Insights from a Pre-Pandemic K-12 Virtual American Sign Language Program for a Post-Pandemic Online Era

Abstract

In the past five years, the number of virtual American Sign Language (ASL) classes has dramatically increased from being a novel option to being a common course delivery mode across the country. Yet, little is known regarding virtual ASL course design and the implementation of evidence-based practices. Overarchingly, this programmatic case study sought insight from a small population of experienced virtual ASL teachers who had been teaching ASL online prior to the crisis teaching phenomenon that has laid the foundation for virtual ASL as it stands today. More specifically, the qualitative design utilized questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, member checks, and document reviews of five teachers who had been teaching ASL virtually to K-12 students prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Rich qualitative data, analyzed through directed and summative content analysis, revealed many themes specific to virtual ASL education, including differences from traditional ASL instruction, specific job responsibilities, limitations, advantages, disadvantages, and suggestions for improvement. Additionally, aligning with previous literature, we explored teacher, student, and programmatic characteristics that were perceived to be conducive to virtual students’ success. Finally, all participants expressed broader concerns that continue to exist in the field of ASL education. Implications for stakeholders, including K-12 ASL students, their families, teachers, administrators, and teacher training programs are addressed, followed by suggestions for future research.

1. Introduction

Despite the rapid growth of formal American Sign Language (ASL) instruction [1,2], much of the field continues to rely on trial-and-error instruction rather than pedagogically informed evidence-based practices [3,4,5]. Complete professionalization of the field has been hindered by a lack of specialized training for many instructors [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11], particularly in K-12 contexts [3]. It is estimated that only 25% of ASL teachers have specialized certifications and training for teaching ASL [8], and historically, most have relied upon anecdotal ideas, rather than pedagogically informed instructional decision-making [3,4,5]. Although formal instructional standards for learning ASL as a non-native language were developed by the American Sign Language Teachers Association (ASLTA) over a decade ago [12] no known research has followed up on their actual implementation in classrooms and curricula.

With increased attention to the remarkable trajectory of formal ASL instruction [1] researchers have recently begun to investigate ASL teaching strategies more distinctly. However, much work remains to determine evidence-based practices for the diverse populations of ASL learners across a variety of settings. For example, while Thoryk (2010) found that a commercially available DVD fingerspelling package was less effective than natural exposure through Deaf instructors in the classroom [11], Geer and Keane (2017) found that explicit fingerspelling instruction was more effective for the students in their study [13]. Buisson (2007) found that explicit lessons in ASL glossing presented online were beneficial for beginning ASL students’ ASL grammar [14], while Beal (2022) found that repeated viewings of authentic ASL renditions, along with real-time modeling, interaction, and feedback from instructors were of benefit [15]. Specific to the utilization of voice-on vs. voice-off instructional policies, results have also been mixed. (See Rosen et al., 2014 for a review.) [16].

While foundational technology, such as videotapes and DVDs, have a long history of supplementing traditional ASL instruction [4,5,14,17,18,19], and ASL classes increasingly began to include some type of virtual supplement over the past decade [3,18,20], the field has been largely apprehensive regarding the feasibility of teaching ASL online, given its unique visual and cultural considerations [3]. However, fully online offerings of ASL have expanded exponentially since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic [17,18,19] and, alongside online expansion in all other academic domains, have continued to be commonly offered despite the national return to campus [21,22,23,24]. Yet, research specific to virtual ASL instruction has lagged even further behind and is nearly non-existent in K-12 contexts. As such, it is imperative that additional attention be given to the discovery and development of evidence-based practices for teaching and learning ASL online. The overarching aim of this study was to explore the insights and perspectives of five experienced teachers who had provided K-12 ASL instruction virtually, in a program that had been established long before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

1.1. Best Practices in Virtual Education That Support Students’ Success

Virtual education can be defined as synchronous or asynchronous instruction during which the student and teacher are separated by time and/or space [25]. Asynchronous components allow students to access instructional materials fully online, often with flexibility in the timeframe to do so, while synchronous components require students to be engaged at a designated time. Regardless of the specific delivery model, the research emphasizes that very different skill sets are required of teachers, students, and programs to promote students’ success in virtual environments compared to traditional educational settings [26].

1.1.1. Virtual Teacher Characteristics

It has long been acknowledged that teachers in virtual environments must be extremely proficient in the subject matter being taught, as well as the unique intricacies of virtual education, so that they can successfully facilitate learning and community-building without the walls of a traditional classroom. The virtual setting mandates that teachers have consistent access to specific technological tools, as well as a technological proficiency that is consistently evolving to keep up with the advent of new tools. As such, virtual teachers often have a larger role in instructional design than those following the pace of a traditional school [26,27]. Based on virtual instructors’ perspectives, DiPietro and colleagues (2010) identified five overarching essential responsibilities of virtual teachers, which included connecting with students, extending flexibility, engaging the students with the content, course management, and supporting student success [27].

1.1.2. Virtual Student Characteristics

As expected, the characteristics of students who are engaged in virtual learning also play an important role in their own success. Students who are successful in virtual environments have access to, and proficiency in, foundational technological tools, along with high levels of motivation, they are well organized, and they embrace autonomy [28]. They must consistently be willing to take risks, particularly when directives provided asynchronously in print are not entirely clear [28]. Students who have established a designated timeframe to complete their virtual coursework tend to be more successful, while internal factors such as age and prior academic achievement also predict success [26,28].

Working toward a more empirical evidence base, Kerr et al. (2006) developed and validated the Test of Virtual Learning Success (“TOOLS”) over the course of three years and three studies [29]. Those results aligned with what had previously been suggested based on anecdotal evidence, and they were categorized into four overarching themes of student characteristics contributing to their success: print literacy, independence, motivation, and computer literacy. More recently, Joosten and Cusatis (2020) investigated characteristics of students’ readiness for virtual education, and while those results overlapped strongly with previous literature, they were conceptualized more broadly to include virtual learning efficacy, virtual work skills, and socialization [30].

