ROUTING SLIP
Keep attached to front of proposal
Complete your section
Sign and date
Send to next step
Approval Process for N ew Course or Revi si on of E xi sti ng Course or
P rogram
Name of Department Initiating: ASL & Deaf Studies
Name of Course/Curriculum Area: ASL 770: Sign Language Planning and Advocacy (3
)
(credits)
Step 1 – Proposal Development
When a new course or curriculum change proposal is generated by a CLAST or GSPP department, the
signature of the Department Chair indicates that the proposal follows the CUE/CGE proposal specifications
and includes the following:
1. Impact of the proposed change on pre-requisite requirements, majors, minors, or other curriculum
aspects has been discussed within the department and with other departments affected.
2. Letters of support from other departments affected by the proposal.
3. Approval of the Professional Education Program Curriculum Committee* if the change is initiated
4. Draft of what the course catalog revision should look like.
5. Completed Course Record Form(s).
Department Chair:
Date:
(signature)
*Professional Education Program Curriculum Committee Approval:
(signature if applicable)
Step 2 – Dean Approval
The proposal is sent to the Dean for review and approval. The Dean’s signature below indicates approval
of the proposal and status of resources. It is then sent to the Chair of CUE or CGE, as appropriate. If the
Dean does not approve, the proposal is returned to the department with feedback.
I support this proposal.
Date:
(signature)
There are current resources to implement this degree or program if approved.
(signature)
There is reasonable expectation that resources will be available for the foreseeable future.
(signature)
11.15.05
Routing Slip – Approval Process for New Course
or Revision of Existing Course or Program
Step 3 – CUE/CGE Approval
The CUE/CGE reviews the proposal and examines the impact of the new course or change on majors,
minors, or other aspects of the curriculum. (Note: If the proposal affects a 500 or 600 level course, a joint
review by CUE and CGE is needed to ensure consistency of information in PeopleSoft and both catalogs.)
If the CUE/CGE approves the proposal, it is signed and sent to the University Faculty (UF) Senate. If
CUE/CGE does not approve, it is sent back to the department with feedback, which is also copied to the
Dean.
CUE/CGE Chair:
Date:
(signature)
Step 4 – UF Senate Review
The Chair of CUE or CGE requests that the proposal be put on a UF Senate meeting agenda. After a full
discussion by the Senate, if it has not been referred back to Council, the proposal is posted for UF review
by the UF Secretary. There is a 10-day waiting period during which the proposal can be challenged by the
University Faculty. After the waiting period, the UF Senate Chair verifies below whether or not there is a
challenge, signs, and sends the proposal back to the Chair of CUE/CGE. If there is a challenge, the UF
Senate Chair also informs the Chair of CUE/CGE of the nature of the challenge.
Consent
Referred back to Council
UF Senate Chair:
Challenge by UF
Date:
(signature)
Step 5 – Dean’s Transmittal to the Registrar
If there is no challenge by the UF, the Chair of CUE sends the undergraduate proposal to the Dean of
CLAST with notification to the GSPP Dean if it concerns a GSPP undergraduate course. The Dean
contacts the Financial Aid Director so that the proposal’s impact on eligibility for scholarships or financial
aid can be determined. The Dean’s signature below and on the Course Record Form indicates that the
Dean has made these contacts and has verified correct process and documentation. The Dean officially
transmits a copy of the approved proposal to the Registrar along with the original Course Record Form.
The original of the approved proposal and supporting documents is housed in the appropriate Dean’s
Office.
or
If there is no challenge by the UF, the Chair of CGE sends the graduate proposal to the Dean of GSPP
with notification to the CLAST Dean if it concerns a CLAST graduate course. The Dean contacts the
Financial Aid Director so that the proposal’s impact on eligibility for scholarships or financial aid can be
2
11.10.05
Routing Slip – Approval Process for
New Course or Revision of
Existing Course or Program
determined. The Dean’s signature below and on the Course Record Form indicates that the
Dean has made this contact and has verified correct process and documentation. The Dean
officially transmits a copy of the approved proposal to the Registrar along with the original
Course Record Form. The original of the approved proposal and supporting documents is
housed in the appropriate Dean’s Office.
Dean:
Date:
(signature)
Step 6 – Registrar’s Office
Using the Course Record Form, the Registrar enters data about the new course or change into
the PeopleSoft catalog database. If this is a new course, the department selects the new
course number. The Registrar’s Office is available for consultation on course number selection if
the department requests it.
The Registrar then adds the course to the database with the effective date, completes the
bottom portion of the Course Record Form, and distributes copies to designated individuals in
CLAST and GSPP.
COURSE RECORD FORM
Use to add a new course, drop a course, or to make a course change.
This form is to be completed by the Department Chair and attached to the proposal.
SECTION A
 CGE-Graduate
 CUE-Undergraduate
 PST
(**For 500 or 600 level courses, joint review by CUE and CGE is needed to ensure
consistency.)
ACTION () :
 New Course (Complete Sections A & B.)
 Drop Course (Complete Section A only.)
 Change Course (Complete Section A and only areas that will change in Section B.)
DEPT NAME:___ASL & DST___________ Dept Prefix/Nbr/Title _______ASL__770_________ (
3 )
(If new course, enter number
selected by dept.)
(credits)
EFFECTIVE TERM:
 Fall  Spring  Summer 2013____
IMPACT:
 Major
 Minor  Curriculum
DRAFT OF CATALOG REVISION (attach)
SECTION B (Complete only areas that will change.)
 COURSE TITLE:_____ ___ (
)
(credits)
 COURSE DESCRIPTION (Attach revised description for catalog.)
