THE IMPACT OF DYSLEXIA ON LEARNING SIGN LANGUAGE

0 THE IMPACT OF DYSLEXIA ON LEARNING SIGN LANGUAGE Abstract Minna Moffatt-Feldman, 2015 Sign language learners with dyslexia often assert that they struggle with fingerspelling comprehension and there is no previous research into the impact dyslexia poses on sign language learning or use. This descriptive study explored and highlighted the perceptions and experiences of individuals with dyslexia whilst learning sign language. Focus of interests were language anxieties, any disadvantages to learning sign language and fingerspelling use. In addition, comparisons were made between users of American and British sign language systems. A mixed relativist approach to data collection and interpretation was taken; meaning that both qualitative and quantitative data was collected. This was achieved through direct assessment in using the WRAT4 Single Word Reading and Spelling tests both in English and sign language and through questionnaires. The research highlighted that individuals felt dyslexia did not pose a disadvantage to learning sign language but created a clear disadvantage in the comprehension of fingerspelling. The Wide Range Achievement Test 4 (WRAT4) standardised Single Word Reading and Spelling tests tracked differences between sign language and English use. These identified vast differences between English and sign language word comprehension, yet only marginal differences in spelling ability. Respondents and participants who took part in the research felt the issue was that when reading English words, letters could be viewed simultaneously aiding recall of spelling patterns. However, the comprehension of sign language fingerspelling is difficult for individuals with dyslexia seemingly due to the letters being consecutively produced.

1 1.0 Introduction This descriptive study explored and highlighted the perceptions and experiences of people with dyslexia whilst learning sign language (SL). The oft first taught element of any SL is fingerspelling that has links to the spoken language. To-date, there is very little published research or discourse concerning the combination of dyslexia and SL yet there is a vast amount of accessible publications describing dyslexia and English. This paper serves to identify any impact that dyslexia has on learning SL as a non-primary language, looking for themes and recommendations to make the learning process smoother for those learners with dyslexia. The research included data collection from the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (USA) seeking to identify any differences between the impacts of American/British Sign Language (A/BSL). It should be noted that this research focuses on English as the first language and results may vary for those without English as a first language. 1.1 Sign Language BSL is a language of signs, which has developed naturally in Britain and is distinct from English (Sutton-Spence and Woll, 1998). American Sign Language (ASL) is a natural language developed over time and used by the North American Deaf community (Valli and Lucas, 2002). Despite both America and Britain predominantly speaking English, ASL and BSL are mutually incomprehensible and unrelated to English (Wilcox and Perrin Wilcox, 1997). Both A/BSL have their own vocabulary and grammatical structure, expressed through movement of the hands, body, face and head which, although may have similarities to other countries, are distinct. BSL and ASL both have a vast lexicon of established signs arbitrary (no visual motivation) and iconic signs (visually motivated) in natural, which are used to describe concepts (Sutton- Spence and Woll, 1998, Valli et.al, 2002). ASL and BSL (more so in BSL) have a number of regional variations that mean translations require a skilled language user (A/BSL and English) who can select the appropriate English words to convey accurate meaning (Kyle and Woll, 1985, Sutton-Spence and Woll, 1998, Valli et.al, 2002). This is in contrast to other sign systems that do not have a grammar system not experience regional variations, one such example of this is Makaton (Sutton-Spence and Woll, 1998). The Makaton Charity, 2015).

2 Sociolinguistic variation is rife within both ASL and BSL yet in both, the manual dactylology, or fingerspelling, remains constant regardless of other sociolinguistic differences (Valli and Lucas, 2002, Sutton-Spence and Woll, 1998). Fingerspelling is the only element of A/BSL, which has a direct correspondence with English words using a series of configurations that represent letters to spell out words (Deuchar, 2013). ASL uses one hand to represent all 26 letters (Appendix 8.1) where BSL uses two to represent 25 of 26 letters (Appendix 8.2), with the exception of the letter c, which is produced one-handed. Fingerspelling is used when there is no sign equivalent for an English word, generally a name or place (ibid). SLs also use fingerspelling in initialised signs, those in which the first letter of the word is manipulated in the phonology of the sign. For example, COURSE is an initialised sign in BSL as it includes the handshape for C within the phonology of the sign. A study carried out by the BSL Corpus Project found that only 2.5% of discourse measured was made up of BSL fingerspelling where in ASL this was 6.4% (Cormier et.al, 2015), which had relatively small sample size (under 700). However, results by Padden and Gunsauls (2003) demonstrate a higher rate of ASL fingerspelling of 12-35% for general discourse. Brennen (2001) explains that BSL has a lower proportion of initialised signs in comparison to ASL, likely because of fingerspelling being produced bi-handed. 1.2 Dyslexia Dyslexia is defined as a language processing disorder affecting the reading and writing of letters, numbers and symbols (generally taken to mean musical) to different degrees (Schneider and Crombie, 2003). It is understood that difficulties occur due to the brain s conflict over processing auditory and visual information (ibid). Individuals with dyslexia can exhibit symptoms of weak short-term and working memory, slow processing speeds, poor phonological processing ability and difficulty with syntax and grammar (Miles, 1993). The British Dyslexia Association (2015) state that dyslexia is a specific learning difficulty which is likely present from birth and affects literacy development and language skills. Dyslexia is characterised through difficulties in phonological processing, processing speed, working memory, rapid naming, and the automatic development of skills, which often do not correspond to the individual s other cognitive abilities. When diagnosing the condition, many practitioners use a discrepancy model, which highlights average or above cognitive ability but suppressed literacy skills compared to their peers (Snowling, 1996).

