Networking for Sign Language Learning and Teaching

Maria Mertzani, University of Bristol, UK

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to reflect on sign language learning (as a first language to the Deaf or as a second language
to the hearing) through virtual learning environments. Integration of ICT appears to be the latest trend among sign language
classes. Numerous Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) material and websites constitute resources for sign language teachers and learners, since they are containing video or/and animating material accessible free of cost and vice
versa and therefore, they can be used as teaching/learning tools in the classroom. Especially, the shift to Internet creates
an environment suitable to learners pace of learning a sign language. The classroom is more learner-centered, whereby
learners learn the language at their speed, thereby having the control over the learning process. Tutors, on the other hand,
play the role of the facilitator, who decides about the resources available to learners and consults them how to proceed
with the material in order to learn the language. Accordingly, the computer can mediate the interaction between the learner
and the tutor when they are spatially dispersed. Based on SLA theories I would like to present how existing networking
technologies can be used (and are used) beneficially for sing language teaching and learning purposes.
Keywords: Networking, Web Resources, CALL, Sign Language Teaching and Learning, Sign Language

Introduction

RADITIONALLY, SIGN LANGUAGE

teaching and learning is heavily depended
on visual simulations (e.g., animation, textbooks and video) since sign language is
visual language and learners, in order to learn it, need
to view its motion and its all inhibited non-manual
characteristics (e.g., facial expressions and mouth
pattern). It is a language of a minority, therefore there
are limited opportunities for studying the language
outside the classroom and learners need to view its
actual performance (Woll & Smith 1991). Usually,
learners of a spoken language hear themselves
speaking and thus, are able to monitor their output
and compare it with native speakers and/or practice
the language in a lab through listening and oral exercises. In contrast, there is an asymmetry in the
feedback mechanism for regulating sign language
production (Woll & Smith 1991: 240). Learners
view only their hands while signing or act as observers of others signing. Thus, they do not have the
whole picture of themselves signing and this ability
is essential in acquiring sign language.
In the past, sign language programmes used textbased material (e.g., textbooks and dictionaries) for
the instruction of sign language. These consisted of
still pictures and drawings accompanied with arrows
and explanations, which could not express the full
emotion and the dimensional form of sign language
in time and space (Fourie 2000; Sagawa & Teaceuchi
2002). Learners need to be shown how to execute a
sign and how certain modulations affect the meaning
of signs. However, these modulations are not

presented in published books and thus, learners are

rarely able to convey grammar and/or meaning of
the signing (Hoemann 1978).
The use of video technology in sign language instruction gave solution to this problem. Due to its
visual feature, video enables learners to view themselves or native signers signing, thus allowing visual
feedback of ones signed output. Numerous video
materials (in VHS format) have been developed and
are currently available for use in sign language
classes and laboratories (Wilcox & Wilcox 1997).
With the advance of computer-based material, CDROMs and DVD had been developed for self-study
of sign languages in which digitised video as well
as animated signing represented the target sign language. Nowadays the use of digital video provides
easy access and is more robust and withstands longer
in time (Cormier & Carss 2004).
This paper aims at presenting the use of digital
video on networked environments for the learning
of sign languages. It also discusses issues of sign
language teaching methodology from a constructivist
perspective supported by current empirical research
conducted at the Centre for Deaf Studies (CDS),
University of Bristol, U.K.

Computer Acquaintances for Sign

Language Learning
Computer-based sign language instruction began in
the 1980s during which sign language teaching has
actually anticipated major shifts in teaching methodology (Mertzani 2004). In this decade a small number
of projects has been undertaken to explore computer

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING,

VOLUME 14, NUMBER 6, 2007
http://www.Learning-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9494
Common Ground, Maria Mertzani, All Rights Reserved, Permissions: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com