 Cross-Listed with: _________________
(Dept. Prefix/Number)
 Pre-Requisites:__Matriculation in the following programs: Masters in Sign
Language Education, Masters in Deaf Studies: Language and Human Rights or
Certificate in Deaf Studies; or permission of
instructor______________________________________________
 Co-Requisites:_________________________________________________
 COURSE FEE:___________
 GRADING BASIS: ABC/NC_____ P/NP______ Pass/Fail______ No Grade_______
 PERMISSION REQUIRED: Department_____ Instructor ______ None
__________
 COURSE COMPONENT:
Lecture_____ Laboratory_____ Seminar _____ Field Studies_____ SelfPaced_____
Supervision _____ Thesis Research _____ Practicum/Internship_____ Online _____
Dean’s
Signature:______________________________________Date:_____________________
_
FOR REGISTRAR’S OFFICE ONLY:
People Soft Course ID#______________________ Entered into PeopleSoft Date: ______________
Registrar’s Office Signature: _________________________________________________________
Distribution by Registrar to: Provost, Dean, Department Chair, CUE/CGE Chair
CGE PROPOSAL FOR GRADUATE COURSE CHANGE
This proposal includes change(s) to the following item(s) (please check all that apply):
☐ course number
☐ course title
☐ course
credits
☐ catalog description
☐ prerequisites/co-requisites
☐ other:
____program SLO revisions_____
CHECKLIST FOR INDIVIDUALS PREPARING PROPOSALS:
__Prepare the syllabus and proposal according to CGE guidelines (seek advice from CGE
Curriculum Committee if needed). NB: Proposals for changing an existing elective
course into a required course must be accompanied by a CGE proposal for Graduate
Program Change, explaining how the revised course will be integrated into the overall
program structure.
Prepare the Course Record Form carefully to ensure that all information is recorded
correctly (e.g. exact title of course, grading basis, number of credits, course fee, if any)
and matches the contents of the proposal and syllabus. The Registrar’s Office feeds
information directly from this form into the University database.
Submit the proposal packet (proposal, syllabus, Course Record Form and Signature
(Routing) Form) to your department chair for signature.
If the proposed course is part of the PEP Unit, submit the proposal packet to PEP-C for
review and signature on the Signature (Routing) Form.
Once your department chair and (if necessary) PEP-C have signed off, submit the
proposal packet to the Assistant Dean for Curriculum, Policy, and Operations, who will
track its progress through the remaining steps of the proposal review. Please note that at
each step of the review process, the proposal may be returned to you for revisions.
Once the proposal reaches CGE, the Assistant Dean will contact you for an electronic
version of the most recent syllabus and proposal, to be posted on the CGE website.
Please be sure to always include the current date in the filenames of your proposal
and syllabus (eg. LIN510_proposal_2-12-08.doc).
DEADLINES FOR PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS TO CGE:
The deadline for courses to be offered in the next Academic Year and appear in the
course catalog is February 15 of the current year, or the next business day. If you have
any questions about the CGE review process, please contact the CGE chair.
COURSES WITH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
Proposals for courses requiring PEP-C review must complete item 15.0 at the end of this
proposal form. Proposals for 500-level courses must explicitly address differences in
requirements for graduate and undergraduate students wherever relevant (usually items
6.0 - 9.0. 11.0 and 14.0).
CGE COURSE PROPOSAL COMPONENTS:
All numbered items below must be addressed for course modification. For items that are
not undergoing change, type Not Applicable. Items 1.0 through 6.0 identify
components that are binding; that is, once the course is approved, these components
can be changed only by submission of a Proposal for Graduate Course Change to
the CGE Curriculum Committee.
1.0 Department
ASL & Deaf Studies
2.0 Course Number
2.1 Specify the current course number (even if it is not being changed).
770
2.2 Specify the revised course number. If the revised number is at a different course
level (700-level, 800-level, etc.) than the original, provide a brief rationale for
this change.
No change.
3.0 Course Title
3.1 Specify the current course title (even if it is not being changed).
Sign Language Planning and Advocacy
3.2 Specify the revised course title and provide a brief rationale for this change.
No change.
4.0 Course Credits
4.1 List the number of credits that this course currently carries (even if it is not being
changed).
3
4.2 Describe the proposed change in credits for this course and provide a brief
rationale for this change. Note: The standard computation of credit is one (1)
semester-hour per 50 minutes of instruction per week for an equivalent of fifteen (15)
course meetings.
No change.
4.2 If the modified course will include non-classroom instruction or lab sessions, or
if the credit hours vary in some way from the standard, provide an explanation.
No modifications.
4.3 If the modified course will carry variable credit (e.g., 1-3 hours), explain how this
will be utilized and determined.
No variable credit.
5.0 Formal (Catalog) Description
5.1 Provide the formal description for this course as it appears in the most current
Graduate Catalog (even if it is not being changed).
This course focuses on principled approaches to developing and
implementing classroom methods and strategies for language
teaching. It also investigates linguistic, psychological and
attitudinal factors that influence student-teacher interaction in the
classroom. The course examines in detail the most important
teaching methodologies that have evolved over the past thirty
years. Following a thorough analysis of each methodology, in
terms of its theoretical justification and supporting empirical
research, students will endeavor to teach and learn some aspect
of a sign language through the implementation of each of the
methodologies.
5.2 Provide the modified description for this course. Formal course descriptions must
adhere to length and style characteristics of college catalog listings, including prerequisites, fees, and any information regarding cross-listings if applicable. The
description is to be written in the third person and must appear exactly the same on
the course syllabus as it does in the catalog. If the changes to the course description
are minimal, you may indicate text to be deleted with strikeouts and text to be added
with underlining.
No change.
6.0 Prerequisites
6.1 List the current prerequisites and/or co-requisites for this course (even if they are
not being changed).
Prerequisite: ASL 724, 741, and 743 or equivalent courses; or permission of the
instructor.
6.2 List and provide a brief rationale for new prerequisites and/or co-requisites for
this course.
Prerequisite: Matriculation in the following programs: Masters in Sign Language
Education, Masters in Deaf Studies: Language and Human Rights or Certificate in
Deaf Studies; or permission of instructor
*Rationale: ASL 770 is a required course in all three programs, and not all three
programs require the same courses.
6.3 If new prerequisites and/or co-requisites involve other departments of instruction,
provide evidence of acknowledgement and cooperation from these departments
(eg. letters of support).
No change/do not involve other departments.
7.0 Overlap with existing programs
If proposed course modification will lead to actual or apparent overlap with current
course offerings or impact other departments, provide evidence of consultation with
those departments (eg. letters stating that faculty of the other department has
reviewed course content of the proposed course and see no significant overlap).
No overlap.
8.0 Grading System
If the grading system for this course is being changed from letter-grade to pass/fail, or
vice versa, provide a brief rationale.
No change.
9.0 Course Characteristics
9.1 If modification to this course will result in cross-listing (within one department or
across more than one department), provide a rationale for doing so and full
documentation of steps taken to assure such listings.
