Sign Language Program Structure and Content in Institutions of Higher Education in the United States, 1994–2004

18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 298

SHERYL B. COOPER, JOEL I. REISMAN, AND DOUGLAS WATSON Sign Language Program Structure and Content in Institutions of Higher Education in the United States, 1994–2004

The popularity and prevalence of sign language1 courses in postsecondary institutions have increased dramatically since they appeared on campuses in the early 1980s (Brod and Huber 1997; Welles 2004). Administrators who oversee these programs face unique issues associated with the evolving pace and place of this discipline within postsecondary institutions. As sign language classes have become

Sheryl B. Cooper is the coordinator of the Deaf Studies program at Towson University, Towson, Md. Joel Reisman is a statistician for the Veterans Administra- tion in Boston, Mass. Douglas Watson is a professor in the Department of Rehabil- itation, Human Resources and Communication Disorders, University of Arkansas. 1. The term sign language is used throughout this article to include any form of signed language (e.g., Signed English, American Sign Language, contact signing). We have chosen to adopt this commonly used term although the term signed language would be more grammatically correct. We also recognize that American Sign Language is a language, whereas Signed English is a code for the language of English, and that other forms of signed language also exist. In citations of previous literature, we have retained the original terminology (i.e., ASL, sign language). For the two original studies reported here, the term sign language refers to any type of signed language used in the United States, whereas the terms ASL and American Sign Language refer speciﬁcally to the language used by culturally Deaf people in the United States.

298 Sign Language Studies Vol. 11 No. 3 Spring 2011 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 299

Sign Language Program Structure and Content | 299 more entrenched in university curricula, old ways of allowing the faculty to teach whatever and however they choose are giving way to more coordination, structure, and standardization. Administrators who direct these program have had limited resources with which to seek guidance to help their sign language programs grow in a positive direction. A comprehensive review of the literature between 1993 and 2007 identified minimal research in the area of administration of sign language programs, supporting the idea that this area has received little attention from researchers over the years. However, programs have continued to develop and grow despite the lack of research, leading to the existence of diverse sign language programs in postsecondary institutions around the country. To establish a baseline of information about sign language programs on college campuses, Cooper (1997) conducted a study of sign language program coordinators. From a comparison of surveys of sign language programs (Cooper 1997; Cooper, Reisman, and Watson 2008), it appears that many sign language programs are now more structurally established. The emphasis appears to be shifting from the establishment of sign language classes and programs to identifying and standardizing philosophies and trends in the field, enabling administrators to make decisions that provide a higher quality of education.

Review of the Literature A comprehensive review of the literature on the administration of sign language programs was prepared by Cooper (1997) and was updated in 2007 (Cooper, Reisman, and Watson 2008). Previous research included studies by Shroyer and Holmes (1980), Battison and Carter (1982), Cogen and Moseley (1984), Delgado (1984), Cokely (1986), Newell (1995a, 1995b), and Jacobowitz (2005). These studies identified the motivations of students taking sign language classes, the types of classes available, some characteristics of the faculty teaching the courses, and the availability of programs to train these teachers. Cooper (1997) established a baseline of information about characteristics of postsecondary programs offering any type of sign language classes in the United States during the 1994–1995 academic year and repeated the study in 2004, allowing examination of the growth and 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 300

300 | Sign Language Studies change in the ten-year interval. This work was formatted on research conducted by the Modern Language Association on the administration of modern language programs (Huber 1989) and on research on the academic acceptance of other emerging fields, such as women’s studies and black studies, whose growth parallels that of sign language and Deaf studies classes. Cooper, Reisman, and Watson (2008) identify the characteristics of the institutions of higher education offering sign language and the academic status of sign language at these institutions. Additionally, they describe the characteristics, qualifications, duties, priorities, and concerns of administrative personnel in sign language programs in institutions of higher education and identify the characteristics and expectations of teaching staff in postsecondary sign language classes. The current article presents the results of the ten-year comparison of program structure, program content, and program administrators’ opinions on coordinat- ing sign language programs.

Methods Cooper (1997) reported on an analysis she had conducted as part of her doctoral studies. The 2004 study was a replication of the initial study to identify changes over the ensuing decade.

Participating Programs To identify existing sign language programs, a mailing list was developed from several lists of postsecondary programs from the American Annals of the Deaf (April 1994), interpreter-preparation programs listed in the 1994 directory of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers, Speech Pathology, and Audiology programs listed in the 1994 directory of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, postsecondary programs with specialized support services for deaf students listed in the 1994 College and Career Guide for Deaf Students, colleges and universities known to teach sign language through the Less Commonly Taught Languages Project at the University of Minnesota, and other programs known to the investigator or that responded to inquiries through the Sign Language Linguistics List (SLLING-L) and DEAF-L on the Internet throughout 1994. This list was cross-referenced with 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 301

Sign Language Program Structure and Content | 301 other lists of sign language programs in colleges and universities (Col- lege Level Sign Language Programs 1982, 1983, 1984). A total of 1,174 questionnaires were mailed to a variety of programs at 991 postsecondary institutions, including community colleges, four-year institutions, and universities with graduate programs, all of which offered majors that might include sign language classes. In 1994, a total of 371 responses representing 362 institutions were received, yielding a response rate of 37.9 percent. Of those, 301 institutions offered sign language classes (83.1 percent). Responses from these institutions were used for data analysis. In 2004, the original mailing list was updated. Out of a total of 983 questionnaires mailed, 242 responses were received, yielding a response rate of 24.6 percent. Of these, 180 institutions offered sign language classes (74.3 percent), and these responses were used for data analysis.

Questionnaire A questionnaire was developed in 1994 to collect data on the status of sign language programs in the United States, including information about faculty, administrators, program content, resources, and recommendations from administrators. Items for the questionnaire were de- rived from the literature on the administration of sign language programs, administration of foreign language programs (Huber 1990, 1992, 1993), and administration of parallel emerging fields, such as black studies (Hine 1990; McKay 1990) and women’s studies (e.g., National Women’s Studies Association 1990). The final questionnaire, used in both 1994 and 2004, included six major research questions that filled twelve pages and included more than eighty items. The questionnaire was addressed to the sign language program coordinator at each institution, with a cover letter explaining that the person responsible for sign language classes was being asked to com- plete the questionnaire. Some respondents left certain items blank, perhaps due to the length and specificity of the questionnaire. Blank responses were not included in the analysis. Thus, the number of respondents varied slightly from item to item. The questionnaire was divided into six sections; each section addressed one research question. This article reports on three of those 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 302

302 | Sign Language Studies sections: program structure, program content and resources, and recommendations and opinions of program administrators. The results from the other three sections (characteristics of the institutions, the administrators, and the instructors) were published in the American Annals of the Deaf (Cooper, Reisman, and Watson 2008). The same questionnaire was used in 1994 and 2004, with the fol- lowing modifications:

1. The item used to identify the location of the sign language program within the institution (see table 2) was modified. In 1994, the respondents were given three levels of hierarchy to fill in (program, department, school/college), and in 2004 there were four levels available (program, department, division, school/ college). 2. The item used to identify methods of evaluating student progress (see table 9) was modified. In 1994, these choices were ranked; in 2004, they were given ratings. 3. The item used to identify desired skills for instructors (see table 10) was modified. In 1994, the respondents were asked to identify and rank the top three choices. Other choices were to be left blank. In 2004, all of the choices were given ratings. 4. The item used to identify how the sign language administrator’s time should be spent (see table 11) was modified. In 1994, the choices were ranked; in 2004, they were given ratings.

