Effects of inverted L2/Ln language pedagogy on student experiences and outcomes: The case of American Sign Language

Abstract

Second language (L2) learning has largely occurred in the traditional lecture-based classroom setting. Studies show that the lecture format has an impact on student outcomes and perceptions of classroom learning. Negative impacts include insufficient time for reinforcement activities, reviewing lecture materials, and engaging in conversation between instructors and students. An innovative way to enhance L2 students’ classroom outcomes and perceptions is the inverted classroom pedagogy. This study assesses whether the inverted pedagogy leads to more positive student perspectives and higher student outcomes compared to traditional pedagogy in L2 classrooms in American Sign Language (ASL). In this study, student outcomes and instructor and student perceptions of inverted pedagogy for ASL are assessed using a mixed method design with one controlled (traditional) and one experimental (inverted) advanced ASL class in a post-secondary setting. Results suggest that the inverted pedagogy is an approach that is as viable as the traditional approach for teaching and learning ASL as an L2 that enables students to engage in meaningful activities and conversations.

The landscape of American Sign Language education

“…Despite these challenges to improving research about ASL education, there is a growing number of empirical studies on ASL education (Beals & Faniel, 2019; Cripps et al, 2021; Listman & Sytch, 2017; Marton & MacIntyre, 2020). However, not much is understood about what ASL educators in postsecondary settings face including the challenges that may hinder the growth of ASL education as an academic discipline.…”

Introduction to the Special Issue: Learning Sign Languages as Additional Languages: Considering Language‐ and Modality‐Specific Factors

“…However, few studies (e.g., Rosen et al, 2015) have explored the impact of curriculum and instruction on learning sign languages as additional languages. In their contribution to this Special Issue, Cripps and colleagues examine whether a flipped-classroom approach yields similar results to a traditional-classroom approach for learning a sign language (Cripps et al, 2023). Their study partially replicates Cripps et al (2021), in which the researchers examined the same question for ASL teaching.…”

“…In their contribution to this Special Issue, Cripps and colleagues examine whether a flipped-classroom approach yields similar results to a traditional-classroom approach for learning a sign language (Cripps et al, 2023). Their study partially replicates Cripps et al (2021), in which the researchers examined the same question for ASL teaching. However, unlike Cripps et al (2021), Cripps et al (2023) examine the teaching of flipped and traditional classrooms by the same instructor.…”

“…However, unlike Cripps et al (2021), Cripps et al (2023) examine the teaching of flipped and traditional classrooms by the same instructor. The results largely mirror those of Cripps et al (2021), which suggest no substantial differences between teaching a sign language course using the traditional versus the flipped approach.…”

“…Mesch and Schönström (2023) address L2/Ln Swedish Sign Language (SSL; Svenskt Teckenspråk) learners' repair techniques in conversation. When learning a sign language as an L2/Ln in classrooms, Cripps et al (2023) investigate whether a traditional and a flipped classroom approach produces comparable outcomes for learning ASL. Finally, in a conceptual review article, Chen Pichler and Koulidobrova (2023) call for more research on the issue of modality in the acquisition of a sign language by deaf users of sign languages who would be learning sign languages as additional languages in the same modality.…”