Capacitating Creativity: Deaf-centric Writing Pedagogies

Capacitating Creativity: Confidential Customized for Lorem Ipsum LLC Version 1.0 Deaf-centric Writing Pedagogies Michael E. Skyer, PhD MichaelSkyer@mail.rit.edu Workshop for Detroit Public Schools November, 2nd, 12:30-3:30 Overview This workshop is designed to expose you to research and theory about teaching writing to deaf students. It is grounded within a critical pedagogy framework infused with a strong deaf-positive stance. There are three main sections: 1) A critical review of research on writing as it relates to deaf education, 2) Three findings from a study using autoethnographic methods about deaf writing pedagogies, and 3) An activity using case studies about deaf writing pedagogies. Biosketch 1 pK-12 Deaf Education teaching ● ● ● ● 2 Associates/Baccalaureate Teacher Education (Master’s Degree) Regional, national, and international conferences PhD research ● ● ● Arts English Community Education LEGO age range (4+) Higher Education teaching ● ● ● 3 4 Autoethnographic Case Study Grounded Theory General ● ● ● Practicing artist (sculpture, drawing). Published author (research, fiction) Homesteader (woodcraft, livestock, and foraging) Writing and Deaf Pedagogy Research Deaf-positive research This presentation expels deficit ideology and uses I emphasize that deaf writers are research based on positive theories, including: creative artists and critical scholars ● deaf epistemologies and endeavor to illuminate practical ● deaf ontologies teaching methods that enhance these ● educational deaf gain innate traits, based on my research ○ Bauman & Murray, 2014; Hauser et al., 2010; Kusters, De Meulder, & O’Brien, 2017; Skyer, 2015; 2018. about deaf pedagogy. Writing research ● Writing evolved from the record-keeping needs of agrarian societies. ● A genealogy of writing is linked to mathematics and the production and consumption of material goods. ● Writing has a distinct ideological character different from reading, speech, and sign language. ○ Armstrong, 2014; Derrida, 1967; Kress, 2010; Morton, 2018; Ong, 1982 Writing Pedagogy Research ● The history of writing is 12,000 years of change in: ○ media, modality, tools, genre, style, orthography, typing, spelling, citations, argumentation, rhetoric, composition, etc. ● This history is not readily apparent to scholars, researchers, teachers, nor students. ○ Fisher, Frey, & Hattie, 2016; Kress, 2010; Ong, 1982 Writing Pedagogy Research II ● “Writing” =/= “grammar.” ● Writing encourages abstract thinking. ● Writing develops consciousness. ● Writing (and reading) hasn’t affected humans at the epigenetic level the way that oral and signed languages have. Writing must be taught. ○ Blunden, 2018; Curtain & Dahlberg, 2016; Kress, 2010; Vygotsky, 1993 Deaf Writing Pedagogy Research I ● Blundedn (2018) notes: ○ “Writing is a form of language action [that] cannot emerge spontaneously…[Nondeaf] children learn to speak [effortlessly], deaf children will acquire sign [language similarly] if their parents [sign, but] learning to write requires specific instruction” (n.p.) Deaf Writing Pedagogy Research II ● Deaf education literacy research is lopsided and disfavors writing. Deaf writing pedagogies are critically underdeveloped. Problems include: ○ Writing is depicted as ideologically neutral. ○ Writing is assessed with phonocentric standards, exogenous to deaf multimodality. ■ Hunter, 2015; Gee, 2004; Greene-Woods et al., 2020; Ochese, 2013; paul 2009; Skyer, 2021 Deaf Writing Pedagogy Research III ● I produced and organized data about literacy from three texts (66 contributing authors) about modes of language in deaf research. Deaf Writing Pedagogy Research IV ● This data is limited, yes, but it suggests a need for more study. ● It is ironic; for all the words written about deaf literacy, so few are about writing. What we (do not) know ● The literature doesn’t adequately show who deaf writers are or how and for what purposes they write. Research mainly shows rote aspects about texts: ○ Subject-verb agreement, listening, typing, syntax, phonological mapping, functional writing, computer mediated writing, and texting ■ Berent, et al., 2008; Garberoglio, 2017; Luckner, 2017, Plaza-Pust, 2014; Young & Temple, 2014; Wilbur, 2008 What we (do not) know II ● The literature is chronically pessimistic. Consider: “Written English is often difficult to master for many Deaf individuals who grow up language deprived. [Sign languages] do not have a commonly-written form [or] follow English grammar and syntax (Hopkins, 2008)…[Furthermore], untrained hearing teachers who have never worked with [deaf students can’t] understand the struggles of Deaf children [in] becoming proficient in written language. These teachers typically over-criticize Deaf writers [leading to] internalized fears [over] written language inadequacies” (Greene-Woods et al., 2020, p. 20-1) What does it mean? Weak theory and a meagre research base perpetuates the