Assessment and Professional Issues in ASL Education
This domain covers how ASL proficiency and achievement are measured, what makes an assessment valid, and the professional and ethical obligations of ASL educators. Items ask you to critique an assessment choice or apply an ethical principle.
Assessment concepts
- Purpose: placement, diagnostic, formative, summative; proficiency (real-world use) versus achievement (course content).
- Validity: does the task measure ASL ability or something else, such as English literacy or translation skill? Reliability: consistency across raters and occasions.
- Performance assessment: recorded expressive samples and video receptive tasks, scored with analytic rubrics (comprehensibility, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, cultural appropriateness).
- Rater training and inter-rater reliability are essential; single-rater high-stakes decisions are indefensible.
- Known instruments include the ASL Proficiency Interview (ASLPI) and the Sign Language Proficiency Interview (SLPI), interview-based rated scales; standardized receptive tests exist but are limited in scope.
Professional and ethical issues
- Confidentiality and FERPA: student videos and records are protected; do not discuss identifiable students publicly.
- Roles and boundaries: teachers, interpreters, and tutors have different roles; avoid dual relationships that compromise objectivity.
- Advocacy and cultural humility: challenge audism and deficit language while respecting family choices.
- Legal framework: IDEA, Section 504, ADA, least restrictive environment, IEP teams, and access to qualified interpreters.
- Professional organizations: ASLTA for teaching, NAD for community advocacy, RID for interpreting ethics; continuing education and certification.
Worked example
A department places incoming students with a written English-to-ASL translation test. Reasoning: the test measures English reading and translation, not ASL proficiency - a construct validity problem; it disadvantages Deaf students with limited English print skills and hearing students whose signing is weak but whose translation is strong. Better evidence: a recorded signed interview rated with a rubric plus a receptive video task, with two trained raters.
Traps
- Confusing reliability (consistency) with validity (measuring the right thing).
- Using English translation as a proxy for ASL ability.
- Relying on a single rater or single sample for high-stakes decisions.
- Ignoring test bias related to language background.
- Discussing identifiable student information casually.