21st Century American Sign Language Pedagogy

©"21st Century American Sign Language Pedagogy"- SHC, LLC. 5-18-2015. All Rights Reserved.

21st Century ASL Pedagogy

Federico A. Quintana, M.Ed.

As an American Sign Language (ASL) teacher in the K-12 classroom, the practices of

pedagogy becomes a daily demand instead of serving as a real-world solution to teaching

challenges. There exists numerous linguistic academic standards that seem only useful for

academic research, grant proposals and continuing century-old research. Even research on higher

education ASL teaching offers little benefit for those of us who teach second-language learners

in the K-12 classroom. Interactions with ASL scholars seem more focused on jargon-choked

journal articles no one ever reads (except to write more of the same) than with the cultural

changes taking place in K-12 education settings. Twenty-first century ASL pedagogy should be

seen as a collaborative opportunity for all pre-post secondary ASL teachers to become better

equipped and to continue professional growth. It should also be part of empowering future ASL

teachers to make educated choices in choosing what ASL profession(s) best fit their teaching

interests. Based on this idea, every undergraduate ASL professor should at least teach one

course per semester at local k-12 schools in order to gain real-world understanding of the

challenges facing such settings.

According to Comparative Linguistics and Language Pedagogy by Michał Paradowski

(2007), “Contrastive language instruction should go beyond the purely linguistic plane of much

mainstream classroom instruction, to extend to the pragmatic sphere of communication as well”

(p. 10). In other words, it is the teacher’s duty to identify an application to the approach as

proposed by Pardowski, putting his suggestions into practice in order to create and deliver ASL

lessons to L2 learners in meaningful ways. We know a lot about ASL linguistics of ASL, but our

knowledge as teaching practitioners is scattered across three separate domains: the linguistic


application of ASL practices, pedagogical knowledge and experiential knowledge These call for

an expansion of ASL pedagogy in the 21st century.

Linguistic Application of ASL Practices for ASL Teachers

The first knowledge domain, the linguistic application of ASL practices, is centered on

the world of educational research advancing current knowledge about ASL linguistics. There’s

hardly a Deaf or ASL education issue that hasn’t been adequately studied in the field of

pedagogy or its related subfields, such as the integration of technology design or class

management. On this large empirical foundation of ASL teachings, there is a need for evidence-

based instructional practices rather thanacademic research-based information.

ASL pedagogy continues to have large gaps in its research by those who teach, partly

because there is not a strong tendency to expect ASL college professors to focus on linguistics to

propagate and develop their instructional knowledge and methods. Rather, ASL lingustic

research-related journal articles describing such studies are not written for K-12 ASL teacher

practitioners; they are intended to inform or overlap the next round of research. Frequently,

researchers with a linguistic mindset do not focus on the practical implications of their studies.

Thus, I wondered, “Why should we bother with ASL linguists who theorize, hypothesize about,

and study the language instead of studying what we do on a regular basis in the K-12 L2 ASL

classroom? Do they know anything about the most effective techniques of class managements or

useful teaching strategies?” I am intrigued by the differences in linguistics and pedagogy

approaches to effective practices of teaching ASL in K-12 education settings for both first and

second language learners.

The Demands of ASL Discipline-Based Pedagogy


There is also the world of pedagogical knowledge that exists within our everyday

disciplines. The expanision of this knowledge is empirical and annotional, particularly of

practitioner teaching methods and techniques, which makes it more relevant with clearer

implications for our ASL teaching needs.

The areas of research focus in ASL linguists are based in the disciplines because that’s

what we know. But there are growing issues with the limited appropriate resources and lack of

teaching strategies for K-12 education. Additionally, the disciplinary focus in ASL pedagogy

needs more research despite the rapidly changing K-12 educational culture. The current changes,

such as the advancement of technology and increasing diversity of learners in K-12, have

become a real demand for the new sub-field of ASL pedagogy. This important pedagological

erudition in the ASL field still isn’t recognized by ASL professors in higher education as often as

it should.

