. d9 .REF

~ .l.

u... a... A

.1.

$5»
3: ‘

q

 

 

 

 

.. A.

s.

-_5t«..p.f. .

n
w
m ,

4.

. nu.

“uh"

w”...

a \
..
.7‘

  
 
    

. t. 4.25

 
 
 
 
 

aural”

\
5
97
This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
STRATEGIC AND INTERACTIVE WRITING INSTRUCTION (SIWI):
APPRENT ICING DEAF STUDENTS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF
INFORMATIVE TEXT
CD
'26
>- w >
l0: ‘0 ‘5,
"it C (T) presented by
I g: 2
9 E r
-‘ .2 '3
, 2 KIMBERLY A. WOLBERS
3.

 

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Counseling, Educational
Psychology and Special
Education

 

\ A

Major Professor's giggnature

5—- l0-52007

Date

 

 

MSU Is an Manchu—action, equal-opportunity employer

-—<--_L-Ij'-'-'-'-'-"'-'-'--I-D-l-I-t-a-o-O_n-n--I-'-

- -.—---a-.—.-.~

- —.----a-.-«-.-.-.-—.— - --—.—,-.— ._ _

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p-ICIRC/DateDueindd-pl

 

STRATEGIC AND INTERACTIVE WRITING INSTRUCTION (SIWI):
APPRENTICING DEAF STUDENTS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF INFORMATIVE
TEXT
By

Kimberly A. Wolbers

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education

2007

 

ABSTRACT
STRATEGIC AND INTERACTIVE WRITING INSTRUCTION (SIWI):
APPRENTICING DEAF STUDENTS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF INF ORMATIVE
TEXT
By
Kimberly A. Wolbers

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of writing instruction that
was strategic and interactive, namely Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction
(SIWI), when utilized with deaf, middle school students.

The SIWI curriculum was largely informed by (a) cognitive theories of
composing, (b) sociocultural theories Of learning, and (c) theories of dialogue. By
drawing on these varied perspectives, a theoretical structure was imposed that
comprehensively and effectively guided the inquiry of strategic instruction of writing
within collaborative and interactive environments. In addition to strategic and interactive
instruction, SIWI has four minor instructional components including: (a) use of writing
examples and non-examples; (b) metalinguistic knowledge building; (c) use of visual
scaffolds; and (d) NIP-it lessons (i.e., contextualized mini-lessons involving Noticing,
Instructing, and Practicing).

The study used a non-equivalent, pretest-posttest control group design to explore
whether students receiving SIWI made significantly greater gains compared to those not
receiving SIWI in the following areas: (a) high-level informative writing skills (i.e.,
primary traits associated with the text structure); (b) reading; (c) high-level generalized
writing skills; and (d) low-level generalized writing skills (i.e., contextual language and

conventions). The participants of the study were two teachers of the deaf and their

respective middle school Students. There were 33 total students, 16 in the treatment group
and 17 in the comparison group. Students, teachers and schools were matched on a
number of variables. The SIWI intervention lasted a total of 8 weeks, during which the
treatment teacher guided the collaborative construction of two informative papers; the
comparison group continued with their usual literacy instruction.

All students were given a battery Of assessments prior to and after the intervention
to evaluate any gains. These measures included (a) an informative writing assessment, (b)
an editing and revising task, (c) a generalization writing probe similar to a 7"I grade state
standardized assessment, and (d) a SORT-R reading test. The first three measures were
scored, according to rubrics, for organization, coherence, evidence Of text structure,
contextual language, and conventions. A second rater scored approximately 10 to 20% of
the papers and obtained an interrater reliability of 0.93 to 1.0.

A multivariate analysis of variance (MAN OVA) was performed along with the
necessary follow-up univariate analyses. All analyses were statistically significant,
finding SIW I to be an effective instructional approach. Furthermore, the effect sizes ((1)
or the magnitude of the differences between group means for the writing variables were
large to very large, ranging from 1.27 to 2.65. The effect size for the reading variable was
small to moderate at 0.39.

A complementary set of qualitative data was also collected through interviews
with students around motivational aspects and declarative knowledge. Analysis of Student
interview data revealed that students at posttest were able to express more knowledge
about what good writers do before, during and after they write. Motivation for writing

was a matter of topic choice.

Copyright by
KIMBERLY A. WOLBERS
2007

In memory of Drs. David Stewart and Michael Pressley

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first like to acknowledge my dissertation committee. Sincere appreciation
goes to the chairperson, Dr. Troy Mariage, for his invaluable guidance. This dissertation
would not have been possible without him, for it was through conversations with Troy
that much of the inspiration, ideas and knowledge for this work were co-constructed. I am
gratefirl to Troy for continually pushing my thinking to new levels with every meeting
and email. Much appreciation goes to Dr. Susan Peters who has been an outstanding
mentor, not only with this dissertation, but in all aspects of scholarly life. And, I would
also like to thank Dr. Carol Sue Englert and Dr. Harold Johnson for their helpful
comments, suggestions and kind support throughout the dissertation process.

I would like to recognize additional faculty, colleagues and friends who have been
supportive of this research Special thanks go to Dr. GaryTroia and Ms. Hequn Wang for
their advice with the statistical analyses. I extend a heartfelt thank you to Dr. Mary
Juzwik, fer helping me achieve greater excellence in teaching and research during my
time at MSU. Much appreciation also goes to the teachers, students, and schools involved
in this research for their tremendous cooperation, coordination and passion for learning.

Finally, I would like to thank my family, including my mother for her unwavering
support, my father for his belief in me, my brother Scott for his comedic and cheerfirl
spirit, my brother Mike and his wife Kim for their love and friendship, and my niece
Hannah for her smiles that brighten all of our lives.

It was a remarkably collaborative and supported undertaking!

vi

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................. x
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................ xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1
Rationale ................................................... 1
Literacy Outcomes of Deaf Students ....................... l
A National Writing Agenda .............................. 3
Theoretical Framework ........................................ 5
Purpose of the Study .......................................... 9
Research Questions ..................................... 10
Methods .................................................... 12
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................ 14
Theoretical Perspective ........................................ 14
Theory of Cognition and the Composing Process .............. 14
Sociocultural Theory: Social and Cultural Features of Higher
MentalFunctioning.................. ................... 22
Writing and Deafness ......................................... 40
Unique Characteristics of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Writers . . . . 42
Post-secondary Literacy Readiness ......................... 45
Prior Literacy and Deafness Research ....................... 46
Deaf Writers as L2 or Linguistic Minority Learners ............ 47
L2 or Linguistic Minority Writing Research .................. 50
Instruction of L2 and Linguistic Minority Writers ............. 50
Current Instructional Practices in DeafEducation Classrooms . . . 54
Select Studies of Writing Intervention Research .................... 57
Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing (C SIW) ............. 58
Morning Message ...................................... 60
Morning Message with Adaptations for Deaf Students ......... 64
Summary ................................................... 67
CHAPTER 3
METHODS ....................................................... 69
Design of the Study ........................................... 69
Participants and School Context ................................. 70
Description of Research Sites ............................. 70
Description of Teacher Participants ......................... 72
Description of Student Participants ......................... 74

vii

 

Power Analysis ........................................ 79

Informed Consent Procedures ............................. 81
Procedures .................................................. 82
Instructional Components of SIWI ......................... 82
Procedural Timeline ..................................... 101
Professional Development Components ..................... 106
Treatment Fidelity ...................................... 106
Instruction in the Comparison Classroom .................... 108
Data Sources and Scoring Protocol ............................... 111
Informative Writing Measure ............................. 112
Revising/ Editing Measure ................................ 115
Generalization Writing Measure ........................... 116
Publishing Student Writing ............................... 118
Rating Procedures ...................................... l 18
Reading Measure ....................................... 119
Qualitative Data Collection ............................... 120
Data Analysis ................................................ 121
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS ........................................................ 123
MANOVA Assumptions ....................................... 123
Presentation of Quantitative Data ................................ 124
Research Question A .................................... 125
Research Question B .................................... 126
Research Question C .................................... 127
Research Question D .................................... 128
Research Question E .................................... 131
Research Question F .................................... 133
Ad Hoc Analysis ....................................... 134
Presentation of Qualitative Data ................................. 135
Research Question G .................................... 135
Summary ................................................... 137
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................... 139
Summary and Discussion of the Findings .......................... 139
Theoretical Implications ....................................... 149
Instructional Implications ...................................... 161
Limitations of the Study and Future Directions ..................... 162
Conclusion .................................................. 165
APPENDICES ..................................................... 167
APPENDD( A: Student Literacy Questionnaire ..................... 168
APPENDD( B: Student Editing Checklist .......................... 170

viii

APPENDDI C: Student Rating Form of Possible Writing Topics ....... 172

APPENDIX D: Outline of Professional Development Session with

Treatment Group Teacher ...................................... 174
APPENDDI E: Fidelity Instrument/ SIWI Evaluation Sheet ........... 176
APPENDD( F : Informative Writing Measure Documents ............. 180
APPENDDI G: Rubrics for Informative Writing Measure ............. 184
APPENDIX H: Revising/ Editing Measure Documents ............... 191
APPENDD( I: Generalization Writing Measure Documents ........... 196
APPENDIX .1: Student Examples of Informative Writing ............. 200
APPENDIX K: Students’ Primary Traits Scores on Informative
Writing Measure ............................................. 206
APPENDIX L: Student Examples of Generalized Writing ............. 209
APPENDIX M: Students’ Primary Traits Scores on Generalization
Writing Measure ............................................. 214
REFERENCES .................................................... 217

ix

Table 1
Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11

Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

Table 15

Table 16
Table 17

Table 18

LIST OF TABLES

Demographics of Student Participants in Treatment Group ...... 75
Demographics of Student Participants in Control Group ........ 76
Descriptive Statistics of Students’ Age, Hearing Loss, and

Pretest Reading Level ................................... 77
Comparison of Means and Variances for Age, Hearing Loss,

and Pretest Reading Level ............................... 77
Descriptive Statistics of Students’ Literacy Questionnaire

Responses ............................................ 79
Preliminary Study Data .................................. 80
Power as a fimction of 6 ................................. 80
Participant and Researcher Tasks .......................... 103
Schedule of Class Lessons and Student Attendance ........... 105
Reporting of Treatment Fidelity ........................... 108
Sources of Data by Research Question . .' .................... 112
Descriptive Statistics for Primary Traits of Informative

Writing ............................................... 126
Descriptive Statistics for Primary Traits of Generalized

Writing ............................................... 127
Descriptive Statistics for Contextual Language of Generalized

Writing .............................................. 129
Descriptive Statistics for Conventions of Generalized

Writing ............................................... 130
NIP-it lesson outcomes .................................. 131
Descriptive Statistics for Editing/Revising ................... 132
Individual Student Data for Editing/Revising ................. 133

Table 19 Descriptive Statistics for Total Word Count of Generalized
Writing ............................................... 134

Table 20 Student Interview Responses to Metacognitive Questions ....... 136

 

Figure 1
Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4
Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8
Figure 9

Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12

Figure 13

LIST OF FIGURES

A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing ..................... 16
The Vygotsky Space .................................... 27
POSTER Mnemonic Used for Learning Writing Process

Strategies ...................... . ...................... 88
Organize Conceptual Map, Web ........................... 89
Organize Conceptual Map, Block .......................... 90
Student Cue Card with Instructional Statements and Questions for
Each Writing Subprocess of POSTER ...................... 91
Hamburger Paragraph Visual Scaffold ...................... 99
Display of Pre and Posttest Means for Primary Traits of

Informative Writing ..................................... 126
Display of Pre and Posttest Means for Primary Traits of

Generalized Writing ..................................... 128
Display of Pre and Posttest Means for Contextual Language ..... 129
Display of Pre and Posttest Means for Conventions ............ 130
Display of Pre and Posttest Means for Editing] Revising ........ 132
Display of Pre and Posttest Means for Total Word Count ........ 134

xii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

When Thomas Edison was working intensely to invent electric light, one of his
lab assistants approached him and asked about all the failed attempts they had endured.
Edison replied, "No, they're not failures. They taught something that I didn't know. They
taught me what direction to move in" (PBS Home, 2000). Edison, despite numerous
fi'uitless efforts, had a positive disposition and viewed his failures, not as
disappointments, but as small steps in the right direction. When it comes to the
historically low literacy achievement of deaf students, there is much to be learned from
Edison’s insistent ways. This is not a time for settling or surrendering to the numerous
failed attempts. Edison, a deaf man himself, would not be satisfied with such a
perspective. Yet, dogged persistence is needed now more than ever.

Rationale
Literacy Outcomes of Deg“ Students

Statistical data on the achievement of deaf students has been collected for years
and has been used to illustrate a lack of literacy progress since the late 1950’s
(Y oshinaga—Itano & Downey, I996b; Yoshinaga-Itano & Snyder, 1985). Despite decades
of effort and research aimed at raising achievement and reading outcomes of deaf
children, reading levels have remained stagnate. The most recent data released by the
Gallaudet Research Institute (2003) confirms this sad reality; the median reading
comprehension score for 17 and 18 year old deaf students corresponds with a 4.0 grade

reading level of hearing students. This indicates that half of the deaf and hard of hearing

students tested in this age range are reading below the typical hearing student who is
beginning the fourth grade level. Even more striking, deaf persons typically only make
one year of gain in reading comprehension over a 10 year period from age 12 to 21

(Y oshinaga-Itano, 1996). Writing achievement similarly plateaus at this age (Bereiter,
1980), with most deaf children making little to no progress in rules of transformational
grammar after the age of 12 (Yoshinaga-Itano, 1996).

Dismal literacy outcomes persist even though advancements in the field of deaf
education over the past several decades should have logically created greater literacy
achievement. Some of the developments of recent times include: technological
improvements such as cochlear implants and digital hearing aids; early identification and
intervention programs that are increasingly screening babies at birth for hearing loss and
providing services to the families by Six months of age (National Center for Birth Defects
and Developmental Disabilities, 2005); the explosion of sign-based programs and
bilingual/ bicultural programs for educating deaf children; higher qualifications and
standards for educational interpreters and teachers of the deaf; legal mandates such as
IDEA that give students with hearing loss access to the general education curriculum;
heightened awareness of Deaf1 culture and the Deaf community. Yet, working to make a
difference in the literacy achievement of deaf students has proven to be a formidable task
despite these developments, and educators, now more than ever because of a changing
society, have a need for effective literacy practices.

Today’s ever-increasing technological society and global economy have impacted

the nature of learning; there exists a heavy reliance on print-based literacy skills to

 

1 “Deaf” is intentionally capitalized to indicate a prideful and empowered subpopulation of persons who are
culturally and linguistically affiliated When lowercase, it connotes persons with hearing loss that may or
may not have cultural ties to the Deaf community.

accomplish everyday tasks and access information (Luckner, Sebald, Cooney, Young &
Muir, 2006). Greater access to educational advancements, such as putting a deaf child in
contact with the general education curriculum, does not necessarily ensure that learning
takes place. Rather, if deaf students are to take advantage of such opportunities, they
must have an array of effective strategies for composing and comprehending information
of classroom learning and the greater society. The current study, as a result, gives
attention to how writing instruction that is strategic and interactive apprentices deaf
students in the use of cognitive strategies for writing informative text.

Further rationale for the study is provided through a broader national context.
A National Writing Agenda

Because of the lack of emphasis at all levels, writing has been branded the
“neglected R” (National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges,
2003) in comparison to reading and arithmetic. Over the past few years, national efforts
in educational reform have centered heavily on raising student achievement in reading
and mathematics. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002 calls for students in
grades 3 through 8 to be annually assessed in reading and mathematics. Students must
reach proficiency standards that increasingly build to 100% by the year 2013-2014, a year
when all children should be at grade level in these subject areas. The high stakes
associated with NCLB have inevitably placed reading and mathematics at the
instructional forefiont and have taken the spotlight off other subject areas such as writing
which has been discounted in terms of the national agenda. For instance, the National
Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) chose

to disregard the mutually dependent relationship of reading and writing by excluding

writing research from their review. Consequently, national discourses of academic
achievement have positioned “writing” out of the conversation.

At the same time, and justifiably, national outcomes in the area Of writing are far
from desirable. The results Of the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) on writing indicated that the majority of students at the fourth, eighth and twelfth
grade levels had accomplished basic writing; however, only one in four students were
able to write at advanced or proficient levels (United States Department of Education,
1999). Students’ writings were often lacking higher levels of skill such as precision,
complexity and coherence. In 2002, the NAEP writing assessment results showed few
differences. Whereas the students’ average writing scores in the fourth and eighth grades
did show an increase, the results for twelfth graders were dismal, Showing no significant
difference between the two assessment years (United States Department of Education,
2002). The numbers have remained stagnant with only 24% of students graduating at or
above a proficient level in the year 2002 as compared with 22% in the year 1998.

The lack Of attention to writing in the schools has far-reaching consequences for
postsecondary life. Writing: A ticket to work. . . or a ticket out (National Commission on
Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges, 2004) brought attention to the importance of
writing skills in the workplace—they are crucial and essential, especially if one is
wanting to ascend the corporate ladder. The report was based on a survey of corporate
leaders and members of the Business Roundtable, which included representatives fi'om
some of the most well-known companies in the United States and the world. One
commonly held opinion among these employers was that “writing is a ticket to

professional opportunity, while poorly written job applications are a figurative kiss Of

 

death” (p. 5). Two-thirds of salaried positions require some writing responsibilities.
Also, half of all companies consider employees’ writing skills when making promotional
decisions. More than ever in today’s workforce and society, employees need
sophisticated and effective writing skills to be successful.

Meanwhile, current employers are dissatisfied with the writing abilities of recent
college graduates (of, Johnstone, Ashbaugh & Warfield, 2002). With the exception of
remedial courses, little attention is given to instruction Of writing methods or techniques
at the postsecondary level. It is commonly assumed, rather, that students entering the
collegiate experience have had sufficient prior writing practice and instruction. In fact,
recent updates to the SAT and ACT now require high school students to demonstrate
their writing skills for college entry purposes (ACT, 2006; College Board, 2006).
Similarly, the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) recently amended its subtest areas to
include analytical writing as one of the three componentsalong with the verbal and
mathematics sub-areas, emphasizing the crucial role that writing plays in post-graduate
education. I

The demands for advanced writing skills at the postsecondary level and in the
workforce are not waning, and the National Commission on Writing in America’s
Schools and Colleges (2003) stressed heavily that writing education is in need of a
“cultural sea change.” Among the several recommendations listed in the report, the most
heavily stressed was the need for schools to double the amount of time currently spent on
writing. For many teachers, this is an impractical request given the high stakes on reading

outcomes. Unless there are instructional practices available to teachers that address

 

multiple literacy objectives simultaneously and evidence reading growth in addition to
writing gains, writing will inevitably receive less class time rather than more.
Theoretical Framework

National attention on reading or writing may influence what is taught in the
schools, but it does not necessarily ensure that teaching and learning happen in an
efl‘ective manner (Hillocks, 2002). The current investigation on the effectiveness of
writing instruction is informed by (a) cognitive theories of composing (Applebee, 2000;
Flower & Hayes, 1980; Hayes & Flower, 1980; Hayes, 1996, 2000; Scardarnalia &
Bereiter, 1986), (b) sociocultural theories of learning (Bruner, 1996; Lave & Wenger,
1991; Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978, I994; Wertsch, 1991), and (c) theories of dialogue
(Bakhtirr, 1991; Burbules, 1993; Cazden, 2001; Nystrand, 1997; Wells, 1999, 2000). By
drawing on these varied perspectives, a theoretical structure has been imposed that
comprehensively and effectively guides inquiries around strategic instruction of writing
within collaborative and interactive environments. To that end, these theories provide the
grounds for the principles and foundational properties of the study’s instructional
intervention, Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction (SIWI).

Obvious juxtapositions exist between these theoretical stances with regard to
making meaning—cognitive perspectives are oriented around the individual or view
sense-making as a process of enhancing one’s cognition, whereas sociocultural
perspectives view meaning-making as a social, cultural and historical mediation Of
knowledge with the use of semiotic tools (Prior, 2006). Instead of viewing these
difi‘erences as tensions, this study adopts the position that plurality of thought, rather,

promotes understanding complexities Of teaching and learning as well as writing

 

development (Stone, 2004). When it comes to models of writing instruction, others have
also seen the importance of this perspective:

An intervention model that allows the integration of knowledge gained fi'om

multiple theories and models Of teaching and learning — even competing models

that may appear theoretically incompatible — allows the development of
intervention approaches that maximize the Strengths of each while addressing the
weaknesses in any given model through strengths inherent in Others” (Wong,

Harris, Graham & Butler, 2003, p. 386).

Each of the theories emphasize critical yet distinct dimensions of mind or society that, in
combination, provide for a comprehensive and synthesized way of applying writing
instruction. The current study lies at the core of this mesh of theoretical perspectives,
methodological tools and practices.

Theories on composing and cognition reveal those cognitive processes that are
utilized when individual persons are engaged in activities of writing. Whether involved in
processes of planning, generating or reviewing and revising, expert writers seem to
manage them effortlessly while novice or struggling writers have an inefficient or
ineffective method of approach (Scardarnalia & Bereiter, 1986). In addition, theories on
cognition and writing usefirlly direct us away from unrealistic step-by-step models of
writing in favor of new ways of thinking about information processing, that is, recursive
models (Hayes & Flower, 1980). Intervention studies that build conceptually fiom the
cognitive models of writing processes tend to emphasize cognitive strategy instruction

(Graham, 2006; Singer & Bashir, 2004; Wong & Berninger, 2004).

Whereas the models of writing conceptualized through cognitive science do make
known the processes to be developed in emerging writers as well as the motivating
aspects and knowledge to be cultivated or explicitly taught, there is less focus on how
students best appropriate these through writing instruction. In support of teaching and
learning, ideas are drawn from sociocultural theories. Sociocultural theories focus on
language and literacy as socially and culturally developed processes. Therefore, the
construction of meaning and knowledge happens when the individual interacts with
others and the environment. There are four central tenets of Vygotskian theory that
strongly influence the current research: 1) learning first happens on an interpsychological
plane with other people or artifacts and then is later internalized (on the
intrapsychological plane); 2) learning is a reciprocal, co-constructive process that
involves a more knowledgeable other and a learner, both serving as active participants; 3)
learning is distributed among people, artifacts, and tools; 4) learning happens within a
zone of proximal development (ZPD)—the mentor encourages the learner to achieve
beyond his individual limits by providing assistance but does not move beyond the
learner’s capabilities to make connections with what they already know (Lee &
Smagorinsky, 2000).

Language is one psychological tool that is used by students to mediate and
interpret activity (Wells, 1999, 2000). Thought is inextricably related to language
(Lantolf, 2000), which points to the potential of dialogue to transform the consciousness
of conversational participants (Lindfors, 1999). When student writers are viewed as
active members of the collaborative discourse around writing, or are legitimate peripheral

participants (Lave & Wenger, 1991) in a cultural setting of writing practices, they are

apprenticed in ways of thinking about, talking about, and performing writing tasks
(Englert, Raphael, Anderson, Anthony & Stevens, 1991). Classroom dialogue, as it is
practiced and appropriated by the learner over time, has a profound influence on the
transformation a learner undergoes (Englert & Mariage, 1996) from a novice to a master
practitioner in the community (Gee, 2004).

These diverse bodies of knowledge (i.e., cognitive theories of composition,
sociocultural theories of learning, and theories of dialogue) work together to generate an
intellectual agenda supportive of communities of practice where writing activity is both
strategic and interactive.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of writing instruction that
was both strategic and interactive, otherwise known as Strategic and Interactive Writing
Instruction (SIWI), when utilized with deaf, middle school students. Because previous
studies indicate that students have a more developed repertoire for writing narrative
rather than expository texts and also evidence greater gains with narrative writing
(Applebee, 2000), this investigation purposefirlly targeted exposition writing that
informs—otherwise known as informative writing. Furthermore, writing tasks at the
middle and high school levels are largely expository in nature (e.g., research papers,
demonstration Of content knowledge through writing), and adolescents are in need of
developing the related skills that support informative writing (i.e., synthesizing and
organizing information, formulating an understanding of the content and expressing

through writing).

The SIWI intervention extended a previous model of instruction used with deaf
writers that was interactive and guided (W Olbers, 2006). Such a model proved to be
effective in apprenticing students in the construction of personal narrative writing.
Students evidenced significant growth with both higher-level writing skills (e.g., use of
genre-specific traits, coherence) and lower-level writing skills (e.g., appropriate use of
contextual language and grammar, English conventions, spelling)2; simultaneously, the
instruction had a significant effect on reading. SIWI utilizes the same instructional
elements but additionally incorporates strategic instruction which specifically aims to
support the transition to a genre of increased complexity. Ultimately, the study asked
whether students exposed to the SIWI intervention made greater writing and reading
gains than those who had not been exposed.

Research Questions

In particular, the research addressed the questions below. The first question
directed the examination Of students’ growth in the genre-specific traits of informative
writing skills (i.e., high-level writing skills). The second question asked whether reading
was simultaneously impacted by the intervention, even though the model does not
explicitly target the instruction of reading skills. The next two questions targeted
evaluations of students’ abilities to generalize what was learned fi'om SIWI about
informative writing to the writing of another text structure. Both high-level writing skills

and low-level writing skills were the focus of investigation. The next question regarded

 

2 The terminology of higher-level/higher-order and lower-level/Iower-order skills is used frequently in the
writing literature; however, it should not be misconstrued that these categories of skills have greater or
lesser importance. Efi‘ective writing, rather, requires proficiency with both higher-level and lower-level
skills. In fact, for may deaf writers, “lower-level” may be a misnomer, for some grammar-related items
necessitate very involved cognitive processing which may be a result of managing a language of
expression that is very different from written English

10

length of constructed essays. Finally, the last question attempted to capture declarative
knowledge and motivational elements that students displayed prior to and after the
completion of the intervention. Together, these questions directed the investigation Of
students’ higher-order and lower-order writing skills for two different kinds of text and
the extent to which expository writing instruction had an effect on reading achievement,
metacognitive skills and motivation.

(a). Do students receiving the SIWI intervention make significantly greater gains

with high-level informative writing skills compared to those students not

receiving SIWI?

(b). Do students receiving the SIWI intervention make significantly greater gains

in reading compared to those students not receiving SIWI?

(c). Do students receiving the SIWI intervention make significantly greater gains

with high-level generalized writing skills compared to those students not

receiving SIWI?

(d). Do students receiving the srwr intervention make significantly greater gains

with low-level generalized writing skills compared to those students not receiving

SIWI?

(e). Do students receiving the SIWI intervention make significantly greater gains

with revising and editing a piece of informative text compared to those students

not receiving SIWI?

(f). Do students receiving the SIWI intervention make significantly greater gains

with length of composition compared to those students not receiving SIWI?

ll

(g). Do students exposed to SIWI evidence greater metacognitive skills in regard
to writing, and/or do students evidence greater motivation for writing at the
conclusion of the intervention as opposed to the beginning?

Methods

This study used a non-equivalent, pretest-posttest control group design to explore
the research questions. Participants were not randomized which thereby confirms the
research design as quasi-experimental in nature.

The participants of the study were two teachers of the deaf (and their respective
middle school students), each located in different deaf education programs. There were
33 total students, 16 in the treatment group and 17 in the comparison group. The
treatment and comparison group teachers were matched based on proficiency of Sign
communication, type of sign communication used with students, educational
backgrounds and teaching histories. The schools were matched based on the number of
deaf education students, location of schools, and philosophy of educational and
communicative practices. Students’ pretest results on higher-order writing skills, lower-
order writing skills, reading and editing/revising skills were examined to locate any
differences between the two groups in terms of student achievement. Furthermore,
student characteristics (e.g., onset of hearing loss, use and benefit Of amplification,
exposure to deaf adult role models in the home) were also considered and compared. The
SIWI intervention applied to the treatment group lasted a total of 8 weeks, during which
the teacher guided the collaborative construction of two informative compositions.

The students were given a battery of assessments prior to the intervention and

after the intervention to evaluate any gain that may have occurred over the course of the

12

instructional period. These measures included (a) an informative writing sample, (b) an
editing and revising task, (c) a generalization writing sample, and (d) a SORT reading
test. The first three measures were scored, according to rubrics, for organization,
coherence, evidence of text structure, contextual language, and conventions. A second
rater scored approximately 10 to 20% of the papers fiom each assessment and Obtained
an interrater reliability of 0.93 to 1.0. A multivariate procedure was then used for the
analysis (i.e., MANOVA due to the absence of pretest differences). The investigator also
collected a complementary set of qualitative data through interviews with students;
questions pertained to motivational aspects and declarative knowledge. The qualitative
data was used to enrich the research findings and elaborate on the quantitative claims by
providing information about students’ thinking and feelings.

This dissertation introduction is followed by four additional chapters. In the next
chapter, a literature review supporting the study is outlined. This chapter examines
theoretical orientations that undergird writing intervention research, select writing
research conducted with school-aged students, and the nature of literacy achievement
among deaf students and the writing-related research. Chapter 3 then examines the
research design of the study, including the participants, data sources, and methods for
examining the data. Chapters 4 explores the findings of the study. Chapter 5 concludes
the dissertation with a discussion of the findings, the study’s limitations and future

directions for research on writing within the field of deaf education.

13

 

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter is comprised of three main sections that work together to build a
rationale for the instructional design of the SIWI intervention while also justifying the
existing need for research on deaf adolescent writers. The chapter begins by presenting a
theoretical frame for the current study, one that draws on cognitive theories of composing
as well as sociocultural theories of teaching and learning, including theories of classroom
dialogue. This was purposefirlly done to shed light on both the inner and outer worlds of
the developing writer. The second portion of this chapter points to the specific barriers
and challenges facing deaf writers. Because of the scarcity of research on writing within
the field of deaf education, arguments for instructional approaches were made based on a
larger body of literature that considers general education students, special education
students, and linguistically diverse writers. The concluding section of the chapter then
highlights two methods of instruction, Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing (Englert,
1990; Englert, Raphael, & Anderson, 1989; Englert et al., 1991) and Morning Message
(Englert & Dunsmore, 2002; Mariage, 1995, 2001), which, combined, have heavily
influenced the current instructional model.

Theoretical Perspective
Theory of Cognition and the Composing Process

Cognitive theories of science have contributed substantially to the body of

knowledge on composing practices and have illuminated the individual processes

involved in writing. Such work has revealed the multitude of resources that one relies

l4

upon and how or when these resources are activated in a single writing performance.
Research has also offered explanation for the difi‘erences that exist between fluent,
advanced composers and struggling, novice writers (Applebee, 2000; Hayes & Flower,
1980). Instruction of writing is then tailored to address the needs of the writer, in terms of
insufficient knowledge or facilitation of knowledge.

With this theoretical frame, writing is viewed as a complicated art that requires
the composer to have control over multiple types of knowledge—knowledge of the
content he is writing about, procedural knowledge in order to manipulate, organize and
structure the content, knowledge of the text structure being employed, rhetorical
knowledge in terms of purpose and audience, and knowledge of contextual language
elements and conventions (Flower & Hayes, 1980; Hillocks, 1995). Furthermore, if the
writer either lacks such knowledge or faces barriers in the automatic retrieval and fluent
application of knowledge, one’s short-term memory can be overloaded. As Flower and
Hayes (1980) suggest, instruction might offer the novice methods for juggling the
constraints that are encountered. .

When examining aspects of individual writer cognition, a useful framework can
be located in the work of Linda Flower and John Hayes (e.g., Flower & Hayes, 1980;
Hayes, 1996; Hayes and Flower, 1980). Working from a cognitive problem-solving
paradigm, Hayes and Flower (1980) were able to construct a model (represented in
Figure I) that would be useful in diagnosing the difficulties of the immature writer. They
accomplished this feat by observing advanced writers and by collecting data using think-

aloud protocols. While composing, individuals were prompted to verbalize their thoughts

15

 

or inner dialogue, which then gave insight into the processes (and organization or order
of processes) being used to complete the writing task (Applebee, 2000).

The model is comprised of three main components: the task environment, long-
term memory and the individual’s processes. The first two components are the least
elaborated; task environment represents those elements outside of the writer’s body such
as rhetorically-related information or text already produced, and long-terrn memory refers
to one’s knowledge of text structure or topic. Hayes and Flower detail more firlly the
writer’s cognitive processes: (a) planning, (b) translating (later known as generating), and
(c) reviewing (later known as revising).

Figure 1. A cognitive process theory of writing (Flower and Hayes, 1980)

 

 

 

TASK ENVIRONMENT
THE
RI-IETORICAL
PROBLEM TEXT

, PRODUCED
Topic SO FAR

Audience

Exigency

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U Ti

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(é PLANNHVG TRANSLAT- REVIEWING
INC
THE WRITER’S LONG-
TERM MEMORY —A g ORGANIZING EVALUATING
Knowledge of topic, —V E SE 60% EDITING
audience, and writing plans I ”N
I I J
L MONITOR I

 

 

 

 

l6

Planning. Planning is giving thought to how a task should be accomplished. This
can occur as an internal event where the writer is creating mental constructs that will aid
the generation and organization of text, or it can be an external event where planning
takes the form of a physical artifact (Hayes & Nash, 1996). Planning, especially when
carried out externally, can be an effective way of reducing the cognitive strain a writer
may experience when trying to manage various sets of knowledge (Flower & Hayes,
1980). One method of planning, referred to as planning by abstraction, involves writing
down ideas associated with one’s topic and then trying to move and organize those ideas
into an outline or skeleton for writing a certain genre type (Hayes & Nash, 1996).

It has been shown that expert writers do quantitatively more planning than novice
writers. Young writers often begin writing within the first couple minutes of receiving a
writing task, completing little to virtually no planning (McCutchen, 2006). Yet, the
difference in the amount of time a novice and expert writer spend planning should not be
solely pinpointed as the cause for any discrepancy in writing ability. It is the case, rather,
that the expert writer spends more time than the novice on all writing tasks including
generation and revision of text (McCutchen, 2006).

Often less noticed are the qualitative differences in the planning writers
undertake. When novice writers plan, they focus most intently on the generation of text,
whereas expert writers consider additional facets of knowledge and memory including
audience, goal setting, tone, and rhetorical purpose (McCutchen, 2006). Advanced
writers have more flexibility in their plans (Flower & Hayes, 1980) which is evident in
their ability to elaborate or change their plans once they have already started writing;

they may choose to rethink their original design in light of what they accomplish or

17

discover through their writing (Pressley & McCormick, 1995). Such a method of
conceptual planning is rare in adolescent writers but can be explicitly taught
(McCutchen, 2006).

When there is a lack of planning or purpose, the writer may not access
information from memory in an efficient manner (Pressley & McCormick, 1995), and the
writer’s ideas may be presented in a series of topic-like statements that do not evidence
overall coherence (Hillocks, 1995), a process known as knowledge-telling (Scardamalia
& Bereiter, 1986). Whereas mature writers consider the intentions of their pieces of
writing when organizing and structuring information, novice writers structure information
in the order they retrieve it (Sanders & Schilperoord, 2006). Furthermore, advanced
writers develop themes in their text more deeply than novices by elaborating, adding,
supporting or evaluating ideas.

The organization or structuring of text is a cognitive approach that some would
say is neglected in the Flower and Hayes model (Sanders & Schilperoord, 2006). Later
models of composing, however, point to organization as an important executive firnction
of writing, just as planning, generating and revising (Singer & Bashir, 2004).
Organization deals with how to structure and sequence content according to particular
genre conventions. It is often the case that novice writers show competence with narrative
story make-up but are less familiar with the structures associated with other genres of
writing (Scardarnalia & Bereiter, 1986). Yet, genre knowledge or knowledge of the form
can contribute significantly to the processing of content and ideas (McCutchen, 2006;
Hillocks, 1995). Wong and Berrringer (2004) contend that through instruction, the

schemas for paragraph structure and genre-specific text structure need be made accessible

18

to the learner to facilitate composing. This can be done by examining examples and
identifying the underlying structure and components associated with various styles of
writing.