fiction that deaf writers “can’t” and propels deficit assumptions via: Ableism Audism Subtractive Bilingualism Summary of two linked arguments ● Based on a literature review (part 1) and autoethnographic study (part 2), I claim: ○ teachers in deaf education should reject pessimistic research and instead, ○ embrace an optimistic stance about deaf writing pedagogy based on deaf students’ inherent creativity. Rejecting Pessimism & Capacitating Creativity Autoethnographic Research: Method, Rationale, Findings Autoethnography Method: Autoethnographic researchers use their own experiences and leverage their own positionality as the basis for research. Neither “autobiography” or “ethnography” it like a synthesis of the best of both. Data are sourced from real experiences, which are subject to rigorous analysis, including coding and theme-generation. ● Ellis, 2004; Saldaña, 2018 Autoethnography Rationale: Absent positive, optimistic narratives about deaf writing pedagogy, it becomes necessary to write them. Autoethnography provides structures, methods, and safeguards to promote research that may be transferable to other sites. ● O’Connell, 2017; Ellis, 2004 Autoethnographic Deaf Research O’Connell (2017) explains that deaf-positive and autoethnography explores longitudinal data collected from socioculturally unique groups: “autoethnography [generates] a counternarrative to the dominant deaf education research paradigm …When Deaf Studies and autoethnography intersect, [researchers explore and share firsthand] experiences of [deaf] education with the world” (p. 297-8). DATA Present Study Four-years of pilot and longitudinal data collection, primarily gathered from DHH college students in basic writing courses. DATA = Images, written and signed texts, mainly. The student cohort is representative of a broad cross-section of diversity, including race, culture, gender, ability, disability, and immagration, among other categories. ANALYSIS Autoethnography Study No identifiable data will be shown herein. The study is oriented toward my analysis of effective practice in a situated context. It is not universal but may be transferable. (I do what I can to ensure this is possible, but you make this choice). Three major findings (themes) are explored. 1. Theoretical Assumptions about DHH Writers, DHH Writing Pedagogies, and Curricula 2. Deaf-centric Classroom Interactions focused on Knowledge-construction 3. Deaf-accessible Drafting, Editing, Feedback Optimistic Theoretical Assumptions: Finding 1 01 | Deaf students are innately skilled, energetic writers with enthusiasm for developing their craft. Deaf students are always whole. 02 | Writing is a sociopolitically dominant discourse at times agonistic (or antagonistic) to sign language. Deaf positive theory counters domination and creates space for deaf writers as they already are and what they want to become. 03 | ASL and written English are equipotential. Deaf students use bimodal languages and multimodal communication. 04 | Multimodality pedagogy is infinitely creative; when used in teaching, it reappears in the products of learning. Kress, 2010; Meath-Lang, 1996; Skyer 2021; Skyer & Cochell, 2020; Vygotsky 1993 Data supports the theory (F1) ● With encouragement, deaf students create multimodal texts using visual strengths in learning. ● Critical pedagogic inputs enable critical thinking in students. ● Deaf students are capable of metacognition and sophisticated thinking, including analyses of aesthetics, ethics, rhetoric. ● What do you see? Pedagogy and Didactics: Teaching methods derived from Finding 1 ● Support students’ initial and ongoing efforts at creativity. ● ● Depict students as developing artist-writers and describe them and their work as such. Use ASL creatively to facilitate collective analysis and describe inexplicit features. ● Explore your own personal texts as springboards, including ○ Cutup method and ○ Time-compressed video. ● What have you tried? ● ● Leverage student in-progress work as exemplars for ongoing study. Elicit responses from students about successful texts written by themselves and their peers. Creative Deaf-centric Knowledge Interactions: Finding 2 01 | Without explication, how sign language and writing relate is invisible. Bilingual and multimodal instruction is indispensable. 03 | Centralize conflict as a curriculum theme or interdisciplinary theme. Use problem-posing curriculum and listen to your students’ needs and concerns. 02 | Direct instruction in writing should be balanced with classroom-based interactions where students explore texts and make meaning for themselves using social critical thinking. 