96

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING, VOLUME 14

use for sign language instruction in higher education

(Dilligham, Roe & Roe 1982; Grosman, Siders &
Garraway 1983; Hanson & Padden 1989; Newell,
Sims & Myers 1983; Slike, Chiavacci & Hobbis
1989; Johnston 1982). By todays standards, these
applications lacked sophistication but were a first
attempt to present sign language in a visual way.
Computers were connected to video players/recorders
through the use of interface cards that linked video
with the computer. Interface cards included appropriate software which enabled users to control and
program the system. The placement of a time code
into videotapes allowed the starting and ending position of video segments and the computer was ready
to be programmed for the instruction.
Such applications constituted simple word sign
sentence drill patterns that students needed to repeat
in a mechanistic and linear way. Due to limited
computer capabilities - space availability and compatibility - a small number of individual signs had
been included. Hence learning focused on isolated
signs of the language and not on its natural use in a
communicative context. Moreover, courseware and
activities were constructed in a customised way; that
is, video segments with text options such as
yes/no concerning the correctness of learners
entry; and comprehension questions about a signing
story. Moreover, instructors appeared to control these
systems rather than learners. Tutors used to choose
parts of the courseware and lead the teaching according to specific learning objectives. Furthermore, in
some programs, the presence of a separate scorer
was also required to record learners signing skills.
During 1990, developments in computer technology opened up possibilities for more sophisticated
computer-based applications for sign language
learning. More memory, software developments and
mainly digital video capabilities led in the pursuit of
computer programming for the creation of communicative signed environments. Deaf and hearing users
could communicate with or via computers. Developments in sign linguistics played a key role in the
formation of these environments since sign language
dictionaries and databases have been used as resource
to build the signed content of these environments.
The interface design was also challenging since such
application required the utilisation of research results
from sign linguistics and the coding of each sign
language entry. Natural language processing techniques were used in which the computer recognised
learners written/signed input and responded in sign
language (Elliott, Galuert, Kennaway & Marshall
2000).
These new applications usually contained individual signs with their equivalent glosses including
phonology information and grammatical classification of the targeted sign language. Features such as

written to sign language word and phrase searching;

written to sign language search by meaning; fuzzy
search; digital video display; comprised the building
blocs of these applications. Through database navigation, learners could choose a topic, enter a list of
suggested words, choose a word/picture and then,
view the video clip of the corresponding sign and a
textual description of hand movements. Thus,
learners could practice signing by simply observing
the videos randomly selected from the database and
played on their request.

Networking Technology and Sign

Language Learning
The most tangible development for computer-based
sign language learning and teaching is currently the
adoption of networking technology. The Internet is
an emerging technology that facilitates and supports
the process of learning and teaching a second language since it is a tool for accessing to learning resources as well as for communicating from distance.
It integrates interactive media, (e.g., text, video, audio, multimedia) and computer-mediated communication (CMC) systems (e.g., e-mails, Internet Relay
Chats, MOOs, I-phone, NetMeeting) which create
new and rich teaching and learning environments
(Ryan, Scott, Freeman & Patel 2000).
Currently, Internet is viewed as the medium that
can provide access to information resources and
support distant, life long education of the Deaf due
to its multimedia format. It incorporates animation,
graphics, video, audio and text and thus, provides
interactive and non-linear access to information in
a bilingual way: sign language and text (Debevc &
Peljhan 2004; Drigas, Vrettaros & Kouremenos 2004;
Ohene-Djan, Zimmer, Gorle & Naqvi 2003). Deaf
peoples poor reading and writing skills poses many
obstacles on understanding the information presented
online (Ohene-Djan et al. 2003). Consequently, there
is a general demand for the construction of visual,
simple and friendly web interfaces in which signed
video and animation deliver information mainly in
sign language and secondly, in written language
(Debevc & Peljhan 2004; Verlinden, Tijsseling &
Frowein 2002).
Currently, there are various websites regarding
Deaf humour, Deaf news, and Deaf culture (e.g.,
sign language poetry, signed stories) where native
signers have been used to present information in sign
language. These websites comprise a major resource
for sign language learning since they simulate authentic and up-to-date linguistic and cultural characteristics of various sign languages. There are also online
environments which have been constructed for the
exclusive teaching and learning of sign language as
first and second language.

