“…Despite the recently discussed differences, the correlation analysis showed some overlapping information in which there also was a relationship between signing knowledge and some writing behavior: the better the signing knowledge (shown by higher points on the SignRepL2 test), the more deleted characters, the slower offline text flow and the longer pauses before words. As this correlation includes both DHH and CODA children, the explanation here may lie in the fact that the most skilled signers have greater access to both languages compared to the "less" skilled signers, giving them greater repertoires to consider, compare or use information from one language (Williams and Lowrance-Faulhaber 2018). This may therefore have resulted in a higher degree of deleted characters/revision behavior, slower offline writing flow, longer pauses before words and a slower lexical retrieval (Lindgren et al 2008;Schoonen et al 2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From a L2 view, this suppression has also been mirrored in writing, showing that L2 writers spend twice as much time on text composing compared to L1 writers, which has been explained by slower retrieval time for L2 writers (de Lario et al 2006;Lindgren et al 2019). Moreover, both the unimodal and the bimodal bilinguals have access to two cultural and linguistic repertoires, and will therefore have double access to metalinguistic knowledge in two languages, while the monolinguals only have access to one (Williams and Lowrance-Faulhaber 2018). There is at least one crucial circumstance that differentiates bimodal bilinguals from unimodal bilinguals: the bimodal bilinguals of a spoken and a signed language are able to express both languages simultaneously, also known as code-blending (expressing signs and spoken words at the same time), while it is physically impossible for the unimodal bilinguals to express two spoken languages simultaneously, so instead they must code-switch (stop using one language to start using the another).…”
How does bimodal bilingualism—a signed and a spoken language—influence the writing process or the written product? The writing outcomes of twenty deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) children and hearing children of deaf adults (CODA) (mean 11.6 years) with similar bimodal bilingual backgrounds were analyzed. During the writing of a narrative text, a keylogging tool was used that generated detailed information about the participants’ writing process and written product. Unlike earlier studies that have repeatedly shown that monolingual hearing children outperform their DHH peers in writing, there were few differences between the groups that likely were caused by their various hearing backgrounds, such as in their lexical density. Signing knowledge was negatively correlated with writing flow and pauses before words, and positively correlated with deleted characters, but these did not affect the written product negatively. Instead, they used different processes to reach similar texts. This study emphasizes the importance of including and comparing participants with similar language experience backgrounds. It may be deceptive to compare bilingual DHH children with hearing children with other language backgrounds, risking showing language differences. This should always be controlled for through including true control groups with similar language experience as the examined groups.
“…Despite the recently discussed differences, the correlation analysis showed some overlapping information in which there also was a relationship between signing knowledge and some writing behavior: the better the signing knowledge (shown by higher points on the SignRepL2 test), the more deleted characters, the slower offline text flow and the longer pauses before words. As this correlation includes both DHH and CODA children, the explanation here may lie in the fact that the most skilled signers have greater access to both languages compared to the "less" skilled signers, giving them greater repertoires to consider, compare or use information from one language (Williams and Lowrance-Faulhaber 2018). This may therefore have resulted in a higher degree of deleted characters/revision behavior, slower offline writing flow, longer pauses before words and a slower lexical retrieval (Lindgren et al 2008;Schoonen et al 2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From a L2 view, this suppression has also been mirrored in writing, showing that L2 writers spend twice as much time on text composing compared to L1 writers, which has been explained by slower retrieval time for L2 writers (de Lario et al 2006;Lindgren et al 2019). Moreover, both the unimodal and the bimodal bilinguals have access to two cultural and linguistic repertoires, and will therefore have double access to metalinguistic knowledge in two languages, while the monolinguals only have access to one (Williams and Lowrance-Faulhaber 2018). There is at least one crucial circumstance that differentiates bimodal bilinguals from unimodal bilinguals: the bimodal bilinguals of a spoken and a signed language are able to express both languages simultaneously, also known as code-blending (expressing signs and spoken words at the same time), while it is physically impossible for the unimodal bilinguals to express two spoken languages simultaneously, so instead they must code-switch (stop using one language to start using the another).…”
How does bimodal bilingualism—a signed and a spoken language—influence the writing process or the written product? The writing outcomes of twenty deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) children and hearing children of deaf adults (CODA) (mean 11.6 years) with similar bimodal bilingual backgrounds were analyzed. During the writing of a narrative text, a keylogging tool was used that generated detailed information about the participants’ writing process and written product. Unlike earlier studies that have repeatedly shown that monolingual hearing children outperform their DHH peers in writing, there were few differences between the groups that likely were caused by their various hearing backgrounds, such as in their lexical density. Signing knowledge was negatively correlated with writing flow and pauses before words, and positively correlated with deleted characters, but these did not affect the written product negatively. Instead, they used different processes to reach similar texts. This study emphasizes the importance of including and comparing participants with similar language experience backgrounds. It may be deceptive to compare bilingual DHH children with hearing children with other language backgrounds, risking showing language differences. This should always be controlled for through including true control groups with similar language experience as the examined groups.