No cross-listing.
9.2 If this course is being modified to allow both undergraduate and graduate
students, provide a rationale for doing so and explain any differences in requirements
for undergraduate and graduate students.
No modification.
9.3 If this course is being changed from an elective course to a required course or vice
versa, provide a rationale for doing so. Note: Proposals for changing an existing
elective course to a required course must be accompanied by a CGE proposal for
Graduate Program Change.
No change.
9.4 Describe any shift in student-audience for this course. If substantial numbers of
students from outside the department are expected to enroll in this modified course,
provide evidence of support and cooperation from these departments in terms of
enrollment and compatible scheduling (eg. letters of support).
No shift.
9.5 What is the anticipated starting date for the modified course?
Summer 2013.
How frequently and in which semester(s) will the modified course be offered in the
future?
How many sections of this course will typically be offered simultaneously?
Spring = 3 sections
10.0 Instructor
10.1 Briefly describe any modification to instructor competencies and qualifications
to teach this course, and provide a brief rationale.
No changes.
10.2 Explain any modification to the typical arrangements for course instruction.
Will the course be taught by one particular faculty member? by various faculty? by a
faculty team? by department and/or non-departmental faculty?
No changes.
11.0 Course Format and Procedures
Describe any modifications in how the course will be conducted, in terms of class
meetings and teaching procedures. For example, will the course be taught online only,
or as a hybrid of online and classroom meetings? Will the course incorporate lectures,
discussions, lab sessions, small-group or individualized instruction, practicum or field
experiences, student reports or projects, competency-based modules, or other types of
instructional procedures?
No changes.
12.0 Evaluation of Course and Course Instructor
Describe any changes in how course instruction and the course itself will be
evaluated, including any long-term strategies for evaluating the course as part of the
department offerings.
No changes.
13.0 Resources
Describe any immediate and future impact that modification of this course is likely to
have on the department's personnel, physical, and financial resources.
No change in impact.
14.0 Alignment of proposed course goals with those of academic program
14.1 Program mission statement
15-Month Summer/Online Masters in Sign
Language Education
The Department of American Sign Language and Deaf Studies offers a
M.A. degree in Sign Language Education. This program is designed to
prepare future sign language teachers, who will provide exemplary
leadership in the sign language teaching field. Students will be
introduced to key theoretical and methodological issues involved in sign
language instruction including curriculum development, assessment, and
incorporating Deaf culture into the language curriculum. In addition,
students will undertake a teaching practicum and internship under the
supervision of a cooperating teacher. An electronic portfolio is required
at the completion of the program, which represents the culmination of
the student's academic performance.
14.2 Program Student Learning Outcomes
List the student learning outcomes for your academic program.
Sign Language Education Masters Program Student Learning
Outcomes




Graduates from the MA program in Sign Language Education
Will demonstrate theoretical knowledge and display competence in
classroom settings regarding methodological and socio-political issues
involved in sign language teaching, curriculum development and
assessment
Will produce graduate level Sign Language and English texts that
demonstrate knowledge of and critical inquiry into key concepts in the
sign language teaching field
Will recognize the importance of the Sign Language teacher as a system
change agent and apply this in practice utilizing effective leadership,
advocacy, consultation, and collaboration to influence change on the
individual, group, and organizational and systemic levels
Will demonstrate preparedness to seek and obtain employment as a
teaching professional in the field of sign language education.
Program Student Learning
Outcomes (SLOs)
1. Will demonstrate theoretical
knowledge and display
competence in classroom
settings regarding
methodological issues involved
in sign language teaching,
curriculum development and
assessment
Learning Opportunities
Assessment
Course projects (required
for all courses)
Qualitative interview
Checklists for portfolio (included
in Appendix B of this proposal)
Qualitative interview checklist
(included in Appendix B of this
proposal)
Comprehensive portfolio defense
rubric (included in Appendix B of
this proposal)
2. Will produce graduate level
Sign Language and English
texts that demonstrate
knowledge of and critical
inquiry into key concepts in the
sign language teaching field
Qualitative interview
Comprehensive portfolio
defense
Comprehensive portfolio
defense
Qualitative interview checklist
(included in Appendix B of this
proposal)
Comprehensive portfolio defense
rubric (included in Appendix B of
this proposal)
3. Will recognize the
importance of the Sign
Language teacher as a system
change agent and apply this in
practice utilizing effective
leadership, advocacy,
consultation, and collaboration
to influence change on the
individual, group, and
organizational and systemic
levels
Course assignments and
projects
Course rubrics and checklists
Comprehensive portfolio
defense
Comprehensive portfolio defense
rubric
4. Will demonstrate
preparedness to seek and obtain
employment as a teaching
professional in the field of sign
language education
Practicum and Internship
Completion of fieldwork
evaluation forms by student
teacher, cooperating and
supervising teacher
Comprehensive portfolio defense
rubric
Process of applying for ASLTA
certificate
Comprehensive portfolio
defense
ASLTA certification
14.3 Course Student Learning Outcomes
List the Student Learning Outcomes for the modified course. Then in table format,
using the template provided below, list the learning outcomes and show how the
course and program SLOs align by placing checks in the appropriate cells.
.
Course Student
Learning Outcomes
Student Learning
Opportunities
Assessment
Method
I
Articulate application of
status, corpus, acquisition
and attitude planning in
sign language teaching
Assigned readings
Course checklist and
rubric (see attached
below)
X
Course checklist and
rubric (see attached
below)
X
Course checklist and
rubric (see attached
below)
X
Discussion board
II
III
IV
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Planner and advocate
interview
Articulate application of
theoretical and
methodological issues in
sign language teaching,
curriculum and linguistics
in sign language teaching
and planning
Discussion Board
Bridge work in sign
language planning and
advocacy to sign
Mock campaign
Planner and advocate
checklist
language instruction
14.4 Learning Opportunities
Briefly describe the Learning Opportunities (eg. assignments, projects, activities,
reports, field experiences, etc.) designed to achieve the course Student Learning
Outcomes. List them in table format, using the template provided below, and state
how they will be assessed (eg. what assessment methods will be used?).
