- Split View
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Jennifer S Beal, Jessica Williams Trussell, Dawn Walton, Four American Sign Language Learner Groups: Are They Really Different?, The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, Volume 27, Issue 3, July 2022, Pages 283–296, https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enac004
- Share Icon Share
Abstract
We investigated the receptive American Sign Language (ASL) skills of four separate groups using the 42-item ASL-Receptive Skills Test: Deaf high school-aged students who attended a residential school; deaf incoming college students who preferred signed language; deaf incoming college students who preferred spoken language; and typically hearing college-aged second language-second modality learners (M2L2) of ASL. Many deaf students learn ASL as a delayed first language due to a lack of sign language models within their home environments. In contrast, M2L2 students likely engage in some transfer between their first (spoken) and second (signed) language when learning ASL. All four groups scored similarly overall on the ASL-RST (~77% correct), and all four groups scored the lowest for number-distribution, spatial verbs location, size-and-shape-specifiers, and role shift. We present instructional implications that include incorporation of ASL standards and evidence-based instructional strategies for all four groups.
In the United States, different populations of learners engage in American Sign Language (ASL) instruction: Some, but not all, deaf students in P-12 educational settings, deaf college students, and typically hearing students in university preparation programs focused on working with deaf people (e.g., teachers of the deaf and hard-of-hearing, ASL-English interpreters, Speech-Language Pathologists, etc.). Across these populations, published studies on learners’ ASL skills and effective ASL instruction are limited. We review the American Sign Language Receptive Skills Test (ASL-RST; Enns et al., 2013) and present empirical receptive ASL results for learners within these populations, followed by implications for ASL instruction.
ASL-Receptive Skills Test
We focused on an ASL comprehension measure in the present study. Previous studies have documented ASL learners’ comprehension using the ASL-RST, which is a 42-item computer-administered test in which participants watch short signed video clips and respond by selecting one of four pictures (Enns et al., 2013). The ASL-RST assesses participants’ understanding of nine grammatical categories within ASL, including number-distribution, negation, noun-verb distinction, spatial verbs (location and action), size-and-shape-specifier (SASS) classifiers, handling classifiers, role shift, and conditionals. Items increase in difficulty with item number. The authors reported a marginal maximum likelihood reliability correlation of r = .88. The ASL-RST was developed for and has standard scores for native or near-native ASL signers between 3 and 13 years of age, although Enns et al. noted “It may also be used with older children whose ASL skills are considered to be delayed” (p. 3). The ASL-RST has been used with deaf and typically hearing participants in high school and college (Beal, 2020b, 2021; Beal-Alvarez, 2014, 2016; Lieberman et al., 2014). The ASL-RST is the only publically available ASL comprehension test.
Deaf High School Students
Over 65,000 deaf students receive K-12 educational services in the United States under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004 (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). Depending upon which data set is used, ~28–40% of these deaf students use sign language in some form for communication and instruction (U.S. Department of Education, 2019; Gallaudet Research Institute, 2013). However, many of these children lack communication partners who are fluent signers in home and school settings. Fewer than 10% of deaf children have deaf parents (Mitchell & Karchmer, 2004), meaning the vast majority of signing deaf children have typically hearing parents, and only 23% of parents reported using sign language regularly at home (U.S. Department of Education, 2019).
Deaf children who use sign language often have delayed ASL acquisition due to a lack of exposure to ASL models (Andrews & Covell, 2006/2007; Mayberry & Eichen, 1991; Schick et al., 2006), which often affects processing and comprehension of ASL grammar, morphology, and syntax (Mayberry & Eichen, 1991; Morford & Mayberry, 2000). For instance, signers with later ASL acquisition may make phonological processing errors and attend to “phonetic detail that native signers have learned to ignore” (Morford et al., 2008, p. 607), suggesting differences in processing efficiency (Mayberry & Fischer, 1989). Children who acquired ASL at later ages understood a smaller proportion of ASL than those who acquired it at earlier ages (Mayberry & Eichen, 1991; Mayberry & Fischer, 1989; Newport, 1984, 1988, 1990). Because many late learners of ASL are beyond the critical period of language development, they may still be in the process of learning ASL as young adults (Mayberry, 1993; Mayberry & Lock, 2003; Morford & Mayberry, 2000; Newport et al., 2001). Language deprivation, defined as absence of a language by 5 years of age, may result when deaf children lack full access to both indirect and direct language in the home (Hall, 2017; Henner et al., 2018). As a result, deaf students may be balanced or unbalanced bilingual (e.g., sign language and English; Kushalnagar et al., 2010) or multilingual (e.g., spoken Spanish, sign language, English, etc.; Gerner de Garcia, 1995) language users who translanguage among an inventory of language modalities (Iwasaki et al., 2019; Koulidobrova & Chen Pichler, 2021; Kusters et al., 2017).
Lack of proficient language skills affects deaf students’ academic performance throughout the P-12 and college educational experiences (Easterbrooks & Huston, 2008; Freel et al., 2011; Padden & Ramsey, 1998). For instance, many deaf children read below-grade level in P-12 settings (Easterbrook & Beal-Alvarez, 2012; Qi & Mitchell, 2012) and this pattern continues in college, where a large sample of college-aged deaf students read at the 7th to 8th grade level (Berent et al., 2007, 2009). These reading levels are not exclusive to deaf learners, as a portion of typically hearing students read below the National Assessment of Educational Progress’ (NAEP) basic level in 4th grade (34%), 8th grade (27%), and 12th grade (30%; The Nation’s Report Card, 2019) and in one sample only 32% read at the 12th grade level in college (Olney et al., 2017).
Direct instruction in ASL occurs in some educational settings, such as schools for the deaf (Bailes, 2001; Beal-Alvarez, 2016; Beal, 2020a; Crume, 2013), but the majority of signing deaf children do not receive direct instruction in ASL, as they do in English Language Arts. In previous studies deaf high school students, aged 17–22 years, averaged ~77% correct (32.5 items, range 69–86%) on the ASL-RST and performed the lowest across the following grammatical categories: number-distribution (70%), role shift (67%), noun-verb distinction (66%), and spatial verbs location (64%; Beal, 2020a; Beal-Alvarez, 2014, 2016). These studies included 38, 39, and 76 high-school aged students, respectively. In sum, deaf learners beyond the intended age range for the ASL-RST did not achieve ceiling scores and seem to be weaker in specific grammatical areas.
Deaf College Students
Over 135,000 deaf or hard of hearing students are enrolled in postsecondary institutions within the United States (National Center for Education Statistics, 2008); however, ~19% of deaf college students complete a bachelor’s degree, compared to 34% of their typically hearing peers (Garberoglio et al., 2019). This may be related to below-grade-level reading and/or language skills that carryover from high school. Deaf college students may not be aware of their ASL skills (Walton et al., 2018). In one sample of 30 academically successful college deaf students who self-reported their language information, only 23% reported ASL was their first language, while 47% responded English (30% responded “other”), although 73% rated themselves as bilingual (ASL/English; Toscano et al., 2002). When deaf adult participants were asked about their age at exposure to ASL, they provided a variety of responses that included use of English-like signing and contact sign (Corina et al., 2014). As Convertino and colleagues noted, postsecondary institutions may assume that incoming students “already have acquired sufficient language fluencies for academic success” (p. 328) and typically provide sign language instruction as a foreign or second language to adult learners with typical hearing, as opposed to a developmental framework for deaf learners (Beal et al., 2021).
Only two published studies have addressed deaf postsecondary students’ sign language skills. McKee et al. (1984) examined communication skills of 250 incoming deaf freshmen across eight areas, including receptive manual communication skills, and reported students’ self-perceptions and objective communication scores more closely aligned after a 5-week intervention focused on recognizing and improving their communication skills. Beal et al., (2021) investigated the expressive and receptive ASL skills of 45 incoming deaf college freshmen and implemented a subsequent 5-week pilot intervention with 13 of the students that included 50 hr of ASL instruction. The 45 incoming students scored an average of 73% on the ASL-RST (30.6 items, range 12–93%; Beal et al., 2021). Those who self-selected a preference for sign language over speaking/listening scored the lowest across handling classifiers (79%), spatial verbs location (73%), number-distribution (72%), and role shift (70%; Beal et al., 2021). After the intervention, which included the True + Way ASL curriculum (Marbury et al., 2020), the cohort mean score on the ASL-RST increased from 73 to 80%. In sum, although incoming deaf postsecondary students increased their ASL performance on the ASL-RST after intervention, they struggled with similar grammatical areas as deaf high school students (Beal, 2020a; Beal et al., 2021; Beal-Alvarez, 2014, 2016), which may demonstrate the longitudinal effects of language deprivation on ASL proficiency (Koulidobrova & Chen Pichler, 2021).
