American Sign Language: Voicing in ASL Class

Answer:
Personally I teach "no-voice." I think that ASL instructors need to be cultural role models and remember that in Deaf Culture signing is celebrated, voicing is not.

A no-voice (or in other words a no speaking class) is not the same as a mono-lingual class.

I believe in a bilingual / bicultural / multi-modal approach to ASL instruction. However, I feel that voicing should not be one of the modes of instruction. Signing, yes. A relatively small amount of typing or writing, fine. Some mime -- sure. But voicing? No.

Voicing can either be a crutch or it can be a tool. Too often it takes the place of skillful voice-off instruction.

There are many successful ASL instructors who don't voice in the classroom at all--ever. We have invested the time and energy to develop the skills and resources necessary to provide effective no-voice instruction.

"No-voice" instruction and "no-native-language" instruction are two different things. For example, writing the word "cheese" in English on the blackboard then demonstrating the sign CHEESE is not the same as holding up a block of cheese and signing, "CHEESE."

In the "old days" carrying a block of cheese to class wasn't exactly convenient.

Technology eventually made it easy to show cheese or pretty much any other solid object to students but it remains challenging to teach ideas such as the concept of "for" or "but."

You can type or write the word "God" or the word "love" in the student's native language and then show them the sign much more efficiently than you can "mime out" the concept of "God" or "love."

Adult or young-adult second language learners already have a language foundation. To ignore that foundation -- or pretend it doesn't exist -- is silly and a waste of a good teaching tool.

Consider this question: How can an instructor make the best use of a student's native language to support ASL instruction -- while making sure that the student does as much actual signing (and viewing of signing) as possible?"

Talking about ASL is not the same as signing ASL.

Students who go to class and hear about ASL do not sign as well as students who go to class and use ASL.

There are tradeoffs to any teaching approach: Comfort level, frustration, drop out rates, skill level, etc.

Voicing in a student's native language to inform them of what a sign means may seem to save time and expedite "vocabulary development" but it doesn't do much for their visual-receptive decoding skills. Students who have been taught using the crutch of voicing generally do not do well in real life ASL conversations and can't figure out a signed sentence to save their lives.

Think about this question, "At the end of a class with an initial enrollment of 30 students, is it better to have 20 really good signers and 10 drop outs; or is it better to have 30 moderately good signers?"

If your goal is to create interpreters who can actually interpret then maybe it is better to create 20 really good signers and tell the other 10 students to go major in some other topic. If your goal is to babysit and pull in tuition money for as long as possible -- then perhaps voicing in class is the way to go but you really should warn your students that they will have a hard time actually communicating via sign language at the end of your "voice-available" program. Public high schools are not designed to create effective interpreters for the Deaf. High schools and most colleges are operated and managed by their administrators so as to be employment-perpetuating -- otherwise the administrators are out of a job. A teacher who teaches in a way that that is so challenging that it culls 30% of their students -- will probably be looking for new employment soon -- having been replaced by a teacher who creates fewer problems for the administration. That is unfortunate because the domino effect is that later students graduate from (now-voiced) ASL programs and find themselves unable to pass interpreter certification tests.

The more challenging you make a class, the fewer students can handle it. A total no-voice class is more challenging than a voiced class.

It takes time, heat, and pressure to produce diamonds from coal. The more heat and pressure you apply, the less time it takes.

Students are not lumps of coal, if you apply lots of heat and pressure, some of them will deal with it, do extra homework, pay attention more, and become great signers. Others however will simply drop out.

It may be tempting to simply say, "Great! Let's get rid of the deadwood!" But that is pie in the sky thinking. In the real world, administrators become concerned when they see high dropout rates because it's warm bodies in seats that pays the bills and pays your salary. At the high school level you end up with an irate mom or dad wanting to know why you are being so inflexible with their student.

If you decide to teach a no-voice class either by choice (cultural respect) or by necessity (you are d/Deaf), my suggestion is to make sure you do your homework.

Prepare plenty of materials, handouts, slides, and props so that you can provide sufficient context for your students to be immersed in a learning environment.

[Check out "The Vicars Method"]. Don't fool yourself into thinking that you are providing a true learning environment if all your students do is come suffer through an hour of frustration then go home and learn ASL from their books, videos, the internet, and Deaf friends. If that is the case, you are not a great teacher -- you are a babysitter and your students are learning despite you.

Keep in mind two different scenarios.

1. If a teacher works hard and prepares appropriate supports, then the students tend to work hard and learn. Most stay with it.

2. If a teacher doesn't prepare and is lazy their students will get frustrated and give up, or they put up with (suffer through) the teacher during class then go and learn it on their own.

Later they take advanced classes from someone other than that teacher if they can.