1.1.3. Virtual Program Characteristics

Emerging evidence has also identified certain programmatic characteristics that are conducive to students’ success, which include the provision of specific and ongoing teacher training, systematic teacher oversight with feedback, and the continuous monitoring of student progress [28,31]. While the historic lack of standardized and evidence-based practices has allowed for a variety of teaching strategies to be appropriately implemented across different virtual programs [32], allowing for flexibility (particularly in course content, submission timelines, and the expected rate of completion) has been highly associated with student success and satisfaction [28,33].

While the emerging research in virtual education has provided a foundational understanding of characteristics that foster student success in academic settings, DiPietro and colleagues (2010) caution that content-specific research designs may not inherently carry over to other domains [27]. Therefore, it cannot necessarily be assumed these conclusions would apply equally to ASL, whose instruction requires unique considerations compared to other subjects and spoken languages [4]. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to serve as a first step toward the determination of evidence-based practices in virtual K-12 ASL education, by exploring experienced teachers’ perspectives and strategies. Overarchingly, we sought to determine what valuable insights we could uncover from the specialized population of experienced virtual ASL instructors who had purposefully entered the field of virtual ASL teaching prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Research Questions

• What do experienced teachers perceive as advantages, disadvantages, and differences of virtual ASL instruction?
• Have evidence-based practices been developed and implemented specific to virtual ASL education?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Site Selection

Soliciting teachers’ perspectives through a qualitative study can be an important first step in developing evidence-based practices, which are necessary for high-quality and legally compliant educational services [34]. Because virtual ASL instruction is a new phenomenon with almost no previously known empirical evidence [3], this programmatic case study explored the multiple perspectives and insights of five virtual ASL teachers who worked for one specific K-12 virtual educational organization (herein referred to under the pseudonym, Acme Virtual Learning, AVL), which had been providing virtual ASL instruction for over a decade. Because the COVID-19 pandemic unexpectedly propelled many ASL teachers and programs to suddenly shift online, in what has been coined a crisis teaching mode [35], it was crucial to ensure that the participants in this study had a history of intentionality in teaching ASL virtually, rather than including teachers who suddenly found themselves teaching ASL online because of the pandemic. Purposeful sampling was utilized to locate qualified individuals from a relatively small, specialized population of virtual ASL teachers across the United States [36], and the site was primarily chosen because it had the longest-known history of providing ASL instruction online, allowing the researcher to simultaneously access a diverse team of qualified virtual ASL instructors.

AVL is an umbrella company that provides virtual education services for a myriad of academic subjects and customer types including individual students (whose families self-pay for a course), public and private school districts (who pay for each of their students to take the course), and entire states (who designate AVL as a contractor to provide public school services). AVL offers two levels of pre-secondary ASL coursework (elementary and middle school) and four levels of high school coursework, designed to span one semester each. In each course, students read text-based lessons with supportive photos and animations, are directed to complete practice activities on their own, and submit graded assignments such as multiple-choice quizzes and signing demonstration videos. The ASL curriculum was developed and maintained by a separate team, which included content writers who specialized in teaching ASL as well as those with broader credentials in instructional design. Although it was possible for qualified employees to serve as teachers and curriculum writers, none of the participants in this study had served on the curriculum team. All four of the high school level courses were redeveloped approximately two years before the implementation of this study, based on the World Readiness Standards for Learning Languages from the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), which specifically included American Sign Language. Each course is divided into five units, with five lessons per unit, each targeting a specific domain from the ACTFL Standards (Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, and Communities) [37]. The Culture lesson required students to read text-based material, while the four other lessons required students to review static photos, and some animated clips, read text-based information, and complete a self-scoring multiple-choice or matching quiz to demonstrate mastery. Upon completion of each of the five units, students were required to submit a signing demonstration portfolio for which they recorded themselves demonstrating target components. Students are required to upload their portfolio for their teacher to manually grade and provide feedback upon, in AVL’s own proprietary online learning system. While the core ASL curriculum, required assignments, and grading scale were static, teachers had the liberty to provide their students with additional, supplemental resources that they created or procured. Although each course offered the opportunity for supplementary lessons provided synchronously twice monthly, and weekly drop-in office hours from their teacher, students were not required to attend. Promoting its emphasis on flexibility for students, each ASL course could be completed in its entirety without any synchronous contact between the students and the teacher or their classmates.

2.2. Pilot Study

Prior to the implementation of this study, a pilot study [38] was initially conducted to explore potential interest, social validity, feasibility, and logistics of the proposed research topic. Administration at the AVL supported the direction of the study, and IRB approval was obtained from the primary researcher’s institution. An abbreviated pilot study was conducted with two virtual ASL teachers, which helped narrow the direction of this study in three distinct ways: restructuring some questions for clarity, establishing primary themes to utilize in the directed content analysis coding scheme, and broadening the study’s scope to investigate more aspects of virtual education than were previously targeted.

2.3. Participants

Upon approval from the IRB, and with support from the administration at AVL, the researcher shared the study information with ASL teachers at AVL through email, requesting their consideration for participation. Interested participants returned the signed consent form to the researcher via email, with the opportunity to ask any questions about the study. The five participants in this study were White females, with an age range of 27 to 34 years old. Four participants identified as hearing and one identified as Deaf/hard of hearing, which mirrors previous data regarding the population of ASL teachers [5] (

Table 1. Overview of Participants.

Participant	Highest Degree	Academic Major or Minor	Teaching Qualification (s)	Total Time Teaching	Time at AVL
Annie	Bachelors	Deaf Education	DHH; ASL	7 years	4 years
Brandy	Bachelors	ASL; Teaching Language	ASL	5 years	1.5 years
Cindy	Masters	Teaching Language	ASL	5 years	<1 year
Darcy	Bachelors	Deaf Education	DHH; ASL	10 years	4 years
Emily	Bachelors	Teaching ASL	ASL	10 years	5 years

).