Typically Hearing College Students
The majority of educators who work with deaf children, such as teachers of the deaf (TODs) and interpreters, are second language learners of ASL, usually taking ASL classes in high school and/or university preparation programs (Andrews & Covell, 2006/2007; Beal-Alvarez & Scheetz, 2015; Dodd & Scheetz, 2003; Schick et al., 2006; Thoryk, 2010; Walton et al., 2018; Yarger, 2001). In 2009, over 92,000 students were enrolled in university-level ASL courses (Goldberg et al., 2015). These ASL learners are referred to as M2L2 learners, or second modality-second language learners (Chen Pichler, 2009; Chen Pichler & Koulidobrova, 2015), because they learn a second language in a different modality (i.e., kinesthetic and visual) than their first language (i.e., spoken and auditory), which brings additional challenges to learning a second language (Jacobs, 1996; Kemp, 1998; McKee & McKee, 1992). Rosen (2004) proposed that both receptive perception and motor dexterity contributed to M2L2 learners’ ASL errors, while Hilger et al. (2015) demonstrated that M2L2 ASL learners’ motor systems for sign production were immature compared to Deaf native signers using motion capture technology.
In contrast to many deaf high school and college students who have delayed ASL acquisition, typically hearing college ASL learners already have a fully established first language (in the United States, spoken English). They likely apply some aspects of linguistic transfer via Cummins’ (2000) Bilingual Interdependence Hypothesis to identify similarities and differences between their first language and ASL. A few studies have documented M2L2 learners’ ASL skills. After completion of explicit lessons in ASL-English glossing, or “comparing and contrasting ASL grammar rules with those of English,” an intervention group of M2L2 university students in introductory ASL courses had significantly higher posttest mean scores compared to a control group (Buisson, 2007, p. 335). M2L2 learners in their third semester of ASL instruction had higher fingerspelling comprehension after explicit instruction in holds, transitions, and variation within fingerspelled words, compared to a control group who received implicit instruction (Geer & Keane, 2018). However, M2L2 university learners who received instruction using a packaged fingerspelling curriculum performed no differently than a comparison group who received traditional fingerspelling instruction (i.e., fingerspelling used “where appropriate in natural conversations” (Thoryk, 2010, p. 109). Related to depicting constructions, M2L2 learners at the end of ASL IV increased their use of these constructions within their narrative retells of a picture book after one viewing of an adult ASL model (Beal et al., under review).
Results are available for M2L2 learners’ performance on two receptive ASL tests. The ASL Comprehension Test (Hauser et al., 2016) includes items related to phonology, vocabulary, role shift, and depicting constructions. A sample of 20 M2L2 learners in university ASL I–IV courses scored a mean of 63% correct, whereas deaf native signers had a mean score of 87%. Published ASL-RST results are available for two samples of M2L2 learners. A sample of 19 M2L2 ASL learners, with a mean age of 26 years and experience using ASL at least 3 years beyond their college programs, averaged 80% correct (34 items, range 64–95%; Lieberman et al., 2014). A group of 33 M2L2 postsecondary ASL learners averaged 74% correct (30.9 items, range 45–88%) and performed the lowest across number-distribution (69%), SASSes (68%), spatial verbs (location; 60%), and role shift (52%; Beal, 2020b). Their ASL-RST performance was not related to their age, years of sign language experience, or their program major (i.e., TODs, interpreting, other; Beal, 2020b).
Because the majority of educators who work with signing deaf students learn ASL as a second language during university programs, and because most signing deaf students learn ASL as a delayed first language during their formal education years, it is unclear if and how M2L2 learners’ ASL skills may affect signing deaf students’ ASL skills. For instance, do signing deaf students make ASL comprehension errors because of the ASL instruction/modeling they receive, or because of the critical period of language acquisition? Do deaf high schoolers, deaf college students, and M2L2 university learners perform differently across the grammatical categories on the ASL-RST to justify differential instruction in ASL? Based on previous ASL-RST results, all three groups averaged ~77% correct overall on the ASL-RST and had the most difficulty with comprehending the grammatical categories of spatial verbs location, number-distribution, and role shift (Beal, 2020b, Beal et al., 2021; Beal-Alvarez, 2014, 2016). Initially, we sought to investigate the performance of larger samples of these ASL learners across these receptive grammatical categories to document learners’ present ASL skills and address specific ASL instruction. As described below, because no significant differences were found for overall ASL-RST scores among groups, our investigation shifted to analysis of areas where all groups scored the lowest. We asked: How are the receptive ASL skills of deaf and typically hearing ASL learners similar and different based on their ASL-RST performance?
Methods
Participants
All participants completed an Institutional Review Board-approved consent to participate; the deaf and typically hearing university participants completed a background form.
Deaf High School Students
A total of 90 different deaf high school-aged students (39 females and 51 males) were assessed with the ASL-RST. Students were 17;0 to 22;2 (years;months; M = 18;3, SD = 1;2; see Table 1). These data were collected as part of a larger research project and some of the data were previously published (Beal, 2020a, Beal-Alvarez, 2014, 2016). All students attended a residential school for the deaf in the southeastern United States with an ASL/English bilingual philosophy, meaning that all communication and instruction occurred in ASL with English accessed through print. Students attended ASL courses as an elective based on their skill levels and needs, as determined by the school’s ASL Specialist. Students were not asked their age of ASL acquisition due to difficulties with student self-report, including confounding ASL with other sign systems (e.g., Signing Exact English, Pidgin Signed English [i.e., contact sign; see Corina et al., 2014, for a review]). No other measures of ASL skill were available for the deaf high schoolers.
. | Deaf HS . | Deaf collegeb . | M2L2 . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | N . | % . | N . | % . | N . | % . |
Total | 90 | 100 | 101 | 100 | 115 | 100 |
17 years | 55 | 61 | 2 | 2 | — | — |
18 years | 10 | 11 | 39 | 39 | — | — |
19 years | 14 | 16 | 24 | 24 | — | — |
20 years | 7 | 8 | 15 | 15 | — | — |
18–20 years | — | — | — | — | 39 | 34 |
21 years | 3 | 3 | 8 | 8 | — | — |
22 years | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | — | — |
21–24 years | — | — | 1 | 1 | 43 | 37 |
25–28 years | — | — | — | — | 11 | 10 |
29+ years | — | — | 2 | 2 | 22 | 19 |
Mean age (SD)a | 18;3 (1;2) | — | 19;2 (3;5) | — | — | — |
Female | 39 | 43 | 54 | 53 | 110 | 96 |
Male | 51 | 57 | 47 | 47 | 5 | 4 |
Fluent/Excellent ASL skills | — | — | 40 | 40 | 4 | 3 |
Conversational/Good ASL skills | — | — | 29 | 29 | 74 | 64 |
Basic/Fair ASL skills | — | — | 17 | 17 | 34 | 30 |
In need of remediation/Poor ASL skills | — | — | 14 | 14 | 3 | 3 |
Signing 0–1;0 year | — | — | — | — | 48 | 42 |
Signing 1;1–2;0 years | — | — | — | — | 11 | 10 |
Signing 2;1–3;0 years | — | — | — | — | 13 | 11 |
Signing 3;1–4;0 years | — | — | — | — | 7 | 6 |
Signing > 4 years | — | — | — | — | 36 | 31 |
. | Deaf HS . | Deaf collegeb . | M2L2 . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | N . | % . | N . | % . | N . | % . |
Total | 90 | 100 | 101 | 100 | 115 | 100 |
17 years | 55 | 61 | 2 | 2 | — | — |
18 years | 10 | 11 | 39 | 39 | — | — |
19 years | 14 | 16 | 24 | 24 | — | — |
20 years | 7 | 8 | 15 | 15 | — | — |
18–20 years | — | — | — | — | 39 | 34 |
21 years | 3 | 3 | 8 | 8 | — | — |
22 years | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | — | — |
21–24 years | — | — | 1 | 1 | 43 | 37 |
25–28 years | — | — | — | — | 11 | 10 |
29+ years | — | — | 2 | 2 | 22 | 19 |
Mean age (SD)a | 18;3 (1;2) | — | 19;2 (3;5) | — | — | — |
Female | 39 | 43 | 54 | 53 | 110 | 96 |
Male | 51 | 57 | 47 | 47 | 5 | 4 |
Fluent/Excellent ASL skills | — | — | 40 | 40 | 4 | 3 |
Conversational/Good ASL skills | — | — | 29 | 29 | 74 | 64 |
Basic/Fair ASL skills | — | — | 17 | 17 | 34 | 30 |
In need of remediation/Poor ASL skills | — | — | 14 | 14 | 3 | 3 |
Signing 0–1;0 year | — | — | — | — | 48 | 42 |
Signing 1;1–2;0 years | — | — | — | — | 11 | 10 |
Signing 2;1–3;0 years | — | — | — | — | 13 | 11 |
Signing 3;1–4;0 years | — | — | — | — | 7 | 6 |
Signing > 4 years | — | — | — | — | 36 | 31 |
Note. (—) indicates no data.
Years;months.
Age was missing for five deaf college students.