See above
14.5 Assessment Methods
Attach assessment tools used in this course (include grading scales, rubrics,
checklists, etc.) to the syllabi accompanying this proposal. Do not attach them to the
proposal itself.
See syllabus.
ASL 770: Sign Language Planning and Advocacy
Gallaudet University
Department of ASL and Deaf Studies
Syllabus
Course: Sign Language Planning and Advocacy
Course Number: ASL 770
Semester: Spring 2012
Classroom Location: SLCC 1240
Class Day/Time: Tuesdays, 6:00-8:50 pm
Instructor: Keith M. Cagle, Ph.D.
Office Location: SLCC 1210
Office hours: Tuesdays and Wednesdays from 1:30 pm to 3:30 pm
Contact Information: keith.cagle@gallaudet.edu
Course description:
This course covers language planning and policy in transnational and national
sign language communities. A commonality among these communities is that the
natural signed language of deaf communities are often threatened by majority
languages. Language policies vary, and successful (and not so-successful)
activism will be studied. This course will include a study of four main components
of language policy and planning: attitude, corpus, acquisition, and status
planning. Connections will be emphasized between applied language planning in
sign languages, settings in which linguistic advocacy takes place, and theoretical
and empirical research in language acquisition and learning.
.
Required books:
Reagan, T. (2010). Language policy and planning for sign languages. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press.
Siegel, L. (2008). The human right to language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University
Press.
Suggested readings:
Aarons, D. & Akach, P. (2002). South African sign language: One language or many? In
R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Language in South Africa (pp. 127-147). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2006). Standards
for foreign language learning in the 21st century: Including Arabic, Chinese, Classical
Languages, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish (3rd. ed).
Lawrence, KS: Allen Press.
Batterbury, S., Ladd, P., & Guillivery, M. (2007). Sign language peoples as indigenous
minorities: Implications for research and policy. Environment and Planning, 39, 28992915.
Bauman, H. (Ed.). (2008). Open your eyes: Deaf studies talking. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Baynton, D. (1996). Forbidden signs: American culture and the campaign against sign
language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
McCarty, T. (2002). Between possibility and constraint: Indigenous language education,
planning and policy in the United States. In J. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in
education: Critical issues (pp. 285-301). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nover, S. (1993). Our voices, our vision: Politics of deaf education. Paper presented at
the convention of CAID/CEASD, Baltimore, Maryland.
Nover, S. (1995). Politics and language: American sign language and English in deaf
education. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sociolinguistics in deaf communities (pp. 109-163).
Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Nover, S. (2000). History of language planning in deaf education in the 19th century.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Nover, S., & Ruiz, R. (1994). The politics of American sign language in deaf education.
In B. Schick & M. Moeller (Eds.), The use of sign language in instructional settings:
Current concepts and controversies (pp. 73-84). Omaha, NE: Boys Town National
Research Hospital.
*More assigned readings to be added at the discretion of the instructor
Sign Language Education Masters Program Student Learning
Outcomes

Graduates from the MA program in Sign Language Education
Will demonstrate theoretical knowledge and display competence in
classroom settings regarding methodological and socio-political issues
involved in sign language teaching, curriculum development and
assessment



Will produce graduate level Sign Language and English texts that
demonstrate knowledge of and critical inquiry into key concepts in the
sign language teaching field
Will recognize the importance of the Sign Language teacher as a system
change agent and apply this in practice utilizing effective leadership,
advocacy, consultation, and collaboration to influence change on the
individual, group, and organizational and systemic levels
Will demonstrate preparedness to seek and obtain employment as a
teaching professional in the field of sign language education.
After completing this course, students will be able to:
Apply status, corpus, acquisition and attitude planning in sign language teaching
Articulate application of theoretical and methodological issues in sign language teaching,
curriculum and linguistics in sign language teaching and planning
Bridge work in sign language planning and advocacy to sign language instruction
Course Name: Sign Language Planning and Advocacy
Program
Learning Outcomes
Course Student
Learning Outcomes
Student Learning
Opportunities
Assessment
Method
I
Articulate application of
status, corpus, acquisition
and attitude planning in
sign language teaching
Assigned readings
Course checklist and
rubric (see attached
below)
X
Course checklist and
rubric (see attached
below)
X
Course checklist and
rubric (see attached
below)
X
Discussion board
II
III
IV
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Planner and advocate
interview
Articulate application of
theoretical and
methodological issues in
sign language teaching,
curriculum and linguistics
in sign language teaching
and planning
Discussion Board
Bridge work in sign
language planning and
advocacy to sign
language instruction
Mock campaign
Planner and advocate
checklist
Student expectations:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
participate in class discussions;
participate in group work / assignments;
show respect for the professor and classmates;
hand in assignments on time;
do work honestly and with integrity;
do graduate level work on assignments and projects
all text and video work must be edited or a 20% deduction will be granted.
Grading Allocation:
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Class discussion and participation
Assignments
a.
IRB proposal and video release form
b.
Interview methods and questions
c.
Mock campaign theme
d.
Mock campaign storyboard draft
Book chapter presentation, including PP/keynote
Planner and advocate INTERVIEW
Planner and Advocate CHECKLIST
List of Resources (group effort)
Journal of class summary (e.g. guest speakers,
professor, websites, articles) and reflection
Planner and Advocate CAMPAIGN
Total:
10%
10%
10%
20%
10%
10%
10%
20%
100%
Syllabus, handouts, policies, and updates found on course Blackboard Site.
A+ = 98 -100
A = 94 - 97
A - = 90 – 93
B+ = 88 – 89
B = 84 – 87
B - = 80 – 83
C + = 78 – 79
C = 74 – 77
C - = 70 – 73
Below 69 = F
When items on this syllabus change, all students will be informed via Blackboard.
Assignments:
Discussion in Class – Questions and discussion will be posed in class on a weekly basis
Sign Language Planner and Advocate INTERVIEW – Develop interview questions (include
biographical questions) and video release form, both approved by instructor and Gallaudet
University IRB. Interview someone (approved by instructor in advance) who has campaigned for
departmental, program, school, state, national or international change (e.g. Deaf schools
adopting a bilingual mission, SL as a language, SL as a foreign language, SL as credit course,
Gallaudet mission and vision, Deaf Children’s Bill of Rights, etc.). Record interview (e.g. iChat,
VP or GoogleChat if distance interviews). Compensate interviewee with professionally edited
video interview or your finished paper/vlog. All students watch each interview in class and give
feedback/input.
