THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL LITERACY INTERVENTION PROGRAMME FOR DEAF LEARNERS IN NAMIBIA BY BEAUSETHA JUHETHA BRUWER Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Philosophiae Doctor in the Faculty of the Humanities University of the Free State Bloemfontein November 2021 Promotor: Professor A. van Staden Co-Promotor: Professor L.T. du Plessis i DECLARATION I, Beausetha Juhetha Bruwer, the undersigned, herewith declare that this thesis titled, The Implementation of a Bilingual-Bicultural Literacy Intervention Programme for Deaf Learners in Namibia, is my own original work that was produced through the guidance of my study promoters. It is my declaration that the work is being submitted for the first time at the University of the Free State as a degree in a PhD in the Faculty of the Humanities. It has never been submitted to any other university for the purpose of obtaining a degree. Acknowledgement is given to the financial assistance from the National Research Foundation (NRF) (Grant Number: 87728) for this research. The ideas and inferences reached through this study are my own and should not necessarily be regarded as those of the (NRF). I hereby cede copyright of this product to the University of the Free State. 29 November 2021 BEAUSETHA BRUWER DATE ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge and extend my appreciation to those who whole heartedly supported me during this journey. • The deaf learner community in Namibia who aroused a passion in me in striving to provide quality education to them. • Professor Annalene van Staden and Professor Theodorus du Plessis (my promotors). Thank you for your patience in guiding and encouraging me to complete this research. My sincere gratitude to you for providing me with the opportunity to travel to Namur to extend my knowledge and experience in Deaf Education. • My colleague Ms Eugenie Pienaar. I will be forever grateful to you for the role you played in encouraging me to start with this journey. • My colleagues, Dr Babara Peters and Mr Tsadago Naweseb. Thank you for your support and encouragement during the last few years. I will be forever grateful. • My colleagues at the CCDS, Lizette Beukes and Josea Iipinge. Thank you for your willingness to always assist me with NSL videos, signed stories and signed vocabulary. Your understanding, knowledge and experience in Deaf Education and NSL was a great help to me. • The director and cofounder of CLaSH, Ms Heide Beinhauer. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to attend the CLaSH workshops over the years. This allowed me to gain better understanding and a passion in Deaf Education. • Ministry of Arts and Culture together with the University of Namibia, thank you for providing me the opportunity to travel and visit various schools and institutions for deaf learners and so gain experience, knowledge and ideas for my research in Deaf Education. • Thank you to the entire population of my study. The research would not have been possible without your willingness to participate in the research. iii • Thank you to my father (Hans), my mother (Poppie), my brother (Lionel) and my sister (Bevelley). Through your individual support you made my life easier during this journey. I will be forever grateful to you. • My last and greatest gratitude goes to my Creator and God. Through Him all things are possible. iv TABLE OF CONTENT DECLARATION......................................................................................................................................... I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... II LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................. IX LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... X LIST OF PICTURES ................................................................................................................................ XI ABSTRACT ….. ...................................................................................................................................... XII CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background to the study ................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 An overview of Deaf Education in Namibia................................................................................. 3 1.4 Research problem........................................................................................................................... 9 1.5 Purpose, aims and objectives ...................................................................................................... 10 1.6 Theoretical framework ................................................................................................................ 11 1.6.1 Bandura’s theory ........................................................................................................................ 11 1.6.2 Bronfenbrenner’s theory ............................................................................................................ 16 1.6.2.1 The microsystem .................................................................................................................. 18 1.6.2.2 The mesosystem ................................................................................................................... 19 1.6.2.3 The exosystem ..................................................................................................................... 20 1.6.2.4 The macrosystem ................................................................................................................. 20 1.6.2.5 The chronosystem ................................................................................................................ 21 1.7 Research design ............................................................................................................................ 22 1.8 Ethical considerations .................................................................................................................. 23 1.9 Value of the research ................................................................................................................... 23 1.10 Limitation of the study................................................................................................................. 24 1.11 Chapter outline ............................................................................................................................. 24 1.12 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 26 CHAPTER 2: DEVELOPMENT OF DEAF EDUCATION ................................................................. 27 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 27 2.2 Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education .......................................................................................... 27 2.3 Reflection on Cummins’ model ................................................................................................... 29 2.4 Translanguaging ........................................................................................................................... 34 2.5 Sign Bilingual Education policies ............................................................................................... 36 2.5.1 Scandinavian countries .............................................................................................................. 37 v 2.5.2 South Africa ............................................................................................................................... 41 2.5.3 Namibia ...................................................................................................................................... 43 2.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 46 CHAPTER 3: LITERACY DEVELOPMENT IN DEAF EDUCATION ............................................ 47 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 47 3.2 Parental involvement in Deaf Education ................................................................................... 48 3.3 Teachers’ role and responsibility in Deaf Education ................................................................ 54 3.4 Biliteracy development in deaf learners ..................................................................................... 60 3.4.1 The acquisition of Sign Language and the development of visual engagement ........................ 62 3.4.2 Emergent literacy ....................................................................................................................... 63 3.4.3 Social mediation and English print ............................................................................................ 64 3.4.4 Literacy and Deaf Culture .......................................................................................................... 65 3.4.5 Media ......................................................................................................................................... 67 3.5 Instruction strategies to teach reading to deaf learners ............................................................ 68 3.5.1 Phonemic awareness and alphabetic principle ........................................................................... 71 3.5.2 Vocabulary ................................................................................................................................. 74 3.5.3 Fluency ....................................................................................................................................... 77 3.5.4 Text comprehension ................................................................................................................... 78 3.6 Instructional strategies to teach writing to deaf learners .......................................................... 82 3.6.1 Prewriting ................................................................................................................................... 84 3.6.2 Organising .................................................................................................................................. 86 3.6.3 Writing ....................................................................................................................................... 87 3.6.4 Feedback .................................................................................................................................... 89 3.6.5 Revision ..................................................................................................................................... 90 3.7 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 92 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 93 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 93 4.2 Research design ............................................................................................................................ 93 4.3 Sampling procedure and participants ........................................................................................ 97 4.3.1 Research participants (Quantitative study) ................................................................................ 97 4.3.2 Research participants (Qualitative study) .................................................................................. 98 4.4 Data collection procedure ............................................................................................................. 99 4.4.1 Quantitative data collection procedure ..................................................................................... 100 4.4.1.1 Quantitative data collection instruments .......................................................................... 100 4.4.2 Qualitative data collection procedure....................................................................................... 107 vi 4.4.2.1 Qualitative data collection instruments ............................................................................ 