Computers and Composition 12, 219-226 (1995)

Making the Transition from ASL to English:

Deaf Students, Computers, and the
Writing Center

Twenty years after leaving Gallaudet University with its American Sign Language (ASL)
curriculum, a deaf student entered The College of Staten Island, City University of New
York. Intensely anxious about writing in English, he is referred to The English Learning
Center in Spring, 1993. This study shows the impact of five 2-hour tutoring sessions
exclusively in English, exclusively in writing, exclusively on a computer. His fluency
expanded significantly, as did his conversation about his writing: He progressed from
refusing to write a grocery list to writing 7 pages in 4 hours. In the process, the student
became more deeply involved in critical awareness of text, carefulness, and correctness.

American Sign Language (ASL) deaf students hearing impaired students

writing centers computers and hearing impaired students

That made me sick, Jack wrote on the computer. Jack and 1 were conversing
through my Macintosh Plus, sitting side by side in front of the same monitor, passing the
keyboard as if it were a microphone. This was our fifth weekly 2-hour session, and he had
jusl told me he
avoided writing letters to my relatives. My relatives often asked me to write letters. I
became very anxious bc I didnt want to show them bc they showed everybody that I
wrote. They wanted to be proud of me bc they thought deaf people could write
letters . . . When I was in college, they repeatedly asked me to write. But once I wrote
and my hands became wet and thought too bard, I couldnt even thought about what
I did in school.

Like many other American deaf, Jack is not a native English speaker. Jacks native
language is American Sign Language (ASL). He was referred to me by The College of
Staten Islands Resource Center for the Deaf, an information-and-support service that
begins with high school recruitment and continues after college graduation. The Resource

1 gratefully acknowledge the comments by Carole Lazorisak, Director, Resource Center for the Deaf, and by
Mary Mosleh, Director, ASL Program. The College of Staten Island.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Gail Wood, English Learning Center. The
College of Staten Island, City University of New York, 2X00 Victory Boulevard, Staten Island. NY 103 14.
IJack is a pseudonym for a deaf student returning to college some 20 years after leaving Gallaudet
University. a school specialized for the deaf, where classes are taught in American Sign Language (ASL). The
popular ASL was developed in France and modified in America, based on students natural gestures. English
Sign Language is quite different (a literal spelling of every word in English), a cumbersome method of using
English that some deaf resent, seeing it as imposition of the hearing culture upon the deaf. See also The Signs of
Luquage by Edward S. Klima and Ursula Bellugi. 1988, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
219
220 WOOD