Sign Language Planning and Advocacy CHECKLIST – Based on assigned readings and
interviews with sign language planners and advocates by students in class, everyone in class
submits to a document with at least three different language planning and advocacy techniques in
chronological order within the four activities (status, corpus, acquisition and attitude planning).
This means a total of 12 techniques.
Sign Language Planning and Advocacy CAMPAIGN – Pick a potential campaign and begin
building a mock campaign utilizing certain aspects of the ‘planning and advocacy checklist’. This
final project is to be demonstrated in video format (with subtitles) and presented to the class.
Tentative Course Outline
Week 1
Introduction
Syllabus and Expectations
Professionalization and ASLTA
Human Relation
Week 2
Guest speaker: TBA about IRB, its procedure and video release form
Brainstorm on interview methods and questions. Bring your paper.
Review of Theoretical and Methodological Approaches
Week 3
Siegel book: Chapter Two – Student presentation (1 student)
Due: Develop and submit IRB proposal: draft interview questions and
video release form
Week 4
Reagan book: Chapter Two – Student presentation (3 students)
Discussion: Status, corpus, acquisition and attitude planning
Week 5
Siegel book: Chapter Three – Student presentation (1 student)
Share with each other’s language planning and advocacy techniques.
Due: Your CHECKLIST.
Share each other’s Mock Campaign themes (draft). Due: Your paper.
Week 6
Siegel book: Chapter Nine – Student presentation (1 student)
ASL Bill in State – Dr. Keith Cagle
Due: Select final MOCK CAMPAIGN Theme
Week 7
Siegel book: Chapter Ten – Student presentation (1 student)
Share with each other’s interview experience.
Due: 2-pages paper about INTERVIEW
Week 8
Reagan book: Chapter Three – Student presentation (2 students)
Due: JOURNAL of each class summary and reflection for first half of
semester
Week 9
Reagan book: Chapter Five – Student presentation (1 student)
Due: MOCK CAMPAIGNS storyboard draft
Week 10
ASLTA certification and its importance – Dr. Keith M. Cagle
Week 11
Group finalize the list of resources
Week 12
Statewide meeting with ASL and Interpreter teachers, and Community
College curriculum proposals for State – Dr. Keith M. Cagle
Week 13
Finalize your MOCK CAMPAIGN
Due: List of resources
Week 14
Students’ MOCK CAMPAIGNS
Due:
Week 15
JOURNAL of each class summary and reflection for last half of
semester.
Students’ MOCK CAMPAIGNS
When we have some times left in some classes, we will browse through some websites,
articles and other information.
University Policies
All university policies may be found in the Graduate Catalog. The standards of
professional behavior and communication discussed in the catalog will be mandated in
this course and program.
Academic Integrity Policy
Students must familiarize themselves with the Gallaudet University Graduate School
Academic Integrity Policy as printed in the Graduate School Catalog in the above link or
in the printed catalog and begins on page 23.
Academic Accommodation Policy
Students have the responsibility of formally requesting accommodation through the
Office for Students with Disabilities (OSWD) at the beginning of the semester. Gallaudet
university is in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and this statement
can be found in the Graduate Catalog or the above link and begins on page 7.
The rubric will be used for:



Evaluating your class discussion and comments
Evaluating your Sign Language Planner and Advocate Interview comments
Assessing your Sign Language Planning and Advocacy Campaign
ASL 770: Sign Language Planning and Advocacy
Gallaudet University
Department of ASL and Deaf Studies
Syllabus
Course: Sign Language Planning and Advocacy
Course Number: ASL 770
Semester: Spring 2013
Classroom Location: Online
Class Day/Time: Assignments due Tuesdays and Thursdays at midnight EST.
Professor: Joseph J. Murray
Contact Information: joseph.murray@gallaudet.edu Electronic office hours are 8-9
am Tuesdays to Thursdays E.S.T. or by appointment. We can use gmail chat via
Gallaudet mail or Skype (joemurray5). Please note I am not available on weekends or
university holidays.
Course description:
Sign Language Planning and Advocacy is a theory and applications course. Students will
critically discuss assigned readings, interview language planners and advocates, and
create sign language planning and advocacy checklists for status, corpus, acquisition and
attitude planning. The final project will expect students to explicitly reference the
theoretical and methodological approaches learned in previous courses when discussing
language planning and advocacy in the sign language teaching field.
Note on Online class: I've tried to design the course so it is useful to both those who
want to focus more on the U.S. and ASL and those who want to do international
work. For those weeks with ASL or International option, you will pick the ASL
option. The weeks without an option are designed to be useful for both ASL and
International students. Even if the readings are not ASL focused, they let us put ASL in a
broader context and give us new arguments for ASL.
Required texts:
Reagan, T. (2010). Language policy and planning for sign languages. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press.
Seigel, Larry (2008) The Human Right to Language Washington, DC: Gallaudet
University Press.
We will also be reading selections from:
Joseph Hill. Language Attitudes in the American Deaf Community Gallaudet University
Press, 2013.
Useful readings:
Most of these are not required readings and are not posted on Blackboard. They are
listed here as possible resources for future research and reading. Many journal articles
are available via the Gallaudet Library’s databases and I encourage you to download
them for your personal collection.
Aarons, D. & Akach, P. (2002). South African sign language: One language or many? In
R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Language in South Africa (pp. 127-147). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2006). Standards
for foreign language learning in the 21st century: Including Arabic, Chinese, Classical
Languages, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish (3rd. ed).
Lawrence, KS: Allen Press.
Batterbury, S., Ladd, P., & Guillivery, M. (2007). Sign language peoples as indigenous
minorities: Implications for research and policy. Environment and Planning, 39, 28992915.
Bauman, H. (Ed.). (2008). Open your eyes: Deaf studies talking. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Baynton, D. (1996). Forbidden signs: American culture and the campaign against sign
language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
IMJS: International Journal on Multicultural Societies (2001). Thematic issue on The
Human Rights of Linguistic Minorities and Language Policies Vol. 3, No. 2, 2001
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001387/138776e.pdf
Current Issues in Language Planning 10:3 (2009) Special Issue: Language Planning and
Sign Languages
Thomas P. Horejes. Social Constructions of Deafness: Examining Deaf Languacultures
in Education Gallaudet University Press, 2013.