3 It is interesting, and important, to note that SLs do not have any auditory input. When English is spoken and written the phonological sequencing ability of the person processes the information in order to assign correct letters to create words. The core phonological deficit hypothesis has provoked a number of studies, which have resulted in the emerging evidence that weak phonological coding is the founding cause of dyslexia (Nijakowska, 2010). Conversely, other scholars favour the Double-deficit Hypothesis, which argues that an impairment in naming speed is also a prevalent factor in dyslexia (ibid). Moody (2006) explains that those with dyslexia may struggle with reading due to short-term memory problems, which can be aggravated by a slower processing speed. There are also positive aspects of dyslexia that should be mentioned as they may benefit SL use. Individuals with dyslexia are said to be able to create perceptions and are highly aware of their environment as well as naturally thinking and perceiving in a multi-sensory manner (Burm, 2015). Marshall (2012), suggest that dyslexia makes one creative and without dyslexia this creativity may not come to light. Starkiss (2010) describes positive features of dyslexia, which are important in the proper production and reception of sign language use as visual thinking, the ability to read people and above average physical coordination skills. 2.0 Background to Study 2.1 Phonology The phonology of spoken languages is the pattern of phonics (sounds) and how they form words by their varying positions within words (Coleman, 2015). The phonology of SL was initially debated as a concept, as many believed that signs were holistic unlike words (Wundt, 1921). Seminal research by Stokoe (1960) described SL phonology, listing: handshape, location and movement. Subsequently, researchers began to notate phonology with a total of five phonemes including palm orientation and non-manual features (Sutton-Spence and Woll, 1998). One may infer that as the phonological make up of English and SL differ in sound and silence, then dyslexia cannot present itself when using SL. A study conducted by Ramus et. al (2002) showed that 75% of participants with dyslexia (hearing) displayed more than one standard deviation below controls in phonological awareness and 50% were similarly impaired in motor skills. This strongly implies a disadvantage for individuals with dyslexia given producing signs require motor skills. Manually producing a signed phoneme incorrectly, can result in a total change of meaning as it is with the English Language.

4 3.0 Methodology and Method 3.1 Aims and Objectives An online and library literature search elicited no published evidence of research exploring the impact dyslexia has on learning SL, although as separate topics there is a plethora of published research. It was the aim of this research to formulate a substantive theory concerning the impact, if any, dyslexia has on learning SL, based on a collection of experiences. Results were attained with the view to offering answers to those with dyslexia learning SL as well as presenting a learning opportunity for SL teachers and assessors. 3.2 Study Design A qualitative research method best supports the elucidation of personal experience and provide richer data of those learning SL with dyslexia and thus lead to greater understanding of the significant impact, which affects the individual (Morse, 1991, Davis 2010). However, and most importantly, as quantitative data can support themes and serve to quantify and even support explaining them (Hatch, 2002) a mixed relativist approach to data collection and interpretation was taken; meaning that both qualitative and quantitative data was collected. Care was taken to keep a distance from literature until after the research was collected and analysed in order to minimise and researcher bias (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). Furthermore, the focus of the research, other than the theme of personal experiences and opinions of if and how dyslexia affects people learning SL, was kept from participants in order not to influence their answers or provide an opportunity for participants to self-adjust due to observation (Cherry, 2013). In doing this, one must make some ethical considerations about withholding information from participants, yet in this case it was deemed that they were informed of enough information to make an informed decision about involvement without causing a Hawthorne Effect (ibid). The quantitative portion of the research used the Wide Range Achievement Test 4 (WRAT4) specifically the two sub-tests assessing single word reading and spelling. These were completed in both English and SL to track differences in results for comparison. The WRAT4 test is widely respected and used to measure basic academic skills in relation to spelling and reading comprehension and well as mathematical ability. According to the manual, the WRAT4 is designed to be conducted and interpreted by individuals who have the necessary training and experience in facilitating and interpreting individually administered tests

5 (Wilkinson and Robertson, 2006, p.5). For this reason, a practicing dyslexia assessor was sought to conduct the tests with support from the research to relay the manual signed variants. The WRAT4 test has been standardised against a normal distribution and thus test scores completed in English may be compared to the mean of the sample and standard deviations can be considered for significance with x% confidence (Scott, 2015). However, and very importantly, this stands true for the administering of the standard WRAT4 assessment (English) but not for the modified assessment (SL). Converting SL raw scores into standard scores was flawed, given that a normal distribution of the test completed in fingerspelling has yet to be established. The fact that SL raw scores could not be translated into true standardised scores is a stark limitation of using the WRAT4 test in this way but still provided an opportunity to make crude comparisons. This method was devised to be used in conjunction with the qualitative data and compared to see if themes were reflected in the quantifiable data. It was pivotal for the researcher to have a specific understanding of SL, SL pedagogy and dyslexia itself. This could have also been an issue with the potential for a biased interpretation of results. However, the blend of qualitative and quantitative data collection helped to prevent this, as well as vigorous restraint and appropriate boundaries for the researcher and an impartial, suitably qualified, individual conducting the testing. Pre-prepared questions and assessment techniques added the restraint during the assessment and questionnaires submitted through anonymous online data submission and Skype assessments. 3.3 Research Questions The questions considered for research focused on hearing SL learners with dyslexia and were as follows: 1. To what extent, if any, is dyslexia a disadvantage to learning sign language? 2. Do individuals with dyslexia experience the same 'language-anxieties' over their first language and sign language, and if so are they equal? 3. Reception of fingerspelling - do people with dyslexia feel that understanding fingerspelling presents the same problems to them as understanding written words? 4. Are there any significant differences between single word reading comprehension and spelling in individuals with dyslexia whilst using English or Sign Language?

6 5. Are there any significant differences between single word reading comprehension and spelling of those with dyslexia using the Twohanded British or One-Handed American fingerspelling systems? It was felt that through these questions, an understanding around those individuals who have dyslexia in the SL could be developed and strategies that could be used to aid learning could be identified. 3.4 The Sample Social Media played a large part in recruiting participants; advertising the research and an opportunity for respondents to contact the researcher privately in response when required. The criteria for selection was a general diagnosis of dyslexia (were reading and spelling was effected) and that interested parties had been learning of SL. Ensuring that individuals are neither manipulated nor misled is critical to ensuring accurate data capture serving to elucidate the lived experience. In this case, candidates all disclosed that they had a formal diagnosis of dyslexia, and were required to disclose the year of their assessment in the questionnaire. All were asked to review and agreed to the information as laid out in the information sheets. It was felt sufficient as the document only reports results that occurred under testing conditions and explain the impact of the dyslexia on reading and writing English. Additionally, many adults with dyslexia develop compensatory strategies support overcoming some effects of dyslexia meaning that the content of reports could be outdated (Spafford and Grosser, 2005). 3.6 Data Collection 3.6.1 Questionnaires Data collection was undertaken through the use of questionnaires containing closed and openended questions with the majority of data coming from the open, questions as it was believed that they would elicit detailed, deep qualitative data (Appendix 8.4). It was, (and is), important that research questions are not leading in order to minimise influence and bias (McNiff, et.al, 2003). A postal questionnaire link which enabled anonymous data entry was sent to interested participants designed to answer questions about their learning experience and language anxieties in both SL and English.