Generating. While composing, one continually transforms his ideas fiom memory
into the words and sentences of written discourse. This process, referred to as generating,
can be challenging for a novice writer. Advanced writers, in fact, generate more content
and write over 30% more words per sentence than less skilled writers (Hayes, 1996;
Scardarnalia & Bereiter, 1986). There are several problems that can interfere with the
performance of novice writers. First, immature writers, especially children, rely on oral
language patterns when writing. This often results in text resembling short, one-sided
conversations. Instruction that effectively responds to this might involve peer response
and active collaboration (McCutchen, 2006). Second, writers burdened by technical
requirements such as spelling or handwriting do experience greater difficulty generating
text than writers who attend to these matters with fluency (McCutchen, 2006). Namely,
short-term memory is consumed by attention to low-level tasks, which leaves limited
cognitive facility for the development of text (Pressley & McCormick, 1995). Once
students are given tools that compensate for these competing processes, they are able to
devote more attention to the generation of ideas (Scardarnalia & Bereiter, 1986). For
instance, a teacher might take over the responsibility for handwriting during the
collaborative construction of text so students are free to practice high-level processes
like generating. Lastly, novice writers may have difficulty accessing content-based
knowledge when composing because memory is not efficiently activated (Scardarnalia &

Bereiter, 1986). Prewriting activities such as listing or engaging in conversation with

19

others can help writers with the retrieval of ideas. In addition, when students are allowed
to write on topics that are of high interest, ideas may come more readily (Scardarnalia &
Bereiter, 1986).

Revising. Revising is a process of making one’s text a higher quality. It consists of
reading and editing subprocesses—reading to evaluate the text for meaning as well as
detect weaknesses in language conventions and then editing when problems are
encountered. The average writer will revise locally by addressing surface-level features;
whereas, the skilled reviser can see the macrostructure of the text and will seek
clarification of meaning by rearranging, adding or substituting text (Hayes, 1996;
McCutchen, 2006; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986) in addition to handling mechanical
concerns. Furthermore, an expert writer has an evaluative disposition toward the text——
she reads from the perspective of a critical or reactive reader and anticipates an audience
response. She is concerned with needs of the reader, and it is from this flame of mind that
she evaluates the completeness of her message, appropriateness of her tone, the clarity of
her language and the effectiveness of her organization (Hayes, 1996; Pressley & .
McCormick, 1995). High-level revision skills, those that give attention to meaning in
addition to contextual language usage and conventions, need to be explicitly taught and
practiced (McCutchen, 2006; Scardarnalia & Bereiter, 1986; Wong & Berninger, 2004).
Writers can be taught to conjure a representation of the reader while revising, or they may
practice revising skills while working face-to-face with a reader (McCutchen, 2006).

Recursive writing. In addition to identifying the cognitive processes of writing,
Flower and Hayes (1980) also revealed how writers move through the composing

processes to achieve a final piece of text. Contrary to original thought that the process

20

 

consisted of prewriting, writing and rewriting occur in sequential stages, the skilled writer
takes a more complicated approach by moving between processes in a recursive fashion
(Hayes & Flower, 1980; Hillocks, 1995). Planning in general happens near the beginning
. of a writing task and revising typically happens near the end; however, this does not
preclude planning from occurring alter a writer has generated a good portion of text.
Similarly, a writer may choose not to wait until he has generated a complete text to begin
revisions. Rather, he may revise portions of text as they are constructed. To that end,
writing instruction that encourages writing in a linear manner does not accurately capture
the work of real writers and how they manage the cognitive processes of composing.

Revised model. Hayes (1996) has since revised the original model of composing
processes. The more recent version gives consideration to how motivation and affect
influence writing performance. In addition, a social component was added to the task
environment that more specifically addresses audience and writing collaborators. Yet,
although Hayes concluded it was necessary to broaden the cognitive model to account for
social and cultural aspects of activity, he, at the same time, acknowledges his inability to
firlly elaborate these components due to his psychologically-oriented background. For the
most part, writing instruction influenced by cognitive theories of composing has
emphasized strategy instruction, self-regulation with cognitive processes (Singer &
Bashir, 2004) and the use of cognitive tools or aids (Scardarnalia & Bereiter, 1986; Wong
& Berninger, 2004).

Strategy instruction. Struggling writers are those students who are not as aware of
what constitutes good writing; they may (a) rarely plan before or during writing, (b) write

using a knowledge-telling approach, (c) have difficulty organizing information, (d) have

21

poor spelling or grammar skills that impact composing, and (e) tend to focus revision
efforts around conventions rather than content (Harris, Graham & Mason, 2003; Troia &
Graham, 2002). Therefore, studies of strategy instruction aim to build the multiple
aspects and sub-components of individual writing and cognition. They have typically
targeted planning (De La Paz, 1997; Saddler, Moran, Graham, & Harris, 2004),
organizing ideas and adhering to the text structure (Englert et al., 1991), writing (Chalk,
Hagan-Burke & Burke, 2005; De La Paz, 1999) and revising (Wong, 2000). Goal setting
is another strategically taught component of writing that is meant to impact the
motivation or affect of an individual’s writing (Troia, Harris & Graham, 1999).
Oftentimes strategies are taught through the use of procedural facilitators such as cue
cards with prompts or language stems (Wong, Butler, Ficzere & Kuperis, 1996),
mnemonics that represents a set of steps, or checklists of specific evaluative criteria.

Strategy instruction of writing is the explicit teaching of more sophisticated
composition processes than the writer currently has. Strategies are taught with the intent
that behaviors become part of the students’ own approach toward writing and are self-
regulated (Harris, Mason, Graham, & Saddler, 2002). Graham’s (2006) meta-analysis
comprehensively reviewed 20 group comparison studies of strategy instruction and the
teaching of writing. Effect sizes for quality, elements (i.e., inclusion of genre features),
length and revisions were impressively large, even on maintenance and generalization
probes, and many conclude that strategy instruction does positively influence the
composing processes of all students but most definitely the processes of struggling
writers.

Sociocultural Theory: Social and Cultural Features of Higher Mental Functioning

22

 

In recent decades, there has been a paradigmatic shift in the study of learning—a
shift away from focus on the individual and cognitive processes to examining
participation in social worlds with cultural history and practices (Lave and Wenger,
2003). This “turn to the social” is evident in the research activities around literacy, with
the predominance of writing research in the 21“ century geared toward studies of social
context and writing practices (Juzwik, Curcic, Wolbers, Moxley, Dimling & Shankland,
2006). Human mental firnctioning is now widely regarded as situated in cultural,
historical, and institutional contexts (Wertsch, 1991) and, accordingly, inquiries of mental
action consider the individual within a larger contextual flame rather than an isolated
element (Bruner, 1996; Cole, 2000).

The transition to sOcially- and culturally-influenced theories of learning was
driven primarily by cross-cultural comparisons of cognition; in particular, seminal
investigations such as the erlle rice farmers successfully illuminated effects of the
cultural and historical on thinking (Cole, 2000). The erlle were found to have unique
mathematical knowledge, in that, complex cognitive processes were witnessed as taking
place in the everyday practices of weighing, buying and selling of rice. When the same
mathematical tasks were given to Americans, they were not as successfirl. This led to
reasoning, not that the erlle had superiOr intelligence, but that the Americans were
disadvantaged by the task because they were unfamiliar with the cultural practices of
selling and buying rice—cognition was divorced from context. Rather, learning is
embedded within the social realm and is the result of interaction among people, objects or
events (Wertsch, 1991). To that end, mental functions are grounded in everyday life

events.

23

A sociocultural approach to mind where cognition originates fiom social life
(Wertsch, 1991) theoretically influences and contributes to conceptions of education and
a view of teaching and learning. Student learning is not just a process of teachers teaching
but rather of students responding to and interacting with the environmental conditions
(Dewey, 1990). Schools house the values and beliefs of an institutional group, where the
young are socialized and acculturated into its practices through interactions with others
and the environment (Bruner, 1996; Dewey, 1990). Thought is essentially the byproduct
of internalized and aggregated social relations (Vygotsky, 1994; Wertsch, 1991). This
notion of development translates to literacy events that are exploratory, dialogic and
collaborative in nature (Wells, 2000), for literacy practices are embedded in the broader
social goals and cultural practices (Gee, 1996). Writing activities, in particular, are
contained within a social context and motivation for use (Barton & Hamilton, 2000).

Toward intramental functioning. Higher mental firnctioning first takes place on
the interpsychological plane between persons and cultural artifacts and then is
appropriated by individuals on the intrapsychological plane (Lee & Smagorinsky, 2000;
Vygotsky, 1978). This process of transformation is one through which thought explored
in shared activity becomes later internalized by the individual. That is, learning takes
place along a continua from social to personal or collective to individual (Harre, 1983).
Transfer of knowledge in classroom practice occurs when actions are extemalized
through group collaboration and discussion; later they become part of the student’s
repertoire of strategies which can be called upon in independent situations (Hillocks,

1995).

24

 

Yet, mental fimctioning is not a direct and simple copy of the social, but instead,
individuals are active agents in their own development (Cole, 2000). Each person has
their own theories and conceptions of how the worid works, for we each have separate
historical collections of events, conversations, and actions. Consider for instance a child
who is actively exploring the world, driven by natural instincts and interests (Dewey,
1990); he may be holding on to naive theories about the world. As he engages in
interactions (i.e., discourse, collaborations or negotiations) with others about the topic at
hand, his theories come into greater congruence with those around him (Brunet, 1996).
The new ideas and conceptions come in contact with what has been experienced or
observed prior. As Wertsch describes it, “. . . different forms of intermental functioning
give rise to related differences in the forms of intramental firnctioning” (p. 27). The
various appropriations we accumulate and assimilate give rise to individuation of thought
(Prior, 2006). Individual thought, through novel constructiOns as opposed to transmission,
is then communicated outward and impacts the social world (John-Steiner & Meehan,
2000)

Higher mental firnctioning is not merely transmission or transfer of knowledge to
the individual (John-Steiner & Meehan, 2000); rather, the krrower must actively construct
it (Wells, 2000). This line of thought aligns itselfwith a constructivist perspective of
learning—learning happens when students construct knowledge for themselves within a
fiamework of what they already know by making links with previous experience and
extending previous understandings (Goldenberg, 1992; Hillocks, 2002). Furthermore,
constructivist theorists contend that students will easily forget the information that has

been offered them through instruction or other classroom interactions unless they are “. . .

25

 

making sense for themselves of the experiences made available in the curriculum, trying
out the ideas and skills. . . applying ideas to new contexts, and so on . . .” (Barnes, 1992,
p. 6). Many teachers of the deaf, myself included, have focused their teaching around
those grammatical skills students lack in their writing, using a skill and drill,
decontextualized approach to teaching written language. In the case of my students,
instruction would continue until they evidenced proficiency on worksheets or writing
exercises, but then I was later puzzled when there was no transfer of newly developed
knowledge to students’ classroom writing assignments or personal writings.

The active role of the individual in internalizing, personalizing and contributing to
the social is represented in the Vygotskian space (Harre, 1983; Gavelek & Raphael,
1996) pictorial featured in Figure 2. For some, the Vygotskian term “internalization”
connotes a passive process of transferring knowledge (Cazden, 2001) and
“appropriation”, a Bakhtinian term, refers more accuratelyto the individual’s role in
transforming and constructing internal processes. Regardless of terminology, as the
model shows, the learner’s cognition, role and participation changes over time. The
individual learner moves recursively through the four quadrants, indicated by the
private/public and individual/social dimensions. Transformation indicates the
unobservable and private cognitive work that an individual undertakes when new
information encountered in the social is appropriated and then connected to one’s
previous experiences and knowledge. Congruent thoughts and novel constructions are
then publicized once again via social and observable avenues which become
conventionalized ways of thinking. Ultimately, the learner advances mental firnctioning

working in a cyclical fashion between the social world and individual thought.

26

 

Figure 2. The Vygotsky space (original source Gavelek & Raphael, 1996 and adapted

from model by Harre, 1983)

 

 

Pubfic
Conventionalization
I i P '5 0.
11' \
. \
f i
i
g r IV I |
0:: I K
Indrvrdual -- 3 1 +-
0.: i f
a t l
= ‘ '
at \\ III II ”I
\ J ' I
‘ f s a- ’ ’
Transformation
’ O
#71. ifs-n.9, Private
I r"a."' Ks‘
;:3l'£.;:1“\\ ' 5.
' “‘1'" it
. .4- ,\ ’ 5;
Past . é e- ,, ,,
31$?" ‘ ‘1
\ \ 1; 2’.‘\ -:'l* n.
\ nia- \ “.‘.[~-_i§ fl. 'J'q.’
\ .“t' r a '
\ in“. r”; .}L‘ c
'"I .;‘\‘:-" \\‘\ ‘ 2‘ r.
\ \ I ‘ gs?"
'9‘ J's‘l~
\ \ 3“, 9,. ”if; ‘
\
\ \
\ (3"
\ )
\

27

uoyarsdorddv

 

Present

-" Social

 

The notions of appropriation, transformation and publication can be firrther
explicated with application of Bakhtin’s ideas relative to the production of utterances.
Because thought is an internal version of dialogue that springs from social activity
(Cazden, 2001; Ward, 1994), one appropriates multiple voices and often disparate
utterances from a variety of conversations; this is a process known as Heteroglossia. The
language we use tends to be someone else’s in part, that is, we inevitably echo others
when we practice our own voice (Burbules, 1993). Ventriloquation is a term that
represents this idea of taking on the words of others and then speaking through these
voices (W ertsch, 1991). Yet, our individual utterances are also shaped and developed
uniquely through interaction with others when others’ voices are assimilated with
previously-owned dialogue. The individual’s intention and accent is applied, which gives,
as a result, utterances filled with others’ words and a degree of the own self (Bakhtin,
1989). Children’s speech has much “hidden dialogicality” whereby the voices of invisible
others are borrowed until the language is transformed into something distinctive
(Bakhtin, 1989). The development of thinking and voicing is especially troubling for the
many deaf children who are overlooked as conversation participants in the family and in
the school because of communication barriers.

Teaching and learning in a community. Learning occurrences are not finite but
rather takes place within a zone of proximal development (ZPD). This zone represents a
range of skills and knowledge, spanning from what an individual can attain
independently to an amount that can be developed through mentoring or peer
collaboration (Lee & Smagorinsky, 2000). Assisted performance exceeds the unassisted

(Lantolf, 2000), that is, the learner, with support from a more-knowledgeable-other, can

28

achieve above and beyond what would be attainable through solo episodes. Likewise, by
assisting interactions with the child at a more complex and higher level, the mentor
allows him to attain his full learning potential. The learner increasingly takes on greater
responsibility for performance (Englert, Mariage, Dunsmore, 2006), and the ZPD
advances forward. As the child grows in competence (V ygotsky, 1994), the guided
interactions ofl’ered by the more-knowledgeable-other also continually change to remain
supportive and more sophisticated. This is why some refer to the ZPD as a shifting zone
of competence (Cazden, 2001)

Application of the ZPD to classroom teaching and learning requires that the
child’s understandings are appraised or interpreted to find out where he or she stands in
relation to the larger growth process. Present performance, therefore, should be viewed in
light of firture desired performance (Dewey, 1990). Vygotsky (1978) firrther argues that
dynamically assessing the level of potential development is just as necessary as actually
evidencing development, for instruction is driven by the prior. As can be viewed in the
model in Figure 2, evaluations of student learning can be made on a moment-to-moment
basis as the learner’s thoughts are externalized back to the social venue in the presence of
the teacher.

Lave and Wenger (2003) conceived the move toward greater competence as
taking place within a community of practice where learning is situated and inseparable
fiom the social practice and the culture in which it occurs. Within the community, there
are expert persons or old-timers who have certain ways of knowing and doing. There are
also novices or newcomers who enter the community as legitimate but peripheral

participants. Higher mental functioning is not a matter of experts teaching novices but

29

rather the interaction with and exposure to knowledge of a structured community of
practice, for mastery resides in the organization itself. More central participation in the
community indicates that one is becoming more engaged within the culture and taking on
more of a role in the community—a shift in identity from novice to master practitioner.
Knowledge is presented through social interactions in authentic contexts, and learning
occurs when one is centrally participating in the community.

Lave and Wenger (2003) provide examples of learning that is embodied in the
situation. For example, midwives begin on the periphery of practice, and after years of
observation, helping and birthing their own and others’ babies, they are finally the
experts of this practice. From Dewey’s (1990) perspective, this idea that learning should
not be separated from the life of the larger society also applies to school practices for deaf
students; for instance, literacy learning should allow for authentic opportunities and
occasions for reading and writing.

School children are often legitimately peripheral to the classroom practices and
knowledge but rarely participate; yet, it is through participation in the community that
students learn ways of acting, talking and thinking. As Bruner (1996) puts it, “. . . if you
treat peOple, young kids included, as responsible, contributing parties to the group, as
having a job to do, they will grow into it. . .” (p. 77). When newcomers are perceived as
legitimate members with contributions to give the community, activity is carried out in a
more social and cooperative way. Persons are reliant on each other for knowledge, for
one person may be highly knowledgeable in one area and another person in a different
area (Burbules, 1993). In such a community, the teacher is not the sole authority and

influence on learning; instead, students support each other in performance while the

30

teacher is a co-participant in the activity alongside students or is an orchestrator of
interactions (Bruner, 1996; Lantolf, 2000).

Cognitive apprenticeship (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989) or sociocognitive
apprenticeship (Englert, Mariage, Dunsmore, 2006) extends ideas of situated learning and
communities of practice theories to give more focus to the cognitive and metacognitive
skills to be learned in addition to the physical skills obtained through more traditional
apprenticeship. Such a method involves exposing the learners to the processes, thoughts
and practices that experts use to handle complex tasks. By observing how more-
knowledgeable-others skillfirlly handle various predicaments, the novice appropriates
actions and thoughts of the skilled. As the behaviors are gradually appropriated, control
of the cognitive processes is increasingly transferred over to the learner. Cognitive
apprenticing and transfer of control happens most effectively in the classroom through
the use of (a) modeling, (b) think-alouds, (c) scaffolding, and (d) collaborative inquiry.

Modeling and thinking aloud can happen in tandem; the expert models or carries
out a task that others can observe, and she may simultaneously extemalize her internal
thought processes around the task. The learners witness the activity and associated ideas
that are utilized when accomplishing the task, and can more readily appropriate the
processes involved. For example, a teacher might model the writing process by
constructing a piece of text in fi'ont of students while, at the same time, verbalizing her
thoughts about the actions she takes. The think-aloud is instrumental in making the
normally invisible cognitive activity of the more-knowledgeable-other visible and
thereby accessible to the more-novice-learner (Gavelek & Raphael, 1996). In the

instruction of writing, think-alouds make visible “. . . the discourse, thoughts, actions,

31

decisions, struggles and deliberations that are part of the writing process” (Englert,
Mariage, Dunsmore, 2006, p. 209). This approach is especially applicable to the teaching
of deaf students who need access to approaches and strategies for navigating expression
in two very different languages.

Scaffolding consists of various types of assistance and support offered to the
learner such as verbal prompting, questioning, providing feedback in the form of direct
statements, repeating or expanding on student comments, providing affirmations, ofi‘ering
hints on how to carry out the task, reminding, reconceptualizing or coaching (Kraker,
2000). First the teacher encourages student participation or voiced contributions so their
current level of knowledge, skills and processes are articulated. The teacher then, aware
of what students know, can provide scaffolding at a level that is more complex than
where the students are now firnctioning (Brunet, 1996), thereby providing a connection
between prior and new experiences and advancing learning.

Over time, the learner takes on more of the processes and actions for a particular
task, and her need for scaffolding changes. As Cazden (2001) states, " . . . the adult enacts
the entire script herself in the beginning, but the child gradually appropriates more and
more of what had been the adult role” (p. 62). A practiced teacher will reduce and apply
scaffolding as necessary to make forward progress with a task, allowing for as much
independence among learners as possible. She facilitates this through “step back” and
“step in” moves (Englert & Dunsmore, 2002), stepping back to give students more
control over task when cognitively ready, and stepping in to provide an increased amount
of instructional guidance when the processes are still slightly out of the learners’ reaches.

Less teacher control may involve the use of subtle prompts or questioning, and more

32

control is represented by teachers using direct statements, correction or methods of
cogritive structuring (Kraker, 2000). Ultimately, guided instruction that is responsive to
students’ contributions and contingent to students’ performances (e.g., recasts) promotes
development of thinking, learning and metacognitive awareness (Rogoff, 1990). Yet,
responsive, unscripted lessons that encourage students to take on increasingly greater
control of the cognitive task are typically lacking in education of the deaf.

Lastly, collaborative inquiry is a way of encouraging learners to be more active in
their learning by exploring a critical question and getting involved in the problem solving
with others. Learning happens best when it is participatory, shared, collaborative and
when the individual is active in the construction of meaning (Brunet, 1996). The
teacher’s role is to be a co-inquirer of the problem and not a provider of solutions. She
may utilize think-alouds to model wonderment and create an ethos of inquisitiveness.
Wells (2006) says, “. . . understanding is constructed in the process of people working
together to solve problems that arise in the course of shared activity” (p. 66). As children
appropriate skills of pondering or wondering, the teacher shifts roles to facilitating the
direction of the conversation, connecting various contributions and repeating or
reconceptualizing student offerings (Lindfors, 1999).

Instruction that is characterized by involving students in real-world problems,
allowing student ideas and contributions to control the direction of classroom talk,
making provisions for scaffolding students when encountering new tasks, and
encouraging collaboration and interaction among class members has been referred to as
the environmental mode (Hillocks, 2002), a mode proven to produce the greatest student

gain (Hillocks, l984)-——more than lecture or a natural process toward learning.

33

Additionally, intrinsic motivation for learning has been shown to be higher during
discussion or cooperative work (Hillocks, 1995). The environmental mode of instruction
is common in contemporary research on writing (Juzwik et al., 2006) and is increasingly
used in present-day classroom practice of writing, especially with non-mainstream
students (Kuiken & Vedder, 2002). Greater application of an environmental mode of
instruction with deaf students will also result in benefits, academically and
motivationally.

Mediation of higher mental fimctioning. Human action is mediated by a number
of cultural tools such as signs, strategies, concepts, artifacts, technologies and language
(Lee & Smagorinsky, 2000). The mind is so much an extension of the hands and tools
(Brunet, 1996) that mental action is not independent from its mediational tool (W ertsch,
1991). Psychological tools or artifacts are the objects with which we think and the entities
through which we speak (Prior, 2006).

Within the context of writing instruCtion, procedural facilitators (Scardarnalia &
Bereiter, 1986) are tools such as matrices or one cards that prompt the use of certain
strategies or processes. Procedural facilitators are the semiotics that . . enable teachers
to make visible the character of the particular text forms, the strategies and procedures
that underlie the text’s construction and revision, and the discourse structures and
language practices that permit writers to realize their writing goals” (Englert, Mariage,
Dunsmore, 2006, p. 213). They have been known to advance students to more
sophisticated levels of writing (Scardarnalia & Bereiter, 1986), for they allow the user to
oflload aspects of thought onto the tool. Additionally, evidence exists showing that

students can transfer fi'om facilitated procedures to independence with constructing text

34

(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986), for procedural facilitators, when appropriated, can alter
human mental functions by becoming a form of inner speech that directs performance.

Language is a sign system and another psychological tool that can transform
action (Wertsch, 1991). In fact, some would say that speaking and thinking are
inextricably intertwined (Lantolf, 2000; Stewart & Clarke, 2003; Ward, 1994). Higher
mental firnctioning is the appropriation of social processes and practices whereby
language plays a critical role of mediating the learning (Kraker, 2000). Language is a way
in which we come to know other points of view (Bruner, 1996) and an avenue for sharing
our experiences and thoughts with others and accessing theirs in return (Dewey, 1990;
Greeno, Collins & Resnick, 1997). It is through dialogue and collaborative interactions
that students are exposed to techniques, strategies and the problem solving of others in
ways that resonate with the knowledge they already have (Lantolfi 2000). The self and
knowledge are ultimately constructed through “dialectical interaction among language,
culture, people, and the material world” (Ward, 1994, p. 50). Children, especially deaf
children, need the opportunity to use language with others in the appropriate context to
make meaning of their social reality and to develop self identity.

Language used by a more-knowledgeable-other influences the linguistic and
cognitive development of the learner (Gavelek & Raphael, 1996; Hartman, 1996).
Because development happens through the use of dialogue such as questioning and
sharing (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), a dialogic pedagogy would emphasize the
importance of language and interactions in the classroom. Ward (1994) provides similar
remarks, “since knowledge . . . is not located in the minds of experts but in the

conversations of experts, then the task of education is to provide the opportunity for

35

students to talk—to engage in these knowledge-producing and maintaining
conversations” (p. 67). The child, his or her peers and the teacher are all shaped by each
other through their interactions. Furthermore, interactions shape the way children come to
understand and make sense of the environment around them—meaning is negotiated and
constructed (Nystrand, 1997).

It is the case, however, that schools mainly consist of teachers telling and
imparting knowledge on the learners, which is likewise the experience of the deaf
student. Ifand when students participate, it is in the form of rote memorization or
recitation of short answers. The traditional student-teacher interactions follow the
structure of IRE sequences (Mehan, l979)——the teacher initiates a question, the student
gives a short and recited response, and then the teacher offers a brief evaluation of the
student’s response. The questions are often knowledge—testing questions instead of
authentic and open ended queries (Nystrand, 1997). Teachers also may cut ofl‘ or ignore
any unanticipated student comments in order to keep control of the content and flow of
the lesson (Lemke, 1990) while, at the same time, thwarting opportunities for discussion.
Narrow questions that emphasize the need for correct answers lead to breakdowns in the
dialogue (Burbules, 1993). When using traditional interaction sequences (also known as a
model of transmission or triadic dialogue), teachers typically talk about 2/3 of the time
(Cazden, 2001), and students do not have classroom roles that require thought,
interpretation, or construction of new ideas. (Nystrand, 1997).

Non-traditional sequences, on the other hand, involve teacher questions that are
authentic, open-ended and encourage discussion. The questions probe for understanding

(Burbules, 1993) rather than test student knowledge with a prespecified answer in mind

36

(Nystrand, 1997). Questions may also challenge student thinking by asking them to
explicate and give rationale for why they believe something. Nassaji & Wells (2000)
suggest that initiating a class sequence of interaction with a teacher question as in the [RE
sequences, in itself, is not problematic, for discussion most always stems from a teacher’ s
question. However, teachers can have a different follow up approach that keeps
discussion alive instead of offering evaluations of student responses that close the
conversation.

An instructional conversation, as defined by Tharp & Gallimore (1988), is one
dialogic approach to classroom instruction that illustrates how student contributions are
given value and encouragement. The dialogue weaves between students, other students
and the teacher, with new offerings building upon, challenging, connecting with, or
extending previous ideas (Goldenberg, 1992). As Burbules (1993) points out, “In the to-
and-fro exchanged comments and responses, dialogue builds upon itself to reach new and
unexpected results—and this can give us pleasure and delight” (p. 50). Teachers and
students alike contribute ideas to the conversation and engage in reciprocal questioning.
The dialogic relation is a give and take connection, by which all participating members
have something to offer and something to gain (Burbules, 1993). However, even though
the spontaneous and creative nature (Cazden, 2001) of instructional conversations or any
dialogic pedagogy may be delightfirl, as Burbules claims, it also results in unscripted
instruction that leads the class in unpredictable directions. However, Nystrand (1997)
argues that this moment-to-moment negotiation and movement of conversation can allow

for more sustained and in-depth learning.

37

When using a dialogic method of instruction in the classroom, a teacher assumes
numerous roles. She must not only have flexibility and spontaneity but also must
demonstrate an exploratory mind-set (Burbules, 1993 ), thereby modeling a disposition
toward learning that is inquisitive and discovery-based. More importantly, the teacher
skillfully orchestrates students’ talk (Gavelek & Raphael, 1996; Goldenberg, 1992) on a
moment-to—moment basis. A number of dialogic approaches used by efl’ective teachers of
the deaf include questioning, eliciting, rephrasing, expanding, repeating, clarifying,
listening, challenging, offering or weaving comments into a larger tapestry of meaning
(Hartman, 1996; Mayer, Akamatsu & Stewart, 2002). Critical to the efi‘ectiveness of the
instructional conversation is the teacher’s ability to select the appropriate approach from
her repertoire of dialogic techniques (Burbules, 1993; Goldenberg, 1992). Ultimately, she
leads the conversation in the direction of more complexity, utilizing tum-taking of a
cyclical nature (Stone, 1998) to stay abreast of what students currently understand and
then ofl‘ering contingent and scaffolded responses.

The teacher’ 3 contingent use of dialogic techniques (otherwise referred. to as
dialogic moves) sustains conversational involvement (Mariage, 2001) and advances
mental functioning. Each dialogic move has a different underlying purpose. The act of
revoicing a student’s utterance, for instance, may serve any number of the following
filnctions: checks the accuracy of one’s understandings; evidences that the teacher is
giving close attention to student contributions; gives students authorship for their ideas;
clarifies the content; creates a cOllaborative mood (Burbules, 1993). Reconceptualizing is
another discourse move that involves repeating what the child means in a rephrased

utterance, thereby modeling the idea in more mature language (Cazden, 2001). Other

38

discourse moves include building to develop ideas along a particular line, redirecting to
change the direction of a conversation (Burbules, 1993 ), or holding the floor for
particular members to enter the conversation and contribute (Mariage, 2001).

Effective dialogic instruction encourages students to actively participate in the
thinking, molding, and the generation of understandings (Nystrand, 1997). If trust has
been established in the group, students are more willing to think-aloud these processes
(Barnes, 1992). They may use exploratory talk (Barnes, 1992; Cazden, 2001) which is an
attempt to formulate their ideas as they are speaking. The expressions may not be
articulated well and consist often of disfluent utterances that have pauses and several
restarts. This kind of talk which can lead in the direction of dead ends gives way to a
more rehearsed talk as students come to own or appropriate the language of the task. This
talk, referred to as final draft talk (Barnes, 1992), has been polished or refined, and the
ideas have been considered prior to the expression.

Dialogic modes of teaching have been linked with greater academic achievement
as well as higher cognitive capacities and critical thinking (Burbules, 1993; Hillocks,
2002; Nystrand, 1997; Ward, 1994). Research by Mayer, Akamatsu, and Stewart (2002)
looked extensively into the dialogue used by teachers of the deaf across grade level and
subject matter. They reported that exemplary teachers used discourse strategies like those
mentioned above that encourage students to expand on their linguistic and cognitive
efforts. Teachers responded to students’ comments and queries in a constructive and
contingent manner, and asked meaningful and authentic questions. All participants,
teachers and students alike, actively worked together, sharing or exploring problems. The

teachers were co-inquirers along with students in an effort to collaboratively investigate

39

an important question—they were involved participants in the construction of knowledge
rather than simply providing or telling information. Thus, aspects of instruction drawn
from sociocultural theories of learning and theories of dialogue show promise in the field
of deaf education and deserve widespread application.
Writing and Deafness

Deaf and hard of hearing students form a unique subpopulation of writers, one
that exhibits great challenges in learning to write effectively and fluently. For this
population, there are linguistic as well as cultural barriers that stand in the way of making
sufficient writing progress. First, early language exposure and language learning practices
(Schirmer, 1994; Stewart & Clarke, 2003) are often inaccessible to deaf children through
auditory approaches. If a mutually understandable means of communication is not
adopted early on in the home, deaf children are at great risk for language delays. Siegel
(2000) makes the claim that the current educational system in place for deaf learners
perpetuates a home problem by also often providing communication-poor learning
environments. Poor communication and language skills indicate poor literacy skills to
follow—expressive and receptive language deficiencies lead to subsequent reading and
writing struggles (Hartman, 1996; McAnally, Rose & Quigley, 1999; Schirmer, 1994).

Second, there is a lack of a correspondence between sign language (whether it be
ASL or contact sign) and English text (F ernandes, 2003). Much has been said about the
linkages between one’s expressive language and one’s written language. In the mid-
seventies, for instance, Loban showed that oral language and written language seemed to
develop in parallel (Applebee, 2000); once certain developments took place in one’s oral

language such as the use of dependent clauses or more complex vocabulary, these

40

developments occurred in one’s writing approximately one year later. More recent work
by Mayer and Wells (1996), based on Vygotskian theory, claims that spoken language
provides the link between one’s inner speech and written speech. McAnally, Rose and
Quigley elaborate this idea, “Written language depends on the child’s ability to represent
internal personal thoughts in symbolic form using the rules of English . . . ” (p. 170).
Based on these assertions, one can expect that students who use an expressive language
that is different from standard English will have remnants of that communication in their

For instance, a person speaking English might use the following sentence to
describe their recent flight: My flight fiom Chicago to New York was extremely
turbulent. A person using ASL might sign: Chicago (set up on the left of the body)-New
York (set up on the right of the body)-I-fly (movement fi'om Chicago to New York)-
happen-turbulent (shows plane movement with a classifier). There is less of a bridge
between one’s inner thoughts and one’s written speech for children who express
themselves via ASL but must learn to read and write using standard English. Deaf
children who use sign language, therefore, encounter difficulties in making connections
between their expressive language and written English.

Lastly, there often fails to exist a literacy relationship between one’s school
practices and one’s community practices (Padden & Ramsey, 1993). A school’s inability
to incorporate Deaf culture, for instance, into instruction (Evans, 1998, March) can
perpetuate a divide between two or more various discourses (Gee, 1991, 1996).
Discourses are tightly interwoven with culture, values, beliefs, attitudes, acts, and social

identities which provide its users a way of interacting with the world. “A discourse is a

41

sort of identity kit which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions
on how to act, talk, and often write, so as to take on a particular social role that others
will recognize” (Gee, 1996, p. 127). What is needed is a sensitive approach that values
and respects what students bring to the classroom, and one that builds on students’
already-developed linguistic competence (Delpit, 1986, 1988). Delpit (1995) argues that
if we want students to develop standard English skills, we must also allow them to share
different aspects of their own language. There is a cooperative building of meta-
knowledge for both languages. When linguistic diversity is invited into the classroom and
not shunned, students have more self-esteem for their expressive language and a greater
willingness to participate in learning (Hagemann, 2001).
Unique Chwacteristics of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Writers

Due to the barriers detailed above, deaf and hard of hearing students face
substantial literacy challenges. In contrast to most hearing writers, deaf students
commonly struggle with lower-level writing skills. Whereas there are typically no
distinctions between good and poor writers in relation to the use of conventions such as
punctuation (Marschark, Lang & Albertini, 2002), there are several linguistic and
syntactical differences (Gormely & Sarachan-Deily, 1987). With regard to lexicon,
syntax and grammar, many deaf students do not yet operate with automaticity (Mayer,
1999; Powers & Wigus, 1983). Therefore, their writing can be characterized as having
short, basic sentences with simple verb forms, few subordinate clauses, and few
conjoined independent clauses (Heider & Heider, 1941; McAnally, Rose & Quigley,
1994; Moores & Miller, 2001; Powers & Wigus, 1983; Yoshinaga-Itano, Snyder &

Mayberry, 1996). Often, vocabulary knowledge is less in comparison with their hearing

42

peers, and they also have slower rates of new word acquisition (Lederberg & Spencer,
2001). Furthermore, they experience difficulty with the use of adverbs, pronouns,
determiners, conjunctions, passive constructions and conditional verbs such as “could”,
“should”, or “might” (Taeschner, 1988; Wilbur, 2000; Yoshinaga—Itano et al., 1996).
Students with hearing loss do make progress with syntax and contextual language over
the years; however, they rarely achieve a level commensurate with their hearing
counterparts (Antia, Reed & Kreimeyer, 2005). In fact, alter the age of 12, progress slows
considerably with many making only one year of gain over the next ten years

(Y oshinaga-Itano et al., 1996).