Center had told me Jack was very anxious about writin, o in English.
c I needed to deal with
this. and I needed to have him understand English as English. without translating. When
Jack first came for tutoring with me in April. 1993. ill at cast. he clenched his hands. his
knuckles red and taut.
In the classroom. Jack has interpreters. supplied by the Resource Center. who sit facing
him. recreating the instructors words in ASL by moving their hands and changing facial
expressions. ASL is ;I visual language. void of past or present tenses and case
differentiations. with many grammatical nuances. The signing embodies a vocabulary
more encompassing than English; much of the communication is trom the eyes and facial
expressions. Meaning comes from part of the image and part 01 the sign. through
movement in space. It is a language dependent on body language liar intonation. and on the
eyes for stressors. As Padden and Humphrics (1988) noted. writing from a deal
perspcct ive, Individual signs arc themselves structured grammatical units, placed in
slots within aentcnces according to gramm;lticaI rules (p. 7). Its syntactical sequence is
time-noun(s)-adjective-verb (the literal translation 01 Yesterday I ualkcd down a dark
street becomes Yesterday mc street dark walk ). In our colleges English Learning
Center. that I direct. Jack and I worked without an interpreter (at my suggestion). I km&
little ASL. My intent was to tbllow ;I whole-language approach to help Jack develop
comfort and fluency in English. much like the active interaction McLaughlin (19x7)
referred to as engendering second-languqc proficiency (11. 42). Montague ( icWO)
emphasimd interaction. too. in writing about how computers incrcaae motivation to write
and improve writing skills. with both hearing-impaired and English-as-~I-\rct,nd-
language t ESL) students. She included the \ucccrs of students w:riting in dyada-as Jach
and I were-or in small groups (pp. I 16, I 17).
When Jack writes in ASL, :I\ he dots using the teletypewriter (TTY) that allows him
to communicate with other ASL xpeahers. hu usos English word\ in ASL syntax. When
he writes in English, hc can tend to thinh in ASL and to rely on its more ltimiliar syntax.
Berent (lYY3) noted that ESL-type English language instruction i5 necessary li)r clcal
college students (p, 56). English-as-a-se~ond-l~n~u~~~ (ESL) learners oltcn rely on their
first language (LI 1. leading them to translate from English to L I. and from Ll to English.
generally resulting (as in Jack\ situation) with English reflecting their LI syntax. What i\
unique about workin, (7 with an ASL-native student is that WC can SK them translate. When
Jack translated in his lxxd, I COLII~see it: He \vo~~Idsign with his linger\. This gave mc
another measure. besides textual analysis. to judge his comfort and lluency in English: I
could actually set when he was (and wasnt) translating into and out of ASL. I was
particularly concerned with reducing the number of times Jack Itill hack on ASL.
Jack wasnt the Iirst deaf student to conle to the English Learning Ccntcr. About se\en
years ago. the Rcsourcc Ccntcr sent li)ur deaf student> li)r writin g help. I lclt that iI_writing
in English without ASL interpreters were the only limi of COmmLlniC;ltioi~. it should
lessen reliance on LI (ASL) and increase the impetus to write. At thi4 time, before the
Macintoshs arrival in the Center. all writing was done in longhand. The tutor initiated the
dialogue, uritinf an entry. passin g the paper to a student tbr her or his written response,
and to another student for another response. TWQ deaf students spoke English: they said
they preferred lip-reading to more time-consLiliiin~ written conversations. Actually.
their lip-reading was less accurate than they realized. Alm. they signed in ASL to
themselves. alienating the tutor. and-if it wcrc a mixed group of hearing and dcat
students-other students as well. Their attendancc W;I\ spotty. TLltors who worked with
these students were chosen for their experience and sensitivity: thq Ict the deal students
speak and lip-read: and tutors thernselbcs carel.ully mouthed their own words to be bettci
 Making the Transition from ASL to English 221

