material of research

119

Sign Language Studies Vol. 12 No. 1 Fall 2011

M A R I A M E R T Z A N I

Computer-Assisted LanguageLearning in British SignLanguage Learning

Some scholars support the view that language learning canbe promoted effectively in a nonnaturalistic environment like theclassroom, and others that classroom language learning is characterizedby a lack of authenticity, which, in turn, influences learners’ motiva-tion to interact with each other and practice the language in the sameway as in natural face-to-face communication (Lightbown and Spada2001). To overcome these classroom teaching limitations, computer-assisted language learning (CALL) has been projected as a means to ex-tend learners’ opportunities to engage in communicative practice inthe target language (Chapelle 2003).

For instance, CALL is capable of promoting greater communicativeinterchange than any other educational medium has so far been able todo. It can remedy the lack of authenticity in the classroom environmentas it offers unprecedented exposure to authentic samples of languagecultures by means of integrating multimedia (e.g., sounds and images)in ways that correspond to a broad range of learners. In addition, CALLoffers access to natural language resources by taking into considerationlearners’ needs and interests. In doing so, CALL promotes personalizedinstruction and individualization in language learning, which, conse-quently, can increase learners’ motivation since students direct much ofthe learning themselves. Moreover, CALL allows language teachers toprocess and present authentic materials with flexibility (Stevens 1992).

Maria Mertzani is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Deaf Studies at the Uni-versity of Bristol, United Kingdom.

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM 19

120 | Sign Language Studies

The fact that language teaching can be operationalized throughCALL has directed researchers’ attention to the learning task, which,in this case, is considered to be the unit that demands analysis of thecommunicative processes in which the learner is involved whileworking with CALL (Chapelle 2003). Research has centered on un-derstanding how students learn a second language by interactingwith CALL. In other words, research focuses on understanding thecognitive and social processes that CALL tasks create, such as the in-put they provide to learners, the interactions they stimulate, and theopportunities they provide to learners to produce the language(Chapelle 2003, 40).

In CALL, learners have an opportunity to acquire linguistic formswhen they are directed or encouraged to notice some aspects of thelinguistic input they are exposed to. The scope of such input is totransform their language. Linguistic input can be made salient by high-lighting or stressing its structure and by repetition. It can also be mademore understandable to the learner through various means of modi-fication (e.g., simplification, clarification, translation, repetition). An-other type of input enhancement is elaboration, which is intended toincrease a learner’s understanding of the input by offering additionalgrammatical phrases and clauses (e.g., relative clauses, restatements)(Chapelle 2003).

One of the key features of CALL’s enhanced input is that it is al-ways provided interactively. In CALL tasks, interaction is provided inthree different ways: interpersonal interaction, computer-learner interaction,and intrapersonal interaction. The first refers to the interaction betweenlearners and teachers, in which the learners negotiate the meaning ofa linguistic form, co-construct its meaning, and, thus, are prompted topay attention to the form. The second type refers to the interactionbetween the learner and the computer program (software) by click-ing, typing, and recording after listening or observing multimedia ma-terial. The third type concerns the interaction that takes place withinthe learners’ mind, which stimulates their inner speech and engagestheir attention to the linguistic forms and the cognitive processing ofinput (Chapelle 2003, 60). Moreover, CALL tasks give learners an op-portunity to produce linguistic forms, first, by planning before pro-ducing the language; second, through self-evaluation of the linguistic

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 120

production; and, third, through error correction prompted by theteacher, other learners, and the computer (Chapelle 2003).

Integrating the new CALL technology into existing teaching pro-grams creates challenges for both teachers and learners. When thereare continuing demands for face-to-face teaching, all of the partici-pants are torn between the innovation and the potential long-termbenefits and the immediate short-term workload. This means that theintroduction of CALL cannot be simply a before-and-after design thattests the students’ starting and finishing levels of competence. In or-der to understand the value of the technical innovation we need toconsider the process of implementation, as well as the performance ofindividual components of the system.

To date there is no reported research that has tested and evaluatedthe effectiveness of CALL for sign language learning and teaching, norhas it been compared to traditional sign language classes. This studyexamines the principles of CALL for British Sign Language (BSL)learning and the implementation of CALL in sign language instruc-tion, but it is not aimed at determining comparative improvements inlanguage learning.

According to Chapelle (2003), CALL research should addressquestions that inform teachers and learners about the best ways to de-sign and use computer technology. To determine the value of CALLin sign language instruction, the study examines the introduction of aspecific CALL tool, the SignLab, a computer lab for sign language andinterpreting instruction at the Centre for Deaf Studies, University ofBristol, UK. SignLab permits students and staff to record and watchvideo and audio digitally for sign language and interpreting classes.The computers are networked and connected to a central 360-giga-byte server. Specially written software was installed on all of the com-puters used by teachers and students. It is a simple matter to makevideo and audio recordings, which are then automatically convertedinto MPEG-4, a highly compressed format that the hardware manageswith ease. In SignLab, students and teachers can film themselves sign-ing, save the digitized video files in their own folder, and share theirwork with each other or with other provisional users. The web cam-eras on the top of each computer enable students and teaching assis-tants to record themselves signing by pressing a single button. When

Computer-Assisted Learning | 121

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 121


they want to stop recording, they press the “stop” button and save thefile. Video files the appear in the format used by QuickTime Player.The software also allows students to insert new recorded clips intoprerecorded clips.

The evaluation process involves a three-level analysis (Chapelle2001): analysis of the software, analysis of the teaching assistants’CALL activity, and analysis of the effect of the students’ use of CALLon their learning outcomes. The study was process oriented. It eval-uated the use of CALL in sign language teaching by examining theprocesses involved in learning a sign language. In other words, it care-fully observed learners and teaching assistants working in a computer-based classroom setting. Hence, it did not prioritize the assessment oflearners’ outcomes.

Since 2003, SignLab has been evaluated once, three months afterits first implementation (Centre for Deaf Studies 2004). At that time,the research team administered two evaluation forms to a limitednumber of staff and students to elicit feedback on the positive andnegative aspects of SignLab as an offline computer-based learning en-vironment. The results included suggestions from students and staffwho requested that SignLab be improved. The specific evaluationasked for the advantages and disadvantages of SignLab but not aboutthe teaching and learning activity that takes place during SignLab ses-sions. Moreover, it did not involve teaching assistants’ and students’perceptions of the teaching and learning processes in the SignLabclassroom.

The Study

The study was designed to explore the nature and extent of BSLlearning within a CALL sign language classroom. It asked the follow-ing research questions:

• What is the nature and extent of students’ learning procedures in anoffline CALL environment?

• What are students’ perceptions of BSL learning within the CALLclassroom?

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 122


• What is the nature and extent of teaching assistants’ teaching meth-ods within a CALL environment?

• What are teaching assistants’ perceptions of BSL teaching within theCALL classroom?

• What are the characteristics of the CALL software that support stu-dents’ sign language learning and teaching assistants’ teaching?

Data Collection

Four Deaf BSL teaching assistants (TAs) and thirty-one students par-ticipated in this study. The students were between 18 and 30 years ofage and female. Data were collected by means of a questionnaire,semistructured interviews, and observations. The questionnaire wasgiven to all of the students; four teaching assistants and five studentswere interviewed. The students and three teaching assistants were ob-served when working on the computers and on specific tasks in theSignLab.

The questionnaires were distributed and completed during theteaching time of regular BSL classes. The interviews with the Deafteaching assistants examined the way they used SignLab, their role inthe SignLab, the activities they used, and their overall experience withSignLab. Additionally, they were asked to compare the SignLabclasses with their regular BSL classes. Five hearing students were in-terviewed during their second semester of studies. The students’ in-terviews aimed at gathering information on their work with SignLab,their role in the classroom, the activities and materials they used, andtheir overall experience with SignLab. They were also asked to com-pare SignLab with their regular BSL classes.

Anecdotal records and field notes were kept of seven SignLab ses-sions, which consisted of a total of nine hours and fifteen minutes ofunstructured observation (table 1). The TAs’ and students’ activitieswere recorded immediately after they occurred. Seven female studentswere observed in five SignLab sessions. The breakdown of the sessionsappears in table 2.

