DEAF 164: Sign Language Structure & Usage

Perusall, Active Learning, Collaboration

Course Description

DEAF 164 examines the origins and linguistic structure of American Sign Language (ASL), as well as compares cross-linguistic features of other signed and spoken languages. Students learn fundamental aspects of signed language phonology, morphology and syntax and conduct a "Language Analysis Project" to apply these concepts in analyses of ASL video stimuli. Students also learn and discuss the impacts of language acquisition in the framework of language deprivation among deaf children. The course also discusses sociolinguistic aspects of language variation among signing communities, including how geography, domains language use (e.g., home, school, work), and sociocultural identity and economic status all impact how we use and construct language, particularly in how the systems of power that exist strongly inform the ways in which we experience language.

DEAF 164 is primarily a lecture and discussion course taught entirely in ASL, and is a required course for the BA in Deaf Studies. It is taught every Fall semester and is regularly at enrollment capacity. As it is taught entirely in ASL, the enrollment cap for the course is 25 students for visual accessibility purposes.

Overview of the Redesign Project

DEAF 164 is frequently discussed among our students as one of the most challenging courses of our program. Due to this reputation, I sought to find tools that could help support their learning of these complex linguistic issues in both lecture and class activity. During the CTL Summer Institute, we discussed the incorporation of various AI tools, which I had been apprehensive about. However, one tool that focused less on student use of AI, and more on the reliance on cooperative learning, was Perusall. The design of this tool allowed students to engage with complex content collaboratively, as well as My goals were as follows:

1. 1. Provide a more accessible pathway for students to the linguistics content,
  2. Incorporate team-based learning (TBL) strategies for students to engage with course content, and
  3. Monitor student comprehension of key concepts of linguistics.

It is imperative that we prepare our students for the world in which they will find themselves after graduation. This becomes more and more difficult every year with the constant evolution of technology, particularly with the push for more AI. However, my goals for this redesign focused on critical thinking, and comprehension through collaboration for my students. These skills and understanding of linguistic concepts are critical for our students as they prepare for life after they receive their degree, particularly in the case of those with Deaf Studies degrees. The vast majority of our students are hearing, second-language learners of ASL. In the history of Deaf Education, significant harm has often been caused by hearing people who have been uninformed as to the linguistic vitality of signed languages, negatively impacting the social/cognitive well-being of deaf children. Therefore, I prioritized these critical thinking and collaborative goals to impart my students with the understanding that while they may not go on to become linguists, linguistics is a part of their chosen career and the choices they make may very well have a direct impact on the language ecologies of deaf communities.

Assessment of the Redesign Project

As I stated during the CTL Summer Teaching Institute workshops in May, I aimed to incorporate methods for students to rely more on each other to unpack complex linguistics concepts as they apply to signed languages. However, I also knew that one of my biggest struggles as an instructor has been time management for grading student work. I knew that any strategy I incorporated must have a means of automatically grading to some extent. Fortunately, Perusall provided the means with an automatic content grader that ran with an internal algorithm for identifying "high quality" comments and analyze time-on-task to assign a numerical grade as students completed the assignments (see column 1 in table below).

Using this rubric, I developed 10 Reading Annotation assignments that separated the readings into chunks based on the topic of specific course modules: Introduction, Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Language Acquisition, Language Change, and Multilingualism. In each of these assignments, students were randomly sorted into groups of 4-6 people to read through the assigned readings. They were required to contribute at least five (5) thoughtful comments/questions on the reading by Wednesday prior to class, and reply to at least one (1) comment/question from each of their group members by Friday of the same week (Figure 1).

Screenshot of Perusall course homepage with multiple Reading Annotation assignments.
Figure 1. Perusall course homepage for DEAF 164.