. | Deaf HS . | Deaf collegeb . | M2L2 . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | N . | % . | N . | % . | N . | % . |
Total | 90 | 100 | 101 | 100 | 115 | 100 |
17 years | 55 | 61 | 2 | 2 | — | — |
18 years | 10 | 11 | 39 | 39 | — | — |
19 years | 14 | 16 | 24 | 24 | — | — |
20 years | 7 | 8 | 15 | 15 | — | — |
18–20 years | — | — | — | — | 39 | 34 |
21 years | 3 | 3 | 8 | 8 | — | — |
22 years | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | — | — |
21–24 years | — | — | 1 | 1 | 43 | 37 |
25–28 years | — | — | — | — | 11 | 10 |
29+ years | — | — | 2 | 2 | 22 | 19 |
Mean age (SD)a | 18;3 (1;2) | — | 19;2 (3;5) | — | — | — |
Female | 39 | 43 | 54 | 53 | 110 | 96 |
Male | 51 | 57 | 47 | 47 | 5 | 4 |
Fluent/Excellent ASL skills | — | — | 40 | 40 | 4 | 3 |
Conversational/Good ASL skills | — | — | 29 | 29 | 74 | 64 |
Basic/Fair ASL skills | — | — | 17 | 17 | 34 | 30 |
In need of remediation/Poor ASL skills | — | — | 14 | 14 | 3 | 3 |
Signing 0–1;0 year | — | — | — | — | 48 | 42 |
Signing 1;1–2;0 years | — | — | — | — | 11 | 10 |
Signing 2;1–3;0 years | — | — | — | — | 13 | 11 |
Signing 3;1–4;0 years | — | — | — | — | 7 | 6 |
Signing > 4 years | — | — | — | — | 36 | 31 |
. | Deaf HS . | Deaf collegeb . | M2L2 . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | N . | % . | N . | % . | N . | % . |
Total | 90 | 100 | 101 | 100 | 115 | 100 |
17 years | 55 | 61 | 2 | 2 | — | — |
18 years | 10 | 11 | 39 | 39 | — | — |
19 years | 14 | 16 | 24 | 24 | — | — |
20 years | 7 | 8 | 15 | 15 | — | — |
18–20 years | — | — | — | — | 39 | 34 |
21 years | 3 | 3 | 8 | 8 | — | — |
22 years | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | — | — |
21–24 years | — | — | 1 | 1 | 43 | 37 |
25–28 years | — | — | — | — | 11 | 10 |
29+ years | — | — | 2 | 2 | 22 | 19 |
Mean age (SD)a | 18;3 (1;2) | — | 19;2 (3;5) | — | — | — |
Female | 39 | 43 | 54 | 53 | 110 | 96 |
Male | 51 | 57 | 47 | 47 | 5 | 4 |
Fluent/Excellent ASL skills | — | — | 40 | 40 | 4 | 3 |
Conversational/Good ASL skills | — | — | 29 | 29 | 74 | 64 |
Basic/Fair ASL skills | — | — | 17 | 17 | 34 | 30 |
In need of remediation/Poor ASL skills | — | — | 14 | 14 | 3 | 3 |
Signing 0–1;0 year | — | — | — | — | 48 | 42 |
Signing 1;1–2;0 years | — | — | — | — | 11 | 10 |
Signing 2;1–3;0 years | — | — | — | — | 13 | 11 |
Signing 3;1–4;0 years | — | — | — | — | 7 | 6 |
Signing > 4 years | — | — | — | — | 36 | 31 |
Note. (—) indicates no data.
Years;months.
Age was missing for five deaf college students.
Deaf College Students
One hundred one incoming deaf postsecondary students at a U.S. college that serves many domestic and international deaf students, aged 17–32 years (M = 19;2, SD = 3;5), participated in this study the summer before they began their freshman year at the college. No formal language assessments, including ASL assessments, are administered to incoming students; instead, they complete interviews with faculty who recommend language coursework as needed at an individual level. Fifty-four percent (N = 54) of participants were female and 46% (N = 47) were male. Forty percent rated their understanding of ASL as excellent, whereas 29% said good, 17% said fair, 11% said poor, and 3% said no skill. About three-quarters of the students self-rated that sign language was their best form of communication, whereas one quarter said speaking/listening. We divided these students into signing (N = 77) and speaking (N = 24) groups for data analyses. A quarter of these students used at least one other language besides ASL and English. No measure of age of sign language acquisition was administered.
Typically Hearing College Students
M2L2 learners included 115 postsecondary ASL learners, the majority of whom were female (5 males), 18–24 years of age, and interpreting majors (64%; per Institutional Review Board regulations, M2L2 learners responded only to age ranges). Seventeen percent were deaf studies majors and 16% deaf education (4% other). Twenty M2L2 learners (17%) had a deaf family member. Most (55%) completed high school-level ASL I, II, and/or III, while all had completed university-level ASL I–III, and were enrolled at the end of ASL IV. At this particular university, this equated to a full year of ASL instruction. The majority (69%) also completed university-level Numbers, Classifiers, and Fingerspelling course. Forty-eight had been signing <1 year, whereas 35 had been signing >4 years, for an overall group mean of 3.94 years (SD = 5.15). Six of these M2L2 learners spent the majority of their lives using sign language in some instances. All attended the same university in the southeastern United States. Data for 33 of these learners were presented in Beal (2020b). No other ASL measures were available for M2L2 learners.
Procedures
All participants completed the ASL-RST via computer, with slight differences. The deaf high school students completed the ASL-RST one-on-one with trained research assistants (i.e., university interpreting students who completed the ASL-RST prior to data collection with deaf high school students), supervised by the first author, in common areas of the school, including the media center and social areas of the dorms. These data were part of a larger study that included younger children who required one-on-one assistance to complete the test. Students pointed to one of four response options for each item of the test and research assistants circled their response on a corresponding paper score sheet. Each ASL-RST item measures only one of the nine grammatical categories, with the exception of six items, which measure two categories simultaneously (e.g., item 34, IF SICK, [NO] GO-SCHOOL measures both negation and conditional). For this item, after participants watch the phrase in ASL, they see four picture response options, including: a child in bed with a thermometer; a classroom with students; a classroom with a sick child sitting at a desk; and a child in bed with a thermometer and a thought bubble depicting the classroom with an empty desk. The deaf and typically hearing college students completed the ASL-RST individually through an online link to a Qualtrics survey in small groups on campus. They pushed the play button to view each stimulus item and clicked on each response choice. Student responses automatically saved and downloaded into an Excel spreadsheet.
Data Analyses
To investigate how the receptive ASL skills of deaf and typically hearing ASL learners are similar and different, for each group, we used SPSS version 26 to calculate means and standard deviations for overall ASL-RST scores, each grammatical category, and each item. Because there was a wide span in years of sign language experience among the M2L2 learners (i.e., 8 months to 30 years), we investigated any differences in ASL-RST performance with one-way ANOVAs with ASL-RST scores by years of signing experience (i.e., 0–1, 1–2, 2–3, 3–4, and 4+ years) using SPSS version 26 with statistical significance set at p = .05.
Results
Overall ASL-RST Scores
We asked how three different groups, including deaf high schoolers, deaf college students, and M2L2 ASL learners, performed on the ASL-RST. The four groups performed similarly on mean overall ASL-RST score at 77–78% accuracy (i.e., 32–33 items correct out of 42 total items; see Table 2), and score ranges were similar except for the signing deaf college students, who had a much lower minimum score (see Table 2). Despite variation in years of sign language experience based on self-report, there was no significant difference among M2L2 signers on ASL-RST performance (F[4, 110] = 1.66, p = .165). Additionally, four or more years of self-reported sign language experience (N = 37) did not correlate with ASL-RST score (r = −.062, p = .358). One deaf high school student scored above 2 SD of the mean (i.e., 41) and three scored below 2 SD of the mean (i.e., below 24). No deaf college students who preferred sign language scored above 2 SD of the mean, which was impossible at 43, and five (6%) scored below 2 SD of the mean (i.e., below 21). One deaf college student who preferred spoken language (4%) scored above 2 SD of the mean (i.e., 40), and 1 (4%) scored below 2 SD of the mean (i.e., below 24). The three deaf college students who self-rated their understanding of ASL as poor scored at 62% correct or higher on the ASL-RST, so they remained within the data analyses. Finally, no M2L2 student scored above 2 SD of the mean (i.e., 40) and five (4%) scored below 2 SD of the mean (i.e., below 26). There was no significant difference among the four groups for overall ASL-RST score, F[3, 254] = 1.50, p = .215. In the present study, one deaf signing college student scored at ceiling on the ASL-RST.