“…Writing skill is the most difficult skill of the four other skills (Naghdipour, 2016;Swärd, 2013). However, in order to write well, ones must do a lot of reading (Williams & Lowrance-Faulhaber, 2018). Therefore, to be able to write a script of children story, university students should read the manual in this case literacy textbook which in this study is developed by the researcher.…”
Writing skills are quite complex problems in Indonesia and even the world. Writing is closely related to reading, because to be a good writer, they should have a good capability in reading. Meanwhile, the problems faced by Indonesian people at this time are low in reading interest and motivation also the availability of adequate textbooks. The instruction of writing practice is delivered orally by teachers and certainly the result is not optimum. The purpose of this study is to describe the effectiveness of literacy textbooks. The effectiveness of literacy text books is seen from two aspects, namely students' learning outcomes in the form of product (textbook) of children stories are based on the "local wisdom" and students' responses to the application of textbooks in the learning process. From the results of data analysis, it can be concluded that the ability of students in understanding the literacy textbooks is quite good. These results are obtained from the products produced by the students in the form of short story scripts. The findings of this study showed that the ability to use the Indonesian spelling was still low and need to be improved, because the fact that reported speech produced by students are not in line with the rules. In addition, the story line in the children texts is still flat. Whereas, the students' responses on the effectiveness of text books are in the "good" category. The students are very interested in using of 'literacy' textbooks to write children's story scripts based on the "local wisdom and cultivation of character" because they have the opportunity to produce a children's story script. They even asked for the additional time and suggested that the teaching of Indonesian spelling material to be inserted in the chapter of the 'literacy' textbooks.
“…l'importance des transferts de connaissances de la L1 à la L2 et à celle des ressources socioculturelles auxquelles les enfants peuvent faire appel pour entrer dans l'écrit de la L2. Elles montrent (Williams, Lowrance-Faulhaber 2018) que les très jeunes enfants bilingues utilisent des stratégies qui leur sont propres et que leurs compétences orthographiques peuvent être étroitement liées aux pratiques litéraciques familiales et à la place respective des langues dans la famille (Fleuret, 2008).…”
RESUMENous proposons une réflexion méthodologique sur les choix adéquats dans le cadre d’une étude sur les stratégies d’acquisition du français écrit (L2 pour les sourds) chez quatre enfants sourds profonds de 5 ans, locuteurs L1 de la langue des signes française, notre hypothèse étant que, du fait de leur surdité, ces enfants empruntent des voies différentes de celles des enfants entendants. Nous rendons compte des questionnements méthodologiques posés par l’élaboration des critères d’analyse du corpus d’écrits, questions liées au grand nombre de variables à prendre en compte, aux dimensions à la fois linguistiques, cognitives, sociolinguistiques et didactiques de l’étude et à la nécessité d’adapter le cadre théorique choisi, conçu pour des entendants et impliquant d’autres langues. Nous présentons au final les tout premiers résultats de l’analyse conduite sur des échantillons d’écrits.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.