Claims

First graders taught sight words with ASL signs achieved higher posttest accuracy than students taught without ASL

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Group B students taught the ASL sign with each sight word read 96% of required words correctly on the posttest, compared with 76% for Group A students taught without ASL. → Sherman 2011

Evidence

Sherman 2011

Sherman, J. (2011). Signing for Success: Using American Sign Language to Learn Sight Vocabulary. SRATE Journal, 20(2). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ959527

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Small modified inquiry comparison in a Professional Development School: eleven struggling first graders randomly divided into Group A (five students, no ASL) and Group B (six students, with ASL), one word per week for five weeks. The article reports "76% accuracy rate" for Group A and 96% for Group B; no effect size or significance test is printed.

"Group A students learned their words using just the flashcards and reading the words in context with a 76% accuracy rate."

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.