. | Deaf high school . | Deaf college signing . | Deaf college speaking . | M2L2 college . |
---|---|---|---|---|
N | 90 | 77 | 24 | 115 |
M | 32.4 | 32.2 | 32.5 | 32.9 |
SD | 4.3 | 5.8 | 4.2 | 3.9 |
Range | 22–41 | 12–42 | 20–40 | 19–39 |
. | Deaf high school . | Deaf college signing . | Deaf college speaking . | M2L2 college . |
---|---|---|---|---|
N | 90 | 77 | 24 | 115 |
M | 32.4 | 32.2 | 32.5 | 32.9 |
SD | 4.3 | 5.8 | 4.2 | 3.9 |
Range | 22–41 | 12–42 | 20–40 | 19–39 |
. | Deaf high school . | Deaf college signing . | Deaf college speaking . | M2L2 college . |
---|---|---|---|---|
N | 90 | 77 | 24 | 115 |
M | 32.4 | 32.2 | 32.5 | 32.9 |
SD | 4.3 | 5.8 | 4.2 | 3.9 |
Range | 22–41 | 12–42 | 20–40 | 19–39 |
. | Deaf high school . | Deaf college signing . | Deaf college speaking . | M2L2 college . |
---|---|---|---|---|
N | 90 | 77 | 24 | 115 |
M | 32.4 | 32.2 | 32.5 | 32.9 |
SD | 4.3 | 5.8 | 4.2 | 3.9 |
Range | 22–41 | 12–42 | 20–40 | 19–39 |
Category Analyses
We also investigated categorical similarities and differences among groups. Table 3 shows scores across grammatical categories for the present four groups. All four groups performed below 75% accuracy for number-distribution, spatial verbs location, SASSes, and role shift. Deaf college students also struggled with handling classifiers, in contrast to deaf high schoolers and M2L2 learners. Noun-verb distinction, spatial verbs action, and conditionals were the easiest categories for all four groups. Finally, M2L2 learners outscored the other three groups for negation by 10%.
Grammatical category (items) . | Deaf high school (N = 90) . | Deaf signing college (N = 77) . | Deaf speaking college (N = 24) . | M2L2 College (N = 115) . | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | M % Correct . | Rank . | M % Correct . | Rank . | M % Correct . | Rank . | M % Correct . | Rank . |
Noun-verb distinction (4) | 82.8 | 1 | 77.6 | 3 | 81.3 | 2a | 87.8 | 2 |
Spatial verbs action (8) | 82.6 | 2 | 83.3 | 2 | 84.9 | 1 | 85.5 | 4 |
Conditionals (2) | 80.6 | 3 | 88.3 | 1 | 81.3 | 2a | 93.1 | 1 |
Handling CL (3) | 79.3 | 4 | 64.9 | 7 | 59.7 | 6 | 79.4 | 5 |
Negation (9) | 77.8 | 5 | 76.0 | 5 | 77.3 | 3 | 86.8 | 3 |
Number-distribution (7) | 74.3 | 6 | 53.4 | 9 | 57.7 | 7 | 72.2 | 7 |
SASS (4) | 74.2 | 7 | 77.0 | 4 | 76.0 | 4 | 78.0 | 6 |
Spatial verbs location (8) | 71.4 | 8 | 68.0 | 6 | 65.1 | 5 | 66.3 | 8 |
Role shift (3) | 55.2 | 9 | 55.4 | 8 | 54.2 | 8 | 51.6 | 9 |
Grammatical category (items) . | Deaf high school (N = 90) . | Deaf signing college (N = 77) . | Deaf speaking college (N = 24) . | M2L2 College (N = 115) . | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | M % Correct . | Rank . | M % Correct . | Rank . | M % Correct . | Rank . | M % Correct . | Rank . |
Noun-verb distinction (4) | 82.8 | 1 | 77.6 | 3 | 81.3 | 2a | 87.8 | 2 |
Spatial verbs action (8) | 82.6 | 2 | 83.3 | 2 | 84.9 | 1 | 85.5 | 4 |
Conditionals (2) | 80.6 | 3 | 88.3 | 1 | 81.3 | 2a | 93.1 | 1 |
Handling CL (3) | 79.3 | 4 | 64.9 | 7 | 59.7 | 6 | 79.4 | 5 |
Negation (9) | 77.8 | 5 | 76.0 | 5 | 77.3 | 3 | 86.8 | 3 |
Number-distribution (7) | 74.3 | 6 | 53.4 | 9 | 57.7 | 7 | 72.2 | 7 |
SASS (4) | 74.2 | 7 | 77.0 | 4 | 76.0 | 4 | 78.0 | 6 |
Spatial verbs location (8) | 71.4 | 8 | 68.0 | 6 | 65.1 | 5 | 66.3 | 8 |
Role shift (3) | 55.2 | 9 | 55.4 | 8 | 54.2 | 8 | 51.6 | 9 |
Designates a tie in rank.
Grammatical category (items) . | Deaf high school (N = 90) . | Deaf signing college (N = 77) . | Deaf speaking college (N = 24) . | M2L2 College (N = 115) . | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | M % Correct . | Rank . | M % Correct . | Rank . | M % Correct . | Rank . | M % Correct . | Rank . |
Noun-verb distinction (4) | 82.8 | 1 | 77.6 | 3 | 81.3 | 2a | 87.8 | 2 |
Spatial verbs action (8) | 82.6 | 2 | 83.3 | 2 | 84.9 | 1 | 85.5 | 4 |
Conditionals (2) | 80.6 | 3 | 88.3 | 1 | 81.3 | 2a | 93.1 | 1 |
Handling CL (3) | 79.3 | 4 | 64.9 | 7 | 59.7 | 6 | 79.4 | 5 |
Negation (9) | 77.8 | 5 | 76.0 | 5 | 77.3 | 3 | 86.8 | 3 |
Number-distribution (7) | 74.3 | 6 | 53.4 | 9 | 57.7 | 7 | 72.2 | 7 |
SASS (4) | 74.2 | 7 | 77.0 | 4 | 76.0 | 4 | 78.0 | 6 |
Spatial verbs location (8) | 71.4 | 8 | 68.0 | 6 | 65.1 | 5 | 66.3 | 8 |
Role shift (3) | 55.2 | 9 | 55.4 | 8 | 54.2 | 8 | 51.6 | 9 |
Grammatical category (items) . | Deaf high school (N = 90) . | Deaf signing college (N = 77) . | Deaf speaking college (N = 24) . | M2L2 College (N = 115) . | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | M % Correct . | Rank . | M % Correct . | Rank . | M % Correct . | Rank . | M % Correct . | Rank . |
Noun-verb distinction (4) | 82.8 | 1 | 77.6 | 3 | 81.3 | 2a | 87.8 | 2 |
Spatial verbs action (8) | 82.6 | 2 | 83.3 | 2 | 84.9 | 1 | 85.5 | 4 |
Conditionals (2) | 80.6 | 3 | 88.3 | 1 | 81.3 | 2a | 93.1 | 1 |
Handling CL (3) | 79.3 | 4 | 64.9 | 7 | 59.7 | 6 | 79.4 | 5 |
Negation (9) | 77.8 | 5 | 76.0 | 5 | 77.3 | 3 | 86.8 | 3 |
Number-distribution (7) | 74.3 | 6 | 53.4 | 9 | 57.7 | 7 | 72.2 | 7 |
SASS (4) | 74.2 | 7 | 77.0 | 4 | 76.0 | 4 | 78.0 | 6 |
Spatial verbs location (8) | 71.4 | 8 | 68.0 | 6 | 65.1 | 5 | 66.3 | 8 |
Role shift (3) | 55.2 | 9 | 55.4 | 8 | 54.2 | 8 | 51.6 | 9 |
Designates a tie in rank.
Item Analyses
In addition to grammatical category performance, we looked at responses for each ASL-RST item by learner group to determine where participants struggled with ASL comprehension (see Table 4). Three findings emerged. First, the ASL-RST increases in difficulty with each subsequent item (Enns et al., 2013); the second half of the assessment from item 28 forward was harder for all groups. Across these items, negation (5), spatial verbs location (5), and spatial verbs action (4) were the most frequent grammatical categories with lower accuracy. Four of these items also measured two grammatical categories, which obscures identifying which category may be more difficult for learners within those items. Finally, two number-distribution items, 18 and 23, which appear in the first half of the ASL-RST, were below 65% accuracy for every group except for deaf high schoolers on item 18.
