Language Assessment Literacy in Second Signed Language Assessment Contexts

2021 ◽  
pp. 383-393
Author(s):  
Eveline Boers-Visker ◽  
Annemiek Hammer
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
First Language ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Language Programs ◽  
Language Tests ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Language Assessments

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.

Discussion of Issues Related to Score Use and Interpretation of First Spoken and Signed Language Assessments

2021 ◽  
pp. 75-84
Author(s):  
Patrick Boudreault ◽  
Bernard Camilleri ◽  
Charlotte Enns
Keyword(s):  
Normative Data ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Standardized Assessments ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Target Populations ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Heterogenous Group ◽  
Language Assessments ◽  
The Difference

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.

Discussion of Issues Related to Assessment of Signed or Spoken Language Development in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

2021 ◽  
pp. 145-152
Author(s):  
Amy Kissel Frisbie ◽  
Aaron Shield ◽  
Deborah Mood ◽  
Nicole Salamy ◽  
Jonathan Henner
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Developmental Disorders ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Pragmatic Language ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Pragmatic Language Skills ◽  
Language Assessments ◽  
Hearing Children

This chapter is a joint discussion of key items presented in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 related to the assessment of deaf and hearing children on the autism spectrum . From these chapters it becomes apparent that a number of aspects associated with signed language assessment are relevant to spoken language assessment. For example, there are several precautions to bear in mind about language assessments obtained via an interpreter. Some of these precautions apply solely to D/HH children, while others are applicable to assessments with hearing children in multilingual contexts. Equally, there are some aspects of spoken language assessment that can be applied to signed language assessment. These include the importance of assessing pragmatic language skills, assessing multiple areas of language development, differentiating between ASD and other developmental disorders, and completing the language evaluation within a developmental framework. The authors conclude with suggestions for both spoken and signed language assessment.

Discussion on Scoring Issues in Second Signed or Spoken Language Assessment

2021 ◽  
pp. 329-332
Author(s):  
Tobias Haug ◽  
Ute Knoch ◽  
Wolfgang Mann
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Nonverbal Communication ◽  
Rasch Analysis ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Rater Training ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Language Assessments ◽  
New Research

This chapter is a joint discussion of key items related to scoring issues related to signed and spoken language assessment that were discussed in Chapters 9.1 and 9.2. One aspect of signed language assessment that has the potential to stimulate new research in spoken second language (L2) assessment is the scoring of nonverbal speaker behaviors. This aspect is rarely represented in the scoring criteria of spoken assessments and in many cases not even available to raters during the scoring process. The authors argue, therefore, for a broadening of the construct of spoken language assessment to also include elements of nonverbal communication in the scoring descriptors. Additionally, the importance of rater training for signed language assessments, application of Rasch analysis to investigate possible reasons of disagreement between raters, and the need to conduct research on rasting scales are discussed.

Leerlingkenmerken en Taalvaardigheid in Het Turks en Het Nederlands

1990 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 83-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geert Driessen ◽  
Kees de Bot
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Mother Tongue ◽  
First Language ◽  
Migrant Children ◽  
Second Language Proficiency ◽  
Global Factor ◽  
Language Tests ◽  
Proficiency Scores

Evaluation of the effect of mother tongue teaching to migrant children in the Netherlands. Data are presented on first- and second-language proficiency of the Turkish sample (n=368). The aim of the investigation was to find out to what extent learner characteristics influence proficiency scores. It is concluded that the correlation between first and second-language proficiency is particularly low, which does not support Cummins' interdependency hypothesis. Interestingly parents' interest in school is an important global factor. Age on arrival appears to be of little importance for scores on the first-language tests. This suggests that children who have lived in the Netherlands for most of their lives, still show a continued development of their mother tongue.

Developing Sign Language Measurements for Research With Deaf Populations

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Henner ◽  
Robert Hoffmeister ◽  
Jeanne Reis
Keyword(s):  
American Sign Language ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Assessment Instrument ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
American Sign ◽  
Language Deprivation ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Language Assessments ◽  
Hearing Children

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.