McCarty, T. (2002). Between possibility and constraint: Indigenous language education,
planning and policy in the United States. In J. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in
education: Critical issues (pp. 285-301). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McKee Motives and Outcomes of NZ SL Legislation: A comparative study between New
Zealand and Finland. Current Issues in Language Planning 10:3 (2009) Special Issue:
Language Planning and Sign Languages
MUFWENE , SALIKOKO S. “Colonisation, Globalisation, and the Future of Languages
in the Twenty-first Century” International Journal on Multicultural Societies 4:2
(2002) http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001387/138795E.pdf#page=4
Nover, S. (1993). Our voices, our vision: Politics of deaf education. Paper presented at
the convention of CAID/CEASD, Baltimore, Maryland.
Nover, S. (1995). Politics and language: American sign language and English in deaf
education. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sociolinguistics in deaf communities (pp. 109-163).
Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Nover, S. (2000). History of language planning in deaf education in the 19th century.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Nover, S., & Ruiz, R. (1994). The politics of American sign language in deaf education.
In B. Schick & M. Moeller (Eds.), The use of sign language in instructional settings:
Current concepts and controversies (pp. 73-84). Omaha, NE: Boys Town National
Research Hospital.
Program and Course objectives:
This course directly supports the Program Learning Outcomes
Sign Language Teaching MA Program Student Learning Outcomes:
Graduates from the MA program in Sign Language Teaching
 Will acquire knowledge about theoretical and methodological issues
involved in sign language teaching, curriculum development and
assessment
 Will produce graduate level Sign Language and English texts that
demonstrate knowledge of and critical inquiry into key concepts in the
Sign Language Teaching field
 Will recognize the importance of the ASL teacher as a system change
agent and apply this in practice utilizing effective leadership, advocacy,
consultation, and collaboration to influence change on the individual,
group, and organizational and systemic levels
 Will be well-prepared for the next phase of their professional careers in
Sign Language Teaching
After completing this course, students will be able to:
Apply status, corpus, acquisition and attitude planning in sign language teaching
Articulate application of theoretical and methodological issues in sign language teaching,
curriculum and linguistics in sign language teaching and planning
Bridge work in sign language planning and advocacy to sign language instruction
Sign Language Planning and Advocacy
Program Learning Outcomes
Course Student
Student Learning
Assessment
I
II
III
IV
Learning Outcomes
Opportunities
Method
Articulate application of
status, corpus, acquisition
and attitude planning in
sign language teaching
Assigned readings
Course checklist and
rubric (see attached
below)
X
Course checklist and
rubric (see attached
below)
X
Course checklist and
rubric (see attached
below)
X
Discussion board
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Planner and advocate
interview
Articulate application of
theoretical and
methodological issues in
sign language teaching,
curriculum and linguistics
in sign language teaching
and planning
Discussion Board
Bridge work in sign
language planning and
advocacy to sign
language instruction
Student expectations:
● participate in blackboard discussions when applicable;
● participate in group work/assignments;
● show respect for the professor and classmates;
● hand in assignments on time;
● do work honestly and with integrity;
● do graduate level work on assignments and projects
● all text and video work must be edited and either subtitled or with text in the
comment field below the video. Chicago style author citations are expected for
all videos. Handing in videos which are unedited or do not have
subtitles/transcript will result in an F for the assignment.
● Videos must be embedded in e-mails or on Blackboard discussion board,
depending on the assignment. I should be able to play the video directly from
the e-mail or Blackboard. Not embedding the video will result in a letter grade
deduction and a delay in getting your assignment back to you.
Grading Allocation:
Assignment Week 1:
Assignment Week 2:
Assignment Week 3:
Assignment Week 4:
Assignment Week 5:
Assignment Week 6:
Assignment Week 7:
Assignment Week 8:
10% of final grade
15% of final grade
15% of final grade
5% of final grade
10% of final grade
10% of final grade
10% of final grade
15% of final grade
Syllabus, handouts, policies, and updates found on course Blackboard Site.
When items on this syllabus change, all students will be informed via Blackboard
Announcements or e-mail to your Gallaudet University e-mail address. No e-mail will be
sent to private e-mail addresses.
Assignments:
I rarely lecture, even in my in-class classes. Your learning is from hands-on work, interacting with each
other on Discussion Board, and reviewing each other's work. So there are no lectures, but there are some
videos as part of class readings during one week's readings.
Assignments are described below, and posted on Blackboard under Course Documents in
the file “All course assignments”- Each week has 1-2 assignments you will need to complete
by assigned deadlines. As a general rule, deadlines are Tuesdays and Thursdays. See each
assignment for deadlines specific to that assignment.
For weeks 1, 2, and 8 you have the option of doing either the ASL or International readings, and
the corresponding assignment. Each week also has a joint reading which all students must read
(the first reading).
Readings may be changed at the professor’s discretion. Changes will be communicated via
group e-mail via Blackboard’s e-mail function.
Week
Week 1
Theme
Language
Planning
and
Analysis
of Sign
Language
Planning
in
Practice
Assignment
Assignment on
Blackboard
Readings
Reagan, Chapter 2
Hill, Ch1 and 2.
ASL: Gallaudet University’s Office of Bilingual
Teaching and Learning.
http://www.gallaudet.edu/Office_of_Academic_Quality/
Office_of_Bilingual_Teaching_and_Learning.html
International: Swedish language council on sign
language
http://www.sprakradet.se/1904
Homepage in English
http://www.sprakradet.se/international
Homepage in Swedish
http://www.sprakradet.se/startsida
Week 2
Language
Planning
Process:
Identificat
ion of the
Status of
National
Signed
Language
s
Assignment on
Blackboard.
Skim through the following report for a global overview of the
status of sign languages:
Haualand, Hilde and Colin Allen, ‘Deaf People and Human
Rights’ World Federation of the Deaf, 2009.
http://www.wfdeaf.org/our-work/development-cooperation/project
Scroll down for Regional reports (The Regional Reports are not
required reading).
ASL: Reagan, Chapter 3
International: Reagan, Ch 5.