107 4.5 The Bilingual-Bicultural literacy intervention programme ................................................... 110 4.5.1 Adapted Integrated Planning Manuals ..................................................................................... 111 4.5.2 Lesson plans with teaching and learning materials .................................................................. 114 4.5.3 Training for teachers ................................................................................................................ 114 4.6 Programme evaluation............................................................................................................... 115 4.7 Data analysis and interpretation ............................................................................................... 118 4.8 The validity of the study ............................................................................................................ 121 4.9 Ethical issues ............................................................................................................................... 124 4.10 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 125 CHAPTER 5: PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS ................................................................................................................... 127 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 127 5.2 Quantitative data results ........................................................................................................... 129 5.2.1 Results from NSL assessment instruments .............................................................................. 129 5.2.2 Results from Written English assessment instruments ............................................................ 134 5.2.3 Participants performing higher in the assessments .................................................................. 138 5.2.4 Participants performing lower in the assessments ................................................................... 140 5.2.5 Supplementary learner participants .......................................................................................... 142 5.3 Qualitative results ...................................................................................................................... 144 5.3.1 Creating a favourable learning environment through Bilingual-Bicultural instructional practices ……………………………………………………………………………………………144 5.3.2 Significant teacher attributes .................................................................................................... 151 5.3.2.1 Teachers’ sense of self-efficacy ......................................................................................... 152 5.3.2.2 Type of Education degree that a teacher holds ................................................................. 153 5.3.2.3 Continued professional development through in-service training .................................... 154 5.3.2.4 Teacher’s ability to communicate in Sign Language ........................................................ 155 5.3.2.5 Teachers’ experience and skills in teaching deaf learners ............................................... 156 5.3.2.6 Teacher and learner relationship ..................................................................................... 157 5.3.3 Teacher support ........................................................................................................................ 158 5.3.3.1 Support from other professionals ...................................................................................... 161 5.3.3.2 Support from subject experts ............................................................................................. 163 5.3.3.3 Support from School Management .................................................................................... 164 5.3.4 Parental involvement................................................................................................................ 166 5.3.5 The role of hostel matrons ....................................................................................................... 170 vii 5.4 Results from consolidated data ................................................................................................. 173 5.4.1 Teachers’ improvement from the Bilingual-Bicultural literacy intervention programme ....... 173 5.4.1.1 Lesson preparation and presentation ............................................................................... 174 5.4.1.2 Preparation of a learning environment and materials ..................................................... 176 5.4.1.3 Compiling assessment material ........................................................................................ 178 5.4.2 Impact of the Bilingual-Bicultural literacy intervention programme on the language learning and biliteracy of the deaf learners ........................................................................................ 186 5.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 189 CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 191 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 191 6.2 Reflection on the programme evaluation and research findings ........................................... 193 6.2.1 Creating a favourable environment through Bilingual-Bicultural instructional practices .... 194 6.2.2 Significant teachers’ attribute ............................................................................................... 195 6.2.3 Teacher support .................................................................................................................... 197 6.2.4 Parental involvement ............................................................................................................ 199 6.2.5 The role of hostel matrons .................................................................................................... 200 6.2.6 Teachers’ improvement from the Bilingual-Bicultural literacy intervention programme .... 201 6.2.7 Impact of the Bilingual-Bicultural literacy intervention programme on the language learning and biliteracy of deaf learners .............................................................................................. 203 6.2.8 Conclusion to the research findings ..................................................................................... 204 6.3 Limitation of the study............................................................................................................... 206 6.4 Value of the study ....................................................................................................................... 207 6.5 Recommendations and suggestions for further research ....................................................... 209 6.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 211 REFERENCES . ...................................................................................................................................... 213 ADDENDUM A: ETHICS CLEARANCE LETTER .......................................................................... 225 ADDENDUM B: PERMISSION LETTER TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE KHOMAS EDUCATION REGION ............................................................................................. 226 ADDENDUM C: PERMISSION GRANTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE KHOMAS EDUCATION REGION ............................................................................................. 228 ADDENDUM D: PERMISSION LETTER TO THE PRINCIPAL OF NISE SCHOOL FOR HEARING IMPAIRED LEARNERS ....................................................................... 229 ADDENDUM E: PERMISSION GRANTED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE SELECTED SCHOOL ..................................................................................................................... 231 ADDENDUM F: PARENTAL CONSENT ........................................................................................... 232 viii ADDENDUM G: TEACHERS’ CONSENT ......................................................................................... 234 ADDENDUM H: OBSERVATION SHEET ......................................................................................... 236 ADDENDUM I: INTERVIEW SHEET FOR SCHOOL MANAGEMENT ..................................... 238 ADDENDUM J: INTERVIEW SHEET FOR TEACHERS ............................................................... 239 ADDENDUM K: NSL ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR GRADE 1 ......................................... 240 ADDENDUM L: NSL ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR GRADE 2 .......................................... 259 ADDENDUM M: NSL ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR GRADE 3 ......................................... 277 ADDENDUM N: WRITTEN ENGLISH ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR GRADE 1 ........... 293 ADDENDUM O: WRITTEN ENGLISH ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR GRADE 2 ........... 309 ADDENDUM P: WRITTEN ENGLISH ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR GRADE 3 ........... 323 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Map of Namibia indicating schools and units that cater for deaf learners in Namibia (https://tlarremore.wordpress.com/2017/09/21/mispronouncing-namibia-a-country-in-southern-africa-is-a- sin-or-something) .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 1.2: Outline of reciprocal determinism in which behaviour, personal factors and the environment influence each other (Zhou & Brown, 2015:20) ......................................................................................... 14 Figure 1.3: Interaction of the four operations necessary for social learning to take place (Salkind, 2004:223) .................................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 1.4: A bio-ecological model for a deaf child ................................................................................... 18 Figure 3.1: Examples of using chaining in teaching reading to a deaf learner ........................................... 64 Figure 3.2: A model of lexical development for deaf learners as discussed (Hermans et al., 2007:162) ... 76 Figure 3.3: Research procedure .................................................................................................................. 96 Figure 4.1: Rubric for Grade 1 and 2 ........................................................................................................ 103 Figure 4.2: Rubric for Grade 3 .................................................................................................................. 103 Figure 4.3: Example of Word Identification activity ................................................................................ 105 Figure 4.4: Example of Syntax Development for Grades 1 and 2 ............................................................ 106 Figure 4.5: Example of Syntax Development for Grade 3 ........................................................................ 106 Figure 4.6: Outline of the intervention programme .................................................................................. 111 Figure 4.7: Example of an adapted Integration Planning Manual............................................................. 113 Figure 4.8: Summary of training provided to the teachers ........................................................................ 115 Figure 4.9: Logic model tool for evaluation of the Bilingual-Bicultural literacy programme .................. 117 Figure 5.1: Established themes of discussion ........................................................................................... 