Item . | Category . | Deaf high schoolers . | Deaf signing college . | Deaf speaking college . | M2L2 College . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
6 | RAIN COAT NOTHING (Negation) | 74.4 | 84.4 | 95.8 | 86.1 |
8 | (NO) SLEEP (Negation) | 81.1 | 67.5 | 79.2 | 91.3 |
10 | THIN-STRIPS-DOWN-SHIRT (SASS)a | 76.7 | 71.4 | 75.0 | 82.6 |
18 | TWO-ROWS (BEDS) (Number-distribution) | 86.7 | 64.9 | 62.5 | 41.7 |
23 | CLASSIFIER (BEAR) (Number-distribution) | 40.0 | 41.6 | 58.3 | 63.5 |
26 | BOOK SHOW-SIDE (Spatial verbs action) | 73.3 | 88.3 | 95.8 | 90.4 |
28 | BOOK GIVE-TO (CHILD) (Spatial verbs action, handling classifier) | 73.3 | 83.1 | 83.3 | 85.2 |
29 | BOX DOG-IN (Spatial verbs location) | 81.1 | 71.4 | 66.7 | 73.0 |
30 | HOLD-UMBRELLA-WALKING (Spatial verbs action, handling classifier) | 76.7 | 63.6 | 62.5 | 61.7 |
31 | NEVER GLASSES (Negation) | 54.4 | 50.6 | 33.3 | 66.1 |
32 | CHAIR (Noun–verb) | 37.8 | 42.9 | 41.7 | 73.0 |
33 | HOUSE CAR-BEHIND (Spatial verbs location) | 87.8 | 79.2 | 83.3 | 64.3 |
34 | IF SICK, (NO)–GO SCHOOL (Negation, conditional) | 65.5 | 84.4 | 70.8 | 91.3 |
35 | CAR-ROW (BOTTOM) (Number-distribution) | 47.8 | 53.2 | 62.5 | 72.2 |
36 | TAP-GIRL, GIRL-TURN-LOOK (Role Shift) | 56.7 | 36.4 | 33.3 | 45.2 |
37 | BOX DOG-IN-FRONT (Spatial verbs location) | 34.4 | 41.6 | 29.2 | 33.9 |
38 | COLLAR (NO), BITE-BIG-BONE (SASS, negation) | 40.0 | 57.1 | 54.2 | 61.7 |
39 | BOX DOG-SIT-RIGHT SIDE (Spatial verbs location) | 41.1 | 41.6 | 50.0 | 36.5 |
40 | PICK-APPLE, GIVE-BOY, BOY-EAT (Role shift) | 30.0 | 41.6 | 45.8 | 28.7 |
41 | TWO CARS, PERSON-WALK-BEHIND (Spatial verbs action, number–distribution) | 57.8 | 53.2 | 62.5 | 60.9 |
42 | INTERSECTION HOUSE-TOP-RIGHT (Spatial verbs location) | 36.7 | 35.1 | 4.2b | 44.3 |
Item . | Category . | Deaf high schoolers . | Deaf signing college . | Deaf speaking college . | M2L2 College . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
6 | RAIN COAT NOTHING (Negation) | 74.4 | 84.4 | 95.8 | 86.1 |
8 | (NO) SLEEP (Negation) | 81.1 | 67.5 | 79.2 | 91.3 |
10 | THIN-STRIPS-DOWN-SHIRT (SASS)a | 76.7 | 71.4 | 75.0 | 82.6 |
18 | TWO-ROWS (BEDS) (Number-distribution) | 86.7 | 64.9 | 62.5 | 41.7 |
23 | CLASSIFIER (BEAR) (Number-distribution) | 40.0 | 41.6 | 58.3 | 63.5 |
26 | BOOK SHOW-SIDE (Spatial verbs action) | 73.3 | 88.3 | 95.8 | 90.4 |
28 | BOOK GIVE-TO (CHILD) (Spatial verbs action, handling classifier) | 73.3 | 83.1 | 83.3 | 85.2 |
29 | BOX DOG-IN (Spatial verbs location) | 81.1 | 71.4 | 66.7 | 73.0 |
30 | HOLD-UMBRELLA-WALKING (Spatial verbs action, handling classifier) | 76.7 | 63.6 | 62.5 | 61.7 |
31 | NEVER GLASSES (Negation) | 54.4 | 50.6 | 33.3 | 66.1 |
32 | CHAIR (Noun–verb) | 37.8 | 42.9 | 41.7 | 73.0 |
33 | HOUSE CAR-BEHIND (Spatial verbs location) | 87.8 | 79.2 | 83.3 | 64.3 |
34 | IF SICK, (NO)–GO SCHOOL (Negation, conditional) | 65.5 | 84.4 | 70.8 | 91.3 |
35 | CAR-ROW (BOTTOM) (Number-distribution) | 47.8 | 53.2 | 62.5 | 72.2 |
36 | TAP-GIRL, GIRL-TURN-LOOK (Role Shift) | 56.7 | 36.4 | 33.3 | 45.2 |
37 | BOX DOG-IN-FRONT (Spatial verbs location) | 34.4 | 41.6 | 29.2 | 33.9 |
38 | COLLAR (NO), BITE-BIG-BONE (SASS, negation) | 40.0 | 57.1 | 54.2 | 61.7 |
39 | BOX DOG-SIT-RIGHT SIDE (Spatial verbs location) | 41.1 | 41.6 | 50.0 | 36.5 |
40 | PICK-APPLE, GIVE-BOY, BOY-EAT (Role shift) | 30.0 | 41.6 | 45.8 | 28.7 |
41 | TWO CARS, PERSON-WALK-BEHIND (Spatial verbs action, number–distribution) | 57.8 | 53.2 | 62.5 | 60.9 |
42 | INTERSECTION HOUSE-TOP-RIGHT (Spatial verbs location) | 36.7 | 35.1 | 4.2b | 44.3 |
Note. ASL–RST items increase in difficulty with item number.
SASS = Size and shape specifiers.
Only one learner was correct on item 42.
Item . | Category . | Deaf high schoolers . | Deaf signing college . | Deaf speaking college . | M2L2 College . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
6 | RAIN COAT NOTHING (Negation) | 74.4 | 84.4 | 95.8 | 86.1 |
8 | (NO) SLEEP (Negation) | 81.1 | 67.5 | 79.2 | 91.3 |
10 | THIN-STRIPS-DOWN-SHIRT (SASS)a | 76.7 | 71.4 | 75.0 | 82.6 |
18 | TWO-ROWS (BEDS) (Number-distribution) | 86.7 | 64.9 | 62.5 | 41.7 |
23 | CLASSIFIER (BEAR) (Number-distribution) | 40.0 | 41.6 | 58.3 | 63.5 |
26 | BOOK SHOW-SIDE (Spatial verbs action) | 73.3 | 88.3 | 95.8 | 90.4 |
28 | BOOK GIVE-TO (CHILD) (Spatial verbs action, handling classifier) | 73.3 | 83.1 | 83.3 | 85.2 |
29 | BOX DOG-IN (Spatial verbs location) | 81.1 | 71.4 | 66.7 | 73.0 |
30 | HOLD-UMBRELLA-WALKING (Spatial verbs action, handling classifier) | 76.7 | 63.6 | 62.5 | 61.7 |
31 | NEVER GLASSES (Negation) | 54.4 | 50.6 | 33.3 | 66.1 |
32 | CHAIR (Noun–verb) | 37.8 | 42.9 | 41.7 | 73.0 |
33 | HOUSE CAR-BEHIND (Spatial verbs location) | 87.8 | 79.2 | 83.3 | 64.3 |
34 | IF SICK, (NO)–GO SCHOOL (Negation, conditional) | 65.5 | 84.4 | 70.8 | 91.3 |
35 | CAR-ROW (BOTTOM) (Number-distribution) | 47.8 | 53.2 | 62.5 | 72.2 |
36 | TAP-GIRL, GIRL-TURN-LOOK (Role Shift) | 56.7 | 36.4 | 33.3 | 45.2 |
37 | BOX DOG-IN-FRONT (Spatial verbs location) | 34.4 | 41.6 | 29.2 | 33.9 |
38 | COLLAR (NO), BITE-BIG-BONE (SASS, negation) | 40.0 | 57.1 | 54.2 | 61.7 |
39 | BOX DOG-SIT-RIGHT SIDE (Spatial verbs location) | 41.1 | 41.6 | 50.0 | 36.5 |
40 | PICK-APPLE, GIVE-BOY, BOY-EAT (Role shift) | 30.0 | 41.6 | 45.8 | 28.7 |
41 | TWO CARS, PERSON-WALK-BEHIND (Spatial verbs action, number–distribution) | 57.8 | 53.2 | 62.5 | 60.9 |
42 | INTERSECTION HOUSE-TOP-RIGHT (Spatial verbs location) | 36.7 | 35.1 | 4.2b | 44.3 |
Item . | Category . | Deaf high schoolers . | Deaf signing college . | Deaf speaking college . | M2L2 College . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
6 | RAIN COAT NOTHING (Negation) | 74.4 | 84.4 | 95.8 | 86.1 |
8 | (NO) SLEEP (Negation) | 81.1 | 67.5 | 79.2 | 91.3 |
10 | THIN-STRIPS-DOWN-SHIRT (SASS)a | 76.7 | 71.4 | 75.0 | 82.6 |
18 | TWO-ROWS (BEDS) (Number-distribution) | 86.7 | 64.9 | 62.5 | 41.7 |
23 | CLASSIFIER (BEAR) (Number-distribution) | 40.0 | 41.6 | 58.3 | 63.5 |
26 | BOOK SHOW-SIDE (Spatial verbs action) | 73.3 | 88.3 | 95.8 | 90.4 |
28 | BOOK GIVE-TO (CHILD) (Spatial verbs action, handling classifier) | 73.3 | 83.1 | 83.3 | 85.2 |
29 | BOX DOG-IN (Spatial verbs location) | 81.1 | 71.4 | 66.7 | 73.0 |
30 | HOLD-UMBRELLA-WALKING (Spatial verbs action, handling classifier) | 76.7 | 63.6 | 62.5 | 61.7 |
31 | NEVER GLASSES (Negation) | 54.4 | 50.6 | 33.3 | 66.1 |
32 | CHAIR (Noun–verb) | 37.8 | 42.9 | 41.7 | 73.0 |
33 | HOUSE CAR-BEHIND (Spatial verbs location) | 87.8 | 79.2 | 83.3 | 64.3 |
34 | IF SICK, (NO)–GO SCHOOL (Negation, conditional) | 65.5 | 84.4 | 70.8 | 91.3 |
35 | CAR-ROW (BOTTOM) (Number-distribution) | 47.8 | 53.2 | 62.5 | 72.2 |
36 | TAP-GIRL, GIRL-TURN-LOOK (Role Shift) | 56.7 | 36.4 | 33.3 | 45.2 |
37 | BOX DOG-IN-FRONT (Spatial verbs location) | 34.4 | 41.6 | 29.2 | 33.9 |
38 | COLLAR (NO), BITE-BIG-BONE (SASS, negation) | 40.0 | 57.1 | 54.2 | 61.7 |
39 | BOX DOG-SIT-RIGHT SIDE (Spatial verbs location) | 41.1 | 41.6 | 50.0 | 36.5 |
40 | PICK-APPLE, GIVE-BOY, BOY-EAT (Role shift) | 30.0 | 41.6 | 45.8 | 28.7 |
41 | TWO CARS, PERSON-WALK-BEHIND (Spatial verbs action, number–distribution) | 57.8 | 53.2 | 62.5 | 60.9 |
42 | INTERSECTION HOUSE-TOP-RIGHT (Spatial verbs location) | 36.7 | 35.1 | 4.2b | 44.3 |
Note. ASL–RST items increase in difficulty with item number.