Data Analysis Descriptive statistics were used to illuminate important aspects of the status or administration of academic sign language programs even when there was no notable difference between 1994 and 2004. Comparisons of categorical variables were evaluated using a chi- square test. Comparisons of continuous variables were evaluated using a two-way t-test. A test for heterogeneity of variance was performed to determine the appropriate variance formula and degrees of freedom. The level of statistical significance was set at p = .05. The abbre- viation “n.s.” signifies a result with p > .10. Findings with p values from .05 to .10 are presented with numerical p values although they are not considered to be significant. 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 303

Sign Language Program Structure and Content | 303 Results Organizational and Administrative Characteristics Program Characteristics Administrators who responded in 2004 reported that their programs were on average older than programs in 1994. Table 1 illustrates a five-year difference in the mean time since sign language courses were first offered at the institution (14.2 vs. 19.4 years, t(281) = –5.61, p = .001). In 1994, the median year for establishment of programs was 1980, while in 2004 the median year was 1985. Increases in enrollment “over the last three years” were reported by the majority of respondents in both 1994 and 2004, but that percentage decreased from 1994 to 2004 (64.8 percent vs. 52.2 percent, ␹2(1) = 6.6, p = .011). Although programs continued to grow during the decade, the rate of growth and change appears to have slowed down. The percentage of sign language programs reporting that changes in the structure of the program were planned decreased from 1994 to 2004 (37.9 percent vs. 21.9 percent, ␹2 (1) = 11.6, p = .001) (see table 1).

Position within the Institution In both 1994 and 2004, about half of the sign language program coordinators responded that they reported to a department chair. Other

Table 1. Program Characteristics [Institutional Characteristics] Item Measure 1994 2004 Age of sign language program N 231 161 (t(281) = –5.61, p < .001) mean years (s.d.) 14.2 (7.5) 19.4 (9.9) (not tested) median year started 1980 1985

Change in sign language enrollment over last 3 years (␹2(1) = 6.6, p = .011)a N 264 161 enrollment increaseda 64.8% 52.2% remained stable 29.9% 38.5% declined 5.3% 9.3%

Changes planned in structure of program (␹2(1) = 11.6, p < .001) N 248 160 % yes 37.9% 21.9% aCompared to “remained stable” and “declined” combined. 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 304

304 | Sign Language Studies responses to this item included division chairs (11–12 percent), deans (22–23 percent), directors (8–10 percent), or others (see table 2). There was no statistical change from 1994 to 2004 in the title of the

Table 2. Position within Institution Item Measure 1994 2004 Title of person to whom sign language administrator reports (␹2(5) = 10.1, p = .074) N 262 160 department chair 42.7% 50.0% division chair 10.7% 11.9% dean 21.8% 22.5% director 8.8% 9.4% provost 1.1% 1.2% other 14.9% 5.0% Program in which sign language resides (␹2(5) = 24.8, p < .001) N 301 33 Deaf ed. and special ed. 9.3% 24.2% ASL and Deaf studies 13.0% 18.2% interpreter preparation 13.3% 27.3% speech path. and audiology 8.0% 12.1% language and linguistics 1.7% 6.1% other 54.8% 12.1% Department in which sign language resides (␹2(7) = 22.6, p = .002) N 267 84 foreign lang., modern lang., linguistics 15.0% 14.3% speech, speech path. and audiology, communication 25.5% 31.0% education and special ed. 12.4% 15.5% liberal arts and humanities 10.5% 11.9% continuing education 13.1% 4.8% Deaf ed., Deaf studies, interpreter preparation, ASL 3.7% 9.5% health, human services, social sciences 8.6% 11.9% other 11.2% 1.2% School in which sign language resides (␹2(4) = 10.6, p = .031) N 140 38 arts and humanities 50.0%3 9.5% education 21.4% 34.2% continuing ed. 12.1% 0.0% health and human services 7.9% 18.4% other 8.6% 7.9% 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 305

Sign Language Program Structure and Content | 305 person to whom the sign language administrator reported (␹2 (5) = 10.1, p = .074). There was a significant increase in sign language offerings within Deaf-related programs (Deaf education and special ed., ASL and Deaf studies, interpreter preparation) from 1994 to 2004, from 36 percent to 70 percent (␹2 (1) = 14.6, p < .001). The majority of responses in 1994 were classified as “other.” At the department level, departments related to speech, speech pathology and audiology, or communication were the most prevalent in both years, representing one-quarter of all of the institutions. Other responses dropped by 11 percent, and liberal arts and humanities rose by 9 percent. At the level of school/college there were increases of 13 percent for education and 11 percent for health and human services; there were decreases of 12 percent for continuing education and 11 percent for arts and humanities.

Sign Language as a Requirement for Degree Programs The standing of sign language as a required course for certain degrees did not change (43.0 percent vs. 48.0 percent, ␹2 (1) = 1.0, p = n.s.). Slightly fewer than half of all responding institutions indicated in both 1994 and 2004 that sign language was a requirement for some degree programs (see table 3). Some of the programs that required sign language classes included Deaf studies, Deaf education, speech-language pathology, interpreter preparation, and ASL. Sign language continues as its own degree program in a very small percentage of institutions (see table 3).

Table 3. Sign Language as Requirement for Degree Programs Item Measure 1994 2004 Institutions N 256 152 Sign language is a requirement for some degree programa (␹2(1) = 1.0, p > .10) % yes 43.0% 48.0% Sign language is a full degree program (␹2(1) = 0,9, p > .10) % yes 3.9% 5.9% aCategory includes Deaf studies, education of Deaf students, speech pathology, interpreter preparation, audiology, other program, and sign language as a full degree program. 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 306

306 | Sign Language Studies Advisory board Table 4 shows that in both 1994 and 2004, about one-quarter of sign language programs had advisory boards (23.6 percent vs. 26.6 percent, ␹2 (1) = 0.5, p = n.s.) (see table 4). The size of the advisory board in all of the institutions decreased from 13.2 to 9.3 members (t(74) = 2.9, p = .005), with significant decreases observed in the areas of professionals from the community (both hearing and deaf) and Deaf consumers. Representation of instructors appears to have increased from about 20 percent of all board members to about 30 percent. Results are based on thirty-eight responding institutions each year.