The coding categories of the observation schedule emerged from theanecdotes and field notes. However, certain categories were used fromthe following studies: from Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen (2002), the

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 123


categories related to the focus on form analysis and, from Lyster andRanta (1997), the categories related to the analysis of corrective feed-back. These groupings were adjusted to fit the data of the present study,and the “sign language–related episode” sequence emerged as themodel of observational analysis.

The model presents a series of either/or options that together con-stitute the sequence of a sign language–related episode. The sequencebegan with a student’s (student-initiated focus on form) or a teachingassistant’s utterance (TA-initiated focus on form) while the student ob-served the signing of a video clip. When students detected their lackof understanding of the signing and needed information about BSL(e.g., vocabulary help) to continue the activity, they requested assis-tance from the TA or from a classmate sitting nearby. The TA thenasked the student about the signing of the video clip or sat with the

Table 1. SignLab Sessions Observed through Narrative Approaches

SignLab Sessions Date Session Duration

BSL for Postgraduates: 10/2/2005 90 minutes (1 hour, 30 minutes)(2 sessions observed) 24/2/2005 95 minutes (1 hour, 35 minutes)BSL Ab Initio Lab B: 9/2/2005 80 minutes (1 hour, 20 minutes)(2 sessions observed) 2/3/2005 80 minutes (1 hour, 20 minutes)BSL Intermediate Lab: 9/2/2005 60 minutes (1 hour)(3 sessions observed) 2/3/2005 90 minutes (1 hour, 30 minutes)

9/3/2005 60 minutes (1 hour)Total hours observed:

9 hours, 15 minutes

Table 2. Live Structured Observations of SignLab Sessions

SignLab Sessions Date Session Duration

BSL for Postgraduates:S1, S2 March 10, 2005 80 minutes (1 hour, 20 minutes)

BSL Ab Initio B Lab:S3 March 9, 2005 65 minutes (1 hour, 5 minutes)S4 April 27, 2005 85 minutes (1 hour, 25 minutes)

BSL Intermediate B Lab:S5, S6 March 9, 2005 65 minutes (1 hour, 5 minutes)S7 April 27, 2005 75 minutes (1 hour, 15 minutes)

Total hours observed: 6 hours, 10 minutes

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 124

student, watched, and discussed the whole video clip. Thus, a stu-dent’s linguistic utterance was aimed at either the teaching assistantand another student, whereas a TA’s linguistic utterance always re-ferred to a student.

The student’s utterance to another student (student-student inter-action) was followed by either that student’s feedback (student feed-back on form) or by the student’s own “language play,” that is, filming(student filming), watching the video clip (video observation), andcomparing a video clip (video comparison). The student’s utteranceto the teaching assistant (student-teaching assistant interaction) was al-ways followed by the teaching assistant’s feedback (TA’s feedback onform) or by the TA’s own language play. The TA’s utterance to thestudent (TA-student interaction) was followed by the student’s feed-back (student feedback on form) or by the student’s language play.

The observation schedule included the following categories:

1. Student-initiated focus on form (SInitFF): an episode in which a stu-dent initiated a focus on a sign language form because of a gap inunderstanding the signing observed in the video clip. The student’sepisode typically began with a question in BSL (SInitFF(SL)) or inBSL and English (SInitFF(SL+E)) or in English (SInitFF(E)).

2. TA-initiated focus on form (TInitFF): an episode in which the teach-ing assistant initiated a focus on sign language form in order tocheck the students’ understanding of the signing in the video clipor because the TA believed that a form (in the video clip) was hin-dering the students’ understanding. Due to the fact that the TAswere native signers, the focus on BSL forms occurred mainly inBSL (TInitFF(SL) ) or by using a combination of BSL and/or fin-gerspelling and mouthing of the equivalent word (TInitFF(SL+E)).In this latter case, it appeared that the TA was using a combinationof sign language and English.

3. Students’ feedback (SFeedback): an episode in which a student re-sponded to another student or to the TA’s question. Feedback wasin BSL (SFeedback(SL)), in BSL and English (SFeedback(SL+E)),or in English (SFeedback(E)).

4. TA’s feedback (TFeedback): an episode in which the teaching as-sistant responded to the students’ questions. The TA’s feedback


18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 125


occurred in BSL (TFeedback(SL)) or through a combination ofBSL and fingerspelling or mouthing (TFeedback(SL+E)).

There were also episodes that were directed to the students them-selves (“language play”) (Belz and Reinhardt 2004). These includedepisodes in which the following occurred:

Using the software, the students filmed (SF) themselves signing.The students observed a video clip—either the model video or

the students’ self-video (video observation [VO]).The students watched a video clip and compared it with an-

other one; they usually compared their self-video with themodel video (comparison video observation [CVO]).

The students imitated a sign from the video clip. The imitationwas directed to the students themselves (student repetition/imitation [SR/I]).

The students kept notes while watching a video clip (notetaking [NT])

In other episodes the students (student other [SO]) and the teach-ing assistant (TA other [TO]) were involved with activities other thanthe task.

The frequency of the episodes varied considerably from one studentto another due to the dissimilarity of the tasks (DiCamilla and Anton2004) (table 3). Therefore, the data were pooled and reported by class.

A combination of time and event sampling procedures was used todetermine the duration of the selected categories and their occurrence

Table 3. Variability of Tasks during Structured Observation

SignLab Sessions Date Aim of Tasks

BSL for Postgraduates:S1, S2 March 10, 2005 receptive and production skills

BSL Ab Initio B Lab:S3 March 9, 2005 receptive skillsS4 April 27, 2005 receptive skills

BSL Intermediate B Lab:S5, S6 March 9, 2005 productive skillsS7 April 27, 2005 receptive and production skills

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 126

(or nonoccurrence) at standard intervals. The categories were enteredfollowing a continuous recording procedure during a one-hour ses-sion in the SignLab for each student. Thus, a sixty-minute class periodwas divided into twelve intervals of five minutes each. Because certainbehaviors lasted longer than others and thus exceeded the interval andevent categories—in other words, they were continuous behaviorsrather than single events (e.g., a student could either observe a videoclip only once or continue to watch it for a ten-minute period)—acontinuous recording procedure was chosen in order to present theduration of the categories (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2007). Themore detailed the coding system used, the fewer the participants weobserved (Boehm and Weinberg 1997, 91). Because the study con-sisted of eleven categories, no more than two students were observedin each SignLab session.

Data Analysis

Questionnaire. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, and standarddeviation) were used for the questionnaire data analysis. The data gath-ered from closed questions were analyzed using the SPSS statisticalpackage. The Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test equivalent of the one-way ANOVA test was used in order to determine any statistically sig-nificant differences among the groups of students (Kinnear and Gray2000). The alpha level for all of the group comparisons was set at 0.05.

Interviews. Participants’ answers were grouped into the following cat-egories: perceptions of students’ roles in the SignLab; perceptions ofteaching assistants’ roles in the SignLab; perceptions of SignLab’s effecton students’ BSL learning; perceptions of SignLab as a BSL learning/teaching tool; perceptions of materials used in the SignLab.

Observations. Analysis of unstructured observation involved the iden-tification of common themes derived from anecdotal records and fieldnotes. The analysis of data from live observation involved the identi-fication of the twelve categories coded and used in the observationschedule; the frequency of their occurrence; their duration; and theirsequence. The unit of analysis was the student. However, since thenumbers of students observed in each class were not equal, measures


18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 127


of dispersion for each category (mean deviation and standard devia-tion) were calculated as well. In addition, these averages are presentedas percentages of the total of observations (Croll 1986, 113). Theanalysis also concerned an immediate and detailed account of se-quences of the categories.

