Continuing to Design the ASL Blended Course

I am eager to fully promote all aspects of ASL as a second language and culture for students. I am planning the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) environment without the use of voice in my classroom. This approach is when learners are involved in the interactive activities, natural environments, developing the use of the target language to promote students an increased communication skill (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). This approach allows my students to interact with other students in activities such as conversations, online discussions, reviews, and peer feedback, and to develop the abilities to socialize using ASL inside and outside of the classroom.

The CLT approach will incorporate the Functional-Notional approach. In this approach, the ASL course will focus on the dialogues and notions in the lesson plans using the Signing Naturally curriculum. This approach concentrates on daily communicative functions of real-life interactions in the Deaf community (Mikos, Smith & Lentz, 2008). Combining both approaches develops students’ abilities to learn language and become persistent ASL signers.

I am modifying my teaching strategies and units. This type of modification is called “scaffolding.” Second language learners can learn better when the teacher provides a scaffold, meaning to make the language and vocabulary simpler by providing contents or short sentences. My scaffolding strategies are to simplify the contents of the language starting with the vocabulary, then to classifiers, directional verbs, and topic-comment structures in face-to-face instruction. I will provide the supplemental assignment online with videos of the vocabulary and short sentences following each unit of Signing Naturally curriculum. With the use of scaffolding, the classroom units will flow smoothly, opposed to the previous use of levels.

As for student skills assessment forms, I will use two rubrics. Rubrics can improve students’ expressive skills by guiding them to focus on specific areas that need to be improved (Hughes, 2007). I modified two rubrics along with elements of ASL prepared by Baylor University’s ASL program. The instructors in the program confirmed that the rubric they used is an effective and practical assessment form for expressive skills. I will use the modified rubrics for both expressive assignments and fable projects to examine and score the students’ expressive abilities. I placed the rubrics on the LMS to help students to understand how their language performance will be evaluated (Hughes, 2007). For the midterm and final in the face-to-face classroom, I will develop a formative assessment to score the students’ receptive, and cultural awareness skills. This can help me to modify teaching activities, and to determine the success of the ASL learning.

ASL Level II Course Outline

Reference:

Dixon-Krauss, L. (1996). Vygotsky in the Classroom: Mediated Literacy Instruction and Assessment. Addison Wesley Longman, One Jacob Way, Reading, MA 01867.

Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Hughes, A. (2007). Testing for language teachers. Ernst Klett Sprachen.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge university press.

Smith, C., Lentz, E. M., & Mikos, K. (2008). Signing naturally. San Diego, CA: DawnSignPress.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s