• Participant 1—“Annie”

Annie had been teaching ASL virtually at AVL for four years. Previously, she taught ASL at the high school level in a traditional classroom for four years, the last of which overlapped with teaching at AVL part-time. Before that, she taught deaf education in a traditional classroom for four years. She has a bachelor’s degree with a major in deaf education and was deemed qualified to teach deaf education and ASL in multiple states. She described her teacher preparation program as preparing her well for teaching pedagogy but stated that it did not even acknowledge virtual learning. She transitioned to virtual teaching because she enjoyed teaching ASL and wanted to continue to do so after her family structure changed, which allowed her to be able to spend more time with them.

• Participant 2—“Brandy”

Brandy had been teaching ASL virtually at AVL for one and a half years, while also teaching at other virtual programs. Previously, Brandy taught ASL at the high school level in a traditional setting for four years, the last of which overlapped with teaching ASL virtually part-time. She has a bachelor’s degree with a major in ASL and a minor in teaching foreign languages. She was deemed qualified to teach ASL as a foreign language for grades K-12 in many different states. She described her preparation program as providing no training for teaching virtually and stated that they had deemed virtual ASL education as impossible. She transitioned to virtual teaching because she appreciated her own opportunities for learning virtually, wanted to embrace technologically based instruction, and valued the opportunity for consistent employment alongside a family lifestyle that required frequent relocation.

• Participant 3—“Cindy”

Cindy had been teaching ASL virtually at AVL for less than one year, while also working at another virtual ASL program. Previously, Cindy taught ASL at the high school and college levels in a traditional classroom and under hybrid models for approximately five years, so there was much overlap in her experience with different instructional models. She was deemed qualified to teach ASL at multiple levels across two states. She has a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a master’s degree in teaching foreign languages, which she completed online and attributed that experience to her own preparation for teaching ASL virtually.

• Participant 4—“Darcy”

Darcy had been teaching ASL virtually at AVL for four years. Previously, she taught ASL in a traditional setting for three years, before transitioning to teaching ASL virtually, while continuing to work as an educational sign language interpreter. Prior to that, she taught deaf education in a traditional setting for three years. She has a bachelor’s degree with a major in deaf education. She was deemed qualified to teach deaf education and ASL in multiple states. She had never considered teaching ASL virtually until she was recruited by another ASL teacher at AVL and was willing to give it a try. She emphasized that her teacher preparation program provided no training or preparedness to teach ASL virtually.

• Participant 5—“Emily”

Emily had been teaching ASL virtually at AVL for five years. Previously, she had taught ASL in person for seven years, the last two of which overlapped with teaching virtually part-time. She has a bachelor’s degree with a major in teaching ASL as a second language. She was deemed qualified to teach ASL in multiple states. She indicated that her teacher preparation program did not acknowledge virtual teaching and that she had never experienced a virtual course as a student. She transitioned to virtual teaching to better align with her family’s lifestyle.

2.4. Strategies of Data Collection

Data were primarily collected and analyzed by two of the members of the research team, who had previous experience teaching for AVL and as members of their curriculum development team. The other two members of the research team were academic faculty members in a special education sensory disabilities program and served in supervisory roles. The lead researcher, who is Deaf, was certified as a teacher of deaf education but had shifted his focus to teaching ASL several years prior due to difficulty securing a deaf education teaching position after moving to a rural area. He had been teaching at AVL for approximately five years before he pursued this study as a component of his doctoral degree in deaf and hard-of-hearing education. As a bilingual/bicultural individual, he conducted each of the interviews utilizing a combination of ASL and spoken English. The secondary researcher (and third author) has an undergraduate degree in ASL and graduate degrees, including a doctorate, in deaf and hard-of-hearing education. She had previously taught at AVL for approximately five years but left the teaching position after becoming a full-time postsecondary faculty instructor, primarily teaching ASL. She was certified PK-12 to teach deaf education and ASL in multiple states and was certified nationally as an educational interpreter through the Registry of Interpreters for the deaf and to teach ASL through the ASLTA. She assisted with the transcription and interpretation of the interviews.

To ensure the trustworthiness of the data collected, this study utilized multiple strategies of data collection [34,39]. First, each participant completed a typed questionnaire at their convenience, ensuring that there were no time constraints for the participants [40] (see Appendix A). Socio-demographic and experience-related questions were followed by open-ended questions regarding perspectives of virtual ASL instruction [41]. Based on each participant’s responses in the questionnaire, further information was explored about their backgrounds and perspectives, through a semi-structured interview using a guiding document [40,41] (see Appendix B). The interviews were conducted via spoken English and/or American Sign Language and with participants’ permission; they were audio and video recorded for data collection and analysis.

Upon completion of preliminary data analysis from the questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, each participant was invited to participate in a follow-up member check, either synchronously via video meeting or asynchronously through email exchange. Each participant was provided with a document that included a narrative description of their background and experience, a summary description of the virtual ASL program, and an individualized list of all the themes they shared, as interpreted by the research team. Participants were asked to provide any missing information, corrections, clarification, or further information that they wanted to share [40,41]. The member check communication continued throughout the duration of the study, and additional questions were sent to some of the participants to support the trustworthiness of the findings [41].

The document review phase began with a review of each teacher’s individual website, which was accessible to anyone within the AVL platform. Each website included a plethora of information including teacher contact information, class policies, program guidelines, information about submitting assignments, information for attending optional live synchronous sessions, and many instructional resources. Some participants voluntarily provided additional materials as links and attachments that they shared with students outside of their class website. The researcher examined each set of resources utilizing the Document Review Guiding Notes worksheet(see Appendix C), alongside the previously coded data for each participant, making note of any correlations or conflicts with previously established themes.

