be a hard
copy with marked answer sheets. The learner should also have a digital copy of the
answers.

76
CHAPTER SIX: RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Introduction

This report presents the areas of good practice, areas of concern and
recommendations for best practice. The aim of the research was to establish a
common understanding regarding the assessment and the quality assurance of
assessment of SASL HL, and to provide guidance to Umalusi about its role in the quality
assurance of the SASL Home Language SBAs and examinations at exit level (Grade
12). The scope of the SASL HL Project included, amongst other things, how Deaf
learners are assessed and what kind of resources and materials are required for this
assessment. The scope of the research further included visiting schools for Deaf
learners and visiting the Gauteng Department of Education.

6.2 Areas of Good Practice

Good practices were recognised in almost all schools for the Deaf. The following are
highlighted.

 All schools for the Deaf that were observed follow CAPS for SASL Home
Language;
 They promote bilingualism;
 They use SASL HL as LOLT from Grade R to Grade 12 and English as LOL from
Grade 4 to Grade 12 as recommended by the CAPS policy;
 The entire classroom communication is in SASL Home Language. Teachers do
not use voice in the classroom and this helps to avoid the possible confusion of
SASL and the spoken language;
 Learners are also not permitted to use voice in the classroom. This restriction
fosters the development of expressive skills in the learners;
 The majority of the learners have laptops with webcam;
 Team teaching model has been adopted and all schools have DTAs;
 Teachers use text-based approach to teaching and learning;
 Some schools had all teachers qualified to teach SASL Home Language;
 Some schools have qualified Deaf professionals (qualified to teach SASL);
 Some schools have qualified DTAs (have a qualification in SASL teaching);
 Internal moderation of assessment if done by HoDs, subject heads and/or peer
educators; and
 The Witwatersrand University supports teachers (training and workshops) and
SLED support schools with resources such as DVDs; and
 The teacher should bring in the DTA functions as a role model in team teaching.

77
6.3 Areas of Concern

Some concerns have yet to be addressed especially the concerns that relate to
assessment and quality assurance of assessment. The following are highlighted:

 Teacher preparation for SASL Home Language teaching is an area that needs
special attention. In schools for the Deaf that were observed, the highest
qualification teachers have is an honours degree and the lowest qualification is
Post Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) SASL. The highest qualification
for the DTAs is an honours degree and the lowest is Grade 9 (Standard 7);
 One of the schools had almost all teachers not qualified to teach SASL Home
Language including DTAs;
 Teaching, learning and assessment resources have to be improved. The SASL
laboratories/examination rooms needs some improvements in some schools;
 SASL Home Language subject advisors have to be appointed. Provincial and
national moderation of SBA should take place as recommended by SASL Home
Language CAPS policy.

6.4 Recommendations

The research focused mainly on the assessment and the quality of assurance of
assessment of SASL HL at school, provincial and national levels. However, the research
findings indicate that currently no quality assurance of the assessment tasks is taking
place at provincial and national levels. The research also focused on the type of
resources and materials needed for SASL HL assessments. The research findings
revealed that SASL HL is taught in specialised classrooms and assessed in laboratories
with private spaces or cubicle for each candidate. The section that follows provides
recommendations for the improvement of the management of SASL HL assessments
and the quality assurance thereof.

The findings of the study have been presented and discussed in previous chapters.
The recommendations that follow are drawn from engaging with the findings of this
research and the challenges that were raised by the SASL HL teachers. This study
makes the following recommendations:

Internal moderation

 SASL HL like other languages uses Barret’s Taxonomy and not Bloom’s Taxonomy,
however, a combination of the two taxonomies is recommended.

External moderation

 For the delivery of the SASL Home Language curriculum, the DBE also
encourages a team-teaching model. A panel or team of external moderators is

78
 encouraged for SASL HL moderation. Each panel or team should comprise one
Deaf SASL academic and two qualified SASL hearing professionals.

Training (Umalusi staff)

 It is recommended that Umalusi should give staff members basic training in SASL,
especially those that will be dealing with question paper moderation, monitoring
and evaluation as well as management of assessments in SASL HL.