Even so, there are many aspects of teaching and learning ASL that transcend disciplinary

boundaries in the linguistic and pedagogy fields. The cultural and linguistic topics of ASL and

its lesson contents—for example, how knowledge of the language advances, how teaching

content is organized, and what counts as evidence—have implications on how it is taught.

Teaching ASL in K-12 education settings with L1 or L2 learners and teaching ASL linguistics in

college settings are not the same.

The disciplinary focus in ASL linguistics may limit us from seeing the authentic

evidence for effective practical instructional methods—take peer study, for example. ASL

researchers are not using real life classroom, students, empirical data or experiental data. The

natural process of learning doesn’t happen in a tightly controlled academic research setting with

a long list of references overlapping the same citations among undergraduateASL linguists.


Experiential Knowledge of ASL Teachings

Lastly, there’s the personal world of experiential knowledge, which is the one that ASL

teachers know the best and trust the most. Experiential knowledge is knowledge acquired

through experience, as opposed to a prior or learned knowledge (Burnard, 2005). For teachers

who have not been properly equipped or trained to teach, the actual teachings are based on what

have been learned over years of hard work and experiences, usually through trial-and-error,

physical and mental sacrifices, and attendance at countless mentoring and professional

development meetings. It’s what works to become proficient teachers and if the evidence says

otherwise, most of us challenge the evidence before questioning our experiences. Most of the

time, our experiential knowledge is valid. It’s problematic when this internally derivative

knowledge base is the only or main source of understanding the structures of ASL more than

instructional styles. In reality, the field of K-12 ASL teaching needs a consistent infusion of

ideas, structures and information from outside of the academic world.

Perspectives in this paper are mostly based on my years of teaching experience in the

areas of Deaf education, K-12 ASL instruction, and interpreter training programs. An

annonation of successful and failed experiments of the array of both created and research-based

teaching methods and pedagogical strategies, overall knowledge through rigorous professional

developments and trainings, my educational administration/leadership studies, and many

discussions with esteemed experts such as Dr. Micheal Kemp at Gallaudet University are factors

that have shaped my vision for 21st century ASL pedagogy. “The leading educational research

and innovations in a field of American Sign Language Pedagogy to increase the teaching

productivity, learning engagements, and development of practical resources for all levels of the

current and future learners” (Quintana, 2015).


The ongoing research is a critical component of 21ST

Century ASL Pedagogy’s mission

(Quintana, 2015). I collected data using various research methods and designs, including

experimental studies, qualitative case studies, and collective user feedback. The action research

approach is my preferred method for current research, since it is ideal for enhancing and

increasing the success of educational leaders and schools (Dana, 2009). “Expertise comes from

the combination of action and reflection. Expertise is gained as one learns to adjust the

performance based on the factors and one's experiences with them. Learning from one's prior

actions (and mistakes) is basic to the development of expertise” (Harris, Edmonson & Combs,

2009, p. 104).

Action research provides school instructors with ways to monitor the effectiveness and

ineffectiveness of their work so that they can make changes in their immediate working

environment (Dana, 2009). Action research can be used for different aspects within the school

with numerous benefits. Using action research can bring great benefits to my work, such as

increasing collaboration between principals and stakeholders, helping effective practices thrive

in the field of ASL pedagogy to address various of pedagogical issues, and offering the smarter

solutions.

ASL pedagogy research findings guide all of my project work and contributions to the

development and improvement of instructional design, redesigning the framework of L1 & L2

curricula, and teacher-created materials/products. The goal of this paper is to discuss the most

effective ASL teaching practices and research-based materials developed as a result of ongoing

independent studies. I am also focused on using action research as a foundation for the

development of pragmatic and innovative approaches and forward thinking solutions to a variety

issues related to ASL teachings, ASL classroom environments and curricula.


This current research focuses on adapting the graphic organizer as part of Strategic

Teaching and Learning Guided by Five Principles of ELL Instruction (Levine, Smallwood, &

Haynes, 2012a, 2012b) and ACTFL 5C standards adopted for ASL L1 and L2 high school

learners. Several ELL instructional strategies were modeled and discussed with my foreign

language department teachers during real world practitioner-oriented courses. Yet others were

adapted, modified and designed as a resource for the classroom.