So, to be clear, I recommend a no-voice teaching environment filled with plenty of "advance organizers." "Advance organizers" are devices (visual aids, props, PowerPoints, objects, etc.) that you use while introducing a topic to enable your students to "figure out" the topic and link it to what they already know.

If for whatever reason you have decided to incorporate voicing into your class then I recommend you at least limit voicing to only on certain days or at certain times. For example: Alternate class days with one being "voice available" and the next being "voice off." On a Monday/Wednesday class schedule you can let the students use voice on Monday but not on Wednesday. That way on Mondays you could have the students do "interpreting-type" activities where their partner signs a statement and the student interprets it. You might want to play vocabulary building games on "voice days." That way you can explain the game to the students in their native language.

Explaining a game to the students in ASL (in a beginning level class) often takes way too much time away from the game itself. I prefer for the students to spend time "playing and using ASL themselves" rather than watching me "mime and fingerspell" the rules of a game.

Explaining games can be done in a no-voice class by typing up the instructions for the game and sending the instructions home with the students (or emailing them or posting it to their online class announcements area) to read prior to the next class period. Then play the game during the next class period. The students (many of them anyway) will have read about the game and will readily pick up on how to play it in a no-voice environment. You might want to post the instructions to an electronic display before class so students can read (or re-read) the instructions as they come in to class that day.

In any case, whether you use voice or not, the real secret to classroom success is preparation and teaching ability. Preparation is a matter of getting off your duff and doing it. If you lack teaching ability I suggest you take a "train the trainer course," a drama course, and a course in classroom management. Also you might consider reading a few books on improving your interpersonal communication skills. And remember -- have a good time!

[Time passes...]

Remember how I said it isn't very convenient to bring a block of cheese to class?

Technology has totally changed that. Now it is common for instructors to use PowerPoint slides and literally bring hundreds of objects, people, places, and scenarios to class and display them using a laptop or even a phone and a projector.

[Note: These days using technology in the classroom is standard procedure, but at the time I first wrote some of the above information the use of technology in the classroom was new and led to a fascinating examination of "computer-assisted ASL instruction" methodology.

In an email message Marianne writes:

<< Much of my life has been spent working with the Deaf, as they are the true experts with regards to both ASL, and Deaf culture...>>

Marianne then went on to ask my opinion about teaching with or without voice. Below is my response:

Marianne,

Just for thinking purposes, let me ask you series of questions:

"How do you define an 'expert' on a language?"

"Are most Hearing Americans "experts" on spoken English?

"Are most Hearing Americans able to explain the rules of their language to other Americans?"

"To what extent would an average American be qualified to teach his language to a non-native speaker of English?"

"Would teaching to one's native language to a foreigner be more or less difficult than teaching someone indigenous to America?"

"Is it really immersion when an American goes to another country and is 'immersed' in that language?
Or does that American find himself immersed in an environment where while much of the target language is new, there is quite a bit of English available for support. (For example, the locals know a few words in English, and quite a few of the documents and/or signs are in English. There is just enough English available to point the traveler in the right direction or to bridge certain gaps.)"

"Should Deaf children be placed in an all-English classroom and voiced to?"

"Is it better to teach Deaf children general topics using ASL?"

"Is it better to teach Deaf children English using a combination of ASL and English?" (Should the English used be in spoken or visual format?)

Now, if we should be teaching English to Deaf kids by using ASL, then why or why not teach ASL to Hearing adults using English?

You answer those questions for me and I'll respond to your answers.

--Dr. Bill

An ASL instructor writes:

Dr.Bill,
I am hoping you can help me with this. The reason I am contacting you is because I like your philosophy, and love your website. I have contacted you before and you replied quickly. I am looking forward to when I can meet you or take a workshop from you.

I imagine by this point, you're trying to figure out who I am. I'm Janice, from _____. I contacted you about two months ago about workshops. I had also asked you about voicing in class.

I teach "ASL 1 Lab." One of the other instructors who is also deaf, feels that Deaf presenters should not be allowed in a LAB class. What's more, they should not use their voice at all. My feeling on this is that it is up to the presenter if she/he wants to use their voice.

I invite presenters in my lab class because I feel students do benefit from seeing a variety of signing in ASL. Not all deaf look, sign, act the same way. In addition the Dean of the college approved of the presenter.

I have been deaf since birth, and oral for most of my life. Learned ASL at CSUN at 19 (did have basics before entering CSUN) . My understanding is, culturally, it is up to the Deaf person to decide if they want to sign and voice simultaneously. Am I correct?

Thank you.
--Janice

Janice,
When considering how to arrange the "learning environment" it may help to ask, "What is your goal?"

Is the goal to give the impression to Hearing people that Deaf people cannot and/or do not voice?

Is the goal to spend 10 minutes miming or writing instructions that could have been explained in a few seconds using voice?

Is the goal to make "Hearies" struggle like Deaf people have done for thousands of years?