understood. Tutors became frustrated, and mixed hearing/non-hearing groups were

discordant. The harmony we hoped for was not established: Deaf students were speaking
their own language among themselves. signing in ASL, and leaving hearing students
(carefully chosen for their patience and acceptance of others) confused.
Clearly, the deaf students were not comfortable with English. However, I was so
determined to find a solution to helping ASL speakers become more fluent and
comfortable with English and to help them feel more a part of a society of learners, that,
for the next group of deaf students, I hired ASL-fluent tutors. This bilingual approach to
tutoring ASL. with tutors and tutees dialoguing in ASL, discussing English texts and
their own compositions in ASL, seemed successful. Attendance improved. Deaf
students now worked in one-to-one situations, and they were separated from hearing
students. They seemed more relaxed and more comfortable with their tutors and with
tutoring. The problem was they werent progressing in English as smoothly as other ESL
students.
Bellugi and Klima have shown in their research on the deaf and on ASL that the human
mind has a fundamental capacity for language (American Psychologist. 1993, p. 335).
Berent (1993). proving that deaf college students do improve syntactic knowledge of
English, noted language is acquired similarly by both hearing and deaf children and
adolescents, albeit language comes more slowly for the deaf (p. 55). Yet, something was
impeding these students-something that would later determine my approach with Jack.
Bilingualism can be tricky business. Also, the relationship between English and ASL
is unique. First. ASL is distinctly not an English dialect. As the Committee on the
College Composition and Communication Conference (CCCC) Language Statement
explained (1974), a dialect shares similarities of pronunciation, syntax, or vocabulary
that differentiates it from other dialects (p. 16) while firmly connected with edited
American English (EAE), a written dialect to serve the larger, public community (p.
5). Hanson and Feldman (1989) noted the uniqueness of the ASL and English bilingual,
essentially stemming from ASL being exclusively visual and English being visual and
spoken (p. 296). Meanings for the two languages are different; culturally. Padden and
Humphries (1988) described this difference as HEARING means the opposite of what
we are (p. 41). Meaning, they point out. evolves from the state of deafness.
Consequently. in English, someone could be called a little hard of hearing, showing a
slight deviation, a relationship to the hearing world; but to the deaf, a little hard of
hearing reflects a great deviation from the deaf world, and the sign for this is the
opposite of a hearing-world translation of the English a little hard of hearing (p. 41).
ASL, then, shares neither pronunciation, syntax. nor vocabulary with English.
McLaughlin (1987), as mentioned earlier. cautions against passivity in learning the
second language (L2). citing bilingualism only works when involvement is active (p. 42).
What makes involvement active? Gattegno (1987) suggested we examine our own
learning: if we can say I know what reading is, and if I know it [what reading is] in one
language, I know it in a second one (pp. 52%54)-or. as Jerome Bruner (1986) said, it
[active learning] is an awareness of how we learn how to mean (p. 1 13). Gattegno
(1987) pointed to a transference ofawareness from Ll to L2. He pointed to the problem of
being sensitive to the reality of L2 learners-to the need to recognize. and use, the
powers learners bring with them (pp. 191-192). The Holistic Assessment Project of

In the Holistic Assessment Project. students assess themselves through pre- and post-tutoring question-
naires. Students first decide their comfort level with reading. writing, and speaking (from dread to delight,
on it scale of I to 7) before determining if/how/when they employ specific identifiable learning strategies (e.g.,
I ask myself questions when I write. never/seldom/often).
222 WOOD

the English Learning Center (Wood. lYY3) pointed to a fundamental relation between
awareness and the ability to identify learnin, (7 strategies that improve affective levels
toward readins, writing. and speaking (pp. Y-l 3. 15-3. ?Y-32). When a student is
aware of increased comfort in reading, writing, or speaking in L2. that increased comfort
is dso carried over to LI, and vice-versa (pp. 31, 33). I asked Jack how he felt about
writing. He grimaced, Hate it, hc spoke in his guttural English. Do you make lists
when you go shopping! I asked. He opened his hands and pushed them away. Never.
he said. pointing to his head. List is here. Jack had to deal with not just developing
fluency in English, but with conquerin, (7 his low affective level toward writing. even in
ASL syntax.
There was ;I precedent for what I was doing. In the IYXOs at the writing center 01
Lehman College, deaf students showed increased involvement with writing, and with
EAE. through a computer tutorial focusin g on students responding to each other. I was
attracted to the computers immediacy. to the vigor and perspective Selfe and Hawishcr
(IYXY) said it offers to the teaching of writing (p. 33) for another reason as well-1 needed
a tool less cumbersome than longhand writing. Use of computer\ meant that I would also
have an accessible record of Jacks responses and what I did (or didnt do) to influence
them. In addition, I needed to test an EAE approach to tutoring ASL students. I tried this
approach earlier on hcarin, (7 students to accelerate their transfcrcnce from speech to
writing. With Jack. I wanted the sharing of responses to also give me more direct
access to him. Hawisher and Selfe (IYY I) noted other instructors reported these
experiences with their writing students-working with computers allows tcacherh to get
to know students better (pp. SXGSY). I needed to understand how Jack learned.
Bill Bernhardt. Emeritus Director of the English Learning Centor. and Peter Miller.
Writing Director. who are collcagues at the College of Staten Island. maintain that basic
writing students frequently make the fastest and most dramatic gains in focusing on
fluency. writing without pausing to worry about phrasing or correctness ( IYXh, pp.
IX- I Y). Furthermore, students mahe more rapid progress-when moat of the time
is spent writing (p. I ). To facilitate this progress. I would engage Jack in ;I dialogue. This
transactional approach. similar to Louise Rosenblatts ( I Y7X) reader-response theory.
relies on individual response IO lcad to the awarenchb and involvement Gattcgno bpcaks of.
A keen advantage, Rosenblatt reported, is that evaluative activity occurs as the work i\
being evoked and interpreted (p. 157); furthermore. the transactional concept can onI1
reinforce interest in the dynamics of the relationship between the author. the text. the
reader. and their cultural environments (p. 174). II was this interest in the dynamics.
this awareness, I was after. Somehow, I felt. it had eluded the ASL students WC tutored
previously.
I suggested to Jack. then, that we use a computer to converse. On the computer. I wrote
a description of how to USC it. I found that any question I asked that Jack could answer with
a nod was answered with a nod: he seemed to more clearly understand. and respond to,
direct questions. whether spoken or written. When I typed in. Now. tell me something
about yourself and how you feel about writing, Jack froze. I chose another tack: 1
mentioned that the resource center told mc Jack was currently working part-time while he
focused on his education. 1 asked via the computer.