Responsibility for Decision Making Analysis of responsibility for decisions on hiring and curriculum grouped positions into sign language faculty (consisting of head instructor, coordinator, instructor, and faculty committee) and other institutional personnel (consisting of advisory board, department chair, human resources, provost, and other university administrators) (see table 4). Levels of responsibility of sign language faculty for curriculum were high in both 1994 and 2004 (for curriculum recommendations, 91.2 percent vs. 91.7 percent, ␹2 (1) = 0.1, p = n.s.; for curriculum approval, 69.8 percent vs. 72.8 percent, ␹2 (1) = 0.4, p = n.s.). The level of responsibility for sign language faculty who made hiring recommendations was 9 percent lower (79.2 percent vs. 70.6 percent, ␹2 (1) = 6.8, p = .05), though for hiring approval it was un- changed (31.2 percent vs. 33.5 percent, ␹2 (1) = 0.2, p = n.s.).

Academic Characteristics and Program Content Assessment of Student Progress Methods of assessing student progress were compared on the percentage of institutions reporting their use in all sections of the sign language program (see table 5). Two methods showed increases in 2004: out-of-class assignments or papers, which increased 17 percent (64.4 percent vs. 81.0 percent, ␹2 (1) = 8.9, p = .003), and fixed-choice written exams, which increased 13 percent (52.3 percent vs. 65.8 percent, ␹2 (1) = 4.8, p = .029). There was no change for any of the means of assessment that employed signing performance. Among in- 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 307

Sign Language Program Structure and Content | 307

Table 4. Administrative and Advisory Roles Item Measure 1994 2004 Does program have an advisory board? (␹2 (1) = 0.5, p > .10) N 263 154 % yes 23.6% 26.6%

Composition of advisory board, % of all members in year N of institutions 38 38 N of advisory board members 501 352 hearing sign language instructors 10.2% 16.5% hearing professionals from community 32.3% 27.3% Deaf professionals from community 22.8% 20.2% Deaf sign language instructors 8.2% 12.2% campus representatives not from sign language program 12.2% 11.9% Deaf consumers 14.4% 11.9% all Deaf (out of all with known Deaf status) (␹2 (1) = 0.1, p > .10) 51.6% 50.3% all SL instructors (␹2 (1) = 12.0, p < .001) 18.4% 28.7%

Responsibility for decisions on hiring and curriculum Who makes hiring recommendations? (␹2(1) = 3.9, p = .050) N 245 160 % sign language facultya 79.2% 70.6%

Who gives hiring approval? (␹2(1) = 0.2, p > .10) N 236 160 % sign language facultyb 33.5% 31.2%

Who makes curriculum recommendations? (␹2(1) = 0.0, p > .10) N 250 157 % sign language facultya 91.2% 91.7%

Who gives curriculum approval? (␹2(1) = 0.4, p > .10) N 245 147 % sign language facultya 69.8% 72.8% aIncludes positions of head instructor, coordinator, instructor, and faculty committee. The complementary positions include department chair and advisory board. bIncludes positions of head instructor, coordinator, instructor, and faculty committee. The complementary positions include department chair, advisory board, personnel/hr staff, and provost or university administrator. 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 308

308 | Sign Language Studies stitutions that employed standardized assessment of student skills, there were increases in use of both locally and nationally developed meas- ures (respectively, 23.6 percent vs. 11.7 percent, ␹2 (1) = 4.4, p = .037; and 18.1 percent vs. 7.8 percent, ␹2 (1) = 4.0, p = .040).

Assessment for Placement Among methods of assessing experienced signers for placement into sign language classes, three types showed increases in 2004 (see table 5). Decisions made by program coordinators or department chairs increased by 18 percent (9.0 percent vs. 27.2 percent, ␹2 (1) = 28.2, p = .001). Second, high school or transfer credits increased (6.3 percent vs. 15.0 percent, ␹2 (1) = 9.8, p = .002); and finally, the use of standardized tests also increased (2.3 percent vs. 8.3 percent, ␹2 (1) = 9.3, p = .003). The option of students’ selecting their own level of sign language class decreased (18.3 percent vs. 10.6 percent, ␹2 (1) = 5.2, p = .024). Still, the most common method was instructor decision, which was reported by the majority of respondents in both years (58.8 percent vs. 52.2 percent, ␹2 (1) = 2.0, p = n.s.).

Resources for Students In 2004, there were significant increases in three categories of educa- tional resources: sign language or interpreter clubs, which increased 11 percent (24.4 percent vs. 33.5 percent, ␹2 (1) = 4.0, p = .046); and books, which increased 7 percent (89.6 percent vs. 96.1 percent, ␹2 (1) = 5.6, p = .018). Use of videotapes increased almost as much as the use of books increased. The other categories showed no significant changes (see table 6).

Special Programs Three of the specified programs for motivated students showed increases in 2004. Most pronounced was the 12 percent increase in “signing only” areas (8.6 percent vs. 20.6 percent, ␹2 (1) = 13.9, p = .001). Other increases occurred for intensive courses and study abroad or off campus (respectively, 7.0 percent vs. 15.6 percent, ␹2 (1) = 9.1, p = .003; 1.7 percent vs. 7.8 percent, ␹2 (1) = 11.1, p = .001). Despite these increases, the percentage of institutions offering at least one 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 309

Sign Language Program Structure and Content | 309

Table 5. Student Assessment across All Sections within Sign Language Program Item Measure 1994 2004 How student progress is measured, % used by all N 129 156 written exams (translating teacher’s signs) (␹2 (1) = 0.1, p > .10) 75.8% 74.5% written exams (fixed choice) (␹2 (1) = 4.8, p = .029) 52.3% 65.8% live expressive presentation (␹2 (1) = 1.5, p > .10) 77.7% 83.6% videotaped expressive presentation (␹2 (1) = 3.0, p = .086) 56.8% 67.1% out-of-class assignments or papers (␹2 (1) = 9.2, p = .003) 64.4% 81.0% in-class assignments or activities (␹2 (1) = 0.5, p > .10) 79.7% 82.9% Source of standardized assessment, % mentioned N 103 72 department (␹2 (1) = 2.6, p > .10) 77.7% 66.7% locally developed (␹2 (1) = 4.4, p = .037) 11.7% 23.6% nationally developed (␹2 (1) = 4.2, p = .040) 7.8% 18.1% Means of assessing experienced signers for placement into sign classes, % mentioned N 301 180 standardized test (␹2 (1) = 8.9, p = .003) 2.3% 8.3% credits from high school or transfer (␹2 (1) = 9.8, p = .002) 6.3% 15.0% instructor’s decision (␹2 (1) = 2.0, p > .10) 58.8% 52.2% program coordinator’s or department chair’s decision (␹2 (1) = 27.7, p < .001) 9.0% 27.2% school-made test (␹2 (1) = 1.6, p > .10) 11.0% 15.0% student’s choice (␹2 (1) = 5.1, p = .024) 18.3% 10.6% other (␹2 (1) = 0.2, p > .10) 7.3% 8.3%

special program did not change (42.9 percent vs. 43.9 percent, ␹2 (1) = 0.1, p = n.s.).