Or, should we consider the individual talents and abilities of the instructor and encourage that instructor to create an environment where the students can learn the subject matter efficiently and effectively?

If the subject is: "Level 1 students spending 10 minutes guessing and trying to figure out what they are supposed to be learning" then I guess requiring an instructor to keep their voice off is certainly understandable.

Edit / side note: the accredited university at which I taught for close to 20 years we had a no-voice policy for our ASL classes -- but guess what? Eventually the department started scheduling interpreters (for all of us Deaf instructors) for the first day of class to expedite (or speed up) the explaining of the syllabus and to reduce the amount of misunderstandings between (some) of the instructors and their students. In other words there really should be an asterisk in that school’s catalog next to the statement that the course is:
“Taught in ASL without voice.*”
(* Except when it isn’t.)

If the subject is "ASL Introductions and Greetings" and an instructor wants to play a game to help the students learn the vocabulary, instructors who are able to voice are faced with a choice:

Spend 2 minutes explaining the game in voice and 8 minutes playing the game in ASL...
or...
spend 8 minutes explaining the game in "ASL" and 2 minutes playing the game.

Non-voiced game instructions end up as gestures, pointing, fingerspelling, and mime since beginning-level students are not advanced enough to readily understand game instructions given in the target language.

(Note: There is a world of difference between briefly explaining a game using voice, vs teaching a whole class using simcom. If you are using simcom you are not modeling ASL.)

The problem is -- doing a bit of voicing in an ASL class is sort of like doing a bit of poking holes into a water dam. Once the water starts flowing it is really hard to stop.

So, if you teach in a "no-voice" environment you have two main choices:

You can reduce the use of games and activities in your class to include only those that can be explained in gestures, pointing, fingerspelling, and mime. (Unless your goal is to teach "gestures, pointing, fingerspelling, and mime.")

You can use written instructions. To do that effectively means pre-typing out your instructions and having them ready to go ahead of time so you don't waste class time writing the instructions on the board.

An alternative to playing lots of games in class that still helps keep students engaged is to use a dialog-based interactive approach to teaching. That is what the ASLU (Lifeprint) curriculum (http://Lifeprint.com ASL Level 1 and Level 2) is all about. It is based on an interactive dialog approach that works very well without requiring any voice.

For a host of reasons, (cultural, political, etc.) I prefer and encourage no-voice instruction -- utilizing a "completely silent" classroom.

Like most instructors who use a no-voice environment for teaching -- after a while I got tired of playing "voice cop."

I'm serious. It felt terrible having to constantly threaten, beg, cajole, take off points, and otherwise try to intimidate students into not making a peep trying to live up to the hype that a "total no-voice" classroom would somehow magically produce better signers.

Eventually, I found out a secret that I will now share with you:

The problem goes away if you prepare enough, make your class interesting enough, and get your students signing enough -- often enough.

I've found that if you make your class "engaging" -- students actually prefer to sign rather than voice. Signing is FUN.

Does that mean program coordinators should demand that instructors never use any voice in class? I'm not saying that.

Do not mistake a "properly run, voice-available" classroom with that of a class taught by a person who resorts to voicing due to lack of talent.

Some poorly skilled and/or inexperienced instructors are required (forced) to teach from confusing, non-student friendly textbooks. In an effort to "get by" those instructors end up photocopying and distributing pages out of the "teacher's curriculum" and/or voicing in the classroom to help reduce student frustration and attrition rates (dropouts).

The solution here isn't stricter policies -- it is more training and support for the inexperienced instructor as well as choosing a better curriculum.

Now, let me point out one very important benefit to having a no-voice classroom: it provides full access for d/Deaf instructors. The wonderful thing here is that teaching no-voice also provides full access for hard-of-hearing and Hearing instructors as well! If a Hearing instructor teaches via a no-voice environment and a Deaf colleague or supervisor walks into the classroom there is full access instead of a sense of exclusion.

In the end, micro-managing of instructors is not good for academic freedom nor for helping instructors to want to stay employed at that school. An instructor tends to produce excellent student outcomes (skilled signers who exhibit respect for and an understanding of Deaf culture) when we let the instructor teach in a manner that best matches their style and abilities. This however really should be within a framework supportive of Deaf people and Deaf culture.

Cordially,
--Dr. Bill
Lifeprint.com

A rookie Hearing ASL Instructor writes:

Hi Bill-
I hope all is well with you, Belinda, the kids, and work.

I'm still loving my work with _________ College "ASL 1" students.
We have just a few class sessions left this semester. Whew! I

Last night, I told my students I am not teaching "ASL 2" in the Fall. They expressed disappointment, frustration, anger, and I even heard fear! I assured them they were ready for a new teacher and new perspective. I have taught this class in "Voices-off" mode (over 90+% of each class period), but they STILL expressed concern over an ASL II course with a Deaf instructor, (or any instructor, actually.) Honestly, this makes me doubt if I have adequately prepared them for the next level. Should I have taught this course with 100% "Voices-off"?