The term “instructional strategy” refers to generalized learning or teaching techniques

that are relevant across ASL contents, such as classroom management, knowledge of

multimedia, and tools for cultural diversity awareness. Effective and practical teachers have

knowledge of a wide array of instructional strategies, and choose the most effective ones for

specific teaching and learning environments. Most strategies are content-neutral and can be used

flexibly in a variety of ASL curricula. Strategies were chosen as the focus of this project because

of their usefulness in helping teachers to scaffold content and language input while working with

second-language learners in the transition of different learning modalities, going from verbal

(English) to non-verbal (ASL). Scaffold strategy designs are rigorous, and are based on a

combination of ELL instructional strategies and ACTFL 5 Cs standards that were adapted for

ASL instruction.

The Five Research-Based Principles of Instruction for English Language Learners

The five research-based principles of second language instruction form the basis for

educating English language learners at pre- and post-secondary grade levels and for the strategies

identified and defined in this paper. Teachers can use the five principles as a guide to their

teaching, and select appropriate learning strategies to increase the learning process, promote


academic achievement, and foster academic language acquisition (Levine, Smallwood, &

Haynes, 2012a, 2012b). The principles of instruction for English language learners are developed

from evidence-based research. The following highlight some of the research supports for each

principle.

1. Focus on Academic Language, Literacy, and Vocabulary: English language learners

who have high proficiency in English may nonetheless struggle to express themselves effectively

in academic settings (Cummins, 2000; Scarcella, 2003; Short & Echevarria, 2005). Research

shows that students should be explicitly taught the language skills they need to succeed in the

classroom (Saunders & Goldenberg, 2010).

2. Link Background Knowledge and Culture of Learning: Numerous studies show that

students perform better when their home culture and background knowledge are incorporated

into the academic environment (Doherty, Hilberg, Pinal, & Tharp, 2003;

Fránquiz & Reyes, 1998; Garcia, 2000; Park & King, 2003).

3. Increase Comprehensible Input and Language Output: English language learners

learn both through the language they encounter (input) and the language they produce (output).

Input should be at a level that is challenging, but nonetheless comprehensible (Krashen, 1985).

Students should also be given ample opportunity to produce language, and should receive direct

feedback to increase their comprehension and improve their language skills (Saunders &

Goldenberg, 2010; Short & Echevarria, 2005; Swain, 2005).

4. Promote Classroom Interaction: English language learners’ vocabulary, grammar, and

pronunciation develop faster when there are opportunities for interaction in the classroom using

the language being learned (Mackey & Goo, 2007). Interaction among students and with the


teacher is fundamental in the language acquisition process (Fang, 2010; Gass, 1997; Long, 1983,

1996).

5. Stimulate Higher Order Thinking Skills and the Use of Learning Strategies:

All students benefit from learning the thinking skills and learning strategies used by the highest-

performing English language learners (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 2000; Zohar &

Dori, 2003). Use of Wait Time. This strategy increases ELLs’ ability to comprehend and respond

to the teacher’s p. It also leads to increased student participation and produces high-quality

responses from all students. After asking a question, the teacher waits 5 to 7 seconds before

calling for a volunteer to respond. The strategy is useful, because students can benefit from the

extra time to process both the question and the answer (Rowe, 1986).

These five core principles are essential to academic success among English language

learners, representing both research findings and best practices. Some of the strategies can be

applied to ASL instructions with modifications. The graphic organizer strategies described have

been modified and aligned to reflect the five research-based principles of scaffolding instruction

designs to be adapted for ASL L1 and L2 instructional strategies outlined below.

A Combination of the 5 Principles of Research-Based Strategies and the 5 ACTFL

Standards

1. Communication: Focus on the academic targeted language, grammar, vocabulary, and

receptive and expressive skills. Teach the language and skills required for content

learning and foreign language standards. Set goals for the students to acquire skills in

interpersonal, presentational and interpretive communications, and being fluent in more

than one language to respond to or resolve different situations.