128 Figure 5.2: Namibian Sign Language Informal Observation Checklist Grade 1–3 (Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture, 2014b:18) ..................................................................................................................... 181 Figure 5.3: Namibian Sign Language Formal Assessment Record Form (Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture, 2014b:19) .................................................................................................................................... 182 Figure 5.4: Written English Informal Assessment Checklist Grade 1–3 (Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture, 2015:18) ...................................................................................................................................... 183 Figure 5.5: Written English Formal Assessment Record Form Grade 1–3 (Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture, 2015:20) ............................................................................................................................... 184 x LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1: Outline of the learner research participants ............................................................................... 98 Table 4.2: Outline of teacher research participants ..................................................................................... 99 Table 4.3: Assessment components for Namibian Sign Language ........................................................... 102 Table 4.4: Assessment components for Written English .......................................................................... 104 Table 5.1: Total pre- and post-intervention test scores for NSL ............................................................... 130 Table 5.2: Pre- and Post-intervention test scores for different NSL components ..................................... 131 Table 5.3: Total pre- and post-intervention test scores for Written English ............................................. 135 Table 5.4: Pre- and post-intervention test scores for different Written English components ................... 136 Table 5.5: Results of higher-performing participants ............................................................................... 138 Table 5.6: Results of lower-performing participants ................................................................................ 140 Table 5.7: Results of supplementary learner participants ......................................................................... 143 xi LIST OF PICTURES Picture 5.1: Teacher using two-colour posters to teach Written English and NSL sentence structure to learners ...................................................................................................................................................... 147 Picture 5.2: Learners using two colours to identify content words with signs and functional elements unique to the Written English language .................................................................................................... 147 Picture 5.3: Corridors of the schools used to create an enjoyable learning environment ......................... 148 Picture 5.4: Incidental learning taking place as learner on her way to the bathroom studies the material on the wall ...................................................................................................................................................... 149 Picture 5.5: Word-building games that learners enjoyed .......................................................................... 149 Picture 5.6: A Fingerspellathon event ....................................................................................................... 150 Picture 5.7: Reading and writing corner ................................................................................................... 151 xii ABSTRACT The Bilingual-Bicultural approach is considered the best approach to teach deaf learners. This approach also provides the best opportunity for deaf learners to become biliterate. Namibia too has adopted the Bilingual-Bicultural approach to teaching deaf learners and are a signatory to national and international policies and laws to ensure deaf learners are provided with the best opportunity for an education. Contrary to the adoption of the Bilingual-Bicultural approach, policies and laws, no impact has been seen on an improvement in the deaf learners’ academic performance. Deaf learners still leave school with low literacy levels and unsure of their future. The main purpose of this study was to find the best instructional practices to teach deaf learners through the Bilingual-Bicultural approach. This was done through the implementation of an intervention programme that can narrow the delay and gap in language learning and literacy. The study adopted a programme evaluation within a multi-method research design. The research objectives accommodated the implementation of a Bilingual-Bicultural literacy intervention programme for deaf learners. The data for the study consisted of quantitative data in the form of measurements based on diagnostic tests and qualitative data in the form of document analysis, participant and non-participant observations as well as unstructured interviews. The variety of data directed the study to a multi-data analysis. The themes that were established for feedback of the research findings originated from the research objectives and the programme evaluation questions that were drawn up to guide the evaluation of the Bilingual-Bicultural literacy programme. The emphasis of the intervention programme was to draw up new and adopted Integrated Planning Manuals that are based on the NSL and Written English syllabuses and prescribed language skills of both language subjects. From the new IPMs, lessons were designed for both language subjects. Teaching and learning materials were also designed to support the lessons. The programme envisaged a systematic method of learning the deaf learners the two languages at the same time. The aim was to teach Written English based on NSL. The programme had a dual integrated approach in that it integrated into specific themes and topics for a week and the language skills for each language subject. It also integrates into the other subjects that are taught to the learners. The programme was systematic in teaching learners in small xiii portions, every time building on these small portions. Teachers were provided with deliberate training on the instructional practices that were intended for the programme. The implementation of the Bilingual-Bicultural literacy programme resulted in a positive impact and improvement on the biliteracy of the deaf learners. Statistical analyses underscored the value of the intervention program. T-tests yielded statistical significant results for both NSL and Written English skills with regard to the total scores as well as the sub-tests included in this study (p<0.05). The teachers who participated in the study showed significant teacher attributes in the form of self- efficacy, the ability to communicate in NSL, experience and skills to teach deaf learners and good teacher-learner relationships. Even though, through the programme, the teachers gained pedagogical knowledge and understanding to applicable instructional practices that can be implemented in their teaching, they lacked support systems to sustain their instruction. Continuous interaction and support are thus recommended at all levels to sustain the further development of the Bilingual-Bicultural literacy programme. Key words: Bilingual-Bicultural; biliteracy; Bilingual Education; bimodal; Translanguaging; Deaf Education; junior primary; Namibian Sign Language (NSL); Written English; 1deaf learner; Deaf adults; Deaf Culture; school for deaf learners 1 For this study deaf in deaf learners will refer to audiological deafness and will be written with a small letter ‘d’. Deaf for Deaf adults will refer to culturally deafness in the instances where the adults embrace Deaf Culture. In this case, it will be written with a capital letter ‘D’. 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction Within the Namibian framework, numerous documents support education-for-all, including education for deaf learners. According to Bruwer and February (2019:35), the Namibian government committed itself, on a national and international level, to leave no child behind. National standards, policies and laws that prohibit any form of discrimination and segregation are thus in place and this includes the mandate to serve all learners. On an international level, the government of Namibia committed itself by being a signatory to various agreements in the initiation of an inclusive education system. According to the Ministry of Education (2014a:5), the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), the Jomtien World Declaration on Education for All (1990), the Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (1993), the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (1994), the Dakar Framework for Action (2000), and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) are among these agreements. Nationally Namibia has policies and laws to protect and serve all its citizens. One such policy is the Sector Policy on Inclusive Education that was approved by Namibia’s Cabinet in 2013: The Sector Policy on Inclusive Education is a medium of attaining accessible, equitable and sound education for all through efficiency, democracy and solid advocacy for lifelong learning. (Ministry of Education, 2013) Grounded in the Sector Policy on Inclusive Education, a Curriculum Framework for Inclusive Education was drawn up. However, this document is still in draft form. The goal of this second document is to integrate and align Inclusive Education principles with the National Curriculum for Basic Education, maintaining consistency in the attainment and sustainability of the Sector Policy of Inclusive Education's goals and objectives and making the curriculum more receptive to all learners with special educational requirements (Ministry of Education, 2014a:4). Based on the Draft Curriculum Framework for Inclusive Education, learning through the medium of the mother tongue is essential. In the Junior Primary phase (Pre-primary to Grade 3) the language of instruction and learning is thus the mother tongue. For deaf learners, their mother tongue or first language is Namibian Sign Language (NSL), which is reflected to be the language 2 that identifies the Deaf community and transmits Deaf culture. NSL is therefore the language of instruction for deaf learners from Junior Primary to Senior Secondary and beyond, and Written English is used for reading and writing (Bruwer & February, 2019:37). NSL and Written English are hence taught as school subjects and are guided by the appropriate syllabi. Despite all that has been done, according to the New Era Newspaper (2016), the deaf child still feels discriminated against and unsure of their futures. New Era Newspaper (2016) states that after years of independence, there is very little to be proud of in Deaf Education as deaf learners still fail their Junior Secondary phase and are not able to continue with their Senior Secondary phase or find a job after that. 1.2 Background to the study Mahshie (1995:xiv) states that although Deaf people can become proficient readers and writers, educators of deaf learners experience challenges in finding an appropriate approach to obtain the desired results. This challenge is even greater in countries like South Africa, as teachers are not required to have any formal training in Deaf Education, resulting in a lack of pedagogical knowledge in teaching literacy to deaf learners (Van Staden, 2013:306). Qi and Mitchell (2012:14) have summarised deaf and hard-of-hearing learners’ achievements over the past three decades as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test. They have found that scores did not improve, despite substantial changes in Deaf Education. Deaf learners are still performing lower than their hearing peers do. According to The Deaf Federation of South Africa, the written language comprehension ability of the average deaf school leaver in South Africa is equal to that of an eight-year-old hearing child (Glaser & Van Pletzen, 2012:26). Svartholm (2014) did a search in earlier educational outcomes that are considered successful in the history of Swedish Deaf Education. He found that in 1809, when the Manilla School for the Deaf was founded in Stockholm, Swedish Sign Language was used as a medium of instruction. The basis for the success in Deaf Education during this period was the recognition of the need for Sign Language in the lives of Deaf people, together with faith in the abilities of the Deaf (Svartholm, 2014). 