The document reviews strongly validated and even expanded upon the information that was provided by participants in earlier phases of the study, particularly regarding strategies used and teacher characteristics. For example, in the previous phases of data collection, all participants indicated that grading was a heavy component of their position, but they did not specifically indicate why. However, the document review revealed that all participants allowed students to resubmit their assignments directly to the teacher for grade improvement outside of the grading system. Likewise, while only three participants had previously discussed hosting office hours as a component of their position, all five participants had office hours posted on their teacher websites.

2.5. Data Collection and Analysis

Initial coding categories were predetermined based on the preliminary literature review and pilot study, which included the following: background and experience, job responsibilities, traditional versus virtual classrooms, suggestions for improvement, teacher characteristics, student characteristics, program characteristics, strategies used, and other. A directed content analysis began with a coding scheme that utilized those categories, while new categories emerged throughout the study [42]. After each analysis of an individual participant’s responses, data were compared across participants and holistically to identify primary themes [42]. During the preliminary data analysis, while interviews were still ongoing, an additional category of program description emerged and was added to the coding scheme. Upon completion of all five interviews, data categorized as other were re-categorized, and new themes emerged. This process continued, with re-reviewing of each participant’s data several times, until saturation was achieved.

3. Results

The results of this study are reported as themes that emerged and were presented cumulatively from the most to least commonly reported by participants. Comprehensively, each participant discussed specific information about specific job responsibilities (Table 2), distinct differences between virtual and traditional ASL education (Table 3), inherent limitations of virtual ASL education (Table 4), advantages of virtual education (Table 5), disadvantages of virtual education (Table 6), suggestions for improvement (Table 7), contributors to student success in terms of teacher characteristics (Table 8), student characteristics (Table 9), program characteristics (Table 10), and considerations within the broader field of formal ASL instruction (Table 11).

3.1. Role Description and Job Responsibilities

The virtual ASL teachers in this study heavily described their overarching role as facilitators of resources and procedures rather than traditional instructors, largely individualizing their interaction with each student. Collectively, the teachers described AVL’s curriculum as one that was already set up, standalone, completed by students independently, separate from instructors, and self-paced. Each of the four participants who were teaching full-time for AVL had a total of approximately 500–600 students on their caseload each semester, while one adjunct teacher in the study had a smaller caseload. They primarily worked with hearing students who were taking ASL classes to fulfill academic foreign language requirements, with only a small percentage of their students expressing a genuine interest in learning ASL to communicate with Deaf people. The full-time teachers were required to offer one to two optional synchronous teaching sessions each month, while the adjunct teacher’s students had the option of attending one of the full-time teacher’s sessions. Each teacher was required to be available for office hours twice weekly, for individualized support as needed. However, participants indicated that the large majority of their students did not take advantage of those opportunities for synchronous interaction and support.

All the participants described their required tasks as being largely cyclic throughout the year, having a daily and weekly routine that was somewhat steady, such as responding to emails within 24 h and grading assignments within a specified number of days, depending on the assignment type. However, they reported that certain time periods of the school year were substantially busier than others, such as the month of January, when many of their students were beginning and ending ASL courses between semesters. These time periods required many additional tasks to be completed by the teachers, such as setting up new course websites, sending emails to welcome new students and say goodbye to others, helping new students find and utilize resources, and finalizing students’ course grades in the system. Because AVL contracts with many different families and school districts, there was not a single start and end date from the teacher’s perspective but, rather, multiple overlapping dates to which they had to comply.

Table 2. Virtual teaching job responsibilities.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Facilitator	X	X	X	X	X
Limited direct instruction	X	X	X	X	X
Student communication	X	X	X	X	X
Grading of student work	X	X	X	X	X
Creating supplementary materials	X	X	X	X	X
Hosting office hours	X	X	X	X	X
Attending meetings and professional development	X	X	X	X	X
Analyzing and responding to data		X	X	X	X
Providing technological support to students	X	X		X	X
Communicating with families	X	X	X
Obtaining additional teaching credentials	X	X

Table 2. Virtual teaching job responsibilities.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Facilitator	X	X	X	X	X
Limited direct instruction	X	X	X	X	X
Student communication	X	X	X	X	X
Grading of student work	X	X	X	X	X
Creating supplementary materials	X	X	X	X	X
Hosting office hours	X	X	X	X	X
Attending meetings and professional development	X	X	X	X	X
Analyzing and responding to data		X	X	X	X
Providing technological support to students	X	X		X	X
Communicating with families	X	X	X
Obtaining additional teaching credentials	X	X

3.2. Inherent Differences of Virtual ASL Education

The participants in this study perceived virtual ASL instruction as distinctly different from that of traditional in-person instruction, with virtual education being much more flexible but certainly not easier or less time-intensive for teachers or students. The student-to-teacher ratio is much higher in the virtual environment, and because students are working at their own pace, virtual teachers find themselves with significantly heavier workloads at the beginning and end of each semester. The virtual setting also tasks teachers with more administrative requirements, such as data analysis and responsive action.

While the traditional classroom authentically offers more opportunities for casual interaction, contact between the student and teacher must be more deliberate in the virtual environment. Because there are almost no opportunities for low-stakes feedback, as exists in a traditional ASL classroom, formal grading must include very clear, detailed, and timely feedback. Virtual ASL students may require more extrinsic motivation and prompting to stay on track, and without the inherent interaction that naturally occurs in a traditional classroom, the teacher must take extra responsibility to monitor the progress of students and reach out to those who are falling behind.

The teachers in this study felt that the expectations for ASL students in virtual settings were much different than those in traditional classrooms, admittedly often lower in terms of developing authentic ASL communication skills and Deaf cultural awareness. Rather, the overarching goal for the majority of their virtual ASL students appeared to be simply passing the course and obtaining academic credit for their foreign language requirement. While that was a disappointment to the teachers in this study, it was somewhat neutralized by the perceived advantages that virtual ASL instruction provides, such as the ability to expose so many more students to ASL, even at the surface level, and the implementation of a more student-centered pedagogy in terms of course success. Despite such substantial differences, each of the teachers emphasized that one delivery model was not inherently better than the other, but rather, they were simply different.