7 3.6.2 WRAT4 Assessments The original plan was to conduct assessments with 12 adults with dyslexia who had been studying BSL for 6-48 months. Individuals who took part in the assessments are referred to as participants and were tested using the WRAT4 Single Word Reading and Spelling tests in English and BSL. However, after the first 5 assessments a clear pattern emerged showing where by every participant scored lower in SL than in English. At this point the focus shifted to ASL. It was challenging given the scope of finding participants who fitted the criteria, who were willing to take part and that could take part at a mutually agreeable time given the time zone differences. Unfortunately, due to time constraints for the research only two assessments were carried out with ASL participants. All test participants were contacted via Skype, introduced to the researcher and assessor, put at ease and then the five stages of the assessment were explained: 1. WRAT4 Reading Test (Green form) conducted in English Conducted by the PATOSS Assessor. 2. WRAT4 Spelling Test (Green form) conducted in English Conducted by the PATOSS Assessor. 3. WRAT4 Reading Test (Blue form) conducted in A/BSL Conducted by the researcher with careful supervision by the PATOSS assessor. 4. WRAT4 Spelling Test (Blue form) conducted in A/BSL Conducted by the researcher with careful supervision by the PATOSS assessor. 5. Post assessment questions and invitation to fill out post assessment questionnaire. 1. Administration the standard WRAT4 Single Word Reading Test (Green form) As the writing on the WRAT4 testing card was too small to present to participants via a webcam in that case they were presented through flash cards. First 15 individual letters then 55 English words in order of increasing difficulty. Participants were asked to read the letters and words aloud so that PATOSS assessor could note down their answers on the standard WRAT4 testing sheets. The participants were given 10 seconds to vocalise the word, after which they were asked to move to the next word. In line with the testing procedure, testing was discontinued after 10 consecutive errors. A point was awarded for each correct response cumulating in a raw score. This was then converted into a standardised score by using age appropriate tables within the WRAT4 manual.

8 2. Administration of the standard WRAT4 Spelling Test (Green form) The spelling sub-test had 2 sections, 13 dictated individual letters and 42 one-word spellings in order of increasing difficulty. The target word was dictated to the participant by the PATOSS assessor, then presented in a sentence to provide context before being read again, after which the participants wrote down the words in English. When the list was completed they were asked to present the words to the camera for checking. A point was awarded for each correct response cumulating in a raw score. This was the converted into a standardised score by using age appropriate tables within the WRAT4 manual. 3. Administration of the modified WRAT4 Single Word Reading Test (Blue fom) The 15 individual letters and 55 English words were all manually produced by the researcher in A/BSL as required. The participants were asked to then verbally confirm the letters and words. Participants were permitted 10 seconds to respond and were allowed to request repetitions as many times as the time period allows, after which the participant were asked to move to the next word. The researcher was careful not to elicit whether the words were correct or incorrect so as not to create any anxiety for the participant. A point was awarded for each correct response cumulating in a raw score. This was converted into a standardised score by using age appropriate tables within the WRAT4 manual. It is acknowledged that standardised scores in this instance would not be a proven standard result due to the test being modified. Scores would simply act as quantitative guides to compare performance between the standard and modified tests. At the end of the assessment the participants were asked to repeat the Single Word Reading test of the blue WRAT4 in English for a comparison. It is recognised that the participants had effectively seen the words twice, once in SL, then again in written English. This result cannot be relied on due to the participants already being exposed to the vocabulary during the signed Single Word Reading test. Results were of qualitative interest to see how the participants processed the vocabulary with all letters in vision simultaneously. It was therefore expected that their score would improve given their second reading. 4. Administration the modified WRAT4 Spelling Test (Blue form) The 13 dictated individual letters were manually produced by the participants in their specific SL. Participant s productions were assessed for errors by the researcher and results were noted by the PATOSS assessor. Participants were permitted to self-correct. The 42 one-

9 word spellings were presented in the same way. The target word was dictated, presented in a sentence to provide context and then repeated again. A point was awarded for each correct production of the target word using the correct manual letter formations. The researcher was careful not to elicit whether the words were correct or incorrect so as not to create any anxiety for the participant. The raw score was then converted into a standardised score by using age appropriate tables within the WRAT4 manual. It is again acknowledged that the standardised scores in this instance have not been proven due to the test being modified. Scores simply acted as quantitative guides to compare performance between the standard and modified tests. 3.6.3 Informal Interviews The original plan for participants completing the WRAT4 assessments was that 50% would be formally interviewed. After the assessments participants were asked to complete a more indepth questionnaire (Appendix 8.4), which specifically related to the informal interviews. These responses were also used during coding along with researcher s memorandums to ensure appropriately interpreted responses; however only four out of seven were returned. 3.7 Ethical Issues Information was provided to all participants in English seeking permission and included a statement about confidentiality, which was both in the advertisement for recruiting participants and on the questionnaire submission page. At all times strict ethical guidelines as laid out by the British Educational Research Association (British Educational Research Association, 2015) were adhered to, together with gaining appropriate ethical approval from the participating University of Bolton (2014). Additionally, the assessor adhered to her professional code of ethics, which includes confidentiality of participant information, for which written confirmation was acquired (PATOSS, 2015). During Skype assessments, confidentiality was maintained throughout by requesting that participants transmitted in a room where they could not be seen, overheard or disturbed. Additionally, they were subsequently asked to destroy their written contributions in order to protect the content of the WRAT4 test; this was confirmed with participants at the start of Skype sessions.