What would you like to do-what kinds of jobs are you considering?
Jack signed to himself, then typed, favoring his forefingers.

This was established by David Fletcher. then Center Director. fluent in ASL. (Personal communication.
November. I%-.)
 Making the Transition from ASL to English 223

First I learn how to write English then I can feel more confidence and i can think
about my future career. I feel i need more before i-.

Here he stopped, wrinkling his brow and looking at the ceiling. I inserted,
try not to worry about spelling, o.k.?

His hands did not move. Another tack:

Suppose you didnt have to worry about writing. Suppose you were very comfortable
writing. Which careers might you consider?

He began,

I would like to teach deaf students.

He continued, talking through the computer about past jobs he had, frequently pausing to
sign before writing. Trying to lead him toward reflection, I typed,
Now Im going to ask you a different kind of question. What have you been doing the
past hour and a half or so? How did you write what you did?

Jack responded,
I know I am not very good in writing, but i have good concepts.
Yes, I prompted, how did you put them on paper so that I could understand them?
What did you do? Were you thinking before you were writing, or what?

Jack noted.

I dont know but i feel morecomfortable with the computer than paper. I guess taht I
can change my mistakes quickly and I can read the print than my handwribning. ha:

Bernhardt and Miller (1986) felt that tapping into awareness through reflection is crucial
to writing (pp. 36-37). particmarly while it is still fresh (p. 1). Jack had progressed
considerably beyond the nod. He no longer frowned. At the same time, he seemed more
attentive to the text he was creating. I decided to draw his attention to his translating to
and from ASL,
I noticed you sometimes translating before you wrote on the computer. What was that
like?

He wrinkled his brow again. I needed to be more direct.

I saw you signing before you wrote.

He responded,
[I wanted] to think first before writing something. I used ASL so that I can write
better.

This needed to be pursued further.

So you were signing in ASL as you were thinking? It helped you think?

He wiggled a little.
It is pretty hard for me bc if I use ASL then 1 will learn to think how to write
grammar.
224 WOOD

I couldnt resist injecting:

What would happen, if you let English help you learn to think?

Jack looked pensive:

I dislike EN<; but I must accept it. If I dont use EN<; I will probably feel
uncomfortable with my future career. If I dont then i cant what i want to be.