3 The Bilingual-Bicultural method to communication and education is the most recent strategy to obtaining favour in Deaf Education (Ross & Deverell, 2010:285). This approach proposes that deaf learners be taught natural Sign Language as a first language, and then a second language, such as English, after that. The Swedish Parliament passed a regulation in the 1980s requiring Deaf persons to be bilingual in order to operate well in the family, school, and society (Mahshie, 1995:xiii). According to Knoors, Tang and Marschark (2014:1), other countries soon followed Sweden in providing Bilingual Education as the main option in schools for deaf learners. The Deaf Federation of South Africa started to promote the Bilingual-Bicultural approach from the 1990s (Van Staden, Badenhorst & Ridge, 2009:52). Focusing on the educational context of deaf learners in Namibia, a study by Bruwer (2013) confirms that the Namibian Department of Education has also adopted the Bilingual-Bicultural approach in the teaching of deaf learners. In the study done by Bruwer (2013), a logic model was drawn based on sociolinguistic and socio- educational principles to evaluate the efficiency of Bilingual and Biliterate Education at a school for deaf learners. From these principles, factors were identified that played a role in the implementation of a Bilingual-Bicultural programme. From the factors that were identified the most crucial factors were teacher qualification, effective assessment, parental support and involvement. The researcher believes that by closely studying the objectives of the logic model and by adapting and adopting it to bilingual teaching, better literacy skills can be obtained in deaf learners. Against this background, the researcher developed an intervention programme that focused on working with junior primary deaf learners and their teachers to bring about better biliteracy skills for deaf learners in Namibia. This research formed part of a broader literacy project funded by the National Research Foundation of South Africa, entitled: Cognitive Linguistic Processing of L1 and L2 Learners with Typical and Atypical Patterns of Development (Grant Number: 87728). 1.3 An overview of Deaf Education in Namibia “The situation and level of teaching for the hearing impaired in Namibia has been rated as similar to the situation in Iceland in the 1970s.” (Wiium, 2007:5) While many people view the 1980 - 1990s as the golden years of Deaf Education, it was merely the start of identifying the need for Deaf Education in Namibia. Abroad a lot of linguistic and psychological research into Sign 4 Language structure, Sign Language acquisition and Sign Language processing in the brain was conducted (Knoors et al., 2014:3). Sign Language was getting recognition in western countries, causing sociolinguists and anthropologists to make full use of the opportunity to research a new language and a new culture, involving Deaf scholars and researchers in this new development (Humphrey & Alcorn, 2007:131). According to Ashipale, Daniel, Haikale, Isreal, Linus, Henock and Morgan (1994:343) as well as Nambira (2007:10), the idea to establish an education system for the Deaf in Namibia was only debated during the late 1960s. Finnish missionaries, together with the Evangelical Lutheran Church, established the Engela Training Centre in northern Namibia, where two teachers from the centre were sent to Pretoria in South Africa for training (Nambira, 2007:10). The sign system used in South Africa in certain schools for deaf learners at the time, was the Paget Gorman Sign System (Ashipale et al., 1994:343), which is a system that was invented in England to teach English supported by signs to deaf learners (Bruwer & February, 2019:37). The teachers who were trained in Pretoria taught the deaf learners at Engela using the Paget Gorman Sign System with an Oshiwambo (a Namibian language) word order. The Centre offered facilities for parents and deaf learners to spend time together to learn and understand one another’s communication needs. The Centre also offered basic Sign Language classes, literacy and numeracy classes as well as vocational training to the older deaf learners (Nambira, 2007:10). The first school for deaf learners that was established in 1975 was the Eluwa Special School. It was established under the South African Department of Education and Training and it was administered directly from Pretoria. Twelve children under the age of 17, with their teachers, were moved from the Engela Training Centre to the Eluwa Special School that catered for learners who were deaf and/or blind (Ashipale et al., 1994:343). Under the South African Department of Education and Training, the Eluwa Special School did not receive suitable attention and thus maintained a poor quality of education. The situation started to improve after Namibia had become independent from South Africa in 1990 (Nambira, 2007:10). By this time, Namibia was already decades behind the new development in Deaf Education. In 1989, a group of parents and some specialists in the field established the Association for Children with Language, Speech and Hearing Impairments of Namibia, known as CLaSH. The reason for this was to accommodate very young learners, especially those who were prelingually 5 deaf. CLaSH was registered as a welfare organisation with the Ministry of Health and Social Services and has since grown from an innovative parents' group to a well-known non- governmental service provider. The objectives of CLaSH are the early identification, early intervention and early education of children with hearing loss. In 1994 the CLaSH association established the only specialised pre-school unit for deaf learners in Namibia that accommodates up to ten deaf learners a year (Bruwer & February, 2019:39). In the capital city, Windhoek, a second school for deaf learners opened in 1995. In 2005, a third deaf school opened in Eenhana, in the northern part of the country. These schools exclusively cater for learners from Pre-primary to Grade 10. According to the researcher, it was only from 2007 that learners who had passed Grade 10 could attend Grade 11 and Grade 12 at selected inclusive schools. At these inclusive schools they are taught their lessons through interpreters (Bruwer & February, 2019:38). In order to accommodate more learners who are deaf, a unit for deaf learners in Katima Mulilo was established by a VSO (Volunteer Services Overseas) volunteer in 1996. In 2007, another unit for deaf learners was opened in Rundu. These units do not function as inclusive education classrooms, but special classrooms, in a mainstream school, for learners who are deaf (Bruwer & February, 2019:38). No formal education provision is currently provided for learners who are deaf who reside in the south of the country. Parents of these learners will often choose to send their children to South Africa for schooling. In the past, these learners could get financial support from the government to go to South Africa for education. Currently this has become financially impossible and parents are advised to send their children to the school for deaf learners in Windhoek (Bruwer & February, 2019:39). Looking at the map of Namibia it is obvious that most schools and units for deaf learners are situated in the north of the country, with one school and the preschool (CLaSH) situated in the capital, Windhoek. According to Ellis (2011:6), it seems that Deaf people are evenly distributed throughout the population; however, more Deaf people are situated in the northern regions of the country. Ellis (2011:6) is of the opinion that the reason can be that malaria and meningitis are more customary in these regions. 6 Figure 1.1: Map of Namibia indicating schools and units that cater for deaf learners in Namibia (https://tlarremore.wordpress.com/2017/09/21/mispronouncing-namibia-a-country-in-southern-africa-is- a-sin-or-something) Bruwer and February (2019:42) believe that Deaf Education in Namibia got an enormous boost in 2006 when the Icelandic International Development Agency (ICEIDA) began its work with the Deaf. ICEIDA, together with the Ministry of Education, held a conference on Deaf Education in 2007 under the theme, ‘Applying the Bilingual-Bicultural Education Approach: Building Bridges in Education’. In response to the resolutions taken during this first conference on Deaf Education, a second collaborative conference between the Ministry of Education and ICEIDA was held in 2010. The second conference focused on four specific themes in Deaf Education, namely adult Usko Nghaamwa Special School Eluwa Special School Unit for deaf learners Unit for deaf learners CLaSh Preschool for deaf learners NISE School for hearing impaired learners https://tlarremore.wordpress.com/2017/09/21/mispronouncing-namibia-a-country-in-southern-africa-is-a-sin-or-something https://tlarremore.wordpress.com/2017/09/21/mispronouncing-namibia-a-country-in-southern-africa-is-a-sin-or-something https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi6lOzGuLbjAhXD_qQKHbY0DsYQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https://tlarremore.wordpress.com/2017/09/21/mispronouncing-namibia-a-country-in-southern-africa-is-a-sin-or-something/&psig=AOvVaw1wiyx4o7xDcSyCziv-KNSn&ust=1563263458690211 7 literacy, higher education, vocational training, and employability. The main purpose of the conference was to explore education and employment opportunities for adults who were deaf. ICEIDA then signed a bilateral agreement with the Ministry of Education (Ellis, 2011:6). The project's main goal was to empower Deaf people by increasing their competence in Deaf Education and developing Namibian Sign Language (NSL). With this collaboration, a project document was implemented in 2007, called ‘Signs Speak as Loud as Words’. The project document explains the severe marginalisation of deaf people in Namibia; it notes that at the time only 300 deaf children were at schools and units; that NSL was not in a good position; that establishments for the Deaf had limited resources; a negative attitude that was displayed towards the Deaf, and that commitments from government in policies and laws were not implemented effectively (Bruwer & February, 2019:44). The objective for development was thus to improve educational facilities for young deaf learners and to enable the Deaf in Namibia through inclusion in mainstream society. The Ministry of Education assumed the Bilingual-Bicultural method of teaching deaf learners (Bruwer, 2013:84); however, with no academic progress amongst deaf learners. A study by Bruwer (2013) attempted to determine the effectiveness of Bilingual and Biliterate Education from a sociolinguistic and socio-educational perspective. This study was done as part of qualitative research for a master’s thesis. The study was designed as a programme evaluation, with the goal of determining the effectiveness of Bilingual and Biliterate Education for deaf learners in Namibia. After a logic model tool had been designed for the evaluation, data were collected through interviews, observations, and document analysis. From this