Results

Questionnaire Results

Perceptions of SignLab’s Effect on BSL LearningOverall, the students perceived SignLab as a valuable tool for learn-ing the language (n = 29; 94 percent) and as enhancing their recep-tive and expressive BSL skills (table 4). Specifically, they perceived thattheir receptive skills (n = 25; 81 percent) and their expressive skills (n = 24; 77 percent) had increased as a result of the work in the Sign-Lab. Furthermore, they claimed that the information gained fromSignLab tasks contributed greatly to their knowledge of BSL grammarand vocabulary (n = 26; 84 percent). A Kruskal-Wallis chi-square testshowed that different class groups responded dissimilarly to the state-ments (7d). Students from the “BSL Ab Initio B Lab” class indicateda neutral position (M = 1.62, SD = .768) in comparison with stu-dents from the “BSL Intermediate B Lab” (M = 1.00, SD = .000)and the “BSL for Postgraduates” (M = 1.29, SD = .756) classes. Stu-dents from the two latter classes believed that their expressive skillshad improved as a result of their engagement with tasks in the Sign-Lab (�2

(2) = 6.82; p < .05). Cronbach’s alpha (alpha = .769) demon-strated a high correlation among the statements of question 7,which means that students responded in a consistent fashion. Stu-dents’ answers to these statements likely reflect their learning expe-riences in the SignLab.

Perceptions of the Teaching Assistant’s Role in the SignLabThe teaching assistant was perceived as a facilitator (table 5). Most ofthe students indicated that their TAs interacted with them so as to fa-cilitate the SignLab tasks (n = 25; 81 percent) and agreed that the TAs’presence in the classroom increased their learning potential (n = 30;97 percent) and helped them acquire new BSL vocabulary (n = 28; 90percent). In addition, they found the TAs’ instructions easy to under-

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 128

stand while working on SignLab tasks (n = 28; 90 percent). Cron-bach’s alpha (alpha = .416) displayed a moderately significant relation-ship of students’ responses to the statements.


Table 4. Students’ Perceptions of SignLab’s Effect on Sign Language Learning(1 = Agree, 2 = Neutral, 3 = Disagree)

Q7: Statements n Min. Max. Mean SD

a. Overall, SignLab is a valuable learning tool. 31 1 2 1.06 .250

b. I put more time into this class than I would have in a regular BSL class. 31 1 3 2.32 .748

c. My receptive skills in BSL improved as a result of the SignLab activities. 31 1 3 1.23 .497

d. My expressive skills improved as a result of the SignLab activities. 31 1 3 1.32 .653

e. I learned more about Deaf culture in this class than I would have learned in a regular BSL class. 31 1 3 2.42 .672

f. The information from the SignLab activities contributed greatly to my knowledge about of Deaf culture. 31 1 3 2.13 .718

g. I learned more BSL skills than I would have learned in a regular BSL class. 31 1 3 2.16 .860

h. The information from the SignLab activities contributed greatly to my knowledge of BSL grammar and vocabulary. 31 1 3 1.19 .477

Table 5. Students’ Perceptions of the TA’s Role in the SignLab (1 = Agree, 2 = Neutral, 3 = Disagree)

Q*: Statements n Min. Max. Mean SD

a. The TA interacts with me to facilitate BSL activities. 31 1 3 1.26 .575

b. During SignLab activities, the TAprovides vocabulary help. 31 1 3 1.13 .428

c. Having the TA present increases the learning potential in the class. 31 1 2 1.03 .180

d. The instructions for the SignLab activities are easy to understand. 31 1 2 1.10 .301

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 129


A Kruskal-Wallis chi-square test showed that the students’ re-sponses varied in statement 8a. Students from the BSL Intermediate BLab class achieved a higher mean score (M = 1.73, SD = .786) thanthose from the Ab Initio B Lab (M = 1.00, SD = .00) and the BSL forPostgraduates (M = 1.00, SD = .00) classes. It seems that teaching as-sistants tended to interact with and facilitate students who were be-ginners in BSL and had less experience in SignLab use (�2

(2) = 12.95; p < .05).

Perceptions of SignLab as a Learning ToolStudents indicated that they liked SignLab as part of their BSL units(n = 25; 81 percent) and that using it made their courses more inter-esting (n = 20; 64 percent) (table 6). They perceived SignLab as a valu-able tool since it helped them to realize the BSL areas in which theyneed to improve (n = 25; 81 percent), such as vocabulary (n = 28; 90percent). Nevertheless, they stated that they did not use more BSL inSignLab sessions than in their regular classes (n = 18; 58 percent). Fur-thermore, SignLab was perceived to promote interpersonal commu-nication in the classroom. Students reported that they interacted withtheir teaching assistant (n = 14; 45 percent) and their colleagues (n =12; 39 percent) in the SignLab more than in their regular BSL classes.However, it was not clear whether students had spent time practicingthe language in SignLab since they demonstrated a neutral positiontoward statement 9e. Moreover, when they were asked to choose be-tween SignLab and regular BSL classes, most of them (n =20; 64 per-cent) indicated a preference for attending standard BSL classes. It maybe the case that students did not perceive SignLab sessions as equal tostandard BSL classes but as supplementary and thus attributed morevalue to work done in those classes.

Students from the BSL for Postgraduates class felt they usedmore BSL in standard classes than in the SignLab (�2

(2) = 6.24;p < .05), whereas students from the other two classes expressed theopposite opinion. This finding was also expected since studentsfrom the former class spent less time in the SignLab classroom (halfan hour less per week) than the other two classes. It appears thattime invested in the computer-based classroom increases sign lan-guage use.

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 130

Perceptions of Access to, Ease in Using, and Difficulty with SignLabStudents agreed that they had adequate access to the SignLab (n = 18;58 percent) and reported that they liked attending the SignLab sessions(n = 23; 74 percent). However, it was not clear whether they wantedto work from home or to have regular SignLab sessions. This discrep-ancy may indicate that students need a more personalized interactionwith their teaching assistants rather than working in the SignLab bythemselves on a regular basis (table 7).

Perceptions of SignLab Advantages and DisadvantagesStudents mentioned problems of particular teaching practices ratherthan issues that related to SignLab itself. Repeated video observationwas considered to be a monotonous activity, especially the glossingsessions, during which they had to identify specific handshapes on thevideo clips. Therefore, they recommended more variation in activitiesso as to make the SignLab sessions more interesting and to provide


Table 6. Students’ Perceptions of SignLab as a Component of BSL Courses (1 = Agree, 2 = Neutral, 3 = Disagree)


a. I like using SignLab for this course. 31 1 2 1.19 .402b. Use of the SignLab makes this course

more interesting. 30 1 3 1.37 .556c. I interact with my colleagues

(in person or through video) more because of the SignLab. 31 1 3 1.87 .806

d. I interact with my TA (in person or through video) more because of the SignLab. 31 1 3 1.81 .833

e. I spend more time practicing BSL because of the SignLab. 31 1 3 1.90 .870

f. I do not use more BSL in SignLab sessions than I do in regular BSL classes. 31 1 3 1.58 .765

g. My vocabulary did not improve as a result of the SignLab use. 31 1 3 2.87 .428

h. Working with SignLab helps me recognize areas I need to improve. 31 1 2 1.19 .402

i. If given a choice between regular BSLclass and a SignLab class, I would takea SignLab class. 31 1 3 2.58 .620

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM 1


more involvement with productive tasks in which they could makereal use of BSL and practice their expressive skills.

Students found it difficult to understand the purpose of and to carryout the tasks, especially the self-analysis activities, which their teachingassistants assigned for the SignLab sessions. Instead of analyzing theirown signing performance, students preferred and valued feedback fromthe teaching assistant:

The tasks we are set tend to be the same every week. More variationwould make things more interesting. We have been asked to assessour own signing performance, but I’m still not sure how exactly weshould do this. More input from the tutor [teaching assistant] wouldoften be useful.

Furthermore, students preferred contacting their TAs or their class-mates directly rather than spending time in self-recordings and analy-sis of their performance. Repeated video observation was perceived tocreate distance between students and their TAs. In other words, stu-dents felt they needed more feedback on the video work submittedsince working by themselves hindered their concentration, preventedthem from asking questions on the spot, and hence receiving immedi-ate feedback:

Although SignLab is useful for improving BSL (especially productiveskills), I still prefer talking to the tutor directly because watchingvideos at SignLab creates distance between me and the tutor.

