Student and Teacher Perspectives of Learning ASL in an Online Setting
Garreth W. Tigwell, Roshan L Peiris, Stacey Watson, Gerald M. Garavuso, Heather Miller · 2020 · Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS 2020) · doi:10.1145/3373625.3417298
Summary
This experience report examines the challenges and opportunities of teaching and learning American Sign Language (ASL) online during the COVID-19 pandemic, from the perspectives of both students and a Deaf instructor at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), home of the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID). ASL classes are typically conducted face-to-face in a horseshoe seating arrangement to maximize visual access, with all classes beyond the entry level conducted entirely in ASL without voice. The abrupt shift to Zoom-based delivery created a unique set of challenges because ASL is an inherently visual-spatial language where facial expressions, body posture, use of space, eye contact, and turn-taking cues are all critical components. The authors — four hearing students learning ASL and one Deaf instructor — collected weekly questionnaire data about their experiences and conducted team meetings to discuss observations. They organized findings into four themes: environmental factors (lighting, backgrounds, noise), hardware and connectivity constraints, experience using Zoom, and pedagogy. The study covered two beginner-level ASL classes (ASL 1A with 10 students online, ASL 1B with 3 students).
Key findings
Environmental challenges included the loss of the horseshoe seating arrangement that enabled mutual visibility, the difficulty of viewing 2D signing on screen versus 3D in-person signing, the trade-off between sitting far enough from the webcam to capture the full signing space and close enough for facial expressions to be visible, and lighting/background issues that degraded sign visibility. Hardware constraints were significant: small laptop screens made it difficult to distinguish signs and fingerspelling, while external monitors introduced eye-contact problems. Video freezing and buffering disrupted the visual continuity essential for sign comprehension, and Zoom prioritizes audio bandwidth over video — a fundamental mismatch for signed language communication. Zoom's design for hearing users created specific problems: attention was drawn to participants when sound was detected (useless in a no-voice ASL class), the "raise hand" feature was only available to the host, gallery view layouts shifted dynamically when cameras turned on/off causing disorientation, and video pinning was limited. The Deaf instructor (T1) found it challenging to manage turn-taking without the physical cues available in-person — she resorted to signing each student's name to get attention. "Zoom fatigue" was amplified in ASL classes since students were visually focused the entire session without natural audio-mediated breaks. However, some benefits emerged: students could observe their own signing (not possible in-person), class recordings served as revision tools, the chat feature enabled text communication alongside signing, and commute time savings allowed more practice.
Relevance
This paper provides actionable guidelines for online ASL instruction and highlights fundamental accessibility gaps in videoconferencing software design. For accessibility practitioners and platform developers, the findings reveal that major videoconferencing tools are designed with hearing-centric assumptions: audio-triggered attention indicators, audio-prioritized bandwidth allocation, and layouts optimized for spoken conversation. The authors propose concrete improvements including video anchoring (preventing layout shifts when cameras toggle), dual-camera support (frontal and 45-degree angle views for signing), mute-audio-by-default for ASL classes, and allowing all participants to use the raise-hand feature. The guidelines for students — webcam at eye level, contrasting clothing for visibility during fingerspelling, solid backgrounds, proper framing from waist to top of head — are immediately practical for any online signed language context. The paper is limited by its small team size (4 students, 1 teacher) and focus on beginner ASL learners rather than fluent signers, but it captured a unique moment in the rapid COVID-19 transition.
Tags: deaf and hard of hearing · sign language · education accessibility · videoconferencing · remote learning · communication accessibility · COVID-19