Table 3. Virtual ASL education in comparison to traditional ASL instruction.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Higher student caseloads	X	X	X	X	X
Additional/more specific student feedback required			X	X	X
Less instructional preparation		X			X
Less classroom management	X	X
More student communication regarding logistics	X	X
More voice-on instruction			X		X
More data analysis		X
More parent involvement		X

Table 3. Virtual ASL education in comparison to traditional ASL instruction.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Higher student caseloads	X	X	X	X	X
Additional/more specific student feedback required			X	X	X
Less instructional preparation		X			X
Less classroom management	X	X
More student communication regarding logistics	X	X
More voice-on instruction			X		X
More data analysis		X
More parent involvement		X

3.3. Inherent Limitations of Virtual ASL Education

All participants discussed challenges that were perceived as inherent to a virtual setting, particularly the lack of opportunities for synchronous interaction, which was considered a necessity for sign language proficiency development. Annie highlighted the absence of opportunities for in-person language learning activities such as role-playing, discussions, and debates. Annie, Cindy, and Emily discussed the challenges of working with multiple programs and their differing expectations, structures, and rules. Annie, Darcy, and Emily discussed how the pre-established, independently completed, English-based curriculum simply could not fully align with the visual nature of learning ASL. Annie, Cindy, and Emily indicated that the sheer number of students on virtual teachers’ caseloads did not permit the level of interaction needed to fully develop language skills. Cindy felt that learning ASL exclusively online could prevent students from having the confidence and ability to communicate in real-world settings, and Emily expressed hesitation to encourage students to participate in local Deaf community events if they are not developing the appropriate level of skills to be able to do so. Furthermore, Darcy pointed out that it is not feasible for virtual teachers to be aware of in-person opportunities to recommend for students spread out across the country, and Cindy expressed safety concerns for encouraging minors to participate in such events, as well as internet safety in general.

Table 4. Inherent limitations of virtual ASL education.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Less synchronous interaction	X	X	X	X	X
Fewer opportunities to develop communicative and cultural competence	X	X	X	X	X
Challenges of varying programs’ expectations	X		X		X
Challenges connecting students to the deaf community			X	X	X
Lower expectations of what can be achieved	X	X			X
Limitations of curriculum provided	X			X	X
Use of voice is required			X		X
Higher caseloads	X		X
Internet safety concerns			X

Table 4. Inherent limitations of virtual ASL education.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Less synchronous interaction	X	X	X	X	X
Fewer opportunities to develop communicative and cultural competence	X	X	X	X	X
Challenges of varying programs’ expectations	X		X		X
Challenges connecting students to the deaf community			X	X	X
Lower expectations of what can be achieved	X	X			X
Limitations of curriculum provided	X			X	X
Use of voice is required			X		X
Higher caseloads	X		X
Internet safety concerns			X

3.4. Advantages of Virtual Education for ASL

All participants discussed the distinct advantages of virtual ASL instruction. Despite explaining that students in virtual ASL programs do not have opportunities to fully develop ASL proficiency and cultural awareness, Annie, Brandy, and Cindy felt that this was neutralized by the benefit of providing a basic exposure to ASL and the Deaf community to so many more students than is feasible in a traditional setting. Emily specifically acknowledged that the differentiated expectations of learning ASL in virtual settings actually provide increased opportunities for course success for certain student populations, such as those who are teenage parents, incarcerated, or struggling with other academic challenges. Additionally, all participants indicated that flexibility was a significant benefit to virtual learning for both teachers and students. Since transitioning to virtual teaching, Annie, Brandy, and Emily were better able to balance work with family life because they could adjust their working hours to evenings and weekends when needed. All participants discussed the advantages of flexible scheduling for students, such as not having to begin so early in the morning, individualized pacing, the ability to submit work as soon as it is completed, and conduciveness to differentiated instruction by having access to all materials at all times. Brandy and Emily noted how virtual teachers and students experienced less academic interruption during the onset of the pandemic. Cindy appreciated the level of systematic data that was immediately available regarding her virtual students’ progress.

Table 5. Advantages of virtual education.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Exposure to ASL when otherwise unavailable	X	X	X		X
Flexibility for teachers	X	X			X
Individualized pacing	X			X	X
Flexibility for students		X	X
Differentiated instruction		X	X
Unaffected by the need for social distancing		X			X
Availability of additional data			X

Table 5. Advantages of virtual education.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Exposure to ASL when otherwise unavailable	X	X	X		X
Flexibility for teachers	X	X			X
Individualized pacing	X			X	X
Flexibility for students		X	X
Differentiated instruction		X	X
Unaffected by the need for social distancing		X			X
Availability of additional data			X

3.5. Disadvantages of Virtual Education for ASL

All participants discussed their concerns with virtual education, the most prominent being a disconnection from students, both physically and personally. Each participant distinctly addressed the notion that their ASL students can complete the entire course without interaction with their teacher and/or peers, despite both being important components of language development and traditional instruction. Emily clarified that, even when multiple students from the same program are enrolled together, they are essentially each in a class of their own, as there are no required interactive activities. Brandy stated that she sometimes felt like a robot going through the motions but missing the emotional connections she shared with her students in the traditional classroom. Similarly, Emily felt that contextual learning was an important component of language instruction that was not possible in the absence of those personal connections. Annie explained how so many of her virtual students would never know her as a person or a teacher, so trust and confidence-building were not possible. Annie, Cindy, and Emily explained that, even when a teacher tries to reach out, it is not uncommon to be unable to contact some virtual students because they do not respond to phone calls or emails, their phones are disconnected, or their voice messaging systems are full.