Table 7. Students’ Perceptions of Access to and Ease or Difficulty of SignLabUse (1 = Agree, 2 = Neutral, 3 = Disagree)


a. Access to SignLab is adequate. 31 1 3 1.55 .723b. I would like to have a regularly

scheduled SignLab period. 30 1 3 1.27 .521c. I prefer the flexibility of being able

to do all the activities at my own computer without any SignLab sessions. 31 1 3 2.10 .790

d. I prefer the flexibility of not having a regular SignLab period and, but of being able to go to the lab at any time to do the required activities. 31 1 3 2.03 .875

e. SignLab is easy to use and learn. 31 1 3 1.13 .428

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 132

Students also referred to the difficulty in accessing the SignLab dueto the limited times available to them to book the room and the factthat SignLab was mostly used for teaching. It appears that students usedthe SignLab to watch video activities and to film their signing at theirown pace without feeling the pressure of the greater time commitmentrequired in standard BSL classes and during the teaching time of Sign-Lab sessions. However, they felt that video observation and signingrecording could be carried out at home with their own computers.

Students found that filming themselves signing was very useful be-cause it enabled them to note their errors and to monitor their skills.They also found SignLab very useful for watching other peoples’ sign-ing at their own pace. Observing the videos of other signers helpedstudents analyze the language and, consequently, to develop their re-ceptive skills. Especially through glossing, students illustrated that theycould enrich their BSL vocabulary since, in the videos, they came acrosssigns that they had not been taught before.

Interview Results: Students’ Perceptions of SignLab

Typical SignLab SessionsStudents were asked to describe a common SignLab session by refer-ring to their own and their teaching assistant’s activity. They stated thatthey were usually introduced to a linguistic topic; grouped into pairsto work in front of the computers; left alone to direct their own learn-ing in the areas in which their TA asked them to work (e.g., specifichandshapes); searched the videos to find needed linguistic information;kept notes from the videos; filmed their signing; and, just before theend of the session, discussed the task with their classmates and their TA.If they were unable to complete the task on time, they could finish itat a different time by booking a computer in the SignLab individually.In this case, the SignLab sessions had simply substituted digital video forVHS recorders, except for the ease of use and the option of recordingone’s own signing:

Normally it will be looking at a video clip and then either glossing,so extracting some signs or looking for different handshapes, but usu-ally it’s a clip, and we have to note [it] down. We are working insmall groups, and then at the end, maybe the last twenty minutes, thetutor will come back and discuss what people have found and theirdifferent ideas, and then from that you have to write a report, and if


18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 133


you finish it in time you don’t need to go back to the lab; otherwise,you might need to go back later in the week.

Students were asked to compare SignLab sessions with their regularBSL classes. They stated that the two classes differed in the learningprocess of video observation. In standard BSL classes, video observationwas controlled by the teaching assistants, who were always present in theclassroom during teaching time. The TAs controlled the video displayand checked students’ understanding through frequent interrogationsabout the content of the video. As the students indicated, in their reg-ular classes they felt that they were not responsible for their own learn-ing but were dictated to by their TAs. This process of questioninginvolved more face-to-face interaction between the students and theteaching assistant, which helped the students understand linguistic fea-tures of which they had not been aware.

In contrast, in SignLab sessions, video observation was not based onthe interaction between students and TAs but on the interactionsamong the students themselves. Sometimes it constituted an individualactivity as well. In either case, students were in control of the wholeprocess. They could view a video clip as many times as they needed toin order to understand the signing, and they could do so at their ownpace and at a time they chose. Besides SignLab teaching time, studentscould book the SignLab and work on the same video later in the week:

There is no interaction with the teachers—or hardly any. The teacherjust will hand out the assignment and leave us basically. So it’s work-ing by yourself or with one other person. Whereas in the class theteachers are there all the time, and there’s a lot more of feedback be-tween the students and the teachers. If you go to a SignLab session andyou finish quickly, you can basically just go. And also if you feel likeyou haven’t done a good enough job, you can go back and do it againand stay. So that’s different in the classes; it’s pretty much clear there.

One computer was often shared by two or three students; thus,video observation usually constituted teamwork.

Students’ and TAs’ Role in the SignLabStudents perceived themselves to have an independent and active roleby collaborating with each other and being responsible for their own

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 134

learning. Depending on their signing skills, they could take a leadingrole in their groups. In this case, they could rely on each other’s feed-back rather than that of their TAs:

As a student, so, I have, I have to do the work for me. I can’t rely onother people to do it, but sometimes in the groups, it depends withwho you are with [sic]. Sometimes you take some kind of a leadingrole if your signing is better, or if you understand more clearly, thenthe other people will rely on you more to do it.

However, students turned to the teaching assistants’ commentswhen they had difficulty in understanding parts of the videos and couldnot actually receive feedback from peer interaction. In that case, theTAs remained the primary experts because of their knowledge of thesubject matter. Their role was perceived to be a limited but support-ive one in the SignLab. They were often out of the classroom, duringwhich time the students worked on their own:

It’s, it’s minimum, it’s very limited. They don’t need always to stayin the room because you are working on your own speed, on yourown pace. So, the role of the tutor is only really if you don’t under-stand something or when you are stuck on a certain part of the clipor when you don’t understand the signing. Then you would ask thetutor. Then, they maybe explain or maybe say, “No, you have towork [it] out yourself,” but it’s minimum role. It’s not very activeteaching. It’s more just say[ing] what has to be done and then lettingyou do it.

Teaching assistants facilitated the students’ learning only when thestudents required their feedback on certain parts of the video clips.They would circulate in the classroom and monitor the students’ work.Students, on the other hand, could ask questions and either receivedimmediate feedback or were encouraged to find the necessary informa-tion in their videos.

SignLab as a Learning ToolStudents expressed the view that SignLab impacted their BSL learn-ing when combined with their regular BSL classes (the latter may havehad a greater influence):


18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 135


I think overall, yes, my BSL in general skills have improved throughthe teaching. It’s hard to say which will be, which part of the teach-ing have done [sic] the biggest [impact] into [sic] that. But I think thatactual BSL classes probably will do more than the SignLab sessions.

Moreover, SignLab was considered a useful tool for analyzing one’ssigning performance. This type of analysis was feasible through re-peated video observations, which allowed students to watch them-selves signing, notice gaps, correct their errors, learn their strengthsand weaknesses, and, thus, improve their BSL skills. Analysis of one’sown videos contributed to the visualization of one’s signing, which inturn led to their learning the target signs. Since the self-videos repre-sented the students’ actual signing performances, they were able to an-alyze their execution of particular signs:

When it’s your signing and you’re watching it, you remember morebecause you are doing it, and so, and say, it connects more with whatyou’re learning.

Part of the students’ work was to analyze the videos and the gloss-ing of the signed message. They perceived glossing to be a valuableadjunct to BSL learning as it allowed them to understand the videosand thus to develop their receptive and expressive BSL skills. Gloss-ing enabled students to develop their expressive skills since part oftheir work was to sign back the glossed texts and record their signing.Consequently, they could use the items they had glossed and viewthemselves on the videos:

I think for me when we gloss . . . and you have to know every singlesign because it checks your understanding and your comprehensionand also if you gloss something, right then I will be able to sign backwhatever I was watching. And that makes me feel that I’m learningmore, whereas if I’m looking for just a handshape, you don’t necessar-ily need to understand the whole of the clip. You can get the gist of itand the rough understanding and then just pick up the individual signswhich used the handshape. So, I feel like I learn more vocabulary whenI’m watching and glossing than I do just extracting a handshape.

Glossing forced the students to focus on BSL syntax and thus be-come aware of the meaning of the video. Students also indicated that

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 136

glossing improved their acquisition of new vocabulary. By writingdown every single sign from the videos, the students were able to learnsigns that they had not been taught before.

Advantages of SignLabStudents were asked to identify the most interesting part of the Sign-Lab sessions, which, in their view, most facilitated their BSL learning.Overall, the students expressed their satisfaction with observing videoclips and filming themselves signing. Although working independentlywas challenging, they were positive about working at their own paceto comprehend the signed message in their videos:

I think it’s good that we can watch the videos of Deaf people at ourown pace and go backwards and forwards and look at little bits to getthe full idea at our own pace. I really like that.