Emotion, Bruner writes ( 1986). is not ~~sefully isolated from the knowledge of the
situation that arouses it (p. II 7). Jacks errors incrcnsed as did his anxiety about the
topic.
A week later. we met again. This time. Jack wrote about his hobbies: hc detailed ;I
wordworking project he was involvctl in. I noted that Jack did not sign to himself. though
hc would pause before writing. Jack seemrd to he understanding without translating. ht
seemed to be developin, 1 what Gattegno (1987) calls awareness of awareness (p. 54).
In the tdli~ there must be triggers that relcuse responses in the rcader~ mind.
Bruner tells us (19%. p. IY). Writin, (7 about something he wah comfortable about. his
woodworking . seemed to provide this trigger. I felt I was reaching Jack.
I also discoverecl Jack WIS less likely to write it I left the room. I interpreted this to
mean hc still lacked sell%onfidencc. By the third session, I lelt hi4 conili)rt led ot
writing was elevated enough to push him: I tried to address his difficulty in understanding
inference. Although he did some translating in his responses. hc also was writing more
ilutntly and was mm apt to write Im confused, if he didnt undcrstancl a word or
concept. or. Im trying. I saw his awareness as ;I significant 4tep from fluency to
clarity. an awareness dircctecl toward. ;I\ Bcrnharclt and Miller ( IYX6) say. :I view ot
writing with an origin in self-expression. and away 1rom the \,icw that ivriting is ;I
matter of following instructions (p. I?). lhc next mcoting hc \\;I\di\trncted about
coming Iinals and concerned about grades: thi4 was rcfltctctl in hi\ writing.

I will be glad to leave school for good...,

I One BIG reason is I have too much concern
with my writing.. . .

I felt than an affirmation of the importance ol the reader. to WC Kosenblatts words

(IY7X. p. IhY). and the writer (my addition). wo~ild be Jacks first step toward comfort
and Iluency in writing. Jack was 40 intimiclatcd by writin, (7 that it wasnt until the fifth
tutoring session that he began to open up about his ttielings in the clasrroom:

I was so nervous when I participated in the class writing the sentences on the
blackboard and show it to the students. And they corrected my sentences as a
lot.. . . 1 find that I dont feel comfortable in the class. That is me. If I have English
fluency then I wont have any problems writing on the board.. . . I still dent have an)
confident.

May 26 was the fifth session. He had stopped by the olficc the clay before to confirm
his appointment: he was distressed about an incomplctc in ;I business class. We had
entercd ;I dialogue: He wrote immediately. more fluently than bclin-e. with fewer errors.
He took the dialogue with him. The next day. ht: W;I\ more rclared. He did not sign
throughout our computer conversation. He wrote more Ircely and more openly. volu~l-
tarilv tapping into his personal experience in response to a question or comment.
On April 28. three sessions earlier, his responses had been ~Iowtr. shorter. showing :I
reluctance to bc open. Jack began the May 26 dialogue rciteratin, (r hi5 reason lor- being
tutored.
 Making the Transition from ASL to English 225

I often want to work in new job but I must have English influency before I can
become more confidence in any job I want. Many jobs I like but I am afraid to go
ahead . . . I was afraid with the peoples misunderstand what 1 say.

1 commented on his fluency of the day before and pointed to the number on the lower right
part of the computer screen:
Thats how many pages you have written since last week. What does that say about
your writing? 7 pages in less than 4 hours youve written.

When I have something that I like to share, he began, That is why I feel comfortable
and write more in the computer.

Bruner ( 1986) says the negotiatory or.. . transactional view. _ has deep implications
for the conduct of education (p. 122). But it was not the sharing, the interaction, alone
that contributed to Jacks increase in fluency and comfort-although Hawisher and Selfe
( 1991) see teacher-student interaction in the form of careful, two-way discussions of the
writing problems students were encountering (p. 60) as one of the potential contributions
of computer use. It was. I feel. the affective emphasis in our tutoring sessions that wits the
key. There were stifI the ESL problems of word endings, tense, and word omissions; yet,
Jack seemed more likely, particularly toward the end of the 2-hour session, to go back to
change tenses and word endings without any attempt by me to address correction.
He was anxious, chewing gum vigorously: When he wrote about being reprimanded in
a bilingual ASL and English grammar school and having his writing red-marked, when
he wrote about his writing corrected on the blackboard in the business course, and when I
asked him to reflect on what he did in this session. How do you feel youve changed as a
writer?
I think I am improving in some areas of writing, 1 need more like writing Business
letters . . . . Hopefully, I can become better writer and get more confidence.
Yet. he also became more in~~oIved with vocabulary, no longer disnlissin~ an unknown
word but. rather, attempting to figure it out from its context and by identifying famitiar
parts of words. He evidenced closer attention to text and to critical thinking, interpreting
and applying the text.
As English teachers, the Committee on CCCC Language Statement (1974) stated.
we are responsible for what our teaching does to the self-image and the self-esteem of
our students (p. 2). Berent (1993) pointed to the
stark reality (of anJ estimated 70% withdrawal rate among deaf students at the
postsecondary level. .The relationship between English language skills and attrition
suggests that an even more aggressive approach to English language instruction be
undertaken tbr deaf college students. including more research on the efficacy of language
teaching methods and materials. (p. h(I)