2. Connection: Focus on on linking the signer’s background knowledge to the culture of

learning. Stimulate higher order thinking through different modalities. Explicitly teach

thinking skills and learning strategies to develop skills in visual cues. Plan and

incorporate differentiation strategies to meet all types of modalities to address learners’

needs. Set goals for students to use the target language to connect with interdisciplinary

subjects to access new information and discuss various perspectives. Link to the learner’s

prior knowledge to reinforce, and expand on, new information of other disciplines while

using the target language to express logical and creative thinking for problem solving.

3. Comparison: Focus on increasing comprehensible input and language output. Make

meaning clear through visual aids, demonstrations, and other means, and give students

multiple opportunities to produce language. Set goals for students to gain deeper insight

into diversity, language and culture in order to develop cultural knowledge and use the

language appropriately. Encourage students to use the language to investigate, explain,

and reflect on the concept of culture through comparisons of the cultures studied and their

own.

4. Culture: Focus on promoting interaction in the classroom and using campus resources

to foster and enrich the ideal deaf culture and a risk-free environment to give

opportunities for learners to correct their mistakes with guidance. Engage students in

using English only 10% of the time for writing and voicing, supporting the “voice off”

expectations/policies established by many ASL instructors. Set goals for students to use

the language to investigate, explain, and reflect on the relationship between the practices

and products of the cultures studied. Have them acquire the skills of cultural practices to

gain perspective and understand the values and norms.


5. Community: Focus on transparency of both instructional objectives and activity goals,

along with opportunities to develop real-world orientation problem-solving skills.

Explore career opportunities related to ASL,local community-based deaf social events

and technology mediums. Incorporate ways to engage students in thinking about and

drawing from life experiences and prior knowledge. Address issues in the local deaf

community to create or generate solutions. Set goals for students to use the skills of the

target language to communicate and cultural knowledge beyond the classrooms so they

can be involved in community activities. Expect students to become lifelong learners who

can appreciate the diversity of the culture and benefit from using the targeted language

for career opportunities and personal enrichment.

Specific instructional and learning strategies are listed above under the five principles for

second language instruction. They help clarify the instructional context of the strategies. In

addition, each strategy is labeled by language proficiency, teaching/learning purposes, and

classroom grouping configuration.

The strategies in the inventory below are intended to be actively selected by the teacher

to design ASL instructions reflecting the ACTFL’s five principles, while teaching in accordance

with world language standard objectives. ASL teachers can easily adapt one or more of these

principles as part of the strategy to reinforce students’ knowledge and skills. The strategies

identified for a specific proficiency level can be modified for students at other proficiency levels

(either lower or higher). The inventory list is designed as a quick reference guide for teachers in

planning and implementing instructional or modifications for ASL L1 and L2 learners in K-12

setting.

1. Cooperative Building and Student Centered Learning Strategies


Provide Graphic Organizers or notes Use Numbered Heads Together. Use *Think-

Pair-Share-Squared. . Develop Key Sentence Frames for pair interactions. . Prompt for academic

language output. Use Think-Pair-Share. . Repeat and Expand student responses in a

*Collaborative Dialogue. . Require full sentence responses by asking open ended questions. .

Use Varied Presentation Formats such as role plays. . * Scaffold oral reports with note cards and

provide time for prior practice. . Use Deaf related news media to scaffold the growth of ASL

fluency. * Structure debates requiring various points of view with graphic organizers and/or

outlines. . Require the use of academic language. . Requires a short report in ASL for

summarizing group work. Include ASL presentations in the classroom. Provide Anticipation

Guides for previewing content ASL grammar lessons. Student-led lectures on the Smart board

and White board. . Use *Video Observation Guides. Confirm students’ prior knowledge of ASL

topics and the content of lessons.