MARIA MERTZANI

Ohene-Djan et al. (2003) introduced the implementation and use of hypermedia as a platform for the
delivery of sign language material. They developed
a hypermedia environment called Kids Sign Online
for Deaf children at the age of ten and under. In this
environment, they included a collection of web pages
that contained video clips of British Sign Language
(BSL), text and graphics. In particular, this online
environment comprised of a BSL dictionary and
classic fairytales in the form of signed videos accompanied with text and images.
Drigas et al. (2004) introduced an online environment for the distance and life-long training of the
Deaf, called the DELFE project. This constituted a
virtual classroom based on the usage of advanced
teleconference services through the Internet and on
the usage of electronic language resources of Greek
Sign Language (GSL). In particular, for the delivery
of educational material, videos and animation were
used for providing bilingual information; and asynchronous communication tools - text-based discussions, whiteboards, file sharing and videoconferencing (MS NetMeeting) - for online collaboration of
participants.
Straetz, Kaibel & Raithel (2004) described an online environment for the learning of mathematics,
reading and writing of Deaf adults. The environment
called Advanced Learning Environment (AILB) and
incorporated digital signed videos, text and graphic
representations. Basically, it involved the integration
of signed videos in German Sign Language for each
text block; and CMC tools such as text and video
conference which enabled the online communication
among the participants who worked with specific
online courseware.
CDS has developed two online environments
which provide information in BSL and English
(written language). The first environment named
Sign Station contains a number of websites devoted
to people who want to know more about BSL and
Deaf people in the workplace. It offers a complete
BSL course and it consists of an online BSL dictionary with sign-search facilities; an interactive BSL
course The Company, which includes dialogues,
vocabulary, grammar explanations and interactive
exercises; interactive sign awareness videos; and a
test yourself quiz with multiple choice questions.
The second environment is called Deaf Station and
consists of websites where users have access to authentic video material concerning Deaf news, sports,
health, travel, entertainment and humour. This is a
large zone of Deaf material that is updated almost
everyday.
Usually, the online environments which have been
developed for the learning of sign language consist
of videos that show dialogues among Deaf signers;
illustrated grammar explanations; exercises for stu-

dents to carry out; and information on Deaf community and, its culture and language. They also
contain online sign language dictionaries which students can consult at any time and search for specific
signs. Recent research (Mertzani 2006) demonstrates
that sign language teachers use these sites to supplement parts of their courses and assign to students
project work or/and homework. For instance, students are required to identify and find certain information about Deaf culture and sign languages or analyse sign language in terms of grammar and syntax.
Thus, students retrieve online video material, watch
it repeatedly and analyse its content (Mertzani,
Denmark & Day 2006; Mertzani, Smith & Day
2006).
Networking promotes autonomous sign language
learning (Debevc & Peljhann 2004; Mertzani 2006;
Straetz et al. 2004). Due to the fact that online video
material is controllable, sign language users can direct their learning. Learners can access at any time
online environments that contain sign language
videos and retrieve or/and download these videos
for their learning needs. Online video has basic
control buttons (play, stop, pause and rewind), which
allow teachers and learners to watch the video
(backwards and forwards) repeatedly; stop the flow
of information over poorly understood areas and
concentrate on key areas in order to achieve better
understanding. Additionally, there is no need for a
teacher or interpreter to explain the content of the
video since the latter is accompanied by text. Hence,
videos can be retrieved for each text block and users
can learn independently (Straetz et al. 2004). Therefore, users can manipulate with precision particular
sections of the video to specific minute aspects of it
in order to make their own interpretations.
Another common feature of these environments
is the application of CMC technology employed for
the online interaction among the users. In the past,
CMC was mainly text-based. Currently, video-based
CMC is available and under exploitation for the
teaching and learning of sign language. Recent research in CDS investigates video-based CMC use in
a Local Area Network (LAN) whereby tutors and
learners of BSL communicate through video within
a virtual sign language laboratory, the SignLab
(Mertzani 2006). Using special software - Panda
software - which permits users instant video recording and compression, tutors and learners record
themselves signing and exchange their video messages via network in an asynchronous way. Messages
are stored in a central server and can be accessed at
any time. In this way, tutors check learners sign
language performances and send their corrective
feedback which learners, in turn, carefully observe,
review and respond. Through a specific feature of
Panda software, users can intervene into video se-