Krausnecker, Verena. “On the legal status of sign languages: a
commented compilation of resources.” Current Issues in
Language Planning 10:3 (2009) Special Issue:
Language Planning and Sign Languages
Timmermans, Status of Sign Language in Europe.
http://www.coe.int/t/e/social_cohesion/soc-sp/5720-0-ID2283Langue%20signe_GB%20assemble.pdf
Week 3
Week 4
Legal
recogniti
on of
ASL.
Assignment
on
Blackboard
Seigel, Part 2 (Chapters 3-9).
Language
Planning
in Sign
Language
s:
National
Signed
Language
s.
Assignment on
Blackboard
Eichmann, Hanna. “Planning sign languages: promoting
hearing hegemony? Conceptualizing sign language
standardization” Current Issues in Language Planning
Nover, S. (1995). Politics and language: American sign
language and English in deaf education. In C. Lucas
(Ed.), Sociolinguistics in deaf communities (pp. 109163). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
10:3 (2009) Special Issue: Language Planning and Sign
Languages
Nakamura, Karen. “The Language Politics of Japanese
Sign Language (Nihon Shuwa),” in Mathur, Gaurav and
Donna Jo Napoli, eds. Deaf around the World The
Impact of Language Oxford University Press, 2010.
Mori, Soya. “Response: Pluralization: An Alternative to
Existing Hegemony in JSL,” in Mathur, Gaurav and
Donna Jo Napoli, eds. Deaf around the World The
Impact of Language Oxford University Press, 2010.
Week 5
Sign
Language
and
Power:
Global
Perspecti
ves
Assignment
on
Blackboard
Reagan, Ch 6.
Languages under threat:
http://www.pen-kurd.org/Diyarbakir-seminar/toveendangered-linguistic-and-culturaldiversities.html#_ftnref6
Parks, Elizabeth and Holly Williams (2011)
Sociolinguistic Profiles of Twenty-Four Deaf
communities in the Americas
http://www.sil.org/silesr/2011/silesr2011-036.pdf
PARKS, Elizabeth, author. 2009. The Use of American
Sign Language in National Deaf Identity Construction.
[Conference poster]. 1 p.
Open poster at the following website:
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_work.asp?id=928474
542215
Week 6
Sign
language
s as
endanger
ed
language
s?
Assignment on
Blackboard
Johnston, Trevor A. “W(h)ither the Deaf Community?
Population, Genetics, and the Future of Australian Sign
Language,” Sign Language Studies 6: 2 (2006), 137-173.
Available via the Gallaudet library via Project Muse.
Harry Knoors and Marc Marschark. “Language Planning for
the 21st Century: Revisiting Bilingual Language Policy for
Deaf Children” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education (2012) 17(3): 291-305. Available online via
Gallaudet Library. Search the library for the journal and
make your way to the article.
Tijsseling and Niemela-Boye paper and powerpoint
presentations from WFD-EUD Conference. “Sign
Languages as Endangered Languages”. On Blackboard.
See also all three conference videos at www.eud.eu
from November9, 10, and 11, 2011.
Conference summary:
http://eud.eu/videos.php?action=view&news_id=162
Day 1:
http://eud.eu/videos.php?action=view&news_id=161
Day 2:
http://eud.eu/videos.php?action=view&news_id=163
Optional reading:
Eggington, William G. “Towards accommodating
the ‘tragedy of the commons’ effect in language
policy development” Current Issues in Language
Planning 11:4 (2010), 360-370.
Week 7
Week 8
Language
policies
in
institutio
nal
settings
Assignment on
Blackboard.
Analysis
of
language
planning
documen
ts
Assignment
on
Blackboard
This article deals with language motivation and can
be used as a resource for your thoughts on
language policies in institutional settings:
Karan, Mark E., (2008). “The importance of
motivations in language revitalization.” 2nd
International Conference on Language
Development, Language Revitalization, and
Multilingual Education in Ethnolinguistic
Communities, Bangkok, July 1-3, 2008.
http://www.seameo.org/_ld2008/doucments/Presen
tation_document/MicrosoftWord_TheImportance_o
f_Motivations_in_Language_RevitalizationMarkEK
aran.pdf
SUZANNE ROMAINE “The Impact of Language Policy on
Endangered
Languages” International Journal on Multicultural
Societies 4:2 (2002)
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001387/1387
95E.pdf#page=4
ASL:
Thriving with your deaf child CSD Fremont
http://www.csdf.k12.ca.us/outreach/child.php
International:
WFD policy on Education Rights for Deaf Children
http://www.wfdeaf.org/databank/policies
University Policies
All university policies may be found in the Graduate Catalog. The standards of
professional behavior and communication discussed in the catalog will be mandated in
this course and program.
Academic Integrity Policy
Students must familiarize themselves with the Gallaudet University Graduate School
Academic Integrity Policy as printed in the Graduate School Catalog in the above link or
in the printed catalog and begins on page 23.
Academic Accommodation Policy
Students have the responsibility of formally requesting accommodation through the
Office for Students with Disabilities (OSWD) at the beginning of the semester. Gallaudet
university is in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and this statement
can be found in the Graduate Catalog or the above link and begins on page 7.
CLASS ASSIGNMENTS ASL770: Language Planning and Advocacy
Assignments may be due twice weekly. As a general rule, postings to Discussion Board
will occur latest midnight Tuesdays (EST) and videos or written assignments are due
Thursdays at midnight (EST). See each assignments for specific deadlines.
Discussion Board comments: Comments should be substantive and offer critical
reflection on your colleague’s postings. Postings which are brief statements of opinion
(“Good”” or “I like this”) are not considered comments for the purpose of class
assignments.
Video Assignments. All videos should be posted on either Youtube or Vimeo and
embedded on Blackboard discussion in the appropriate week’s forum and/or in an email to me, as stated in each assignment below. By embedded, I mean viewers should
be able to click and play the video right from the Discussion thread/e-mail. Links are
not enough. Videos should be heavily edited before being posted and have citations in
Chicago style. Your videos should incorporate illustrations when useful, and be in ASL (or
IS), and English text subtitles.
Be innovative! For a model of the quality I expect, see Justin Jackerson’s “Why ASL?”
http://www.youtube.com/user/justjackerson#p/a/u/0/Br6LLP_j_Ec
Note:
 Videos which are not edited or subtitled/transcribed will be given an automatic
F. The same applies for videos which are of such poor quality I cannot
understand the signing.