Voice/No Voice Policy The percentage of institutions with a stated voice/no voice policy increased 15 percent in 2004 (37.8 percent vs. 52.6 percent, ␹2 (2) = 8.8, 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 310

310 | Sign Language Studies

Table 6. Resources and Special Programs for Students Item Measure 1994 2004 Institutions N 301 180 Resources for students, % mentioned videotapes (␹2(1) = 2.7, p > .10) 82.4% 88.4% books (␹2(1) = 5.7, p = .018) 89.6% 96.1% centralized info on deaf events (␹2(1) = 0.0, p > .10) 52.8% 53.5% Deaf student organizations (␹2(1) = 4.0, p = .046) 24.4% 33.5% sign language or interpreter clubs (␹2(1) = 4.5, p = .035) 39.6% 50.3% Deaf students (␹2(1) = 1.8, p > .10) 64.0% 57.4% Deaf social events (␹2(1) = 0.0, p > .10) 38.0% 37.4% video labs (␹2(1) = 1.1, p > .10) 50.4% 45.2% journals (␹2(1) = 0.6, p > .10) 68.8% 65.2% other (␹2(1) = 3.3, p = .069) 13.2% 20.0% Special programs for highly motivated students, % mentioned intensive courses (␹2(1) = 9.0, p = .003) 7.0% 15.6% immersion experience off campus (␹2(1) = 3.3, p = .072) 21.6% 28.9% study abroad or off campus (␹2(1) = 11.0, p < .001) 1.7% 7.8% “signing only” areas on campus (␹2(1) = 14.3, p < .001) 8.6% 20.6% other (␹2(1) = 0.5, p > .10) 20.3% 17.8% Number of programs offered (␹2(1) = 0.0, p > .10) % with 1 or more 42.9% 43.9% (t(268) = –3.10, p = .003) mean number 0.59 0.91 (s.d.) (0.78) (1.22)

p = .013) (see table 7). The actual use of voice by teachers or students in class did not change.

Introductory Sign Language Courses Offering Multiple Sections Table 8 presents data on characteristics of the introductory sign language course, which were restricted to institutions that had multiple sections of the same course taught by more than one instructor (see table 8). Such institutions made up slightly less than half of all respond- 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 311

Sign Language Program Structure and Content | 311

Table 7. Voice/No Voice Policy Item Measure 1994 2004 Institutions N 301 180 Stated voice/no voice policy (␹2(2) = 8.8, p = .012) yes 37.8% 52.6% no, but voice discouraged 34.0% 27.6% no 28.2% 19.9% Teachers use voice in class (␹2(3) = 1.2, p > .10) yes 17.9% 16.5% yes, but limited 26.3% 32.3% yes, but very limited 31.3% 27.8% noa 24.4% 23.4% Students use voice in class (␹2(3) = 4.7, p > .10) yes 18.9% 17.2% yes, but limited 26.3% 27.4% yes, but very limited 32.4% 24.8% nob 22.4% 30.6% aFor teachers, no vs. all other has ␹2(1) = 0.1, p > .10. bFor students, no vs. all other has ␹2(1) = 3.4, p = .064.

ing institutions. Most of the features of the introductory sign language course were, at most, modestly more likely to be uniform across sections in 2004 compared to 1994. However, “learning objectives” and “information about deafness”2 were significantly more likely to be standardized (respectively, 59.9 percent vs. 73.6 percent, ␹2 (1) = 4.4, p = .036; 78.1 percent vs. 89.7 percent, ␹2 (4.9), p = .027). Among common course topics, only “education of deaf students” showed a significant change in being covered in all sections, increasing by 17 percent in 2004 (38.9 percent vs. 55.7 percent, ␹2 (1) = 5.3, p = .022). There was no change in who was responsible for decisions about format and content of the introductory course. The sign language program coordinator was mentioned 28.0 percent in 1994 vs. 29.4 percent in 2004 (␹2 (5) = 1.6, p = n.s.).

2. Although the term deafness is currently considered pathological and out- moded, it was used in the survey questionnaire and is used here to describe the survey item. 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 312

312 | Sign Language Studies

Table 8. Characteristics of Introductory Sign Language Classes When Offered in Multiple Sections Taught by More than One Instructor Item Measure 1994 2004 Institutions N 137 87 % of all institutions 45.5% 48.3% Features that are uniformly administered, % mentioned learning objectives (␹2 (1) = 4.9, p = .027) 78.1% 89.7% required course assignments (␹2(1) = 1.1, p > .10) 59.9% 66.7% sign language vocabulary and grammar (␹2(1) = 0.1, p > .10) 75.2% 77.0% information about deafness (␹2(1) = 4.4, p = .036) 59.9% 73.6% course syllabus (␹2(1) = 0.2, p > .10) 67.2%7 0.1% examinations (␹2(1) = 2.5, p > .10) 36.5% 47.1% achievement expectation levels (␹2(1) = 0.0, p > .10) 59.9% 58.6% voice/no voice policies (␹2(1) = 1.2, p > .10) 56.9% 64.4% Topics covered in introductory level sign language course, % covered in all sections laws affecting deaf people (␹2(1) = 1.4, p > .10) 21.8% 29.5% sign language continuum (␹2(1) = 0.0, p > .10) 63.3% 64.6% history of sign language (␹2(1) = 0.2, p > .10) 60.5% 63.8% education of deaf students (␹2(1) = 5.3, p = .022) 38.9% 55.7% Deaf community and Deaf culture (␹2(1) = 0.6, p > .10) 78.4% 82.9% audiological information (␹2(1) = 0.3, p > .10) 17.8% 20.8% careers using sign language (␹2(1) = 3.7, p = .055) 27.7% 41.0% Who decides format and content? (␹2(5) = 2.0, p > .10) N of valid responses 125 85 department chair 11.2% 7.1% sign language coordinator 28.0% 29.4% entire faculty 21.6% 27.1% instructors teaching course on regular basis 28.8% 28.2% faculty committee 4.8% 4.7% instructors teaching course that term 5.6% 3.5% 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 313

Sign Language Program Structure and Content | 313 Opinions and Recommendations of Sign Language Administrators Recommendations for Program Location Table 9 presents respondents’ opinions on institutional aspects of sign language programs in general. There was diversity in 1994 and 2004 regarding the discipline in which sign language programs should re- side, although by far the most common choice was modern/foreign languages.