10 Regarding the spelling test, participants were asked to take a sheet of paper and number it 1-55. The assessor presented the spelling test in the same format but the participants wrote down the words and upon completion were asked to hold their answers to the webcam in order for them to be marked. Again, to protect the format and requirement of the test, they were then asked to destroy their answer sheet. Confidentiality was further maintained by referring to participants by code including reference of country of origin; B1, A1, B2, A2 B meaning BSL user and A meaning ASL user. The country of origin and the age of the participant are the only personal information held due to the need for discrimination of signed languages and translating data in the WRAT4 scales. 3.8 Piloting the research Piloting the WRAT4 tests was invaluable in that many teething problems were eliminated. When participants were assessed via Skype the WRAT4 sheets could not be disseminated due to strict testing and copyright regulations. The English single word-reading test was presented in the form of flash cards (green form) to the webcam to enable the participant to read the words aloud. The first pilot was conducted using BSL fingerspelling with no accompanying English lippattern although this is not how it is presented in real-life. The next piloted participant was presented BSL fingerspelling along with English lip-pattern reflecting a real-life situation. It was decided to continue this through to the formal research in order to reflect the natural production of fingerspelling. 3.9 Data Analysis Method Data was analysed to answer the first three research questions: 1. To what extent, if any, is dyslexia a disadvantage to learning sign language? 2. Do people with dyslexia experience the same 'language-anxieties' over their first language and sign language, and if so are they equal? 3. Fingerspelling - do people with dyslexia feel that understanding fingerspelling presents the same problems to them as understanding written words?

11 The Independent variables are the use of A/BSL or English and the dependent variables are the single word reading and spelling scores achieved on the WRAT4 Test. It seems clear that a useful analysis tool was to use a correlation coefficient, in this case Pearson s Correlation Coefficient was chosen in order to measure the strength, if any, in linear correlation of English and SL during the single word reading and spelling tests (Stangroom, 2015). To test for a significant relationship as per the hypotheses laid out below, the data collected was analysed using Pearson s Correlation Coefficient. This was then tested for significance by means of comparing the probability of the null hypothesis (H 0) occurring by chance with the set significance level (Fenton and Neil, 2012). The control element of the testing was the scores achieved when conducted in English. In this case, variables were reading and spelling in English and separating in A/BSL fingerspelling to address research questions four and five: 4. Are there any significant differences between single word reading and spelling comprehension of those with dyslexia using English or Sign Language? 5. Are there any significant differences between single word reading and spelling comprehension of those with dyslexia using the Two-handed British or One-Handed American fingerspelling systems? For these two questions is was assumed that the null hypotheses is: Question 4: H0 = There is no significant relationship between single word reading and spelling comprehension of those with dyslexia using English or Sign Language? H 1 = There is a significant relationship between single word reading and spelling comprehension of those with dyslexia using English or Sign Language? Significance level was set at 0.05 (95%). Question 5. H0 = There is no significant relationship between single word reading and spelling comprehension of those with dyslexia using the ASL or BSL fingerspelling systems? H 1 = There is a significant relationship between single word reading and spelling comprehension of those with dyslexia using the ASL or BSL fingerspelling systems? Significance level was set at 0.05 (95%).

12 4.0 Results and Findings Displayed below are summaries and finding from the research. These are discussed and referred to within chapter 5. Figure 1: Time period themes Reference Trend Time Periods a The average age of participants was 34.2 years old, with the age ranges spanning 34 years. The average age participants received a diagnosis of dyslexia was 21.3 years old, with the b diagnoses ages spanning 44 years. c 68.57% of participants received the diagnosis of dyslexia post millennium (2000-2015). 51.51% of participants received the diagnosis of dyslexia after they had completed d compulsory education. There was no evidence of any trend surrounding the length of time participants had been e learning SL. Figure 2: Hand Dominance themes Hand Dominance Reference Trend The participants who reported to switch dominant hand during fingerspelling all wrote with a their right hand. b No ASL users reported that they switched dominant hands during fingerspelling. Figure 3: Visual Processing Themes Visual Processing Reference Trend a 85.71% of participants preferred to use their visual memory. 91.43% of participants claim that dyslexia has had a positive impact on their learning b experience of SL due to the visual nature of the language. 30.77% of participants felt the issue with the reception of fingerspelling was that letters are c viewed consecutively rather than simultaneously as in written text reading.

13 Figure 4: WRAT4 Single word reading English test (Green Form) Reading English Participant Age Raw Score Standardised Score Percentile WRAT4 Classification of Achievement B1 33 60 99 47 th Average B2 34 45 76 5 th Low B3 33 58 96 40 th Average B4 28 58 96 40 th Average B5 30 62 103 58 th Average A1 25 61 101 53 rd Average A2 23 67 123 94 th Superior Figure 5: WRAT4 English Additional Single Word Reading test (Blue Form) Participant Age Raw Score Additional Reading English Approximated Standardised Score using WRAT4 tables B1 33 66 111 77 th B2 34 49 82 12 th Percentile WRAT4 Classification of Achievement Above Average Below Average B3 33 61 99 47 th Average B4 28 62 101 53 rd Average B5 30 61 99 47 th Average A1 25 70 134 99 th Upper Extreme A2 23 64 108 70 th Average As explained in Section 3.2 standardisation for SL scores are not proven to be standardised.

14 Figure 6: WRAT4 English Spelling test (Green Form) Participant Age Raw Score Standardised Score Spelling English B1 33 34 81 10 th Percentile B2 34 29 77 6 th Low WRAT4 Classification of Achievement Below Average B3 33 40 91 27 th Average B4 28 32 78 7 th Low B5 30 44 98 45 th Average A1 25 47 105 63 rd Average A2 23 40 89 23 rd Below Average Figure 7: WRAT4 English Averages and Range Reading English Spelling English Average Range Average Range UK 94 27 85 20 USA 112 22 97 16 Figure 8: WRAT4 Additional English Averages and Range Additional Reading English Average Range UK 98.4 29 USA 121 26

15 Figure 9: Impact on English Reference a b c d e f g h i Themes Impact of Dyslexia on English 46.67% of respondents stated that prior to learning SL their knowledge of phonics was poor. 33.33% of respondents stated that their knowledge of phonics has improved since learning SL. 53.33% of respondents stated that their knowledge of phonics remained the same since learning SL. 38.24% of respondents stated that they preferred the use of English over SL. 77.14% of respondents stated that they read for pleasure. 94.29% of respondents stated that they felt dyslexia had an impact on their English ability. 51.4% of respondents stated that they felt dyslexia had a negative impact on their English ability. 80% of respondents stated that reading and/or spelling in front of others caused a negative emotional response. 91.43% of respondents stated that they felt notable differences between themselves and their peers when using English. 60% of respondents stated that reading written English words is easier than reading fingerspelling. Figure 10: WRAT4 SL Single Word Reading test (Blue Form) Participant Age Raw Score Approximated Standardised Score using WRAT4 tables Reading SL B1 33 48 82 12th B2 34 28 55 <1st Approximated Percentile B3 33 46 78 7 th Low B4 28 45 76 5 th Low B5 30 43 73 4 th Low A1 25 54 88 21st A2 23 54 89 23rd WRAT4 Classification of Achievement Below Average Lower Extreme Below Average Below Average As explained in Section 3.2 standardisation for SL scores are not proven to be standardised.