SASS = Size and shape specifiers.
Only one learner was correct on item 42.
Next, we discuss our findings related to similarities, differences, and instructional implications.
Discussion
ASL-RST Similarities and Differences across Groups
We asked how performance on the ASL-RST was similar and different for deaf high schoolers, deaf college students (divided into those who preferred signing or speaking), and typically hearing M2L2 learners. Despite learner differences, including first and second language(s), age of acquisition of ASL, and amount of ASL exposure, all four groups had similar ASL comprehension based on ASL–RST mean scores (77%). The present results are slightly higher than a smaller sample of deaf college students (Beal et al., 2021) and previous M2L2 learners (Beal, 2020b) but align with deaf high school students aged 17–22 (Beal, 2020a; Beal-Alvarez, 2014, 2016). The ASL–RST was designed for and has reliability for a sample of deaf native-like signers 3–13 years of age (Enns et al., 2013); however, the majority of deaf students are not native-like signers because they have typically hearing parents. Previous studies have investigated the ASL comprehension of both deaf and typically hearing ASL learners beyond the age of 13 using the ASL-RST. Although reliability and validity data are not available for these populations, previous and present overall score results are consistent across deaf and typically hearing learners of ASL beyond 13 years of age and suggest areas in need of direct instruction.
Grammatical Categories
All four groups in the present study struggled with comprehension of four grammatical categories, including number-distribution, spatial verbs location, SASSes, and role shift. These results align with previous findings for deaf high schoolers (Beal, 2020a; Beal-Alvarez, 2014, 2016), deaf college students (Beal et al., 2021), and M2L2 learners (Beal, 2020b). These grammatical categories are related to constructs that “show” details visually in place of describing them with lexical signs (Quinto-Pozos, 2007; Taub & Galvan, 2001). This concept of showing in ASL often includes the use of classifier handshapes paired with specific locations and movements to demonstrate physical characteristics of objects or actions and is prevalent within narrative productions by signing deaf adults regardless of language background (Beal-Alvarez & Trussell, 2015; Quinto-Pozos, 2007). Use of these visual constructions within narratives also resulted in higher ratings of signer fluency (Lupton, 1998).
Enns et al. (2013) defined number-distribution as the depiction of a “number of objects/people and their spatial arrangements” through the use of signs, classifiers, and repetition of movements. “For example, three cups on a table can be depicted by signing CUP three times but in the location of each cup, either in a row or randomly around the table” (Enns et al., 2013, p. 6). The ASL Content Standards for deaf children (Laurent Clerc Center, 2018) note the need for incoming kindergarten students to know “basic number concepts … for a variety of grammatical structures…including number distribution” (p. 58). Related to the category of spatial verbs location, deaf children in grade one should “use classifiers to show location of one object or person in relation to others” (Laurent Clerc Center, 2018, p. 24). Related to the category of role shift, deaf children with deaf parents appear to accurately use role shift around four years of age (Loew, 1980) and role shift is listed as a second grade ASL Content Standard for deaf children (Laurent Clerc Center, 2018).
It may be that deaf high school and college students are not frequently exposed to these visual constructions within their P-12 educational experiences, for two reasons. First, the majority (80%) of deaf students in the United States attend their local schools, where they may receive interpreting and teacher of the deaf services from educators who are primarily M2L2 learners of ASL. Second, many deaf students are not surrounded by a signing community unless they attend a K-12 school for the deaf, a college with a large deaf student population, or seek a geographical Deaf community.
As McKee and McKee (1992) noted, M2L2 learners may struggle with comprehension of visual constructs that are novel and not a part of their first, spoken language: “Grammatical use of spatial locations is one of the unique properties of signed languages, without equivalent in learners’ first spoken languages” (p. 141). Based on Kurz and Taylor’s (2008) collaborative research on ASL standards for university-level ASL learners, M2L2 learners are expected to demonstrate comprehension and production of role shift in university-level ASL IV (Kurz & Taylor, 2008). Similarly, the ASLTA Standards for Learning American Sign Language for M2L2 learners address use of role shift at the “intermediate to advanced” levels (Ashton et al., 2014, p. 9). No mention of number-distribution is made in the available learning standards for M2L2 learners. However, M2L2 learners should recognize the spatial location of objects in ASL I, use “appropriate locations in space for pronouns and nouns” in ASL II, “demonstrate mastery in showing spatial relationships between subjects and objects” in ASL III, and be able to change perspectives within ASL dialogues in ASL IV (Kurz & Taylor, 2008, p. 47). Related to classifiers, the ALSTA standards for M2L2 learners note that “students develop understanding of the existence of noun-related classifiers in ASL” in kindergarten (Ashton et al., 2014, p. 37).
Interestingly, M2L2 learners scored higher than the other three groups for negation, which is demonstrated within ASL-RST items by headshake or lexical signs (e.g., NONE, NOT-YET, etc.). This difference in performance may be related to the fact that M2L2 learners have mastered negation in their first language, therefore transferring this knowledge to a second language (Cummins, 2000), whereas deaf students who are late learners of ASL as a first language may overlook negation indicators, including head shake and/or lexical signs. It also could be related to the direct instruction of negation in ASL in four units of Signing Naturally (i.e., units 2;1, 3:13, 4:2, and 4:10). The ASL Content Standards for deaf children (Laurent Clerc Center, 2018) address negation in grade three (i.e., “Produce compound sentences using negations or as conditionals,” p. 45), while the ASLTA standards for M2L2 learners address observation and comprehension of negation during ASL I, use of headshake and non-manuals to show negation in ASL II, and ability to debate using negation in ASL IV (Kurz & Taylor, 2008). Based on present and previous results, deaf high schoolers, deaf college students, and M2L2 learners might benefit from explicit and direct instruction in number-distribution, spatial verbs location, SASSes, and role shift, with an additional focus on negation for deaf students, to improve their ASL comprehension.
Item Analyses
In addition to the nine specific ASL-RST grammatical categories, two other areas of ASL appeared difficult for learners’ comprehension: classifier handshape and signer’s perspective.
Classifier handshape
All groups scored lower on two number-distribution items, 18 and 23, which each include the signer using an object classifier handshape to designate an item, without first labeling it, and establishing the handshape(s) in space to show the object’s spatial arrangement. Item 18 uses two palm-down H handshapes moving away from the signer to show two rows of items. Response options include two rows of beds, two rows of recliners, two rows of pencils, and a single row of beds. Although the H handshape is frequently used for chairs in ASL (Tennant & Brown, 1998), a B handshape is frequently used for beds (Wheeler, 2016). Although the deaf high schoolers performed better on this item compared to the other groups (87% vs., 42–65%), all groups struggled on item 23, which uses an upright bent V handshape located with a stamp movement in signer space (40–64%). Response items include one bear, three bears, a dog laying on its side, and a boy with a bear on his lap. A bent V handshape can be used for “a larger animal sitting” (Lifeprint.com, n.d.). It is unclear if some signers in the present study had been exposed to these two particular classifier handshapes related to the corresponding assessment items (i.e., beds and upright animals). Generally, when using classifier handshapes in depicting constructions, a lexical sign is used to label the item before the depicting construction is signed (Schick, 2006; Taub & Galvan, 2001), and that information was not available in these two test items; however, these two items seek to assess participant understanding of specific classifier handshapes related to specific objects, not their understanding of vocabulary items alone. Previous researchers (Beal, 2020b; Lieberman et al., 2014) did not provide results for M2L2 learners specific to these two items, so it is unclear if participant performance is related to varied knowledge of classifier handshapes or the specific assessment items.