Sign Language as a Foreign Language There was no change in administrators’ opinions that sign language should be used to satisfy foreign/modern language requirements at the postsecondary level, with more than 95 percent of administrators in favor of this choice in both surveys (␹2 (1) = 0.3, p = n.s.).

Optimal Class Size There was no change in administrators’ opinions regarding the ideal size for beginning sign language classes (t(278) = 1.78, p = n.s.). In both studies, table 9 shows that the mean recommended class size was seventeen to eighteen students.

Evaluation of Student Progress Live signing remained the preferred method of evaluating student progress, with videotaped signing and written examinations ranking second and third, and written methods remaining the least preferred.

Assignment of Transfer Credit Recommendations varied with regard to how transfer credit should be given in an institution without an equivalent course, with no significant difference between 1994 and 2004 (␹2 (5) = 2.1, p = n.s.). For- eign language remained the predominant response.

Desired Skills and Qualifications for Instructors There were shifts in both directions regarding the importance of var- ious qualifications for instructors. Knowing second language learning theory (t(374) = 4.14, p = .001) and having ASLTA certification (t(367) = 3.54, p = .001) or RID certification (t(387) = 2.61, p = .010) were considered of greater importance; native use of sign communication 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 314

314 | Sign Language Studies

Table 9. Recommendations of Sign Language Administrators Item Measure 1994 2004 Desired discipline for location of sign language program (␹2(9) = 16.4, p = .059) N 247 149 modern or foreign languages 36.8% 38.9% sign language, sign communication 12.6% 16.1% speech pathology, audiology, etc. 10.5% 9.4% education of Deaf 8.1% 5.4% Deaf studies 7.7% 6.7% interpreter preparation 5.7% 12.8% linguistics 5.7% 4.7% special ed. 5.3% 0.7% anthropology or sociology 0.0% 0.7% other 7.7% 4.7% Should sign language satisfy foreign language requirement? (␹2(1) = 0.3, p > .10) N 258 157 % yes 95.0% 96.2% Optimal size of beginning sign language class (t(278) = _1.52, p > .10) N 261 159 mean # students 17.2 18.1 (s.d.) (5.1) (6.4) Importance of methods of evaluating student progress (low score indicates greater importance) (not tested) N 234 155 mean mean ranking rating live signing 1.21 1.07 videotaped signing 2.14 1.65 written examinations 2.97 1.94 written papers 3.69 2.32 How should sign language transfer credit be given when receiving institution doesn’t have equivalent course? (␹2(5) = 2.1, p > .10) N 240 151 modern or foreign language elective 54.2% 59.6% special education elective 4.6% 4.0% communication sciences and disorders, speech pathology, etc., elective 6.7% 4.0% general elective 19.2% 17.9% “It depends” 10.4% 10.6% should not be accepted 5.0% 4.0% 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 315

Sign Language Program Structure and Content | 315 (t(368) = –3.69, p = .001) and prior work in sign language (t(352) = –4.67, p = .001) were considered of less importance (see table 10). With regard to skills deemed important for instructors to possess, there was some change during the decade. In 1994, proficiency in sign language stood out as the most important skill (mean rating of 1.43), whereas in 2004, knowledge of the structure of signs (ASL linguistics), Deaf culture, teaching strategies, and proficiency in sign language were rated almost equally (respectively, mean ratings of 1.16, 1.08, 1.15, and 1.10). Data on skills for instructors were collected but not

Table 10. Desired Qualifications and Skills for Instructors Item Measure 1994 2004 Importance of qualifications of instructors, mean rating (s.d.) (low score indicates greater importance) N 259 157 earned degree (t(399) = 1.09, p > .10) 1.52 (0.99) 1.43 (0.69) earned degree in related major (t(381) = –0.98, p > .10) 1.63 (0.96) 1.71 (0.75) prior teaching experience (t(405) = –0.45, p > .10) 1.27 (0.71) 1.29 (0.50) known to Deaf community (t(385) = –0.06, p > .10) 1.56 (1.01) 1.57 (0.78) RID certification (t(387) = 2.61, p = .010) 2.70 (1.14) 2.39 (1.13) ASLTA certification (t(367) = 3.54, p = .001) 2.26 (1.07) 1.91 (0.86) prior work in sign language (t(352) = –4.67, p < .001) 1.08 (0.67) 1.38 (0.59) knowing L2 learning theory (t(374) = 4.14, p < .001) 2.05 (0.99) 1.68 (0.78) native use of sign communication (t(368) = _3.69, p = .001) 1.39 (0.98) 1.72 (0.81) Importance of instructors’ skills (low score indicates greater importance) (not tested) N 239 157 mean mean ranking rating knowledge of linguistics 2.19 1.16 knowledge of deaf culture 2.49 1.08 knowledge of teaching strategies 2.18 1.15 knowledge of professional issues 3.86 1.41 proficiency in sign language 1.43 1.10 creativity in lesson planning 3.18 1.31 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 316

316 | Sign Language Studies statistically compared. In both administrations of the survey instru- ment, ratings were used. Table 10 implies that the 1994 results were rankings. However, the scales were different, with 1994 having categories of essential, very important, somewhat important, and not important. Even after making a reasonable adjustment for that difference, respondents in 2004 appeared to rate everything as having greater importance. At face value, a statistical comparison suggests that respondents in 2004 thought that skills of any kind were more important than in 1994.

Desired Qualifications and Skills for Program Administrators There was no change in the minimum degree expected (␹2 (3) = 1.2, p = n.s.). Desirability of a specialization in the fields of education, rehabilitation, or human services decreased by 13 percent (25.6 percent vs. 13.0 percent, ␹2 (1) = 6.5, p = .011). There was a modest increase in desirability of specialization in Deaf-related fields (36.1 percent vs. 47.2 percent, ␹2 (1) = 3.5, p = .063). There was no change in general expectation of signing skill (␹2 (5) = 1.9, p = n.s. and only a modest change in expectation of signing fluency compared to a lower level of skill (45.9 percent vs. 55.1 percent, ␹2 (1) = 3.2, p = .074).