04 | Use multimodality as a creative resource for exploring ideas. Including multimodality in teaching shows students that it is a valid form of knowledge in their learning. Encourage students to make their own images, graphic organizers, and visual tools. Freire, 2007; Meath-Lang, 1996; Ranciere, 2012; Skyer & Cochell, 2020; Vygotsky 1993 Data supports the claim (F2) Conflict-based curricula include: rhetorical features and ethical conflicts: ● critical analyses concerning advanced AI and robotics; ● ethical analyses of epidemiological crises (e.g., COVID, obesity, CIs); ● summative research on developmental neuroscience in teenagers ● argumentation evaluation regarding medical marijuana legalization; ● synthesizing claims about internet and digital-gaming addictions; ● What do you see? Pedagogy and Didactics: Teaching methods derived from Finding 2: ● “Chunk” direct instruction and interactive activities in 5-8 minute segments. ● Try low-stakes assignments to encourage students to begin working: ○ E.g., think-pair-share, open-ended questions, free writing, sketchnotes ○ (Writing need not begin as writing) ○ Once work begins, students are more likely to continue. (Getting started is the hardest part for many). ● Ask students to think about art, reading, writing, and their own thinking. ● Encourage social critical thinking, ask your students to interview one another. ● Show students multimodal and bilingual texts, including videos of sign language, images, writing in various stages. ● Let students create and self-evaluate bilingual and multimodal portfolios. ● What have you tried? Deaf-accessible drafting, feedback, and editing: Finding 3 01 | Feedback is cerebral and emotional; teachers must consider both the academic and socioemotional needs of deaf writers. 03 | Balance depth and intensity of feedback with volume and purpose. Use the principles of “triage” to determine what is most important within given stages of writing. 02 | Avoid the “blood of the red pen” in creative ways. Conceptualize in-class work time to include structured and unstructured writing, feedback, and editing. Deliver feedback in face-to-face modes. 04 | Not every assignment needs to be graded. And not every graded assignment needs to be graded by you. 05 | Write more. Write with your students. Berent, et al., 2009; Meath-Lang, 1996; Skyer 2021; Vygotsky 1993 Data supports the claim (F3) The Power [of] Questioning: Facundo Element (2012) “Critical [deaf] pedagogy emphasizes the knowledge gained by asking questions” [3:28-3:37] Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I-KmxMliCE Pedagogy and Didactics Teaching methods derived from Finding 3: ● ● ● Explore writing using open-ended questions, like ○ “What do you see? ○ What did you notice? ○ How did that make you feel?” Presage drafting with direct instruction, including examples where appropriate from prior student cohorts. ● Write constructive feedback for your students that focuses on the work and not the person who made it and seeks to improve the written products. ● Sequence feedback carefully; in early drafts focus on ideas, focus on grammar and form in later drafts. ● Support students with “debrief” activities that unpack significant learning experiences. ● What have you tried? Leverage digital tools, such as Track-Changes, which can support images, memes, and emojis. Interaction: Case study and Discussion Qs Methodological Snapshot: Case Studies (Skyer, 2021) Interactive Case Study Analysis Below are two case study summaries of faculty in higher deaf education. Choose one that interests you. As you read, consider the following questions: How do Tessa Rose and Astoria capacitate creativity? A final consideration ● The research literature is too limited. We desperately need descriptions of effective deaf writing pedagogy from practicing teachers in pK-12 deaf education. ● Researchers and teachers need general accounts of creative, successful pedagogies adapted for or better constructed with deaf groups and individuals from: ○ singly- or multiply-marginalized communities, including language-deprived or multiply disabled deaf pupils, deaf BIPOC students, deaf LGBTQIA+ individuals, and tricultural-multicultural deaf immigrants and refugees. ● You can be part of this by writing your own research studies, perhaps using case studies or autoethnographies. ● Write now. Right now. Thank you! Questions. Feedback. Discussion. MichaelSkyer@mail.rit.edu For references, see next slide. References and Works Consulted: Albertini, J. A., & Schley, S. (2011). Writing: Characteristics, instruction, and assessment. In M. Marschark, & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education (Vol.1, 2nd Ed.) (pp. 130-143). New York: Oxford: Oxford University Press. Armstrong, D. (2014). Deaf gain in evolutionary perspective. In H-D. L. Bauman, & J. J. Murray (Eds.), Deaf gain: Raising the stakes for human diversity (pp. 77-94). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Bauman, H-D. L., & Murray, J. J. (2014). Deaf gain: Raising the stakes for human diversity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Berent, G. P., Kelly, R., Schmitz, K., & Kenny, P. (2008). Visual input enhancements via essay coding results in deaf learners’ long-term retention of improved English grammatical knowledge. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14(2), 191-204. Blunden, A. (2018). Some principles relevant to the evolution of language. Ethical Politics. https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/evolution-language.htm Bookchin, M. (2005). The ecology of freedom: The emergence and dissolution of hierarchy. AK Press. Brueggemann, B.J. (2008). “Think-between: A deaf studies commonplace book.” In K. Lindgren, D. DeLuca, and D.J. Napoli (Eds.). Signs and Voices: Deaf Culture, identity, language, and arts. (pp. 30-42). Gallaudet University Press. Washington, DC. Cawthon, S. W. & Garberoglio (2017). Research in deaf education. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Christensen, K. M. (Ed.). (2010). Ethical considerations in educating children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Cherryholmes, C. (1999). Reading pragmatism. Teachers College Press: New York. Curtain, H. & Dahlberg, C.A. (2016). Languages and Learners: Making the Match: World Language Instruction in K-8 Classrooms and Beyond. (5th Edition). Pearson: New York: NY. Czubek, T. (2021). Crossing the divide: The bilingual grammar curriculum. In C. Enns, J. Henner, & L. McQuarrie (Eds.), Discussing Bilingualism in deaf children: Essays in honor of Robert Hoffmeister (pp. 150-170). Routledge. Delk, L. & Weidekamp, B.S.W. (2000). Shared reading project: Evaluating implementation processes and family outcomes. Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center. Gallaudet University, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: https://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/national-resources/documents/clerc/SRP.pdf Derrida, J. (1967/1998). Of grammatology. Johns Hopkins University Press. Di Perri, K. A. (2021). The Bedrock Literacy curriculum. In C. Enns, J. Henner, & L. McQuarrie (Eds.), Discussing Bilingualism in deaf children: Essays in honor of Robert Hoffmeister (pp. 132-149). Routledge. Ellis, C. (2004). “The ethnographic I”: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Alta Mira: Walnut Creek, CA Facundo Element’s (2012), “The Power of Listening and Questioning,” Video. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I-KmxMliCE Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Hattie, J. (2016). Visible Learning for Literacy: Implementing Practices that Work Best to Accelerate Student Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA/London, UK: Corwin/SAGE. Freire, P. (2007). Pedagogy of the oppressed (pp. 36-69). New York: Continuum. Garberoglio, C.L. (2017). Secondary analyses with large-scale data in deaf education research. In S. Cawthon and C.L. Garberoglio (Eds). Research in deaf education: Contexts, challenges, and considerations. (pp. 121-140). Oxford University Press. Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: a global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Publishers. Garcia, O., & Cole, D. (2014). Deaf gains in the study of bilingualism and bilingual education. In H-D. L. Bauman, & J. J. Murray (Eds.), Deaf gain: Raising the stakes for human diversity (pp. 95-111). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. García-Fernández, C. (2020). “Intersectionality and autoethnography: deafblind, deafdisabled, deaf and hard of hearing-Latinx children are the future.” Journal Committed to Social Change on Race and Ethnicity 6(1), 41-67. Gargulio, R. M., & Bouck, E. C. (2021). Special education in contemporary society (7th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gee, J. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. Routledge: New York. Graham, P. J., & Horejes, T. P. (2017). Why positionality matters in deaf education research: An insider ethnographic perspective. In S. W. Cawthon, & C. L. Garberoglio (Eds.), Research in Deaf Education (pp. 55-74). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Greene-Woods, A., Delgado, N.J. Buchanan, B., Sides, M., & Benmanesh, A.A. (2020). "Deaf Cultural Capital and its conflicts with hearing culture: navigational successes and failures JADARA, 54(1), 15-30. Gulati, S. (2019). Language deprivation syndrome. In N.S. Glickman & W.C. Hall, (Eds.), Language deprivation and deaf mental health. (pp. 24-46). New York, NY: Routledge. Hunter, L. (2015). The embodied classroom: Deaf gain in multimodal composition and digital studies. Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, 8, 1-19. Knoors, H., & Marschark, M. (2014). Teaching deaf learners. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York: Routledge. Kuntze, M. & Golos, D. (2021). Revisiting rethinking literacy. In C. Enns, J. Henner, & L. McQuarrie (Eds.), Discussing Bilingualism in deaf children: Essays in honor of Robert Hoffmeister (pp. 99-112). Routledge. Kusters, A., De Meulder, M., & O’Brien, D. (2017). Innovations in deaf studies: Critically mapping the field. In Deaf studies: The role of deaf scholars. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Leigh, I.W. & Andrews, J.F. (2017). Deaf people and society: psychological, sociological, and educational perspectives, 2nd Edition. Routledge. Luckner, J. L. (2017). Research synthesis. In S. W. Cawthon, & C. L. Garberoglio (Eds.), Research in Deaf Education (pp. 325-340). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Marschark, M., Sapere, P., Convertino, C. M., Mayer, C., Wauters, L., & Sarchet, T. (2009). Are deaf students’ reading challenges really about reading? American Annals of the Deaf, 154(4), 357-370. Marschark, M., Tang, G., & Knoors, H. (2014). Bilingualism and bilingual deaf education. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Meath-Lang, B. (1996). Culture and language diversity in the curriculum: Toward reflective practice. In I. Parasnis Cultural and language diversity and the deaf experience. Cambridge University Press. Mertens, D. M. (2020). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (5th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morton, T. (2018). Dark ecology: For a logic of future coexistence. Columbia University Press. Murakami, H. (1989) Wild Sheep Chase. Vintage International. O’Connell, N. (2017). Writing the deaf self in autoethnography. In S. Cawthon and C.L. Garberoglio (Eds). Research in deaf education: Contexts, challenges, and considerations. (pp. 297-316). Oxford University Press. Ochse, E. (2013). “English for specific purposes and the deaf professional: the SignMedia Project.” In E. Momagała-Zyśk (Ed.). English as a foreign language for deaf and hard of hearing persons in Europe. Wydawnictwo Kul: Lublin, PL. Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy. The technologizing of the word. Methuen and Co. Paul, P. V. (2009). Language assessment. Language and Deafness (4th Edition). Sudsbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Plaza-Pust, C. (2014). Language development and language interaction in sign bilingual language acquisition. In M. Marschark, G. Tang, & H. Knoors (Eds.), Bilingualism and bilingual deaf education (pp. 23-53). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Rancière, J. (2010). Dissensus: On politics and aesthetics. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Saldaña, J. (2018). Researcher, analyze thyself. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1-7). DOI: 10.1177/i609406918801717 Skyer, M.E. (2020). Invited article: The bright triad and five propositions: Toward a Vygotskian framework for deaf pedagogy and research. American Annals of the Deaf, 164(5), 577–591. Skyer, M.E. (2021). Pupil Pedagogue: Grounded Theories about Biosocial Interactions and Axiology for Deaf Educators. Doctoral dissertation. University of Rochester. ProQuest. Skyer, M.E. (2011). God is deaf. Association of Late Deafened Adults (ALDA) Reader. ALDA Conference Proceedings, October 26th-30, 2011. pp. 48-52. Link. Skyer, M.E. (2015). Deaf ecologies. Book review of Bauman, H.-D.L. & Murray, J.J. (Eds). Deaf gain: Raising the stakes for human diversity. doi:10.1093/deafed/env036 Skyer, M.E. & Cochell, L. (2020). "Aesthetics, Culture, Power: Critical Deaf Pedagogy and ASL Video-Publications as Resistance-to-Audism in Deaf Education and Research." Critical Education, 11(15), 1-26. Link. Sound of Metal (2020). Amazon. Film. Link. Swanwick, R. (2017). Languages and languaging in deaf education: A framework for pedagogy. Oxford. Toscano, R. M., McKee, M., & Lepoutre, D. (2002). Success with academic English: reflections of deaf college students. American Annals of the Deaf, 147(1), 5-23. Vygotsky, L. S. (1993). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: The fundamentals of defectology (abnormal psychology and learning disabilities) (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Plenium Press. Wilbur R.B. (2008). “Success with deaf children: How to prevent failure.” In K. Lindgren, D. DeLuca, and D.J. Napoli (Eds.). Signs and Voices: Deaf Culture, identity, language, and arts. (pp. 117-138). Gallaudet University Press. Washington, DC. Williams, C. & Mayer, C. (2015). Writing in young deaf children. Review of Educational Research. 85 (4), 630-666. Young, A., & Temple, B. (2014). Approaches to social research: The case of deaf studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 

Pupil ⇄ Pedagogue: Grounded Theories about Biosocial Interactions and Axiology for Deaf Educators by Michael E. Skyer Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Supervised by Professor Kevin Meuwissen Education Warner School of Education and Human Development University of Rochester Rochester, NY Anticipated Conferral: 2021 SKYER: Pupil ֎ Pedagogue 115 Case 3 ± Astoria ± The Change Agent Discipline: Humanities. Image Credit. 