The BSL variation in the accessible model videos was another pos-itive feature of the SignLab system. Students indicated that it was veryimportant for them to watch different versions of signing from differ-ent areas in the country. SignLab provided the virtual space in whichto store and later to retrieve these varied materials at the students’leisure. Furthermore, some of the students commented on the socialcharacter of SignLab sessions. They favored the interaction with eachother since this helped them learn the language:

I enjoy the interactive part of the course and the work with other stu-dents, as you learn something new in every class. When glossing, itis good to have someone else who picks up things you miss.

They relied on their collective knowledge to help pick up signsthey had missed earlier. Moreover, they perceived that their learningwas a by-product of the student-student and student-TA interactionthat often took place in the SignLab.

SignLab DrawbacksStudents demonstrated their preference for receiving immediate feed-back from their teaching assistants, which, in their views, SignLab ses-sions lacked. At the end of each SignLab session, the students typically


18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 137


had to submit their own videos to the TAs’ drop boxes. However,feedback on the work they handed in was subject to a delay. In stan-dard BSL classes, the TAs provided immediate feedback to the group,which enabled the students to think critically about their language us-age. In SignLab, although students worked independently on videoanalysis and glossing, when this type of activity dominated the teach-ing time, the students did not feel motivated to work since they pre-ferred receiving instant feedback from their TAs:

OK. In the regular classes . . . the teacher very much will stop andstart and will ask questions to check your understanding . . . but inthe SignLab, because you are controlling it, you can’t decide howmuch you understand. If you think you understand it really well, thatmeans you wouldn’t necessarily watch it again. But . . . in an ordi-nary class . . . you might think you understand it, but then the teacherwill ask another question, and you realize you don’t know, and thenyou have to watch it again and again. And you go much more deeplyinto the clip or the video.

Students believed that repeated analysis of video clips was no in-dication of the extent of their learning. Therefore, they appreciatedtheir teaching assistants’ being in their classroom and providing imme-diate feedback to their questions and confirmation of their learning.In fact, the TAs’ presence in the SignLab motivated the students tocomplete their tasks:

Sometimes I feel like it’s sort of irrelevant to the rest of the course be-cause there’s hardly any support from the teacher. I know that we aresupposed to work independently, but it doesn’t give you so muchmotivation to actually learn what you are supposed to be doing if youare just going there and watch[ing] or sign[ing] a bit of story and justsay[ing,] “I can’t be bothered with that now. I’m going home now.”There’s not so much motivation to actually get down to work.

Students’ RecommendationsStudents felt SignLab needed more exploitation since, they believed,their TAs did not fully utilize its potential to make BSL learning moreinteresting. Accordingly, there were suggestions for restructuringthe work done in the SignLab, especially by the groups of students.

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 138

Although interaction among the students often occurred, it appearsthat group discussions did not follow any structure or objectives,which the students favored. Therefore, they suggested that the teach-ing assistants follow a planned discussion, which would promote theirBSL learning. In reality, they favored the implementation of groupdiscussions like those that occurred in their standard BSL classes:

I think it may be good if part of the session was more structured groupwork because that’s what we end up . . . doing anyway. The wholeclass will discuss with each other, “Do you understand this?” . . . [or]“Did you?” “Did anybody get what this sign means?” or whatever.

Earlier, in the questionnaire results section, I mentioned that thestudents preferred interpersonal interaction and collaboration in theSignLab. This finding corroborates research that shows that interactivecomputer-based environments motivate students in negotiating thetarget language successfully and independently (Stepp-Greany 2002;Taylor and Gitsaki 2003).

Interview Results: TAs’ Perceptions of SignLab

The Teaching Assistants’ Role in the SignLabTeaching assistants described their role during SignLab sessions as a sup-portive and facilitative one while students were analyzing BSL videoclips. This role was different from the one in their standard BSL classes,where they were present and lectured the whole time. In SignLab,however, they were there as a “backup” to clarify, explain, and, in gen-eral, give feedback. In the SignLab, it was up to students to completethe tasks:

So I encourage the students to develop their own skills, and then Iam more a backup . . . in a backup role to support them so they cananswer questions. I facilitate, and I encourage them. I try to encour-age them to explore new areas, and I think it’s very different from anormal lecturing role when you lecture for fifty minutes without theinteraction.

Observation and analysis of videos involving BSL grammar couldfacilitate students’ learning even though the students regarded such ac-tivities as monotonous and without significant learning purpose:


18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 139


We’ve developed specific resources that focus on nonmanual features.Others specifically look at handshape. So, it means we specifically cre-ated this resource to look at specific areas within sign language. So,staff knows what they are looking for, and the students know whatthey are looking for.

The fact that teaching assistants expressed their concern for devel-oping syllabi and video material to meet the students’ learning needsand the characteristics of SignLab technology illustrates their overallunderstanding of the new learning processes occurring in that class-room, processes that differed significantly from those taking place intheir traditional BSL classes. Therefore, they would prefer to developa separate syllabus for the SignLab sessions, independent from that forstandard BSL classes:

I was talking to one colleague who told [me] about the learning out-comes, and they said that perhaps that learning outcomes shouldchange to be more relevant to the SignLab because obviously Sign-Lab is revolutionary; it’s new. So it can improve learning outcomes,aims, and objectives because obviously the old outcomes that we haveare related to the old technology, the video, so we need to look at thedepartment . . . how we can change the syllabus to match the newtechnology in SignLab so that it’ll work well. And it means that it canwork independently that way.

Teaching assistants were also involved in assessing students. Assess-ment was carried out either in the SignLab, in face-to-face interactionwith one student at a time during the teaching time, or at a distance.In this case, the video-recorded feedback was sent to students’ dropboxes:

And then I can do all the feedback. I can sit with them and then askthem to explain what they’ve done, and I can analyze their signingthat they’ve filmed . . . so, really, that’s how I’ve used SignLab . . .so you can actually put some information onto the software, studentsmay have to watch that for two minutes and then sign back. Whenthey finish that, they would send that to you, the inbox, and then thatmeans later on the lecturer can come and open that inbox, and thereshould be, say, twenty students’ exams there, and I can watch that andmark it really easily . . . and then I can film feedback and any com-ments using the same web camera, using the Panda software.

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 140

These assessment procedures differed from those followed in regu-lar BSL classes. In the SignLab, assessment, whether face-to-face orrecorded, was individualized. The primary innovation of the SignLabsystem was its ability to provide feedback from a distance, that is, with-out requiring the physical presence of the students and TAs.

SignLab as a Teaching ToolTeaching assistants were asked to appraise the surface features of theiruse of SignLab when teaching. This involved two parts: the receptiveand the productive. For the former, instruction was delivered usingvideo materials that the TAs had prepared in advance. These materi-als replaced their traditional lectures, for they had been created withthe aim of teaching specific BSL grammar topics. The videos illus-trated BSL grammar, which the students could then acquire throughrepeated video observation and analysis. Thus, the TAs did not haveto lecture by being physically present in the classroom. Rather, inthose videos they included the topics they wanted to teach and askedthe students to retrieve the videos, observe them according to thegrammar focus of the session, identify, and gloss the content:

For the receptive part obviously we’ve already filmed videos and putthose on the computer. The students know where those are held, andthey can actually find a clip immediately compared to VHS, whereyou have to rewind and fast-forward, so you can find it actually quiteeasily. They don’t get the wrong clip; they get the right clip. So, weaim to make sure it’s correct.

For productive sign learning, the TAs asked the students to inter-pret the meaning of a silent video clip:

We may have things like “Laurel and Hardy” . . . those are clips ofreal story clips. And then it may be translated—have to be translatedinto BSL without any English influence. So, it’s very visual. So, weget that clip, and then they have to produce that in BSL . . . The sec-ond task is to reproduce or translate what has been said. It’s not reallytranslating, it’s transliterating.

The teaching assistants reported that they followed up with groupdiscussion—something that the students felt happened infrequently.