This table shows three ways I assessed my course redesign.
Perusall AI Rubric	Reading Response Engagement	Google Form Student Survey

I employed Perusall's AI grading system to automatically assign grades based on combination grading across 7 criteria: Comment content (at least 5 comments rated by Perusall's algorithm) 60% Opening the assignment (10%) Active engagement time, at least 30 minutes (20%) Reading the text to the end. (10%) Getting responses on their comments (20%) Upvoting others' comments (10%) Any combination of these criteria would bring the student to the full 10 points per Reading Response Assignment. If they exceeded 100% based on these criteria, the maximum score for their participation was capped to 10 points. Pictured above is a screen-capture of the rubric of a student's successful completion of the reading, including various sized orange circles that indicate the weight of each criterion that factored into the student's score.	While I relied on the Perusall AI Rubric for grading the majority of the responses, I checked in to read my students' discussions to assess their take-aways from what they were reading. Pictured above is a screen-capture from one of the Reading Response where I addressed a point of confusion for a student in their group conversation.	I developed an optional, five-question Google Form survey for students to take and provide their feedback based on their experience with Perusall throughout the semester. This survey contains three (3) linear scale questions (1-10), with opportunities to add comments on the topics of each question. There is then a question of their general recommendation for continuing to incorporate Perusall, and a final question that provides an opportunity for students to share any additional comments/feedback that they are inclined to provide. Students will fill out this survey during Final Exams week, however, as it is optional, it will not be tied to their final grade. I provided the link to the form above, as well as included a screenshot of the introduction description to the survey that students will see.

Reflection

Overall, I am quite satisfied with the application of Perusall. However, there were some issues along the way that could only have come about through experimental application of the tool. I am particularly pleased with the options that it provides for students to tiered purchase options for access to the textbook. While I prefer readings to be open-access, Persuall provided the choices of students to purchase perpetual access (full price), one-year access (25% discount), or only one-semester access (a further 25% discount). With the cost of living and school fees that continually rise, I am have been pursuing ways to try and ease the burden of access to materials as much as I can, while still giving providing students access to the most up-to-date research and information to stay current with the developments of our field. This access at various price levels was enough to persuade me to choose the application. Technologically, however, my own skills with integrating the tool into Canvas require fine-tuning.

While I built the assignments in Perusall, I found integrating the assignment into Canvas through deep links more tedious. As I was building the assignments, Perusall offered a setting to "link assignment directions" to the Canvas page I built. However, the formatting of the instruction as embedded did not copy over the formatting and were inaccessible to read. This almost doubled the amount of time necessary to build each assignment. Being neurodivergent (ADHD), this led to a few moments of overstimulation and frustration, requiring me to move on to other tasks. However, this meant that during the semester, my students informed me that some of the assignments were not filled out or accessible in Canvas. In future iterations, I hope to streamline this process during initial set-up so as to avoid these hiccups. It is possible that there is a feature I have overlooked to make this experience easier, but I have yet to find it. Although the process was bumpy to say the least, it was encouraging that students indicated their engagement with the content by telling me when things were not working as expected.

I initially set out on this redesign to update the content of the course to make it more my own with a newer textbook, as I had inherited much of the original design from a previous instructor. Through this CTL Summer Institute, the realization of how this goal is a multi-step (and multi-year) process. Focusing on one aspect that incorporated TBL strategies for my students to engage more thoroughly with complex linguistics concepts allowed me the chance to identify how existing applications and tools can be leveraged to benefit not only student learning, but my own management of course content. This course is only taught in the Fall semester, granting me Spring and Summer to continue to flush out how to incorporate Perusall more effectively for the next iteration. Specifically, my next step will be to integrate Perusall in writing assignments to allow students to peer-review their work through their Language Analysis Project--a multi-phase analytical paper they all must complete. While Perusall does not lend itself to video analysis to the caliber that a signed language linguistics course would require, I will explore its merit as I apply it to the written components of their analysis project phases.

In closing, I would like to thank the CTL for this experience and the network of support that it provides. As I continue to redesign this course, as well as develop new courses for Deaf Studies (including one I am proposing as a Writing-Intensive GE course for the program) I will apply the new strategies and tools I have gained through this experience to continue pursuing more collaborative approaches to learning.

Textbook accessed through Perusall:

Wilkinson, E., & Morford, J. P. (2024). Understanding signed languages. Routledge.

Faculty Biography

This table includes my faculty biography.
	Dr. Martin Crudo (he/him) is an Assistant Professor in the American Sign Language & Deaf Studies Program within the Undergraduate Studies in Education branch of the College of Education at Sacramento State. His area of expertise is in signed language interpretation and linguistics. His research focus is applied linguistics as it relates to the influence of interpreters in educational environments with Deaf and hearing students and teachers.

**Program Sponsors**
	This work was supported by: Sacramento State Academic Affairs - Center for Teaching and Learning