evaluation study, the following factors were identified that constitute the success of a Bilingual and Biliterate Education programme (Bruwer & February, 2019:47): • The individual roles of NSL and English at school, • Teacher qualification, • Teacher fluency in Namibian Sign Language, • Parental involvement in school programmes and support provided to parents of learners who are deaf, • Policies, documentation and prescribed procedures, 8 • Sign bilingual environment at school, • Involvement of the Deaf community, • Available instructional material, and • Assessment tools used to assess learners who are deaf. Diversity among deaf learners, however, indicates that many other factors also play a role in a successful Bilingual and Biliterate Education programme. Some researchers mention the importance of parental involvement and language ability, the cognitive functioning of the learners as well as the child’s social-emotional functioning, parental choices about language and age of exposure to a fully accessible first language for the deaf child, early intervention and the availability of Sign Bilingual programmes, learners with additional disabilities, and effective instruction as well as economic and social challenges (Marschark & Lee, 2014:217; Plaza-Pust, 2014:24-34; Knoors et al., 2014:4; Hermans et al., 2014:273). This makes it difficult to prescribe one particular method of teaching. Other studies indicate that with the growth in technological advances such as hearing screening, hearing aid advancements and cochlear implants, more deaf learners will be able to acquire spoken languages. The question that is raised is what the role of Sign Language and Bilingual Education will be for these learners (Knoors & Marschark, 2012:298; Swanwick et al., 2014:296; Marschark & Lee, 2014:221; Walker & Tomblin, 2014:134). While Namibia is still in the process of figuring out a method for Sign Bilingualism in education, technological advancements in other countries are evolving Deaf Education. Early identification and early intervention of hearing loss continue to be a challenge. According to Bruwer and February (2019:40), no prenatal or new-born screening is administered at state health institutions to examine the hearing ability of babies. Only one state hospital in Windhoek (the capital of Namibia) does auditory brainstem response tests and such a test can only be done upon the availability of an audiologist. In the past, high-frequency rattles were donated to various hospitals in Namibia to do testing on babies, but these have not been maintained well and are no longer readily available. Today this method of testing has been abandoned. It is almost impossible to get a formal diagnosis of hearing loss, especially for people living in rural areas. Only a few fortunate children get a formal diagnosis before going to school. According to Bruwer and February (2019:40), there is also no support structure in place to provide support, advice and guidance after 9 formal identification of hearing loss has taken place. No support is also offered to parents as to how they can assist their deaf child to learn. Parents with a good medical aid can apply for their child to have a cochlear implant, should they wish for this. However, no rehabilitation system is in place for children who receive a cochlear implant. This results in these children not fully enjoying the benefits of their hearing aids and soon they opt not to wear it anymore. There are only a few children in mainstream schools that benefit fully from their hearing aids and this is only made possible through outside support to them and their parents (Bruwer & February, 2019:40). Technological advancements are thus not as innovative in Namibia as in other, more developed countries. Currently, the focus is not so much on the diversity among deaf learners with or without a hearing aid as it is on the individual diversities of deaf learners and the various factors that contribute to the success of learning within a Sign Bilingual programme. This makes following a single method of teaching all deaf learners a challenge. In the process of going through the growing pains of Deaf Education, Namibia followed the world in adopting the Bilingual-Bicultural approach to teaching deaf learners. The problem now is to find the best instructional practice to teach this approach while also meeting the needs of all deaf learners. This problem was the motivation behind this current study. 1.4 Research problem According to Stewart and Clarke (2003:4), Ortiz and Ordon᷃ez-Jasis (2010:131), and Alvi and Hameed (2018:18), literacy is the skill to read and write, as well as the ability to comprehend and use written information in your ordinary daily activities at home and in your community. It also includes the ability to think and reason within a given society, as well as the ability to achieve one's goals and develop one's knowledge and potential through the advancement of language. Kuntze, Golos and Enns (2014:217) further add that to be literate, a person should be able to think critically about information and process information in such a manner to be able to communicate with an audience, regardless of the language or modality. A major concern in Namibia is the poor academic performance and low literacy level of deaf learners and the need to understand the reason for this scenario (Mbumba, 2007:6; Bruwer & February, 2019:43). Even though many countries, including South Africa and Namibia, have adopted the Bilingual-Bicultural approach that should result in biliteracy for deaf learners, deaf learners still perform poorly. The Bilingual-Bicultural 10 approach is considered the best approach to teach deaf learners; yet there is a continuous lack of academic performance amongst deaf learners, as studies indicate that deaf learners are still performing lower than their hearing peers do (Qi & Mitchell, 2012:14; Knoors & Marschark, 2012:14; Hrastinski & Wibur, 2016:156; Mayer & Trezek, 2019:8). The theoretical foundation of the Bilingual Deaf Education approach based on Cummin’s (1981) linguistic interdependence hypothesis, which argues that first-language competency is essential in order to develop a second language, is now questioned, as what was projected are not happening in schools for deaf learners. Even though Deaf people can become proficient readers and writers, the challenge remains in finding an appropriate instructional approach to obtain the desired results (Mahshie, 1995:xiii). Schirmer and Williams (2003:110) state that pre-literacy starts at home and later advances in school. This is an even bigger challenge as deaf learners not only differ from their hearing peers, but also vary greatly among themselves regarding their various family and social backgrounds as well as language use, and overall, their holistic development (also see Howerton-Fox & Falk, 2019:2; Ntinda, Thwala & Tfusi, 2019:79). The study will be guided by the following research questions: • What is the language ability of junior primary learners at the school? • How can biliteracy skills in deaf learners improve after the application of an intervention programme? • How can deaf learners be supported by teachers and parents to become biliterate? • What challenges does the school experience in the implementation of a biliteracy programme? 1.5 Purpose, aims and objectives The assertion on which the bilingual model for deaf learners was based, believed that if a child's natural Sign Language was completely developed and employed as the primary language of education, literacy in a second language (spoken language) would develop as well (Mayer & Leigh, 2010:176). Concerns are now raised, because what the bilingual model was based on does not happen at schools for the deaf. However, for this research, the researcher did not condemn the 11 model, but used it as the aim of this study, namely to find the best applicability of the bilingual model at a school for the deaf in Namibia. The objectives were: • To determine the language ability of deaf learners. • To determine how biliteracy skills in deaf learners can improve after the application of an intervention programme. • To explore the roles of teachers and parents in the support of biliteracy for deaf learners. • To explore challenges faced in implementing a biliteracy programme at a school for deaf learners. 1.6 Theoretical framework This study is grounded in the work of two prominent theorists who have strived to explain the nature of social learning. The researcher will begin with the work of Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive learning theory and then link it with views of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) bio-ecological systems theory. The attempt is to obtain a better comprehension in respect of the role of a child’s home and school environment on his or her learning and literacy development. 1.6.1 Bandura’s theory It is argued that social cognitive theory has its roots in behaviourism; however, over the past decades, cognitive processes have increasingly been assimilated into its explanation of learning (Ormrod, 2006:329). Bandura believes that social variables play a significant role in a child's learning and development (Gray & MacBlain, 2012:91). Imitation and identification are two such factors that are considered as important in social learning in that both factors provide for accelerated social learning in children (Gray & MacBlain, 2012:95). Children copy the performance of others and then they integrate new learning into existing perceptions that have already been adopted by them. Identification occurs when a child internalises entire patterns of behaviour, acting in new situations as they believe the adult after whom they model their behaviour would act. According to Salkind (2004:213), learning is thus not only a simple process in which the child observes an adult and then imitate the behaviour, but rather a complex series of steps in which the child approximates the model’s behaviour through the internalisation of what the adult 12 signifies and then followed by the child’s attempts to match that significance. This means that children could observe others and learn through their observation without their observation essentially leading to change in their behaviour. Motivation, according to Bandura, is a key factor in the link between children's observation and later changes in their behaviour. Motivation, he believed, is an important role in the growth and learning of young children (Gray & MacBlain, 2012:91). The word "observational learning" thus refers to social learning. This is where you can learn through watching other people who function as role models (Bandura, 1977). Bandura further points out that for effective and meaningful learning to occur, the adults (models) being imitated must behave appropriately (Gray & MacBlain, 2012:94). Parents, according to Salkind (2004:212), are the most influential role models in a child's life. As a result, they may be the child's best teachers. This is due to the regularity and intensity with which children and their parents communicate, as well as the great regard children have for their parents and their aspiration to be like them (Salkind, 2004:212). The researcher believes that for the deaf child, these adults (models) also involve their teachers, hostel matrons and adult members from the Deaf community, as they are the adults that the child interacts with the most, especially those children who reside in the hostel. Badura further proposed that children can learn through symbolic modelling. This is where the child engages in imitation and identification of fictional characters, such as storybook or fairy tale characters (Gray & MacBlain, 2012:95). According to the researcher, it can include Deaf role models that are signing Deaf literature, or Deaf characters in signed stories. For a deaf child to acquire Sign Language and