16 Figure 11: WRAT4 SL Spelling test (Blue Form) Participant Age Raw Score Approximated Standardised Score using WRAT4 tables Spelling SL B1 33 37 88 21st B2 34 22 63 1 st Approximated Percentile WRAT4 Classification of Achievement Below Average Lower Extreme B3 33 38 90 25th Average B4 28 28 75 5 th Low B5 30 42 96 40 th Average A1 25 46 104 61 st Average A2 23 40 89 23 rd Below Average As explained in Section 3.2 standardisation for SL scores are not proven to be standardised. Figure 12: WRAT4 SL Averages and Range Reading SL Spelling SL Average Range Average Range BSL 72.8 27 82.4 33 ASL 88.5 1 96.5 15 Average standardised results and the range in the WRAT4 blue form SL tests.

17 Figure 13: Impact of SL Reference a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Themes Impact of Dyslexia on SL 82.85% of respondents stated that SL created a positive emotional response. 80% of respondents stated that they use SL for Pleasure. 41.18% of respondents stated that they preferred to use SL over the English language. 57.14% of respondents stated that they felt their confidence had improved since learning SL. 28.57% of respondents stated that they enjoyed the structure SL. 91.43% of respondents stated that felt that dyslexia had an impact on learning SL 34.29% of respondents stated that felt dyslexia has had a positive impact on learning SL 33.33% of respondents stated that they felt that dyslexia had enabled them to learn SL quickly. 71.43% of respondents stated that they felt dyslexia had a negative impact on their fingerspelling ability. 78.13% of respondents stated that they felt a notable difference between themselves when using SL. 31.25% of respondents stated that they felt a difference in the speed of learning between themselves and their peers. 25.71% of respondents stated that they felt that they needed to work harder and the learning process has taken longer in comparison with their peers. 57.14% of respondents stated that fingerspelling (production and reception) in front of peers caused a negative emotional response. 40% of respondents stated that they felt no emotional response to fingerspelling in front of peers because they had previously disclosed their dyslexia diagnosis. 60% of respondents stated that they felt reading written English words is easier than reading fingerspelt words. 100% of the BSL assessment participants said their issue with reception of fingerspelling was comprehension of vowels

18 Figure 14: WRAT4 raw reading scores Raw reading scores in English and SL highlights a line of best fit that shows positive correlation between the two. Figure 15: WRAT4 raw spelling scores Raw spelling scores in English and SL. Positive correlation can be seen between the two..

19 Figure 16: WRAT4 English reading scores Raw reading scores in English on the blue and green forms. Positive correlation between the two can be seen Figure 17: WRAT4 percentile reading scores Participant Age Single word reading WRAT4 English Percentile point SL Percentile Point Difference in Percentile points B1 33 47 12 35 B2 34 5 <1 4 B3 33 40 7 33 B4 28 40 5 35 B5 30 58 4 54 A1 25 53 21 32 A2 23 94 23 71 Average 48.41 10.42 37.71 As explained in Section 3.2 standardisation for SL scores have not proven to be standardised.

20 Figure 18: WRAT4 percentile spelling scores Participant Age Single word spelling WRAT 4 English Percentile point SL Percentile Point Difference in Percentile points B1 33 81 88-7 B2 34 77 63 14 B3 33 91 90 1 B4 28 78 75 3 B5 30 98 96 2 A1 25 105 104 1 A2 23 89 89 0 Average 88.42 86.42 2 As explained in Section 3.2 standardisation for SL scores have not proven to be standardised. Figure 19: WRAT4 percentile reading and second reading scores Participant Age English Percentile point Reading English WRAT4 English Percentile Point - 'Second' reading Difference in Percentile points B1 33 47 77-30 B2 34 5 12-7 B3 33 40 47-7 B4 28 40 53-13 B5 30 58 47 11 A1 25 53 99-46 A2 23 94 70 24 Average 48.14 57.86-9.71 Percentile points given for single word reading in English of the green form and then the second reading of the blue form, plus the difference in percentile points for each participant.

21 Figure 20: Pearson s Correlation Coefficient Calculations a b c d e f Reading RS Reading SS Spelling RS Spelling SS 2nd English Reading RS 2nd English Reading SS X - Green Form Y- Blue Form x y µ:x µ:y SS x = (X - M x) 2 SS y = (Y - M y) 2 (X - M x) * (Y - M y) r = ((X - M y) * (Y - M x)) / ((SS x)(ss y )) r 2 coefficient of determination Variability % that Y is linked to X p value Significant at 95% English SL 411 318 58.7140 45.4290 275.4290 463.7140 324.8570 0.9090 0.8263 82.63% 0.00457 YES YES English SL 694 541 99.1430 77.2860 1142.8570 791.4290 799.7140 0.8409 0.7071 70.71% 0.01777 YES NO English SL 266 253 38.00 36.00 258.00 416.8570 308.00 0.9392 0.8821 88.21% 0.00169 YES YES English SL 694 541 99.1430 77.2860 1142.8570 791.4290 799.7140 0.8963 0.8034 80.34% 0.02952 YES NO English English 318 433 45.4290 61.8570 463.7140 254.8570 324.4290 0.9437 0.8906 89.06% 0.00140 YES YES English English 694 734 99.1430 104.8570 1142.8570 1502.8570 665.1430 0.5075 0.2576 25.76% 0.24496 NO NO Key to symbols used in data calculations: r: Pearson s Correlation Coefficient R 2 : The coefficient of determination. α: significance level p: The p-value is the probability of obtaining a result equal to or more extreme than what was actually observed. RS: Raw Scores SS: Standard Scores X: X Values Y:Y Values Mx: Mean of X Values My: Mean of Y Values X - Mx & Y - My: Deviation scores (X - Mx) 2 & (Y - My) 2 : Deviation Squared (X - Mx)(Y - My): Product of Deviation Scores Significant at 99%