97

98

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING, VOLUME 14

quence as well. They can insert their comments at

any segment of the video sequence and save the
whole video as a new video clip/message. Hence,
they can receive exact feedback on their errors, observe carefully their tutors signing and correct
themselves.
Video-based CMC permits a one-to-one visual
communication with native signers and other learners
of sign language. In other words, it allows genuine
negotiation of meaning in sign language it its own
right. Research has showed that CMC facilitates the
learning of a second language based on the key
premise that CMC affords both teachers and learners
to work through the negotiation of meaning with a
focus on the linguistic parts of the targeted language
(Meskill & Antony 2005). Some of the reasons cited
for this assertion are increased reflection time;
democratic participation; increased second language
production and quality of discourse. Similarly, it can
be claimed that video-based CMC promotes and facilitates sign language learning for the same reasons
(Mertzani 2006). However, more empirical research
is necessary to highlight the impact of this technology into the teaching and learning of sign language.
Video-based CMC consists of recorded signing
where sign language forms are visually immediate.
Therefore, learners have the opportunity to reflect
upon and look at the form and content of the recorded
video message as many times and for as long as they
wish. Teachers from the other part can detect
learners sign language, edit their responses and respond to the teachable moments that render by the
online conversation, moments that in traditional
classroom time may not have been perceivable.
CMC is a less stressful environment for learners
who are traditionally silent in class. It is found that
they increase their participation in online compared
to face-to-face discussions because CMC allows individuals to contribute at their own time and pace
(Warscaheur 1997). Consequently, CMC enables
learners from varying levels of proficiency and
ability to willingly experiment with forms of the
target language and to assist one another during online activities (Jepson 2005). Likewise, in video
CMC, although signers visually interact with each
other, they are less apprehensive since they work
with one interlocutor only who more often is the
tutor - and they are not exposed to their colleagues
as in traditional classroom. For instance, in SignLab,
students interact with their BSL tutors. During this
interaction, tutors address their comments to students
who produce the error. Hence, only the student being
corrected can watch tutors video message. Data
from SignLab rsearch show that tutors and learners
express their satisfaction with this individual and
direct video interaction. It can be said that on videobased CMC environments learners may feel comfort-

able and relaxed; experience less embarrassment by

their mistakes and may produce more sign language
than in their regular classes.
Learners develop more complex lexically and
syntactically language in their online discussions,
which covers a wide range of discourse functions
similar to characteristics of oral and written language
(Smith 2003; Warschaeur 1997). Similarly, it is
found that video signed communication results in
the development of new sign linguistic and sociolinguistic practices (Keating & Mirus 2003; Muir &
Richardson 2005). In the study of Keating & Mirus
(2003), it was shown that Deaf signers employed
various strategies during their online communication
in order to establish mutual understanding. They
used to modify their signing because of the limited
space of the webcam lens and the two-dimensional
nature of video. For instance, they signed in an upper
level of the body signs that are normally signed in a
lower position. Analysis of SignLab interaction
showed that students and teachers before sending
any message used to orient themselves in front of
the camera and adjust their signing in the visual field
of it. They reorganised their sign space and repeated
and/or slowed down their signs. Some students produced videos in order to check themselves signing.
When the signing was not satisfactory, they deleted
the video and produced a new one, without repeating
the same errors. This process is similar to text-based
messages, where users write their original message
and then delete parts of it, when they want to revise
it.