Written Language, he or she needs to be in an environment where these languages are modelled. According to the researcher, parents, teachers, hostel matrons and other Deaf individuals are the most suitable models to create such an environment. However, these individuals need to project the appropriate behaviour and knowledge towards deafness, Sign Language, Written English and Deaf Culture for learning of the two languages to take place for the deaf child. It is the researcher’s opinion that deaf children learn best through what they see, which makes observational learning a good option for them to learn a language and become literate in that language. However, they depend heavily on their parents, teachers and hostel matrons to model the appropriate behaviour and knowledge for them to approximate what was modelled and match the relevance to the particular behaviour. Exposure to 13 Sign Language storytelling can also lead to deaf children learning through what they observe from the fake characters in the story. This can be a great help to the adults who are not deaf themselves and that might not feel as comfortable in the use of Sign Language. By incorporating Deaf characters in the story, the deaf children can associate themselves with the characters and be more motivated to imitate not only the behaviour that can be a reflection of Deaf culture, but also the Sign Language used by the Deaf characters. Another important aspect of Bandura's theory, according to Gray and MacBlain (2012:96), is self- efficacy. Bandura defines self-efficacy as one's belief in one's ability to do well and achieve in given conditions, as well as one's ability to take control over one's own actions in order to succeed (Gray & MacBlain, 2012:96). Knowledge and understanding of self-efficacy are especially relevant to professionals working with young children in education. This component of Bandura’s theory impacts how the goals are understood that individuals, be they children, parents, or professionals aim to achieve (Gray & MacBlain, 2012:96). The researcher agrees that self-efficacy is an important aspect to understand when working with deaf children, in that adults in a deaf child’s environment can affect the child’s self-efficacy in the behaviour that they modelled towards deafness, Sign Language, Written English and Deaf Culture. If adults model behaviour of negativity and a lack of support towards any of these components, the deaf child will imitate this negativity, which can lead to poor self-efficacy. Children with low self-efficacy, according to Gray and MacBlain (2012:96), will show themselves in social circumstances as having low self-confidence. This may cause them to avoid tasks that are difficult for them. Instead, they will choose to focus on the negative and frame their thoughts in such a way that they convince themselves that they will be unable to achieve something. Through personal experience, the researcher has observed that deaf children have very low self- confidence in their ability to understand Written English. This thus presents a challenge to the adults (models) in the environment of these children. These adults will have to present a positive attitude, not only towards the teaching of Namibian Sign Language and Written English, but also show that they believe in the deaf child’s ability to learn these languages and become literate. The researcher has also observed that deaf children feel more confident in Sign Language and portray better usage of Sign Language than of Written English. Written English should thus be modelled in such a way so that the deaf child approximates the model’s behaviour through the internalisation 14 of what the Written English signifies and then followed by his or her attempt to match that significance to the Sign Language components that they know. This is consistent with Bandura's belief that developing a strong sense of self-efficacy requires mastery through experiences (Gray & MacBlain, 2012:96). In observing adult (models) or fictional Deaf characters succeed, getting positive and affirming comments from others and understanding their own emotions and feelings, especially towards deafness, Sign Language, Written English and Deaf Culture, the deaf child can develop a strong sense of self-efficacy toward becoming literate. The social cognitive theory, as previously stated, is a learning paradigm that assumes people learn through watching others. They are, nevertheless, active participants in their environments, rather than being shaped by it. These taught behaviours may have a significant role on their personality. While the environment in which people grow up has an influence on their behaviour, the individual self is equally significant. The following is an outline of reciprocal determinism in which behaviour, personal factors and the environment influence one another. Figure 1.2: Outline of reciprocal determinism in which behaviour, personal factors and the environment influence each other (Zhou & Brown, 2015:20) According to Zhou and Brown (2015:20), learning occurs in a social setting, with a dynamic and reciprocal connection between the individual, their surroundings, and their behaviour. Zhou and Brown (2015:21) further argue that an individual’s level of self-efficacy towards a behaviour can influence their imitation of the observed behaviour, the personal. That is, getting the deaf child to trust in his or her capabilities to acceptably complete a behaviour, with the reaction they receive after they carry out a behaviour the behavioural. That is, the child should be able to experience Behaviour Environmental Factors Personal Factors (Cognition, Affect, Biology) 15 learning success as a result of appropriately performing the behaviour. Finally, components of the environment that affect an individual's capacity to accomplish a behaviour effectively, the environment; that is, establishing a conducive setting for better self-efficacy by providing appropriate support and tools (Zhou & Brown, 2015:21). The principle of social cognitive learning comprises learning and gaining knowledge by seeing models. Effective modelling is used to teach general norms and techniques to dealing with various scenarios. Regardless of the effects of models, the complete process of observational learning in a social learning setting might not be effective if the four processes of attention, retention, production, and motivation are not in place. (Zhou & Brown, 2015:23). The following is an outline of the interaction of these four operations. Figure 1.3: Interaction of the four operations necessary for social learning to take place (Salkind, 2004:223) Although it may appear obvious that observers must pay attention, Zhou and Brown (2015:23) think that observers selectively pay attention to specific social behaviour. This can be determined by the accessibility, relevance, complexity, and functional value of a certain social behaviour, as well as human characteristics such as cognitive ability, value preference, and preconceptions for some observers. The retention process will depend on the observer’s memory for the modelled behaviour. Visual imagery and verbal coding assist with and are important for the memory processes. Visual imagery is especially important in early development when verbal skills are Attention Retention Motor Reproduction Motivation Social Learning 16 limited. The production process refers to the symbolic demonstration of the original behaviour. This behaviour will be converted into action and it will be reproduced and demonstrated in a suitable context. During this process feedback is received from others and based on the feedback a person can adjust their demonstration for further references. Through the motivation process a behaviour can be recreated depending on the observer's reactions and consequences when re- enacting that behaviour (Zhou & Brown, 2015:23). The researcher believes that these four components processes can be related to deaf children and how they might learn. It can also bring clarity to situations where learning in deaf children might not be perceived as expected. Questions that can then be asked is whether the behaviour or information that the child is exposed to is as accessible as it should be, if the retention of information is taking place as it should or if the child struggles with memory. If the child experiences difficulty in the first two components, the learning and literacy of two languages can be hampered which might lead to illiteracy in the deaf child. 1.6.2 Bronfenbrenner’s theory To get an even better understanding of social learning, the researcher also studied Bronfenbrenner’s theory. Bandura's approach, according to Gray and MacBlain (2012:97), is more focused on the individual. Bronfenbrenner, on the other hand, adds a layer of complexity by explaining how children acquire knowledge, as well as the cultural contexts and factors that can influence their development. Bronfenbrenner regarded the child's wider social, political, and economic surroundings as more fundamental than Bandura’s work. Bronfenbrenner's theory can thus be best understood as the interplay of children with their surroundings (Gray & MacBlain, 2012:92). Bronfenbrenner (1979) is a key proponent of the ecological system theory and criticises psychologists and educators who are purely concerned with individual growth and behaviour without respect for social, political, or economic factors in which a child grows up. Bronfenbrenner's theory is based on the idea that the bio-ecological system in which a child grows can be viewed of as a succession of layers that are constantly in contact with one another. All of the situations in which the child has direct personal experience, such as family, make up the most inner circle. 17 Ecological theory, according to Doherty and Hughes (2009:43), provides a comprehensive description of the impact of the environment on child development. The many situations in which children live and the manner in which they are raised are recognised as significant impacts on their development. From an ecological standpoint, interactions between systems at all levels are emphasised, and the environment in which the child interacts is given a high priority (Doherty & Hughes, 2009:43). Bronfenbrenner expanded ecological theory to include bio-ecological traits and qualities, confirming his long-held belief that biological properties and qualities are also important in explaining human development (Swart & Pettipher, 2016:12). According to Doherty and Hughes (2009:12), the ‘bio’-aspect of the model identifies the person’s biological self in the development process. The ‘ecological’ part identifies that the social context in which a person develops, are ecosystems because they are in continuous collaboration with one another and they influence one another. The ecological systems theory is a systemic organisation that helps to understand development by integrating broad sociocultural factors in children's lives, whereas the bio-ecological model puts the child at the centre and recognises biological makeup, cognitive capacities, and socio-emotional trails that influence and are influenced by the environment (Doherty & Hughes, 2009:12). Bronfenbrenner believed that development should be researched in the family, school, and community where children reside (Doherty & Hughes, 2009:43). He claims that children are active participants in their development and that parents have a significant impact on their growth. He states that reciprocal interaction between children and parents should be considered, rather than considering maturation or parenting practices separately. Bee and Boyd (2010:338) state that for Bronfenbrenner, it is through the family that the larger society can influence a child’s development. The family can allow the larger culture to reach the child, but it can also prohibit it. The world of children revolves around structures and each structure is linked to another. This organisation of structures is associated with the development of the four systems. The four interrelated systems in Bronfenbrenner’s model are the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem and the macrosystem and they all interact with the chronosystem (Swart & Pettipher, 2016:12). The following is an outline of such a bio-ecological model. 