22 5.0 Answering the Research Questions 5.1: To what extent, if any, is dyslexia a disadvantage to learning sign language? Data asserts that overall dyslexia does not appear to pose a disadvantage to learning SL given the majority of participants citing a positive emotional response from SL and over 40% stating they preferred to use SL over English. However, having dyslexia is a clear hindrance in fingerspelling comprehension. This in turn can cause an anxiety fuelled learning journey shown by over half of respondents stating they had a negative emotional response from fingerspelling in front of peers. Nevertheless, participants continuing with SL and 80% stated that the use SL for pleasure. From this we can assert that the disadvantage of learning SL would hinge on the use of fingerspelling by instructors when teaching. If, however, the process of language acquisition as described by (Krashen, 1987) was followed and learners were treated akin to child learners, fingerspelling use would be minimal. This is in the same manner that young children would be expected to learn new vocabulary, naturally from discourse before learning to spell and read. Additionally, it is important to note that 40% of respondents stated that informing peers of their dyslexia helped to allay any negative emotional responses. From this we can conclude that any disadvantage in learning SL is strongly linked to the quantity of fingerspelt vocabulary that individuals with dyslexia must comprehend before replacing fingerspelt words with an established sign. To help improve the process it would seem that information peers and instructors would also help the experience. 5.2: Do people with dyslexia experience the same 'language-anxieties' over their first language and sign language, and if so are they equal? Over half of respondents stated that dyslexia caused a negative effect on their English ability with 80% citing that reading and spelling in front of peers caused a negative emotional response. This is highlighted in the participants WRAT4 scores given that the majority of results sat in the low and average bands. This results are still superior to the achievement in SL yet the respondent themes cited that only 57.14% felt a negative emotional response for using fingerspelling in front of peers with 40% stating they had no emotional response at all. This suggests that any language anxiety is less of those present in English language use.

23 Additionally, a third of respondents cited a perception that dyslexia helped them learn quickly, which clearly would produce a positive response. In fact, 85.85% stated that using SL created a positive emotional response and 57.14% stated an improvement in confidence. Confidence does not grow in the presence of anxiety and therefore we can assert that language-anxieties in SL are lower than English but there is a vast amount of evidence suggesting the presence of anxieties in fingerspelling (especially receptive fingerspelling). This anxiety appears to be more than that seen in English reading and spelling, which is highlighted by 60% of respondents stated that reading English words is easier than reading fingerspelling and nearly the same stated a negative emotional response. From this it seems that SL its self is not the cause of the anxieties rather just the use of fingerspelling, which as explained in chapter 1 is not strictly part of SL. This could be compared to the difference between speaking and listening, and reading and writing. To directly answer the research, question all the above must be considered together with the subjectivity of the participants, respondents and the researcher. It is concluded however that the language anxieties in English and SL are linked to the comprehension and production of spelt words (fingerspelt or written) in front of peers. The participants WRAT4 test results gives us reason to understand why. Both the use of English and SL give opportunities for pleasure for the respondents with over a third feeling that dyslexia actually gave them an advantage in language use. To consider if the language anxieties are equal is a difficult task given the dynamics and nature of the languages. Many of the participants spoke about the troublesome time they had as children in education and that they still carry this with them but have also developed strategies to cope better in situations. This is not the case with SL, classes are informal and optional with adults who are empathic to the needs of others and the learning of SL. This is demonstrated in the theme of 40% citing that they were not negatively affected by using fingerspelling in front of peers given their disclosure of dyslexia. 5.3: Reception of fingerspelling - do people with dyslexia feel that understanding fingerspelling presents the same problems to them as understanding written words At first glance the easy answer to this would be no. However, this comparison question was not posed to individuals directly rather a series of questions were asked systematically to elicit answers. Respondents were asked questions that focused on phonological awareness, elements of the English language they found difficult and reading/spelling in front of peers; similar questions were asked about SL. It is clear from the WRAT4 tests and the questionnaire

24 results that individuals strongly felt disadvantaged in the reception on fingerspelling, clearly demonstrated in every participant scoring lower in SL than they did in English. A common theme, which emerged throughout the research was that respondents and participants felt the difference between reading English text and reading SL fingerspelling was due to the consecutive nature of fingerspelling. The longer the words, the more information has to be remembered and held to gain the whole. The dyslexia weaknesses in processing and working memory, make this a more challenging exercise. Having no audial input also means there are fewer pathways to the brain to store and recall all that is being conveyed. From results in questionnaires respondents showed themes of having poor phonological awareness and feeling a noticeable difference between themselves and their peers and that dyslexia has had a negative impact on their English reading/spelling ability. Conversely respondents also stated that dyslexia had a positive impact on the SL ability but struggled with fingerspelling. Interesting that over 85% stated that they preferred to use their visual memory but it seems that it is this memory (together with their working memory and deficits in processing), which is letting them down when it comes to fingerspelling comprehension along with their deficits in knowledge of phonics and vowel patters. Additionally, 60% of participants felt that comprehension of English words was easier than that of fingerspelt words. Although over half this figure seems low given the types of words generally fingerspelt (words that have no signs such as places or names). With regards to the WRAT4 assessments participants were straight away put at a disadvantage given the words on the WRAT4 test included English words which do not directly translate into SL or are seldom used in general English discourse. Further research to elucidate strategies that individuals use when comprehending fingerspelling would be beneficial. It seems sensible to assume that participants are trying to process the letters in English but the answers to this is outside the scope of this research.

