Transforming e-assessment in American Sign Language: Pedagogical and technological enhancements in online language learning and performance assessment

Learning, Media and Technology

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 155-168

  Miller, Charles ^a   Hooper, Simon ^b   Rose, Susan ^a   Montalto Rook, Michael ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

American Sign Language; Design based research; Language performance e assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 52149096029     PISSN: 17439884     EISSN: 17439892     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17439880802323980     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Deno, S. 1985. Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children 52, no. 3: 219-32.
2. _. 2003. Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education 37, no. 3: 184-92.
3. Design-Based Research Collective. 2003. Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher 32, no. 1: 5-8.
4. Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
5. Gordon, B., G. Englehardt, S. Gabrielson, and S. Bernknopf. 1996. Conceptual issues in equating performance assessments: Lessons from writing assessments. Journal of Research and Development in Education 29: 81-8.
6. Hooper, S., C. Miller, S. Rose, and G. Veletsianos. 2007. The effects of digital video quality on learner comprehension in an American Sign Language assessment environment. Sign Language Studies 8, no. 1: 42-58.
7. Johnson, B., and J. Caird. 1996. The effect of frame rate and video information redundancy on the perceptual learning of American Sign Language gestures. Proceedings of the conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, April 13-18, in British Columbia, Canada.
8. Keating, E., and G. Mirus. 2003. American Sign Language in virtual space: Interactions between deaf users of computer-mediated video communication and the impact of technology on language practices. Language in Society 32, no. 5: 693-714.
9. Kemp, M. 1998. Why is learning American Sign Language a challenge? American Annals of the Deaf 143, no. 3: 255-9.
10. Lavie, T., and N. Tractinsky. 2004. Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 60: 269-98.
11. Luckner, J., and S. Bowen. 2006. Assessment practices of professionals serving students who are deaf or hard of hearing: An initial investigation. American Annals of the Deaf 151, no. 4: 410-7.
12. Luckner, J., and P. Streckler. 2007. Survey of teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing use and attitudes toward CBM and progress monitoring. Paper presented at the Association of College Educators - Deaf/Hard of Hearing Annual Conference, January, in Pittsburgh, PA.
13. Lupton, L., and H. Zelaznik. 1990. Motor learning in sign language students. Sign Language Studies 67: 153-74.
14. Macromedia. 2004. Video strategies for Macromedia Flash websites. Flash Technotes. http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index. cfm?id=tn_14571 (accessed 10 October, 2005).
15. Marschark, M., H. Lang, and J. Albertini. 2002. Educating deaf students: From research to practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
16. Miller, C., S. Hooper, and S. Rose. 2005. Avenue ASL: Developing an environment for capturing, evaluating, and monitoring American Sign Language learner performance. Advanced Technology for Learning 2, no. 3: 140-7.
17. _. 2008. Avenue ASL: Transforming curriculum through design, theory, and innovation. Tech Trends 52, no. 3: 27-32.
18. Newell, W., and F. Caccamise. 1992. Sign Communication Proficiency Interview (SCPI) manual: Rating scale. Faribault, MN: Minnesota Resource Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
19. Reed, C., L. Delhorne, N. Durlach, and S. Fischer. 1990. A study of tactual and visual reception of fingerspelling. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 33, no. 4: 786-97.
20. Reeves, T., J. Herrington, and R. Oliver. 2004. A development research agenda for online collaborative learning. Educational Technology Research and Development 52, no. 4: 53-65.
21. Rose, S., L. McAnally, and S. Quigley. 2004. Language practices with deaf children. 3rd ed. Austin, TX: Pro Ed.
22. Sandoval, W. 2004. Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist 39, no. 4: 213-23.
23. Shinn, M., and S. Bamonto. 1998. Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement: 'Big ideas' and avoiding confusion. In Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement, ed. M.R. Shinn, 1-31. New York: Guilford.
24. Suen, H.K. 2005. Educational assessment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
25. Stiggins, R. 2004. New assessment beliefs for a new classroom mission. Phi Delta Kappan 86, no. 1: 22-7.
26. Tedick, D. 1997. The Minnesota articulation project's proficiency-orient language instruction and assessment: A curriculum handbook for teachers. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.
27. Welles, E. 2004. Foreign language enrollments in United States institutions of higher education. ADFL Bulletin 35, no. 3: 7-26.
28. Wilbers, S. 1987. The case for recognizing American Sign Language. College Board Review 145: 6-30.
29. Wilcox, S. 2004. American Sign Language as a foreign language. http://www.cal.org/resources/ digest/ASL.html (accessed 17 March, 2004).