Whereas the research on characteristics of deaf writers has been traditionally
product-driven (McAnally, Rose & Quigley, 1994), there are also higher-level skills that
need to be developed in all children such as viewing writing as a process, having a
purpose, addressing a specific audience, and writing organized and coherent pieces
(McAnally, Rose & Quigley, 1999). Students must have knowledge of different writing
styles or text structures such as expository, narrative or descriptive (Evans, 1998;
Isaacson, 1996), and they should give proper consideration to the primary traits
associated with the writing style they are utilizing. Most of all, there is a nwd for deaf
students to develop coherence in their writing (Antia et al., 2005; Klecan-Aker &
Blondeau, 1990; McAnally et al., 1999). They have typically relied more on associative
kinds of writing techniques by introducing several topics without elaboration (Y oshinaga-
Itano et al., 1996). Each idea needs to be carefiilly woven together instead of existing as
complete pieces of information that are independent of what was previously said. Lastly,

engaging in the revision process and monitoring text can provide great challenges to deaf

43

writers if they have not developed an internal representation of English (Paul, 1998,
1990).

Also, it should be pointed out that hard of hearing children are a vastly different
subpopulation of students and tend to develop literacy skills as their hearing counterparts.
Ifthese children fall slightly behind in the younger years while in the process of assessing
what technology and accommodations will be most successful, they rarely continue to
fall firrther behind once these are realized. Antia (2005) evidenced, for instance, that hard
of hearing students do not fall further and further behind their hearing peers in writing.
Students with more severe hearing losses evidence much more variable outcomes.

The following story written by a 7th grade deaf student evidences many of the
lower-order and hi gher-order characteristics mentioned above:

February 7, Sara and I went to pet shop. I want the lizard. We buy the lizard,

wood, little cave with plant, the crickets, and water. We brought to my house. I

feed the lizard. It eat crickets. I pick the lizard Then pet to it. I said, “called Darsh

and Satch.” It is brown and yellow. Wow! The lizard’s long is 8 inch. I can tickle

the lizard. I don’t know how old the lizard (Wolbers, 2005).

In this sample, the author uses short, rigid and simple kinds of sentences, while avoiding
more complex features such as dependent or relative clause use. The sentences have more
of a knowledgeLtelling quality rather than really hanging together to develop a coherent
narrative with a beginning, middle and end. Also, the phrase, “the lizard’s long is 8 inch,”

C

demonstrates nonstandard usage in a couple ways— ‘long” is an incorrect word choice
for this context and “inch” lacks plurality. While the sentence seems awkward to a

standard English speaking person, it looks correct to the deaf child. There are reasonable

explanations for the child’s construction of such a sentence. First, one way a deaf child
might express the concept of length in ASL is to use one’s index finger and slide it up the
length of the other arm. The ASL gloss word for this concept is “long” and is perhaps the
reason for the word’s appearance in the awkwardly-sounding sentence above. Second,
one may signify plurality in ASL by using repetitive movements, but it is not always
necessary. In the example, “8 inch”, the student has already indicated that there are
several inches by stating a number, and that alone can indicate plurality in ASL. Thus, the
student is seemingly applying knowledge of her first language to write her ideas in
English.

The challenges that deaf students experience with writing often parallel similar
problems of reading (\Vrlbur, 2000). This highlights the interrelatedness of language,
reading, and writing skills. For instance, inadequate language skills and a limited
vocabulary are challenges that impede development in both reading and writing. Indeed,
deaf children who are superior in one of these skills tend to be superior in all of these
skills (Crandall, 1978). Yoshinaga-Itano and Snyder (1985) noted that when deaf and
hearing participants were matched by reading ability and chronological age, there were
no differences in the syntactic or semantic qualities of the writing. Reading and writing,
therefore, happen in collaboration and are taught together (McAnally, Rose & Quigley,
1994).

Post-secondary Literacy Readiness

The provost at Gallaudet University, a liberal arts college for the deaf, stated

recently that reading and writing levels of incoming freshman have been rising each year

(F emandes, 2003). Surprisingly, at the same time, the national median score of reading

45

achievement for high school graduates remains unchanged. This may be indicative of a
widening gap between those students who have surpassed the 4th grade reading barriers
that seem to exist for deaf students and those students who are still struggling with basic
(even primary) reading and language skills. Certainly, the literacy levels of deaf students
at the time of high school graduation place this group of individuals at risk for positive
postsecondary outcomes. Only 36.4% of deaf students participate in postsecondary
education within two years of leaving high school (American Council on Education,
1996).

Within three to five years after leaving high school, 60% of deaf and hard of
hearing students are participating in postsecondary education which is a rate similar to all
students. Yet, most deaf students attend colleges specifically tailored for students with
hearing loss such as Gallaudet University and National Technical Institute for the Deaf.
Do not mistake that these are fine institutions which house some of the most reputable
faculty members and researchers in the nation; however, the colleges do have lower
admission standards than many other universities. Once accepted, students with low
reading levels and writing skills are typically enrolled in an intense and targeted
remediation program. NTID, for instance, offers a series of developmental English
courses meant to advance deaf students and their literacy outcomes, so that they are on
“level playing ground” with typical college students who are hearing. There are few deaf
students who have strong enough literacy skills at high school graduation to attend any
university of choice.

Prior Literacy and Decyizess Research

46

Sadly, the field of deaf education has very little knowledge aggregated in terms of
the writing practices of the deaf or effective literacy interventions with school-aged deaf
persons. Antia, Reed & Kreimeyer (2005) conducted a regression analysis to find the
predictors of writing achievement in this population of students, but they resulted in a
model that could only explain an unsatisfying 18% of the variance with variables like
grade, degree of hearing loss and gender. This research and others like it do little to
respond to the historically low literacy achievement rates of the deaf. Furthermore, there
is a paucity of literacy research. Luckner, Sebald, Cooney, Young & Muir (2006) found
that only 964 articles relative to literacy and deafness have appeared in peer-reviewed
journals over the past 40 years; that equates to a meager 24 a year, on average. Of those
964 articles, only 22 could be considered evidence-based, that is, the study used a control
group and provided quantitative and statistical information needed for calculation of
effect sizes. Astonishingly, over 500 of the articles were eliminated solely on grounds
that they were not research studies at all but were position papers, practitioner articles, or
literature reviews. Luckner et al. (2006) could not conduct the meta-analysis they had
wanted due to the fact that no two studies examined the same aspect. Furthermore, out of
the 22 articles considered scientifically-based research, less than a quarter related to
writing. Needless to say, there is considerable need for an increased quantity and quality
of literacy research and deafness.

Deaf Writers as L2 or Linguistic Minority Learners

With the paucity of literacy research on deaf populations, innovation and research

within the field is largely reliant on theoretical frameworks such as those already

presented in this chapter (e.g., cognitive theories, sociocultural theories, and theories of

47

dialogue). It is also fi'uitfirl to ascertain the applicability of other related bodies of
literature such as L2 writing research and research on linguistic minority writers. One
may question the ability to apply L2 writing literature to deaf students because so many
deaf children do not have even one firlly developed language at the start of school. With
the exception of deaf children of deaf parents who may be exposed to ASL in early
childhood, most deaf children who use sign language do not have adequate quantity (i.e.,
due to lack of opportunities for communication via ASL) or quality exposure to ASL
(i.e., due to lack of fluent models) at an early age to acquire it similarly to how their
hearing counterparts acquire English. Therefore, language development of a primary
language, if sign, is often delayed and/or incomplete. Similarly, due to the physical
barriers of hearing spoken language and the difficulties of lipreading, deaf children have,
at best, partial exposure to the English language. Often a reality is that deaf children are
learning English and sign (ASL or contact sign or English-based sign) simultaneously in
the schools. This experience is contrary to a typical L2 student who has fluency in a
primary language which then influences learning in the secondary language of English. In
this regard, the deaf and hard of hearing population of students is a unique group that
faces specific and particular challenges of its own, that is, the impact of incomplete
language acquisition of a primary language on reading and writing or the impact of mixed
‘ exposure to sign and English. At the same time, Valdes (2006) has identified
monolingual speakers of a particular ethnic group who speak a contact variety of English
as representative of the diversity of L2 writers. These are persons who have learned

English fi'om others who speak it imperfectly (e.g., children learning and using a Spanish-

48

influenced variety of English). Similarities can be drawn to the use of contact sign where
persons use more of a mixture of English-based sign and ASL properties.

There are parallels that can be found in the writing of deaf students and the
writing of your typical L2 students. Both populations of writers evidence struggles with
the mechanics or grammatical features of English, have nonnative features that surface in
their writing, have longstanding syntactical, phonological, morphological or pragmatic
problems even after years of English use and after reaching a level of expressive fluency
(Valdes, 2006). Deafeducation teachers have inherently relied on similar instructional
techniques (e. g., error correction) that are widely used in the field of L2 writing when it
comes to addressing a-grarnmatical elements of student work. However, the field of L2
writing has fiirthered this body of research (e.g., through instructional principles of
“noticing” and “reformulation” centered around heightening metalinguistic awareness
and involving students in the meaning-making process). With respect to deaf education,
these ideas remain largely untapped but potentially effective.

To that end, it can be questioned whether deaf students may be referred to as a L2
population. This is somewhat problematic because the L2 label implies that deaf children
have acquired a primary language other than English. As it was shown above, there often
is partial and delayed acquisition of both sign language and English. Yet, for the
population of students that is represented by this study, ASL (or contact sign) is more
than often preferred as a primary means of communication and expression. This
population of students would prefer to sign it or see it signed in ASL rather than speak it,
read it or write it in English. Sign language skills, albeit later than the occurrence of

typical language development, are honed through day-to-day interactions, more so than

49

English. Sign language becomes the primary method and means through which these deaf
students make sense of the world. Due to the case that this population of deaf individuals
typically reach fluency in sign language prior to attaining fluency in English (which some
claim to never firlly attain), and because ASL or contact sign becomes an avenue for
communicating about English, the L2 label is applicable, for indeed, these deaf students
are learning English as a second language.
L2 or Linguistic Minority Writing Research

Research has indicated that there are differences in the writing processes used by
expert and novice L2 writers. Those considered more expert at writing construct longer
and faster pieces of text, spend double the time planning prior to starting, and reread text
for high-level purposes in addition to low-level considerations (Sasaki, 2002). Novice L2
writers, on the other hand, devote more time to translating their generated ideas into
English and stop more often to consider issues of translation. Some would deduce that
‘ novice L2 writers then need instruction that hones lower-level writing skills and focuses
in on translation strategies separate fi‘om the writing process; however, studies have
shown that this is not the case. For all levels of L2 writers, beginner through advanced,
writing all-at-once in a non-linear process resulted in greater writing fluency and quality
than step-by-step writing (Ransdell, Lavelle & Levy, 2002). This suggests that instruction
and learning relative to contextual language use happens best when situated in real
writing contexts.
Instruction of L2 and Linguistic Minority Writers

A balanced approach needed. Whole language and process writing approaches

are used profusely in the schools to teach all students. The whole language approach

50

stems fi'om knowledge about the acquisition of oral language and the development of
early written language skills. Encounters with language through conversation or print-
rich environments allow children to be learners who “spontaneously engage in the
construction of needed knowledge and skills” (McNaughton, 2002, 92). Experiences
build on each other and naturally extend into one’s writing. Yet, some academicians
claim that this amounts to a one-size-fits-all approach and is a disservice to linguistically
non-mainstream and L2 students because instruction is not intense or strategic enough
(Delpit, 1986, 1988; Reyes, 1992). Rather, for linguistically diverse students who have
acquired a different first language, learning standard English is a conscious, contrastive
and analytic process (Gee, 1991).

Equally, a preoccupation with the teaching of grammar through decontextualized
rules or formulas may also be an unproductive approach. Traditional ways of teaching
grammar and standard English rely heavily on skill-drills that occur apart fiom any real
writing context (McNaughton, 2002). Students have little opportunity to experience
purposefiil writing for an authentic audience. Yet, it has been shown that reductionist
teaching of lower-level skills separately from a larger sphere of meaning provides no real
benefit to students (Coleman, 1997; Hillocks, 1986). Some focus on lower-level skills
can be fruitful, especially if contextualized. For example, it has been evidenced that L2
students who receive feedback on their grammatical errors make significantly greater
improvement on grammatical accuracy than those who do not receive feedback (Ferris &
Roberts, 2006).

Emlicit contrastive techniques. Linguistically diverse children who are merely

immersed or passively exposed to standard English text have evidenced very little

5]

progress with the contextual language features of their writing. For instance, merely
asking students to proofi'ead their work and fix the mistakes often results in no
improvements. When a students’ expressive or home language surfaces in their writing, it
looks and sounds right to them. Instead, a contrastive approach that draws attention to the
differences and breaks material into analytic bits can lead to greater linguistic
competence of standard English (Gee, 1996; Wolfi'am et al., 1999). By overtly
juxtaposing languages, Hagemann (2001) claims her students have begun to recognize
the distinct differences that were once not noticeable to them. She uses a three-step
process for helping students to build a bridge that spans the linguistic gap. First, students
learn to notice features of standard English that are new or different to them. Second,
they indicate the comparable feature in their expressive language. Thirdly, the feature
must be practiced in the context of real writing experiences. A systematic approach such
as this helps linguistically diverse students to more easily recognize language differences
(Reyes, 1992; McNaughton, 2000) and to use the two discourses separately. This is the
ultimate goal of code-switching or border—crossing (Delpit, 1986, 1988)—to develop the
metaknowledge needed for both languages (Gee, 1996, McAnally et al., 1999) and to
distinguish between situations requiring their uses.

Gee (1996) refers to those students who may never firlly acquire a second
language or discourse as “mushfakes”. Full fluency may not be possible, especially if
acquisition is happening at a later age; however, partial acquisition coupled with
metaknowledge and strategies is a way these persons can “make do”. There is some
indication that deaf students draw on an internalized knowledge of English during

composition as much as possible and also refer to the rules of English that have been

52

taught to them (Mayer, 1999). Schools can arm students with the strategies they need;
they “. . . ought to allow students to juxtapose diverse Discourses to each other so that
they can understand them at the meta-level through a more encompassing language of
reflection” (Gee, 1996, p. 190).

Teachers are incredibly important mediators of this process. They must have an
understanding or familiarity with the expressive languages that students use in order to
guide them through the contrastive analysis techniques (Rickford & Rickford, 2000). The
teacher recognizes where the students begin and where she intends to lead them. Having
metaknowledge of both languages, the teacher can also model the contrastive analysis
techniques (Wolfram et al., 1999) or use think-aloud strategies for students
(Montgomery, 2001). Ultimately, the students begin to monitor their own use of language
during writing (Hagemann, 2001).

Active student participation, collaboration and teacher responsiveness. If a
positive classroom environment that is respectful of cultural and linguistic differences has
been thoughtfully established, children feel they are rightful members of the community
and can legitimately participate. Teachers might then use engaging activities such as
writing for real-world purposes to promote high student involvement (Bakhtin, 1981).
Active participation is absolutely key (Montgomery, 2001; Reyes, 1992).

When students become involved members of the classroom learning, the teacher
can more accurately assess their expressions for current levels of understanding and prior
knowledge, which, in turn, leads to more responsive and scafi‘olded communication fi'om
the teacher because she knows her students’ needs better. “By building on children’s

cultural and personal ways of interacting while at the same time providing new and

53

expanded opportunities for successful interactions, teachers can help children expand
their participatory and linguistic repertoires” (Johnson, 1994, p. 189). The teacher may
also model her thinking about language in order to support learners in seeing the form of
language, thereby building metalinguistic knowledge. “Metalinguistic knowledge
transcends knowledge about language as ‘meaning’ extending to knowledge about
language as ‘form’ separable from its meaningfulness” (Ransdell & Barbier, 2002, p. 3).

Kuiken & Vedder (2002) discuss how collaborative writing in L2 classrooms can
lead to student writing that is higher quality. The student interaction that occurs in a
collaborative environment about language production prompts the learner to deepen their
awareness of contextual language rules. The class engages in reflections and discussions
about the content or the writing process but also gives floor time to language forms. This
leads to greater “noticing”, an increased awareness of linguistic forms.
Current Instructional Practices in Deaf Education Classrooms

Given the sparse and dated literature on classroom instruction, it is unclear
whether deaf education teachers, in general, still adhere to traditional instructional
practices or if they allow for student interaction and contribution—practices driven by the
sociocultural and dialogic theories presented in the first part of the chapter. Wolff (1977)
made a differentiation between what he called “cognitive classes” and more “traditional
classes”. Teachers of cognitive classes used verbal strategies that would request high-
level thinking such as inferring, classifying, generalizing, and differentiating fi'om the
students. Teachers of traditional classes required memory task activities such as recalling
factual information through questioning. Wolff discovered that cognitive classes were

less-directive classes that allowed students more of the talking time. Craig and Collins

54

(1970) examined what student participation and interactions looked like in the classroom.
They found that across all levels of classes of deaf students, teachers used more
traditional methods of teaching. In fact, 75% of the total communication in the classroom
(was provided by the teacher and only 25% by the students (Craig and Collins, 1970;
Miller, 1992).

There are instances of teachers using more non-traditional models of instruction.
For instance, Mayer, Akamatsu and Stewart (2002) observed exemplary teachers of the
deaf and analyzed the data for any common practices among the teachers. They
discovered that effective teachers of the deaf used discourse strategies and “worked hard
to engage students in interactions which were meaningful and encouraged knowledge-
building” (499). The teachers were not the “tellers” of information but provided a
stimulating environment that encouraged student-centered learning. For instance, a
teacher who asks, “How can we find out about this?” instead of simply giving answers
requires students to expand on their linguistic and cognitive efforts. Given a problem to
tackle, teachers and students enter into a joint process of inquiry, reasoning and learning.
Others have also noted the benefits of interactive instruction used with deaf students
(Lang & Albertini, 2001; Schneiderrnan, 1995).

Imbalanced instructional practices. Instructional practices of literacy can be
grossly separated into methods that are indirect or implicit versus direct or explicit.
Indirect/implicit instructional methods are otherwise referred to as whole language
approaches. Such practices of language and literacy instruction are widely used with deaf
children. A survey by LaSasso and Mobley (1997) found that 4 out of 5 programs for the

deaf based their classroom instruction on whole language principles. Schirmer (1994)

55

puts whole language principles in terms applicable to classroom instructional techniques:
reading, writing, speaking and listening are all interrelated; literacy skills develop as one
is engaged in authentic context; one learns to write by writing—learn to do by doing;
students are given choice and ownership over their writing activities; writing process, not
product, is emphasized; teachers use an integrated curriculum. Whole language teachers
do typically allow their students to spend more time on writing (up to 6 times more);
however, even though there have been no studies on the effectiveness of this approach
with deaf students, no achievement differences have been found between young special
education writers of whole language approaches versus skills-oriented instruction
(Graham & Harris, 1994).

In contrast to whole language approaches, direct or explicit instructional methods
tend to be skills-based. This can often mean a preoccupation with the teaching of
grammar through drills that occur apart fiom any real writing context. Even when
students are encouraged to craft an original story, there is often still an overemphasis on
writing accuracy. Students can become easily fi'ustrated with writing because the final
product seems unattainable to them (Albertini, 1996). They are expected to produce
correct writing prior to firlly grasping the rules of the language (Harrison, Simpson &
Stuart, 1991). Second, students are less likely to experiment with the use of language
(Kluwin & Kelly, 1992) for fear of being critiqued. Often this leads to writing comprised
of sentences that are simple, rigid, uninteresting, and not cohesively linked to the rest of
the text (Antia et al., 2005; Hillocks, 1995). Some claim a non-corrective approach that
gives credit for approximations as well as growth can help blooming writers develop

confidence and fluency of expression (French, 1999; Harrison, Simpson & Stuart, 1991).

S6

A combined effort, using natural and structured approaches to writing instruction,
is used less often in the classroom but may provide the most benefit to the deaf student
(McAnally, Rose & Quigley, 1994). Such a model would incorporate both holistic
writing activities and skill-based instruction (Delpit, 1986, 1988; Evans, 1998; Schirmer
& Bailey, 2000; Schirmer, Bailey & Fitzgerald, 1999). Teachers of the deaf have
expressed difficulty in providing a balance of instruction related to content as well as
form; because deaf students typically struggle more with form (e.g., English syntactical
constructions), instructional efforts in this area of writing tend to dominate (Mayer,
1999). One way to achieve a balance is to teach writing skills (lower-level and higher-
level) and processes (Paul, 1998) in the context of real writing experiences (French,
1999; McNaughton, 2002).

Select Studies of Writing Intervention Research

The preponderance of contemporary writing research occurs with post-secondary
students and adults, and less than 15% of writing research takes place with middle school
students (Juzwik et al., 2006). More specifically, writing intervention research involving
linguistically diverse students at the middle school level is nearly non-existent. The
current SIWI intervention, however, was largely inspired by two instructional models
used previously with general education and special education writers, namely Cognitive
Strategy Instruction of Writing and Morning Message. Even though instruction, in both
cases, had been employed mainly with students having high-incidence disabilities such as
learning disabilities, similar theoretical stances as the ones outlined in this chapter were
drawn upon to inform the practices—cognitive theories of composing processes and

sociocultural theories of teaching and learning. Further, characteristics of instruction

57

deemed necessary for linguistically diverse students are either present in the models or
have been added through subsequent adaptations. The models largely incorporate
strategic writing instruction and/or interactive writing instruction approaches.
Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing (CSIW?

CSIW, the published work of Englert and colleagues, is an instructional writing
program that is often used with struggling writers, especially students with learning
disabilities who have evidenced deficiencies in their knowledge of composing and self-
regulation of the composing processes. It is designed to expose students to the strategies
and processes of skilled writers, with the intention that students, having gained such
awareness, will take on and incorporate the strategies into their own repertoire of writing
approaches. Of primary focus in CSIW is knowledge development of (a) expository text
structure, (b) the subprocesses of writing such as planning, organizing, drafting, editing,
and revising, and (c) a reader perspective and audience considerations (Englert, 1990).

The strategies of skilled writers have been captured in think-sheets that are used
as temporary scaffolds to prompt students to carry out certain actions during the writing
process that they do not typically employ independently. Each subprocess of writing has
an accompanying think-sheet; for instance, the planning think-sheet asks students to
answer questions about who they are writing for (i.e., audience), why they are writing
(i.e., purpose), and what they already know (i.e., brainstorm ideas). The mnemonic,
POWER, represents the fiamework of multiple strategies needed when composing, with
each letter indicating a set of strategies for a subprocess of writing. Additionally, the
think-sheets provide teachers and students with a way of talking about the writing

processes; classroom dialogues are important spaces where the process of sharing self-

58

talk with the group allows the writing strategies and processes of others to be made
visible to all. This is the basis for quality changes in metacognition and cognition. As
students begin to appropriate these strategies through practice, scaffolding is reduced and
think-sheets are gradually faded.

Efi’ectiveness of using CSIW. The effectiveness of CSIW has been studied using a
pretest-posttest, control-group design (Englert et al., 1991). The treatment and control
groups were comprised of three groups of students, those with learning disabilities, low-
achieving general education students and high-achieving general education students. The
students were administered pre and posttests for the assessment of metacognitive
knowledge, composing skills on two various trained expository texts, composing skills on
a third text that was unfamiliar to students and reading comprehension of expository text.
Results indicated significantly greater gains in the quality of expository writing for those
in the CSIW group as compared to the control group. Students in the treatment group,
regardless of student labeling as LD or not, made improvements in terms of trained and
untrained expository writing, audience sensitivity, use of text structure features, and
metacognitive knowledge of writing. More importantly, students with learning
disabilities made performance gains that closed gaps existing prior to CSIW curriculum
exposure, meaning that LD students performed at posttest similarly to their non-LD peers
in the control group.

As was the case in the above study, CSIW began taking more of a dialogic
approach to strategy instruction, one that conceptually builds on ideas of cognitive

apprenticeship, in the early 90’s. A difference was found between teachers who provided

59

instruction supported by sociocultural principles and those who were more teacher-
directed in their approach. As Englert, Mariage, and Dunsmore (2006) emphasized:
Although CSIW think-sheets and artifacts embodied the tools, discourses,
functions, and meanings of the text, such cultural tools were ineffective when they
were simply applied and practiced by students, without social interaction with
others that featured the meaning, functions, self-regulatory and communicative
aspects of such tools (p. 212).
It was not only the presence of strategy instruction that impacted student achievement in
writing tasks but the existence of an activity setting which encouraged students and
teacher to co-participate in the talking, thinking, and modeling of writing strategies. Such
a finding points to the importance of dialogic or interactive methods of instruction.
Morning Message
A second instructional model that informs the current SIWI intervention is
Morning Message. Morning Message (Englert & Dunsmore, 2002; Mariage, 1995, 2001)
is a daily, guided or shared writing activity that is dialogic and interactive. It can be
characterized as instruction that allows for a non-traditional activity space in the sense
that students are encouraged to contribute, to talk, and to take control over the writing
processes. The interactive format can reduce a teacher’s control over the lesson and cause
it to move in unintended directions; however, it is amidst the to and flu of conversation
that students are apprenticed in the language, thinking, actions, and conventions of
writing by gaining access to others’ thinking or meta-talk. Essentially, through exchanges
with others, students are exposed to more sophisticated ways of thinking about writing

processes such as solving problems and monitoring text. A shared knowledge is co-

6O

constructed by drawing on the resources and the collaborative interactions of members.
Over time, the individual appropriates the information that is shared on the external plane
and makes it his/her own.

Morning Message is generally a fifteen to thirty-minute, daily writing activity,
during which teachers and students collaboratively construct a piece of text. When co-
constructing papers of personal experience or personal narratives, one student will serve
as the day's lead author by suggesting an idea or topic for the paper. Others will actively
participate and work with the author in the generation and revision of text. When the
group and author reach a consensus to add a phrase or a sentence to the text, the teacher
writes the students’ word-for-word expressions (including grammar and meaning errors
as they are communicated) on an easel. Then she opens the floor for fiirther generation of
ideas, or the beginning of a revising or editing component. The writing during Morning
Message is illustrated as a recursive process, with participants fluidly moving back and
forth between idea/ text generation, revising and editing.

The students can ask the author questions (i.e., who, what, where, why, how)
about his/her experience to gather more information for the paper and generate firrther
text. These question words, in the case of personal narratives, serve as scaffolds for
learning and producing the text structure. In addition to personal narratives, Morning
Message allows for the teaching and learning of a variety of other text structures such as
comparison/contrast, persuasive, and expository papers. However, scaffolds for these
other text structures may take the form of conceptual maps or organizing devices. In
addition, the topic would be collaboratively determined and there would be no lead

author.

61

Once any text is written on the easel, the teacher will occasionally read it alone or
in unison with the students to prompt awareness of any part that does not seem right. As
the text is reread, students monitor and offer suggestions for revision or editing.
Participants, oftentimes through scaf’folded interaction and prompting, tell the name and
the procedure for their suggestion. Such a practice of discourse benefits others by pairing
the thinking with language and action, and participants are able to deepen their own
knowledge by gaining access to the knowledge of others. There also ensues dialogue
about the merits of suggested changes as students comment on each other’s input by
defending or providing a rationale for opposition. The teacher will orchestrate the
interaction, knowing when to step in and when to give more control and floor time over
to students.

Ultimately, this activity provides a space for teachers to transfer the control of the
writing process and strategies over to students. When first introducing Morning Message,
the teacher may use more time for direct instruction, prompting, modeling of language
and thinking, or use of guided questions. Once students begin to appropriate the writing
practices, thinking, and strategies of more-knowledgeable—others, the teacher gradually
releases more of the writing responsibility over to the students. S/he uses a series of “step
bac ” and “step in” moves to facilitate this transfer; stepping back to position the students
as the expert decision-makers and evaluators of the quality of text, and stepping in to
provide necessary supports or instructional guidance (Englert & Dunsmore, 2002).
Increasingly, more “step-back” moves are used. The transfer of control to students leads

to greater self-regulation, confidence and automaticity with writing.

62

Furthermore, Morning Message is an activity that allows students to discuss and
practice higher-level writing skills (e. g., text structure, organization, coherence, topic
sentences) in addition to lower-level writing skills (e.g., English conventions, grammar,
spelling, punctuation). For instance, if a student generates an idea that seems to go off
topic and other students don’t see the threat to coherence, the teacher may prompt
students to thought by stating, “I’m wondering how that detail pertains to our topic.” Any
grade—level curriculum, whether high-level or low-level, can be embedded in the activity
and collaborative discussion, yet it requires the teacher be cognizant of students’
objectives in order to give more floor time to particular skills or nudge learning in a
certain direction.

The final co-constructed piece is published and shared with an authentic audience.
This may be a newsletter that is sent home and shared with parents or may be a school
bulletin distributed to peers and staff. Publication of authentic pieces for real audiences
shows that the writing has purpose of conveying information or ideas to others, and it is
not just an activity done in school.

Eflectiveness of using Morning Message. Mariage (2001) demonstrated the
benefits of such an instructional approach, reporting that students did learn strategies and
practices from the dialogue used during Morning Message. In his study, students at first
“borrowed the voices” of others when completing independent writing projects or editing
another’s work. later, however, they increasingly internalized these voices, and their
writing became more automatic. Also, the number of times a student participated was
correlated with editing and revising abilities—greater participation in the co-construction

of text equated with a greater number of revision ideas a student was able to offer on

63

posttest assessments. This finding points to the value of student involvement in the
teaching and learning of writing.
Morning Message with Adaptations for Deaf Students

Due to its interactive and dialogic nature, Morning Message holds promise for use
with deaf students. However, some aspects of the activity were reconsidered and tailored
to this unique subpopulation of students. While still adhering to the defining and key
instructional principles, adaptations were made that would make the activity more
accessible to the deaf and more responsive to language needs.

The first consideration regards the expressive language of deaf students. Many
deaf children today use a pidgin sign language or contact sign which generally involves a
simplified use of ASL vocabulary in English syntactical order. When students generate I
ideas for the text using a form of sign that is a close approximation of English, the teacher
may readily write this contribution on the easel. However, a problematic scenario arises
when students use a form of sign during discussion that is dramatically different in syntax
from English. For instance users of ASL may offer expressions or ideas that are too
distant fi'om English text and can’t be captured well in writing. It is because of this
difficulty that Morning Message used with deaf students may need a “two easel”
approach (Wolbers & Miller, 2006). That is, when students offer an idea in ASL, an
additional step becomes necessary to deal with the language factor. First students
collaboratively discuss if an offered expression is ASL or English-based sign (capable of
being written). Ifthe expression is ASL, the teacher may use the ASL easel as an idea
holding place while translation discussions take place. She may capture the idea given in

ASL the best she can using gloss words, symbols, pictures or any other mechanism,

making sure to make note of movements and expressions used in addition to sign
vocabulary. A translated version (that is agreed upon) is then recorded word-for-word
onto the “English” easel. If necessary, the teacher may need to model or think-aloud the
principles of each language and possible translation techniques until students begin to
appropriate the approaches. The addition of the ASL-to-English translation could be
considered a challenge and a benefit at the same time. Although the process undoubtedly
lengthens Morning Message, it does help to build necessary metalinguistic awareness of
both ASL and English.

Moreover, a group with ASL-using members needing explicit instruction in
translation strategies and contrastive approaches will need to be involved in thoughtful
interaction around language features. Members should be careful to give respect and
value to all languages in the classroom. When certain English-based discourses are used
and expected in the schools, deaf children need a way to access these while still
maintaining integrity for their own form of expressive communication. When contrasting
home and academic discourses or languages, for instance, using words that give more
value or worth to one language than another should be avoided. By simply stating that
one kind of language is “ri t” and another kind is “wrong”, students may feel that their
community and culture have been insulted or degraded. After all, there are no languages
or dialects that are deficient or wrong in a linguistic sense (Coleman, 1997; Rickford &
Rickford, 2000; Wolfiam et al., 1999). Other vocabulary to stay away fi'om include
“appropriate” vs. “non-appropriate” and “standard” vs. “non-standard”.

The second consideration is the rereading of the message that routinely happens

during Morning Message. Typically, the teacher rereads the text while pointing word-by-

65

word as she speaks. To do this while signing is difficult, if not impossible. However, it is
critical that the text be repeated again and again to develop a rhythm and a pattern to the
written language. Just as hearing students read along with their teacher, deaf children
should also be signing (or fingerspelling if there is difficulty matching sign to the English
constructions). This repetition is a vital step in teaching students to reread and monitor
their texts. Thus, the method has been adapted to allow for a one-handed signing
technique, where one hand is pointing at the print and the other is signing.

Eflectiveness of using Morning Message with deaf students. Provided that deaf
students are exposed to a modified version of Morning Message, they do make significant
gains fi'om pre to posttest in- higher-level writing skills, lower-level writing skills and
reading (W olbers, 2006). These findings were based on an intervention that took place in
two elementary classrooms (n=8) and one middle school classroom (n=8) for a total of 21
days and targeted personal narrative writing. Students showed substantial improvement
with genre-specific traits (t = 8.53, p < 0.000), use of contextual language (t = 3.91, p <
0.001), editing/revising skills (I = 3.89, p < 0.001), and reading levels (t = 6.69, p <
0.000). There were no reported gains or losses in their use of conventions (t = 1.85, p <
0.085) and total word count (t = -1.80, p < 0.093). According to Cohen’s rule of thumb
(Howell, 2002), the magnitude of the experimental results were large for the primary
traits comparison (d = 0.82) and near-moderate for contextual language (d = 0.41) and
editing/revising (d = 0.46).

In addition, a one-way MANOVA was used to detect any school level effects.
Elementary students made significantly greater gains with respect to conventions [F

(1,14) = 8.18, p < .013] and reading level [F (1,14) = 62.45, p < .000], and middle school

66

students made significantly greater gains with editing and revising tasks [F (1, 14) =
13.49, p < .003]. On editing and revising tasks, middle school students made high-level
decisions about the text structure, coherence and overall meaning of the passage at
posttest whereas they mainly dealt with surface-level changes at pretest.
Summary

The current research was inspired by previous school-aged writing interventions
such as CSIW and Morning Message, and it draws on the strategic and interactive natures
associated with both instructional methods. Deaf students previously exposed to Morning
Message did evidence gains in their personal narrative writing with both high-level and
low-level writing skills. This is not overly surprising since interactive instruction and
dialogic approaches have been touted in the field of deaf education and L2 writing as
being highly effective and desired (Mayer, Akamatsu & Stewart, 2002). The present
study, however, is more complex due to its targeting of expository writing. It is
anticipated that students will need structured support when undertaking the more difficult
expository text structure and could benefit from the framework of strategies that are
provided through CSIW, aiding the metacognitive and cognitive development of
processes for composing. Additional instructional techniques for building metalinguistic
awareness are taken from the literature on linguistically diverse writers; such techniques
have formed the basis for adaptations to Morning Message used with deaf children.
Taken together, Morning Message and CSIW create a starting point for Strategic and
Interactive Writing Instruction (SIWI), conjoining cognitive theories of composing

processes with sociocultural theories of teaching and learning. It is anticipated that the

67

SIWI approach will respond to the unique linguistic needs of deaf individuals and foster

writing growth.

68

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

Design of the Study

As intervention research, this study had a treatment and comparison group. The
treatment group implemented SIWI components, while the comparison group continued
with its typical writing instruction. By comparing gains in writing and reading of students
in the treatment group with those of the comparison group, the study aimed to assess the
effectiveness of the SIWI curriculum.

This study utilized a quasi-experimental and non-equivalent groups design to
investigate the research questions that were detailed in the previous chapter. The research
design was a pretest-posttest control group design, with no randomization of participants.
Instead of randomly assigning the teachers and students to the treatment and control
groups, they were assigned based on preference and ability to firlfill participation
requirements. For example, the teacher in the treatment group needed to commit to the
time and work demands of implementing the SIWI intervention, so participants were
asked about their willingness to be involved at such a capacity. To minimize the internal
validity threats arising flom such a selection and assignment process, the researcher
chose a comparison teacher and a classroom site that were similar on a number of
experimentally-relevant factors. Students were additionally matched on a number of

pertinent variables.

