Fingerspelling Errors in the Internal Practical
During the internal practical assessment for the Sign Language skill subject, a candidate is asked to fingerspell ten items from a list: Bihu, Guwahati, Pallabi, NEEP, X-ray, Krishna, Deka, M.V., Nayan and Neer. The examiner, who is Deaf, notes the following. For PALLABI the candidate bounces the hand at the wrong letter and produces an extra 'L'. For NEER she holds the repeated E for about two seconds instead of making a distinct double letter as taught in class. For X-RAY she uses a crossed-finger handshape that the examiner reads as 'R'. For M.V. she inserts a long gap and says the word 'dot' aloud. She mouths every English word while fingerspelling. The examiner asks you, as the course teacher, to review the recording and decide the score and the feedback.
1. Sort the observed behaviours into genuine errors, acceptable variation and non-manual interference. Explain each decision.
Read the worked answer
A useful sort:
- Genuine errors: the extra 'L' in PALLABI changes the letter string, so the name is wrong. The X-RAY handshape is read as 'R', which is a handshape accuracy error, not a stylistic choice. The missing double-letter convention in NEER may also be an error if the class has explicitly taught a bounce or slide; the examiner's confusion shows it was not clear.
- Acceptable variation: mouthing English while fingerspelling is common among hearing learners and is not automatically wrong. It becomes a problem only if it replaces a clear handshape or if the candidate relies on lip-reading rather than the manual alphabet. The long gap in M.V. is also not necessarily wrong, because initials and abbreviations often need a pause to be read as separate letters.
- Non-manual interference: saying 'dot' aloud is not part of the signed message. It adds an English spoken cue that a Deaf viewer may not access and that does not belong in the fingerspelled production.
The key distinction is whether the viewer receives the intended letter string. If the examiner cannot identify the name, it is an error regardless of the candidate's intention.
2. How would you score this out of 10 and what feedback would you give?
Read the worked answer
Use a short rubric rather than a single impression mark. For each item, award the mark only if the letter sequence is readable and the handshape is accurate. A reasonable distribution is:
- 1 mark per item for correct letter sequence and readable handshape.
- Deduct within an item for an extra or missing letter, an unclear handshape, or a double-letter convention that changes the reading.
- Do not deduct for mouthing alone, but note it as a habit to monitor.
On the evidence, PALLABI, X-RAY and probably NEER would lose marks; M.V. may keep its mark if the pause was readable. The score should reflect that the candidate knows most letters but has not yet automatised names and abbreviations.
Feedback should be specific and demonstrated: 'Your PALLABI had an extra L after the first A; watch the bounce point. Your X handshape crossed like R; check the thumb position. Your double E in NEER needs a distinct beat, not a long hold. Do not say dot; pause instead.' Avoid a vague 'improve clarity' comment.
3. Design a 15-minute remediation plan for this candidate before the next assessment.
Read the worked answer
Keep it tight and measurable.
Minutes 1–4: handshape isolation. Drill the X and R handshapes in a mirror, then in contrasting pairs such as X-ray/Ray and box/borrow. The candidate must hold each handshape for three seconds without mouthing the letter name.
Minutes 5–8: double letters and bounces. Practise names with repeated letters: Pallabi, Neer, Nayan, Krishna. Use a physical beat - tap the table once for a single letter and twice for a double letter - then transfer the beat to hand movement without the table.
Minutes 9–12: abbreviations. Fingerspell M.V., NEEP and AHSEC with a deliberate pause between initials. Remove the spoken 'dot'. The partner writes what they see, not what they hear.
Minutes 13–15: recorded test. Record five names, replay them, and have the candidate identify her own errors against the rubric. Set one target for the next assessment: every proper name readable on first production. The plan works on transfer, not just repetition.