6LPLODUWR'HZH\¶V (1934) stance on aesthetics, Astoria weaves a pedagogical tapestry from the threads of experiences+HU³visual, experiential, and multimodal´PHWKRGV are intended to be immersive, inclusive, and deaf-centric (OBSERVATION 2 DEBRIEF MEMO, p. 1). Astoria describes WKLVDVD³GLIIHUHQWZD\RIWHDFKLQJ´WKDWLVmore flexible and responsive to the diverse needs of all deaf students (INTERVIEW TWO FIELD NOTE, p.8). Astoria is mainly a writing teacher who conceptualizes seeing as a process of doing and doing as a process of seeing. Seeing and doing both coexist in a pedagogy that collocates multisensory, experiential opportunities for learning. Her multimodal pedagogy is interactive and rejects passivity. It is decidedly agentive. Astoria believes that deaf pedagogy is plural. She describes multiple ways of being deaf and knowing and learning as a deaf person, these are informed by her own experiences and her research$VWRULD¶Vpractices are actualized via visual and multimodal knowledge forms used within dialogic, interactive, and experiential processes. In addition to deaf-centric values, Astoria emphasi]HVWKDWGHDISHGDJRJ\PXVWGUDZRQ³GHDIHSLVWHPRORJ\RURQWRORJ\>«@GHDIZD\VRI NQRZLQJEHLQJDQGGRLQJ´ MEMBER CHECKING DOCUMENT, p. 29). Her pedagogical journey is about multiple transformations; it shows changes from the role of deaf learner to that of deaf teacher of SKYER: Pupil ֎ Pedagogue deaf learners, then, from deaf faculty to critical deaf activist. Astoria works in solidarity with deaf communities in an active struggle toward sociopolitical equity. Pedagogy is one means by which Astoria achieves her goal. To make real, lasting changes to deaf education systems, it is QHFHVVDU\WR³VWDQG\RXUJURXQG´LQWKHIDFHRIDQWLGHDIELRSRZHUDQGDXGLVWRSSUHVVLRQ² particularly at administrative and political levels (INTERVIEW 1 FIELD NOTE, p. 2). Although changes do not always occur immediately, the fight remains important. Astoria notes that deaf faculty nearly always have to work harder than nondeaf faculty to adapt spaces and materials to be accessible. They even need to do things differently with their bodies to adapt spaces to themselves and to their students; these are things nondeaf faculty do not do or have a need to. $VWRULD¶VHWKLFDOFRGHLVVXPPDUL]HGDVVRFLDOO\-sustaining and autonomy-supportive. Her ethical code is enfleshed in her teaching and via embodied, multimodal discourses, where her students learning is experiential and enacted, sometimes using novelty items like avocados as realia or as metaphor for writing. Astoria deeply values autonomy as a desired outcome and designs her pedagogy on this axiological principle. As such, her students learn cognitively and metacognitively, socially, academically, and politically toward their own self-actualization. $VWRULD¶VRZQsocio-biography mirrors this pattern, from one for whom educational decisions were made (an object-position), toward becoming the decision-maker, the creative designer, and curator of curriculum (a subject-position). 2I$VWRULD¶VLQWHUDFWLYHPXOWLPRGDOWRROVRQHVWDQGVRXW7KH³$UWLFOH'LVFXVVLRQ7RRO´ (ADT) is an instrument of her own design, used to dissect a challenging, peer-reviewed academic text deemed too difficult for deaf undergraduates to fully understand independently. To support in-class, group-based discussion, the ADT uses a multi-column schematic to aid comprehension. Via her scaffolding, class members collectively disaggregate the information and then represent 116 SKYER: Pupil ֎ Pedagogue it visually. They transform what was a text into visual analytic clusters and themes. The ADT also supports critical questioning through social interaction. It constitutes a form of social critical thinking. $V$VWRULD¶VVWXGHQWVZRUNWRSUHVHUYHDQGFODULI\WKHHSLVWHPRORJLFDOFRQWHQWWKH\ substantially change the form of knowledge; as such the tool uses multimodal transduction. In this instance, a monomodal linear text is changed to become increasingly multimodal with the inclusion of visual graphic elements and lively discussions. $VWRULD¶VSHGDJRJ\LVERWKVHTXHQWLDO FKDLQ-like) and processual (web-like). She often begins simply and adds new modes as necessary, often spontaneously constructing curricular pathways as needs arise and change. Astoria explains that if students are not understanding the material, additional methods and modes need to be included, in additive fashion. This was apparent in classroom observations. For instance, Astoria began with English text, then added an ASL explanation, then pivoted toward other visual supports, including (in sequence): annotation, drawing, a Google Image Search, a diagram, and finally, a pantomime skit. This procession was done to provide a rich, multimodal experience that explicated the concept under investigation² ethical judgement. Modal addition continues until Astoria judges that a supermajority of students has successfully learned or can apply the material, usually HYLQFHGLQVWXGHQW¶VZULWLQJRU$6/ $VWRULD¶VSHGDJRJ\GUDZVRQnumerous embodied semiotic modes. Her toolkit makes use of movement of the body in physical space (MOTBIPS), gesture, and nonlanguage modes like drawing. Communication-based discourses coexist alongside language-based discourses, in ASL DQG(QJOLVK$VWRULD¶VSHGDJRJ\JHQHUDWHVFKDQJHRYHUWLPHERWKLQWKHSUD[LVRIVHOI-evaluation SHGDJRJ\FXUULFXOXPDVVHVVPHQW