18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 141


SignLab as a Learning ToolThe TAs found SignLab a helpful tool for promoting students’ au-tonomous learning and, consequently, for reducing their own teach-ing workload in the classroom. It appears that the TAs promotedself-directed learning as an instructional strategy by requiring studentsto work on their own and more often through collaboration. They ex-plained that in SignLab sessions the students depended more on theirown efforts and on peer feedback than on the TAs’ feedback. It was upto them to watch the video and analyze its content; to look at the lan-guage and understand its meaning; and to produce their own signing.The TAs believed that these procedures promoted the students’ criti-cal thinking with regard to their signing skills and, as a result, theirknowledge of BSL. By being able to analyze their own signing, as wellas that modeled in the instructional videos, the students could learn toproduce correct signing.

Video observation was perceived to influence students’ learningdue to inherent features of digital video: playback through the pause,as well as the forward and backward functions. Using playback, stu-dents could stop the video in order to check (sometimes in slow mo-tion) the signing, rewind and rewatch specific points, and practicetheir signing. According to the TAs, playback in particular helped thestudents to learn vocabulary:

They have to watch the video clip. They can’t ask the speaker to clar-ify what they are signing. They have to check the signs on the com-puter, and it’s up to them to go back and rewind. . . . So in theSignLab, because they have it on the video, they can pause [and] thengo back in slow motion. So it’s an easy way for the students to iden-tify specific areas, and it means they can increase their vocabularyspecifically.

SignLab AdvantagesIn contrast to teaching with videotapes, the video material in SignLab,due to its digitized form, can be easily retrieved, archived, and utilizedto trace specific grammar areas within the video, thus facilitating thetimeliness of the teaching and learning process

It’s very, very different! Yes! Because . . . the software is fantastic! Us-ing the software is really good! It’s a great initiative. Before, . . . we’ve

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 142

had to use video recorders and video tapes, and then we had a webcam, but actually, actually, it wasn’t a web camera but a video cam-era, and so, then, we had to watch the video, film ourselves, rewindthe VHS tape, make sure all the students were at the right point . . .and then all the students were, “Oh! I can’t find the right point in thevideo!” [So] we had to rewind it again, and it will [sic] take anotherfive minutes . . . And I mean it was good to have that technology, butit’s just—it takes time!

The TAs also commented on the portability of the digitizedvideos produced in the SignLab, which they found quite useful forsign language assessment and for teaching BSL at a distance. They alsomentioned inserting their comments into precise points in students’video clips:

Now that we have the Apple Macs and the technology to have clipswithin that, it’s definitely improved things. And that means youknow that you don’t have to carry piles of videos around. You canjust download onto one disc and take that home, which is wonder-ful. And it’s very important for marking [grading] because in the pastyou had to watch lots of videos and then make lots of notes and thenput the camera on and film yourself for the feedback and then yousaid, “Oh! I forgot what I was going to say!” and checked again thenotes, and it takes time. But using the Macs—it’s a lot easier at thosepoints in that clip they have signed [because] you can pause it and[give] feedback immediately. So, you can just do that in between theparts of the clip and give an instant feedback. So, the technology—it’s a real benefit for us, and I think in the future people will develop[it] further. So, I think in the future we won’t even need to go to theclassroom for the lab. I can probably sit in my office looking at mycomputer, watch the clips, and then just use my web cam.

They indicated that portability and the ability to insert correctionsin the video were very important in maximizing the benefits of in-struction at a distance.

Results from Observations

Students’ Activities in the SignLabThe most frequent activity in SignLab was video observation (table 8).Students’ receptive skills were promoted by carefully observing thevideos and writing down the glosses of the signs. This was the primary


18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 143


objective rather than development of their expressive skills throughthe production of the target language (e.g., by imitating and then film-ing their signing).

Students’ Video Observation ActivityVideo observation brought about various activities such as peer inter-action, note taking, repetition and imitation of signs, and repeatedvideo observation (see table 9). This latter activity occurred with al-most the same frequency in the three classes.

Table 8. Students’ Activities in SignLab

SignLab Video Video Notes OtherClasses Observation Filming Comparison Taking Repetition Activity

BSL for 23 19 7 0 2 18Postgraduates (33%) (28%) (10%) (3%) (26%)BSL Ab Initio 95 0 0 47 11 9B Lab (59%) (29%) (7%) (5%)BSL Intermediate 90 14 0 65 45 28B Lab (37%) (6%) (27%) (19%) (11%)Total 208 33 7 112 58 55

Table 9. Students’ Behavior during Video Observation: Pairs of Sequences

BSL for BSL Ab IntermediatePairs of Categories Postgraduates Initio B Lab B Lab Total

Video Observation/Repetition 2 (9%) 9 (9%) 23 (26%) 34

Video Observation/Student Filming 6 (26%) 1 (1%) 7

Video Observation/Video Observation 7 (30%) 10 (11%) 10 (11%) 27

Video Observation/Student Other 5 (22%) 2 (2%) 7 (8%) 14

Video Observation/Student-Student Interaction 56 (59%) 18 (20%) 74

Video Observation/Student-TA Interaction 3 (13%) 5 (5%) 8

Video Observation/Student Feedback 1 (1%) 1

Video Observation/Note Taking 12 (13%) 31 (34%) 43

Total 23 95 90 208

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 144

Video observation involved the analysis of one’s own signing orthat of other signers through the use of video playback options (e.g.,pause, forward, and backward). When students analyzed other sign-ers’ signing, they looked at specific grammatical features to gloss andwrite down for future reference. Students also compared their ownsigning to that of a Deaf signer-model in the video. To this end, stu-dents preferred observing the videos repeatedly by going forward andbackward and stopping the videos:

The student watches her video clip. The rest [of the students] workwith video analysis . . . Some students imitate the video . . . [almost]all the students make their own videos in front of the webcam. Theywatch the [instructional] video, observe its parts, and repeat them [usethem] in their own videos . . . a student repeats some signs using Pandaand observes [in her video] how she uses the signs . . . A studentwatches the instructional video and her own. She imitates [signing]and again creates her own video. (BSL for Postgraduates)

In the BSL for Postgraduates class, students compared their ownsigning with that modeled in the instructional video. They displayedboth videos (their own and the modeled one) on the computer screenin a parallel fashion, played them simultaneously, viewed their sign-ing, and compared it with that in the instructional video. After eachvideo comparison, the students recorded themselves signing.

Students’ Note-Taking ActivityStudents’ note taking occurred only in the BSL Ab Initio B Lab andBSL Intermediate B Lab classes. Their task appeared to be to analyzeand represent the signing (table 10). Students likely used this glossingtechnique as a mapping strategy (Chen and McGrath 2005) in orderto visualize their signing.

Students’ Filming ActivityStudents checked their signing, and when they were not satisfied withtheir recorded signing performance, they created a new video by refilm-ing themselves. The students appeared to be preoccupied with the lan-guage they produced in their videos. Therefore, they looked carefullyat their videos, refilmed when necessary so that they could submit cor-rect ones to their TAs, and then deleted the old videos (table 11).


18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 145


Students could also preview their signing without actually record-ing it. In the preceding excerpt, the student created her own video,observed her signing, and then, before refilming herself, previewed byconsulting her notes. When she was ready, she rerecorded herself andthen carefully observed her performance on the new video. She thenplayed back the video and glossed her signing.

Previewing and repeated filming constituted a “double mapping”

Table 10. Students’ Behavior during Note Taking (Pairs of Sequences)

BSL Ab Intermediate Pairs of Categories Initio B Lab B Lab Total

Note Taking/Repetition 3 (6%) 20 (31%) 23Note Taking/Video Observation 26 (56%) 37 (57%) 63Note Taking/Student Other 3 (6%) 2 (4%) 5Note Taking/Student-Student Interaction 13 (28%) 4 (6%) 17Note Taking/Student-TA Interaction 2 (4%) 2Note Taking/Student Filming 1 (1%) 1Note Taking/Notes Taking 1 (1%) 1Total 47 65 112

Table 11. Students’ Filming Activity (Excerpt from the BSL Intermediate BLab Class)

Time TA Students Field Notes/Comments

11:55–12:00 S2: SF S2: Student starts filming herself signing.