Time Allotment for Sign Language Administrators The rank order of areas to which sign language administrators should allot their time was the same in both 1994 and 2004 (see table 11). Ad- ministrators are still seen primarily as teachers, with the smallest percentage of their time allocated for research and scholarship.

Discussion The purpose of this research was to compare the status of postsecondary sign language programs in terms of structure, content, and resources of sign language programs, as well as the recommendations of program administrators, between 1994 and 2004, a decade of significant maturation in this discipline. The results described here showed changes in many areas, but the need for changes persists in many areas. 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 317

Sign Language Program Structure and Content | 317

Table 11. Desired Qualifications and Time Allotment for Sign Language Administrators Item Measure 1994 2004 minimum degree N 243 157 (␹2(3) = 1.2, p > .10) associate’s 1.6% 1.3% bachelor’s 14.4% 18.5% master’s 75.3% 72.0% doctorate 8.6% 8.3% Area of specialization or major, % mentioned N 180 108 ASL, languages, sign language studies (␹2(1) = 0.2, p > .10) 52.8% 50.0% education, rehabilitation, human services (␹2(1) = 6.5, p = .011) 25.6% 13.0% speech pathology, health science (␹2(1) = 2.1, p > .10) 6.7% 2.8% general deafness and related fields (␹2(1) = 3.5, p = .063) 36.1% 47.2% other, specified (␹2(1) = 36.0, p < .001) 32.8% 2.8% Signing skill N 246 158 (␹2(3) = 6.4, p > .10) signing not necessary 11.0% 11.4% beginning to intermediate 8.9% 8.2% advanced 34.1% 25.3% fluenta 45.9% 55.1% How sign language administrator’s time should be spent (low score indicates greater importance) (not tested) N 222 152 mean mean rankin grating teaching 2.03 1.50 administration 2.40 1.72 research and scholarship 4.05 2.23 service 3.40 1.92 advising students 2.94 1.75 aFor signing skill, fluent vs. all other has ␹2 (1) = 3.2, p = .074. 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 318

318 | Sign Language Studies

Organizational and Administrative Characteristics Program Characteristics More than half of the reporting institutions continued to indicate increasing enrollment, although there was a drop in enrollment in institutions reporting an increase, from 64.8 percent to 52.2 percent. Conversely, 47.8 percent of institutions in 2004 remained stable or declined. It appears that many programs may have either reached their saturation point or grown as big as the market or institution could bear. Others may have yielded to larger, competing programs in their geographic areas or had to downsize due to the inability to hire qualified instructors.

Position within the Institution The structure of postsecondary institutions varies greatly: Some institutions (mostly two-year schools) have a less hierarchical structure of departments within the institution, whereas others (mostly larger universities) have a multitiered structure with multiple divisions or colleges above the program or department level. The fact that roughly half of the institutions in both 1994 and 2004 indicated that the sign language administrator reported to a department chair implies that a roughly equal number were not situated within a typical academic hierarchy. The number of sign language programs under the auspices of Deaf-related programs such as Deaf education, ASL and Deaf studies, and interpreter preparation doubled from 1994 to 2004. In 1994, more than half of the responses fell into the “other” category, while only 36 percent of the responses identified sign language classes in Deaf-related programs. It appears that sign language classes and programs are being more readily accepted into existing academic programs. In 2004, 70 percent of responses were in Deaf-related programs. At the department or division level, speech pathology/audiology departments continued as the most popular home for sign language programs, with education and foreign language departments ranked as second and third, respectively. At the school/college level, the presence of increases in both education and health and human services suggests that institutions in 2004 were inclined to view sign language more as a skill relevant for work than as a component of a broad education. Finally, 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 319

Sign Language Program Structure and Content | 319 it is noteworthy that no sign language program in 2004 was situated in a “school of continuing education.” Instead, programs were situated in regular academic “schools.”

Sign Language as a Requirement for Degree Programs There was no significant change in the percentage of degree programs that required ASL or in the number of institutions reporting ASL as a full-degree program. However, the stability of these numbers supports the notion that sign language classes and programs have gained general acceptance as an academic subject area.

Advisory Board Only about one-quarter of the responding institutions indicated the existence of advisory boards for their sign language programs. The representation of Deaf people appears to have remained constant, as the ratio of the mean number of Deaf people to the overall mean did not change. Representation of instructors appears to have increased from about 20 percent of all board members to about 30 percent. In 1995, 24 of the 62 institutions indicated having an advisory board without specifying its composition. This additional information would provide valuable information on the increase or decrease in the number of instructors serving on boards, as well as the number of Deaf participants.

Decision-Making Responsibilities There appears to have been a decrease in the faculty’s responsibility to make hiring decisions, indicating an increased responsibility for administrators. This supports the notion that these programs have gained academic recognition and are now administered, like traditional academic programs, by true administrators rather than by full- or part- time faculty members as identified in Cooper’s 1994 study.

Academic Characteristics and Program Content Assessment of Student Progress Written exams, live expressive presentations, videotaped presentations, out-of-class assignments, and in-class assignments continue to be heavily used. The significant increases in the use of written exams with 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 320

320 | Sign Language Studies fixed-choice answers and out-of-class assignments may indicate a trend to decrease dependence on the use of English and English translation as an assessment tool. Additionally, more requirements for out-of-class attendance at Deaf events in the community may be intended to increase signing skill level, as well as comfort in using sign language with Deaf people. For the purposes of placing experienced signers in sign language classes, the reported increase in the use of standardized testing likely indicates increased awareness and use of the American Sign Language Proficiency Interview (ASLPI), an assessment tool that has been standardized and strongly promoted by professionals in the field of ASL instruction in the past few years and which was not available in 1994. The increase in credits from high school or transfer institutions suggests the increased prevalence of sign language classes in academia at many levels. The decrease in “student choice” as an option for placement into sign language classes also reinforces the academic recognition of ASL as a language and a serious academic subject and is compensated for by the increase in decisions made by the program coordinator or department chair.

Resources and Special Programs for Students Overall, the results in this category indicate the increased availability of resources such as books and student organizations, and special pro- gramming such as intensive courses, off-campus immersion experiences, including visiting student semesters at Gallaudet University, study abroad experiences, and “signing only” areas on campuses. These resources and programs would seem to be the natural results of maturing and stabilizing academic disciplines. The concepts of ASL labs and interactive digital technology, which were not common in 1994, were not suggested on either questionnaire. However, it is likely that many campuses had established ASL lab facilities by 2004, which enhanced or replaced other resources, and that interactive digital technology has become an essential aspect of sign language instruction and assessment on many campuses.

