In many countries, teaching assistants are working in schools in increasing numbers. While they formerly supported teachers by completing low-level administrative tasks, they are increasingly playing a pedagogical role and working directly with pupils, particularly those with special educational needs. However, little is known about the quality of the support that teaching assistants provide to these pupils. This paper systematically examines differences in the types and quality of interactions teaching assistants have with pupils compared with the interactions of teachers in the same classrooms. Differences were found, particularly in relation to the development of pupil thinking, and examples of the differential interactions are provided in the paper. Recommendations are made related to the need to examine existing models of teaching effectiveness to take account of the role of teaching assistants in classrooms and the role of teachers managing teaching assistants.

There is evidence that ethnic minority learners in Further Education in England either underachieve or are underrepresented because they face various inhibitors connected to their ethnicity. Motivators may be in place, however, which increase

No abstract

This paper presents the findings of an experiment in which 20 Greek Deaf students produced written texts under two different conditions of language input: (1) a translation from a videotaped story in Greek sign language, and (2) a direct composition produced from a picture story Á a neutral non-linguistic input. Placing Deaf writing within a bilingual frame, the effect of language input on the quality of written texts was explored, i.e. whether or not the use of sign language facilitates the teaching of written language. In this paper, similarities and differences between Deaf writers and hearing bilingual writers are explored in terms of current theoretical perspectives on bilingual learners: Deaf writing, similar to bilingual writing, is the result of an interaction between two languages, although in the case of Deaf writing, the languages are an unrelated sign language and written language; the role of first language in teaching; and whether sign language qualifies as L1 for Deaf students. This discussion is complemented by the quantitative results in the study, which showed that the use of a language (in the form of translation) in second language writing may facilitate certain features, such as the organisation of text, but not others, such as the grammar of text. The implications of the findings for bilingual education and Deaf education are discussed.

Literature on bilingual education suggests that the material used in teaching second language writing has an impact on the quality of the text. In addition, the material interacts differently with the level of bilingual proficiency of the students. This paper attempts to explore the written stories of three deaf students, which were produced under two different conditions: translation from a signed narrative vs. direct composition from a picture narrative. The three deaf students represent three language groups, with different proficiencies in Greek Sign Language and written Greek. It will be shown that a) each representative produces a unique writing style in accordance to his/her language proficiencies and b) each representative reacts differently to the stimulus material facilitating (or not) different aspects of writing. The narratives were explored in terms of their discourse and technical characteristics. Implications for deaf education and the teaching of writing are discussed. 146Koutsoubou et al.Research has only recently considered the complicated nature of deaf bilingualism by including as a factor the sign language proficiency of the deaf students (Singleton et al., 2004). Also, very little research has considered the interaction of sign language proficiency with written language proficiency.Viewing deaf writing and deaf education from a bilingual perspective inevitably raises all the issues of bilingual education, the most prevalent being the role of the L1 in teaching the L2 (for bilingual debate see Porter, 1998;Hakuta et al., 2000). Research on bilingual writing accepts that L1 facilitates the cognitive aspects of writing, but not necessarily the linguistic aspects of text (Cohen, 2000). However, the degree of facilitation depends on many other factors including the language proficiency of L2 and the genre of writing. For many deaf writers, writing is even more complicated because they do not always enter education with a grounded L1, either in sign language or spoken/written language (Paul, 2001).Another issue to consider in deaf writing is the similarities and differences between sign languages and written mode of spoken languages. 1 Sign languages despite their differences are characterised by some common properties. In brief, sign languages, because they are visual, employ the signing space, the face and body of the communicator for linguistic functions. Visual perception has the capacity to process all these elements concurrently. On the other hand, phonetic-based languages are characterised mainly by linear syntactic properties. This linearity is even more evident in writing as the paralinguistic effects of spoken communication disappear. This concurrent vs. linear processing of signed and spoken/written language has various alleged effects on memory, attention and possibly on literacy acquisition and production (Marschark et al., 1997). This paper will address some of the above issues and in particular it will explore the influence of the different language proficiencies of deaf writerssign...