69

This study also used some qualitative techniques such as interviewing in order to
represent and construct the experience of student writers in the treatment and comparison
groups.

Participants and School Context

The unit of analysis for this study was the middle school deaf or hard of hearing
student. However, due to the lack of randomization, it was necessary to first detail any
school contexts, teacher characteristics, or student variables that were relevant to the
study. This was done with the objective of evidencing an adequate match between the
treatment and comparison groups and thereby strengthening the validity of the study.
Description of Research Sites

The research was conducted in two middle school classrooms at two various
school sites. The treatment group research site was a classroom within a residential
school for the deaf located in a mid to large Midwestern town. The comparison group
research site was also a classroom located in a mid to large Midwestern town but was
within a center-based deaf and hard of hearing program in a public school district.
Because this study targeted literacy instruction for students at the middle school level and
because there is typically only one teacher of the deaf per school who teaches reading and
writing at that level, the use of two research sites was unavoidable. The sites were,
however, found to be comparable regarding certain relevant factors.

Both schools, for instance, espoused Total Communication (TC) as a philosophy
of communication rather than a method of communication. That is, TC was not solely
equated with Simultaneous Communication (SC) or the simultaneous use of English-

based sign and voice (see Mayer & Lowenbraun, 1990, for an example of viewing TC as

70

a method). When viewing TC as such-TC as a method—the use of American Sign
Language (ASL) in the classroom is rare or impossible due to the conflicting grammatical
natures of ASL and spoken English. Thus, intentional or not, TC as a method devalues
the educational importance of ASL use (Peters, Wolbers & Dimling, in press). There are
also concerns that children who are provided with instruction via SC may not be exposed
to firll and complete language in either ASL or English because of the alterations
inherently made to each language in order to happen simultaneously (Laurent Clerc
National Deaf Education Center, n.d). Viewing TC as a philosophy, rather, means there is
an array of communication options available to teachers to flexibly use when
communicating with deaf children that can appropriately and effectively respond to the
needs of various situations (Hawkins & Brawner, 1997; Tucker & Powell, 1991). These
options include ASL, English-based sign, SC, written text, voice, fingerspelling, and
gesture, to name a partial list. Because both school sites regard TC as a philosophy, ASL
is a valued and frequently utilized language among students and teachers in the
classroom. How a school views TC was an important consideration to this study since
SIWI intends that students build metalinguistic knowledge in both ASL and English by
comparing and contrasting languages. To do such, the languages must be used in a
fashion that is distinguishable.

Additionally, the school sites were comparable regarding their position within and
connections to the deaf community. Both schools may be viewed as cultural epicenters
for the deaf community due to their equally large number of deaf and hard of hearing
students, teachers, staff and visitors. Deaf sporting or entertainment events that occur in

or around the schools often draw members of the greater state and Midwestern Deaf

71

communities to the areas. Students in both schools have numerous opportunities to
interact with deaf adults and deaf role models. Such interconnectedness between the
schools and the greater Deaf community is reflected in the schools’ similar values, beliefs
and views of deafness as well as their welcome acceptance of Deafculture.

Description of Teacher Participants

The teacher affiliated with the treatment group is a Caucasian and hearing female.
She has been a reading, writing and language arts teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing
for seven previous years, all at the middle school level and at the state residential school.
She has obtained a mater’s degree in special education, and she has a rating of advanced
on the Sign Communication Proficiency Interview (SCPI).

Because the teacher of the treatment group classroom was absent on maternity
leave at the time of the intervention, she did not implement any portion of the SIWI
curriculum. Instead, the researcher carried out all instructional aspects of the intervention
with the teacher’s classroom of students. The teacher, however, received professional
development regarding SIWI prior to the intervention period as if she were the primary
implementer. After having the necessary training, the teacher was involved in the
research project by serving as an evaluator of implementation fidelity.

The researcher/implementer is a Caucasian and hearing female. From the years
1999 to 2003, she primarily taught reading, writing and language arts to deaf middle and
high school students. In the fall of 2003, she left teaching deaf students to pursue her
doctorate in special education. During the time of her doctoral studies, she taught several
undergraduate and graduate special education courses, including deaf education teacher

preparation courses. The study described here is her dissertation research, which will be

72

the completion of her doctoral program. The researcher/implementer is a state qualified
(i.e., OMB) and nationally certified interpreter for the deaf (i.e., RID certified, CI/CT).

The teacher afiiliated with the comparison group is a Caucasian and hearing male.
He has been a teacher of the deaf for three years at his current school and has primarily
taught language arts during that time. He has completed a master’s degree in special
education. The comparison teacher is additionally a fluent signer. Prior to becoming a
teacher of the deaf, he worked as an educational interpreter at his current school for 8
years. Since 1998, he has been nationally certified (i.e., NAD IV) as a sign language
interpreter.

The comparison teacher and the implementer did match in regard to pertinent
factors. First, both have national certification in sign language interpreting to account for
their sign proficiency. Both teachers, therefore, were efl‘ective users of English-based
sign language or ASL and carried out understandable, two-sided conversations with
students. Moreover, the teachers used a similar style of communication with students, one
that consisted mainly of ASL expressions with additions of English-based sign and voice
at times. Second, both had comparable amounts and kinds of teaching experience—
approximately three years teaching language arts in the middle grades. Lastly, the
comparison group teacher and the implementer took their undergraduate coursework at
the same university. The implementer has accrued more graduate credits than the
comparison teacher; however, the comparison teacher received high recommendations
from his university instructors for being one of their top students and is regarded as a

high quality teacher in the field by his coworkers.

73

Lastly, it should be recognized that the control group teacher took a sudden leave
of absence at the beginning of the intervention phase. Although the substitute teacher
assigned to the class was a certified teacher of the deaf, she did not match the
implementer on other characteristics. Therefore, the pretests in the control group were
delayed by approximately 4 weeks in order to allow the regular teacher to be back in the
classroom for the majority of the instructional time that took place between the pre and
posttests. The regular teacher was present in the classroom for approximately 85% of the
time while the substitute was present for the other 15%. The substitute teacher
administered pretests to students in the control group and followed the instructional
lesson plans of the teacher while he was on leave.

Description of Student Participants

There were 16 students in the treatment group and 17 students in the comparison
group. The following demographics were obtained from all student participants: age,
gender, ethnicity/race, hearing loss unaided in the better ear (dB), amplified loss in the
better ear (dB), cochlear implant usage, cochlear implant benefit, additional disabilities,
reading level, and method/s of communication Hearing loss was calculated by taking an
average of hearing sensitivity in the better ear (measured in decibels, dB) across the
frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hertz (Hz). Amplified losses were not
calculated because aided threshold levels were not indicated on the audiograms of the
students in the control group. For students with cochlear implants, teachers were asked to
indicate the students’ usage and benefit of their cochlear implants on a 5-point scale (1 =
very little use! very little benefit, 5 = great amounts of use/ great amount of benefit).

Demographics of student participants are displayed in Tables 1 and 2.

74

Table 1

Demographics of Student Participants in Treatment Group

 

E E3 if; 332- st 3% it 53
m m .3 3 5 m a t: ‘3‘ 8 g
T e u G Partici
T61 12 M C/W 75 N0 - - 4.2 ASL/V
T62 13 M LA, 86 No - OH 3.6 ASL/V
C/W
T63 13 M W 94 N0 - - 5.1 ASL
T64 13 F C/W 109 NO - - 3.7 ASL
T65 14 F AA, 119 NO - - 2.3 ASL
C/W
T66 14 M W 106 Yes 2,3 LD 1.6 ASL/
MLS
T67 12 M C/W 121 N0 - ADHD 1.6 ASL
T68 12 M C/W 96 No - ADHD 0.6 ASL
T69 12 M C/W 73 NO - - 1.0 ASL/
MSL
T610 14 F C/W 36 No - - 2.9 BBS/V
T611 12 M C/W 89 Yes 3,3 ADHD 1.3 ASL/
MLS/V
T612 13 F C/W 104 N0 - ADHD 1.9 ASL
T613 11 F W 71 N0 - - 3.7 ASL/V
T614 12 M C/W 108 N0 - - 2.9 ASL
T615 1 1 M C/W 120 No - - 3.7 ASL
T616 14 F AA 109 N0 - - 0.9 ASL/
MLS

 

AA=AfiicanAmerieameW=CaucasianlWhite;LA=Iatino;AS=Asian

LD = learning disability; VI = visual impairment; CI = cognitive impairment; DMS = delayed motor skills;
OH = other health; E1 = emotional impairment; CP = cerebral palsy

EBS = English-based sign; MLS = minimal language skills; V = voice

75

Table 2

Demographics of Student Participants in Control Group

 

\ A .... 3‘ . ‘0

s it if 2% st 3% if; 53

m :1: 3 5 E m g E ‘3‘ 8 3’

Com’ 11 Group (CG) Particim

C61 12 M C/W 95 NO - - 0.3 ASL/
MLS
C62 13 M C/W 105 Yes 5,5 - 3.7 EBS/V
C63 14 M CM 60 N0 - OH 2.8 EBS/
ASL

C64 12 M C/W 105 NO - - 1.8 ASL
C65 13 F C/W 105 Yes 3,2 - 3.5 EBS/
ASL

C66 13 F AA 105 N0 - - 1.7 ' ASL
C67 12 F C/W 90 NO - - 3.3 ASL"I
C68 15 F C/W 105 Yes 4,4 - 3.8 EBS/V
C69 12 M AS 95 N0 -. - 2.5 EBS/V
C610 12 M C/W 90 N0 - - 6.9 EBS/
ASL/V

C611 13 F C/W 90 N0 - - . 3.6 ASL
C612 14 M C/W 55 NO - E1 2.5 ASL/V
C613 14 M W 105 N0 - - 4.5 ASL
C614 12 M AA 85 N0 - - 1.3 ASL
C615 13 F C/W - N0 - - 4.8 ASL
C616 11 F AA 110 N0 - CI, CP 0.9 ASL/
MLS

C617 13 F AA 83 Yes 1,1 OH 2.9 ASL/
EBS

 

AA = African Ameriean; W = Caucasian/White; LA = Latino; AS = Asian

ID = learning disability; VI = visual impairment; CI = cognitive impairment; DMS = delayed motor skills;
OH = other health; E1 = emotional impairment; CP = cerebral palsy

EBS = English-based sign; MLS = minimal language skills; V = voice

l"Student isalso auserofRomanian Sign Language

76

All students have prelingual hearing losses. And, only two students were reported as
having deaf parents, TG3 and CG7. Descriptive statistics are provided for all numerical
data including age, hearing loss and reading level in Table 3.

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics of Students ’ Age, Hearing Loss, and Pretest Reading Level

 

Treatment Group Control Group
M SD M SD
Age 12.63 1.025 12.82 1.015
Hearing loss (dB) 94.75 22.655 92.69 16.090
Pretest reading 2.563 1.3495 2.988 1.5968

level

Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the treatment group and
control group regarding the means and variances of any of these variables. See Table 4
for t-test statistics and tests of homogeneity of variances.

Table 4

Comparison of Means and Variances for Age, Hearing Loss, and Pretest Reading Level

 

Comparison of Means, Comparison of Variances,
t-test Levene Statistic
Age 1: 0.3 13, p < 0.580 0. 174, p < 0.680
Healing loss (dB) 1: 0.088, p < 0.769 1.594, p < 0.217
“etc“ reading t = .680, p < 0.416 0.016, p < 0.901

level

77

To firrther characterize the groups of students in terms of their literacy
backgrounds, the questionnaire available in Appendix A was used to collect data
regarding students’ perceptions of their language and writing skills as well as their home
literacy experiences. Students were instructed to respond to questions using a 5-point
scale (i.e., 5 = strong or everyday, 3 = average or once a week, 1 = weak or almost
never). Each question was read to students using sign language to avoid any
misunderstandings of what was being asked. Prior to handing out the questionnaire, it
was emphasized to students that their honest responses were requested. They were told
that the questionnaire would not affect their grades in any way, and there were no right or
wrong answers; the purpose was to merely learn more about the group’s literacy
practices, perceptions and histories. Lastly, students were reminded of steps taken to
protect anonymity. While individual students could be identified by the researcher via a
code applied to the back of the questionnaire, they did not write their names anywhere on
the paper. Descriptive statistics for each question by goup can be viewed in Table 5.
There were no significant differences between the treatment group and control group
regarding the means of any question; therefore, both groups of students have similar

perceptions of their literacy skills/abilities and have similar home literacy experiences.

78

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics of Students ’ Literacy Questionnaire Responses

 

Treatment Group Control Grog)
M SD M SD

Fluency in ASL 3.60 0.910 3.82 1.185
Fluency in English 3 .00 l. 134 2.94 1 .029
Reading skills 3.40 1.352 2.76 0.752
Writing skills 3.13 1.187 3.28 1.125
Read for pleasure 3.07 1.223 2.44 1.413
Write for pleasure 2.13 1.246 2.63 1.544
Availability of 3.93 0.961 3.56 1.263
print in the home

Reading frequency 2.93 1.335 3.65 1.222

of family members

In conclusion, given a number of variables that were considered, the students in the
treatment group and control group were deemed to be highly comparable.
Power Analysis

A power analysis was conducted to justify the sample size (n) in this study. To
begin, effect sizes (d) were estimated on two response variables, revising/editing and
reading. The treatment group gains from pre to posttest were projected by using data
fiom a preliminary study that had similar measures and a comparable instructional
intervention (W olbers, 2006). The prior study involved elementary and middle school
participants, but the data used here is specific to the middle school participants only. The

past data can be viewed in Table 6.

79

Table 6

 

 

Preliminary Study Data
Response Variables A SD
(pre tgosttest)
Revising/Editing 10.5 6.21
Reading 0.19 .08

Supposing that the comparison group demonstrates gains fi'om pre to posttest half
the size of the treatment group, gains on revising/editing and reading (A) would be 5.25

and 0.095 respectively. Consequently, the estimated effect sizes (d) would be 0.85 for

M and equal variances are
a

revising/editing and 1.2 for reading, whereby d =
assumed.

Power can then be estimated as a firnction of 5, where 5 = ng and n is

2n1 n2

 

determined by when dealing with two difi‘erent sample sizes (Howell, 2002).

n] + n2
Table 7 gives the power of a one-sided, two-sample t test with an alpha of 0.05 for

various levels of 8.

 

Table 7

Power as a function of 5

5 2.40 2.50 2.70 3.00 3.40 3.50
Power 0.78 0.80 0.85 0.91 0.96 0.97

 

80

When n1 is 16 and n2 is 17, 5 for revising/editing is 2.44, and power can be interpolated as
79%. When n1 is 16 and n2 is 17, 5 for reading is 3.44, and power can be interpolated as
96.5%. Since the power analysis indicated there is a moderate-high to high probability
that the statistical analysis would detect an effect that is present, the sample size was
adequately justified.

Additionally, an adequate sample size was justified by the number of dependent
variables not exceeding the number of participants in any one cell.
Informed Consent Procedures

Approval to conduct the research was obtained through the Institutional Review
Boards (IRB) at Michigan State University. In order to protect the rights of those
participating in the research, strict confidentiality and anonymity was maintained
throughout. That is, all collected data such as pre/posttests and videotapes have been kept
in a locked office cabinet. After the duration of the project, they will be destroyed. No
person other than the researcher has been allowed access to any data that might have
revealed a participant’s identity. When the data has been shared in writings,
presentations, or professional education activities, pseudonyms were given for all
students, teachers, schools and administrators. Prior to the start of the intervention, school
administrators, teachers, and parents of participating students were asked to give written
informed consent of these conditions. Additionally, students gave their written informed
assent. The privacy of all participants has been protected to the maximum extent

allowable.

81

Procedures

The research extended over a 10—week period, 2 weeks for the administration of
pre and posttests and 8 weeks for the intervention period. During the 8-week intervention
period, the students in the treatment group were exposed to the SIWI curriculum while
students in the comparison group continued with their typical classroom writing
instruction.
Instructional Components of SIWI

Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction (SIWI) for deaf and hard of hearing
adolescents is a curriculum of writing instruction. As the name signifies, SIWI is both
strategic and interactive. These two mjor elements reflect the research-based evidence
on effective writing instruction and the associated theories (i.e., cognitive theories of
composing, sociocultural theories of learning and theories of dialogue). First, SIWI is
strategic in the sense that students are introduced to the approaches of expert writers
through apprenticeship and the use of word or symbol procedural facilitators. These
facilitators encourage and support intelligent and skilled responses or decision-making.
These are temporary supports in place to guide students’ planning of successful action
around writing processes. It is intended that students become deliberate writers during all
parts of the writing process. SIWI is interactive in the sense that cycles of action and
reaction occur between participants which influence transformations and construction of
knowledge that is reciprocal. There is a two-way flow of information between parties and
every additional contribution is contingently responsive. This dynamic process is
centrally relevant to the apprenticeship process, for students are actively participating in

learning and constructing knowledge for themselves.

82

SIWI can be used to teach any text structure or any genre of writing. For this
particular research intervention, focus was given to expository writing and, more
specifically, informative compositions. When writing exposition that informs, the
author’s purpose is to convey information about a subject, devoid of opinion or
persuasion, to an audience with clarity and accuracy (W arriner, 1988). The writer
provides proper guidance to the reader by introducing the subject at the start of the paper
and explaining in the thesis statement the direction it will take. Information is then
organized effectively throughout the report by arranging main ideas and details in the
body paragraphs, all of which connect back to the thesis statement. Finally, the author
brings the writing to a close in a final paragraph that summarizes the bulk of the
information or reemphasizes the main points.

SIWI allows instructional attention to the structural features of text such as
organization, coherence and development of ideas. It targets these higher-order sldlls by
apprenticing learners in the strategies for and processes of writing (e. g., planning,
organizing and revising). Yet, at the same time, weight is given to lower-order writing
skills such as producing syntactically and grammatically correct sentences, using proper
spelling, and incorporating increasingly complex language and phrase structures. Thus, in
this regard, SIWI has a balanced instructional focus, emphasizing the learning of both
high-level and low-level writing skills, all of which are crucial to the writing of effective
and clear text.

SIWI is likewise balanced in its instructional approach. It incorporates principles
from both whole language and skills-based approaches—students are immersed in

authentic writing experiences but are also receiving direct instruction in writing

83

processes, skills or strategies. Balanced instruction is much more systematic than whole
language (Pressley, 2006), and at the same time, it affords more practice of skills in real
writing contexts through scaffolded and guided practice than skills-based instruction
alone.

SIWI consists of six instructional components: (a) the use of writing process
strategies; (b) apprenticeship in writing through guided and interactive practice; (c) NIP-
it lessons to introduce new writing skills or strategies; (d) decomposition and evaluation
exercises; (e) the use of visual scaffolds; (f) metalinguistic knowledge-building. The first
two components represent the foundation of SIWI, signifying strategic and interactive
instruction The other four components further reflect research—based practices used with
deaf, L2 or adolescent writers.

Writing process strategies. The mnemonic, POSTER, is an adapted version of the
acronym POWER fi'om the Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing (CSIW) Curriculum
(Englert, Raphael, Anderson, 1989). POSTER (plan, organize, scribe, translate, edit,
revise) is very similar to POWER (plan, organize, write, edit, revise) in that it represents
the subprocesses of the writing process, yet it recognizes an additional practice
encountered by linguistically diverse or L2 students, that of translation from a primary
language or discourse to a secondary one. See Figure 3. Many deaf children similar to
those in this study use ASL or contact sign language as their primary means of expression
during day-to-day interactions, and English is not a form of expression that comes easily
or naturally. Thus, translation, for this population of students, is typically a cognitive
effort that requires strategic attention. Each subprocess is accompanied by a set of

instructional statements and questions that cue writers to action. These are temporary

84

scaffolds that can be removed once the writer has gained control over the strategies that
are utilized during writing and can employ them independently.

Dwing planning, writers are prompted to consider who the audience is, to
determine the purpose of writing and to brainstorm what they already know about the
topic. If there is a need to access additional resources, students are asked to consider what
they want to know and how they could find this information. Students participating in the
current study accessed books, more-knowledgeable-others and internet resources to
locate information for their topics. Organize signals for students to group their ideas into
categories of information and then sequence them according to an order of presentation
for writing. When organizing ideas, students may use a conceptual map like the ones
‘shown in Figures 4 and 5. The map in Figure 4 comes from the CSIW curriculum, where
each subprocess has a complementary think-sheet3 to be completed by writers until they
become more automatic with the strategies and can carry them out on their own. Since
writers organize their ideas according to a particular text structure such as a story,
comparison/contrast or explanation, organize comes with different think-sheet options for
different styles of writing. The think-sheets in Figures 4, along with Figure 5, are
conceptual maps that support organization of ideas for informative writing. In this study,
students preferred mapping their information, details and support using Inspiration 8.0
(Helfgott & Westhaver, 2007); once finished with mapping, they changed the format to
an outline that better supported their writing. Scribe instructs students to move from their

conceptual maps or outlines to text generation by expanding or elaborating on their ideas,

 

3Becausethecrnrentresearchfocusesonamiddleschoolpopulationofstudents, think-sheetswere not
utilized (with the exception of the orgmize conceptual map) as with the CSIW curriculum which was
tailored more for an elementary population Instead, the students kept journals of their brainstormed lists,
questions, and/or notes.

85

following the order they determined. The subprocess, translate, encourages students to
become more cognizant of the form of their language expressions by asking whether their
ideas were produced in English, ASL or some mixture of languages. Once one recognizes
when non-English expressions enter the conversation (in the form of inner dialogue or
group discussion) or enter one’s text, techniques for translation can be administered. Edit
prompts students to reread and monitor their written text for any ideas that need to be
clarified or changed and for any language or grammatical troubles that need to be
addressed. Students may additionally use an editing checklist (shown in Appendix B) to
monitor one’s writing for specific features. For this study, the checklist items reflected
those rcpics emphasized during instruction that were in need of mindfirlness. The editing
checklist was continually developed during the time of the intervention as the
implementer became more knowledgeable of students’ writing needs and objectives.
Revise cues students to produce a clean copy of their work and publish.

The POSTER mnemonic is not meant to be a linear set of procedures. Rather,
writing is viewed as a recursive process, with fluid movement back and forth between the
subprocesses. Consider for instance how translation may happen before writing during a
class discussion of ideas, or it may happen after in the occurrence that non-English
linguistic features surface in one’s text. Additionally, writers may choose to edit as they
write each sentence or paragraph instead of writing a firll draft and then reading through
for editing purposes. One might even choose to return to planning or organizing some
additional ideas after they have begun writing. Successful writers engage with the writing
strategies and processes as detailed by POSTER but not necessarily in any rigid,

inflexible order.

86

In the intervention classroom, the POSTER acronym was written on a large piece
of posterboard and hung on the wall (see Figure 3). Therefore, reference to the writing
processes was easily made at any time during instruction. Additionally, each student had
a laminated mm of the instructional statements and questions that accompanied each
process. This scaffold, referred to as the student cue card, can be viewed in Figure 6.
Each writing subprocess on the cue card was given a different color that coordinated with
the colors of the classroom posterboard, and each subprocess was enhanced with a visual

aid that represented the process.

87

Figure 3. POSTER mnemonic used for learning writing process strategies.

Plan
Organize
Scribe
Translate
Edit
Revise

Adapted version. Original source: C.S. Englert, T.E. Raphael & L.M.Anderson (1989).
Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing Project, East Lansing, MI: Institute for
Research on Teaching.

88

Figure 4. Organize conceptual map, web

5".“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Topic

Main

Idea

Detail

How can I group my ideas into
categories?
What can I call my categories?
How can I order & Sequence my
ideas?

Original source: C.S. Englert, T.E. Raphael & L.M.Anderson (1989). Cognitive
Strategy Instruction in Writing Project, East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research
on Teaching.

89

Figure 5. Organize conceptual map, block

Topic:

 

 

Main Idea or Details, Notes or Facts
Category

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MPPNHMPP’NFMPPNPMPWN!‘

 

Original Source: Englert, C.S., Mariage, T.V., Okolo, C.M., Courtad, C.A., Shankland,
RK., Moxley, K.D., Jones, N., Billman, A (in press). Accelerating expository literacy in
the middle grades: The ACCEL Project. In B. Taylor & J. Ysseldyke (Eds), Educational
interventions for struggling readers. New York: Teachers College Press.

90

.mnfioaoh no noaumom Rom 233m”: a: managed swam acumen
watt? E 2583me 388m 92::on Ammo: nombuu<.2i— a. Banned .mH .to_wqm .m.U “noun—cm BEwfiO d035,» tease/x

dr.
)1 .w. wow w. a. . , W

      

  

an 5 use ma 3% .mucenma co

  

._HU>OC are ._wb¢aq.vackummxm
. L. .. ..

mimmnwtmmuciwc “Man #350: m can
G:¢.>sz ou mcwvuouvd ..e®m4
mem wwwwhoocm museumnwmuouuuus.”

uvwvu vcm mumow woozvawsm

 

F302 >8 568 H :8 Boa 232 530
888% denim . F3318 95,.» H :8 Bow: $62 outowuau .
Qua 89¢ 355 . Fem:

H :8 as: .8889 LES: 6:53am axon. .

 

 

maUm MN—EOMO

 

 

 

mEmOm mo $89353 wants» some .5.“ 3252:. ES £58033 3:283me 55 ES 25 How—3am 6 Semi

    

91

Apprenticeship in writing through guided and interactive practice. With the
exception of the direct instruction that is necessary for introducing POSTER and
conducting NIP-it lessons or decomposition/evaluation exercises (detailed next), SIWI is
designed to apprentice students in the construction of text (i.e., guiding both higher-level
and lower-level writing skill development) through interactive instruction using an
activity format comparable to the adapted version of Morning Message (W olbers, 2006;
Wolbers & Miller, 2006). Therefore, nearly all lessons involve students and a teacher
working together to co-construct a piece of text. Ultimately, the collaborative
environment of SIWI provides a space for teachers to transfer the control of writing
processes and strategies over to students. Such a format of instruction also provides a
framework for incorporating all explicit instruction of writing (e.g., instruction of
POSTER, NIP-it lessons, decomposition exercises) into a contextualized activity of
writing for a predetermined and authentic audience. Writing for authentic audiences
establishes real-world purpose for learning and using writing as a way to convey
information or ideas to others. It becomes viewed as a skill or trade that is necessary and
functionaL rather than just an activity done in school (McAnally, Rose & Quigley, 1994).

Through guided practice, students are exposed to the thinking, words and actions
of more-lmowledgeable—writers and, over time, appropriate the writing strategies and
practices they encounter for their own. Student participants may begin SIWI by relying
heavily on the more-expert-others to create effective text and may only contribute as
peripheral members. Yet, just as in Morning Message (Englert & Dunsmore, 2002;
Mariage, 2001), the interactive nature of the writing space makes others’ thinking visible

and accessible. A teacher, for instance, may purposely model, think-aloud, or prompt

'92

(through the use of guided questions) particular strategies in front of the group to give
them access to her thinking and approach. Or, when students offer suggestions, the
teacher may ask them to explain why they think a certain approach is necessary, thereby
reproducing thoughts in a way that is accessible to and adoptable by their peers. With a
gradual transfer of knowledge—as more strategies, approaches and processes are
appropriated—participants move fi'om guided and shared practice to independent writing
of effective text. A skillful teacher helps facilitate this transfer to independence by using
a series of “step back” and “step in” moves during the guided writing activity; stepping
back to position the students as the expert decision—makers and evaluators of the quality
of text, and stepping in to provide supports or instructional guidance only as necessary
(Englert & Dunsmore, 2002). Students, through the use of guided and interactive
practice, are apprenticed in ways of writing and thinking about writing.

NIP-it lessons. NIP-it stands for notice, instruct and practice. The teacher must
first notice what is missing in student writing or contributions. Noticing requires the
teacher to step back from the day to day guided writing activity and critically examine
student progress or lack of progress with both higher-level skills and lower—level skills in
mind. This can be done at the end of the day during reflection, or perhaps when observing
students work in small groups or independently. Next, there must be instruction that
directly and explicitly addresses the area in nwd. Lastly, practice is contextualized——
students participate in a guided writing activity and the new material is incorporated. This
is where NIP-it lessons depart from the traditional writing mini-lessons. Whereas mini-
lessons do require noticing and instructing (Atwell, 1998), they typically fall short of

integrating practice into authentic contexts and guided writing.

93

If students are still not making contributions with respect to the targeted area
after a NIP-it lesson occurs, the teacher may need to initially guide usage through think-
alouds and modeling until this knowledge transfers to students. She may also create a
classroom artifact—one that represents the skills and/or strategies addressed by the NIP-it
lesson—and refer to it during guided practice, thereby scaffolding or prompting as
needed. Lastly, a reminder can be added to the student editing checklist. (See Appendix B
for an example of how writing compound and complex sentences was incorporated into
the student editing checklist.)

NIP-it lessons are necessary when students are not making complex enough
contributions to the collaborative writing. Because the teacher scribes the expressions,
ideas and edits offered by students during the co-construction of text, it can be difficult to
advance student writing when remaining at the level of student input. New concepts that
are above current student knowledge can be introduced and incorporated into practice, as
mentioned earlier, when a teacher models or thinks-aloud constructions or processes.
This gives students access to the thoughts and actions of a more-expert-writer that are
beyond their own, with the expectation that they will begin to take up this knowledge.
However, in order to introduce the use of new constructions or processes, the teacher
must first recognize that there is a need in a particular area and then make a conscious
effort to bring this to the forefi'ont of the activity.

In a previous study using the same apprenticeship approach, students were found
to make no gains in the production of compound and complex sentences (W olbers, 2006).
These constructions were, at the same time, the kinds of complexities that were missing

from students’ suggestions at the time of the guided writing. During the moment to

94

moment co-construction of text, the teachers in the previous study failed to recognize the
lack of sentence variety being offered by students and therefore did not make an effort to
introduce these constructions with think-alouds or modeling. NIP-it lessons are designed
as an opportunity for teacher reflection and reaction, for during the day to day application
of SIWI, teachers are juggling roles and responsibilities, many of which occur on a
moment to moment basis in an unscripted fashion (e.g., giving floor time to all students
and allowing them to contribute to the interaction at their particular skill level, modeling,
thinking aloud, attending to classroom management, following up student contributions
with metacognitive probes, etc). Teachers may be cognitively taxed during the instruction
and miss opportunities for complicating student contributions to a more sophisticated
level of writing. A

In the current study, students in the treatment group were exposed to two NIP-it
lessons during the intervention phase. The treatment group was composed of three
separate classes whereby students were largely clustered according to language and
literacy levels. The first group consisted of students with fully developed expressive
language skills and average to strong literacy skills. This group received NIP-it lessons
targeting sentence combining skills. The other two groups, however, mainly consisted of
students having minimal language skills and/or low literacy levels. The lower of the
groups received two NIP-it lessons targeting sentence construction (i.e., recognizing
fragments and creating full sentences). The higher of the groups received their first NIP-it
lesson on sentence construction but a second lesson on the use of determiners.

Decomposition and evaluation exercises. Decomposition and evaluation

exercises encourage students to view written text analytically and to become more

95

metacognitive about characteristics of writing. During decomposition lessons, students
are presented with example papers, some good and some non-examples of the type of
writing that is the focus of instruction. They analyze the components that either exist or
do not exist to the benefit or disadvantage of the author. For instance, when examining a
low quality example of informative writing, students examine the text critically,
suggesting where the weaknesses exist and how the author might make the text stronger.
By examining a high quality example, students discuss and focus on elements of the
paper that contribute to its efl'ectiveness. This process of studying examples so that
students can read, decompose and emulate models of good writing has been vetted in the
literature and is recommended as one element of effective adolescent writing instruction
(Graham & Perin, 2007).

During evaluation exercises, students use scoring nibrics to rate their own writing
or another’s writing By interacting with the rubrics the teacher also uses for scoring, the
quality traits of writing are emphasized for students. This process is similar to 6+1 traits
where students are aware of the desired writing traits prior to writing, and use them to
evaluate a text after it is written. This activity additionally provides students with a
common language for referring to aspects of good writing (Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory, 2005).

In the current study, the students in the treatment group participated in a two—day
lesson of decomposition and evaluation exercises. This involved decomposing the
structure of an example piece of text and introducing the associated language of
informative text. Students read, critically examined and discussed this example of

informative text. In the course of this two-day lesson, the implementer often rephrased

96

student contributions in order to model the language of informative writing (e. g.,
introductory sentence, details, main idea, thesis statement). She also explicitly drew
students’ attention to particular features of the writing that were not noticed. The
intervention phase was originally designed to allow one other lesson where students
would use rubrics to evaluate text; however, this was eliminated from the lesson plans
due to uncontrollable school variables that constrahed class time (e. g., fire drills, school
assemblies, pull-out time for speech therapy).

Visual scaflolds. Because teaching that has made use of pictorial materials and
visual stimulation has been shown to improve the learning of deaf children (Fung, Chow
& McBride-Chang, 2005, 92), SIWI incorporates iconic or visually informative scaffolds
to aid writing. The scaffolds include but are not limited to the following: representative
images, conceptual maps, and different colors (e.g., markers, paper) for different
purposes. They are intended to support students in remembering and applying writing
skills or strategies. Furthermore, the visuals offer another mode of accessing the
knowledge of expert writers; students interact with these tools to actively construct their
own understandings.

One scaffold applied in this research is the hamburger paragraph depicted in
Figure 7. It is used to demonstrate the construction of a body paragraph, where the top
bun indicates the introductory sentence, the meat indicates the detail sentences and the
bottom bun indicates the concluding sentence. The hamburger paragraph scaffold was on
a large poster board in the classroom and was utilized by the class during the construction
of body paragraphs. Another representative image, also used in this research, is a picture

of a train, showing the linking of simple phrases or sentences into compound and

97

complex sentences. This scaffold was mainly used during the editing and revising

processes and, therefore, can be viewed as part of the editing checklist in Appendix B.

98

Figure 7. Hamburger paragraph visual scaffold

Hamblllge' paragraph

Tr'ep Bums Teplce

 
 
  

 

let-fit] w”
m

 

 

 

 

 

 

[103 ’
CeneludSenleneeflmg

Original Source: Englert, C.S., Mariage, T.V., Okolo, C.M., Courtad, CA, Shankland,
RK, Moxley, K.D., Jones, N, Billman, A (in press). Accelerating expository literacy in
the middle grades: The ACCEL Project. In B. Taylor & J. Ysseldyke (Eds), Educational
interventions for struggling readers. New York: Teachers College Press.

99

Metalinguistic knowledge-building. The last instructional component of SIWI is
metalinguistic knowledge-building, a component supported by research on effective
writing instruction of linguistically diverse students. There is more than one language
being used by and with deaf children, so it is conducive to develop an awareness of the
nature and structure of language (both written and visually expressed)—how they are
similar and different. By comparing and juxtaposing ASL and English, students become
more conscious about the language particulars that make them unique from each other.
As their knowledge of the languages grow, they may be more likely to produce them
separately and purely, instead of allowing them to blend (e.g., ASL features that surface
in one’s writing).

In addition, knowing more about how expressions are equivalently represented in
English and ASL can result in more accurate and complete translations for those students
who conceive an idea in ASL and then translate to written English. For instance, consider
the following sentence: “she cleaned the kitchen meticulously”. In ASL, one might sign
KITCHEN SI-IE FINISH CLEAN and then show that it was meticulously done with
facial expressions that accompany the signs and with the movement of the sign CLEAN
by miming the great care and precision involved (cf. Howeverton, 2006). Without
knowing that one’s body and facial expressions that accompany verb signs also equate to
English words, one’s translation fiom ideas to written text are deficient. Class discussions
about language differences such as how adverbs are represented in each language can
build metalinguistic knowledge and foster growth in both languages. Students can see
and discuss the nuances of ASL and how slight changes in position, location, movement

or expression may change the equivalent of the expression in English.