In comparison to traditional instruction, Brandy, Cindy, Darcy, and Emily addressed the limitations of not being able to demonstrate signs, use tangible supports, and/or provide feedback in real-time. Darcy expanded upon the difficulties of relying on written feedback in virtual settings rather than visual demonstrations. She also explained how she is less aware of students’ signing abilities because she does not witness them watching the instruction or using the language.

Despite all participants noting scheduling flexibility as a benefit of virtual instruction, Brandy, Cindy, and Darcy discussed some disadvantages to students having too much flexibility, such as not being sure exactly how or when to begin, or lagging so far behind at some point in the course that catching up by the end of the semester is not feasible. Cindy and Darcy stated that because attendance to the synchronous sessions is not required, most do not attend, and Darcy said it was obvious that many students attempted to complete the assignments without actually completing the curriculum.

Table 6. Disadvantages of virtual education.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Lack of interaction required to develop signing skills	X	X	X	X	X
Lack of interaction needed to build relationships	X	X			X
Ability of students to avoid contact with the instructor	X		X		X
Inability to teach and provide feedback in real-time			X	X	X
Too much flexibility for some students		X	X	X

Table 6. Disadvantages of virtual education.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Lack of interaction required to develop signing skills	X	X	X	X	X
Lack of interaction needed to build relationships	X	X			X
Ability of students to avoid contact with the instructor	X		X		X
Inability to teach and provide feedback in real-time			X	X	X
Too much flexibility for some students		X	X	X

3.6. Suggestions for Improvement

All participants provided suggestions for improvement, some seemingly feasible and some described as ideals. Reiterating their concerns that students were not required to interact with their teacher in any way, Annie and Brandy wanted teachers to have more input in programmatic decision-making. Brandy and Emily wished for more standardization in the field of virtual ASL instruction, with Brandy drawing upon her experience in multiple virtual settings, and Emily alluding to differences within the same program. All participants indicated that smaller class sizes of no more than 20 students would be helpful, particularly in implementing more opportunities to connect with students and provide additional instructional practice opportunities. Darcy and Emily would like to see more video resources integrated into the curriculum.

Table 7. Suggestions for improvement.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Smaller caseloads	X	X	X	X	X
More direct instruction and practice opportunities	X	X	X	X	X
More research needed	X	X	X	X	X
Additional involvement of teachers in programmatic decision-making	X	X
Additional video resources in the curriculum				X	X
Standardization within and among virtual ASL programs		X			X

Table 7. Suggestions for improvement.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Smaller caseloads	X	X	X	X	X
More direct instruction and practice opportunities	X	X	X	X	X
More research needed	X	X	X	X	X
Additional involvement of teachers in programmatic decision-making	X	X
Additional video resources in the curriculum				X	X
Standardization within and among virtual ASL programs		X			X

3.7. Supporting Student Success—Teacher Characteristics

Aligning with previous research, all participants shared information regarding the perceived characteristics of teachers, students, and programs that supported student success. They described a specific type of demeanor that was necessary for virtual ASL teachers, which included being communicative, supportive, and encouraging. Annie stated that keeping students engaged was the overarching key to their success, while Brandy and Darcy emphasized the importance of being available to students, and ensuring that students were aware of that availability. Brandy, Cindy, and Emily stated a strong need for consistent, positive, and encouraging feedback in the virtual setting. Document reviews indicated that each of the participants in this study demonstrated these qualities in their communication with students.

Annie, Brandy, Cindy, and Emily discussed the importance of connecting to students beyond the curriculum, through the establishment of relationships despite the physical disconnect. Annie and Cindy emphasized the importance of being understanding and flexible with students. Annie stated that the most significant support she provides her students is personal in nature, rather than content specific. For example, she may reduce a student’s workload, direct them to specific resources, or simply provide reassurance that they are doing well. Annie and Brandy discussed the need to help students with scheduling and time management, while Cindy emphasized the need for flexibility with students who are experiencing technological challenges, such as accepting assignments via text message, although this method was not preferred. Cindy also advocated for teachers to connect students with topics of interest that were not included in the program’s curriculum. Cindy and Darcy specifically noted the importance of timely and detailed feedback. Annie, Brandy, Cindy, and Emily emphasized the need for synchronous sessions to be interactive.

Table 8. Teacher characteristics that support student success.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Communicative and supportive demeanor	X	X	X	X	X
Connecting and supporting Students beyond the curriculum	X	X	X	X	X
Providing visually supported and interactive instruction	X	X	X	X	X
Provision of clear and timely feedback			X	X

Table 8. Teacher characteristics that support student success.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Communicative and supportive demeanor	X	X	X	X	X
Connecting and supporting Students beyond the curriculum	X	X	X	X	X
Providing visually supported and interactive instruction	X	X	X	X	X
Provision of clear and timely feedback			X	X

3.8. Supporting Student Success—Student Characteristics

All participants indicated several characteristics of students that are more likely to make them successful in a virtual ASL setting (see Table 8). Annie, Brandy, Cindy, and Emily discussed the importance of student motivation, whether it be intrinsic, a genuine interest in learning ASL, or extrinsic, such as the desire to make good grades or incentives provided by their families. They explained how, to do well on the assignments in a virtual setting, the students must be motivated to complete each component of the curriculum without direct oversight. This includes reading lessons, navigating to teachers’ supplementary materials, troubleshooting technological issues, practicing vocabulary, and reviewing previous concepts to build upon their language development. Annie, Brandy, Darcy, and Emily discussed the importance of students reaching out to the teacher when they have questions about the material or logistics. Brandy stated that students needed to have reasonable expectations about learning ASL, and the time it takes to do so. Following up on that, Annie, Brandy, and Emily emphasized the importance of students having time-management skills and personal accountability to stay on track, explaining a common scenario in which students are desperately trying to catch up on their coursework too close to the course end date.