Self-Assessment: Scales for Vocabulary Learning. Students can be taught to monitor their

developmental skillsof vocbuluary sign through the use of self-assessment scales. The scales can

be adapted to a student’s level of language proficiency. For example, Level 1 students may use a

series of smile to frown faces to assess ability to comprehend vocabulary or additional grammar

infomration. More proficient students might use a numeric Likert Scale with descriptive

headings to assess their ability to comprehend academic vocabulary within a text passage or to

use that vocabulary in an ASL pesentations.

Self-Assessment Scales can be used before, during, and after instruction.

Interactive and Teaching Nonverbal Language Strategies


Use physical gestures to accompany signed directives. Modify the one on one ASL

discussions. Label visuals and objects with target vocabulary. Introduce Cognates to aid

comprehension. Ask for Signal responses to check comprehension. Give two step Contextualized

directions. . Restate/rephrase and use patterns of signed routines. Model Academic Language

and vocabulary. Ask for Total Physical Responses from students. Provide graphics or objects to

sequence steps in a process. Check Comprehension of all students frequently and in the most

efficiency manners .. Extend content vocabulary with multiple examples and non-examples.

Use of Wait Time. (Rowe, 1986). This strategy increases ELLs’ ability to comprehend and

respond to the teacher’s oral questions. It also leads to increased student participation and higher-

quality responses from all students. After asking a question, the teacher waits 5 to 7 seconds

before calling on a volunteer to respond. The strategy is useful, because students can benefit

from extra time to process both the question and the answer.

Use of video observation guide. This strategy increases comprehensibility for ELLs by

alerting them to the events and concepts that will be seen in a video. The teacher can increase

student comprehension of a content-related video by outlining the chronological progression of

events in the video or by providing questions to activate prior knowledge about the topic of the

video. This is essentially a graphic organizer for understanding a video that students watch as a

class activity. The students take notes on the guide during or after watching the video. They can

use their notes to participate in a classroom discussion about the video. From my research and

Ive developed a use of video observation such as YouTube tutorial video acts as a mnemonic

memory device to help students memorizing the common vocabulary signs and able to see the

whole functions of ASL sentence order. It has a significant benefit the improvement of student’s

second language acquisition by reducing 80% of the learning curve.


Figure 1. This graphic organizer, developed by 21st Century ASL Pedagogy, is a modified

verison of a text-to-voice graphic organzier (Jameson, 1998).

This strategy teaches ASL students the ways that content is organized in a text and the

linguistic devices . This learning strategy helps them to receptive the lesson content and

academic vocabulary in note form of a graphic.

“The teacher selects a graphic organizer that reflects the structure of the original text: for

example, chronology, cause/effect, compare/contrast. The teacher gradually introduces a

variety of graphic organizers throughout the year. The teacher demonstrates the note-

taking format using target academic vocabulary. Students copy these graphics on smaller

versions, which can then be used for self-study. Teachers can also encourage students to

use the graphics for summarizing and as a model for future content units or texts.”

(Student Learning Strategies, p. 27)

Expressive & Receptive Signs Skills Strategies

-Including the rubrics into the student’s assignment. This assessment aims to increase student

achievement. Rubrics are especially helpful for ELLs, because they clearly specify the type of


process or product required for academic success. The teacher distributes a rubric to each student

that lists the specific criteria that will be used to assess the unit outcomes – a product or

presentation. The rubric usually contains four columns defines four levels of performance. The

teacher shares the rubric prior to the learning experience and provides clear explanations and

models of expected performance. The teacher then uses the rubric to evaluate students.

-Provide wall charts with illustrated academic vocabulary. . Ask simple WH (who, what, when,

where), yes-no or either-or questions. . Elicit *Choral Responses. . Encourage participation in

group story-telling, student created poems and songs. Use 10-2 structures. Assign roles in group

work. individual strategies are described as characterizing the teacher’s actions and the student’s

actions for each strategy. Compare/contrast relationships from visual information using a Venn

Diagram.

- Text to Sign or Graphics and Back Again. (Jameson, 1998). This strategy teaches ELLs the

ways that content is organized in a text and the linguistic devices and signal words needed to

comprehend and write academic texts.


Figure 2. This is an example of an adapted graphic organizer for handshapes.