100

The SIWI intervention uses a “two easel” approach during co-construction of text
which is necessary to keep the languages separate and help make distinctions between
ASL and English features (W olbers, 2006; Wolbers & Miller, 2006). When a student
generates an idea during collaborative writing and the group has agreed to add it to the
text, a discussion first ensues regarding the language of the expressed idea—whether is
was offered in ASL or a form of English-based sign. If it is produced in English-based
sign, and therefore is capable of being written, the teacher scribes the student’s idea
word-for-word on the English easel. If however, the expression is ASL, the teacher
utilizes the ASL easel as an idea holding place while translation discussions take place.
She may capture the idea given in ASL the best she can using gloss words, symbols,
pictures or any other mechanism, making sure to make a note of movements and
expressions used in addition to sign vocabulary.

Procedural T imeline

Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction (SIWI) was applied to the treatment
group for an 8-week intervention period. See Table 8 for a detailed listing of teacher,
implementer, student and researcher responsibilities during the research period. During
the intervention, each of the treatment classes co-constructed two informative essays. The
implementer facilitated the group writing of essays utilizing SIWI techniques,
incorporating POSTER, collaborative interactive writing, metalinguistic knowledge
building, decomposition activities, etc.

The t0pics of the essays were chosen based on student interest; students rated
their motivation to write on various topics by filling out the form located in Appendix C.

The implementer narrowed to one of the areas that evidenced high interest for students in

101

a particular class; yet, a precise topic, audience and purpose were determined
collaboratively. Examples of paper topics chosen by students include: Sites of
Washington, DC; Roman Gladiators; The Three Stooges.

The two-essay instructional design was based on theoretical understandings that
through collaborative work, legitimate participation and scaffolded discourse, learners
would appropriate the knowledge of others over time. Whereas the first paper primarily
exposed and involved students in the writing approaches of more-knowledgeableothers,
the second allowed students to take more control over the processes. During construction
of the second paper, students participated to a greater extent than in the first paper and
evidenced greater independence with the writing. The implementer needed to “step in”
less.

The lessons as well as student attendance were tracked over the course of the
intervention. See Table 9 for a schedule of lessons, student absences and brief
descriptions of class lessons. Students were absent an average of 4 times during the
intervention period. Those students with excessive absences were T1 (8 absences), T13

(10 absences), T14 (6 absences), and T16 (10 absences).

102

 

0:85:83 .833 -

 

 

has... has .
as .880 no 88528.8 - 3 >88 mo noun—588.8 - 228
3838 as . saw a senses - 5% a nannies - sees eats 88:8 - has 89%
80:25 838383 a. $3328.:
snags ”2 36385 - 8888.. 833 an 8388
98685 3822.55 ”2 838.5 - 53 acre asses - :58»
33.5 no 88093 385.35 , SEE Econ 8880 canteen—8v
.25 8888 refines - means .85: gene - when: 3% sense - Bean 8:8 e 835% . £5 888,—.
wagon—cu .8.“ Gun
82388888 855E53— 8..
823:8; 6 €38 5: assesses 268 -
4.3 genes—.8 Eugene
88883 .895 seen - £8: .8 mean: sane ..
sauna—mam 5.88295 Baggage—G 6.85
5? 883888.86 - as, 8:388 seas - sateen amass .
985 £85 mecca 88:8
38.... ea 68388 - 5:63 2: 68388 - enema 8:8 a 235% -
a 8.83 a a a8: a 888 88868 anew
88.58 owe—o can—Eco - 28 K 83 E 0:8 388— 28 .m 6.83 E 0:3 «:88— Eeofimog SEE mauve:— 8:535
sheen saunas - gaseous as erase - 8888s 25 6:88 - .8826? Sam 98% - has 888...
2: 8,6 as 8.696 a-" 8.85 2 6.85
868536563, a 3m seam 896225368
33$ Leaukemex .38 uéaueaek

w 033.

103

 

38.8:

 

:8 38:8: :8 a: 8:: -
8:88 .8888 83:3
2 GA 55m 8b: - 8:383 888.. 88:— 38.88: g 838 big
888: .988 5883 - a: as 28 08:. .58 .888 8.3 8885
80808035 .88 888 88: .. 830 52m 0883 -
8088: 2 @888 8338880: 888. :85: ..
8:885 8:63 - x0388 8888 8:88.:
8:88 8 95:3 80:38 8.: 88:5: 3 288% 8388 :8 828882: 88:8 -
.8 88:88 8393 - :8 g .88 8:83 . :8 888:: 2 28% 88°83:
8:8: 8:: . «a: >88 .8 :8 3 88 .238 - .838 :8 03b :8 8:8:
2>ooz<2 365.8 88880.8 a 8.88 a :80 8 0888 58.8: 52.8 -
min—:8 0:888: - 888 :8 82:» 8858.: - 8:28:88 5 8:83 8:8 88:8 .8 8:..388
358:8 8:88 £58 - A888»: 88:8 :8 82% 08:3 - x88 :8 8:8 -
38:83 8 88:8 80388 888:8 08388 8.88
:8 03 .8 888 :53 - .9 38:33 8 .8888 .8 $8893 8 .8838 “88—08: 388.83
888: 838838888v 8.88%8aa8v :8 958:. 38888::
8885 3 8.88 8 - 8 :83 :82 - : w: :83 “3:2 - SE 82 ‘8 08.8 -
8.8888 28.8888 88 - 838 ”588 88 - 8882228888..
:8 8388:? z: 8:8 - 08:88 ban—8:888 - 8888 8:838 83. .888 Q 888.3 0:533: ..
A25 :8 8:8: 8888 8:838 8 8:88:80: 83:88 888.
96:83 8:83 8:8 - 3. 8283880: .8388 -8: d 83:88 328.. .. 2 8:8 38:8 88:88 -
83:08 8:952: :8 -8: a. 83:88 30:8 .. Ewe 8.89:5 - 8838 8.58: 558 - 8H
8:88.88 .8: .888 . SE 5858: $8 5:238 82:8 B: :88 - 8:888:
§ U.88 a-» 888 A3 888 c :83
8:855 2: :82 a 88m _ mam 8:88.: 2 BE

 

8.83 w 28.

104

Table 9

Schedule of Class Lessons and Student Attendance (treatment group only)

 

Class Absent

Prior to intervention

1 -

2 T16

3 -

4 -

Essay 1

5 T16

6 T14,T16

7 T14,Tl6

8 T1,Tl6

9 T1,Tl6

10 T7, T10,Tl3,
T14,T15,T16

ll T10,T13,
T14,T15,T16

12 T1,T2,T13,
T14,T15,Tl6

13 T1,T2,T13,
T14,T15,Tl6

l4 T3,T6,T7,T1 l
15 T3,T6,Tll

l6 T1,Tl l,T13
l7 T1,T11,T13
18 -

l9 -
20 T12
Essay]!

21 T12

22 T10,T12,T13
23 TlO,T12,T13

24 T8

25 T8

26 T13,Tl4
27 Tl3,Tl4
28 T1

29 T1,T2
30 -

31 -

32 T5

33 T5

34 -

35 -

36 -
Post-intervention
37 -

38 -

39 -

40 -

Lesson Description

Administa pretest — writing sample (informative text) and literacy questionnaire
Administer pretest — writing sample (MEAP type prompt)

Administa pretest —SORT, Pat’s editing and revising measure
Administapretest—make-uptests, metacognitiveandmotivationmobes

Introduce POSTER, indicate topic intaests

Review POSTER, Introduce informative writing, review examples/non-
examples

Decomposition and evaluation exercise, guide selection of topic

Plan, inquire the topic, determine audience and purpose

Plan, extract information from resources

Organize, introduce conceptual map

Organize,finishconceptualmap,printoutline

Co-constructpapa#l (mainly Scribe, Translate,Edit,Revise),thesis
statements

Co-constructpapa#l (mainly Scribe, Translate, WW), introduce
hamburger visual scaffold for body paragraphs

Co-construct papa #1 (mainly Scribe, Translate, Edit, Revise)

NIP-it lessons

Co-constructpapatfl (mainly Scribe, Translate,Edit,Revise)
Co-construct papa #1 (mainly Scribe, Translate, Edit, Revise)
Co-construct papa #1 (mainly Scribe, Translate, Edit, Revise), introduce
editing checklist

Co-construct papa #1 (mainly Scribe, Translate, Edit, Revise), publish
Celebration of publication, review feedback fi'orn audience '

Indicate topic interests, guide selection of topic

Plan, inquirethetopic, detamineaudienceandpurpose

Plan, extract information fiorn resources

Organize, conceptual map

Organize, finish conceptual map, print outline

Co-construct papa #2 (mainly Scribe, Translate, Edit, Revise)
Co-construct papa #2 (mainly Scribe, Translate, Edit, Revise)

NIP-it lessons

Co-construct papa #2 (mainly Scribe, Translate, Edit, Revise)
Co-construct papa #2 (mainly Scribe, Translate, Edit, Revise)
Co-construct papa #2 (mainly Scribe, Translate, Edit, Revise)
Co-construct papa #2 (mainly Scribe, Translate, Edit, Revise)
Decomposition and evaluation exercises

Co-construct papa #2 (mainly Scribe, Translate, Edit, Revise), edit checklist
Co-construct papa #2 (mainly Scribe, Translate, Edit, Revise), publish
Celebration of publication, review feedback from audience

Administa posttest - writing sample (informative text)

Administa posttest — writing sample (MEAP type prompt)

Administa posttest - SORT, Pat’s editing and revising measure
Administa posttest - make-up tests, metacognitive and motivation probes

 

105

Professional Development Components

The teacha of the treatment group saved as an evaluator of implementation for
fidelity purposes. Therefore, she underwent professional development as if she were to
teach SIWI. The treatment group teacha did participate in an earlier study that utilized a
similar instructional approach (see Wolbers, 2006 for details regarding the corresponding
training module). The earlier study had professional development components related to
the apprenticeship of writing through guided, interactive practice and metalinguistic
knowledge-building. SIWI, howeva, utilizes four additional instructional components
and thus, required the teacha get further training in regards to these components: (a) the
use of writing process strategies; (b) decomposition and evaluation exacises; (c) NIP-it
lessons to introduce new writing skills or strategies; (d) the use of visual scafi‘olds.
Moreova, the earlia study involved the writing of a difi‘aent text structure—personal
experience essays instead of informative expository essays. Consequently, the teacher
was given the new scoring rubrics and genre writing objectives. The professional
development occurred on two half-day sessions with the teacha. See Appendix D for an
outline of the professional development.

Now that the intervention period is complete and the posttests are collected, the
comparison group teacha has access to all the intervention materials and professional
development.

Treatment F ideli 1)»

To ensure that the implementa carried out the instruction of SIWI faithfiilly,

thae wae four videotaped observations during the intervention for the purpose of rating

instructional fidelity. Originally the researcher intended to serve as the evaluator of

106

fidelity for the classroom teacher; however, as mentioned earlier, the teacher of the
treatment group was away from the classroom on a leave of absence during the planned
implementation period. Therefore, the original roles were reversed, for the researcher
became the implementa of SIWI while the teacha, having already received training with
SIWI, accepted the role of evaluator.

Prior to the start of the intervention, the teacher became acquainted with the
fidelity rating instrument provided in Appendix E. The instrument is a listing of the
instructional procedures relevant to SIWI’s six components. The instrument, however, is
divided into subcategories that illuminate the daily instructional processes and the
teacher’s role associated with the six components ratha than a description of the
components themselves. The subcategories include: strategy instruction and procedural
facilitators; intaactive instruction and apprenticeship; building metalinguistic
knowledge; curriculum and content; instructional procedures; audience; positive
feedback. Each item was rated on a 5-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly
agree. The teacha'first watched an example video along with the researcher and
practiced scoring the faithfirlness of instruction. They compared their ratings within each
subcategory, spending time discussing any differences that existed and the rationale for
those difl‘aences. They watched a second video and used these ratings to obtain interrater
reliability for the instrument. A reliability coefficient was calculated using the Pearson
product-moment correlation (r = .912), and this indicated high reliability.

The implementa’s faithfulness to the instruction of SIWI is described
quantitatively by avaaging all items of the fidelity instrument, whereby 1 = strongly

disagree and 5 = strongly agree. See Table 10.

107

Table 10

Reporting of Treatment Fidelity

 

Observation # Rating of Implementation

 

l M= 4.32
2 M= 4.72
3 M= 4.88
4 M= 4.93

The implementa received high overall ratings for all observations, yet she
became increasingly more faithful throughout the implementation period. During the first
and second obsavations, most items on the instrument were given high ratings (i.e., 4 or
5); however, there were a few instructional principles that were not being enacted
consistently (e.g., numbers 24, 25 and 27). During the third and fourth observations, the
problems that had existed for the specified numbers had been rectified, and all items
received high ratings.

Instruction in the Comparison Classroom

The comparison group consisted of three classrooms of students who were
categorized by language and litaacy levels, low to high. Information was gathered about
the instruction occurring in each of these classes during the intervention phase. This was
accomplished primarily through two semi-structured interviews with the teacher of the
control group, one interview occurring at the midpoint and the otha at the end. During

the interviews, questions included the following:

108

o How many minutes pa day do students receive literacy instruction or practice?
Approximately how much of this time is writing instruction or writing-related
activities?

0 What kinds of writing are students doing?

0 What classroom activities lend themselves to writing development or practice?

0 How do you teach writing?

a How do you teach language and grammar?

o What reading activities and reading instruction contribute to students’
development in writing?

Additionally, one observation of instruction took place during the first couple weeks of
the intervention period. And, after the description of each class was written, the
comparison group teacha read and validated that the classroom instruction had been
accurately represented in writing.

The first group of students, categorized as having low language and litaacy skills,
received approximately 30 minutes a day of writing instruction or writing-related practice
(out of 1.5 hours of class per day). Students in this class were given penpals at a diffaent
school; they wrote approximately 4 to 5 emails to their penpals with the understanding
that they would eventually meet. The authentic nature of this activity motivated students
to write substantially longa text (i.e., '/2 page to 3/4 more with later emails as compared to
beginning emails). After drafting their letters, students worked one on one with the
teacher to discuss an agenda for revisions and edits. For this step, students utilized the
feature of track changes in Microsoft Word. Then, students worked to ready their final

drafis.

109

In addition, students of this first group received reading instruction that may have
contributed to students’ writing development. Students read fiom leveled readers (fiction
and non-fiction) and then responded to questions, oftentimes using writing to give short
and extended responses or to complete comprehension worksheets. There was also much
attention given to vocabulary building. Students would highlight unfamiliar words while
reading. Then, they would participate in activities that allowed exposure to new words
and that provided opportunity for learning vocabulary words (e.g., vocabulary bingo).
Lastly, students practiced retelling and sharing text in ASL, thaeby building litaacy
connections with the dual languages present in the classroom.

The second class of students was considered a mid-level group in regard to
language and litaacy skills. They spent more time on writing-related activities compared
to reading. Of a 45-minute daily class, the majority of time was allocated to writing. As
with the first class, students read from leveled readers and then responded to questions in
writing. They also wrote penpal lettas as did the first class. One difference was that
students in this second class received explicit instruction with English grammar. This
instruction evolved fi'om a focus on parts of speech (i.e., nouns, verbs, adjectives,
advabs) to the construction of sentences and paragraphs. Multimedia and hands-on
activities were incorporated in the teaching of grammar (e.g. use of a smartboard to
incorporate physical touch). On a regular basis, they also wrote in journals to open-ended
prompts or to topics of their choice.

The third class of students had average to high language and litaacy skills, which
was evident in their reading of grade-level literature and novels. In ways, literacy

instruction was similar to the otha groups. For instance, this class also read from the

110

leveled readers and responded to questions in writing. They received explicit English
grammar instruction, wrote journals, and spent time on vocabulary building activities. A
difference, however, was they completed more out-of-class reading and writing
assignments and completed assignments at a level of greater sophistication. They also
received instruction regarding idioms and multiple meaning words. Approximately 25
minutes out of the 75 minutes of litaacy instruction was writing-based.
Data Sources and Scoring Protocol

It was hypothesized that students who were exposed to the SIWI curriculum
would make significantly greater gains in writing and reading skills than those who were
not. Thaefore student participants in the treatment and control group were compared on
four tests to measure skill in (a) writing informative text, (b) genaalizing one’s writing to
a novel text structure, (c) editing/revising, and (d) reading. These assessments wae given
at the onset and conclusion of the research period. In addition, qualitative data was
collected for the treatment group through intaviewing. Table 11 indicates which data

sources were utilized in answering each research question.

111

Table 11

Sources of Data by Research Question

 

Research Questions

Data Sources

 

a Do students receiving the SIWI intervention make
significantly greater gains with high-level informative writing
skillscomparedtothose studentsnotreceivingSIWI?

b. Do students receiving the SIWI intervention make
significantly greatagainsinreadingcomparedtothose
students not receiving SIWI?

c. Do studarts receiving the SIWI intavention make
significantly greater gains with high-level genaalized writing
sldlls compared to those students not receiving SIWI?

(I Do students receiving the SIWI intervention make
significantly greata gains with low-level generalized writing
skills compared to those students not receiving SIWI?

e.DostudentsreceivingtheSIWIintaventionnmke
significantlygrcatayinswithrevisingandediting
informative text compared to students not receiving SIWI?
£DostudentsreceivingtheSIWIinterventionmake
significantlygreatagainswithlengthofcomposition
comparedtothosestudentsnotreceivingSIWI?

g. Dosmdentsexposedto SIWIevidencegrcata
metacognitive skillsinregardtowriting, and/ordostudents
evidence greata motivation for writing at the conclusion of
the intervention as opposed to the beginnirrg‘L

l. Informative Writing Measure,
primary traits scores

1. SORT-R reading measure

1. Garaalimtion Writing Measure,
primary traits scores

1. Genaalimtion Writing Measure,
contextual language scores

2. Generalimtion Writing Measme,
convention scores

l.Editing/RevisingMeasme

l.Generalization Writing Measure,
total word count

1. Student interviews
2. Videotaping and Observations

Informative Writing Measure

All students in the treatment and comparison groups were administered the
informative writing measure prior to the intavention period and afierwards. Directions
for administering the measure along with otha testing materials can be found in
Appendix F. Thae were two different informative writing topics, both of which wae
wild animals (i.e., the grizzly bear and the gray wolf). To control for content knowledge,
half of each group received the grizzly bear topic at pretest and the other half received the

gray wolf topic. At posttest, students took the alternate test. Additionally, each student

112

 

received an animal fact sheet on either the grizzly bear or the gray wolf to support their
writing on these topics and to control for background knowledge. Typically when writing
informative papers, one must first gather resources or data prior to writing. This measure,
however, was designed to assess organization and writing skills associated with
production of informative text, not students’ content knowledge or ability to read and
extract information fi'om resources.

The teachers read the directions to students and handed out the animal facts (see
Appendix F). The directions asked students to write a paper that informs an audience
about the particular animal they were given. The audience consisted of persons from
different countries such as New Zealand where grizzly bears or gray wolves are not
typically found. Students were told that facts about the animals had already been gathered
for them, and their next step should be to organize the information and convey this
information through writing. In the directions, they were given additional reminders to (a)
use the fact sheet but also write ideas in complete sentences and in their own way, (b)
reread their stories once they are finished to see if they make sense, (c) not worry about
spelling words correctly, and (d) not be afraid of making the paper messy as they edit.

Students were given approximately one class period to write their papers (i.e., 45
to 50 minutes); however, it was estimated that the writing took 30 minutes on average. If
students asked questions (i.e., about spelling, conventions, etc.) during the assessment,
the teachers responded by telling them to do the best they can. When they finished
writing, students raised their hands so the teacher could pick up their papers. Illegible or
non-interpretable words were dictated to the teacher so s/he could write the intended

meaning underneath the students’ attempt.

113

This writing measure as well as the next measure detailed in this section have
been altered fi'om similar measures used in previous studies (Englert et al., in press).
Since it was the first time these adapted measures were applied, they were first reviewed
by a panel of experts to determine their content validity. The panel examined whether the
tests and evaluation tools appear to measure what they purport to measure. Feedback was
obtained from four university professors, two experts on conducting writing research with
special education students, one expert who specializes in deaf education and one expert
who specializes in disability studies and urban education

Informative writing rubrics. The rubrics used to score the writing samples can be
viewed in Appendix G. There are three main components of the evaluation tool: the
rubric for the primary traits of informative writing; the rubric for contextual language; the
rubric for conventions. Because many students borrowed language from the fact sheets
during writing (making it hard to distinguish students’ own language productions fi'om
the phrases and constructions provided to them), the informative essays were not rated for
contextual language and conventions. As mentioned earlier, the scores on primary traits
were used to determine higher-level writing skills. The contextual language and
conventions rubrics, although explained here as part of the larger writing evaluation tool,
were only utilized for the generalization writing probe. Skills were rated on a 4-point
rubric scale, 3 points indicating fluency in the skill or trait and 0 points indicating no
emergence of the skill or trait at this time. The internal reliability coefficient for the
primary traits subcomponent ranged fi'om .788 to .836. The internal reliability

coefficients for contextual language and conventions were .802 and .717 respectively.

114

The evaluation tool was designed after (a) considering other writing or language
measures that have been used with deaf students such as the TOWL-3 (Hammill &
Larsen, 1996) and the Test of Syntactic Abilities (Quigley, Steinkamp, Power & Jones,
1978) and (b) reviewing several research articles with analytical scales (Englert, Conway,
Gover, & Dunsmore, 2000; Heefner & Shaw, 1996; Isaacson, 1996; Schirmer & Bailey,
2000; Schirmer, Bailey & Fitzgerald, 1999; Warriner, 1988). More specifically, the
primary traits rubrics were heavily influenced by the work of Englert (2000) and
Warriner (1988); the contextual language and convention rubrics were derived in large
part fiom the TOWL-3 (Hammill & Larsen, 1996) and the Test of Syntactic Abilities
(Quigley, Steinkarnp, Power & Jones, 197 8).

Revising/ Editing Measure

Next students were given an assessment called Pat’s Newspaper Story (c.f.,
Mariage, 2001) which can be viewed in Appendix H. This is a fictitious student paper
that is in need of revising and editing before it can be published in a special newspaper
for teenagers. The story contains mechanical errors as well as coherence, text structure
and sense-making problems.

Revising/ editing scoring. Pat’s Newspaper Story contained 44 possible revisions
which were each assigned a particular point value based on their difficulty to notice and
correct (view scoring key in Appendix H). The scoring protocol allotted one to two points
for each surface-level correction (i.e., conventions and language) and three to five points
for what were considered hi gher-level corrections. There were a total of 28 conventional
errors worth one point each; 14 were spelling mistakes and 7 were capitalization,

punctuation, and indentation mishaps. There were a total of 7 contextual language errors

115

(e. g., usage of determiners, commas, verb tense, etc.) at 2 points each. Two sentences
required students to use prior knowledge. For instance, one sentence stated, “You can
rent shoes at the bowling ally for a hundred dollars.” If students read for meaning, they
would determine that rental shoes costing 100 dollars is nonsensical. By editing this part,
they earned 3 points. There were three coherence errors in Pat’s paper worth 4 points
apiece. For instance, it was mentioned that “Jill wears an arm brace so her wrist stays
straight while releasing the ball.” This statement was devoid of any real explanation
about who Jill was and how she relates to the overall message. lastly, there were 4 text
structure errors at 5 points apiece. The last sentence of the introductory paragraph reads,
“Before going for the first time you should know how to play”. However, the contents of
the paragraphs to follow were the necessary materials and equipment of a bowler. To
revise and allow an effective introduction of the paper, a corrected thesis statement is
necessary.
Generalization Writing Measure

Students were additionally administered a generalization probe at pre and
posttesting to examine their ability to transfer knowledge of informative writing to a
different type of writing, namely personal narrative or personal experience writing. The
test prompts were purposefirlly designed to mirror previous Michigan standardized
writing assessments given at the 7th grade level (See Michigan Educational Assessment
Program, 2004). It was hypothesized that students exposed to SIWI would
simultaneously make gains on the state standardized test, extending and applying the
skills and strategies they have learned fi'om informative writing to personal

narrative/experience writing.

116

The directions for this measure were similar to those given to students for
administration of the informative writing measure. The directions and writing prompts
can be viewed in Appendix I. As with the informative writing measure, there were two
paper themes. The themes were divided among students in each group at pretest and
posttest in order to control for any differences in writing that might be influenced by the
topic itself.

To evaluate the written papers students produced, the raters used the informative
writing rubrics in Appendix G. As mentioned earlier, the scores on primary traits were
used to determine hi gher-level writing skills, and the scores on contextual language and
conventions were used to determine lower-level writing skills. The only subcategory that
did not directly apply to this type of writing was topic development (breadth) since a
personal experience paper is less prone to organization by distinct categories. However,
the other categories and subcategories were usefully extended. The evaluation tool (i.e.,
the writing rubrics) used in this research is comparable to the holistic rubric provided by
the state of Michigan to score the MEAP writing assessments. A perfect score is
described as the following:

The writing is exceptionally engaging, clear, and focused. Ideas and content are

thoroughly developed with relevant details and examples where appropriate. The

writer’s control over organization and the connections between ideas moves the
reader smoothly and naturally through the text. The writer shows a mature
command of language, including precise word choice that results in a compelling

piece of writing. Tight control over language use and mastery of writing

117

conventions contribute to the effect of the response (Michigan Educational

Assessment Program, 2004).
These statements roughly match onto the categories/ subcategories of the evaluation tool
in the following order: introduction, paragraph development, coherence, tone, and
contextual language. The evaluation tool used in this research, however, gives attention
to skills separately to provide a more descriptive analysis of students’ writing.
Publishing Student Writing

The writing that students did during testing was given an authentic context as
much as possible. While teachers were giving directions, they provided students with the
purpose and audience for the writing. For example, during the expository measure,
students were told to assume an audience of readers from a different country where
grizzly bears or gray wolves do not exist and to write a paper meant to inform about these
animals. In addition, students were told at pretest and posttest that their writing would be
typed, printed on quality paper and given back to them in a published form. They would
then have the option of sharing their writing with others. Thereby, strong attempts were
made to provide students with a purpose for writing and strengthen the validity of the
measure.
Rating Procedures

Both the writing measures and the revising/editing measure were scored using the
abovementioned evaluation tools. All student pre and posttests were submitted to a blind
rating. They were typed and had all identification information such as name, teacher and
school removed so that the rater would not know any specifics that could potentially

sway the scoring (i.e., which classroom, when was the test taken). A second rater

118

randomly selected and scored approximately 10 to 20% of the papers from each
assessment in order to obtain interrater reliability.

Just above 10 percent of the informative pre and posttests were randomly selected
and scored by a second rater. The interrater reliability was calculated for primary traits on
a cell-by-cell basis across subjects. Reliability scores ranged from 0.93 to 1, with an
average overall agreement of 0.98. The raters were accurate or within one point of each
other 100% of the time. For the revising/editing measure, interrater reliability was based
on a random selection of approximately 12% of the pre and posttests and was 0.986.
Lastly, approximately 20% of the generalized writing pre and posttests were scored to
obtain interrater reliability. For primary traits, scores ranged fiom .93 to 1, with an
average overall agreement of .976. The raters were accurate or within one point of each
other 100% of the time. For contextual language, scores ranged from .964 to 1, with an
average overall agreement of .985. The raters were accurate or within one point of each
other 100% of the time. For conventions, the raters achieved accuracy at 100%.
Reading Measure

Because of the interconnectedness of writing and reading skills, this study also
warranted the use of a reading measure. The SORT-R or Slosson Oral Reading Test —
Revised (Slosson & Nicholson, 1990) was used by teachers to obtain students’ reading
levels prior to and after the intervention period. The SORT-R is a norm-referenced test
that has achieved high reliability ratings on test/retest measures (e. g., Kuder-Richardson
was 0.98) and criterion validity scores (e. g., 0.83 correlation with Peabody Individual
Achievement Test). The teacher in the treatment group was familiar with this measure

and had tested previous groups of students, using the SORT-R as a quick indicator of

119

reading ability. A short reading measure such as the SORT-R was preferred for the
current research because writing measures alone were consuming 3 class periods.

The SORT-R was administered to students individually and lasted typically 5 to
10 minutes. The test contained 200 words arranged in order of increasing difficulty, and
students were told to read all the words they could. Since each group of 20 words
approximated one grade level, a participant’s raw score could be converted to a grade-
equivalent score that was indicative of the student’s reading level.

It is acknowledged that the SORT-R may not be an accurate indicator of reading
level for deaf students because it is based on word calling and pronunciation skills. Deaf
students who rely heavily on contextual clues for word decoding are at a disadvantage. In
the context of the current research, however, the SORT-R was utilized as a way of
detecting change in reading ability from pre to posttest. The gains reported from pre to
posttest, rather than the reading levels, were the important indicators of growth and were
the outcome data of focus.

Qualitative Data Collection

In order to represent the understandings students constructed in relation to the
writing process and to describe the experience of student writers more richly, just under
40% of the treatment group students were randomly selected to participate in interviews.
The interviews were conducted prior to and after the intervention period, questioning (a)
metacognition regarding writing and (b) motivation to write. The interviews were semi-
structured with questions including the following:

0 What do good writers do before writing? During writing? After writing?

0 What are your thoughts or feelings about writing? Do you enjoy writing?

120

Because the second set of questions on motivation relates more to one’s affective
response to writing rather than one’s knowledge of writing, they may be more susceptible
to falsified answers. For instance, students may offer responses they assume the
teacher/implementer would like to hear. Therefore, the data collected on motivation
through the interview was triangulated with the student’s response on the demographic
survey in Appendix A (i.e. How ofien do you write outside of school (not including
homework) for pleasure? What do you write?) to ensure comparability.

Data Analysis

A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MAN OVA) was performed to detect
whether there were group difi‘erences regarding a set of variables. The independent
variable in this analysis was a 2-level group factor (i.e., receives SIWI instruction vs. no
SIWI instruction). The set of dependent variables, included in the analysis as gain scores,
were primary traits score for informative writing, editing/revising score, primary traits
score for generalized writing, contextual language score for generalized writing,
conventions score for generalized writing, total words, and reading level.

Approximately 3% of the data was not collectible due to student absences on
assessment days. To prevent the elimination of student data on other collected measures,
the mean score of the group (i.e., treatment or control) was utilized for the data of the
missing measure.

MAN OVA was utilized instead of separate ANOVAs in order to prevent the
inflation of type I error that can result fi'om running multiple univariate tests. This
becomes an important concern when there are several correlated dependent variables. In

the current study, correlations between dependent variables were moderate to high (r =

121

.427 to .856). MANOVA provides a single overall test of group differences regarding a
set of means but does not indicate which variables are responsible for any difference that
was detected (Carey, 1998). Therefore, MAN OVA was the omnibus test in the current
research, yet follow-up analyses such as univariate analyses were also provided, when
necessary.

The Qualitative interview data was subjected to a content analysis. Student
responses were translated by a certified interpreter and written in English. A running list
of main ideas was generated for each question at pre and post interview. Frequency
counts were tallied when the same ideas were expressed by more than one student. The
lists of student responses at pre and post interview were compared to note how the

patterns and themes of the data had changed over time.

122

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

This chapter contains the results of the study and is reported in four main sections.
First, a preliminary examination was conducted to ensure the data met a set of
assumptions associated with the statistical analysis, MANOVA Next, the results of
MANOVA are provided along with the follow up univariate analyses and descriptive
statistics, as necessary, for dependent variables. This section largely responds to research
questions A through F. The quantitative data was analyzed using SPSS 14.0 statistical
software. For all statistical analyses, the significance level was set at p < .05, unless
otherwise indicated. In the third section, the qualitative findings fi'om student interviews
regarding metacognition and motivation are presented; this relates to research question G.
Lastly, a summary of the findings is provided. ’

MAN OVA Assumptions

A set of assumptions were tested prior to running the analysis (MANOVA): (a)
normality of variable distributions; (b) homogeneity of variances and covariances; (c)
independence of observations. First, all dependent variables were examined for skewness
and kmtosis. Statistics were not significant unless their absolute value exceeded two
times the standard error (Brown, 1997). With this method of inspection, all variables
except the editing/revising scores were considered normal. The editing/revising data was
both positively skewed and leptokurtic. For the current study’s sample size, MANOVA is
still robust when encountering such violations. However, two outliers were additionally

found in the editing/revising data which consequently caused the analysis to be highly

123

sensitive. As a result, the editing/revising variable was removed from the multivariate
analysis. Second, the variances and covariances were examined for homogeneity using
two indices, Box’s M and Levene’s Test. Since MANOVA is robust to violation of this
assumption (with significance at p < .05) and because there are unequal sample sizes
(which heightens sensitivity of the indices and the possibility of violation), alpha was set
at p < .001 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Neither of the two tests of homogeneity was
significant, indicating that the assumption was met. Dependent variables exhibited equal
levels of variance for the group factor, and covariances were equal across cell. Lastly, in
studies of repeated measures, consideration must be given to the third assumption,
independence of observation The current study collected pretest and posttest data for the
same participants and, therefore, needed to consider either using MANOVA for repeated
measures or gain scores (i.e., the difference when pretest scores are subtracted from
posttest scores). This analysis utilized the latter. f
Presentation of Quantitative Data

A one-way MAN OVA was calculated to examine the effect of Strategic and
Interactive Writing Instruction (SIWI) on six dependent variables: primary traits of
informative writing, reading level, primary traits of generalized writing, contextual
language, conventions, and total words. A significant effect was found, Wilks ’ Lambda
F(6,26) = 21.26, p < .000, partial-eta squared = .83.

F ollow-up univariate ANOVAs were calculated for each of the dependent
variables and are presented according to research question. When significant, the effect
size is provided to show the magnitude of the difference between group means. Effect

size (d) is computed as the difference in gain divided by the pooled standard deviation

124

and multiplied by 0, whereby c denotes the Hedges (1981) bias correction. Morris (2005)

presents the effect size calculations of a pretest-posttest control group design as follows:

d = cp[(M‘”” ~M’"’)—(Mmc ‘Mp~.c)]

SD,

 

 

SD = (n, -1)SD:,,J + (nc —1)S'D:mc
P n, +nc — 2

3
-4(n, +nc -2)—1

 

c=1

Following Cohen’s effect size guidelines, 0.20 is small yet meaningful, 0.50 is a medium
effect (i.e., half of a standard deviation difference in means) and 0.80 or above is large
(Howell, 2002).
Research Question A

Research question A asked: Do students receiving the SIWI intervention make
significantly greater gains with high-level informative writing skills compared to those
students not receiving SIWI? To answer this question, a one-way ANOVA was
calculated, using the total primary traits score of informative writing as the dependent
variable. The univariate statistic indicated that high-level informative writing skills were
influenced by instruction, F(1,31) = 34.44, p < .000, partial-eta squared = .53, d = 2.65.
Descriptive statistics of the pre and posttest data for each group are provided below in

Table 12. Further, a graphical depiction of pre and posttest data is provided in Figure 8.

125

Table 12

Descriptive Statistics for Primary Traits of Informative Writing

 

 

Pretest Posttest
M SD M SD
SIWI 2.81 1.83 9.25 5.63
No Treatment 6.00 3.92 4.06 2.63

 

Figure 8. Display of pre and posttest means for primary traits of informative writing.