Expertise

 The SASL HL CAPS is currently (in 2016 – 2017) not fully implemented in regard to
moderation of the assessment tasks. The Policy Statement notes that moderation
should be implemented at school, provincial and national levels. It further states
that the provincial subject advisor should moderate a sample of the Grade 10
and 11 tests and examinations during school visits to verify the standard of the
tasks and internal moderation. However, the DOE indicated that there are no
provincial and national subject advisors for SASL HL. Schools for the Deaf also
indicated that they do not get support from the district office of education
because there is no expertise in the field, other than the SASL HL teachers.
 It is recommended that the DBE must appoint SASL HL provincial subject advisors
since there are relatively few schools for the Deaf in South Africa and subject
advisors are required by the SASL HL CAPS for IP, SP and FET Phase to moderate
samples of tests and examinations to verify the standard of the tasks and internal
moderation from 2018 going forward.
 The SASL HL teachers should all be qualified in SASL HL and/or in Deaf education.
Both the literature reviewed and comments from the teachers and DBE officials
interviewed emphasise that assessors and moderators should be qualified,
experienced, know the linguistics of the subject and also involve qualified Deaf
SASL specialists.
 In addition, the SASL teachers should be trained in SASL literature on an ongoing
basis. Both the literature and DOE officials raised the need for teacher training in
SASL literature.

Teacher development

 Regarding teaching and learning, the literature indicates that “there is a lack of
qualified Deaf teachers to teach SASL as a result of barriers to tertiary education
and teacher training for Deaf South Africans” (Morgan, Glaser and Magongwa,
2016:20). SASL teacher development should be prioritised and should include
training in literature and the teaching of poetry, drama and short stories.

79
Assessment and question paper moderation

 The following expertise should be involved during test development or

examination question paper setting: native signers (could be qualified Deaf
academics or qualified CODAs) and qualified, hearing SASL professionals.
 Teaching, learning and assessment should help learners develop the following
skills: comprehension, narrative, receptive and expressive skills. To achieve this,
teachers should use text-based approach more frequently during teaching and
learning with the use of DVDs and other resources.
 Discrepancies in the different assessment methods for SASL HL should be
addressed. It is recommended that these be aligned to make use of only sign
language with questions presented via laptops and answers recorded on
laptops with webcams. No paper and pen should be used. This should be the
practice from the FP to the FET Phase.

Marking

 The SASL markers should be fluent signers and should include Deaf persons.
 Marking should be done at national level because the number of candidates
will always be very small as there are only a few schools for the Deaf in the
country.

Technical

 The DBE should ensure that resources, such as the SASL laboratory, are
technologically flawless and ready for the first Grade 12 SASL HL examination in
2018. Since SASL is a visual gestural language, this recommendation has
significant implications for assessment. The lack of resources to accommodate
this in some schools has been raised as a challenge.
 Each school should have a technical person to deal with any technological
challenges that may arise while the SASL examinations are in progress.
 The DBE must appoint technical experts to deal with the editing of question
papers that are developed in PowerPoint.

SASL FAL

 The curriculum for SASL FAL should be developed and be introduced in the
mainstream schools so that hearing people can also communicate with Deaf
people.

6.5 Conclusion

The introduction of the SASL Home Language goes some way towards addressing the
injustices of the past in Deaf education. The literature study has revealed that after
the 1880 Milan Congress the oralism approach was exclusively used in Deaf

80
education. This was an attempt to eradicate Sign Language; however, Deaf people
did not stop signing to one another. The SASL Home Language is cementing Sign
Language as a language of instruction in Deaf education. The team-teaching model
and other approaches such as the text-based approach, bilingualism as indicated by
the SASL Home Language CAPS policy were found to be of a good standard and in
line with international practice. However, teacher qualifications remain a challenge
for Deaf education in South Africa (and worldwide), although some schools do have
qualified SASL Deaf professionals (teachers) and also qualified DTAs. Teaching,
learning and assessment resources is another challenge that need to be addressed.
For assessment, some schools use question papers (hard copies) and others use signed
questions in the learners’ laptops with webcams. The former practice is not
encouraged. With enough resources, Deaf learners should learn to respond to or
answer signed questions.