12:00–12:05 S2: SF → (She stopped S2: She has finished filming: She is probing filming and is watchingin front of the webcam her video clip. She iswithout recording.) → SF skeptical and looks at

her notes.12:05–12:10 S2: SF → SO S2: SO: She waits for

video export.12:10–12:15 S2: SO → NVW S2: SO: She waits for

video export.12:15–12:20 S2: NVW → video pause;

note taking → NVW →video pause; note taking →repetition of signing → NVW S2: She keeps notes while

watching her video clip. She repeats signing and then watches the video.

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 146

technique, which students from the BSL Intermediate B Lab class haddeveloped. Hence, SignLab provided a twofold signing visualization.The students first mapped their signing by using sign language in its“oral” form (rehearsing) and then utilized its recorded form, that is,the video (repetition of signing recording). In both cases, they con-ceptualized their signing by thinking in and using the target sign lan-guage without switching to their first language (e.g., English glosses).

Students’ Video-Comparison ActivityAfter each video recording, the students compared their own signingwith that of the Deaf signer-model on the instructional video bywatching them in parallel. The main focus was on the articulation ofsigns. In doing so, the students stopped their own video, replayed itand watched their signing, opened the instructional video, observedit, compared the articulation of signing, and recorded their own sign-ing. The earlier excerpt clearly illustrates this process (table 12).

Interpersonal Communication in the SignLabOverall, SignLab sessions were characterized by collaboration mainlyamong students (table 13). Comparing the three classes, it appears thatstudents’ interaction dominated in the BSL Ab Initio B Lab and BSLIntermediate B Lab classes, during which the students learned mostlyfrom their peers, whereas in the BSL for Postgraduates class, the stu-dents relied on their communication with the TA rather than inter-action with each other.

This finding is in accordance with the results in the questionnaire,which demonstrated that students in the beginner’s BSL class preferredto have face-to-face interaction with their teaching assistant. Similarly,observations revealed that students with an intermediate knowledge ofBSL preferred working independently of their TA. These findingsthus indicate that the students’ BSL level affected the degree to whichthey were able to work autonomously on the computers in SignLab.

Summary of the Results

The results show that SignLab constitutes a visual and interactionallearning environment, which teaching assistants and students positively


18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 147


Table 12. Students’ Video Comparison Activity (Excerpt from BSL forPostgraduates Class)

Time TA Students Field Notes/Comments

30–35 S2: NVW → (She repeats She plays back the video.video play) NVW → SO She goes backwards in

order to observe a sign → SO: She opens other files

35–40 S2: NVW → SF → She watches the video bitCVW → SF → by bit and films herself.CVW → SF →CVW → SF →CVW → SF

40–45 S2: CVW → SF → SO: She has finished her CVW → SF → SO filming and is waiting for

file export.45–50 S2: NVW (She She watches her own

watches herself) → video. Every time she SF → CVW → SF → watches the instructional S-S interaction video she films herself.(BSL) → SF

50–55 S2: SO → SF SO: She is waiting for file export. She films herself by looking at the notes that the TA gave to everystudents in class.

55–00 S2: SO1 → NVW → She watches her old SO2 video clips. SO1: She is

waiting for file export. SO2: She is moving files into the drop box folder.

Table 13. Interpersonal Communication in SignLab

SignLab Classes TA-Student Interaction Student-Student Interaction

BSL for Postgraduates 10 6BSL Ab Initio B Lab 13 72BSL Intermediate Lab 0 31Total 23 109

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 148

perceive to benefit their in-class work. In this study SignLab wasmainly used to develop students’ receptive skills since the dominantactivity was video observation. According to the students, though, thiswas a monotonous activity that failed to motivate them to book theclassroom to practice. Therefore, they suggested that various produc-tive tasks might stimulate their involvement.

The learning and teaching conditions presented in this study indi-cate a rather dramatic change in the traditional paradigm of sign lan-guage classroom roles. Teaching assistants enhanced peer interaction,and students were given increased autonomy to manage their ownlearning. Instructors in computer-based environments often employthis teaching strategy to spare them from having to spend a great dealof time evaluating students’ activities (Ertmer et al. 2007). However,according to students’ views and classroom observations, BSL learn-ing relied on the teaching assistant’s expertise. The students turned tothe TAs for help when they received insufficient feedback from theirpeers. Additionally, they received more individualized feedback ontheir tasks during the SignLab sessions.

Students and teaching assistants attributed significant value toSignLab for practicing both receptive and expressive skills of the tar-get language. Observing various instructional videos and recordingtheir own, the students focused on language by conducting an in-depth analysis of the signed messages. Furthermore, they had an op-portunity to compare their own signing in their videos with thatobserved in the instructional videos. The TAs evaluated the students’expressive skills by carefully observing their videos and commentingin face-to-face discussions with the students. These learning andteaching processes indicate that SignLab provides visual feedback tostudents and teaching assistants.

Conclusions and Discussion

Students’ Activity with SignLab

According to the output hypothesis, noticing errors in one’s own out-put plays an important role in the learning process. Learners can pro-duce the target language correctly only when they are aware of theirlinguistic errors. Therefore, learners should be made aware of the


18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 149


problems in their output by means of external feedback (from the TA)or internal feedback (noticing and uptake moves). In this study, the re-sults suggest that the student-TA interaction created a positive envi-ronment for sign language learning.

In the interviews, the participants commented that interaction didhelp them learn the target forms of BSL. They gave detailed descrip-tions of the cognitive processes they employed when they workedwith the videos and with SignLab software in particular. The advan-tage lay in the immediate recording of the signing, which enabled thestudents to quickly record a number of video clips of their signing. Forinstance, they indicated that they could delete the old videos and pro-duce new ones that reflected their improved signing performance.

SignLab provided students with visual feedback. The learning of asign language requires one to view one’s signing in order to observethe actual performance of signs. In this study, visual feedback referredto the repeated viewing of both the TAs’ videos and the instructionalvideos with a Deaf signer-model. The data indicate that carefully ob-serving one’s self-video, as well as the TA’s, helped these students de-velop their receptive and expressive signing skills. Furthermore, in theinterviews, the students mentioned noticing strategies such as analyz-ing their signing performance by breaking down (glossing) the mes-sage into its lexical components.

Through this linguistic analysis, the students could monitor theirsigning, notice gaps in it, correct their errors, and, in consequence,improve their skills. It also helped them to learn the target signs. Oc-casionally the students relied on their collective BSL knowledge andfilled in their linguistic gaps by picking up signs they had missed in avideo. Additionally, they observed their teaching assistants’ modelingthe target signs and imitated them when they performed the signs intheir videos. In other cases, students mapped and planned their sign-ing just before sending their videos to the TA. They did so by gloss-ing the signing on a piece of paper or recording it in order to recollectwhat they actually needed to sign. When they were not satisfied withthe signed output, they deleted the videos and produced new ones. Allof these processes indicate one thing: SignLab allowed these studentsto make their thinking processes visible.

Chen and McGrath (2005, 55) state that technology-based envi-

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 150

ronments should focus on guiding learners to go beyond the informa-tion given and develop more complex and higher-level thinking skills.In line with this, the students in this study demonstrated that theyprocessed the content of the videos in a deeper and more mindfulmanner by using explicit cognitive strategies. Thus, it appears thatSignLab helped them to gain conscious access to their own learning.For instance, students were concerned with the quality of their sign-ing and focused on producing it accurately by either recording theirsigning repeatedly or correcting it following the teaching assistants’feedback.

Teaching Assistant’s Activity with SignLab

Students strongly believed that their teaching assistants facilitatedtheir learning in the SignLab. This belief corresponds to other re-searchers’ conclusions that the teacher’s role is significant in computer-mediated instruction (Kern 1996; Lam and Lawrence 2002; McGrath1998; Stepp-Greany 2002). According to Kern (1996, 118), the degreeto which CALL promotes language learning fundamentally dependson the teachers who actually coordinate its use. Stepp-Greany (2002)concludes that the presence of the teacher in the technology classroomfacilitates learning and hence increases the students’ learning potential.McGrath (1998) has stated that introducing technology resourcesalone into students’ learning experiences does not automatically resultin improvement. Teachers’ preparation and knowledge of how to in-tegrate technology and refine the lesson with that technology were thekey factors in determining whether technology is effective.