I used this strategy to help ASL 2 students clarify their confusion on which handshape to

use for pronouns and possessions; I modified the illustrated academic vocabulary by providing a

sign graphic. The goal of this activity was to help students improve their accuracy in

distinguishing and using the proper handshapes. Once the signs were introduced, the 22 students

were to complete a worksheet; 19 scored 100%, showing the beneficial nature of this approach.

Other teachers also reported similar results.

Text or sign pictures bank. This strategy enables ASL students to learn and memorize

the target academic vocabulary by using word learning strategies. Word banks enable students to

learn and use academic vocabulary necessary for a content lesson or unit.

“The teacher encourages students to use academic vocabulary by compiling a collection

of critical vocabulary in a boxed list. The words are displayed or provided to students on

the board, a wall chart, or in a Cloze passage or report outline. Students are encouraged to

retain the vocabulary throughout the learning unit in a vocabulary notebook or written,


each separately, on individual note cards. The note cards flesh out the meaning of the

words as students add illustrations, symbols, synonyms/antonyms, foreign language

translations, model sentences, and definitions. The cards can be sorted in various ways or

used to study definitions with a learning partner. Students are encouraged to refer to the

note cards for academic speaking and writing.” (Levine, L.N., Smallwood, B.A., &

Haynes, E.F., 2012b)

Figure 3. This is an example of an ASL phrase maker.

Here are the ASL materials as in the result of the research being done by 21st Century

ASL Pedagogy based on 5 princples and there are overhmeling positive reported by ASL

teachers using these graphic organizers for ASL phrase creations following the sentence order in

their classrooms including mine.


Figure 4. This is an example of an ASL 2 & 3 ASL 5 phrasemaker assignment, where students

can fill in the boxes with the signed vocabulary..

Assignment objectives: Use five signs from Unit/Lesson #_____ in an ASL phrase followed by

the TOCSV order and sign-out for the final delivery of your ASL phrase. It should be in this

order: 1. Time (5 points), 2. Object (5 points), 3. Classifiers (5 points), 4. Subject (5 points) and

5. Verb (5 points). The final delivery of ASL phrases is worth 100 points for the assignment

grade.

ASL Sentence Order Prompter

Time: Past or future tense, clock, or calendar.

Object: Place, animal, item, vehicle, food, equipment, clothing or device.

Classifier: Any handshape used for an additional description of an object’s functions or a subject.

Subject: Pronoun, employer (Agent Marker),or name.

Verb: Action, speed, directionality or any verb-inflected sign.


The graphic organizers (as retrieved from www.aslmacgyver.com) were designed mainly for

ASL instruction, and have proven to be a very effective scaffolding tool for teaching and

learning in L1 and L2 ASL K-12 classroom settings.

Figure 5. This is an example of an ASL graphic organizer to help create a short story.

Research is ongoing and helping create a new sub-field of ASL teaching. Standard practices in

21st century pedagogy focus on core components of modern learning: meta-cognition, critical

thinking, technology, and problem-based and project-based learning. Given how new the field is,

its definition will be shaped with growth. The main objectives of 21st century ASL pedagogy are

to research, design and deliver innovative and effective practices for teaching and learning ASL.


Research outcomes encompass the design of meaningful lesson plans, activities with high

learning engagement, reduction in learning curves, new teaching materials, methods, efficiency

of managing workloads, development of technology and better understandings of learning

structures. These outcomes will fill in any gaps in learning achievements as the L2 learner's

modality transitions from a verbal language to a signed language.

In K-12 ASL teaching, there are often struggles in the field because ASL linguists aren’t

always experts in educational pedagogy; they are language experts. More trained ASL teachers

specializing in pedagogy are needed to address the challenges. Both linguists and pedagogy

specialists are educators with distinct views of the education setting, but both should collaborate

to ensure that resources thrive.

Visit www.ASLMacGyver.com for regular updates on ongoing research and educational

innovation developments.


References

Aronson, E. (2008). Jigsaw classroom. Retrieved from http://www.jigsaw.org.