But American deaf experience a unique problem: Fellow Americans expect the deaf to be
fluent in writing English. a language very different from ASL. Berent suggests there are
certain factors involved that set academically x~cccssful students apart from other
postsecondary deaf students, such as higher English and academic skills, motivation to
improve English skills to pain access to higher degree options, and exposure to deaf peers
with English skills even higher than their own. (IYX.1, p. 59)

His study. and that of Hanson and Feldman ( 19X9), showed that ASL-English bilingualism
works best when students have achieved appropriate reading levels in English. At the
226 WOOD

same time, we need to recognize-and affirm, as the Committee of the CCCC

Language Statement endorses (1974)---the right of students to their own language (p.
3): we need to respect the culture of the-as Padden and Humphries spell it-Deaf.

Gail Wood is in her 8th year directing the English Learning Center at the College of
Staten Island; she also teaches developmental reading and writing courses. advanced
composition, and literature courses. She presents locally and nationally on affective
learning, holistic assessment. and learning differences. She is in her 6th year as Senior
College Chair of the City University of New Yorks Writing Centers Association.

REFERENCES
Beliugi, U., & Klima. E.S. (Eds.). (1993, April). Amrricnn Psychaiogist, 48, 334-337.
Berent. G.P. (1993, March). Improvements in the English syntax of deaf college students. Americun Anncil.s oj
the De& 138. 55-61.
Bernhardt, B.. & Miller. I? (1986). Instructorsmunud IO aawnpuny becoming u tviter. New krk: St.
Martins,
Bruner, J. (1986). Act& minds. possible h1orld.s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Committee on CCCC Language Statement (1974). Students rights to their own language. College Composition
and Communication Confurm~r Statmwnt.25. I-32. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
English.
Gattegno, C. (I 987 May). T%e s&mu ofcduccrtion. Paper presented at the Center for Language and Intercultural
Learning. Osaka-shi, Japan.
Hanson. VL.. & Feldman, L.B. (1989). Language specificity in Iexical or~nizati~~n: Evidence from deaf
signers lexical t~r~~nization of American Sign Language and English. Memt>ry & Cognirion, 17.
292-30 1.
Hawisher. G.E.. & Selfe, C.L. (1991). The rhetoric of technology and the electronic writing clacs. Co/&c~
Composition and CorntNuni~ation. 42, 55-65.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theoricv elf second-languugr haming. New YS/%%ork: Edward ArnoldiHodder Sr
Stoughton.
Montague. M. (1990). Computers, q&ion, und Mv-iting instruction. Albany. NY: State University of New
York Press.
Padden, C., & Humphries, T. (1988). Deaf in Americn: Ekes from n culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Rosenblatt, L.M. ( 1978). The reudrc the t.st, the poem: The trcmsnctioncti throrv of the lifcrctry ,rvrk.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Iltinois University Press.
Selfe. C. L., & Hawisher, G.E. (Eds.). ( $989). Creating a ~oniplcrer-stc~p[~rr~~d writing frtcifir.v: A b~~~~~~ri~~t
.fiv
u&on. Houghton, Ml: Computers and Composition.
Wood, G.F. ( 1993). Report on hofistic us~e.s.srn~nt. Staten Island: City University of New York, The College of
Staten Island, The English Learning Center.