Voice/No Voice Policy Research (Tevenal and Villanueva 2009) shows that the use of ASL and spoken English together creates the misconception that the languages 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 321

Sign Language Program Structure and Content | 321 can be presented together with two audiences receiving the same message simultaneously. In fact, when communication is spoken and signed simultaneously, the integrity of both languages is compromised, and messages received by those depending on visual information are different from messages received by those receiving auditory information. It is likely that the increase in stated “no-voice” policies on many campuses indicates a trend to establish ASL as a language independent of English and to disallow the use of English and maintain the integrity of each language.

Introductory Sign Language Courses Offering Multiple Sections The concept of multiple sections of introductory sign language courses continues to be strong, with about half of the responding institutions offering this type of class. The increased standardization of learning objectives suggests more administrative control over these courses, and the increased information about the Deaf experience suggests a trend toward creating a more content-filled class. Both of these changes suggest the infusion of more academic standardization and depth into these classes. The increased emphasis on the edu - cation of deaf students may reflect increased interest in deaf education inasmuch as mainstreaming and inclusion become more popular in the United States as a result of the continued reauthorizations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and as many traditional residential schools for the deaf fight to remain open. Another perspective might be that the increased focus on ASL in postsecondary institutions might be creating more interest in the career of Deaf education.

Opinions and Recommendations of Sign Language Program Administrators Recommendations for Program Location In both 1994 and 2004, the most common choice among administrators as the preferred location for sign language programs was the modern or foreign language department. The fact that there was no change in the administrators’ recommendation seems to indicate a stabilized perspective on this topic. However, this information does not match the fact that sign language is frequently found in departments of speech pathology, audiology, and special education. One can surmise that sign language may have originally been offered as a therapy tool 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 322

322 | Sign Language Studies within these pathology-based programs and that the sign language programs grew within these host departments. It is likely that administrative decisions are made to retain these programs in their current departments due to the popularity of the classes and the income and recognition they bring to the host department. Nonetheless, there is diversity among the administrators’ responses, indicating lack of con- sensus on this topic.

Sign Language as a Foreign Language Administrators’ opinions appear strong and consistent in favor of ac- cepting sign language to satisfy foreign/modern language requirements at the postsecondary level. This is confirmed as more and more institutions have begun to accept ASL in fulfillment of these requirements over the past decade.

Optimal Class Size Results from both studies indicate that the mean recommended class size is fewer than twenty students. Again, this shows consistency and standardization in a discipline that shows signs of stabilizing.

Evaluation of Student Progress With regard to evaluating student progress, the results indicate that no change has occurred in the ranking of the importance of the methods used. Respondents consistently believed that live signing was the most valuable way to evaluate students’ signing skills, and written papers had the least value. Respondents were not given an opportunity to write in any additional methods of evaluation although new techniques had been introduced by 2004.

Assignment of Transfer Credit Recommendations varied regarding how transfer credit should be given in an institution without an equivalent course, although “foreign language” remained the predominant response in both studies, with more than half of the respondents suggesting this in both studies. The second choice, “general elective” received less than 20 percent of the administrators’ support in both studies. 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 323

Sign Language Program Structure and Content | 323 Desired Skills and Qualifications for Instructors Shifts occurred in the perceived importance of instructors’ qualifications. Knowledge such as second-language learning theory and credentials such as ASLTA or RID certification increased in importance, while native use of sign communication and prior work in sign language decreased. This indicates a departure from the days when sign language instructors were hired just because they were Deaf and native users of the language and presents a more professional and sophisticated approach toward hiring instructors with training and certifications. In 1994, language proficiency stood out as the most important skill needed to teach sign language, whereas in 2004, knowledge of ASL linguistics, Deaf culture, teaching strategies, and proficiency in sign language were seen as almost equally important. Respondents in 2004 placed more emphasis on skills than those in 1994. This again high- lights the improving standards in this field and the availability of more programs and in-service opportunities to train qualified instructors.

Desired Qualifications and Skills for Program Administrators Approximately three-quarters of the respondents in both 1994 and 2004 believed that a master’s degree should be the minimum required degree for a sign language program administrator. There was, however, a change in the area of specialization or major recommended for these professionals. More respondents in 2004 specified that the administrator should have a degree in a Deaf-related field rather than a more generic degree. This perhaps speaks to the availability of more graduate programs in Deaf-related fields and the opportunities for individuals to earn such degrees. There was a slightly higher expectation of sign language fluency for program administrators. This might ac- knowledge several things, including a greater need or desire for the administrator to be able to understand the subject being taught and/or a greater need or desire for the administrator to be able to communi- cate with the increasing number of Deaf faculty. Regardless of the motivation, raising the standard by expecting administrators to be able to sign is another indication of the entrenchment and acceptance of sign language as an academic discipline. 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 324

324 | Sign Language Studies Time Allotment for Sign Language Administrators The ranked order of responsibilities to which sign language administrators should allot their time was the same in 1994 and 2004. Administra- tors are still seen as primarily teachers, with the smallest percentage of their time designated for research and scholarship. This is one area in which the field has not seen improvement. Without a priority for allo- cation of time to do research, there will continue to be a dearth of new knowledge in this field, which will prevent the field from growing and continuing to prove itself worthy of increased academic status.

Limitations and Indications for Future Research This study has some limitations. The respondents include administrators overseeing classes of varying types of signed languages. Institutions in the survey samples included those offering single classes, as well as those with larger programs. Thus, this study uses a broad definition of both “sign language” and “program.” The response rate was low and also quite different in the two surveys, which may or may not have an impact on the results. Without knowing whether nonresponding institutions offer sign language classes, it is difficult to know whether a higher response rate would al- ter the data. Only data on programs run by administrators willing to respond to the lengthy (eighty-item) questionnaire could be included. It is possible that there was some bias in favor of respondents who had more investment in their sign language program. Addition- ally, some survey items required recommendations of administrators and thus reflect opinions of varying validity, based on the administrator’s background. Response rates for the surveys were 38 percent and 25 percent in 1994 and 2004, respectively. Some proportion of the nonresponse represents questionnaires sent to institutions without sign language programs as defined in the cover letter with the survey or duplicate questionnaires sent to different departments of the same institution. Institutions might have been included in the survey population because they offered courses in deaf-related areas other than sign language or offered specialized services to Deaf students. Only a small number of institutions responded to both surveys (n = 69), which pre- cluded a statistically stronger research design based on paired compar- 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 325