Asher, J. (1979). Learning another language through actions: The complete teacher’s

guidebook. San Jose, CA: Sky Oaks.

Ashton-Warner, S. (2002). Teacher. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Black, A., & Stave, A. M. (2007). A comprehensive guide to reader’s theatre: Enhancing fluency

and comprehension in middle school and beyond. Newark, DE: International Reading

Association.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.

Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Dana, N. F. (2009). Leading with passion and knowledge: The principal as action researcher.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Doherty, R. W., Hilberg, R. S., Pinal, A., & Tharp, R. (2003). Five standards and student

achievement. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 1, 1–24.

Fang, X. (2010). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition. Cross-cultural

Communication, 6(1), 11-17.

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading, good first teaching for all children.

Portsmith, NH: Heinemann.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G. & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning

strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational

Research Journal, 34, 174-206.

Fránquiz, M. E., & Reyes, M. D. L. L. (1998) Creating inclusive learning communities through

English language arts: From chanclas to canicas. Language Arts, 75(3), 211-220.

Garcia, G. E. (2000). Bilingual children’s reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D.

Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, (Vol. 3, pp. 813-834). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London, England:

Longman.


Harris, S., Edmonson, S., & Combs, J. P. (2010). Examining what we do to improve our schools:

8 steps from analysis to action. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Levine, L.N., Smallwood, B.A., & Haynes, E.F. (2012a). Listening and speaking: Oral language

and vocabulary development for English language learners. Hot Topics in ELL

Education. (B. A. Smallwood, Series Ed.). Washington, DC: Center for Applied

Linguistics.

Levine, L. N., Lukens, L., & Smallwood, B. A. (2013). The GO TO strategies: Scaffolding

options for teachers of English language learners, K-12. For Project EXCELL, a

partnership between the University of Missouri- Kansas City and North Kansas City

Schools, funded by the US Department of Education, PR Number T195N070316.

Available online at www.cal.org/excell.

Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of

comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C.

Ritchie, & T. J. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468).

New York, NY: Academic Press.

Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research

synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition

(pp. 407-552). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Merchant, P. & Young, L. (2000). Investigating how much: Linear, volume, and mass

measurement. In S. Irujo (Ed.), Integrating the ESL standards into classroom practice

grades 6-8 (pp. 55-84). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other

Languages.

Paradowski, M. (2007). Comparative linguistics and language pedagogy. Retrieved from

https://www.academic.edu/2400983/Comparative_Linguistics_and_Langauge_Pedagogy

_Concise_History_and_Rationale

Park, E., & King, K. (2003). Cultural diversity and language socialization in the early years.

Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from

http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/digest_pdfs/0313park.pdf

Peyton, J.K., & Reed, L. (1990). Dialogue journal writing with nonnative English speakers: A

handbook for teachers. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other

Languages.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and

https://www.academic.edu/2400983/Comparative_Linguistics_and_Langauge_Pedagogy_Concise_History_and_Rationale

https://www.academic.edu/2400983/Comparative_Linguistics_and_Langauge_Pedagogy_Concise_History_and_Rationale


comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.

Raphiel, T. E. (1984). Teaching learners about sources of information for answering

comprehension questions. Journal of Reading, 28, 303-311.

Rowe, M. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up. Journal of Teacher

Education, 37, 43-50.

Saunders, W., & Goldenberg, C. (2010). Research to guide English language development

instruction. In California Department of Education (Ed.), Improving education for

English learners: Research-based approaches (pp. 21-81). Sacramento, CA: California

Department of Education.

Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework. Santa Barbara, CA: University

of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.

Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (2005). Teacher skills to support English language learners.

Educational Leadership, 62, 8-13.

Saphier, J., & Haley, M. A. (1993). Summarizers: Activity structures to support integration and

retention of new learning. Carlisle, MA: Research for Better Teaching.

Stauffer, R. G. (1969). Directing reading maturity as a cognitive process. New York, NY:

Harper & Row.

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of

research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. (2000). Teaching transformed:

Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are

they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), pp. 145-181.


21st Century American Sign Language Pedagogy

Documents