18 Figure 1.4: A bio-ecological model for a deaf child 1.6.2.1 The microsystem The microsystem, according to Rosa and Tudge (2013:246), is the most proximate setting, with physical characteristics, in which a person is positioned. For a deaf child, this can include close family, friends, or teachers, as well as the actions of play and school activities. Swart and Pettipher Microsystem Mesosystem Exosystem Macrosystem Proximal settings in which deaf learner is situated. - Home (parents) - School (teacher & peers) Microsystem exists and interacts within the Mesosystem No active participation from the deaf learner - Parents’ employment - Family accommodation - Health services - Socio-economic structure - Attitudes toward deafness - Beliefs about deafness - Values and ideologies Deaf Learner C H R O N O S Y S T E M Time Dimension of all Systems 19 (2016:14) argue that it symbolises the setting in which children primarily learn about the world and that it is embodied by those closest to them. Within this system the relationships are reciprocal and there is a flow in both directions (Doherty & Hughes, 2009:15). This entails that each person reciprocally influences the other at a particular point in time. According to Swart and Pettipher (2016:14), the microsystem should successively serve as a protective feature to a child in supporting feelings of belonging, love and support. The opposite can, however, also be true in the cases where the environment is not as supportive. The researcher thinks that the microsystem is particularly important to the deaf child, as they are heavily dependent on the support of their parents, family, their teachers and their peers to feel accepted as a deaf person and supported in their language and literacy learning. Their parents will be the models to create a conducive environment for early language acquisition and provide positive motivation for learning. The microsystem can also become a risk factor in the cases where the deaf child will not be exposed to this positive home environment (Swart & Pettipher, 2016:14). In this case, language acquisition and literacy development, for the deaf child, can be influenced negatively. 1.6.2.2 The mesosystem The mesosystem, according to Rosa and Tudge (2013:246), is the link between two or more microsystems in which the developing child is actively involved in. Microsystems exist and interact within a mesosystem. The mesosystem is thus a system of microsystems (Swart & Pettipher, 2016:15). All interactions are also reciprocal in this system, in that the teacher can influence the parents and the parents can affect the teacher, and these can in the end affect the child (Doherty & Hughes, 2009:15). The family, school, and peer group all interact with one another and adjust each of the systems. One microsystem within a mesosystem can be the relation between the teacher and the child in the classroom. According to the researcher, deaf learners, for example, that might come from home environments that are not conducive to Sign Language learning, that are not deaf-friendly or supportive towards the needs of a deaf person, are placed at risk for developing barriers to learning. Such a learner might have a teacher who will provide him or her with a Deaf environment where Sign Language is used for communication and provides emotional and learning support. This support can boost the deaf child’s self-esteem and security. The school can become a protective resource for the child in that the positive experience that the child has at school through the language, learning and emotional support can shield the psychological effects 20 of the unsupportive environment at home (Swart & Pettipher, 2016:15). According to the researcher, the above can be true for many deaf learners with hearing parents who reside at the hostel, and do not have any real relationship with their parents and family members. The school and their friends (peers) can provide them with the needed support. 1.6.2.3 The exosystem The exosystem, according to Rosa and Tudge (2013:246), is the third circle of the ecological model in which the developing child does not actively engage, but can experience its effect at times. The exosystem interacts with the mesosystem of interacting microsystems. Even though the child is not a direct part of the system, all of the social settings that affect the child are included under this layer. This can include a teacher's relationship with school administration, a parents’ career, community services for health, employment, recreation, or the family's religious affiliation (Doherty & Hughes, 2009:15). The researcher is of the opinion that due to economic circumstances, many of the deaf learners in Namibia are placed in the hostel. The reasons might be to save on transport (taxi) money to school or because parents are working and residing outside the capital city, many times on farms or in small villages. Parents can thus not afford to move to the city to be close to their deaf child, or they do not have the financial capacity to pay for commuting by taxi. Months can pass by without any connection with the parents, which can influence the relationship between parent and child. 1.6.2.4 The macrosystem The macrosystem is the larger society that “refers to dominant social and economic structures and the attitudes, beliefs, values, and ideologies inherent in the systems of a particular society and culture” (Swart & Pettipher, 2016:15). The macrosystem differs from the other levels of context in that it encompasses a culture's or subculture's institutional systems, such as economic, social, educational, legal, and political institutions (Rosa & Tudge, 2013:247). These systems aid in the investigation of several main forces that interact to generate the environment in which each child develops. They influence the character of all other levels' interactions, then supply the structure and substance of the inner systems and are explicit to a specific culture at a specific time. According to the researcher, for the deaf child this would mean that Namibian Sign Language, deafness, and Deaf Culture must first be embraced by the parents, family, school community and 21 the individual child before it can become part of the school culture, which falls within the macrosystem. 1.6.2.5 The chronosystem According to Akyil, Prouty, Blanchard and Lyness (2014:45), the final system that Bronfenbrenner introduced was the chronosystem. This was done to examine how external (social) and internal (developmental) changes in the environment affect the person over time. According to Rosa and Tudge (2013:248), Bronfenbrenner emphasises that human development involves both continuity and growth. The individualities of a person vary over time and space. Swart and Pettipher (2016:16) believe that time plays an important role at three different levels: micro, meso, and macro. The chronosystem encapsulates the concept of time and how it relates to the interaction of different systems as well as their effects on individual development (Swart & Pettipher, 2016:16). Rosa and Tudge (2013:248) argue that this represents both continuity in the individual and change as a result of the dynamic relationships that exist between the person, the environment, and the other people in that context. All of these parts are involved in reciprocal processes that become increasingly sophisticated throughout time (Rosa & Tudge 2013:248). The child's growth will be more effective if relationships are developed in an ecological environment with people with whom the child has formed healthy emotional bonds with, that are mutual and enduring. The development of a child will be enhanced if the setting allows the child to see and participate in activities with the assistance of individuals who have a higher understanding and skill and if these individuals support the application of abilities learnt in other contexts and relationships (Rosa & Tudge 2013:248). According to the researcher, the implementation of a Bilingual-Bicultural literacy programme for deaf learners in Namibia can come at a time where the in-efficacy of parents and teachers and the low self-confidence of the deaf child act as barriers to the education of the deaf child. The Bilingual-Bicultural literacy programme can create a positive environment that provides the deaf child with the opportunity to become literate with the assistance of parents, teachers, and school hostel matrons that have a better understanding and skills of deafness and Deaf Education. The bio-ecological system revolves around the deaf child. The child does not live in a solitary environment; instead, he or she is a member of a family, which does not operate in isolation, but rather as part of a community. A deaf child's qualities interact with the environment's 22 characteristics to create a unique system that influences and is influenced by interaction in an ever- lengthening, hierarchically layered context in which the child is a member of a hierarchical whole, according to a bio-ecological perspective of development. Learning is a social activity; we learn from one another all the time. This links with Bandura’s Social Cognitive Learning Theory, which argues that one acquires considerable information by just observing models. In this study, the emphasis will be on working with the multi-layered system of the bio-ecological theory in providing an exemplary model in social cognitive learning theory to bring about success in a Bilingual-Bicultural programme in Deaf Education. 1.7 Research design A programme evaluation within a multi-method research design is used in this study. Johnson and Christensen (2014:54) believe that multi-method research is a strength in research, where quantitative and qualitative methods complement each other. In combining two methods with different strengths and weaknesses, it becomes less likely to miss important information. Creswell (2014a:215) argues that the blending of data provides a stronger understanding of the research phenomenon. The principle objective of this study gives way for programme evaluation. Patton (2002:10) states that programme evaluation entails the collection of information regarding activities, characteristics, and outcomes of programme effectiveness in a systematic manner. The researcher is further guided by what Creswell (2014b:574) states as an embedded multi-method design to embed quantitative data within a qualitative study. The nature of the research problem, which entails the poor academic performance of deaf learners, required both an exploration and an understanding of the process of teaching and learning of deaf learners, thus making it an excellent qualitative study. An experimental research design in the form of a one-group pre-test post-test design is used for the quantitative data collection. Special diagnostic measuring instruments were drawn up by the researcher for the NSL and Written English pre and post assessments. The same instruments were used for pre and post-tests. A case study research approach is used for the qualitative data collection. Data were collected in the form of document analysis of prescribed ministerial documents, participant and non-participant observation and unstructured interviews. 