Primary Traits of Informative Writing

 

“Ii-SIWI
III-No Treatment

 

 

 

Oanwammflmoo

 

Pre and Posttest Means

Student examples of informative writing at pre and posttest can be viewed in Appendix J.
Samples are provided for three various students, representing the below average, average
and above average reader. Students’ individual scores on each primary trait are
additionally provided in Appendix K.
Research Question B

Research question B asked: Do students receiving the SIWI intervention make

significantly greater gains in reading compared to those students not receiving SIWI? A

126

one-way ANOVA indicated that reading was influenced by instruction, F (1,3 1) = 11.2, p
< .002, partial-eta squared = .27, d = 0.39. Students in the SIWI treatment group
evidenced an average gain of 0.45 reading level fiom pre to posttest while students in the
control group did not show any gains.
Research Question C

Research question C asked: Do students receiving the SIWI intervention make
significantly greater gains with high-level generalized writing skills compared to those
students not receiving SIWI? To answer this question, a one-way AN OVA was
calculated, using the primary traits score of generalized writing as the dependent variable.
The univariate statistic indicated that high-level generalized writing skills were
influenced by instruction, F(1,31) = 77.002, p < .000, partial-eta squared = .71, d = 2.07.
Descriptive statistics of the pre and posttest data for each group are provided below in
Table 13. Further, a graphical depiction of pre and posttest data is provided in Figure 9.
Table 13

Descriptive Statistics for Primary Traits of Generalized Writing

 

 

Pretest Posttest
M SD M SD
SIWI 3.06 2.86 8.88 4.29
No Treatment 5.53 3.00 5.12 2.69

 

127

Figure 9. Display of pre and posttest means for primary traits of generalized writing.

Primary Traits of Generalized Writing

 

+No Treatment

 

 

 

O-INUvalGNmOO

 

Pre and Posttest Means

Student examples of generalized writing at pre and posttest can be viewed in Appendix L.
Samples are provided for three various students, representing the below average, average
and above average reader in the treatment group. Students’ individual scores on each
primary trait are additionally provided in Appendix M.
Research Question D

Research question D asked: Do students receiving the SIWI intervention make
significantly greater gains with low-level generalized writing skills compared to those
students not receiving SIWI? To answer this question, two one-way ANOVAs were
calculated, using the gain scores for contextual language and conventions" as the
dependent variables. The univariate statistic for contextual language indicated that low-

level generalized writing skills were influenced by instruction, F(1,31) = 50.001, p <

 

4ScoresoncontextuallanguagerepresentatotalscorecflSvariables,andscoresonconventionsrepresent
a total score of 6 variables. To obtain students’ individual scores for each variable, please contact the
author.

128

.000, partial-eta squared = .62, d = 1.38. The univariate statistic for conventions
additionally showed that low-level generalized writing skills were influenced by
instruction, F(l,31) = 41.72, p < .000, partial-eta squared = .57, d = 1.27. Descriptive
statistics of the contextual language data for each group are provided below in Table 14,
and descriptive statistics for conventions are provided in Table 15. Further, graphical
depictions of pre and posttest data are provided in Figures 10 and 11.

Table 14

Descriptive Statistics for Contextual Language of Generalized Writing

 

 

Pretest Posttest
M SD M SD
SIWI 12.31 7.88 19.94 7.97
No Treatment 17.12 7.42 13.94 7.57

 

Figure 10. Display of pre and posttest means for contextual language.

Contextual Language of Generalized Writing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25 -

20

15 +SIWI

10 +No Treatment
5
0

Pre and Posttest Means

129

Table 15

Descriptive Statistics for Conventions of Generalized Writing

 

 

Pretest Posttest
M SD M SD
SIWI 7.63 3.14 10.94 3.32
No Treatment 7.29 3.97 5.94 4.09

 

Figure 11. Display of pre and posttest means for conventions.

Conventions of Generalized Writing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 ~
10
8
6 +S|WI
fl
+No Treatment
4
2
0

 

 

Pre and Posttest Means

Furthermore, students in the treatment group received two NIP-it lessons during
the intervention time period that targeted lower-level writing skills. The first class
consisted of students having firlly developed expressive language skills and average to
strong literacy skills. Both NIP-it lessons for this group targeted sentence combining. Pre
and posttest differences regarding their production of compound and complex sentences
can be viewed in Table 16. On a four-point rubric scale, student made mean gains of 0.5

on compound sentences and 1.5 on complex sentences. The other two classes mainly

130

consisted of students having minimal language skills and/or low literacy levels. The
lower of the groups, class 2, received two NIP-it lessons targeting sentence construction
(i.e., recognizing and reducing fragments and run-on sentences). The higher of the
groups, class 3, received the first NIP-it lesson on sentence construction but a second
lesson on the use of determiners. Pre and posttest differences can also be viewed for these
classes in Table 16. Both classes reduced their fi'agment sentences and run-on sentences,
thereby showing mean gains of 0.8 to 1.8 points on the 4-point rubric scale. In addition,
class 3, showed a positive mean gain on correct use of determiners (i.e., 0.4 on pretest to
1.2 on posttest).

Table 16

NIP-it lesson outcomes

 

Class Contextual Language Item Mean Pretest Mean Posttest

 

 

Score Score

1 Compound Sentences 0.75 1.25

1 Complex Sentences 0.5 2

' 2 Fragment Sentences 0. 8 2
2 Run-on Sentences 0.6 1.4

3 Fragment Sentences 1 2
3 Run-on Sentences 0.6 2.4
3 Determiners 0.4 1.2

Research Question E

Research question E asked: Do students receiving the SIWI intervention make
significantly greater gains with revising and editing a piece of informative text compared
to those students not receiving SIWI? During a testing of the assumptions, this data was
declared non-normal due to skewness, kurtosis, and the presence of outliers. The data was

removed fi'om the multivariate analysis and, therefore, may not be analyzed using

131

ANOVA. Descriptive statistics of the editing/revising data for each group are provided
below in Table 17, and a graphical depiction of pre and posttest data is provided in Figure
12. Furthermore, pre and posttest data is also given according to individual students in
Table 18.

Table 17

Descriptive Statistics for Editing/Revising

 

 

Pretest Posttest
M SD M SD
SIWI 6.94 7.41 11.41 12.30
No Treatment 7.59 9.52 6.21 8.19

 

Figure 12. Display of pre and posttest means for editing/revising.

Editing and Revising

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 -
10
8
I *SIWI
6 -I-No Treatment
4
2
O
1 2

Pre and Posttest Means

132

Table 18

Individual Student Data for Editing/Revising

 

 

 

 

Student Class Pretest Score Posttest Score
TG1 1 16 13
T62 1 10 12
TG3 1 27 43
TG4 1 15 17
TGS 1 10 12
TG6 2 0 3
TG7 2 3 2
TGB 2 0 2
TGQ 2 O 0

TG10 2 6 3
TG1 1 3 1 1
TG12 3 2 9.5
TG13 3 8 36
TG14 3 4 10
T615 3 7 15
TG16 2 2 4
CG1 1 0 0
CGZ 2 5 5
0G3 1 1 0
064 1 0 0
065 3 21 15
CGB 2 2 1
CG7 2 2 , 2
CG8 3 14.5 12
CGQ 2 0 3
CG1O 2 22 13
CG1 1 3 22.5 21 .5
CG12 2 0 0
CG13 3 15 8
CG14 1 1 0
C615 3 23 25
CG16 1 0 0
CG17 2 0 0
Research Question F

Research question F asked: Do students receiving the SIWI intervention make
significantly greater gains with length of composition compared to those students not
receiving SIWI? To answer this question, a one-way ANOVA was calculated, using the
total word count as the dependent variable. The univariate statistic indicated that length

of composition was influenced by instruction, F(l,31) = 20.55, p < .000, partial-eta

133

squared = .40, d = 1.53. Descriptive statistics of the pre and posttest data for each group
are provided below in Table 19. Further, a graphical depiction of pre and posttest data is
provided in Figure 13.

Table 19

Descriptive Statistics for Total Word Count of Generalized Writing

 

 

Pretest Posttest
M SD M SD
SIWI 35.38 34.27 80.94 51.35
No Treatment 49.53 32.84 42.35 36.19

 

Figure 13. Display of pre and posttest means for total word count.

Total Word Count of Generalized Writing

 

 

 

 

90
so
70
60
50 +SIWI
4o +No Treatment
30
20
10
o

 

Pre and Peanut Means

Ad Hoc Analysis

An ad hoc analysis was performed to determine whether students made
differential gains based on their reading levels. Although students in the treatment group
were parsed into three different classes indicative of low, medium and high literacy

levels, a comparison of the three groups could not be made because of the small it in

134

each. However, students could be separated into two fairly equal groups: those reading
above a 2.9 reading level and those reading below. There were no significant differences
in the amount of gain experienced by low readers compared to high readers with respect
to the dependent variables.
Presentation of Qualitative Data

Research Question G

Research question G asked: Do students exposed to SIWI evidence greater
metacognitive skills in regard to writing, and/or do students evidence greater motivation
for writing at the conclusion of the intervention as opposed to the beginning? Six students
in the treatment group (two fiom each class) were randomly selected for pre and post
interviews. During the interviews, students were asked three questions that were
revealing of metacognitive skills: What do good writers do before writing? What do they
do during writing? What do they do after writing? The content of student interviews at
pre and posttests are shown in Table 20. The parentheses indicate the number of students

providing a similar response.

135

Table 20

Student Interview Responses to Metacognitive Questions

 

Pre Interview Responses

Post Interview Responses

 

Before 0 Outline using numbers
Wl‘ltlnS? 0 Get question from the book
0 Get a piece of paper

Choose topic (3)

Determine audience

Plan (3)

Brainstorm ideas for paper (4)
Gather information fi'om internet
or books

Organize information into
categories

Order ideas, decide what comes
first, second, etc. (2)

Write introduction using general
statements and a thesis

 

During 0 Write (2)

writing? 0 Respond to question
0 Teacher maybe will help
0 Indent

After 0 Edit work
writing? 0 Print fi'om the computer and edit
with teacher
0 Have mom fix what is wrong
Save work and put in a folder

Scribe

Write so that people can
understand

Write introduction using opening
statements and a thesis statement
Write the body

Give specific details of your topic
(i.e., meat)

Indent and capitalize

Reread the text

Study vocabulary

Translate ASL to English

Make sure you have a concluding
paragraph that is opposite of the
intro, restate what was in the body
(2)

Make sure you have an end

Edit and revise mistakes

Print

Give to your audience to read (2)

 

At posttest, students evidenced greater knowledge about what good writers do during the

writing process. They mentioned more about planning, organizing/categorizing and

ordering ideas for writing. Students considered audience at all stages of the writing

136

process (e.g., the audience is determined up front, they write with the audience in mind,
and they allow the audience to read the finished product). At posttest, one student
indicated that good writers review and reread their text while writing. Another indicated
that good writers need to consider language and translation. Finally, students in general
expressed more about the structure of good informative writing (e.g., introduction with a
thesis sentence, body with details, and a concluding paragraph).

Students were also asked to respond to motivation-related questions: What are
your thoughts or feelings about writing? Do you enjoy writing? Responses at the pre and
posttest interviews were very similar in that students expressed instances of dislike and
like for writing. A consistent response fi'om students was they preferred choosing their
own topic for writing. Students conveyed an interest for learning and writing about
certain topics like football or dolphins. At the same time, students expressed a lack of
enjoyment when they are required to respond in writing to a teacher’s topic or to
questions in the textbook.

Summary

This study examined the effect of Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction
(SIWI) on students’ writing and reading skills. For the statistical analysis, the
independent variable was the group factor (i.e., SIWI or no treatment). The dependent
variables were the gains fiom pre to posttest for primary traits of informative writing,
reading level, primary traits of generalized writing, contextual language, conventions, and
total words. The data fi'om the editing/revising measure was removed fiom the statistical
analyses due to its non-normality. The multivariate statistic and all follow-up univariate

statistics were significant. Furthermore, R squared for writing gains ranged from .53 to

137

.71, meaning that much of the variation can be attributed to the writing intervention. The
effect sizes (d) were large to very large, with numbers ranging from 1.27 to 2.65. R
squared for the dependent variable of reading was .27, indicating some of the variation
can be explained by the intervention——an intervention that focused primarily on writing.
The associated effect size was small to moderate at 0.39. Analysis of student interview
data additionally revealed that students at posttest were able to express more knowledge
about what good writers do before, during and after they write. Motivation for writing

was a matter of topic choice.

138

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Summary and Discussion of the Findings

The present study was designed to investigate the impact of Strategic and
Interactive Writing Instruction (SIWI) on the writing performance of middle school
students with hearing loss. The research extended a previous study that examined the
effects of interactive writing instruction (W olbers, 2006). Whereas the earlier study
focused on the instruction of personal narrative and personal experience text, this study
targeted instruction of expository text, and more specifically, informative text.

The prior study was a 21-day intervention whereby teachers and students co-
constructed a piece of personal narrative text everyday of the intervention. The published
products were typically a paragraph or two in length and were accomplished within a 20
to 30-minute time me. When the focus of instruction was changed to informative text
(a genre of writing typically expected at this age), a strategy instruction component was
added to the approach to support students in the process of writing a text structure with
greater complexity. The entire writing process was more involved, fi'om the extraction of
pertinent detail from various resources to the revising of multi-paragraph and multi-page
text. During the 8-week SIWI intervention involving 32 lessons of instruction at 30 to 45
minutes a lesson, teacher and students co-constructed a total of two informative essays.

The set of writing strategies offered by POSTER provided a broad curriculum
framework for proceeding through the writing process. Students were introduced to the

actions skilled writers take when constructing text and were also engaged in the practice

139

of these actions. The interactive format, then, provided a space for collaboration,
knowledge-sharing and apprenticeship of writing strategies and skills. Other components
of SIWI included: the use of text models for decomposition and evaluation exercises,
metalinguistic knowledge building activities, NIP-it lessons, and the use of visual
scaffolds.

The study was driven by multiple purposes. First and foremost, SIWI was
designed and implemented with the intention of developing the writing skills, both
higher-level and low-level, of deaf middle school students. For pre and posttests, students
wrote an essay of informative text (i.e., the instructed genre) and also responded in
writing to a personal narrative prompt (i.e., an untaught genre). The personal narrative
prompt was modeled after the state’s standardized assessment of middle school writing.
On both of these measures, students who had received SIWI made significantly greater
gains with the primary traits or higher-level writing skills compared to control group
students. Thus, students gained in their ability to produce informative writing after
receiving instruction in this area but also evidenced an ability to generalize writing skills
and strategies to an untaught text structure, that of personal narrative writing.

This has implications for writing instruction in the middle grades, especially in
the face of high-stakes testing pressures. Students entering the middle grades typically
have a more developed repertoire for writing narrative rather than expository texts
(Applebee, 2000), yet there are increased expectations at this level for students to exhibit
content knowledge through writing and to write research papers or argument-based
essays. The results of this study indicate that expository writing can be the center of

instruction and not simultaneously stall student growth in the area of writing that is

140

tested. In fact, students in the treatment group made similar amounts of gain with each of
the text structures; scores tripled on both measures while the scores of control group
students stayed the same or slightly declined on both. The efl‘ect sizes for both
informative and generalized writing were very large (i.e., > 2.0). As can be seen in
Appendices J and L, students—although at various pretest levels—showed gains over
time with production of text structure, organization of information and coherence of
written ideas. They further became more considerate of audience, which is evident in
their efi‘orts to present information in an organized way and use a language that readers
can understand.

SIWI, additionally, had a significant impact on students’ lower-order writing
skills. This was a somewhat projected, yet surprising, outcome. The current study
allowed fewer days for the co-construction of text than the previous study of interactive
writing, 15 days compared to 21 days. Many class lessons during the intervention time
involved non-writing or prewriting activities such as planning, organizing, and evaluating
text models, which allowed for little apprenticeship in the areas of contextual language or
conventions. Even more, when the class was involved in writing, translating, editing and
revising, much time was allocated to discussion of higher-level writing skills (e.g., the
structure of a body paragraph or organizing ideas) because students lacked experience
with constructing informative text. Substantially less attention was given to the
discussion and practice of contextual language skills or conventions; however, students
still made significant gains in these areas fi'om pre to posttests. Effect sizes were, in fact,
quite large (i.e. 1.38 for contextual language and 1.27 for conventions). At the same time,

students in the control group did not show gains, yet their classroom instruction

141

incorporated the explicit teaching of grammar. This firrther supports the assertion that
grammar instruction alone may provide no real benefit (Hillocks, 1986), but
contextualized learning of language, on the other hand, has potential to produce
meaningful results.

The NIP-it lessons proved to be a beneficial way of identifying constructions not
readily used by students and then targeting these writing practices or skills through
tailored instruction. The teacher, while outside the interactive space of co-constructing
text, evaluated the leVel of student contributions and recognized those areas of language
or conventions for which students were not making suggestions and, as a result, might
benefit from direct instruction.

Prior to the inclusion of NIP-it lessons, students were not only lacking the use and
knowledge of particular constructions, but teachers were also missing opportunities for
instruction during the co-writing of text. For instance, in a similar study (Wolbers, 2006),
the middle school students did not show any gains from pre to posttest with the
production of compound or complex sentences. The teachers, juggling multiple
responsibilities and discourse moves, may have been cognitively taxed during co-
construction and unable to notice such sentences were missing fiom the shared text and
from student contributions. In fact, there was little attempt to model, teach, think-aloud or
incorporate compound or complex sentences. Therefore, the published pieces contained
very few of these constructions.

During the current study, classes in the treatment group varied in their need for
NIP-it lessons. The students in the first class, consisting of those at near-average or

average language and literacy levels, had mastered many basic writing skills but were

142

nonetheless producing simple sentences. This class received NIP-it lessons that targeted
sentence combining skills. On posttest, students nearly doubled the amount of compound
sentences they were using in their writing and quadrupled the amount of complex
sentences. The other classes received difl'erent NIP-it lessons (e.g., forming complete
sentences, recognizing fiagments and run-ens, and distinguishing when to use “a” or

‘ e”) and, in response, also showed the ability to double, triple and quadruple the correct
production of these constructions.

The key to effective NIP-it lessons, I believe, lies in the “P”, for, as a former
teacher, I taught these same contextual language lessons but did not have similar success.
Students learned the rules and could complete worksheets or textbook exercises with
great accuracy (which I deemed adequate practice); however, they did not transfer their
knowledge to writing, in-class or otherwise. At that time, this was a very peculiar
occurrence, for I did not understand the importance of students being involved with a
community of writers and applying knowledge to writing that has a purpose. With NIP-it
lessons, the use of various constructions is practiced in the context of real writing events
after the direct instruction occurs. That is, teacher reflection to “Notice” the area in need
as well as the direct “Instruction” of the area takes place outside the realm of co-
constructing text but is later contextualized through “Practice” of authentic writing
experiences. Only 2 of the 32 lessons were allocated for direct instruction of contextual
language through NIP-it lessons. After a lesson, however, the construction became an

infused part of the classroom writing. Posters were hung in the collaborative writing area

that represented and supported the writing lessons. The constructions were also added to

143

the editing checklist. And, the teacher and students made an increased effort to
incorporate discussion and practice of the constructions when writing together.

Another area of writing that SIWI intended to impact was students’ editing and
revising skills. Because students were actively involved in the processes of editing and
revising the collaborative text, it was anticipated that students would appropriate the
actions of skilled writers in that respect. Yet, as mentioned prior, there were fewer days in
the current study allotted to the co-construction of text—which meant less time for the
editing and revising of text—as compared with a similar and earlier study (Wolbers,
2006). The results of the editing and revising data were, in fact, mixed. Some students in
the treatment group evidenced tremendous progress from pre to posttest in this area (e.g.,
TG3 with a pretest score of 27 and a posttest score of 43, TG13 with a pretest score of 8
and a posttest score of 36). Nevertheless, these few students were the exception to the
rule. Other students showed little or no growth with editing and revising skills (e. g., TG7
with a pretest score of 3 and a posttest score of 2). Overall, the mean gain of the treatment
group was approximately 4.5 points which was indeed more than the control group;
however, it was peculiar that great variability existed in the treatment group.

One viable explanation is that each of the three classes in the treatment group had
different instructional needs and therefore had substantially different foci during writing.
The third class consisting of students TGll to TG15, for instance, showed the most gain
fiom pre to posttest with an average of a 10-point increase. Unsurprisingly, this class
spent considerably more time than the other two with editing and revising. This was the
case because students in this class had very strong Opinions and expressive personalities,

especially when saying how something should be written to be effective or correctly

144

stated in English. In particular, students often had incorrect conceptions but were
adamant in their correctness. When “stepping in” and directing the writing by thinking-
aloud, modeling or guiding, the teacher often met student resistance to alternate ideas. As
a result, a greater amount of class discussion ensued to tackle students’ preconceived
notions, which may provide reason for these students having greater gains compared to
the other two classes.

Additionally, the students in the three classes were parsed according to level of
language and literacy which may be another reason for the variability in student
performance. The second group (students TG6 to TG10 and TG16 having the lowest
literacy and language levels) performed the lowest on the editing and revising
assessment, showing virtually no growth. This may indicate one of two things. Students
in this group had the least amount of prior experience with writing, and therefore the
instruction of the writing process as well as the construction of text was much slower.
Students were working to develop some very rudimentary editing and revising skills in
time that was additionally constrained by other necessary tasks. Most students in this
group, for example, had difficulty expressing ideas in visual or written language. During
the construction of text, students spent the majority of time collaboratively building ideas
in ASL, thinking about language translation and then forming complete English
sentences. Students, thus, may have been impacted by the lesser emphasis placed on
revising and editing. Second, because students were reading at an early primary level,
they may have found the assessment to be too arduous and overwhelming. Even though
the text could be interpreted and read to them, students may have presumed the task to be

unapproachable.

145

One more key finding of the current study is that students of SIWI made
significant gains in reading. Students in the treatment group made an average gain of 0.45
years in reading while the students in the control group exhibited no gains. If students in
the treatment group continued to make the same rate of growth over the course of an
entire school year, the average reading gain would approximate 2 years. This would be a
dramatic result given the history of failed attempts to positively impact reading outcomes
of deaf students. Further, in the case of the lowest readers at pretest (e. g., TG8 reading at
a 0.6 level, and TG16 reading at 0.9), gains timing the 8-week intervention were double
the average growth—1 year of gain. Therefore, students most in need of an effective
reading intervention were those most impacted by SIWI.

It goes without saying, however, that SIWI is a writing intervention and does not
provide specialized attention to the reading needs or goals of students. At the same time,
the presence of SIWI in the middle school language arts classroom, indeed, had a positive
efi’ect on reading. This may point to the fact that reading and writing share commonalities
in respect to kinds of knowledge and processes (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). For
instance, in the practice of reviewing and revising, students are prompted by the teacher
to read and reread the constructed text. The intention is that students learn the process of
monitoring their writing for meaning making. Yet, the repeated readings of students’ own
ideas may additionally aid in building vocabulary identification skills as well as word
meaning.

In an era of high-stakes testing in which teachers are facing pressures to improve
the reading outcomes of their students, writing is more commonly an instructional

afterthought rather than an integral component of literacy teaching and learning. The

146

results of this study contradict the conception that reading must dominate literacy
instruction, for it evidences an approach to quality writing instruction that will boost both
writing and reading achievement. This does not downplay the need for reading and
writing to be recognized as having cognitively separate aspects. In fact, the current
writing intervention accounts for 27% of the variability in reading gains, suggesting that
writing instruction does not directly translate into reading gains. However, SIWI does
impact areas of knowledge or processes in both reading and writing, resulting in
overlapping benefits. Teachers can be more efficient with their instructional time by
utilizing literacy activities that allow for dual benefits and then secondarily incorporating
separate instruction as needed (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000).

Lastly, analysis of the length of essay showed that students in the SIWI group
more than doubled their number of words (i.e., the pretest mean of ~35 to the posttest
mean of ~81 words). Conversely, students in the comparison group did not write longer
pieces on their posttests compared to their pretests. There are a number of plausible
explanations for the increased length of student writing in the treatment group. One
reason that warrants credit is that students evidenced greater metacognitive knowledge
for the process of writing and for the text structure of informative essays at the
conclusion of the intervention. The majority of pretests were unorganized listings of
details. During the pre interviews, students discussed writing in terms of homework
assignments and responses to the teacher’s questions. There was no indication that
students experienced authentic audiences and authentic purposes for writing. At the post
interviews, however, they mentioned giving attention to the audience before writing,

during writing and after writing. This had an impact on how students planned and

147

organized their writing, but, in terms of length, it affected how they wrote. As one student
puts it, he “write(s) so that people can understan ”. This thought, I believe, led to greater
explanation and clarity in student writing. It additionally made students more cognizant
of producing a text structure that is comprehensible to the reader. During the posttest,
students constructed considerably longer papers by writing introductory paragraphs with
thesis statements, topic sentences, sentences that provided coherence between ideas, or
concluding statements and paragraphs.

The results of the analyses are fairly straightforward for the treatment group—
SIWI had a significant and positive impact on students’ writing and reading outcomes.
What is less understandable is the lack of literacy progress in the comparison group—or
in some cases—the decline of literacy skills. During the 8 week intervention period,
students in the control group showed little variation between pre and posttest in respect to
reading level, primary traits of generalized writing, length, and editing/revising skills.
While discouraging, a plateau in literacy achievement is characteristic of middle school
students in general (Bereiter, 1980). Students, however, showed a negative decline with
primary traits of informative writing, contextual language and conventions. This brings
reason for concern, particularly with the area of contextual language.

Whereas informative writing was not the center of instruction in the control
group, contextual language was one area given considerable time and focus. Such a result
could potentially signify student regression instead of progression when the approach to
teaching language is largely “part to whole”. The language instruction in the comparison
group initially focused on parts of speech (i.e., nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs) and

increasingly added greater complexity (i.e., construction of sentences and paragraphs). In

148

contrast, SIWI engaged students in writing essays, whereby learning about contextual
language was embedded. Students learned about subjects and predicates but within a
context of revising fi'agments in the collaborative text. Students discussed adverbs but in
the context of how an adverb expressed in ASL translates to written English. Indeed,
structured skill building was an instructional element that was present in both groups;
however, there were differences in the practice of these skills. SIWI allowed for skills to
be embedded in actual practice whereas students taught in the comparison group using a
“part to whole” approach studied language and grammar under simplified and
decontextualized conditions.

Furthermore, in the treatment group, the teacher acknowledged the level of
students’ current understandings rather than assuming a “blank slate”. An approach
starting with very basic language instruction at the beginning of the year, in contrast,
discounts students’ previous knowledge. Thus, instruction in the comparison group may
have led students to regress back to use of simple and less varied constructions in their
posttest writing even though they were capable of more. During SIWI, the co-constructed
text, in addition, was written at a level beyond what students could accomplish
independently but could achieve through scaffolding and support provisions. Therefore,
there was exposure to complex and varied usages of grammar, and there was also
opportunity to practice language not normally attempted, all within the context of a
meaningful activity.

Theoretical Implications
The instructional principles and procedures of Strategic and Interactive Writing

Instruction (SIWI) were supported largely by three theoretical perspectives: cognitive

149

theories of composing, sociocultural theories of learning, and theories of dialogue.
Although seemingly a wide range of perspectives that are poles apart, together they
formed a theoretical framework that comprehensively supported writing instruction and
learning, in all its complexity. That is, instead of viewing the theories as competing, a
framework was conceived that welcomed the insight and distinct contributions of each
theory, for one theory alone may have been insufficient in designing such an effective
instructional approach and subsequently explaining the complex learning phenomena. As
Stone (2004) argues, interventions in the area of language and literacy are best
conceptualized from multiple perspectives when concern is given to both the process and
the practice. With respect to the current research, the three strands of theory stated above
together motivate the strategic instruction of skills and processes within communities of
practice or collaborative and interactive environments.

Cognitive theories of composing, sociocultural theories of learning and theories of
dialogue are delineated as broad-based theories, for they provide broad understandings of
human capability applicable to multiple circumstances, conditions, and persons. Whereas
the current study investigates the literacy learning of deaf middle school students in
specific, the main instructional components associated with SIWI (i.e., strategic
instruction and interactive writing) are generalizable to other classrooms, teachers and
students outside this focus. In fact, interventions informing parts of SIWI such as
Cognitive Strategy Instruction of Writing (Englert, 1990; Englert et al., 1991; Englert,
Mariage, & Dunsmore, 2006) and Morning Message (Englert & Dunsmore, 2002;
Mariage, 1995, 2001) are likewise based on broad theoretical foundations that have wide

application.

150

At the same time, SIWI has other components that are based on a more narrow set
of conceptions. The component of metalinguistic knowledge building, for instance, is
relevant to linguistically diverse populations of students. When designing SIWI, insight
was largely sought from the field of L2 writing because of the limited resources available
in the field of deaf education with respect to language and literacy learning. Theorizing in
this area (i.e. the contextually specific condition of deaf learners of language and
literacy), for the most part, has been the result of conceptual papers more tied to opinion
and philosophy than study and research (cf. Luckner et al., 2006). With the results of this
study, I provide theoretical implications for the field of deaf education, for it is essential
that studies advance beyond their own research and give attention to the theoretical
insights that can be derived, especially in needed areas (Curcic, Wolbers, Pu & Juzwik,
2006).

A long-standing theoretical question in the field of deaf education asks how deaf
students best form an internal representation of the English language that will aid them in
reading and writing. Deaf and hard of hearing students are wide-ranging in respect to
many factors (i.e., residual hearing, access to a language and fluent models, exposure to
print), and it would do no justice to the field to simplify the varied and independent
experiences of many into one sweeping generalization. While, at the same time, the
results of this study can help us consider the experiences of some deaf students—those
primarily having severe to profound losses, using ASL as their primary language, and
having associations with the Deaf community and culture. These are students who baffle

researchers and theorists when they achieve average or above average literacy rates, for

151

their ability to write and read a language not used for daily communication and social
purposes is surprising.

Some would claim such an occurrence is explained by the interdependence theory
of bilingual education (Enns, 2006) which purports that there is a common underlying
proficiency to language that allows skills whether cognitive or literacy-related to transfer
across languages (Cummins, 1979). High levels of proficiency in L1 lead to greater L2
literacy skills, provided there is adequate exposure to L2 and motivation to learn L2; and,
L2 proficiency, in turn, leads to greater skill in L1. Few dispute that Cummins’s model of
interdependence has some applicability to the deaf learner, for proficiency in ASL as a
first language can lay a cognitive foundation that supports language learning of English
and academic learning in general. However, when it comes to the development of reading
or writing skills in English, the experience of the ASL user is unique and somewhat
mysterious. First, there is no written language for the L1 (i.e., ASL). Second, among deaf
persons with profound losses, a foundation for writing in English is often not developed
through the use of speaking English. The interdependence theory of bilingual education
rests upon the assumptions that students are developing spoken and written language
proficiency in both L1 and L2. Thereby such a theory may only account for part of the
deaf person’s experience.

Mayer and Wells (1996) draw on the work of Vygotsky and Halliday to further
express this point. They discuss four distinct but overlapping phases of linguistic activity,
with the mastered forms serving to bridge the development of others: (a) learning the
language of the community; (b) internalizing the language into a form of inner speech

that governs one’ thinking and behavior", (c) using the written mode as an alternative

152

communication route; (d) expanding one’s mastery of the written language to allow
facility over various genres, including formal and academic kinds. They reason that using
ASL as one’s first language or the language of the community can naturally serve as a
bridge to developing an internal representation of ASL via egocentric talk occurring in
ASL; however, an internal representation of ASL or use of ASL for communication
means are unlikely to serve as bridges for the development of written English. Even
more, Mayer and Wells (1996) suggest that the L2 learner typified by the
interdependence theory has two routes to obtaining proficiency in written English. She
may transfer the underlying linguistic and conceptual understandings from her spoken L1
to the development of spoken English, which, in turn, becomes internally represented and
supports writing. Or, she may transfer similarities of writing in L1 to writing in L2. With
such routes unavailable to the deaf user of ASL as Ll, the bridging of literacy-related
skills must be questioned. And, since simply achieving proficiency in ASL will not
automatically result in written English proficiency, greater consideration must be given to
a pathway that will.

This line of reasoning has led to claims that English-based sign language or
natural sign languages (e. g., contact or pidgin sign) could provide a bridge to literacy
learning in English (Mayer & Akamatsu, 1999) that cannot be provided through ASL.
That is, students using English-based sign for communication within a community of
users would then have access to a means of constructing an internal representation of
English supportive of writing. One oversight in this logic is the assumption that all
complexities of English grammar and English constructions are fillly represented in

English-based sign when, in reality, that is not the case. English-based signing (with the

153

exception of manually coded systems which have fallen out of favor) often consists of a
naturally-produced version of sign. It is widely used by members of the Deafcommunity
when communicating with non-users of ASL or when specifically emphasizing the
expression of something English-based through sign. Such a method of English-based
sign is termed pidgin or contact sign, for it has developed spontaneously from two
languages as a method of communication between speakers of different tongues. In fact,
by definition, a pidgin or contact language has simplified grammar and restricted
vocabulary. Unsurprising, research has yet to validate the ability of deaf children to
acquire proficiency in English solely through English-based signing (Stewart, 2006).

In the current study, students can be divided roughly into three groups with
respect to use of language: those who use ASL as their primary language and naturally
switch to contact sign based on the demands of a situation; those who use ASL as their
primary language but do not switch to contact sign without support; those with minimal
language development. Students in the first group (treatment class 1) were those with
near average to average literacy levels. They also evidenced an understanding that written
English and ASL have distinct and distinguishable characteristics. Students of this group
when communicating with each other for purposes of discussion or meaning-making
would use ASL. Yet, when amidst the co-construction of text, ideas offered as additions
to the collaborative essay were given using English-based sign or contact sign. This was
not a prompted action; rather, students naturally made the switch to contact sign when
wanting to write. Although students’ expressions in contact sign were lacking in
grammatical complexity and precision, they were close enough approximations of

English that they could be written and subsequently revised, reworked or further

154

complicated. Because students were operating in this fashion, there was little need for the
ASL thinkpad, discussion of translation, or the use of explicit contrastive procedures.
Instead, students were in need of practicing English in its fully complex form and adding
greater complexity to their internalized repertoire of English.

The approaches taken with this first group was to provide explicit instruction of
English, model constructions and also think aloud the rationale and reasoning for
decisions. Additionally, students would repeatedly read back through the constructed text
along with the teacher. The sign used while reading could be characterized as a more
nuanced form of contact sign that was further supported with print, hereinafter referred to
as print-based sign. While reading, the teacher used one hand to point to the printed text
and one hand to sign, or she pointed to the word/s first and then signed. Some students
also preferred to voice as they read through the text. Every attempt was made to represent
the English of the essay visually while avoiding conceptual inaccuracies. This entailed
fingerspelling words that did not have meaningfial equivalents. Also, because of the lack
of one to one correspondence between languages, it involved, attimes, signing one word
that equated to more than one written word or signing multiple words that equated to one
word in text. Yet, the reading was always supported with the English printed word
through referencing and pointing to the text. Such a method would be deemed too
cumbersome for the purpose of communication; however, it was useful in accessing,
reading and practicing English. What was additionally important in this approach was
that the text itself had meaning to students, for it was constructed using their ideas.

The fact that students grew in their abilities to correctly use English contextual

language in their writings warrants reason to speculate that these students were

155

developing an increasingly accurate and complicated internal representation of English.
Such a feat was not previously accomplished by being proficient users of ASL or
English-based sign. Rather, it is conjectured that repeated readings using print-based sign
along with explicit instruction, modeling and thinking aloud made a difference. However,
for these students, it cannot be denied that both ASL and English-based sign played
instrumental roles in developing written English. Students used ASL as their primary
means of communication and meaning-making. When struggling with difficulties in the
process of writing, students preferred discussing, questioning, sharing, defending or
rationalizing in ASL, perhaps because it is a fully complete and accessible language to
them. Today, few deny the importance of ASL, especially with increasing value placed
on ASL as a first language for many deaf children (Stewart, 2006). Even proponents of
English-based signing (Mayer & Wells, 1996; Mayer & Akamatsu, 1999) do not discount
that ASL holds an important place in the education of deaf children, but how they have
conceived its use is less certain. Similarly, English-based sign was also utilized by
students in the process of writing. When students wanted to construct text, they switched
to contact sign and wrote according to how they expressed something via this method.
What is less clear is how students developed an ability to switch from ASL to English-
based sign when the situation requires it.