I'd love your advice. What else can I do? Say?... Now, and next semester.

Or maybe this is all typical?...because they don't know, what they don't know?... and change is hard and...they're currently comfortable... I always appreciate your perspective.

Regarding "ASL 2," the Chair offered it to me, but I declined for next semester for a few reasons, including the time slot. I accepted and am excited to be teaching "ASL 1" again in the fall and looking forward to tweaking and improving my instruction, as opposed to "reinventing the wheel" each class. I'm also curious to know how well-prepared my current students feel in ASL II next semester. This is data to drive my future ASL I instruction. (I told them this last night, too.)

Take care,
[Name on file]

Hello :)

Great to hear from you! Seems like you are doing well.

You have asked for my advice so I'm going to give it to you "Deaf blunt."

There are a numerous reasons to teach an ASL class 100% no voice. Here are a few:

1. Teaching ASL 100% in the target language elevates a class from being "just a class" to instead being a "bragging rights" type of experience for the students. It is the difference between running a marathon and running 90% of a marathon. A student is much more likely to brag about taking a class in which the teacher NEVER voiced once than having taken a class form a teacher who voiced 10%.

2. A no voice class forces students to "burn their ships." They have to commit their mental resources. If a student knows that "eventually" the instructor will switch to voice and make everything clear via the student's native language -- the psychological "oh hey, I'd better focus and watch intently here or I'm going to miss this" mental switch never gets flipped.

3. Teaching 100% no voice helps immunize you to accusations of "audism" or that you are taking advantage of "Hearing privilege."

4. Teaching in the target language is like providing the full set of weights to a weight lifter or body builder. Adding a little voice is like removing weight from the bar. The person has less resistance to push against and thus develops smaller muscles. A student in a "partially voiced" class has less need to use their eyes and thus develops less ability to track hand movements, recognize facial expressions, and figure out signed messages.

If you voice to your students "a little" here and there -- it is "easier" for them to learn from you as a Hearing instructor than from a Deaf instructor. Thus it will be comparatively "harder" to learn from a Deaf instructor. Then when your students "do" learn from a Deaf instructor your students will think, "Gee, it was easier to learn in my previous class. Now this class is harder. So this (Deaf) instructor must not be as good of an instructor so I think I'll rate him/her lower at the end of the semester on the teacher evaluation form." Then when it comes time for the Chair or Dean to make ranking decisions regarding who gets to teach next semester your rank will be higher and if there is only one class left you will get that class and the Deaf instructor will not. This is an example of "Hearing privilege" financially harming Deaf people.

You state (more or less) that your students are feeling "concern, frustration, anger, and fear" regarding taking a class from a Deaf person.  If you had taught the class 100% no voice would the students still be afraid of taking the class from a Deaf instructor? If the answer is "no, they would not" (or even "less so") -- then your teaching methods have caused your students "concern, frustration, anger, and fear" TOWARDS a future Deaf instructor.

How do you think that makes Deaf instructors feel about Hearing instructors who voice (during ASL classes) even just 10% of the time?
When Deaf people get together in the hallway or at a restaurant and start chatting what do you think they say about Hearing ASL instructors who voice to their classes?
Do you want them to "say" such things about you or lump you in with other "audist Hearing instructors of ASL?"

My advice? Turn off your voice around (college-level ASL) students and never voice to them. That includes before and after class. Otherwise you are choosing to play on an un-level playing field.
[You've already opened the can of worms this semester so you'll have to be careful regarding how you wrap things up so as to keep your students in a positive frame of mind.]

As far as helping your students feel "ready" for ASL 2 you can simply find out the curriculum that is being used for ASL 2 and then encourage the students to purchase the book ahead of time and study it over the summer.
If they will do that they will be light years ahead of students who just show up cold.

Also, your students can use Lifeprint and my videos to beef up their overall vocabulary. Even if my lessons do not directly match the Signing Naturally lessons the students will still benefit from having larger vocabularies. Also they should visit www.asl.ms/mobile and practice their receptive fingerspelling until they can understand the "fast" speed.
Cordially,
Bill

And now...part two of my response to your recent email. My previous response was only the "cautionary" part of the story.

The fact that your students had a strong reaction to you not teaching next semester is actually a very nice compliment to you and your teaching methods. It means they very much enjoyed your class and want more of you. BRAVO!

What they are feeling is indeed common for ASL 1 students who are currently taking a class from a caring, thoughtful, passionate instructor. The students aren't comparing you vs the next semester's instructor as much as they are comparing all of their previous instructors to you and that means you have been doing a great job.
- Bill

American Sign Language: No-Voice ASL Class policy?