23 Stratified purposive sampling was done for the selection of the participants. Nieuwenhuis (2007:79) states that stratified purposive sampling involves selecting the participants of a research study based on a preselected criterion. The preselected criteria for the selection of the school were that the school should accommodate deaf learners and declare a Bilingual-Bicultural philosophy. The preselected criteria for the learners and teachers were that they should be part of the junior primary phase of the school. The school principal and head of department for the junior primary phase also formed part of the research participants. A full discussion on research methodology will follow in Chapter 4 of the research report. 1.8 Ethical considerations As mentioned previously, this research forms part of an NRF-registered project entitled, “Cognitive linguistic processing and literacy development of L1 and L2 children with typical and atypical patterns of development”. In this regard, ethical clearance to conduct this research has been obtained from the following relevant institutions: The Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Education (Ethical Clearance number: UFS-EDU-2013-0074) and the NRF (grant number: 87728). According to Ryen (2011:418), the three main ethical issues to be considered in a study of this nature are consent, confidentiality and trust. Thus, in addition to the above, ethical clearance was sought from the regional director and the principal of the sample school to do the research at the particular school. Written informed consent was also sought from the teachers, parents and/or guardians of the children who participated in the research. All participants were fully informed about the nature of the study and about their rights to withdraw from the study before the study commenced. The participants’ anonymity is protected, and confidentiality is ensured by de- identifying all participants and by using pseudonyms. The researcher tried her best to earn the trust of the participants and to uphold it. All information gathered was treated as totally confidential and would be kept for at least three years. All records of collected data are kept in a safe and secure location at the University of Namibia. 1.9 Value of the research This study contributes towards a better understanding of the psychology of educating deaf learners. The value of the research lies in the benefit it has for deaf learners in teaching them to be biliterate, 24 leading to the better academic performance of deaf learners. Barriers to the success of Bilingual- Bicultural programmes include the lack of supportive family resources and a lack of appropriate second language (English) pedagogy, as well as physical resources for teaching Sign Languages (Mayer & Leigh, 2010:178). The study produces an intervention programme that contributes to the elimination of these barriers. Parents are provided with support in the form of resources to work in collaboration with the teachers of their deaf children. In the process, a better understanding is reached on how to support deaf children’s literacy development. Teachers gain pedagogical knowledge on teaching deaf learners to be biliterate. 1.10 Limitation of the study An immense limitation to the study was to get parental involvement, the reason being that many of the learners stayed in the hostel, with their parents residing outside the city where the study was conducted. Guardians who were assigned to the learners by the parents did not avail themselves to show up for parent meetings or planned activities. A second limitation was a lack of readily available teaching and learning materials, especially in the form of pre-recorded signed vocabulary or signed stories. A lot of time had to be spent on researching and recording Namibian signs. Within the Namibian context there are limited deaf literature that is pre-recorded. Literature from other countries like South Africa had to be used at times. Another limitation was the lack of readily available assessment material that fit into the context of the study. Tailor made assessment material had to be designed. Lastly, much time was spent on the design and the implementation of the intervention programme, which led to the extension of the data collection period. All the learners within the junior primary phase (N=41) formed part of the research study. The researcher administered the diagnostic tests to all learner participants herself, which also contributed to the timeliness of the data collection procedure. 1.11 Chapter outline The outline of the chapters is as follows: 25 Chapter 1: Introduction Starting with a basic introduction and backdrop to the study, this chapter presents a comprehensive review of the research. For historical perspective on the research topic, an outline of Deaf Education in Namibia is offered. The research problem is explained, as well as the study's goals and objectives. The theoretical foundation of the study is discussed in length, and it is based on Bandura's social cognitive learning theory and Bronfenbrenner's bio-ecological system theory. Further consideration is given to the research design, research ethics, and study value, as well as the study's limitations. The chapter concludes with an outline of the chapters. Chapter 2: Development of Deaf Education This chapter presents the literature review that emphasise Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education and the theoretical foundation of Cummins’ linguistic interdependence hypothesis. Literature that underpins the work that was done by Garcia on Bilingualism in education and the changes that she proposed in the form of Translanguaging is also presented. The chapter concludes with a presentation on Sign Bilingual Education policies in the Scandinavian countries in correlation with practices in countries such as South Africa and Namibia. Chapter 3: Literacy development in Deaf Education This chapter presents the literature review that emphasised the literacy development of a deaf child. Literature that reinforces the roles of parents and teachers of deaf learners with regard to their literacy development was deliberated on. The chapter further focuses on literature that reflects on the biliteracy of the deaf child through studying instructional strategies to teach reading and writing to deaf learners. Attention was given to reading instruction that emphasise the areas of phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension strategies. For instructional strategies that teach writing to deaf learners, the emphasis was on the sub-processes of writing that entail prewriting, organising, writing, feedback, and revising. Chapter 4: Research methodology This chapter discusses the research methodology and gives an outline of the procedures followed in the gathering and administration of the data. It offers detailed information on the instruments used in the collection of quantitative and qualitative data and justifies the reasons for the choice of 26 instruments. Deliberation is provided on the Bilingual-Bicultural literacy intervention programme that was an essential part of the study. Data analysis and validation of the study are explained and the ethical considerations that were taken into account for the protection of the research participants. Chapter 5: Presentation, analysis and discussion of the research findings The research findings and data analysis are summarised in this chapter. It depicts a demonstration of the research design, which is a programme evaluation within a multi-method research design, in order to describe the study's findings. The results of the quantitative and qualitative data collection are explained and debated. The quantitative instrument results are displayed, with scores before and after the Bilingual-Bicultural literacy intervention programme. This chapter also discusses qualitative data to assess the challenges of implementing a biliteracy programme at a school for deaf learners and to investigate the roles of teachers and parents in the support of biliteracy for deaf learners. Chapter 6: Summary of major findings, conclusions and recommendations This chapter presents the conclusion of the study. Drawn from Chapter 5, reflections are done on the main research findings that emerged from the study. Limitations of the study and the importance of the study are discussed, followed by recommendations and suggestions for future research. 1.12 Summary The purpose of this chapter was to provide an orientation and contextualisation to the study. The general introduction, background to the study and the outline of the Namibian situation regarding the history of Deaf Education provided an outline to the plot and storyline of the study. The research problem, aims, objectives, research questions and value of the study were briefly discussed to provide reasons and purpose for the study. A full discussion on the research methodology will follow in Chapter 4. A detailed discussion on the theoretical framework within which the study was based on is also provided, followed by some limitations that were encountered when the study was conducted. The next chapters, Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, focus on a comprehensive discussion on literature that were reviewed and related to the study. 27 CHAPTER 2: DEVELOPMENT OF DEAF EDUCATION 2.1 Introduction Millions of children around the world grow up bilingually. It is simply a consequence of the situation in which they live, either a geographical area where two or more languages are spoken or a community with multiple languages due to immigration (Knoors & Marschark, 2012:293). As the world is increasingly becoming interconnected, the mastery of more than one language can only be beneficial to individuals. In countries like Namibia and South Africa with more than ten national languages, Bilingualism and Multilingualism are nothing new. Despite this, Bilingual Deaf Education remains a challenge within the Namibian education context. In this chapter, literature will be reviewed on the development of Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education. To start with, a comprehensive discussion is done on what Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education entails. Despite high expectations that were set on the Bilingual-Bicultural approach in Deaf Education in Namibia, there is a lack of results that thus far support any success of this approach. In order for the researcher to gain a better understanding of the reason/s for the lack of results in the expectations that were set for the Bilingual-Bicultural approach, a reflection was done and is presented on the model framework that is suggested by Cummins (1981). Furthermore, literature is presented on new insights on Bilingualism in educations, as suggested by Garcia, who has done extensive work on Bilingual Education in the form of Translanguaging. Finally, literature is reviewed and presented on how language planning and policies support Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education in the Scandinavian countries where the Bilingual-Bicultural approach has already matured, in comparison to countries like South Africa and Namibia. 2.2 Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Bilingual Education for deaf learners has no universally accepted definition. Evidently, laws and practices surrounding the role and usage of spoken and written languages differ across different national contexts. However, there is a shared philosophy and set of values that transcends across countries and cultures (Swanwick, 2016:3). According to Storbeck (2016:439), using Bilingualism in Deaf Education as an educational model acknowledges the fact that Sign Language is the primary language of the deaf learner. This bilingual approach identifies that many deaf learners 28 grow up in hearing communities without exposure to a language that are accessible to them and without the natural ability to acquire the language spoken by their family. The spoken language that is used by the community or family is thus accepted as the second language, with the emphasis on second language literacy developmen