Regional Sign Variants and a Common Vocabulary Quiz
A first-year ASL teacher, trained in the Midwest, teaches five sections of ASL 1 at a large Texas high school. The department uses a common Unit 3 quiz worth 10 percent of the grade. In the expressive section, the teacher signs COMPUTER with a one-handed C handshape moved along the nondominant forearm. A transfer student, whose Deaf parents grew up in another region, produces a two-handed typing variant for COMPUTER. The teacher marks it wrong and tells the student to use the department's sign. The student argues that her family has always used the typing sign and that her Deaf mother uses it at home. The teacher worries about fairness across 150 students and about the common assessment, which other teachers built. The department chair asks for a written rationale before the next department meeting.
1. Explain why the student's production is not an error. Use concepts of phonological variation, lexical variation, and regional or dialect variation.
Read the worked answer
The student's production is not an error. COMPUTER has multiple attested lexical variants in ASL, including a one-handed C-handshape variant along the forearm and a two-handed typing variant. The choice can vary by region, generation, family, and school. In phonological terms, the two forms are different signifiers for the same concept; neither violates ASL's phonological constraints. Marking the home variant wrong confuses standardization of a quiz with correctness in the language. The teacher's own variant is one option, not the rule. The student is also a Deaf signer using a family variety, so the error message is especially consequential: it tells her that her home language is deficient. The right response is to accept the variant and use the moment to teach variation. If the department wants consistency, it should define the construct as the ability to identify and produce a recognized sign for the concept, not to match the teacher's preferred form.
2. Revise the assessment and grading policy to be valid and equitable. Include at least two concrete changes.
Read the worked answer
Changes: (1) replace the one-to-one matching section with a concept-based receptive task: the teacher signs a short context sentence containing COMPUTER, and students choose a picture or definition, not an English gloss; (2) add a variation objective in which students view two signers producing different variants and identify both as COMPUTER; (3) for expressive items, score communicative success and parameter accuracy, not exact form, and list accepted variants on the key. I would also let students indicate a variant they use at home. This keeps the assessment valid for the construct of comprehension and production while preserving comparability across 150 students. The department should review the key for other items with known variants, such as BIRTHDAY, HALLOWEEN, or SOCCER, rather than fixing one form.
3. A parent complains that accepting multiple signs is lowering standards. Respond with reasoning.
Read the worked answer
I would explain that the standard is communicative competence in ASL, not uniformity with one teacher's signing. Accepting recognized variants does not lower standards; it makes the test measure the language rather than the teacher's dialect. The department can still demand rigor: clear rubrics, calibrated scoring, and required production in context. If the parent is concerned about consistency, show the revised key with accepted variants and the rubric. A useful analogy is accepting regional pronunciations in a Spanish or French class when the word is intelligible and standard. The teacher should also avoid letting students use invented signs; the boundary is attested community use, not anything goes.