Cindy, Darcy, and Emily indicated that students should be willing to go beyond the curriculum to learn ASL, both through reputable virtual resources and in their local Deaf communities. Cindy emphasized her students’ inherent ability to find resources such as those available on Google and YouTube and noted that her role in facilitating is teaching students how to analyze the reputability of resources.

Table 9. Student characteristics that support student success.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Motivation	X	X	X		X
Communicative	X	X		X	X
Time-management skills and personal accountability	X	X			X
Willingness to go beyond the curriculum			X	X	X

Table 9. Student characteristics that support student success.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Motivation	X	X	X		X
Communicative	X	X		X	X
Time-management skills and personal accountability	X	X			X
Willingness to go beyond the curriculum			X	X	X

3.9. Supporting Student Success—Program Characteristics

All participants described the importance of clear communication from the program to the students regarding who to contact in different situations, the procedures for registration logistics, and what steps they need to take to successfully complete a course. Brandy emphasized the importance of ensuring that potential students have the resources needed for success in a virtual ASL course, such as a reliable internet connection and web camera. Annie, Brandy, Darcy, and Emily discussed the importance of having a curriculum that was not only strong in content development but relevant to the target population of students.

Table 10. Program characteristics that support student success.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Clear Communication	X	X	X	X	X
Strong and relevant curriculum	X	X		X	X
Ensuring accessibility to resources		X

Table 10. Program characteristics that support student success.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Clear Communication	X	X	X	X	X
Strong and relevant curriculum	X	X		X	X
Ensuring accessibility to resources		X

3.10. Issues in the Broader Field of ASL Education

As is often the nature of qualitative studies, participants eagerly revealed additional information in related domains, particularly regarding the larger field of ASL instruction. All participants condemned the misconception that ASL is inherently easier to learn, or that it is a lesser language, than spoken languages, as it is often perceived by students and administration, who think that an ASL class can be a quick solution for students who experience learning challenges in spoken language coursework. More broadly, several participants discussed the administration’s misunderstandings of ASL instructional needs, resulting in physical spaces, evaluation procedures, and required professional development that are inappropriate. For example, participants discussed commonly being assigned to a department or professional development session alongside elective coursework, rather than alongside other languages.

Table 11. Broader concerns regarding teaching ASL.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Misconception that ASL is an easier language	X	X	X	X	X
Concerns with quality of curriculum		X	X	X	X
Physical challenges of in-person classrooms	X		X	X
Supervisors that do not understand ASL	X	X
Concerns with quality of some ASL Instructors			X		X

Table 11. Broader concerns regarding teaching ASL.

	Annie	Brandy	Cindy	Darcy	Emily
Misconception that ASL is an easier language	X	X	X	X	X
Concerns with quality of curriculum		X	X	X	X
Physical challenges of in-person classrooms	X		X	X
Supervisors that do not understand ASL	X	X
Concerns with quality of some ASL Instructors			X		X

4. Discussion

4.1. Roles and Job Responsibilities

The participants in this study overwhelmingly indicated that their primary role was one of a facilitator, individualizing their support for each student across many different contexts. For example, they must prioritize contacting certain students who need prompting to catch up, while they provide individualized responses regarding technological and logistical questions as needed. They also select and provide additional resources when students have difficulty understanding the content or when they express a personal interest in topics beyond what is presented in the ready-made curriculum. Virtual teachers are expected to extend much more flexibility regarding how and when they meet with students, often outside of the traditional workday. The need for a facilitation approach appears to stem largely from the substantially higher caseloads than in traditional settings, with an emphasis that students can complete the course at their own pace and convenience, not necessarily requiring any synchronous contact with the teacher. As several participants pointed out, students may choose to complete the entire semester with little to no communication with them or their peers. Students who are driven and independent may find this conducive to their academic success, while for other students, this could be a deterrent. Given the lack of training regarding virtual education in the participants’ own teacher training programs, the field would benefit from seeing teacher preparation programs identify and target skill sets specific to virtual ASL instruction, to help ensure candidates are qualified to fulfill these increasingly available positions.

4.2. Advantages, Disadvantages, and Suggestions to Virtual ASL Education

Alongside inherent differences, some characteristics were clearly perceived as advantages and disadvantages of virtual education. While participants acknowledged some differences as inherent and unchangeable, they also offered suggestions for improvement. Namely, they called for heavier involvement of virtual ASL teachers in programmatic decision-making, standardization within and between virtual ASL programs, and the provision of additional video resources and practice opportunities for students who are learning ASL online. When AVL first began offering sign language classes around 2010, they purchased lifetime rights to use a subset of sign language photos and animated clips from an online website that was created and maintained by a Deaf sign language teacher, so there were limitations on what could be created. Due to time and budget constraints, it was not feasible for the curriculum team to procure or create new or updated videos in the redevelopment of the curriculum, which had been a hope of the curriculum writers and teachers at that time. All participants discussed the limitations that an asynchronous program has on connecting with students and supporting language development, which aligns with evolving research suggesting the benefits of direct synchronous instruction [11,13] with real-time modeling and feedback from the instructor [15]. All participants felt that additional research is needed specific to virtual ASL instruction, but they did not specifically indicate which domains, leaving multiple lines of research wide open for further exploration.

4.3. Characteristics Supporting Student Success

The characteristics of students and programs that participants perceived as advantageous to student success were similar to those previously indicated by the larger field of virtual instruction [28,29]. One of the most important characteristics of virtual programs appears to be clear communication with students regarding the information and skills needed to be successful [28,31]. The reiteration of this finding suggests that virtual ASL students could benefit from support to prepare themselves for success. It is relevant to consider the wide range of reasons that students are taking ASL virtually, as shared by participants in this study, such as traditional schools not being able to secure an ASL teacher at their site, personal circumstances such as pregnancy or incarceration, and emergency requirements for social distancing, such as those experienced worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic. Given that many students may not be intentionally choosing to learn ASL virtually but, rather, have no access to traditional instruction, it is essential to provide support in developing skill sets for success in this setting.