81
REFERENCES
Aarons, D. and Akach, P. 2002a. South African Sign Language: One language or
many? In: R. Mesthrie (ed.), Language in South Africa, 127-147, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Aarons, D. and Akach, P. 2002b. Inclusive and Deaf child in South African education.
Perspective in Education 20(1):153-170.

Akach, P. 2010. Application of South African Sign Language (SASL) in a Bilingual-

Bicultural Approach in Education of the Deaf. PhD. Dissertation submitted to the
University of the Free State.

Akach, P., Aarons, D. and Matabane, E. 2007a. Signing Naturally. Student Manual and
Workbook Level 1. South African Sign Language. A Communicative Approach.
University of the Free State, Bloemfontein.

Akach, P., Aarons, D. and Matabane, E. 2007b. Signing Naturally. Teachers Curriculum
Guide Level 1. South African Sign Language. A Communicative Approach. University
of the Free State, Bloemfontein.

Akach, P., Aarons, D. and Matabane, E. 2007c. Signing Naturally. Student Videotext
Level 1. South African Sign Language. A Communicative Approach. University of the
Free State, Bloemfontein.

Antia, S. 2014. "Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students in the Mainstream.” Raising and
Educating Deaf Children. N.p., 23 Oct. 2013. Web. 31 July 2014.

Antia, S. 2017. "Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students in the Mainstream. Oxford

University Press.

Bachman, L. 2005. Building and supporting a case for test use. Language assessment
quarterly, 2(1), 1-34.

Baker-Shenk, C. and Cokely, D. 1980. American Sign Language. Teacher ‘s resource

text on grammar and culture. Washington DC:Gallaudet University Press.

Bornstein, H. (ed). 1990. Manual communication: Implications for education.

Washington: Gallaudet University Press.

Blamey, P. J. 2003. Development of spoken language by deaf children. In M.

Marschark and P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and
education (pp. 232-246). New York: Oxford University Press.

82
Bloch, B. and Trager, G. L. 1942. Outline of linguistic analysis. Special publications of
the Linguistic Society of America. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.

Bochner, J.H., Samar V.J., Garrison, W.M., Searls, J.M., Hauser, P.C. and Sanders, C.A.
2015. Validity of the American Sign Language. Language Testing, Vol. 33, 4: pp. 473-
495.

Callier, V. 1995. Promoting academic success for ESL students. Understanding second
language acquisition for school. Union NJ: New Jersey Teachers of English to Speakers
of Other Languages - Bilingual Educators.

Callis, L.L. 2017. Can mainstream schools meet the diverse needs of students? Sign
Language Interpreter, Community educator, Advocate. From 3 generations of Deaf
family. The Huffington Post.

Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures, The Hague/Paris: Mouton, ISBN 978-3-11-

021832-9

Cokely, D. and Banker-Shenk, C. 1980. American Sign Language: A teacher’s

resource text on curriculum, methods, and evaluation. Washington DC: Clere Books.

Cripps, J. and Small, A. Not dated. To mainstream or not to Mainstream your Deaf
Child.

Cummins, J. 1979. Linguisitic intredependednce and the educational development of

bilingual children. Los Angeles: National Dissemination and assessment centre,
California State University.

Davies, A., Brown, A., Elder, C., Lumley, T., and McNamara, T. 1999. Dictionary of
language testing. In M. Milanovic (Series Ed.), Studies in language testing (Vol. 7)
Cambridge University Press.

Deaf Federation of South Africa (DeafSA), 1996. South African Sign Language.
Curriculum for level 1, 2, 3. Johannesburg.