Epilogue Networking and Sign

Language Pedagogy
The advance of networking technology brings significant changes into traditional sign language pedagogy. First of all, networking supplements traditional sign language classrooms with web-based material
and learning activities, discussion boards and online
chats in asynchronous or synchronous ways. The
structure of these environments resembles the one
of a traditional setting. There is a virtual space like
a classroom, where users can meet onlne as well
as a communication structure like office hours,
where student-teacher communication can take place
(Hiltz 1994).
In traditional settings, other resources in addition
to the teacher are important (e.g., textbooks, white
boards and other laboratory equipment), whereas in
an online environment different kinds of media make
available information on one webpage (Ryan et al.
2000). This feature makes virtual environments
flexible tools as they enable tutors to support different teaching and learning styles (Waring & Boardman 2004). A closer look at the existed environments

MARIA MERTZANI

shows that these settings comprised of a combination

of webpages with sign language content and CMC.
On these, Deaf and hearing users meet online in order
to gain and share knowledge about a target sign language.
Empirical data from SignLab (Mertzani 2006) indicate two important differences between a conventional and a networked sign language classroom: (a)
direct learning with networked material; and (b) interactivity for self-learning and assessment. Concerning the first difference, students of BSL are able to
access online information, which helps them in organising and structuring the content of their learning
without dealing with problems of disorientation or
information overload (Pastor 1998). Regarding the
second difference, students have the opportunity to
directly interact with their particular activities as well
as with their tutors on specific activities. The latter
is the most important feature of online environments
since it enables question - answer exchanges between
tutors and learners on particular tasks. In addition,
learners can search and observe their own answers
from resources available and thus, construct their
BSL knowledge.
Online social interaction is a feature that sign
language classrooms need to consider and integrate
since there are limited options of language practice.
Network technology allows interaction with other
signers, from any distance since computers are used
to mediate their interaction. It is also important since
online signing environments are increasingly becoming multilingual. More sign languages from all over
the world appear and online, international sign language communication is feasible through CMC.
Sign language learning via networking is studentcentred rather than teacher-centred. Students function
in both initiating and responding roles (asking, giving
information and negotiating meaning) and the
teacher is the facilitator of students learning rather
than the content specialist. The learning is self-pacing
and it can occur at any time and any place. In general,
learning follows constructivist principles according
to which learners construct their knowledge by performing authentic and complex activities and by
critically reflecting on them (Henze & Nejdl 1998).
The notion of constructivism introduces the imple-

mentation of compulsory structure activities that

promote online interaction among signers. Therefore,
the challenge is to adopt tasks that promote learners
construction of sign language skills (receptive and
expressive). Through these tasks learners are able to
develop their knowledge by observing and modelling
the language. In addition, these tasks comprise the
starting point for collaboration. Through online collaboration learners reflect on the recorded talk; ask
questions; teachers provide information and feedback; and learners reflect on teachers feedback and
on their recorded performance. Thus, they develop
language.
Computer networks can provide an alternative
context for sign language learning. This paper introduced this novel technology as it is currently applied
into this field. However, there is still the need for
more research and exploitation of video-based CMC
into the teaching and learning of sign languages so
as to analyse and orient the roles of teachers and
learners. Computer networks are the medium for
local and global sign language communication and
a source for authentic sign language materials but
there needs to be a general agreement over new sign
language pedagogy in terms of sign language learning methodology that will follow constructivist
principles which are currently applied in second
language virtual learning environments. The adaptation of such approach to video-based CMC requires
thoughtfulness, reflection and planning so as tutors
and educators will be able to decide which types of
interactions might appropriately be employed within
a virtual sign language learning environment.
As already mentioned above, constructivistic
models of learning call for specification and use of
authentic and complex activities during the learning
process so that students can perform the tasks by
critically reflecting on them. Therefore, video CMC
should be used not so much to teach curriculum objectives in a different way, but rather to help students
understand how their knowledge can be constructed
by online collaboration practices. Consequently,
there is the need for sign language tutors to agree
upon an overall teaching and learning strategy, which
can be adopted by all staff and not left to the efforts
of few academics and therefore seen as peripheral.