Design of Signed Language Tests for Deaf L1 Children

2021 ◽  
pp. 29-40
Author(s):  
Rosalind Herman ◽  
Katherine Rowley
Keyword(s):  
First Language ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Language Tests ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Written Form ◽  
Age Appropriate ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Development Proceeds

Recent changes in the earlier diagnosis of deafness and improved amplification options have meant that deaf children increasingly have better opportunities to develop spoken language. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of children continue to use signed language as a first language (L1), including deaf and hearing children in deaf signing families and deaf children in hearing families where families use signed language in the home. For both groups, mastery of sign language as an L1 is important because it paves the way to communication and also because it provides the basis for development of spoken language, in either its oral or written form, as a second language (L2). It is crucial that signed language development proceeds in an age-appropriate manner, and assessments of signed language are therefore important to ensure that this is the case. However, the development of effective tests of signed language acquisition is not without challenges. This chapter presents these challenges and other issues and gives examples of how available tests seek to overcome them.

Score Use and Interpretation of First Signed Language Assessments

2021 ◽  
pp. 63-74
Author(s):  
Charlotte Enns ◽  
Patrick Boudreault
Keyword(s):  
Test Scores ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Shared Understanding ◽  
Language Support ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Language Competency ◽  
Language Assessments ◽  
Accurate Reporting

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.

Construct in Assessments of Signed Language

2021 ◽  
pp. 251-260
Author(s):  
Tobias Haug
Keyword(s):  
Adult Learners ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Vocabulary Knowledge ◽  
Language Test ◽  
Language Tests ◽  
Signed Language

Descriptions of test constructs in second signed language assessment, such as vocabulary knowledge, are rare and far from receiving the attention by the field of signed language test research that they deserves. Detailing the construct in second signed language assessment poses a challenge for obvious reasons: only very few published studies on signed language tests for adult learners are available, and none of them focuses on construct-related issues. Equally, there is a shortage of operationally used test instruments accessible for review. In this chapter, published studies on second signed language assessment will be reviewed, focusing specifically on construct representation; tests that are used for hiring and promotion are discussed and an example of how to define the construct for a signed language test is discussed.

Review of Sign language Assessment Instruments

2005 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 61-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Haug
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Assessment Instrument ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Linguistic Research ◽  
Language Assessments ◽  
Linguistic Content

This article reviews and discusses existing sign language assessment instruments and those that are still under development. There are three groupings of sign language assessments: (1) instruments to assess and monitor the process of sign language acquisition in deaf children, (2) assessments for educational purposes, and (3) instruments for linguistic research. These will be discussed individually with regard to a range of issues, such as target age group, linguistic content of the assessment instrument, background of the instrument and development, usability and availability, and strengths and weaknesses. The article concludes with an evaluation of the reviewed instruments.

Discussion of Issues Related to Assessment Constructs in Spoken and Signed Languages

2021 ◽  
pp. 261-270
Author(s):  
Susy Macqueen ◽  
Tobias Haug
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Trajectories ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Assessment Practices ◽  
Language Abilities ◽  
Significant Challenge ◽  
Signed Languages ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Language Assessments

Thinking about what is assessed—the construct—in any language assessment raises questions about the nature of language use, the nature of developmental trajectories, and whose language patterns determine what is ‘standard’. The assessment of signed languages draws attention to assessment practices and understandings that are entrenched, for better or worse, in the assessment of spoken languages. Spoken language assessments of standardized varieties tend to value the written sentence as an ideal unit, a legacy of standardization. Signed language assessments, on the other hand, may be emerging alongside processes of standardization. Capturing semiotic complexity in the construct remains a significant challenge for both signed and spoken language assessments, despite the development of corpora which exemplify it. This chapter discusses these theoretical, ideological, and practical challenges for assessing signed and spoken language abilities. It brings together key ideas from chapters Chapters 7.1 and 7.2 and offers future directions in the development of theory and practice in signed and spoken language assessments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document