There were also noticeable changes in student-TA roles. The re-sults show that students were given increased autonomy by theirteaching assistants and managed their own learning by negotiating ei-ther with their peers or with their TAs. The TAs, on the other hand,became the facilitators as they remained the experts due to theirknowledge of BSL. Thus, they shared their knowledge when asked bytheir students. As a result, most of the time the students remained re-cipients of the learning information given by the teaching assistant.Even when the students collaborated and shared their knowledge witheach other, they still regarded the TA as the final arbiter and waitedfor the TA to answer their questions.


18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 151


Students and teaching assistants realized the change in their roles inthe SignLab. As they mentioned, this alteration was observable espe-cially when they compared their roles during SignLab classes with thosein standard sign language classes. First, students appreciated the newcollaborative role and the increased control they had over the tasks dur-ing the teaching time in SignLab because, as they noted, it forced themto learn the language in a more detailed and autonomous way. Theywere able to collaborate and be more active during tasks as opposed topassively following a teaching assistant’s sign language lecture. In ad-dition, during SignLab classes, students had an opportunity to initiatethe interaction and ask their own questions. Second, teaching assistantsrealized that in SignLab they could develop a closer, more individualrelationship with their students than in traditional sign language classes.Thus, they could assess the students’ signing skills on a personal levelrather than lecturing in front of a group of students.

Teaching Assistant’s Feedback

It appears that the TAs preferred giving explicit and direct feedbackto students. This is most likely a feature of the current stage of devel-opment of sign language teaching, in which direct correction is seenas a priority. It might also be the effect of SignLab itself, which al-lowed a one-to-one feedback that suited the students’ different needsbecause of their varied BSL proficiency levels. This type of interac-tion encouraged the detailed examination of components of thevideo and then their correction by the TA.

The one-to-one interaction allowed the teaching assistants to pro-vide exact feedback, thus responding to the special needs of individualstudents. More specifically, it permitted the TAs to pause the students’videos, reflect on the way they used the target forms of BSL syntacti-cally, and then provide feedback, thereby prompting the students to fo-cus on the target signing at a particular point in the video. In theinterviews, the students indicated their satisfaction with the teaching as-sistant’s feedback, which they found constructive and encouraging.

Future Research

Students’ and teaching assistants’ perceptions of the SignLab environ-ment (i.e., their attitudes toward the tasks and the language itself ) have

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 152

been investigated to provide further information about the benefits ofCALL with regard to the teaching and learning of a sign language. Atopic of future research may be an analysis of students’ scores (e.g.,output measures) in CALL environments as compared with thoseachieved in a traditional sign language classroom with the same teach-ing assistant. Moreover, this study focused on a limited number of par-ticipants, and a larger-scale study should be conducted to furthervalidate the findings. Factors such as gender, age, prior sign languageexperience, and computer experience were not part of this study andcould be included in future research. Although data were provided bya limited number of participants during relatively short BSL sessions,this study presents evidence that CALL (SignLab) creates a positive en-vironment for the teaching and learning of a sign language.

References

Belz, J. A., and J. Reinhardt. 2004. Aspects of Advanced Foreign LanguageProficiency: Internet-Mediated German Language Play. InternationalJournal of Applied Linguistics 14(3): 324–362.

Boehm, A. E., and R. A. Weinberg. 1997. The Classroom Observer: DevelopingObservation Skills in Early Childhood Settings. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Centre for Deaf Studies. 2004. Digital Classroom User Feedback Report.Bristol, University of Bristol, UK.

Chapelle, C. A. 2001. Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition:Foundations for Teaching, Testing, and Research. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

———. 2003. English Language Learning and Technology: Lectures on AppliedLinguistics in the Age of Information and Communication Technology. Amster-dam: Benjamins.

Chen, P., and D. McGrath. 2005. Visualize, Visualize, Visualize: DesigningProjects for Higher-Order Thinking. Learning and Leading with Technol-ogy 32(4): 54–57.

Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2007. Research Methods in Education.Available via NetLibrary. London: Routledge.

Croll, P. 1986. Systematic Classroom Observation. London: Falmer.DiCamilla, F., and M. Anton. 2004. Private Speech: A Study of Language for

Thought in the Collaborative Interaction of Language Learners. Interna-tional Journal of Applied Linguistics 14(1): 36–69.

Ellis, R., H. Basturkmen, and S. Loewen. 2002. Doing Focus-on-Form.System 30: 419–32.


18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 153


Ertmer, P. A., J. C. Richardson, B. Belland, D. Camin, P. Conolly, G.Coulthard, K. Lei, and C. Mong. 2007. Using Peer Feedback to Enhancethe Quality of Student Online Postings: An Exploratory Study. Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication 12(2). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/ertmer.html.

Kern, R. 1996. Computer-Mediated Communication: Using E-Mail Ex-changes to Explore Personal Histories in Two Cultures. In Telecollabo-ration in Foreign Language Learning: Proceedings of the Hawaii Symposium,ed. M. Warschauer, 105–109. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, SecondLanguage Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Kinnear, P. R., and C. D. Gray. 2000. SPSS for Windows Made Simple: Release10. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.

Lam, Y., and G. Lawrence. 2002. Teacher-Student Role Redefinition dur-ing a Computer-Based Second Language Project: Are Computers Cat-alysts for Empowering Change? Computer-Assisted Language Learning15(3): 295–315.

Lightbown, P. M., and N. Spada. 2001. Factors affecting Second LanguageLearning. In English Language Teaching in Its Social Context: A Reader, ed.C. N. Candlin and N. Mercer, 28–43. London: Routledge.

Lyster, R., and L. Ranta. 1997. Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake.Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20: 37–66.

McGrath, B. 1998. Partners in Learning: Twelve Ways Technology Changesthe Teacher-Student Relationship. Technological Horizon in Education25(9): 58–62.

Stepp-Greany, J. 2002. Student Perceptions on Language Learning in a Tech-nological Environment: Implications for the New Millennium. LanguageLearning and Technology 6(1): 165–80.

Stevens, V. 1992. Humanism and CALL: A Coming of Age. In Computersin Applied Linguistics: An International Perspective, ed. M. C. Penningtonand V. Stevens, 11–38. Clevedon: Adelaide Multilingual Matters.

Taylor, R. P., and C. Gitsaki. 2003. Teaching WELL in a Computerless Class-room? Computer-Assisted Language Learning 16(4): 275–94.

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 154

interactions with educational media. The current study investigatedwhether preschool teachers (n = 3) fostered deaf children’s (n = 9) en-gagement during their repeated viewing of a literacy-focused educa-tional video (in ASL). Descriptive statistics and t-tests were conductedto examine teachers’ and students’ literacy-related engagement behav-iors during each day of viewing. In addition, students’ behaviors in thecurrent study were compared to those of students in a previous studyto determine whether children’s literacy-related behaviors differed ac-cording to the presence or absence of teacher mediation during videoviewing. Results indicate that while children’s engagement behaviorsincreased without adult mediation, viewings with teacher mediationelicited even greater literacy engagement behaviors. These findingssupport the use of research-based educational media in ASL that pro-vide strong literacy and language exposure for young deaf children.

Computer-Assisted Language Learning in British Sign Language Learning

The fact that language teaching can be operationalized through com-puter-assisted language learning (CALL) has directed researchers’ atten-tion to the learning task, which, in this case, is considered to be the unitthat demands analysis of the communicative processes in which thelearner is involved while working with CALL. Research focuses on un-derstanding the cognitive and social processes that CALL tasks create,such as the input they provide to learners, the interactions they offer,and the opportunities they provide to learners to produce the language.This study investigated the use of CALL, specifically SignLab, in theteaching and learning of British Sign Language (BSL). The primary re-search objective was to identify how students and teaching assistantsused the hardware and software in order to learn and teach BSL, as wellas their attitudes toward this technology. Data were collected by meansof a questionnaire and interviews with students and teaching assistantswith regard to their perceptions of BSL learning and teaching. Class-room observations were also conducted to investigate the actual teach-ing and learning activity occurring in the SignLab classroom.

Abstracts | 161

18140-SLS12.1 9/23/11 2:47 PM Page 161

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

material of research

Documents

Transcript of material of research