Sign Language Program Structure and Content | 325 ison. The response nonetheless represents the mix of types of institutions where sign language is taught, and the types of professionals in- volved in this field. To determine the location of sign language instruction within the institution, the questionnaires offered four categories of position (program, department, division, school/college), but the data were consolidated into three groupings (program/department, department/division, school/college). Many respondents omitted this item in each study, and a substantial number of responses were missing or “other.” There have been changes in the field of sign language instruction during the decade between the two studies that are not reflected in this data. For example, ASL labs have become commonplace in the past few years but were not available in the early 1990s. Digital technology, webcams, and the use of online video (including techniques such as YouTube) did not exist in the early 1990s, but to make accu- rate comparisons, these techniques were not included in the 2004 study although some of this technology was already in use by 2004. Future studies might include tracking the growth and status of sign language programs, the prevalence of teaching ASL over other forms of signed languages, and the acceptance of ASL in fulfillment of foreign language requirements. Other suggestions include an analysis of “additional responsibilities” of sign language program coordinators, prevalence of minority faculty teaching sign language, and analysis of the learning outcomes in sign language classes based on factors such as meeting frequency, class size, voice-off policies, Deaf versus hearing instructors, or impact of on-campus student sign language clubs. It would be interesting to gather data on how the advent of new technology has impacted the field of sign language instruction, to identify the types of technology that are most prevalent on campuses, and to evaluate the success of online sign language instruction. It would be helpful to the field of sign language instruction to identify the impact of geographic location on sign language programs: Are there qualita- tive difference between programs located in cities versus programs located in more rural areas? A final suggestion for future research would be to identify administrative reasons for lack of support for faculty research in this area. 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 326

326 | Sign Language Studies Conclusion Overall, the data indicate that sign language has become more accepted as an academic discipline in postsecondary institutions in the past decade, more entrenched in the institutions where it is offered, and more mature as an academic discipline. Comparison of postsecondary institutions between 1994 and 2004 shows that institutions have strengthened their commitment to their sign language programs in most of the areas studied. More institutions accept ASL in fulfillment of curricular requirements. The maturing status of sign language instruction on college campuses is validated by the stabilization in growth patterns, improvements in available resources, elevated standards for course content and student assessment, higher qualifications of administrators and faculty, implementation of nationally standardized assessments and classroom voicing policies, improved support provided by the institutions, and availability of specialized programs. Two areas were noted as still in need of maturation and support. The first was the identification of a standardized academic department or program to house sign language programs. The second was the need for more institutional support for faculty and administrators to do research in this field in terms of workload responsibilities, including research as a priority. Only with additional research, specifically solic- iting data on the impact of technological advances, can this field continue its trend toward maturity. These improvements in sign language programs suggest their entrenchment on postsecondary campuses. The results of these two studies indicate a trend toward institutionalized acceptance of sign language as an area of academic study on college campuses and nationwide improvement in the standardization of program delivery.

References Battison, R., and S. M. Carter. 1982. The Academic Acceptance of Sign Lan- guage. In F. Caccamise, M. Garretson, and U. Bellugi, eds., Teaching American Sign Language as a Second/foreign Language: Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching, v–xiii. Silver Spring, Md.: National Association of the Deaf. 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 327

Sign Language Program Structure and Content | 327

Brod, R., and B. Huber. 1997. Foreign Language Enrollments in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 1995. ADFL Bulletin 28(2): 55–61. Cogen, C., and G. Moseley. 1984. Trends in Sign Language at the College Level. Reflector 8: 7–11. Cokely, D. 1986. College-level Sign Language Programs: A Resource List. Sign Language Studies 50: 78–92. College-level Sign Language Programs: A Resource List. 1982. Reflector 2 (Winter): 15–16. ———. 1983. Winter. Reflector 5 (Winter): 12–15. ———. 1984. Winter. Reflector 8 (Winter): 12–17. Cooper, S. 1997. The Academic Status of Sign Language in Institutions of Higher Education in the United States. ProQuest Dissertations and The- ses. Publication AAT 9735644, vol. 58–08A. Document ID 736590381. ———, J. Reisman, and D. Watson. 2008. The Status of Sign Language in Institutions of Higher Education, 1994–2004. American Annals of the Deaf 153: 78–88. Delgado, G. L. 1984. A Survey of Sign Language Instruction in Junior and Community Colleges. American Annals of the Deaf 129(1): 38–39. Hine, D. C. 1990. Black Studies: An Overview. In R. L. Harris, D. C. Hine, and N. McKay, eds., Black Studies in the United States: Three Essays, 15–29. New York: Ford Foundation. Huber, B. 1989. Characteristics of College and University Foreign Language Programs. In P. Franklin, ed., Profession 1989, 39–48. New York: MLA. ———. 1990. Compensation and Support for Foreign Language Depart- ment Chairs: A Survey of 1989 ADFL Seminar Participants. ADFL Bul- letin 21(3): 10–17. ———. 1992. Characteristics of Foreign Language Requirements at U.S. Colleges and Universities: Findings from the MLA’s 1987–89 Survey of Foreign Language Programs. ADFL Bulletin 24(1): 8–16. ———. Characteristics of College and University Foreign Language Cur- ricula: Findings from the MLA’s 1987–89 Study. ADFL Bulletin 24 (3): 6–21. Jacobowitz, E. L. 2005. American Sign Language Teacher Preparation Pro- grams in the United States. Sign Language Studies 8(1): 76–110. McKay, N. 1990. Black Studies in the Midwest. In R. L. Harris, D. C. Hine, and N. McKay, Black Studies in the United States: Three Essays. New York: Ford Foundation. National Center for Education Statistics. 2005, March 1. Table 244. Degree- granting Institutions by Control and Type of Institution: 1949–50 to 2003–04. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_244.asp (accessed October 24, 2010). 18017-SLS11.3 2/2/11 2:28 PM Page 328

328 | Sign Language Studies

National Women’s Studies Association. 1990. NWSA Directory of Women’s Studies Programs, Women’s Centers, and Women’s Research Centers. College Park: University of Maryland. Newell, W. J. 1995a. A Job Analysis of Teaching American Sign Language. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Publication LD03041, vol. 20–03R. ———. 1995b. A Profile of Professionals Teaching American Sign Lan- guage. Sign Language Studies 86: 19–39. Shroyer, E. H., and D. W. Holmes. 1980. Sign Language Classes: The “In” Thing in Colleges and Universities. Proceedings of the 1980 Registry of In- terpreters for the Deaf Convention, 75–80. Silver Spring, Md.: RID. Tevenal, S., and M. Villanueva. 2009. Are You Getting the Message? The Effects of SimCom on the Message Received by Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and Hearing Students. Sign Language Studies 9(3): 266–86. Welles, E. B. 2004. Foreign Language Enrollments in United States Institu- tions of Higher Education, Fall 2002. ADFL Bulletin 35(2–3): 7–26. Financial, methodological, and data-entry contributions were provided by the University of Arkansas Rehabilitation Research and Training Center for Persons Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing for the 2004 study.