 Videos not embedded will be deducted a letter grade and may not be given
feedback at the usual speed.
 Time limits should be observed for each video assignment. I reserve the right to
deduct points for videos grossly over or under the assigned time.
WEEK 1: Analysis of Sign Language Planning in Practice
Pick one website for either the ASL or International option. Review the website,
(including its videos) and discuss, in four separate sections, how it fulfills each aspect of
language planning: Status, Corpus, Acquisition, and Attitude. This assignment can be
in either ASL or English and sent directly to the professor (no posting needed). You
should do a comprehensive analysis of all four aspects of language planning contained in
the website. Length is open but should not be more than 500 words or 4 minutes in
ASL/IS.
You can choose from one of two websites:
ASL: Office of Bilingual Teaching and Learning website at Gallaudet University.
International: Website of the Swedish Language Planning Council. Use google translate
to translate the second and third links into English. (Enter the link into google translate).
Due midnight Friday.
WEEK 2: Language Planning Process: Identification of the Status of National Signed
Languages
1. Read either the 1) ASL or 2) International readings. Then find at least two other
sources (academic articles or presentations, government documents, etc.) which discuss
the legal status of sign language in that country. You may use articles from the list of
recommended readings on the syllabus or outside articles. For the international
readings, pick either a regional perspective (European regional declarations or policies)
or a single country.
Post a PDF of these sources on Class Discussion Board by Tuesday midnight.
2. Prepare a one minute video summarizing the current status of that sign language (or
of sign languages in Europe) in public policy as of today. By public policy, I mean
governmental legislation, policies, proclamations, and other government documents
dealing with sign languages. Regulations and policies in individual schools are not
considered public policy for the purpose of this assignment.
Your video should include:


Specific references to specific government documents/laws which currently exist
in that country.
The practical impact of these laws for sign language users, if any. (For example,
perhaps the educational law of Country X guarantees all deaf children the right
to sign language or another country’s law on interpreting guarantees university
interpreting)

An assessment of public policy needs identified as critical for the legal status of
sign language in that country. What legislation is needed for the future?
Due midnight Thursday.
WEEK 3: Legal recognition (of ASL)
Two assignments required this week.
1. News clippings. By midnight Tuesday.
Collect and post at least three news clippings on public policy and sign languages, either
in ASL or another sign language. These should be articles which discuss the passage of
legislation or the codification of policies regarding sign language. Articles about
teaching methods or controversies about cochlear implants and sign language are not
relevant. Provide a two sentence summary of each article in the posting.
Due midnight Tuesday.
2. Post a 2 minute video, with text, graphics, and subtitles, in which you concisely
summarize either the Freedom of Speech or the Equal Protection arguments in Seigel.
Your imagined audience are members of Deaf community advocacy organizations
looking for ideas on how to advance linguistic rights. I will grade on how well you show
your knowledge of Seigel’s argument.
Due Thursday midnight.
WEEK 4: Language Planning in Sign Languages: National Signed Languages.
Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest the situation of JSL is not uncommon for other
national signed languages. Is this true for ASL? Post at least two comments/replies on
Blackboard Discussion Board for each question below:
1. Does ASL face the same issues of language standardization as we see in other signed
languages?
2. As an ASL teacher how do you ensure you present the full range of ASL dialects and
signs (such as Black ASL) in the classroom?
Due midnight Tuesday.
WEEK 5: Sign Languages and Power: Global Perspectives
1. Post on Discussion Board a 250-350 word e-mail to an ASL student of yours who has
just graduated from the program and is going abroad for one year to teach ASL to Deaf
children at a school in Latin America. The student is extremely excited about this
opportunity and the organization sponsoring the student’s trip selected that student
specifically because s/he knows ASL.
Pick one country from the 24 listed in Parks and Williams as the country your student
will be teaching in. Your e-mail should address issues of language and power between
ASL and native signed languages and about the situation of sign language in that country
in particular.
Due midnight Thursday.
WEEK 6: Sign languages as endangered languages?
2 minute video. This assignment is based on the premise that some sign languages
either are endangered or can come to be endangered due to a neo-oralist resurgence.
Working from this premise, your video should address two issues:
1. What concrete threats did you learn about from this weeks readings.
2. What actions can be taken on a national level to ensure the continuation of a
particular national signed language?
You may pick either ASL or another signed language, and your answer should reflect the
national context of that language.
Due midnight Thursday.
WEEK 7: Language policies in institutional settings
1.Find at least three different institutional language policies, for any language (you are
not restricted to signed language policies). These can be university (not Gallaudet),
school, relay service, social service agencies, or any other business or institution which
has a language policy. Post them on Discussion Board and develop a checklist of at least
5 items this policy has (or about this policy) which you feel makes this a model.
Postings are due midnight Tuesday.
2. Draw up a model institutional language policy (in English) for one category and post it
on Blackboard Discussion.
1. A business, whether a social services agency or relay service or interpreting business.
2. An educational setting which serves children of different language communities.
3. A school for Deaf children.
4. Faculty, staff, and students in an ASL Program in higher education.
Due midnight Thursday.
International option for Language and Human Rights students.
1. Post the language laws or links to two laws conferring recognition on sign language,
for two different countries. Highlight the main points of each law and how they are
similar or differ.
Due midnight Tuesday.
2. Develop a checklist of 10 items which lists important items which should be in a
national law recognizing a signed language. Explain the inclusion of each item.
Due midnight Thursday.
WEEK 8: Analysis of language planning documents
Pick one of the two documents on the syllabus.
1. Contextualize the document.
Who created the document?Who is the audience for this document? What is
the aim of the document? What is the tone of this document?
2. Which aspect(s) of language planning is being addressed in this document?
3. Does this document effectively promote sign language rights? Analyze why or why
not.
What evidence does it use to support the right to sign language? List specific
disciplinary or institutional sources used. How authoritative are these sources?
4. Outline a lesson plan for a 20-minute session of an ASL class in which you use this
document.
Posted on Blackboard by midnight Thursday.
Rubrics:
The rubric below will be used for:
 Evaluating your Discussion Board comments.
 Evaluating your Wikipedia postings.
 Evaluating your Videos and other class assignments.