Department of Basic Education (DBE). 2014a. South African Sign Language Home
language, National Curriculum Statement, Curriculum and Assessment Policy
Statement for Foundation Phase (Grades R-3). South Africa

Department of Basic Education (DBE). 2014b. South African Sign Language Home
language, National Curriculum Statement, Curriculum and Assessment Policy
Statement for Intermediate Phase (Grades 4-6). South Africa

83
Department of Basic Education (DBE). 2014c. South African Sign Language Home
language, National Curriculum Statement, Curriculum and Assessment Policy
Statement for Senior Phase (Grades 7-9). South Africa

Department of Basic Education (DBE). 2014d. South African Sign Language Home
language, National Curriculum Statement, Curriculum and Assessment Policy
Statement for Further Education and Training Phase (Grades 10-12). South Africa

Department of Basic Education (DBE). 2017. South African Sign Language training
manual. Senior Phase, Grade 11 and Grade 12.

Enns, C.J. and Herman, R. C. 2011. Adapting the Assessing British Sign Language
Development: Receptive Skills Test Into American Sign Language. University of
Manitoba. City University, London.

Ergin, M. 1990. Retrieved from [Link]/upload/37/LANGUAGE

General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance (GENFETQA) Act No.
58 of 2001 (as amended in 2008).
Government Gazette, No. 37652, 16 May 2014. Department of Basic Education 2014

Goy, P. 2017. Building bridges with sign language. Singapore talking. The Straits Times.

Gustason, G. and Zawolkow, E. 1993. Signing Exact English. Modern Signs Press. USA.

Hall, Kira (1995). Lip Service on the Fantasy Lines. In Kira Hall and Mary Bucholtz, eds.,
Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self. New York:
Routledge. 183-216. (Reprinted 1998 in Deborah Cameron, ed., The Feminist Critique
of Language, 2nd edition. New York: Routledge. 321-342).

Halliday, M.A.K. 2003. "On the 'architecture' of human language". In On Language

and Linguistics. Vol. 3 in The Collected Works. London and New York: Equinox.

Haug, T. 2008. Review of sign language assessment instruments. In A. Baker and B.

Woll, eds. Sign language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, pp. 51-85.

Haug, T. 2010. Approaching Sign Language Test Construction: Adaptation of the

German Sign Language Receptive Skills Test. Journal of Deaf Stud Deaf Education.
University of Applied Sciences of Special Needs Education Zurich (HH).

Haug, T. 2011. Adapting and evaluation of a German Sign Language test. A

computer-Based receptive skills test for Deaf children ages 4-8 years old. Hamburg
University press. Carl von Ossietzky, Germany.

84
Haug, T. 2011. Approaching Sign Language Test Construction: Adaptation of the
German Sign Language Receptive Skills Test. Journal of Deaf Stud Deaf Educ (2011)
16 (3): 343-361. University of Applied Sciences of Special Needs Education Zurich (HH).

Haug, T., Mann, W. 2007. Adapting tests of sign language assessment for other sign
languages - a review of linguistic, cultural, and psychometric problems. Oxford
University Press. Hamburg University and City University, London.

Haug, T., Mann, W. 2008. Adapting tests of sign language assessment for other sign
languages - a review of linguistic, cultural, and psychometric problems. Journal of
Deaf Studies and Education, 13, 138-147.

Haug, T., Herman, R. and Woll, B. 2015. Constructing an online test framework, using
the example of a sign language receptive skills test. Deafness and Education
International, 17, pp. 3-7. City University London.

Haug, T., Mann, W., Boers-Visker, E., Contreras, J., Enns, C., Herman, R., and Rowley,
K. 2016. Guidelines for sign language test development, evaluation, and use.
Unpublished document, retrieved from [Link]

Herman, R. 1998. The need for an assessment of Deaf children’s signing skills. Deafness
and Education. Journal of the British Association of the Teachers of the Deaf, 22, 3-8.

Herman, R. 1998. Issues in designing an assessment of British sign language

development. International Journal of Language and Communication disorders,
1998, Vol. 33, Supplement. Department of Clinical Communication Studies, City
University. Northampton Square. London EC1V OHB.

Herman, R. 1998. The need for an assessment of deaf children’s signing skills. Deafness
and Education, 22, 3–8.

Herman, R., Holmes, S., and Woll, B. 1999. Assessing British Sign Language
development: Receptive skills test. Gloucestershire, UK: Forest Bookshop.