DQGLQKHUVWXGHQWV¶FODVVURRPZRUN&KDQJHIRU$VWRULDLV an imperative²in classroom teaching, and for deaf pedagogy as a whole. In this struggle to EHFRPH$VWRULDUHIOHFWVRQWKHQHHGIRUFRQWLQXHGFKDQJH³>,FKDQJH@EHFDXVHOHDUQLQJDQG 117 SKYER: Pupil ֎ Pedagogue knowledge are important to me. Deaf education is important to me. Deaf learners are important WRPH´(MEMBER CHECKING DOCUMENT, p. 53) 7ZRVWXGHQWVLQ$VWRULD¶VFODVVHVDUHQRWHG7KHILUVWis an Afro-Caribbean student, who is an immigrant now learning ASL as a fourth language. She uses ASL to learn about academic English writing. Her story is one of indominable work ethic and incessant struggle, economically and in learning. While I observed the student participating meaningfully in critical analysis and groups discussions, she also lives with a severe developmental language disorder, which is visible in her signing and writing. Astoria worked extensively via differentiated and direct instruction (during class and office hours); however, the student could not pass. This outcome is not unique in deaf education, particularly for students with language deprivation. The next student is a White hard of hearing student who wears a cochlear implant. She is an avid reader and eager writer who is supported by C-Print, a transliteration technology. Captions are produFHGWKLVZD\DQLQWHUSUHWHUWUDQVODWHV$VWRULD¶V$6/LQWRVSRNHQ(QJOLVK relayed to an offsite captionist, who types the message. The text is read by the student in delayed, but close to real-time via a bright orange internet-enabled device. Astoria notes that this VWXGHQWV¶ ³head is always in the computer´ (OBSERVATION 2 FIELD NOTE, p. 5). While physically present, she is virtually-always looking at the C-print device. Only in fleeting glances can she attend to other interactions. This student illustrates the profound impact of divided gaze and the potential for technologies to subvert, rather than support, social learning processes. Deaf faculty members like Astoria actively work against information-loss. While not always successful, they add semiotic resources until they achieve satisfactory representations and accurate transductions. More modes, tools, and interactions are usually QHHGHG7KLVSUD[LVWRRLVJDLQHGE\H[SHULHQFH³,teach this way because I learn WKLVZD\´(ELICITATION TASK MEMO, p. 2). 118 SKYER: Pupil ֎ Pedagogue Case 6 ± 127 Tessa Rose ± The (Curious) Crow Discipline: Humanities. Image credit. ³7KHUHZDVWKLVlight of understanding in her eyes«´ INTERVIEW FIELD NOTE, p.2). I had asked Tessa Rose about her earliest memory in deaf education. Captured in the preceding quote LV7HVVD5RVH¶Vrecollection of teaching a Shakespeare play to a deaf person who happened to be her younger sibling. In her career, Tessa Rose has constructed (and reconstructed) her approach to deaf pedagogy. Its most recent iteration is centered around visual perception, cultural ways of seeing, and multimodal analysis. It overtly values deaf eyes (Dye, 2014). Hers is a borderlands tale, which unfolds in changing states of being. Relying on the logic of both/and, not either/or, Tessa Rose shifts back and forth between binaries of her identity that are inclusive rather than exclusive. Tessa Rose is: nondeaf/deaf, artist/writer, poet/scientist, reader/writer, and through all the other dyads, she is emphatically a learner/teacher. Her values about deaf learners, deaf pedagogy, and deaf research are made concrete in the modes and interactions she constantly re-GHVLJQV7HVVD5RVH¶VFXULRVLW\DQGPXOWLPRGDOLW\DUHFRQGXLWVRI power that energize her students. Her praxis leverages participatory literacy, sculptural and digital knowledge, and visual rhetoric. Her infectious playfulness is abundantly reflected in her VWXGHQWV¶PXOWLPRGDOVFKRODUO\SURGXFWVoften about deaf experiences and identities. SKYER: Pupil ֎ Pedagogue Tessa Rose likes metaphors. One that emerged was a metaphor for herself. Tessa Rose describes herself as a crow, one who is perpetually curious about new, shiny objects. For Tessa Rose, the shiny objects of interest change often and result in a pedagogy and indeed in curricula where change is the only constant. In an interview, I asked about the strategies that informed her praxis. At first, she TXHVWLRQHGWKHTXHVWLRQ¶VSUHPLVHV, stating WKDW³VWUDWHJ\´ZDVUHGXFWLYHand revealed little about the complex interactions in deaf education and research.156 Then, taking a different tack, she replied: This semester curiosity LVDWKHPH7KHILUVWUHDGLQJZDVFDOOHGµ%H&XULRXV¶>6Rwe discussed curiosity:] what is that, what does that mean? >«@,SLFNRXW>UHDGLQJVDQG@ often I use film [to show], curiosity its hard >«@,KDYHQHYHU1(9(5ever, in 20 years RIWHDFKLQJµUHSHDWHGDFODVV¶(YHU>:KHQI prepare any FRXUVH@LWLVµnew, new, new, new, new¶HYHU\GDPQWLPH$QGVRPHWLPHV,KDWHP\VHOIIRUWKDW. [I ask]: VKRXOGQ¶W, have set class by now? I can teach in my sleep. If I set my plan, my courses should be UHDG\VR,FDQMXVWJR«KDYHVXPPHUV>RII@«1R(YHU\VXPPHU,ZRUNP\DVVRIIWR develop a new fucking course. (INTERVIEW 