Search Results

There are growing numbers of students who enroll sign language programs. Most of them are hearing students whose first language is in the aural-oral modality. Learning signed language challenges them to communicate via the visual-manual modality; a process that is known to be demanding (Kemp, 1998). Therefore, in instruction it is essential to monitor this process by means of effective and efficient assessment (Miller et al., 2008). Rather remarkably, there are only a few tests developed to assess students’ proficiency in sign language. This implies that most instructors, who are involved in sign language teaching, have to develop tests and assessments themselves. Complicating factor, however, is that most instructors are not specifically trained on this topic, i.e. their knowledge and skills to evaluate or design language tests is limited. In this chapter, we will bring issues to view that are involved with the design of sign language assessments. Sign language proficiency can be broken down into two components: the visual receptive and manual expressive component. The assessment of these components will be discussed in the context of validity, reliability, authenticity, impact and practicality. We aim to provide a comprehensive matrix of issues in test design, with special focus on the pitfalls one may encounter in using or developing sign language tests for production as well as receptive skills. The matrix is a first attempt to provide a knowledge base on sign language assessment that might be helpful for instructors to become more literate on the subject matter.

This chapter provides a critical examination of the different uses of test scores; their interpretation by test administrators, educators, professionals, and researchers; and the implications these scores may have for test-takers. Before discussing the issues of test scores, an overview of the complexities involved in defining the L1 of deaf signers will be shared. Understanding the potential pitfalls of signed language assessment with a diverse background of L1 users is emphasized. Four sections address critical issues on scoring and interpreting assessments: purpose, consistency, norming and scoring, and interpreting the results beyond the score. Conducting valid and reliable language assessment is critical to establishing a baseline for intervention, education or research, monitoring an individual’s language competency and growth, justifying the need for additional language support, and providing accurate reporting to parents and administrators.

A standardized assessment of spoken languages will collect data from native, monolingual speakers, thus establishing the range of receptive and/or expressive abilities of children across different ages. Similarly, normative data for standardized assessments of signed language are established by collecting data from native signing deaf children. Where the difference arises is the way in which the normative data relate to the target populations and the individuals within those populations who are being assessed. While standardized assessments of spoken language are normed on and predominantly intended for use with native speakers of that language, standardized assessments of signed language are intrinsically designed for use with a heterogenous group of children, of whom only a minority have the opportunity of learning signed language as their native language. In this chapter, key items related to score use and interpretation in first language (L1) assessment that were presented in Chapters 2.1 and 2.2 will be jointly discussed by the authors.

The preceding chapters on signed language assessment and spoken language assessment have demonstrated that the two fields may have different roots and contexts of application, mostly due to the difference in modality, but there are also similarities that may be lesser known. In this chapter, the authors demonstrate how both differences and similarities between the field of signed and spoken languages can create exciting opportunities to rethink old, traditional perspectives and engage in new approaches and collaborations between experts who share the same overall goal: that is, to develop language assessments that are methodologically sound and can be applied to their respective contexts.

Limited choices exist for assessing the signed language development of deaf and hard of hearing children. Over the past 30 years, the American Sign Language Assessment Instrument (ASLAI) has been one of the top choices for norm-referenced assessment of deaf and hard of hearing children who use American Sign Language. Signed language assessments can also be used to evaluate the effects of a phenomenon known as language deprivation, which tends to affect deaf children. They can also measure the effects of impoverished and idiosyncratic nonstandard signs and grammar used by educators of the deaf and professionals who serve the Deaf community. This chapter discusses what was learned while developing the ASLAI and provides guidelines for educators and researchers of the deaf who seek to develop their own signed language assessments.