Deaf adults frequently use classifier handshapes and depicting constructions within narrative contexts (Beal-Alvarez & Trussell, 2015). In fact, depicting constructions accounted for one-third of signs used by deaf adults in spontaneous narrative tasks (Morford & MacFarlane, 2003). Deaf children with deaf parents have shown two developmental patterns related to classifier acquisition as they matured. First, they expanded their use of the vehicle classifier handshape from only cars to other vehicles and embedded travel direction, and second, they used many ASL handshapes in non-classifier signs before classifier signs, such as the V handshape for SEE and TWO but not for the BY-LEGS classifier (Kantor, 1980). Laurent Clerc Center’s (2018) standards for deaf children notes that deaf children should “use classifiers to show location of one object or person in relation to others” in first grade (p. 24). Their classifier use increases with age and is usually mastered around 9–11 years (Slobin et al., 2003). In addition, with explicit instruction that included repeated viewings of ASL models and mediation and feedback, elementary-aged deaf students increased their use of classifier handshapes within their narrative retellings (Beal-Alvarez & Easterbrooks, 2013). Deaf learners also increased their use of these classifier handshapes within depicting constructions in their narrative retellings after a single viewing of an ASL model (Beal et al., 2020). It is unclear how much explicit instruction deaf learners need to comprehend and embed these constructions into their language repertoires.
Related to M2L2 ASL learners, spoken English has no equivalent structure to classifier handshapes or depicting constructions (Kantor, 1980; McKee & McKee, 1992), so there is no opportunity for transfer. The K-12 ALSTA standards for M2L2 learners note that “students develop understanding of the existence of noun-related classifiers in ASL” in kindergarten (Ashton et al., 2014, p. 37). At the university level, M2L2 learners should recognize the spatial location of objects in ASL I, and use “appropriate locations in space for pronouns and nouns” in ASL II (Kurz & Taylor, 2008, p. 47). University M2L2 ASL I learners increased their use of depicting constructions within their narrative retells after a single viewing of an ASL model and their overall ASL-RST scores correlated with their use of constructed action, suggesting increased ASL comprehension aligns with expressive use of visual constructions (Beal et al., under review). It is unclear why deaf and hearing learners performed lower on these two ASL-RST items. Future research could investigate patterns for incorrect response choices across individual items to determine if ASL learners have consistent areas in which signer comprehension breaks down. For instance, did the majority of learners select the same incorrect response, such as selection of the boy with the bear on his lap for item 23 because they thought the upright bent V handshape referred to a person instead of the teddy bear? Do ASL learners at later ages show the same trajectory learning classifier handshapes as earlier signers? Explicit instruction on the variety of classifier handshapes that can be used for classes of items should be embedded in ASL instruction for all learners.
Signer’s perspective
Seven ASL-RST items frequently missed by all groups involved signer’s perspective. For accurate comprehension in ASL, learners must be able to reverse the signer’s establishment of characters and objects in space 180°, so that they understand the signer’s right side corresponds with their own right side, and not their left side within a mirrored perspective. The items that required learners to understand signer’s perspective included objects arranged in spatial locations such as a dog in a box, in front of a box, and to the right side of a box; a car behind a house; a person walking behind two cars; and a house located within one quadrant of an intersection. The final item included a row of cars on a specific level of a three-story parking garage. Relatedly, two items required signer’s perspective for role shift comprehension, one in which a boy taps a girl on the shoulder and she looks over her shoulder, and the other in which a girl on a ladder gives an apple to a boy standing on the ground. Learners had to understand who was on the right and on the left in each item to accurately respond. Learner groups ranged from 4 to 88% accuracy across these items, although performance was below 63% for all groups across four of these items.
Deaf children with deaf parents appear to accurately use role shift around 4 years of age (Loew, 1980) and role shift is listed as a second grade ASL Content Standard for deaf children (Laurent Clerc Center, 2018). M2L2 learners are expected to demonstrate comprehension and production of role shift in university-level ASL IV, including change of perspectives within ASL dialogues, and “demonstrate mastery in showing spatial relationships between subjects and objects” in ASL III (Kurz & Taylor, 2008, p. 47). Presently, it is unclear if ASL learners consistently reverse signer’s perspective until some specific point in their learning trajectories. Investigation of incorrect ASL-RST response choices might identify additional information that affects role shift comprehension. Beal (2022) documented that university M2L2 ASL learners in ASL I were able to accurately replicate role shift within their narrative retellings after explicit instruction and repeated viewings of the modeled story; however, lower agreement for use of correct role shift was reported between the ASL instructor and the M2L2 learners. It is unclear how much explicit instruction is needed for learners to receptively understand character locations from the signer’s perspective, which must be reversed 180° for comprehension. In Beal (2022), several learners noted it was difficult to watch the ASL model and mentally reverse the locations of established characters, such that learners incorrectly established characters on the opposite sides in space as the model. Previous explicit instruction to address these errors included having learners turn their backs to the ASL model, therefore facing the same way as the model, to match the directional shifts of the model.
Learners’ errors across classifier handshape items and role shift items also may be related to differential processing efficiency, such as attending to phonetic details that interfere with comprehension (Mayberry & Fischer, 1989; Morford et al., 2008). In addition, the speed of the assessment may affect learner performance. The ASL-RST is administered automatically at a speed determined by the assessment developers and items are not repeated. It is possible that the assessment speed was too fast for learner comprehension of some information; however, the assessment is intended to assess automatic ASL comprehension at native-like levels.
Instructional Implications
Finally, we propose instructional implications related to standards, curricula, instructional strategies and time, and instructor ASL proficiency levels for these ASL learner groups based on their ASL-RST areas of need, including number-distribution, spatial verbs location, SASSes, classifier handshapes, role shift, and signer’s perspective.
Standards and curricula
It is unclear how to best teach these ASL grammatical aspects to deaf and M2L2 ASL learners. Presently, ASL learning standards are available for both deaf children Laurent Clerc Center, 2018) and M2L2 learners (Ashton et al., 2014; Kurz & Taylor, 2008); however, available curricula (e.g., Signing Naturally) do not provide explicit connections to ASL learning standards for M2L2 learners (Swaney & Smith, 2017; Thoryk, 2010), and no curricula are available for PK-12 deaf learners. Swaney and Smith (2017) noted only about half of their postsecondary ASL instructors surveyed actually applied either Kurz and Taylor’s (2008) Learning Outcomes for ASL skill levels I–IV or ASLTA’s Standards for Learning ASL within their ASL instruction. Available curricula also have gaps in instructional content and lack alignment with specific evidence-based instructional strategies. Instructors of ASL I identified grammar and classifiers as two gaps within the Signing Naturally curriculum (Swaney & Smith, 2017). Other has noted a need for explicit instruction in ASL sentence structure (McKee & McKee, 1992; Quinto-Pozos, 2011) and in the differences between the auditory-oral mode of spoken language and the visual-gestural mode of ASL (Quinto-Pozos, 2011).
Instructional strategies
Quinto-Pozos (2011) stated that the efficacy of frequently used instructional strategies within ASL courses “has generally not been examined empirically” (p. 138). All instructional intervention studies located included explicit (as opposed to implicit) instruction in some aspect of ASL. No published instructional strategies specific to number-distribution or SASSes for deaf learners or M2L2 learners was located. Specific to classifier handshapes and depicting constructions (i.e., use of role shift and spatial verbs location), repeated viewings of ASL models with (Beal, 2022; Beal et al., under review; Beal-Alvarez & Easterbrooks, 2013) and without (Beal et al., 2020) teacher scaffolding and learner feedback resulted in increased depiction production and accuracy. Explicit instruction in holds, transitions, and variation within fingerspelled words increased M2L2 learners’ fingerspelling comprehension (Geer & Keane, 2018). Explicit instruction in ASL to English glossing significantly increased M2L2 learners’ ASL grammatical knowledge, although it is unclear specifically which components of ASL grammar increased (Buisson, 2007). This process of direct comparison of two languages, or contrastive analysis between ASL and English, has been used as an instructional approach with deaf K-12 learners (Andrews & Rusher, 2010; Bailes, 2001; Gárate, 2012; Simms et al., 2005; Wolbers, 2008; Wolbers et al., 2015, 2013) and suggested within ASL learning standards for M2L2 learners (Ashton et al., 2014; Kurz & Taylor, 2008). Translanguaging strategies, such as chaining and sandwiching, benefit deaf children’s reading skills, providing more support for analyzing both the native and target languages during instruction (Bailes, 2001; Padden & Ramsey, 2000). Finally, across middle- and high-school-aged M2L2 learners, use of only the target language, ASL, during instruction resulted in higher receptive vocabulary knowledge than using learners’ native language of spoken and written English during ASL instruction (Rosen et al., 2014). In general, it appears most ASL instructors who responded to Swaney and Smith’s (2017) survey used task-based language learning, in which learners use the target language (i.e., ASL) to engage in conversations, activities, games, etc. when instructors supplemented the Signing Naturally curriculum within ASL I–IV courses (Long, 2014; Quinto-Pozos, 2011). Evidence on the effectiveness of these activities is not available outside of learners’ course grades.