Hermans, D., Knoors, H. and Verhoeven, L. 2009. Assessment of sign language

development: The case of Deaf children in the Netherlands. Oxford University Press.

International Baccalaureate Organization (UK) 2012. Middle Year Programme (MYP)

Language B: Sign Languages Guide. The International Baccalaureate Organization
(UK) Ltd Peterson House, Malthouse Avenue, Cardiff Gate Cardiff, Wales CF23 8GL
United Kingdom.

IOL News. 2014. SA Sign Language added to curriculum. Western Cape, 1 December
2014, 11:02 AM / ILSE Fredericks

85
IOL Lifestyle. 2013. New Curriculum for deaf pupils on the cards. Parenting, 29 October
2013, 12:15 PM / Ntobeko Mtshali

Johnson, R., Liddell, S. and Erting, C. 1989. Unlocking the curriculum: Principles for
achieving access in deaf education (Gallaudet Research Institute Working paper No.
89-3. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

Johnston, T. 2004. The assessment and achievement of proficiency in a native sign

language within a sign bilingual program: The pilot Auslan receptive skills test.
Deafness and Education International, 6, 57–81. doi:10.1002/dei.168.

Kline, P. 2000. Handbook of Psychological Testing. (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Krashen, S.D. and Terrell, T.D. 1993. The natural approach: Language acquisition in the
classroom. San Francisco: Alemany.

Lekoko, R.N. and Mukhopadhyay, S. 2008. Practice and preferences of sign

languages in the instruction of the deaf students: some reflection on the mainstream.
ResearchGate. University of Botswana.

Leppert, M. 2014. Mainstream Deaf Education. ASL University.

Levitzke-Gray, D. Auslan: Introduction – The Australian Curriculum v8.3. (Deaf

advocate and Young Australian of the year 2015.

Livingston, S. 1997. Rethinking the education of the deaf students: Theory and practice
from a teacher’s perspective. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Magongwa, L. 2017. Deaf Education in South Africa. Project MUSE.

Mann, W. and Marshall, C. 2010. Building an assessment use argument for sign
language: the BSL Nonsense Sign Repetition Test. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 13(2), pp. 243-258.

Morgan, R., Glaser, M. and Magongwa, L. 2016. Constructing and Rolling out the New
South African Sign Language (SASL) Curriculum – Reflexive Critique. Per Linguam 2016
32(2):15-29.

Marschark, M. 2002. Foundations of communication and the emergence of language

in deaf children. In G. Morgan and B. Woll (Eds.), Directions in sign language
acquisition – Trends in language acquisition research (pp. 1-28). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Marschark, M. Morgan, G. and Woll, B. 2002. Foundations of communication and

emergence of language in Deaf children, Directions in Sign Language – Trends in

86
language acquisition research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands John Benjamins
Publishing Company (pp. 1-28).

McMillan, J.H. and Schumacher, S. 1993. Research in education (third edition). A

conceptual introduction; Narper Collins College. New York. U.S.A.

Mitchell, R., and Karchmer, M. 2004. Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental
hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign
Language Studies, 4, 138–163. doi:10.1353/sls.2004.0005.

Morgan, R., Glaser, M. and Magongwa, L. 2016. Constructing and rolling out the new
South African sign language (SASL) curriculum. Per Linguam 32(2):15-29. A Journal of
Language Learning - Reflexive critique.

National Education Policy Act, 1996 (Act No. 27 Of 1996). Approval of the
Amendments to the Policy Document, National Policy Pertaining to the Conduct,
Administration and Management of Examinations and Assessment for the National
Senior Certificate

Penn, C. 1993. Signs of the times: Deaf language and culture in South Africa. South
African Journal of communication disorders 40: 11-23.

Plaza-Pust, C., Morales-Lopez, E. 2008. Sign bilingualism: Language development,

interaction, and maintenance in sign language contact situations. In C. Plaza-Pust
and E Morales-Lopez (Eds.), Sign bilingualism – Language development, interaction,
and maintenance in sign language contact situations (pp. 333-380). The Netherlands:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Prinz, P. and Strong, M. 1998. ASL proficiency and English literacy within a bilingual
deaf education model of instruction. Topics in Language Disorders, 18, 47-60.