References
Cormier, K. & Carss, P. (2004). SignLab: How to Use Equipment and Software (Staff + Students). Unpublished Manuscript,
Centre for Deaf Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, U.K.
Debevc, M. & Peljhan, Z. (2004) The Role of Video Technology in On-Line Lectures for the Deaf. Disability and Rehabilitation 26 (17): 1048 - 1059.
Dilligham, L.M., Roe, J.J., & Roe, M.D. (1982). Selected Applications of Computer-Assisted Video Instruction in the
Education of Hearing-Impaired Students. American Annals of the Deaf 127 (5): 652 658.
Drigas, A.S., Vrettaros, J., Kouremenos, D. (2004). E-Learning Environment for Deaf People in the E-Commerce and New
Technologies Sector. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications 5 (1): http://imm.demokritos.gr/publibations/deaf_people.pdf

99

100

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING, VOLUME 14

Elliot, R., Glauert, J.R.W., Kennaway, J.R., & Marshall, I. (2000). The Development of Language Processing Support for
the ViSiCAST Project. Retrieved from: www.visicast.sys.uea.ac.uk/Papers/assets2000_aug_acro4.pdf
Fourie, R.J. (2000). Efficiency of a Hearing Person Learning Sign Language Vocabulary from Media Versus Teacher.
Deafness and Education International 2(1): 45 - 60.
Grosman, K., Siders, J. & Garraway, H. (1983). Sign Teacher: A Microcomputer Application for the Teaching of Sign
Language. American Annals of the Deaf 128 (5): 577 584.
Hanson, V.L. & Padden, C.A. (1989). Interactive Video for Bilingual ASL/English Instruction of Deaf Children. American
Annals of the Deaf 144 (3): 209 231.
Henze, N. & Nejdl, W. (1998). A Web-based Learning Environment: Applying Constructivist Teaching Concepts in Virtual
Learning Environments. In F. Verdejo & G. Davies (eds.) The Virtual Campus. Trends for Higher Education and
Training. (pp. 61 77). London: Chapman and Hall.
Hiltz, S.R. (1994). The Virtual Classroom. Learning Without Limits via Computer Networks. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
Hoemann, H.W. (1978). Communicating with Deaf People: A Resource Manual for Teachers and Students of American
Sign Language. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations -- And Negotiated Interaction -- In Text and Voice Chat Rooms. Language Learning and
Technology 9(3): 79 - 98.
Johnston, D. (1982). Deafsign: A series of Computerized Instructional Programs for the Teaching of Sign Language.
American Annals of the Deaf 127 (5): 556 558.
Keating, E. & Mirus, G. (2003). American Sign Language in Virtual Space: Interactions between Deaf Users of ComputerMediated Video Communication and the Impact of Technology on Language Practices. Language in Society 32:
693 714.
Mertzani, M. (2004). The teaching of Greek sign language: hearing learners perceptions of their deaf tutors teaching
methods and their beliefs and expectations. Unpublished Master of Philosophy Dissertation, Centre for Deaf
Studies, University of Bristol. U.K.
Mertzani, M. (2006). Sign Language Learning through Asynchronous Computer Mediated Communication. In C. Vettori
(ed.) Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Lexicographic
Matters and Didactic Scenarios, Genova, Italy. May 28 2006, (pp. 64 69). Genova: LREC European Language
Resources Association (ELRA).
Mertzani, M., Denmark, C., & Day, L. (2006). Forming Sign Language Learning Environments in Cyberspace. In C. Vettori
(Ed.) Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Lexicographic
Matters and Didactic Scenarios, Genova, Italy. May 28 2006, (pp. 88 91). Genova: LREC European Language
Resources Association (ELRA).
Mertzani, M., Smith, S., & Day, L. (2006). Sign Language Tasks within a Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)
Learning Environment: The SignLab. Workshop presented at the Deaf Studies Today: Simply Complex Conference,
Utah Valley State College (UVSC), Utah. April 6-8th.
Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2005). Foreign Language Learning with CMC: Forms of Online Instructional Discourse in a
Hybrid Russian Class. System 33: 89 - 105.
Muir, L.J., & Richardson, I.E. (2005). Perception of Sign Language and Its Application to Visual Communications for Deaf
People. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 10 (4): 390 - 401.
Newell, W.J., Sims, D., & Myers, T. (1983). Principles and Requisites of Computer-Assisted Interactive Video Instruction:
A Sign Language Lesson, American Annals of the Deaf 128 (5): 662 672.
Ohene-Djan, J., Zimmer, R., Gorle, M. & Naqvi, S. (2003). A personilisable Electronic Book for Video-based Sign Language
Education. Educational Technology and Society 6 (4): 86 - 99.
Pastor, E. (1998). Web tools and Web applications. In F. Verdeho & G. Davies (Eds.), The Virtual Campus. Trends for
Higher Education and Training (pp. 207-210). London: Chapman and Hall.
Ryan, S., Scott, B., Freeman, H., & Patel, D. (2000). The Virtual University. The Internet and Resource-Based Learning.
London-Sterling (USA): Kogan Page.
Sagawa, H., & Takeuchi, M. (2002). A Teaching System of Japanese Sign Language Using Sign Language Recognition
and Generation. In International Multimedia Conference 2002. Proceedings of the 10 th ACM International
Conference on Multimedia, December 1-6, (pp 137 - 145). New York: ACM Press.
Slike, S., Chiavacci, J. & Hobbis, D. (1989). The Efficiency and Effectiveness of an Interactive Videodisc System to Teach
Sign Language Vocabulary. American Annals of the Deaf 134 (4): 288 290.
Smith, B. (2003). The Use of Communication Strategies in Computer-Mediated Communication. System 31: 29 - 53.
Straetz, K., Kaibel, A., Raithel, V., Specht, M., Grote, K., & Kramer, F. (2004). An E-Learning Environment for Deaf
Adults. Conference Proceedings 8th ERCIM Workshop User Interfaces for All . Retrieved from:
www.ui4all.gr/workshop2004/files/ui4all_proceedings/adjunct/interactive_applications/77.pdf
Verlinden, M., Tijsseling, C., & Frowein, H. (2002). A Signing Avatar on the WWW. In I. Wachsmuth & T. Sowa (Eds.)
Gesture and Sign Language in Human-Computer Interaction: International Gesture Workshop, GW 2001, London,
UK, April 18-20, 2001. Revised Papers (pp. 169-172). Springer Verlag Berling Heidelberg.
Waring, M., & Boardman, K. (2004). Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn: A Developmental Framework for Teacher
Training. In D.S. Preston (ed.), Virtual Learning and Higher Education (pp. 1-13). Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi
B.V.

MARIA MERTZANI

Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice. The Modern Journal 81: 470 481.
Wilcox, S. & Wilcox, P. (1997). Learning to see: Teaching American Sign Language as a Second Language. Washington,
D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Woll, B., & Smith, P. (1991). A Multi-Media System for the Teaching of Sign Language. In B.A.G. Elsendoorn and F.
Coninx (Eds) Interactive Learning Technology for the Deaf, (pp. 239 248). Berlin; London : Springer.

About the Author

Maria Mertzani
I am a PhD candidate in Computer-Mediated Communication and Sign Language Learning at the Centre for
Deaf Studies, in Bristol University, U.K. I hold a Master of Philosophy Degree in Greek Sign Language
Teaching Methodology from the University of Bristol. and a B.A. Degree in Philosophy and Education from
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. I was a Teacher of the Deaf but now I work occasionally as a
Trainer of Teachers of the Deaf in Greece. I am the coordinator of the Greek Sign Language Program at the
YMCA Foundation in Thessaloniki, Greece, which I have developed in September 2004. Since 2001, I am
presenting and publishing papers concerning the teaching and learning of sign languages. My research interests
include learning sign languages as first/second languages, teaching methodology and eLearning.

101