Reproduction Tasks
One future instructional consideration that may provide additional information on ASL learners’ comprehension is ASL reproduction tasks (Schlehofer & Tyler, 2016; Supalla et al., 2014; Williams & Newman, 2016), in which learners watch sentences produced in ASL and immediately reproduce them, which is “a process involving recognition, comprehension, and production” (Schlehofer & Tyler, p. 35). Learners’ production errors can identify comprehension breakdowns (although in some cases, learners provided evidence of comprehension, such as English on the mouth, while they incorrectly produced the related sign; Schlehofer & Tyler, 2016). Schlehofer and Tyler (2016) noted that the expectation of reproduction may “color their processing based on their own M2L2 production variability” (p. 355), so counterbalanced conditions in which learners translate into English and then reproduce the signed stimuli may shed additional insight to learner skills in need of improvement and instruction. Within reproduction tasks, previous researchers identified learner error types and rates across phonology, substitutions, and omissions. For instance, M2L2 learners tend to struggle the most in accurate perception and recognition of movement and subtle differences among handshapes (Bochner et al., 2011; Schlehofer & Tyler, 2016; Williams & Newman, 2016). During a translation task from ASL to English, without ASL reproduction, Williams and Newman (2016) noted that 67% of M2L2 learners’ errors were related to omissions, likely demonstrating faulty processing in some instances of ASL comprehension. Identification of these specific comprehension breakdowns can be addressed through contrastive analysis of ASL phonological features, such as differences among minimal pairs, in which only one of five parameters within two signs differ (Bochner et al., 2011; Schlehofer & Tyler, 2016). “Further exploration of the discrete differences between signs and using comparison to delineate the boundaries of production may improve L2 learners’ ability to recognize and incorporate new linguistic items” (Williams & Newman, 2016, p. 36).
Instructional time
Presently, is unclear how much ASL instruction P-12 and M2L2 ASL students receive and need to become proficient in ASL. Some schools for the deaf adhere to an ASL-English Bilingual philosophy (Beal-Alvarez, 2014, 2016; Lange et al., 2013), although the majority of deaf students attend their local schools with varied educational services (U.S. Department of Education, 2021) and specifics about ASL instruction across settings are scarce. Fryer and Dobbie (2013) determined that high-dosage instruction, or 4 or more days of instruction within small groups of fewer than six learners, resulted in academic changes (i.e., math and reading skills). High-dosage ASL instruction, defined as 2 hr per day, 5 days per week, for 5 weeks provided by a deaf teacher using the True + Way ASL curriculum with deaf incoming college freshmen did not result in statistically significant changes in their ASL performance 5 weeks later (Beal et al., 2021). However, a group of 250 deaf incoming freshmen increased the accuracy of their self-ratings across several assessments, including manual reception, after completion of a 5-week Introduction to Communication course (total hours and type of instruction not provided; McKee et al., 1984).
Related to M2L2 learners, Jacobs (1996) surmised that ~1,320 hr of instruction are needed for ASL learners whose first language is English to “satisfy routine social demands and limited work requirements” (Kemp, 1998, p. 256). Typical universities offer one to six ASL courses, a semester each (i.e., 16 weeks), that meet 2.5 hr per week, or 10 hr per month (Beal et al., 2018; Beal-Alvarez & Scheet, 2015). Completion of six ASL courses results in 240 hr of instruction. This is nowhere near Jacobs’s projected needed hours of ASL instruction. Analyzing data from a longitudinal sample of M2L learners of Swedish Sign Language, Schönström and Mesch (under review) reported “a relatively high frequency of depicting signs after half of a year of instruction” (Schönström, 2021, p. 39), which equated to 120 instructional hours, perhaps demonstrating that these complex signs may be easier to acquire than previously surmised. Similarly, when M2L2 learners received repeated viewings of an ASL model paired with teacher scaffolding and feedback, they were able to accurately produce depicting constructions after 12 and 35 hr of instruction, respectively, when retelling the Timber and Gum stories in an ASL I course (Beal, 2022). However, at the end of their ASL IV course (i.e., 160 hr of instruction), there was no correlation between M2L2 learners’ hours of self-reported ASL use in academic or social settings and performance on the ASL-RST (Beal, 2020b). It is unclear how many hours and what type of instruction is most effective to accelerate deaf and M2L2 learners’ ASL proficiency.
Instructor skills
Finally, it is unclear how ASL instructor skills affect ASL learners’ skills at both the P-12 and postsecondary levels. The vast majority of P-12 TODs and educational interpreters are M2L2 learners of ASL with varied skill levels even after completion of university preparation programs (Andrews & Covell, 2006/2007; Beal et al., 2018; Beal-Alvarez & Scheet, 2015; Dodd & Scheetz, 2003; Schick et al., 2006; Thoryk, 2010; Yarger, 2001). Schools for the deaf tend to have more deaf staff, some of whom are native ASL signers, than local schools. Beal-Alvarez (2014) reported ~35% of staff at one residential school were deaf. Similarly, many university ASL instructors are M2L2 ASL learners. Of a sample of 179 ASL instructors at the postsecondary level, 48% were hearing, 41% were deaf, and 5% were hard of hearing and (6.8% did not respond). Some universities, such as the National Technical Institute for the Deaf and Gallaudet University, and some P-12 schools for the deaf require that faculty obtain specific scores on ASL measures, such as the Sign Language Proficiency Interview (SLPI; Newell et al., 1983), or the American Sign Language Proficiency Interview (ASLPI; Gallaudet University, 2014); however, these teachers instruct deaf students in general as opposed to specifically teaching ASL (Beal-Alvarez & Scheetz, 2015; Lange et al., 2013). Future research might investigate direct connections between teacher ASL proficiency and student performance on the ASL-RST, among other ASL measures.
Limitations
One limitation in the present study is the possibility of differential effects based on ASL-RST administration. Deaf high schoolers were assessed one-on-one in a social area at the school by a trained researcher who monitored their attention to test items and who was permitted to repeat an item if the student missed viewing it due to a distraction, although this occurred rarely across participants. In contrast, the deaf and typically hearing college students completed the assessment independently through an online computer link. They were not permitted to watch any items more than once due to the assessment format. It is unclear if this difference in procedure had any effect on students’ response accuracy. A second limitation is the lack of information on deaf participants’ age of ASL acquisition. Based on previous findings, deaf adults provided a variety of responses that also included different types of signing (Corina et al., 2014), whereas 73% of deaf college students rated themselves as bilingual, even though only 23% reported ASL was their first language (Toscano et al., 2002). These confusing findings, along with a lack of information on the ASL proficiency levels of language models within deaf children’s home and school environments, prevent accurate age of ASL acquisition.
Conclusion
Present ASL-RST results for deaf higher schoolers, deaf college students, and M2L2 ASL learners align with and expand results reported for smaller samples of each group. Based on the present ASL-RST results of deaf high schoolers and deaf and typically hearing college students, it appears they lack ASL comprehension of specific grammatical categories, despite their advanced ages in comparison to the intended ASL-RST population of deaf students 3–13 years of age. Similar to others for deaf children (e.g., Clark, Cue, Delgado, Greene-Woods, & Wolsey, 2020; Gerner de Garcia, 1995; Hamilton & Clark, 2020) and M2L2 learners (e.g., Quinto-Pozos, 2011; Swaney & Smith, 2017) we support a call for 1) P-12 direct instruction in ASL for all deaf children; and 2) research to document evidence of the effectiveness of the curricula and strategies used with deaf children and M2L2 students to address ASL needs across these learners.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflicts of Interest
No conflicts of interest were reported.
References
Beal, J. (
Beal, J. S. (
Beal, J. S. (
Beal, J. S., Scheetz, N. A., Trussell, J. W., McAllister, A., & Listman, J. (
Beal, J. S., Scott, J. A., & Spell, K. (
Beal, J. S., Scott, J., & Butts, T. (
Beal, J. S., Trussell, J. W., & Walton, D. (
Beal-Alvarez, J. S. (
Beal-Alvarez, J. S. (
Beal-Alvarez, J. S., & Easterbrooks, S. R. (
Beal-Alvarez, J. S., & Scheetz, N. A. (
Beal-Alvarez, J. S., & Trussell, J. (
Easterbrooks, S. R., & Beal-Alvarez, J. S. (
Supalla, T., Hauser, P. C., & Bavelier, D. (
Walton, D., Borgna, G., Marschark, M., Crowe, K., & Trussell, J. (
Williams, J., & Newman, S. (