Prinz, P., Strong, M. and Kuntze, L. 1995. Unpublished manuscript, San Francisco State
University, California Research Institute.

Reagan, T. 2002. Teaching and learning sign language as a “Foreign” language.

Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut. Paper read at the SAALT
Conference, University of Natal, Durban, July 2002.

Reagan, T. 2008. South African Sign Language and language-in-education policy in

South Africa. Stellenbosch Papers in linguistics, Vol. 38, pp. 165-190. University of the
Witwatersrand and Central Connecticut State University, Connecticut, USA.

Reynolds, D. and Titus, A. 1991. Bilingual bicultural education: Constructing a model

for change. Paper presented at the meeting of the Convention of American
Instructors of the Deaf, New Orleans, LA.

87
Roy, W.M.P. and Morgan, G. 2015. Adaptation of a vocabulary test from British Sign
language to American Sign Language. Language testing. SAGE Journals.

Schembri, A. 2013. Explainer: What is a sign language? The conversation. Department

of Language Histories and Cultures. La Trobe University.

SADeaf. 2008-2017. About Deafness. The Singapore Association for the Deaf

SADeaf. 2008-2017. Sign Language Courses. The Singapore Association for the Deaf

SADeaf. 2008-2017. Deaf Culture and Sign Language Programme. The Singapore
Association for the Deaf

SADeaf. 2008-2017. Singapore Sign Language Courses. The Singapore Association for
the Deaf

Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA). 2016. Using sign in SQA assessments. Published
by the Scottish Qualifications Authority. First published in March 2011 and revised in
August 2016. The Optoma Building, Glasgow G2 8DQ.

Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA). 2008, 2011, 2016. Quality assurance of

assessment arrangements in Internal and external assessments: Information for
schools. Published by the Scottish Qualifications Authority. First published in November
2008 and revised in August 2016. The Optoma Building, Glasgow G2 8DQ.

Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA). 2010. Using sign in SQA exams. Published by
the Scottish Qualifications Authority. The Optoma Building, Glasgow G2 8DQ.

Simms, L. and Thumann, H. 2007. In search of a new, linguistically and culturally

sensitive paradigm in deaf education. Project MUSE, Today’s Research, Tomorrow’s
Inspiration. American Annals of Deaf, Volume 152, Number 3, Summer, pp. 302-311.
Gallaudet University Press.

Singleton, J.L., and Supalla. S. 2003. Assessing children’s proficiency in natural signed
languages. In M. Marschark and P. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies,
language and education (pp. 289-302). New York Oxford University press.

Singleton, J.L., and Supalla, S.J. 2011. Assessing children’s proficiency of natural signed
languages. In M. Marschark and P. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf
studies, language, and education (Vol. 1, 2nd Ed, pp. 306–321). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.

South African Schools Act (SASA) No. 84 of 1996.

88
Storbeck, C., Magongwa, L. and Parkin I. 2009. Education of the Deaf in South Africa.

Strong, M. 1995. A review of bilingual bicultural programmes for the deaf children in
North America. American Annals of the Deaf, 140, 84-90.

Strong, M. and Prinz, P. 1997. A study of the relationship between American Sign
Language and English Literacy. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2, 37-46.

Stoke, W.C. 1960. Sign Language Structure: an outline of the visual communication
system of the American Deaf. Studies in linguistics: Occasional Paper 8. University of
Buffalo

Sutton-Spence, R. and Woll, B. 1999. The linguistic of British Sign Language: An

introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sutton-Spence, R. and Kaneko, M. 2016. Introducing Sign Language Literature:

Creative and Folklore. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Act 108 of 1996. As adopted
on 8 May 1996 and amended on 11 October 1996 by the Constitutional Assembly.
Pretoria: Government Printer.

89
37 General Van Ryneveld Street, Persequor Technopark, Pretoria
Telephone: +27 12 349 1510 • Fax: +27 12 349 1511
E-mail: Info@[Link] • Web: [Link]
UmalusiSA | @UmalusiSA