While classroom management and community-building have been indicated as important components of virtual education in other settings [26,27], participants in this study were not as eager to attempt synchronous class meetings. Technology issues, student distractibility, and the challenges of a voice-off environment were stated as barriers to effective synchronous instructional sessions for ASL. However, it is likely that these considerations are specific to the visual nature of ASL, and it is possible that programs with smaller caseloads per teacher would be more conducive to synchronous sessions.

The results of this study reiterated several teacher characteristics that had been deemed important for student success in other online contexts, such as connecting and engaging with students, flexibility, and support [27]. Interestingly, however, although advanced subject matter proficiency and instructional/pedagogical knowledge were strongly emphasized in the broader literature regarding virtual education [26,27], it was hardly mentioned by participants in this study. In fact, for many of the programs served by AVL, ASL teaching certification was not required at all. These concerns are perpetuated by the fact that teaching requirements for ASL vary greatly amongst states, with very few requiring ASL-specific formal training or formal testing. Furthermore, some states do not offer a credential specific to teaching ASL, so any other teaching certification will often suffice. In many states, individuals can utilize their training and experience teaching deaf and hard-of-hearing children, rather than ASL as a language, to obtain approval to teach ASL. None of the participants in this study reported being nationally certified by the ASLTA, which is increasingly regarded as the national standard. One participant suggested that many teachers of deaf and hard-of-hearing students become burnt out with their overwhelming responsibilities and transition to teaching ASL, particularly online, with the mindset that it will be easier. Thus, the concerns of ASL teacher quality, in content expertise, experience, and credentials, continue to be very relevant [5,8].

While the participants in this study often indicated that there was limited or no need for direct instruction as a component of their positions, the field must consider whether technology is truly advancing to the point that the teacher’s instructional skills are less important or if this reveals a critical concern that the need for direct instruction is being disregarded in virtual ASL education, despite research supporting the need for direct instruction in traditional ASL classrooms. Lastly, broader curricular issues were discussed by nearly all participants, further emphasizing the results of Swaney and Smith’s (2017) study, which called attention to the need for ASL curricular revamping across the field [5].

5. Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

Overarchingly, the results of this study indicate that there are clearly different perspectives regarding what student success entails, such as passing the class to fulfill language requirements versus developing culturally competent and communicative ASL skills. The national standards of the American Sign Language Association (2012) call for mastery of linguistic analysis, cultural competency, and communicative skills [12]. However, because ASLTA does not, at this time, accredit ASL courses and programs, adherence to those standards is considered the best practice rather than systematically required. It is important that all stakeholders, including students, families, teachers, administration, and teacher training programs, are on the same page regarding what is appropriate. If virtual ASL programs are providing surface-level exposure to the language, rather than expecting communicative and cultural proficiency, school districts and statewide systems must take a closer look at the nature and amount of academic credit that students earn for completion and ensure that course descriptions accurately represent the anticipated outcomes. An examination of the course descriptions on AVL’s public website revealed that, although they emphasize the expansion of vocabulary through formal study, each course offers opportunities to expand conversational skills. However, based on the results of this study, it was difficult to make the connection as to how that could actually be obtained.

While this programmatic case study was purposefully selected to access a specific team of experienced ASL teachers at one of the most prominently recognized virtual ASL programs, the limitations of this design must be acknowledged. It is also possible that exploring other virtual settings may reveal other results, which was discussed by the two participants who had worked at other virtual programs as well. While rigorous studies that systemically control instructional variables to determine their effectiveness would propel the field forward, much foundational work is required in the meantime. Additional case studies should be conducted and compared to the results of this study, particularly regarding caseloads, class sizes, and teacher-to-student ratios. While the ASLTA’s recommendation of no more than 20 students (2014) is widely accepted as the best practice in traditional settings [43], it is unknown if this also applies to virtual settings.

AVL’s focus on flexibility through fully asynchronous and self-paced curriculums seems to have eliminated the expectation that students must connect with their teacher, apparently rationalizing the extensively high caseloads. In recognition that it is simply impossible for the ASL teachers to monitor such high caseloads with fidelity, they rely on data management tools to assist them in regularly filtering their caseloads and generating priority lists showcasing who may need extra attention in terms of attendance (logging into the system), participation (completing lessons), and comprehension of content (academic performance). However, several of the teachers in this study appeared to have come to terms with accepting that it is simply not possible to reach each of their students. Although students have the option of attending synchronous live sessions up to twice monthly and connecting with their teacher synchronously during office hours twice weekly, participants indicated that these were seldom attended by any of their students. With the teachers’ acknowledgment that it was simply impossible to reach out to a significant percentage of their students in any designated timeframe, the possibility should be considered that their high caseloads are actually perpetuating the atmosphere of non-contact from students rather than vice-versa.

The results of this study indicate the important finding that critical attention is needed for the appropriate delivery of online ASL education. In the absence of known evidence-based practices specific to virtual education, the first step should be the attempt to incorporate promising strategies for traditional instruction, particularly the need for direct, scaffolded interaction, including real-time modeling and feedback. The results of this study revealed not only a lack of evidence-based practices but a system that makes them impossible to even attempt. Extremely high caseloads, unrequired synchronous contact, and a heavily self-directed text-based curriculum are not conducive to actual language development. Given that this study investigated the practices of a well-established, longstanding virtual ASL program, it is plausible that newer online programs, which have stemmed from the crisis teaching mode alongside the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, are also lacking evidence-based practices and conducive course designs. Although all participants’ input focused heavily on an acceptance that there are inherent differences between virtual and traditional ASL education, including lower expectations toward language proficiency, critical attention should be given to challenging this framework and calling for better-aligned expectations.