Nonetheless, the results of the current study provide theoretical implications that,
in the case of the deaf user of ASL as Ll, proficiency in written English (L2) comes as a
result of developing an internal representation of English. For the students in this first
group, such a process was supported by first having a firlly developed Ll through which a

cognitive foundation and a common underlying proficiency for language was established,

156

and, as a result, linguistic and cognitive-related skills could transfer to learning English.
Next, there was recognition that ASL and English are two distinct languages having
separate characteristics and forms. When faced with a situation needing English use (e. g.,
writing, communicating across languages with non-ASL users), students had an ability to
switch to an English-based version of sign. Finally, writing initially stemmed fi'om
writing students’ productions ofl'ered in English-based sign but was then revised to an
accurate and more complicated expression of English. In the process of reviewing the
constructed text, students engaged in repeated readings using print-based signing which
retained the complexities of the language. Lastly, writing events were meaningful and
had social or communicative purpose. Thus, the process of developing a deeper
representation of inner English, for this group, was more than simply using spoken
English, English-based sign, or ASL.

The next group of students (treatment class 3), those using ASL as a primary
language and. not having a natural inclination to switch to English-based sign when
writing, were students with near average or below average literacy levels. In addition to
the techniques used in the first group, an approach used with these students was to build
metalinguistic awareness. Students’ writing commonly consisted of ASL-like
productions, which would indicate that students either did not recognize English as a
separate language or they had not yet developed even a simplified internal representation
of English (as the first group had). When students offered ideas to be added to the written
text, a frequent question posed to this group was, “Is that expression more like ASL or
more like English and why?” This prompted them to think about and discuss the

structural differences under guidance, and also encouraged them to attempt some

157

translation as time went on. Much instructional time with this group was spent discussing
ways of transforming a visually and spatially expressed idea into a linear English
statement. Therefore, another recurrent question posed to this group was, “How can we
change that ASL expression into something that is more like English?” When doing this,
the ASL thinkpad was utilized. By the end of the intervention, students in this group
made significant gains in their use of English language, grammar and constructions when
writing. Thus, the technique of building metalinguistic awareness was useful in helping
students distinguish ASL fi'om English or helping students obtain a basic understanding
of English in general, which may have established the starting point (and, perhaps the
nwd) for a distinct internal language.

The last group (treatment class 2) consisting of those students with minimal
language development in both English and ASL was predictably the group with the
lowest literacy levels. With this group, there was a continual attempt to engage students
in conversation or discussion using ASL. At the same time, students were learning about
English and its structure. Yet, language learning in ASL and English were clearly
regarded and labeled as being separate, and having distinct uses and characteristics.
Naturally, this group of students faced substantial challenges in participating in the
activity. The interactive and dialogic format of SIWI required students to express their
ideas or questions, give attention to others, and build meaning with others through
interweaving talk. This was no small task for students with minimal language skills and
very little history with two-sided or multi-sided conversations. Students used gesturing,
drawing, and any other feasible method of relaying meaning when they did not have

sufficient sign ability. The teacher or other students, by revoicing or reconceptualizing

158

the expressions, would then share and use the sign vocabulary, which allowed ASL
learning to be contextualized and meaningfill. In addition, students needed much
direction and guidance with conversation principles (i.e., looking at the speaker when
s/he is talking, attempting to understand what s/he is saying, providing related responses,
turn taking, asking questions when meaning is not clear, etc.) Throughout the course of
the intervention, students visibly became more able to express themselves using ASL and
were in need of less language scaffolding and support fi'om the teacher. In essence,
students were growing in their ASL abilities while learning about writing and English.
Similarly, students made gains with English contextual language in their writing.

Near the end of the intervention, students were adept at offering ideas to the group
in ASL, albeit using typically simple expressions. Others would ask questions and make
sure they understood the expressed meaning. The idea would then get reworked by the
group, adding to and complicating the ASL. Notes would be made on the ASL thinkpad
to retain the ideas expressed in ASL. Students would then discuss methods of translating
their expression into a form of English. By the end of the intervention, students could
create simple but complete sentences in English (i.e., having a subject and a predicate),
without the teacher stepping in much. Therefore, students began to develop an
understanding and use of English. The main approach used with this group was to further
develop the primary language so students had a fully accessible way of expressing,
understanding, and mediating learning. At the same time, students were exposed to
English and use of English through metalinguistic knowledge building, reading and
reviewing text using print-based sign, explicit instruction, modeling and thinking aloud,

and writing with an authentic audience and purpose.

159

In summary, students with varying language abilities took part in the SIWI
intervention and all showed significant growth in their knowledge of written English
structure and principles. According to language learning theory, students were developing
inner speech or an increasingly complex and accurate internal representation of English.
The instructional approaches varied for each group by responding to students’ natural
language abilities at the start of the intervention. While specific theoretical conjectures
have been made, I will restate the broad implications. Proficiency in ASL alone is not
sufficient in producing proficiency in written English; however, all classes in the current
study used ASL as their primary mode of communication, for it provided a means of
carrying out the most elaborate discussions. And, the value of accepting a language into
the classroom that not only represents personal identity but has cultural and community
ties cannot be underestimated. Second, those students with near average or average
literacy levels naturally switched to English-based sign when writing. Yet, it is not clear
how students developed an ability to simplify their expressions and change the
grammatical order of their ideas to meet the demands of certain situations. Finally,
whereas English-based sign provided students with a starting point for writing English, it
was not accurate or complicated enough. I have detailed the methods and instructional
approaches of the study that I believe aided students in developing an internal
representation of English. One approach, however, that I believe warrants special noting
is the use of print-based signing when reading and reviewing collaboratively constructed
text. When designing SIWI, little thought was given to how rereading the text using print-
based sign could aid students in developing inner speech. Rather, the instructional

. element was intended to apprentice students in the process of reviewing, revising and

160

editing one’ 3 work However, during the intervention, it occurred to me that students
were not only seeing and using English in its fully complex and written fornr, but they
were also becoming more comfortable with the flow, the manner of expression and the
“soun ” of the language through the repeated readings.

Instructional Implications

One important implication for instruction that comes directly fiom the theoretical
discussion of students’ language development in both ASL and English is that teachers’
knowledge of language is central to the instructional objectives. When working with deaf
students similar to those in this study, teachers need a deep understanding of the
linguistic principles of both ASL and English when modeling language, when working to
build students’ metalinguistic knowledge or when using explicit contrastive procedures.
In particular, this knowledge can aid teachers in direct instruction of language or use of
think-alouds during the co-construction of text, for they can emphasize certain principles
or distinguish language rules (Enns, 2006).

As fluent and natural users of either English or ASL as a first language, teachers
may not have a linguistic-based or rule-governed understanding of their own language.
Take for instance a hearing teacher who uses English as his first language. He is a fluent
user of the language but may not be able to explain the reasons behind or rules underlying
particular constructions; rather, this teacher, like many, operates on sound-based
principles (i.e., what sounds correct in English or seems right). This teacher is not likely
to have the necessary instructional tools when, for instance, faced with a deaf student
who does not understand the difference between writing “interesting” versus “interested”

or when another student expresses that written text with the construction “had had” is

161

wrong or mistyped. A teacher committed to the SIWI approach, rather, will continually
build his or her own metalinguistic knowledge of the L1. And, this is most likely an
ongoing endeavor involving the collection of multiple resources—printed-based or
person-based experts—one can refer to when in need of firrthering language
understanding.

Additionally, there are many teachers of the deaf who have yet to reach
proficiency in their second language, whether ASL or English. Instruction of language or
communication of instruction in general may then be constrained by teachers having
limitations in their own language abilities (Stewart, 2006). In order for teachers of the
deaf to be responsive to students’ specific language and literacy needs, s/he must have a
thorough understanding of the students’ expressive language as well as English
principles.

Limitations of the Study and Future Directions

The present study has certain limitations that should be taken into consideration
with future research. First, there were no measures given to students at pre and posttest
thm assessed expressive language ability in ASL. In the midst of the intervention, it
became apparent that students—especially those starting with minimal language skills——
were displaying growth with expression using ASL. Because of the interactive and
collaborative nature of SIWI, students were fi'equently participating through the air using
ASL or sign-based expressions. Future research might investigate the extent to which
involving students as active participants in learning or involving students in inquiry-
based and dialogic learning supports the language grth of deaf students. Further,

studies might also explore the use of ASL, English-based sign and print-based sign

162

during the writing process. In the current study, writing was published for an authentic
audience. It may be additionally fruitfirl to rework and revise the parallel ASL
productions into a publishable version for a meaningful purpose (e. g., presenting a topic
to an audience, videotaping narratives and sharing with others). Such an approach could
bolster greater proficiency in both languages and could result in greater distinction of
situational uses.

Second, future directions in research might inquire how teachers appropriate an
understanding and an ability to use discourse in the classroom as a pedagogical tool.
Whereas it has been shown that exemplary teachers of the deaf are skillful users of
dialogic inquiry (Mayer, Akamatsu and Stewart, 2002), it is less certain how these
teachers have developed such a skill. Working within an interactive environment, such as
that of SIWI which values student participation, can be a complicated instructional
venture for teachers. Certainly, there is less teacher control over the lesson, for discussion
can take learning in unexpected directions or reveal students misconceptions. As
Schoenfeld (2002) articulates, such an approach requires a:

. . . substantial amount of understanding and flexibility on the part of the

teacher—the willingness to explore ideas as they come up, the ability to make

judgments about what might be productive directions or not, and the ability to

provide the ‘right’ level of support for students individually and collectively (p.

157)

Research questions might ask how pre-service teachers or teachers not currently
employing much classroom interaction can appropriate the skills of facilitating classroom

discourse. And, since SIWI’ s interactive component, I believe, are the basis for its

163

effectiveness, it must be questioned how teachers come to appreciate and use dialogic
techniques.

In the current study, the implementer of the intervention (the participant
researcher) was a capable user of the SIWI instructional components, including dialogic
inquiry, prior to the onset of the research. It can be reasoned that similar outcomes may
not have resulted during the 8-week intervention had the implementer been a teacher who
was newly exposed to the theoretical underpinnings and the instructional principles of
SIWI. Prior research investigating teacher learning of literacy practices that are based on
sociocultural theories (e.g., instruction that is discursive, scafl‘olded, purposeful and
allows transfer of control to students) has found that fill] implementation is an ongoing
endeavor (Englert, Raphael & Mariage, 1998). Implementation is considerably different
after a couple years rather than at the time of learning, for teachers evidence a deeper
understanding of the theoretical and instructional principles over time; expert teachers are
more able to construct responsive instruction for their particular students and contexts
having this understanding, whereas novice teachers merely focus on enacting the activity
(Englert, Raphael & Mariage, 1998). Future research may examine the nature of teachers’
learning and change over time and its’ impact on implementation and students’ outcomes.

Lastly, further study might investigate long-term interventions that move beyond
the co-construction of text as a full class to more independent handling of writing. When
introducing a new genre of writing, students may begin learning the text structure and
genre-specific strategies through supported, collaborative and guided writing. During the
co-construction of text, increasing control over the writing is transferred to students, at

which point greater student. independence and management of writing naturally occurs.

164

As students appropriate more knowledge, strategies, and skills for a particular type of
writing, the teacher might provide students with more independence in the form of small-
group, partnered or solo writing projects. Teachers might also use the varied settings to
assess students’ independent writing abilities; s/he may then, after observing more
independent kinds of writing, have a need to reconvene the collaborative writing given
new understandings of students’ thinking or performance. Thus, studies can investigate
how SIWI could be incorporated over the course of a school year to best result in
improved student writing.
Conclusion

In summary, the current study investigated the efi‘ectiveness of writing instruction
used with deaf middle school students that is both strategic and interactive. The positive
results of the study indicate that students in the treatment group made significamly
greater gains with writing and reading compared to the control group. Thereby, Strategic
and Interactive Writing Instruction (SIWI) may be one productive method of tackling the
historically low literacy levels of deaf students. Also, another important recognition of
the study is that deaf and hard of hearing students are wide-ranging, and instructional
approaches need to be responsive to students’ understandings and needs. With respect to
students having severe to profound losses, using ASL as their expressive language and
having connections to the Deaf community and culture, there has been a dearth of
research and theorizing that is able to provide explanation of language or literacy
learning. Through application of L2 learning theory combined with the findings of the
current study, I have continued and elaborated discussions regarding how some deaf

students may form an internal representation of English that is supportive of writing. Yet,

165

there is need for both replication of study and additional research to clarify and deepen
theoretical understandings. As Edison once worked by endlessly testing assumptions, the

field of deaf education must also persist to scientifically validate ideas.

166

APPENDICES

167

APPENDIX A

STUDENT LITERACY QUESTIONNAIRE

168

How do you rate your fluency with ASL?

5 4 3 2 1
Strong Average Weak

How do you rate your fluency with English?

5 4 3 2 1
Strong Average Weak

How do you rate your reading skills?

5 4 3 2 1
Strong Average Weak

How do you rate your writing skills?

5 4 3 2 1
Strong Average Weak

How often do you read for pleasure outside of school (not including homework)?

 

5 4 3 2 1

Everyday once a week almost never

What do you read?

How often do you write outside of school (not including homework) for pleasure?
5 4 3 2 1

Everyday once a week almost never

What do you write?

 

How available are books, newspapers or magazines in your home?

5 4 3 2 1
Always Mostly Somewhat Infrequent Almost never
available available available

 

How often do your family members (i.e., parents, siblings) read?

5 4 3 2 1
Everyday once a week almost never

169

APPENDIX B

STUDENT EDITING CHECKLIST

170

Editing Checklist

Did I use million dollar vocabulary?

 

complex sentences?

171

APPENDD( C

STUDENT RATING FORM OF POSSIBLE WRITING TOPICS

172

Possible Topics for Writing:
Circle @to Show approval. Circle @@ to show no opinion. Circle @to show disapproval.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sports e one o
If ©, which sports?

Movie/ TV © ©/® 69
If ©, which movies or TV shows?

School © ©/® ®
If©, which subjects or parts of school?

Deaf culture © ©/® ®
If ©, say more.

Hearing loss © ©/® ®
If ©, say more.

Nature/ The outdoors © ©/® 69
If ©, say more.

Travel © ©/® ® '
If ©, where?

Hobbies © ©/® ®.

If©, which hobbies?

 

Acting/ Performing © ©/® ®

 

 

If ©, say more.
Teen life © ©/® ®
If ©, say more.
Technology © ©/® ®
If©, say more.

 

List any other favorable topics:

 

 

 

 

 

 

173

APPENDIX D

OUTLINE OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SESSION WITH TREATMENT
GROUP TEACHER

174

Professional Development Session

I. Expositions that inform
A. What are the higher-order writing objectives?
B. Sharing of example/non-example materials
C. Become familiar with the scoring rubrics

H. Pre and Posttests

A Directions and materials for administering the informative writing measure

B. Directions and materials for administering the revising/editing measure

C. Directions and materials for administering the generalization writing measure
1. use of statements and written prompts to generalize to other forms of
writing during instruction (e. g.,"The approach is slightly different for
persuasive writing because. . . ”, ”If you were given a question like. . ., how
might you plan and organize your writing?)

D. Directions and materials for administering the reading measure

HI. Consent Forms

IV. SIWI Instructional Components
A The use of writing process strategies
I. discuss the strategies that POSTER supports
2. share materials (i. e., class posterboard, organize think-sheet, student
cue-card, editing checklist)
3. using POSTER as a temporary support
4. how POSTER may be used for a variety of text structures
5. that the writing processes are recursive
6. introducing and utilizing POSTER during the intervention
B. Decomposition and evaluation exercises
C. Apprenticeship in writing through guided and interactive practice (same as
earlier study)
D. NIP-it lessons to introduce new writing skills or strategies
I. discuss each component: notice, instruct and practice
2. share example of compound and complex sentences
E. The use of visual scaffolds
1. share examples of visual representations (i.e., hamburger paragraph,
train, conceptual maps)
2. share examples of use of color (i.e., POSTER, scribe pen vs. edit pen)
F. Metalinguistic knowledge-building (same as earlier study)

V. Fidelity Check/ Evaluation Sheet
A Share and discuss the evaluation sheet
B. Watch video of instruction, practice evaluation and debrief

VI. SIWI procedural timeline and plan of lessons

175

APPENDD( E

FIDELITY INSTRUMENT/ SIWI EVALUATION SHEET

176

Evaluation Sheet for Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction (SIWI)

Strategic Writing Instruction & Procedural Facilitators
l. Skillsandstrategiesaretaughtinthecorrtextofproducingtext.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

2. The teacher utilizes symbolic tools or visual scafl‘olds to represent particular notions or teach
writing strategies, skills or commit. (e.g., diagrams, different colors, text structure prompts).

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

3. When teaching a strategy (i.e., mnmonic or routine), the teacher first develops background
knowledge and teaches necessary vocabulary words.

Strongly Disagree Disagree ‘ Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
4. Supportssuchasmnemonicsareatemporary scaffold, andstudentsusethernlessandless
over time.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

5.1heteachadiswssesorthnks-dmflhowMegiesmybeusedwimmhammucunesm
writingactivities—shemodelshowtogeneralize.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Interactive Writing Instruction & Apprenticeship

6. Snldentsareinvitedtoparticipateintheconstructionoftext.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
7. The teacherallows enoughwaittimeforstndentsto thinkand comeupwithideasbefore
stepping in

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

8. 'l‘heteacherfindsawayforallchildrentoenterthetext,evenifatdifi‘erentlevels. E.g) clears
a space for students who are entering at a very low level

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
9. Theteacher“takesup” students’ ideas (rightorwrong)anduses contingentlyresponsive
discourse.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

10. Smdemsamaskedwhmmeyminkaskedmevalumetelnmdaskedmproblem-solve.The
teacherusesstepbackmovesbyasking,“Wlmtdowedohere?Why?How?”

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

177

11. The teacherusesmetacognitive questioning 1)eratis the problem? 2)Whatisthenameof
theproblem? 3)Howdowefixit? 4) Whendowedothat? 5)Whyisthatirnportant?

Snongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

12.1‘lreteacherusesamomenttomomentassessmentmethodthatgages students’ individual
understandings. E. g.) thumbs up/ thumbs down

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
13. Theteachertransfers oontrolofthemeaningmkingprocesstostudentsassoonaspossrble.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Stmngly Agree
14. As the intervention progresses, students are taking up more of the collective work, the
thinking and the problem solving.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

15. Theteachamodelathhksaloudandexplahsthwiththelemningofnewskins

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
16. 'I'heteacherleads slightlyinadvanceofwhatthe strrdentsareabletodo individually (i.e.,
ZPD).

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Building Metalinguistic Knowledge
17. Whenideasmeofi‘eredhASLJhaeisanestabfishedwayofrecordingfieideasha

separate space.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree ' Strongly Agree
18. Whenideasareofl‘eredinASL,thereisanestablishedwayoftranslatingtheideastothe
English easel

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

19. Students are actively involved in building metalinguistic knowledge for ASL and English.

E. g.) They discuss which expressions are ASL, which are English, and what are the distinguishing

elements.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Curriculum & Content

20. The teacher is knowledgeable about the grade level curriculum and embeds this in instruction.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

21. TheimMVespaceisusedformmemanmeEaCMng/lemmngofwmenfiomaMgramnm
(e.g., teaching/ learning text structure, problem solving, organimtion, coherence, audience, etc.)

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

178

Instructional Procedures

22. Text is agreed upon by a class consensus or a class majority.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
23. 'I‘heteacherwritestheideasthatsmdentsgive andthe exact language studentsofl‘er (i.e.,
when writing on the English easel).

Strongly Disagree - Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

24. The classremdsthetextontheEnglisheaseloftenandexactly how it iswritten

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

25. The teacher employs a method of rereading that shows the correspondence between the

written text and the sign or fingerspelled expressions. E.g.) one hand pointing at each word while

reading

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Audience

26. Studerrtsareawarethatthetextwillbepublishedandsharedwithaspecifiedaudience.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

27. The audience becomes a focus when constructing text. E.g) “Will Jill’s mom understand

who ‘I’ is?”

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Positive Feecfiack .

28. TheteachaofiemmsifivefeedbackformmeMknowhgmemneQanswer—s/hepmises
useofsuawgieamemmsmdeepmngmproblem-soMnglwdofpmndpanongr-oup
collaborationetc.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

179

APPENDIX F

INF ORMATIVE WRITING MEASURE DOCUMENTS

180

Informative/ Expository Writing Sample

Hand out two sheets of blank lined paper. Ask students to complete the heading with their
name, their teacher's name, and the date (put on board first) on both papers.

Directions to be rm to students;

For this paper, I want you to write to inform your audience about an animal that
has been selected for you. Assume that your readers are fi'om a difl‘erent country such as
New Zealand where grizzly bears or gray wolves are not typically found. You will help
the reader to better understand the animal. The paper you write will later be typed and
readied for publication. You will receive a copy and may choose to share this with others.

Normally when writing an informative paper, you would brainstorm your ideas
and/or would gather data fi'om resources prior to writing. Imagine that information about
your animal has already been collected fi'om different sources such as books or articles,
and this information has been compiled into the list of facts given to you. You may
decide to use these facts in your writing. However, some facts may not nicely fit into
your writing. You may choose to do your own brainstorming and use your own ideas. Or,
you may do a combination of both-use some of the facts fiom the sheet and use some of
your own brainstormed ideas.

Please note that the facts on the fact sheet are not in complete sentences. YOUR
WRITING SHOULD BE MORE THAN JUST COPYING THE FACTS. You should
write ideas for your paper in complete sentences, and you should also write these in your
own way. You can ask me the definition of any word that appears on your fact sheet at
any time. -

Your next step is to organize your ideas and then clearly convey the information
through writing. Remember your objective is to inform your audience about your animal.
In case you wish to do some planning, you may use one of the pieces of paper given to
you.

When you are finished with your paper, read it again to see if it makes sense.
Make changes and edit your writing. Don’t be afiaid to make your paper ‘messy’ as you
edit it. Also, don’t worry about spelling words correctly. Just do the best you can so that
your paper is easy to read and informs others.

When you are done with your paper, raise your hand and I’ll make sure I can read
everything that you intended to say. You may take out a book (or assignment) and work
quietly at your desks until everyone is finished.

sti de ma a r m .
a. How to spell a word. Tell them to write it the best way they know how.
b. How long does it have to be? If they need another sheet of paper, they should just ask,
or they can write on the back of their paper. There are no special length requirements and
we don‘t want to tell students how much or how little they should write.
c. Illegible papers? If students' papers are illegible, have them dictate their papers to you
and transcribe their dictation at the bottom of the page (below students‘ writing). Record
their responses exactly as they are dictated.

181

Information about Gray Wolves

Preys on large, hoofed mammals (e.g., white-tailed deer, moose, elk, caribou,
bison, Dall sheep, oxen and mountain goat)

Territory size can range from 300 to 1,000 square miles in Alaska and Canada
Length of 4.5 to 6.5 feet

Tracks of 4 ‘/2 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide

Lives in areas of the United States (e. g., Michigan's Upper Peninsula, northern
Minnesota, Wisconsin and Alaska)

Weight of 50 and 130 pounds (fully grown)

Preys on medium sized mammals (e.g., beaver and snowshoe hare) and small
mammals and birds

Lives 6 to 8 years

Home range is in forested areas

Is carnivorous (meat eaters)

Inhabit parts of the world (e. g., Canada, Europe, Middle East and Asia).

Is gray, black or all white

6 to 8 wolves in a wolf pack

May travel 10 to 30 miles a day searching for food

42 teeth

Marks its territory with urine and feces

Runs up to 25 to 35 miles per hour when chasing prey

Litter size is 4 to 6 wolf pups

Can eat up to 22.5 pounds in one sitting

Territory size can range fiom 25 to 150 square miles in Minnesota
communicates through howling, body language and scent

Height of 26 to 32 inches

Looks like a German shepherd or a husky

182

Information about Grizzly Bears

Preys on large, hoofed mammals (e. g., moose, elk, mountain goats, mountain
sheep) and their calves

Weight of 270 to 770 pounds (fully grown)

Lives in subalpine mountain areas

Feeds on berries, roots, bulbs of plants, and whiteka pine nuts

Lives 20 to 30 years

Lives in areas of the United States (e. g., Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, Washington
and Montana)

Long, curved claws

Home range is forested or shrub covered

Dark brown color

Litter size is 1 to 4 bear cubs

Feeds on carrion and ground rodents

Home range is inland (i.e., away from large bodies of water)

Tracks of 6 to 16 inches long and 7 to 10 V2 inches wide

Is active during the mornings and evenings

Is omnivorous (meat and plant eaters)

Length of up to 7 feet

Runs up to 35 miles per hour when chasing prey

Inhabits parts of Canada (e. g. provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Yukon and
Northwest Territories)

Hairs on shoulders and back tipped white

Eats insects such as ants and moths

Territory size can range fi'om 10 to 380 square miles

Shoulder hump (i.e., a mass of muscle that gives the front legs extra strength)

Lives alone, with the exception of a female with her cubs

183

APPENDD( G

RUBRICS FOR INFORMATIVE WRITING MEASURE

184

 

Rubric for Primary Traits

Title
2
1

O

Adequate title

Inadequate title or title can be inferred fi'om a solid introductory paragraph
Toonarrowto reflectallthedetailsinthepaperortoobroadandnondescript.

No title is given

Introduction

3

0

Fluency of trait

Accomplishes all of the following: (a) attracts the attention of the reader, (b) includes a thesis
statement that clearly states the direction the paper will take; (0) declares the purpose or intent
Near fluency of trait

Couldaccomplisha,b&cwithminorrevisions. 'I'hesisstatementmaybetoovagueorgeneral.
mynothaveonewell-definedstatementofthethesis. Maynotmakeanyattanpttoengagethe
reader in the topic.

Limited fluency of trait

Inneedofsubstantialrevisionstoaccomplisha,b&c. Noexplicitly statedthesisbutthereisan
attempt to open the topic. May lmve a descript title with no other introduction

No emergence of trait

Atopic orptnposeofthetextcannotbe inferred. Writingmaybeastringofassociativedetails.

Topic Development (breadth)

3

O

Fluency of trait (For the informtive my, author represents 3 categories/paragaphs)
Accomplishes all of the following: (a) includes adequate breadth of information to support the
thesis thatisstatedinthe introduction; (b) developsthethesiswiththeuseofcategoriesor
paragraphs of organized information; (c) organizes and innoduces categories or paragraphs with
topic sentences; (d) discusses one main idea per body paragraph.

Near fluency of trait (For the informative essay, author represents 2 out of 3 categories.)
Couldaccomphshab&cwithminorrevisions.Maynotfullydevelopthethesisstatementwith
breadth of information. May have only two categories of organized information May not use
clearorexplicittopic sentences to introduceeachcategoryorbodyparagraphofthepaper. May
have more than one idea per body paragraph.

Limited fluency of trait (For the informative essay, author represents 1 out of 3 categories.)
Inneedofsubstantialrevisionstoaccomplisha,b&c. MayprovidenanowinformationMay
only have one category oforganized information. May not use topic sentences to introduce
categories of the paper.

No emergence of trait (For informative essay, author does not use categories/paragraphs)
Therearenocategoriesofinformation. 'lheremaybeonerepeatedideaorfact.

 

Paragraph Development (depth)

3

Fluency of trait (For informative essay, uses at least 3 details to represent each category.)
Accomplishes all of the following: (a) includes adequate depth of information to explain topic to
an uninformed audience; (b) uses specific details to support each main idea or category (i.e., each
body paragraph has sufficient details); (c) uses no extraneous inforrmtiort

Near fluency of trait (For informative essay, uses 2 details to represent each category.)
Couldaccomplisha,b&cwithminorrevisions. Mayhavenearlyadequatedqrthofinfornntion
andcanneariyexplaintopictoanlminformedaudience. Mayprovidedetailstosupporterchmain
idea but needs additional ones. May include some extraneous or tmrelated details.

Limited fluency of trait (For informative essay, uses 1 detail to represent each category.)
Inneedofsrrbstanfialrevisionstoaccomphshabdtc. Mayhavelimitedattemptsto informthe
audience. Mayprovidefewdetailsinsupportofmainideas Mayincludemanylnnelateddetails.
No emergence of trait

Therearenodetails, onlymainideas. Or,alldetailsarelmrelated

 

185

 

Conclusion

3

O

Fluency of trait

Accomplishes the following: (a) summarizes the information or reemphasizes all the main
points of the paper, (b) brings the composition to a satisfactory close for the reader.

Near fluency of trait

Could accomplish a, b & c with minor revisions. May bring composition to a close but may not
adequately revisit the topic by summarizing or reemplmsizing all the main points.

Limited fluency of trait

Inneed ofsrrbstanfialrevisionstoaccomphshab & c. May signal closuretothe composition
butisottenabrupt Maynothaveawell-defined concludingparagraphbutmayhavethe sound
of finality.

No emergence of trait

No conclusion The paper ends on a detail.

Coherence

3

Fluency of trait

Accomplishesthefollowing (a)arrangesparagraphsofthebodyinanorderthatisclearto
readers; (b) uses transitional devices to link ideas within paragraphs; (0) uses transitional
devices to show the connectedness of ideas and to show the relationships among different
paragraphs. All parts of the paper work together and “hang together” to develop the topic.
Near fluency of trait

Could accomplish a, b & c with minor revisions. May have one or two pieces of disconnected
informationbut,forthemostpart, information“hangstogether”. Maybemissingpartofthe
paper (e.g, introduction, details, conclusion, etc.) and is therefore less able to develop the
topic.

Limited fluency of trait

Inneedofsubstantialrevisionstoaccomplisha,b&c. Mayhaveseveralpiecesof
disconnected information May be missing parts of the paper (e.g., intro, details, or conclusion).
The information rarely “hangs together”.

No emergence of trait

No connectedness between ideas, sentences or difl’erent paragraphs

 

Tone & Consideration of Audience

3

Fluency of trait

Uses langtngethmisappropnateforthemtendedaudienceandformepmposeofme
composition Attends to the prompt and purpose ofwriting.

Near fluency of trait

Mostly appropriate use of language.

Limited fluency of trait

Some appropriate use of language.

No emergence of trait

No consideration ammo: is appropriate for the audience orpugrose ofthe paper.

 

 

186

 

Rubric for Contextual Language
Fragmentary Sentences
Ifno verb in sentence, count as a fragment.
3 Zero fiagmentary sentences
2 One
1 Two
0 Three or more
Run-on Sentences
3 Zero run-on sentences
2 One
1 Two
0 Three or more

Compound Sentences
Two independent clauses joined appropriately. When joining the independent clauses with a conjunction,
thecommamaybemissing Donotcountmn-onsentences. Commonlyusedconjunctionsinclude: and,
but, or, nor, for, so, yet Count the number of sentences that are correctly crafied
e.g., I studiedallnight, butthetestwas stilla struggle.
e.g., Should I gotothe office myself, orwill thepn'ncipal call me down?

3 Three or more

2 Two

1 One

0 Zero compound sentences

Complex Sentences
Oneindependentclauseandatleastone subordimteclausearejoinedapprorniately. Subordinate clauses
cannotstandaloneas sentences. Subordinate clauses atthebeginningofthe sentence maybe missingthe
comma. In the following are examples, the subordinate clauses are italicized.
e.g., She practices whenever she has time. [Subordinate clause is used as an advert]
e.g., Whoever wins the election will have many problems.
e.g., We learned that she is a physicist. [Subordinate clause is used as a noun]
cg, She is someone who has shown remarkable courage. [Subordinate clause is used as an adjective]
Commonly, subordinate clauses begin with the following conjrmetions or relative pronorms: afier,
although, as, as if, as long as, because, before, if, in order that, provided that, since, so that, than, that,
though, unless, until, when, whenever, where, wherever, whether, while, who, whom, whose.
e.g., Unless Bob earns one hundred dollars tonight, his car will be repossessed.

3 Three or more

 

2 Two

1 One

0 Zero compound sentences
Introductory Phrases or Clauses

Aphraseorclausebeginsthesentence, isdependent,andisofi‘setbyacomma Commasmaybemissing
Cormtthe numberofintroductoryphrasesorclausesthatarecorrectlycrafled.

e.g., In the morning, we will pack.

e.g., Well, what do you think?

e.g., Giggling like a child he wrapped the last present
e.g., The next day, we went swimnring.

3 Three or more
2 Two
1 One
0 Zero introductory phrases or clauses

 

187

 

Prepositional Phrases
Commonly, prepositional phrases begin with the following propositions: about, above, across, after,
against, along, amid, among, around, at before, behind, below, beneath, beside, between, by, down,
during, except, for, from, in into, like of, off, on, over, past, since, through, throughout, to, toward, tmder,
undernwh, until, unto, up, upon, with, within, without. Count the number of prepositional phrases,
including phrases for which the author has selected the incorrect preposition for use. If a preposition is
used in multiple, similar phrases, cormt only once (e.g., to the store, to the post oflice, to Chicago).
e.g., We are both in theplay that will take place on Monday.

3 Seven or more

2 Six, five, four

1 Three, two, one

0 Zero prepositional phrases
Negation

3 Uses negation correctly

2 Uses negation, sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly

1 Uses negation incorrectly

0 Does not use negation
Subj ect-Verb Agreement
Consider entire verb. Misspelled verbs are not counted as subject-verb agreements. If a word is dictated,
it is also not counted as an agreement.
e.g., My group is went in the woods. [No agreement because of second verb.]
e.g., 1 cont (count) 25 trucks [No agreement because of a misspelled verb.]

3 Nearly all (> 95% of subject-verbs agree)

2 Mostly subj est-verb agreement, and no fragments (>80%)

1 Some subj ect-verb agreement, and may have a fiagment (>50%)

0 Mostly no subj ect-verb agreement, and may have fragments

 

Verb Consistency
consistency of present, past or future
3 All verbs are consistent
2 One inconsistent verb tense
1 Two inconsistent verb tenses
0 Three or more inconsistent verb tenses, or no consistency, or no event

 

Infinitives
3 Uses infmitives correctly
2 Uses infinitives, sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly
1 Uses infinitives incorrectly
0 Does not use infinitives

 

Conjunctions

Uses conjunctions other ttmn “and” (but, or, nor, for, yet, so) to link subject phrases, verb phrases,
independent clauses, etc. Countonlythoseconjunctionstlntarecorrectlyused. Conjunctionsusedtojoin
independent clauses may be missing the comma

e.g., Iran but was eaught.

e. g., Should I do this or that?

3 Three
2 Two
1 One
0 Zero

 

188

 

Determiners
Determiners include: a, an, the, one of the, some of the.
3 Uses determiners correctly ,. does not omit any essential determiners
2 Uses determiners, sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly, may omit
essential determiners occasionally
1 Uses determiners incorrectly or omits essential determiners
0 Does not use determiners
Prepositions
If a preposition is used incorrectly in multiple, similar phrases, count only once.
I enjoyed it in Camp Chris. [incorrect use] vs. I enjoyed it at Camp Chris [correct].
3 All prepositions are appropriate to the context.
2 One incorrectly used preposition.
1 Two incorrectly used prepositions.
0 Three or more incorrectly used prepositions, or no use of prepositions.
Pronominalization
Uses any of the following words appropriately: we, you, he, she, it, they, his, her, its, their, him, mine,

ymmshasmmsmdraMmselfimyselfyomselfiherselfihselfimnseNeamemsehes. Ifthesarne
wordisusedmultipletimes,coumitonlyonce. Donotcount: me,my,I.