25 5.4: Are there any significant differences between single word reading comprehension and spelling in individuals with dyslexia whilst using English or sign language? Yes, there is a significant relationship between single word reading comprehension and spelling of those with dyslexia using English or Sign Language. Both the raw and standardised scores were significant at the set 95% level and in addition the raw scores were significant at the 99% level. The drop in single word reading WRAT4 percentile points averaged at 37 places. Spelling however showed less of a difference, averaging at a difference of 2 percentile point difference. This in itself is a significant finding showing that spelling ability is mainly affected. Generally, English spelling presented itself as an issue for respondents whereas the reception of fingerspelling was a specific, more often mentioned issue. Understandably this was so given the WRAT4 results are a true reflection of the level of disadvantage experienced by those with dyslexia it can be understood by reception of fingerspelling is constantly mentioned. This research faced some limitations from the offset given the traits of the researcher. Most of the participants were themselves right handed but the researcher was left handed, which put them at a disadvantage if they were not used to observing left handed fingerspelling. The question was never asked, although with hindsight should have been, which hand was dominant for the instructor and if they had had opportunity to practice with left and right handers. It would be interesting if research were undertaken focusing on comprehension of fingerspelling produced with the left and right hands. Additionally, the researcher is a BSL user and although has been experienced in ASL fingerspelling for a number of years, have not had nearly the same level of practice of signing with ASL users. This could have placed the ASL participants at a disadvantage so their comprehension results may have been higher if a native ASL user had produced the fingerspelling. 5.5: Are there any significant differences between single word reading comprehension and spelling of those with dyslexia using the two-handed British or one-handed American fingerspelling systems? It was unfortunate that in the time scale it was only possible to organise 2 tests with American participants, an instant issue with this proved to be the time zone difference plus perhaps a

26 trust issue. Many individuals are wary about conversing with strangers, especially ones not on home territory. It was attempted, but proved difficult to try to involve educational institutions in the USA to recruit students. From the information that has been collected, at first glance it seems that there are differences in achievement in the WRAT4 test yet the data pool is not large enough to complete a Pearson s Correlation Coefficient. 6.0 Summary and Conclusions This paper served to identify the impact dyslexia has on learning SL as a non-primary language. The study explored and highlighted the perceptions and experiences of people with dyslexia whilst learning SL with and additional focus of fingerspelling use within SL. Fingerspelling was thought to be the most akin to written language and so this was targeted for specific investigation. The research aimed to establish if there were any significant differences between the ability of individuals with dyslexia in single word reading comprehension and spelling via English and SL; additionally, if there were differences between ASL and BSL. Comparisons were made between English and SL using a standardised and modified WRAT4 test, often used by licensed professionals to ascertain the reading and spelling ability of individuals with specific learning difficulties. The available sample of ASL users was not equal to the sample size of BSL users, nor was it large enough to be representative of the population. Still limited comparisons were drawn, which provided enough insight to warrant further investigation. The most striking results showed that the average difference in percentile place between English and SL single word reading was 37 percentile places but only an average of two percentile places for spelling. This massive drop in comprehension ability goes a long way to explaining why over three-quarters felt a notable difference between themselves and their peers when using SL and why it contributes to language anxieties. The BSL using participants all expressed that vowels presented specific problems in comprehending words. The ASL participants went further and describe issues specifically highlighting weaknesses in identifying di-graphs and tri-graphs. This would be a useful insight for further research to look at general sign comprehension of single signs and signed phrases. This finding informs teachers to pay specific attention to teaching vowel combinations, remembering that people with dyslexia have weaknesses in this area. It is also essential that SL teachers have working knowledge regarding the effects of stress and anxiety on a person s

27 performance, these must not be underestimated as they impair memory, reduce efficiency, affect clarity of thought and undermine reasoning skills (Bartlett and Moody, 2001). 6.1 Limitations of the Study ASL users were obviously very difficult to recruit given the late inclusion of this element of the research leaving short recruitment time. It would have improved the reliability of the research to have more ASL users take part. BSL users were also difficult to recruit because many did not have a formal dyslexia diagnosis. In total only 35 respondents were recruited plus 7 participants, 50 respondents would have been preferable together with 12 participants. An even distribution between ASL and BSL users would have been preferable. The WRAT4 test standardisation method, whilst beneficial in highlighting deficits in ability, is not tested or standardised for SL use and therefore was only used as a guide. Pearson s Correlation Confidence proved to be an effective way of processing/analysing the WRAT4 data. Regardless, given the reasoning that SL was the only change in the variable, the WRAT4 test was deemed an appropriate indication of participants had greater difficulty when using SL. 6.2 Recommendations for future research Further research would be beneficial in the following ways: 1. Replicated with a larger sample size. 2. Data collection to be replicated by a right hand dominant SL user 3. Further exploration of the types of mistakes made during fingerspelling comprehension and production. 4. Research to fully ascertain any differences between results of ASL and BSL users. 6.3 Closing Remarks It would seem that the critical theme identified is that SL users with dyslexia are heavily disadvantaged when it comes to the reception of fingerspelling in comparison to their ability in English but less so with fingerspelling production. It has also come to light that feelings of anxiety surrounding fingerspelling is somewhat allayed by the disclosure of dyslexia.

28 Individuals with dyslexia who are currently learning, or considering learning SL should not be disheartened or feel that dyslexia will be a barrier. Preliminary research here suggests that with the exception of reading fingerspelling, many feel that having dyslexia has had a positive impact on their learning of SL. 7.0 Bibliography Bartlett, D. and Moody, S. (2010) Dyslexia in the Workplace: an introductory guide. 2 nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Berke, J. (2010) Deaf Culture - Big D Small D Who is a Small D in the Deaf Community? [online]. Available from: <http://deafness.about.com/cs/culturefeatures1/a/bigdorsmalld.htm> [Accessed 15 th May 2015]. Brennen, M. (2001) Making Borrowings Work in British Sign Language. In: Brentari, D (ed) Foreign Vocabulary in Sign Languages: A Cross-Linguistic Investigation of Word Formation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc Publishers. pp. 49-86. British Dyslexia Association. (2015) Definitions [online]. Available from: <http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/dyslexic/definitions> [Accessed 16 th June 2015]. British Educational Research Association. (2015) BERA [online]. Available from: <https://www.bera.ac.uk/> [Accessed 16 th June 2015]. Burm, J. (2015) The positive aspects of having dyslexia [online]. Available from: <http://www.happydyslexic.com/node/6> [Accessed 28 th July 2015]. Cherry, K. (2013) Hawthorne Effect [online]. Available from: <http://psychology.about.com/od/hindex/g/def_hawthorn.htm> [Accessed 15 th July 2015]. Coleman, J. (2015) Phonetics vs. Phonolog [online]. Available from: <http://www.phon.ox.ac.uk/jcoleman/phonology1.htm> [Accessed 28 th July 2015]. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research 3E. 3rd ed. London: SAGE. Cormier, K., Fenlon, J., Rentelis, R. and Schembri, A. (2015) Lexical frequency in British Sign Language conversation: A corpus-based approach [online]. Available from: <http://www.bslcorpusproject.org/wp-content/uploads/lexical-frequency-in-british-signlanguage-ldlt3.pdf> [Accessed 17 th July 2015]. Davis, W. (2010) The Simple Way to Understand Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. United Kingdom: Amazon Kindle. Deaf Studies Research Unit, University of Durham (1992) Dictionary of British Sign Language / English. London: Faber and Faber Ltd. Deuchar, M. (2013) British Sign Language. 5th ed. New York: Routledge. Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1977). Remarks on creativity in language acquisition. In M. Burt, H. Dulay, & M. Finocchiaro (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language. New York: Regents. pp. 209-233. Dyslexia Action Shop. (2014) Wide Range Achievement Test 4 (WRT4) [online]. Available from: <http://www.dyslexiaactionshop.co.uk/wrat4kit.html> [Accessed 25 th May 2015].

