Outcome measures for students enrolled in separate sections of a manual communication course taught by the same instructor were compared. One group received instruction in a traditional university classroom setting. The other group received instruction through asynchronous, videostreamed online delivery. No statistically significant differences in expressive manual communication skills, as well as content knowledge, were found. There was a significant difference in the receptive comprehension of manually communicated information, even though the difference was only 6%. Results are discussed in terms of potential for online instruction to aid in addressing the critical shortage of personnel needed to provide services for students who are deaf and hard of hearing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BattisonR. (2000). Analyzing signs. In ValliC.LucasC. (Eds.), Linguistics of American Sign Language (pp. 199–218). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
2.
BeattieJ.SpoonerF.JordanL.AlgozzineB.SpoonerM. (2002). Evaluating instruction in distance learning classes. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 124–132.
3.
Center for Assessment and Demographic Studies, Gallaudet University. (1995). Educational programs for deaf students. American Annals of the Deaf, 140, 144–168.
4.
CollinsB. C.SchusterJ. W.LudlowB. L.DuffM. (2002). Planning and delivery of online coursework in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 171–186.
5.
EltonA. (March, 2000). Georgia school system takes lead. Views, 17 (3), 14.
6.
HurwitzT. A. (1991). Report from the National Task Force on Educational Interpreting. Conference Proceedings: Educational interpreting: Into the 1990's. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University, College of Continuing Education.
7.
JonesB. E.ClarkG. M.SoltzD. F. (1997). Characteristics and practices of sign language interpreters in inclusive education programs. Exceptional Children, 6, 257–268.
8.
LiddellS. K.JohnsonR. E. (2000). American Sign Language: The phonological base. In ValliC.LucasC. (Eds.), Linguistics of American Sign Language (pp. 267–306). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
9.
LudlowB. L. (2001). Technology and teacher education in special education: Disaster or deliverance?Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 143–163.
MeyenE. L.AustR. J.BuiY. N.IsaacsonR. (2002). Assessing and monitoring student progress in an e-learning environment. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 187–198.
12.
MooresD. F. (2002). Programs for training interpreters. American Annals of the Deaf, 147, 185–192.
RecessoA.VennM. L.ScheetzN. A.GunterP. L.DennyR. K. (2003). Multi-point continuous presence video conferencing over IP: Overcoming a NAT problem in South Georgia. Unpublished manuscript.
15.
RussellT. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Raleigh, NC: Office of Instructional Telecommunications, North Carolina State University.
16.
ScheetzN. (1998). Sign communication for everyday use. Austin, TX: Pro Ed.
17.
ScheinJ. D.StewartD. A. (1995). Language in motion. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
18.
SmithS. (2001). Online instruction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16 (2), 55–59.
19.
StucklessE. R.AveryJ. C.HurwitzT. A. (1989). Educational interpreting for deaf students: Report of the national task force on educational interpreting (Report No. 136). Rochester, NY: National Technical Institute for the Deaf. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 331 274).
20.
U.S. Department of Education. (1994). To assure the free and appropriate public education of all children with disabilities. In 16th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 16, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
21.
VennM. L.MooreR. L.GunterP. L. (1999). Using audio/video conferencing to observe field-based practices of rural teachers. Rural Educator, 22, 24–27.
22.
WinstonE. (1994). An interpreted education: Inclusion or exclusion?. In JohnsonR. C.CohenO. P. (Eds.), Implications and complications for deaf students of the full inclusion movement. (Gallaudet Research Institute Occasional Paper 94–2). (Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.
23.
Witter-MerithewA.DirstR. (1992). Preparation and use of educational interpreters. In SimsD. G.WalterG. G.WhiteheadR. L. (Eds.), Deafness and communication: Assessment and training (pp. 395–406). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
24.
YargerC. C. (March, 2001). Educational interpreting: Understanding the rural experience. American Annals of the Deaf, 146 (1), 16–30.