1 FIELD NOTE, pp. 5-6). Instead of strategies, Tessa Rose uses themes. A new one is multimodality. It is unusually evident in her assessment practices, which are best represented by weighty crates and bulging portfolios FROOHFWHGDWWHUP¶VHQG2QHRIKHU assignments asks her students to create assemblage sculptures inspired by American artist Joseph Cornell. Her students showcase their artwork and the written texts that complete the narrative in a technologically-enabled, public-facing gallery show. While the sculpture project is three-dimensional and spatial²in a word, multimodal²so 6KHVWDWHG³,KDWHTXHVWLRQVDERXWVWUDWHJLHVEHFDXVH,IHHO,GRQ¶WKDYHDQ\)RUPH>VWUDWHJLHV@PHDQVWKDW, have some pre-established way that I arrive at the classURRPZLWK,PHDQ,GRKDYHDSODQEXW,GRQ¶WKDYH>D SUHVFULSWLYHOLVW@RIVWUDWHJLHVWKDW,KDYHWRXVH´ INTERVIEW FIELD NOTE, p. 5) 156 128 SKYER: Pupil ֎ Pedagogue too are the texts. Using written memoirs as a genre GRHVQRWSUHYHQW7HVVD5RVH¶VVWXGHQWVIURP including photographs, representations of sign languages, colorful drawings, layout, and typographic flourishes to describe their fluid deaf identities and the rich cultural and social events constitutive of them. One student used the principles of multimodal transduction to illustrate the song and dance routines that accompanied an indigenous preparation of bahn tet, a Vietnamese rice dish. Both a recipe and a lavish graphic-novel narrative, the artifact sought a connection across non/deaf cultural divides. These projects are multidimensional, multicultural, multimodal, analyzed by Tessa Rose for content and form. %HFDXVHRI7HVVD5RVH¶VFXULRVLW\KHUSHGDJRJy is a whirlwind, an immersive, aesthetic performance; equally about learning and communication. With themes related to deafness, discussions are often prompted with deaf literature as a springboard for deeper sociocultural analyses. As such²it is, perhaps, no surprise²Tessa Rose thinks of her pedagogy as theatre or performance art7KLVYLYDFLW\LVHYLGHQWLQ7HVVD5RVH¶VIDFLDOH[SUHVVLYLW\ which is like a move projection-screen for emotion. When Tessa Rose is not investigating shiny new objects, writing her own research, or composing her own multimodal narratives, she is learning ASL linguistics. Having spent much of her career using simultaneous communication, Tessa Rose is now embracing pedagogical delivery dominated by ASL. This is done in an effort to construct a deaf-centric, multimodal visual pedagogy that may, perhaps one day, satisfy her own curiosity. 7ZRRI7HVVD5RVH¶VVWXGHQWVVSULQJWRPLQG7KHILUVWis a White deaf student with cerebral palsy who navigates campus in a wheelchair. This student expresses himself equallyZHOOLQ$6/DQGZULWWHQ(QJOLVK+RZHYHUHYHQLQ7HVVD5RVH¶VFODVVand active intervention, he faces substantial barriers to communication by the built environment. Architectural limitations are imposed on him by the physical space. He is bodily constrained by a normative ideology and 129 SKYER: Pupil ֎ Pedagogue 130 assumptions of able-bodiedness. Although he is capable of moving through parts of the classroom, others are structurally off-limits. During 7HVVD5RVH¶V LQWHUDFWLYHZULWHU¶VFLUFOHV every member of the class, without exception, works to rearrange the space toward a collectivist sense of equity. While the space improved, it remained problematic. The next notable student is a White hard of hearing student from ³1DKZOHDQV´ ³12/$,´ or New Orleans, Louisiana. She ZDVUDLVHG³RUDOO\´DQGXVHVDcochlear implant. She speaks to Tessa Rose who understands the student via an interpreter. Though hard of hearing from birth, the student is now, at the age of 20, learning ASL. Whatever reservations she has about her new sign language skills utterly disappear in her writing. Growing up deaf while celebrating the music and culture of Mardi Gras was the theme of her multimodal composition, which included numerous citations, footnotes, and 14 original photographs. 7KLVVWXGHQW¶VSURXGHVWDFKLHYHPHQW captures the Phoenician vibrancy of a post-.DWULQD1HZ2UOHDQV¶6HFRQG/LQHSDUDGH² including vivid descriptions of the brassy-bawdry music, delightfully gaudy pageantry, and, here and there, DQ³RGGJOLWWHUFUDZILVK´ STUDENT DOCUMENTS p. 6). Tessa Rose believes that multimodal visual interactions are necessary in deaf education. They unify deaf groups but also respond to demographic changes and sustain the diversity and heterRJHQHLW\RIGHDILQGLYLGXDOVDQGVXESRSXODWLRQV7HVVD5RVH¶VG\QDPLFFXUULFXOXPLV UHFDSLWXODWHGLQKHUVWXGHQW¶VSRUWIROLRVOLNHZLVHWKURXJKWKHSURFHVVHVRIWKHLUFUHDWLRQDQG FXUDWLRQ7HVVD5RVHH[SODLQV³,DPUHDOO\invested in teaching students and thinking about the process of thinking and seeing [metacognitively], and about making. Creation itself is a process RIFKDQJH´(MEMBER CHECKING DOCUMENT, p. 6). Both teaching and learning in deaf education must be creatively built, she argues. Deaf education must demonstrate cohesion among parts²an explicitly aesthetic dimension of deaf pedagogy²with a unique and prosocial optical power.