29 Equality Act 2010, c.2. London: HMSO. Fenton, N. and Neil, M. (2012) Risk Assessment and Decision Analysis with Bayesian Networks [online]. Available from: <http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/blog_articles/p_values.pdf> [Accessed 28 th July 2015]. Hatch, J.A. (2002) Doing Qualitative Research In Education Settings [online] Albany: State University of New York Press, ebook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost, [Accessed 4 th June 2015]. Krashen, S. (1987) Principals and practice in second language acquisition. 2nd ed. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall Europe. Kyle, F. (2015) Studying Reading and Literacy Development in Deaf Children. In: Orfanidou, E., Woll, B. and Morgan, G. (eds) Research Methods in Sign Langauge. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd Kyle, J. and Woll, B. (1985) Sign Language: The study of deaf people and their language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ladd, P. (2010) Understanding Deaf Culture, In Search of Deafhood. 7th ed. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Lado, R. (1957) Linguistics Across Cultures. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press Live Science Staff. (2012) Study Reveals Why Lefties Are Rare [online]. Available from: <http://www.livescience.com/19968-study-reveals-leftiesrare.htmlhttp://www.livescience.com/19968-study-reveals-lefties-rare.html> [Accessed 5 th July 2015]. Marshall, A. (2012) Positive Aspects of Dyslexia [online]. Available from: <http://www.dyslexia.com/qagift.htm#980831> [Accessed 28 th July 2015]. McNiff, J., Lomax, O. and Whiltehead, J. (2003) You and Your Action Research Project. 2nd ed. Oxon: Routledge Falmer. Mental Capacity Act 2005, c.9. London: HMSO. Miles, T. (1993) Dyslexia: The Pattern of Difficulties. 2 nd ed. London. Wurr Publishers. Moody, S. (2006) Dyslexia, How to survive and succeed at work. London: Vermilion. Morgan, M. (2009) Cross-Linguistic Typology of Argument Encoding in Sign Language Verbal Morphology. Paper presented at Association of Linguistic Typology, Berkeley Morse, J. (1991) Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue. London: Sage Publications. National Deaf Children's Society. (2010) Hands up for Help: Giving deaf children a fair chance at school. London: National Deaf Children's Society. Nijakowska, J. (2010) Dyslexia in the Foreign Language Classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Padden, C. and Gunsauls, D. (2003) How the alphabet came to be used in a sign language. Sign Language Studies, (4). p10 33.

30 PATOSS. (2015) Code of ethics [online]. Available from: <https://www.patossdyslexia.org/about/codeofethics/> [Accessed 16 th June 2015]. Ramus, F., Pidgeon, E. and Frith, U. (2002) The relationship between motor control and phonology in dyslexic children [online]. Available from: <http://cogprints.org/2349/1/jcpp02.pdf> [Accessed 30 th May 2015]. Schneider, E. and Crombie, M. (2003) Dyslexia and Foreign Language Learning. London: David Fulton Publishers. Scott, G. (2015) The Researcher's Bible: An overview of key concepts and Methods in Social Science Research. United Kingdom: Amazon Kindle. Sign Sounds. (2014) Is the Standard of English in deaf schools lower than those in mainstream schools? [online] Available from: <http://signsounds.co.uk/tag/dyslexia/> [Accessed 28 th July 2015]. Sociology Central. (2015) Questionnaires [online]. Available from: <http://www.sociology.org.uk/methodq.pdf> [Accessed 16 th June 2015]. Snowling, M. (1996) Developmental Dyslexia: An introduction and theoretical overview. In: Snowling, M. and Stackhouse, J. (eds) Dyslexia, Speech and Language. London: Whurr Publishers. Stangroom, J. (2015) Pearson Correlation Coefficient Calculator [online]. Available from: <http://www.socscistatistics.com/tests/pearson/default.aspx> [Accessed 25 th June 2015]. Starkiss, K. (2010) The Advantages of Being Dyslexic [online]. Available from: <http://www.dyslexiasupportservices.com.au/dyslexia/dyslexia_strengths.html> [Accessed 28 th July 2015]. Stokoe, M (1991) Semantic Phonology. Sign Language Studies, 71. Pp. 107 114. Sutton-Spence, R. and Woll, B. (1998) The Linguistics of British Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The Makaton Charity. (2015) About Makaton [online]. Available from: <http://www.makaton.org/aboutmakaton/> [Accessed 28 th July 2015] Valli, C., Lucas, C and Mulrooney, J. (2002) Linguistics of American Sign Language: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Washington DC: Gallaudet Vickers, W. (2015) American Sign Language: Fingerspelling & Numbers: Introduction [online]. Available from: <http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/fingerspelling/fingerspelling.htm> [Accessed 14 th July 2015]. Wilcox, S. and Perrin Wilcox, P. (1997) Learning to See: Teaching American Sign Language as a Second Language. 2nd ed. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press. Wilkinson, G.S. and Robertson, G.J. (2006) WRAT4 Wide Range Achievement Test Professional Manual. Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Woll, B. & Ladd, P. (2003) Deaf Communities. In: Marschark, M. and Spencer, P. (eds) Deaf Studies, Language and Education. New York: Oxford University Press. Wundt, W. (1921) The Language of Guestures. The Hauge: Mouton.

31 8.0 Appendices 8.1 American Sign Language Fingerspelling Right-hand variant of ASL fingerspelling 8.2 British Sign Language Fingerspelling (Vickers, 2015) Right-hand variant of BSL fingerspelling (www.british-sign.co.uk, 2013).