3 Uses three or more

 

2 Uses two

1 Uses one

0 Zero
Vocabulary

Proportion of words that are unique (not on the list of 99 Most Frequent Words) in relation to total # of
interpretable words. Cormt unique words only once. Plural versions of words are not counted separately.
Distinct conjugations of verb forms are counted as rmique. (Singleton et. A1, 2004)

3 = or >50%

2 40-49%

1 30-3 9%

0 Below 30%

99 Most Frequent Words

(flillerich, 1978, as cited in Sin eto Mor Di llo Wiles and Rivers 2004
Verbs: come, eame, get, got, go, going, went, make, play, put, said, saw, see, write

Nouns: day, friend, home, house, mother, school, time, one, two

Adjectives: good, little, dear

Articles: a, an, the

Prepositions: about,afier,as,at,back,by,downfor,from,in,o£on,out,over,up,to,with,like
Pronominals: he, she. me, you, us, we, they, I, it, his, her. him, my. your, their, our, than, this,
that

Connectives: andbeemrse,but,if,or,then,so,well

Adverbials: here, how, just, now, there, very, what, when

Auxiliaries: ean, could, will, would

Copula (tobe): am, are, is, was, were

Verb Auxiliaries: had, has, have, do, did

Quantifiers: all, some

Negation: not

189

 

Rubric for Conventions
Contractions
3 Uses 3 or more contractions correctly
2 Uses 2 or more contractions correctly
1 Uses 1 or more contractions correctly
0 Does not use contractions or does not use contractions correctly

 

Making Sentences - Capitalization
Apply this to what the author considers to be sentences. The sentences may be distinguishable by one’s
useofpunctuation, spacingorcapitalimtion Authorcanonly earnpoints forthe #ofsentences s/hehas.
3 All sentences begin with a capital letter
2 One sentence does not begin with a capital
1 Two do not begin with a capital
0 Three or more

 

Making Sentences — Punctuation
Donotpmalizenm-ons. Weartmcesasthosephasesseparatedbyalargermaeapitaltobegin
thenextphrasecrprmctuationattheend. Authorcanonlyeampointsforthetiofsentencess/hehas.

3 All sentences end with punctuation (. l 7)

2 One sentence does not end in punctuation

1 Two do not

0 Three or more

 

Capitalization — Proper Nouns
3 All proper nouns are capitalized, including “1”
2 One mistake (Either doesn’t capitalize a noun that should be. . .or mistakenly
capitalizes a common noun in the middle of the sentence.)
1 Two mistakes
0 Three mistakes

 

Punctuation

Uses quotation nmks, comms, apostrophes, colons, periods showing abbreviations, dashes, semi-colons
andotherprmctuationmarksappropriately. Donotconsiderprmcmationattheendsofsentmces.

3 Uses at least three or more marks in different but accurate ways.
2 Uses two marks in difl‘erent but accurate ways.

1 Uses only one type of punctuation appropriately.

0 Uses no punctuation within sentences.

 

S llin

Prieportrfn of incorrectly spelled words or non- interpretable words in relation to total # of words.
Less than 3% inaccurate spellings

3-9%

10- 1 9%

20% or more inaccurate spellings

Ot-‘NUJ

 

Word Counts:

Count total number of words in story (including words dictated to teacher)

Count contractions as two words. Count mrmbers.

Count total number of interpretable words produced by child

Onlycountifthewordeanbeunderstoodoutofcontext (e.g,trtleforttn'tle). Ifawritermakesanaccurate
word but cleariy intends another, count as non interpretable (e.g., writes “heat” but meant “hurt”).

190

APPENDIX H

REVISING/EDITING MEASURE DOCUMENTS

191

Revising/ Editing Assessment
Directions for Pat’s Paper:

Prior to giving students the revising/ editing assessment (Pat’s paper), please read the

following:
You will be given a paper that was written by another
middle school student by the name of Pat. The paper is to
be published in a special neWSpaper about sports and
activities that teenagers might try. Pat is an expert on
bowling and wants to share this knowledge with others.
Copies of the newspaper will be made for all the middle
and high school students at Pat’s school, and copies will
also be sent to other nearby schools. Pat is not sure that the
paper makes sense or if any changes need to be made. Pat
needs an editor to help correct any errors before the paper
is printed. (Discuss what an editor does if necessary.)

You are going to be the editor for Pat. You will fix errors
and help the paper to make better sense. I will read you the
story once, you will read it once to yourself, and then I will
read it to you a second time. You will then take a pencil
and make your changes. You can make changes directly on
this copy and/or use a blank sheet of paper to rewrite Pat’s
work This is your choice. If you need additional
assistance, I can help you.

Notes to Assessment Administrators:

1) Read Pat’s paper to your students. Give each student a copy and tell them to read it to
themselves once. Read Pat’s paper a second time. You can say, “I’ll read the story a
second time for you before you begin to help Pat with the editing and revising.”

2) Ask the students to either: 1) make the corrections directly on Pat’s paper, 2) make
corrections on Pat’s paper and then write the final draft on a clean piece of paper (if
corrections on Pat’s paper are difficult to read), or 3) rewrite Pat’s paper using a clean
sheet.

3) If students have questions about what certain words mean, you may provide a
definition and/or reread the sentence for them.

4) If students finish early, ask them to remain quiet and read a book or work on another

activity while the rest of the class finishes Pat’s paper. Students may take between 20
and 45 minutes to complete the task.

192

Author’s name fl Date
Editor’s name Teacher’s name

how to Bowl
If you have never been bowling, you are realy missing a good time. You can join an
league, or you can jus go with fieiends. Before going for the first time1 you shuold know
how to play.

The most imprtant piece of eqiupment is a bowling ball. You must selects a ball
that is just right for you. For instance, the finger holes must neither be too tight nor too
lose. The ball should be too heavy or too lite. When Jill purchased a ball, it was made to
fit her hand perfectly. Jill wears an arm brace so her wrist stays straight.

The fourth piece of eqiupment a bowler needs was shoes. Speical shoes with
non-stick soles are a must the bowling alley willn’t allow persons to wear their regular
tennis shoes for bowling. You can rent shoes at the bowling ally for a hundred dollers.
Hovewer, it may be worth it to buy your own shoes if you plan to bowl often.

Lastley, there are other items that you will find useful. When playing soccer, you
will need shin guards to protect your legs.

Ifyou have the proper eqiupment. So, start looking for the perfect ball, shoes,
and other bowling items. Then, you can began to learn how to play. See you around at

the bowling alleys at michigan.

193

how to Bowl
If2 you have never been bowling, you are realy missing a good time. You can join an3
league, or you can 1113 go withfreiends. Before going for the first time you shuold know
how to play.

The most imprtant piece of eqiupment is a bowling ball. You must selects5 a ball
that is just right for you. For instance, the finger holes must neither be too tight nor too
lose. The ball should be too heavy or too lite. When Jill purchased a ball, it was made to
fit her hand perfectly. Jill wears an arm brace so her wrist 6stays straight.

The fourth piece of eqiupment a bowler needs was6 shoes. Speical shoes with
non-stick soles are a must7 the8 bowling alley willn’ t9 allow persons to wear their regular
tennis shoes for bowling. You can rent shoes at the bowling ally for a hundred dollers.
Hovewer, it may be worth it to buy your own shoes if you plan to bowl often.

Lastley, there are other items that you will find usefiil. When playing soccer, you
will need shin guards to protect your legs.

If you have the proper eqiupment". So, start looking for the perfect ball, shoes,
and other bowling items. Then,o ou can began" to learn how to play. See you around at
the bowling alleys at 2michigan 3 '4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Error Examples Value Total
or Possible
Weight
Conventions Spelling (mistakes italicized) X1 14
wally. just, fiiends. should. important. armament, light. loose,
special, however, dollars, hstly
Capitalization, linnervation, etc. (mistakes numberefl
capitalization X1 7
pun ctuatr on7 14
contractions"
indention2
Language Determine? X2 14
Comma (complex sentence)4
Subject-verb agreement’
Verb tense“ "
Fragmen t10
Pr'eposition12
Prior “Theballshouldbetooheavyortoolite.” X3 6
Knowledge! “You can rent shoes at the bowling ally for a Inmdred dollers”
Sense '
Coherence Who is Jill? X4 12
Fourth item?
Playing soccer?
Text Structure Text Structure: Thesis sentence does not introduce text to follow X5 20
and Providesupportformainideainparagraph4.
Extraneous Extraneous Information" Title is not adequate
Information 'Jillwearsanarmbrace..."doesnot
adhere to main idea of paragraph
Total 73

 

 

 

194

A sample expert paper with revisions and edits.
The Things a Bowler Needs

If you have never been bowling, you are really missing out on a good time. You
can join a league that bowls weekly or you can just go occasionally with friends. Before
going, though, you should know that bowlers need to have special equipment in order to
participate.

The most important piece of equipment is a bowling ball. You must select a ball
that is just right for you. For instance, the finger holes must neither be too tight nor too
loose. The ball should neither be too heavy nor too light. When purchasing a ball, it
should be made to fit your hand perfectly.

The second piece of equipment a bowler needs is shoes. Special shoes with non-
stick soles are a must. The bowling alley will not allow persons to wear their regular
tennis shoes for bowling. You can rent shoes at the bowling alley for a couple dollars.
However, it may be worth it to buy your own shoes if you plan to bowl often.

Lastly, there are other small items that bowlers find usefiil. It is sometimes
helpful to wear an arm brace so your wrist stays straight while releasing the ball. A towel
can be used to clean your ball. In addition, a bowling bag can be a practical thing to have
because it gives you a way to carry all of your equipment.

Ifyou have the proper equipment, you can enjoy the game of bowling. So, start
looking for the perfect ball, shoes, and other bowling items. Then you can begin to learn
how to play. See you at the bowling alley.

195

APPENDD( I

GENERALIZATION WRITING MEASURE DOCUMENTS

196

Generalization Writing Sample

Hand out two sheets of blank lined paper. Ask students to complete the heading with their
name, their teacher's name, and the date (put on board first) on both papers.

Directions to be read to students:

For this paper, I want you to write to an audience of interested adults. You will write
about a theme that has been given to you. You may choose one of the suggested t0pics or
write about the theme in your own way. Write the paper fiom your knowledge and
experience. You may use examples from real life, from what you read or watch, or from
your imagination.

In case you wish to do some planning, you may use one of the pieces of paper given to
you. You may use it to write down ideas, organize your thoughts or write a rough draft.

You can ask me the definition of any word that appears in the theme prompts at any time.

When you are finished with your paper, read it again to see if it makes sense. Make
changes and edit your writing. Don’t be afraid to make your paper ‘messy’ as you edit it.
Also, don’t worry about spelling words correctly. Just do the best you can so that your
paper is easy to read and informs others.

When you are done with your paper, raise your hand and I’ll make sure I can read
everything that you intended to say. You may take out a book (or assignment) and work
quietly at your desks until everyone is finished.

Your writing will be typed, printed on quality paper and given back to you in published
form. You may choose to share this with others.

Questions that students may ask or that may come up:

a. How to spell a word. Tell them to write it the best way they know how.

b. How long does it have to be? Ifthey need another sheet of paper, they should just ask,
or they can write on the back of their paper. There are no special length requirements and
we don‘t want to tell students how much or how little they should write.

c. Illegible papers? If students' papers are illegible, have them dictate their papers to you

and transcribe their dictation at the bottom of the page (below students' writing). Record
their responses exactly as they are dictated.

197

Write about the theme:

Encountering Challenges

 

 

Everyone faces challenges, either minor obstacles on a day to day basis or major life
difficulties. Write about encountering challenges and overcoming them.

 

Do ONLY ONE of the following:
Tell about a time when you faced a challenge and overcame it
OR
Describe someone who has overcome great life difficulties

OR

Tell about a time when you challenged yourself to reach a goal and did
OR

Tell about a time when people worked together to face a great challenge
OR

Write about the theme in your own way

198

 

Write about the theme:

Giving to Others

 

 

Often, giving to others who are in need is very satisfying. At the same time, those of us
who have received gifts of kindness may feel appreciation and thankfulness. Write about
Living or receiving.

 

Do ONLY ONE of the following:
Tell about a time when you have helped someone in need
OR
Describe someone who has given support to others
OR
Explain a time when you were on the receiving end of kindness
OR
Describe how you volunteer or give to your community
OR

Write about the theme in your own way

199

 

APPENDD( J

STUDENT EXAMPLES OF INF ORMATIVE WRITING

200

Treatment group, Student 8 (age 12, reading, 0.6)
Pretest
1. Bear is where live in usa. And have baby too. have a bear 1,000.
Wolver have too Love food what! Meat. And Love moon. Shak have 42 teeth. wolf have

1,000.?

 

Treatment group, Student 8 (age 12, reading 1.6)
Posttest
Information about Gray Wolves.

you know where live wolves?? I know where wolves live in tree and live U.S.A.
too. wolves lives 6 to 8 year. 6 to 8 wolves in a wolf pack and tend under in tree. food
metaeta deer too. wolves love food meta. now wolve have thick fur warm. Wolves only
Holw to moon, and if people look wolves will away run!!! and firn fast How mph? mph
30 wolves can get Deer eta or quiet can get Deer ok. I see wolve pack 10 look Food Deer.

many wolves about 2,500. you see bfore wolves? No or yes. you like stoy about wolves.

201

Treatment group, Student 13 (age 11, reading 3.7)
Pretest

Gray Wolves
All wolves loves to prey large, hoofed mammals (white-tailed deer, moose, elk, caribou,
bison, Dall sheep, oxen, and mountain goat). Wolves live in areas of the United State
(Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, northern Minnesota, Wisconsin and Alaska). Gray wolves
weights about 50 to 130 pounds (fully grown). Wolves have 42 teeth in their’s mouth.
Wolve’s born wolf pups size about 4 to 6. Wolf looks like a German shepherd or a husky.
Wolves may travel 10-30 miles a day prey for food Wolfcan live 6 to 8 years. Wolf is

gray, black or all white.

 

Treatment group, Student 13 (age 11, reading 4.3)
Posttest
“Information about Grizzly Bears”

The Grizzly bears are very interesting animal ever! They are lovely bears. They
live in beautiful places. In addition, sometime they are mean to people its depend if they
are hungry.

The Grizzly bear is dark brown. They have hairs on their back and fi'ont too. Also,
they have long, curved claws. The cubs size is as one litter of bottle. The Grizzly bear
weight 270 to 770 pounds (firlly grown), and length of up to 7 feet tall. The Grizzly bear
are furry.

The Grizzly bear prey on large, hoofed mammals like moose, elk, mountain goats,
mountain sheep also their calves. They feed to their calves berries, roots, bulb of plants,

and whitebark pine nuts. In addition, they also eat insects such as ants and moth. The

202

Grizzly bears is omnivorous mean they only eat meat and plants. The Grizzly bears eat
human too, and its depend if they are very so hungry.

The Grizzly bear lives in areas of United State (Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming,
Washington). They lives in subalpine mountain areas. The home range is forested or
shrub covered. They lives alone, with the exception of a female with her cubs. They lives
20 to 30 years. They lives in a interesting place.

The Grizzly bear is active during the mornings and evenings. They run up to 35
miles per hour when they are chasing prey.

This story is all about: a) what they look like, b) how they live, c) where do they
live in position, and d) what they do. The Grizzly bear are interesting, curious mammal.

They eat many different animals plus people.

203

Treatment group, Student 3 (age 13, reading 5.1)
Pretest

Gray Wolves
The gray wolves can live up to 6 to 8 years. They about weight 50 to 130 pounds.

The gray wolves are about 4.5 to 6.5 feet long and about 26 to 32 high. They have about
42 teeth. The gray wolves are gray, black or all white and they look like a German
Shepherd or a husky. Their tracks are about 4.5 inches long and 3.5 inches wide. They
communicates through howling, body language and scent. There are 6 to 8 wolves in a
wolf pack. Their litter size is 4 to 6 wolf pup.

The gray wolves live in Canada, Europe, Middle East, Asia, and United States.
Their home range is in the forested areas. Their territory size can range from 25 to 150
square miles in Minnesota, and 300 to 1,000 square miles in Alaska and Canada. They
marks its territory with urine and feces.
The gray wolves are carnivorous. Their preys are large, hoofed mammals or medium
sized mammals. They can eat up to 22.5 pounds in one sitting. They can run up to 25 to

35 miles per hour chasing a prey or travel 10 to 30 miles a day searching for food.

204

Treatment group, Student 3 (age 13, reading 6.0)
Posttest

The grizzly bears are mammals that are very cool animals. They are active during
the mornings and evenings in Spring. They all looks the same, eats a lot of foods and also
they lives in many different places.

The grizzly bears looks the same. They all have dark brown hair on the shoulders
and back tipped white. They have long, curved claws. All grizzly bears have a shoulder
hump. They mostly weighs 270 to 770 pounds with the height to 7 feet tall. The grizzly
bears tend to live 20 to 30 years. They all looks the same but have different sizes.

The grizzly bears lives in variety of places in United States and Canada Their
home ranges are inland, forested or shrub covered, and away fi'om oceans. They mostly
live in mountain areas within 10 to 380 square miles. They tend to live alone, depending
the exception of a female with her cubs. The grizzly bears mostly live in North America.

The grizzly bears are omnivorous, meat and plant eaters. They always eat berries,
roots, bulbs of plants, whitebark pine nuts, carrion, and ground rodents. They also eat a
lot of insects such as ants and moths. Their prey are large, hoofed mammals, for example,
moose, elk, mountain goats, mountain sheeps. After they see their prey, they run up to 3 5
miles per hour leaving tracks of 6 to 16 inches long and 7 to 10 ‘/2 inches wide. The
grizzly bears eat variety of foods.

You recently learned about what grizzly bears look like, where they live, and also,
what they eat. They are really fiiendly so don’t be afraid of them. The grizzly bears are a

huge mammal that hibernates.

 

205

APPENDD( K

STUDENTS' PRIMARY TRAITS SCORES ON INF ORMATIVE WRITING
MEASURE

206

Treatment Group Students ' Primary Traits Scores on the Informative Writing Measure

 

Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Intro Topic Topic Parag

Pre

Concl Coher Coher Tone Tone

Parag Concl
Devel

Title Intro

Title

Devel Devel

Devel

 

rF

(009‘-

FPNFN

CONN

OO

T61
T62
T63
T64
T65
T66
T67
T68
T69

ONO

F

OO

OO

P

F

F

OO

OOO

T610
T611

207

OCOOCOO

OOO

x-COV-

s-OO

OOO

POON

FF

NNF

POO

T612
T613

T614

s—O

NO

00

PO

N?-

P

NO

0

T615
T616

Control Group Students ’ Primary Traits Scores on the Informative Writing Measure

 

Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Pre

Tone

Concl

Topic Topic Parag Parag Concl

Title Intro Intro

Title

Coher Coher Tone

Devel Devel Devel

Devel

 

O‘—

F

N‘—

OOOO

2
2
2
2

661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669

s-Ot")

POV-

6610
6611

208

6612

0

6613

6614

POV-

NOP

O‘JON

NOO

NON

2

6615
6616
6617

APPENDIX L

STUDENT EXAMPLES OF GENERALIZED WRITING

209

Treatment group, Student 9 (age 12, reading 1.0)
Pretest ‘

I Want he need do Know.

 

Treatment group, Student 9 (age 12, reading 1.2)
Posttest

last I go play in game basketball see many shall boys, MSD is not win is lost! Boss Tell
more run’ed Than go water, I is hard! Work for practice is basketball, I go basketball

again boys is shall, again MSD is lost.

210

Treatment group, Student 14 (age 12, reading 2.9)
Pretest

“it about to get the goal”

i try the best a A+ 100% a goal.

 

Treatment group, Student 14 (age 12, reading 3.2)

Posttest

If someone need helped then I talk tell them. to helped, and tell how you feel or need
money to given to poor people, and food, and need house, and chothes. to keep them
warm when during winter. for an support. that for poor people need something. it for
them. some people need home, and money, and food. giving to other that mean charity.
We giving an prestent parent and kids. Kids and parent nwd US for helping them and
giving to them. They need us giving to to them, and food, an home, clothes, money.
When you be nice to them then they will like you, and we will like them too. I like to
giving them an clothes, and shoe, and toys, and money, and food. thanks you for supports

to helping poor people and kids and adult.

211

Treatment group, Student 3 (age 13, reading 5.1)
Pretest

One day, Scott was walking the school. He saw many kids were picking on a boy
named Brain. They called Brain in many bad ways. He oftenly went into bathroom and
cried. One time, he threated them that he’ll bring guns and bombs to kill and blow the
school buildings. Scott saw him tlrreating the school. He went up to Brain and talked with
him.

Scott took Brain to counseling center. The counselor helped Brain. Brain calmed
down. Few weeks later, Brain went to school and had a talk with those who picked on

him. They had a long talk and became fiiends. All thanks to Scott.

212

Treatment group, Student 3 (age 13, reading 6.0)
Posttest

My parents was divorced in 2003. They told me and my sister while we was
having fiin in KFC. My sister and I cried a lot when they told us. I’ll tell you why my
parents were divorced and how I felt about it.

My mom, Nancy, and my dad, Alan, was fighting (not physically) about money.
My dad tend to be on the computer right after he arrived fi'om work. But my dad always
do chores. My mom tend to cook, take us shopping, etc. My mom thought that my dad
pay NOTHING at all. So my parents was fighting, but they still love each other.

My sister and I felt really desperate when they told us. I thought that my life
would be over. But in a year, I feel okay, probably better. We had to go to my mom’s
then to dad’s every week, which was tough to do, and have time together. At first, you
will feel really desperate when your parents are divorced but you will feel fine in a year
or two.

I just told you why my parents are divorced and how I felt about it. When I hear
the word, “divorced”, I think of my parents. It’s just that it’s tough. If your parents are

divorced, don’t feel bad about it, and your life will not be over.

213

APPENDIX M

STUDENTS' PRIMARY TRAITS SCORES ON GENERALIZATION WRITING
MEASURE

214

Treatment Group Students ’ Primary Traits Scores on the Generalization Writing Measure

 

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Intro Intro Topic Topic Parag Parag

Post

Pre

Coher Coher Tone Tone

Concl

Concl

Title

Title

Devel Devel Devel

Devel

 

NPN

T61
T62
T63
T64
T65
T66
T67
T68
T69

Os-O

FF

OOO

r?

OOO

s-NO

OOO

I-Nx-

OOO

0

ON

T610
T611

215

FNN

Os-O

x-Nx-

Os-O

POV-

OON

T612
T613

T614

1

T615

T616

 

F F F F F F N F F F o F F F N. F00
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o mFmvo
.. - - - - - - .. - - - - - - meo
o o o F o o o o o N o o N o v F00
N F F N N m N F F N F F F F m F00
F F F F o o N N N F F F F F N F00
F F F F o F N N N F o F F N F F00
F F F F o o F N F F o F F F 0 F00
F o F F o o F N F F o o F o 900
F F F F o o N N F F o F F F mmvo
F F F F F F m m F F F F o N 500
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 80
F o F F o o F N F F F o F F v00
0 o F F o F o o F F o o F F 990
o o F F o o N F F F o F F F N00
o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 F00
_o>oQ ESQ .269 EEG
ouch 28F. conou 3:00 3:00 3.80 mean madam 2qu each 9:: 9:5 25, 25.
80m 05 mom 8m mom 2m Hem 8m 30m 8m Hem 8m mom 8m

 

ch83: Metre: .5583!»sz 2% :6 3.66% 26¢ 363.2% . ceasefire $5.5 36ch

216

LIST OF REFERENCES

217

REFERENCES

ACT. (2006). Writing test description. Retrieved August 23, 2006, fi'om
'// . dent. r r /d ° tions/writin descri t.html

Akamatsu, C.T., & Armour, VA (1987). Developing written literacy in deaf children
through analyzing sign language. American Annals of the Deaf, 132(1), 46-51.

Albertini, J. (1996). Classroom assessment of writing: Purpose, issues, and strategies.
Knoxville, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED423620)

American Council on Education. HEAL'I'I-I Resource Center. (1993, June). Facts you
can use. Retrieved on August 19, 2005, fiom
http://www.kidsource.com/I-Ieatb/fact.htrnl

Antia, S. D., Reed, S., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (2005). Written language of deaf and hard-of-
hearing students in public schools. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,
10(3), 244-255.

Applebee, A N. (2000). Alternative models of writing development. In R Indrisano & J.
Squire (Eds). Perspectives on writing: Research, theory and practice. Newark,
Delaware: International Reading Association.

Atwell, N. (1998). In the midcfle: New understandings about writing, reading, and
learning (2“ ed. ). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Baker, 8., Gersten, R, & Graham, S. (2003). Teaching expressive writing to students
with learning disabilities: Research-based applications and examples. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 109—123.

Baker, 8., Gersten, R, & Scanlon, D. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive
strategies: Tool for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing
process, and for providing meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning
Disabilities: Research & Practice, 1 7(1), 65-7 7.

Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of
Texas Press.

Barnes, D. (1992). From communication to curriculum (2" ed.). Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton & R.

Ivanic (Eds), Situated literacies: Reacting and writing in context. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

218

Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In Gregg, L.Q. & Steinberg, E.R. (Eds).
Cognitive processes in writing. (pp. 73-93). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, JD. (1997). Skewness and Kurtosis. Retrieved March 16, 2006, from
mglfiahorg/test/bro 1.htrn

Brown, J. S., Collins, A, & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Research, 18, 32-42.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burbules, N. (1993). Dialogue in teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
Carey, 6. (1998). Multivariate Analysis of Variance MNOVA): I. theory. Retrieved
March 13, 2007, fi'om
http:/frbgwww.colorado.edu/~carey/p729 l dir/handouts/manoval .pdf

Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2“
ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann '

Chalk, J .C., Hagan-Burke, S. & Burke, MD. (2005). The effects of self-regulated
strategy development on the writing process for high school students with
learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(1), 75.

Cole, M. (2000). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA:
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Coleman, CF. (1997). Our students write with accents. Oral paradigms for BSD
students. College Composition and Communication, 48(4), 486-500.

College Board. (2006). SAT: The writing section. Retrieved August 23, 2006, fi'om
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/tes_tmg[' sat/about/saj/writinghtml

Craig, W. N., & Collins, J. L. (1970). Analysis of communicative interaction in classes
for deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf: 115(2), 79-85.

Crandall, K. F. (1978). Reading and writing skills and the deaf adolescent. Volta Review,
80(5), 319-332.

Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of
bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222-251.

Curcic, S., Wolbers, K., Pu, J. & Juzwik, M.M. (2006). Theorizing second language
writing instruction: PreK-IZ. Manuscript submitted for publication.

219

De La Paz, S. (1997). Strategy instruction in planning: Teaching students with learning
and writing disabilities to compose persuasive and expository essays. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 20(3 ), 227-248.

De La Paz, S. (1999). Teaching writing strategies and self-regulation procedures to
middle school students with learning disabilities. Focus an Exceptional Children,
31(5), 1-16.

De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997). Strategy instruction in planning: Effects on the
writing performance and behavior of students with learning difficulties.
Exceptional Children, 63(2), 167-181.

De La Paz, S., Owen, B., Harris, K. R, & Graham, S. (2000). Riding Elvis's motorcycle:
Using Self-Regulated Strategy Development to PLAN and WRITE for a state
writing exam. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(2), 101-109.

Delpit, L. (1986). Skills and other dilemmas of a progressive black educator. Harvard
Educational Review, 56, 379-385.

Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other
people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280-298.

Dewey, J. (1990). The school and society. The child and the curriculum. Chicago. The
University of Chicago Press.

Englert, C. S. (1990). Unraveling the mysteries of writing through strategy instruction. In
T.E. Scruggs & B.Y.L. Wong (Eds), Intervention Research in Learning
Disabilities. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Englert, C. S., Conway, P., Gover, M, & Dunsmore, K. (2000). Rubric for scoring
informative narrative writing. Unpublished report. East Lansing, MI: Michigan
State University.

Englert, C. S., & Dunsmore, K. (2002). A Diversity of teaching and learning paths:
Teaching writing in situated activity. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Social constructivist
teaching: Aflordances and constraints. Boston: JAI.

Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (1996). A sociocultural perspective: Teaching ways-of-
thinking and ways-of-talking in a literacy community. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 11(3), 157-167.

Englert, C.S., Mariage, T.V. & Dunsmore, K. (2006). Tenets of sociocultural theory in

writing instruction research. In CA MacArthur, S. Graham, J. Fitzgerald (Eds),
HMook of writing research (pp. 208-221). New York: The Guilford Press.

220

Englert, C.S., Mariage, T.V., Okolo, C.M., Courtad, C.A., Shankland, R.K., Moxley,
K.D., Jones, N., Billman, A. (in press). Accelerating expository literacy in the
middle grades: The ACCEL Project. In B. Taylor & J. Ysseldyke (Eds),
Educational interventions for struggling readers. New York: Teachers College
Press.

Englert, C.S., Raphael, T.E. & Anderson, L.M. (1989). Cognitive Strategy Instruction in
Writing Project, East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching.

Englert, C.S., Raphael, T.E., Anderson, L.M., Anthony, H.M. & Stevens, DD. (1991).
Making strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special
education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 33 7-3 72.

Englert, C.S., Raphael, T.E. & Mariage, TV. (1998) A multi-year literacy intervention:
Transformation and personal change in the community of the Early Literacy
Project. Teacher Ethication and Special Education, 21(4), 255-277.

Enns, C.J. (2006). A language and literacy fiamework for bilingual deaf education. Self-
published report. Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba.

Erting, L. & Pfau, J. (1997). Becoming bilingual: Facilitating English literacy
development using ASL in preschool. Sharing ideas. Washington, DC: Laurent
Clerc National Deaf Education Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED475322) ‘

Evans, C. (1998, March). Literacy acquisition in deaf children. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages,
Seattle, WA

Evans, C. (1998). Two languages, one goal: Literacy learning in deaf students. CAEDHH
Journal/La Revue ACESM, 25(1-3), 6-19.

Fernandes, J. (2003). In Search of Keys to English Print. Odyssey, 5(1), 4-5.

Ferris, D. & Roberts, B. (2006). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does
it need to be? In P.K. Matsuda, M. Cox, J. Jordan & C. Ortrneier-Hooper (Eds),
Second-language writing in the composition classroom: A critical resource (pp.
380-402). New York: Bedford/St.Martin's.

Fitzgerald, J. & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their
development. Ethicational Psychologist, 35(1), 39-50.

Flower, L.S. & Hayes, J R (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and

juggling constraints. In L.W. Gregg & ER Steinberg (Eds), Cognitive processes
in writing (pp. 31-50). I-lillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum & Associates.

221

French, M. M. (1999). Planning for literacy instruction: Guidelines for instruction
Sharing ideas. Washington, DC: Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED ED475330)

Fung, P., Chow, B. & McBride-Chang, C. (2005). The impact of a dialogic reading
program on deaf and hard-of-hearing kindergarten and early primary school-aged
students in Hong Kong. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(1), 82-
95.

Gallaudet Research Institute. (2003, October 30). Literacy aid deaf students. Retrieved
August 17, 2005, fi'om http://grigallaudet.edu/Literacy/index.html

Gavelek, J.R. & Raphael, TE. (1996). Changing talk about text: New roles for teachers
and students. Language Arts, 73(3), 182-192.

Gee, J. P. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds), Rewriting literacy:
Culture and the discourse of the other. New York: Bergin & Garvey.

Gee, J .P. (1996). Social linguistics aid literacies: Ideology in discourses (2"‘1 ed.).
Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.

Gee, J. P. (2004). Discourse analysis: What makes it critical? In R Rogers (Ed), An
introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates. ‘

Goldenberg, C. (1992). Instructiorml conversations: Promoting comprehension through
discussion. The Reading Teacher, 46, 316-326.

Gormely, K, & Sarachan-Deily, AB. (1987). Evaluating hearing-impaired students'
writing: A practical approach. The Volta Review, 89, 157-166.

Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis.
In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds), Handbook of writing
research (pp. 187-207) New York: Guilford.

Graham, S. & Ham's, K. (1994). The effects of whole language on children’s writing: A
review of the literature. Educational Psychologist, 29(4), 187 -1 92.

Graham, 8., Harris, K. R, & Troia, G. A (2000). Self-Regulated Strategy Development
revisited: Teaching writing strategies to struggling writers. Topics in Lazguage
Disorders, 20(4), 1-14.

Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Efl'ective strategies to improve writing of

adolescents in midcfle and high schools — A report to Ca'negie Corporation of
New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

222

Greeno, JG, Collins, A, & Resnick, LB (1997). Cognition and Learning. In D. Berliner
& R. Calfee (Eds), Hardbook of Educational Psycholog (pp. 15-45). New York:
Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Hagemann, J. (2001). A bridge fi'om home to school: Helping working class students
acquire school literacy. English Journal, 90(4), 74-81.

Hallenbeck, M. J. (2002). Taking charge: Adolescents with learning disabilities assume
responsibility for their own writing. Leaning Disability Quaterly, 25(4), 227-
246.

Hammill, D., & Larsen, S. (1996). Test of written language (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-
ED.

Harre, R. (1983). Personal being: A theory for individual psychology. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell Publisher Limited.

Harris, K R, Graham, 8., & Mason, L. H. (2003). Self-Regulated Strategy Development
in the classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction for students
with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(7), 1-16.

Harris, K. R, Mason, L. H, Graham, 8., & Saddler, B. (2002). Developing self-regulated
writers. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 110-115. ,

Harrison, D. R, Simpson, P. A & Stuart, A (1991). The development of written
language in a population of hearing-impaired children. The Journal of the British
Association of Teachers of the Deafi 15, 76-85.

Hartman, M. (1996). Thinking and Learning in Classroom Discourse. Volta Review,
98(3), 93-106.

Hawkins, L. & Brawner, J. (1997). Educating children who we deaf or hard of hearing:
Total communication (Report No. EDO-EC-97—6) Reston, VA: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED414677).

Hayes, JR (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing.
In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds), The science of writing: Theories, methods,
individual difl'erences, and implications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erbaum Associates.

Hayes, JR (2006). New directions in writing theory. In C.A MacArthur, S. Graham &

J. Fitzgerald (Eds), Handbook of writing resea'ch (pp. 28-40). New York: The
Guilford Press.

223

Hayes, JR & Flower, LS. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In
L.W. Gregg & ER Steinberg (Eds), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31-50).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum & Associates.

Hayes, JR & Nash, J.G. (1996). On the nature of planning in writing. In M. Levy & S.
Ransdell (Eds), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual difi'erences,
and applications (pp. 29—55). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related
estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107-128.

Heefner, D. L., & Shaw, P. C. (1996). Assessing the written narratives of deaf students
using the Six-Trait analytical scale. Volta Review, 98(1), 147-168.

Heider, F., & Heider, G. M. (1941). Comparison of sentence structure of deaf and hearing
children. The Volta Review, 43, 357-360, 536-540, 599-604.

Helfgott, D. & Westhaver, M. (2007). Inspiration [Computer software]. Retrieved from
http://www.inspiration.com/productinfo/inspiration/index.cfm

Hillocks, G. (1984). What works in teaching composition: A meta-analysis of
experimental treatment studies. America: Journal of Education, 93(1), 133-170.

Hillocks, G. (1995). Teaching writing as reflective praCtice. New York: Teachers College
Press.

Hillocks, G. (2002). The testing trap: How state assessments control leaning. New
York: Teachers College Press.

Holcomb, T., & Peyton, J. K. (1992). ESL Literacy for a Linguistic Minority: The Deaf
Experience. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse on Literacy Education.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED353861)

Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA:
Duxbury Thomson Learning, Inc.

Howerton, A. (2006, February). The form aid position of adverbs in ASL and English:
Implications for teachers of the deaf. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Association of College Educators of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Denver, CO.

Isaacson, S. L. (1996). Simple ways to assess deaf or hard-of-hearing students' writing
skills. Volta Review, 98(1), 183-199.

John-Steiner, V.P. & Meehan, TM. (2000). Creativity and collaboration in knowledge

construction. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds), Vygotskiaz perspectives on
literacy research. New York: Cambridge University Press.

224

Johnson, D.M. (1994). Grouping strategies for second language learners. In F. Genesee
(Ed), Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole
curriculum, the whole community. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, M. A, & Roberson, G. F. (1988). The language experience approach: Its use
with young hearing-impaired students. America: Annals of the Deaf; 133(3), 223-
225.

Johnstone, K. M., Ashbaugh, H., & Warfield, T. D. (2002). Efi‘ects of repeated practice
and contextual-writing experiences on college students' writing skills. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94(2), 305-315.

Juzwik, M., Curcic, S., Wolbers, K., Moxley, K., Dimling, L. & Shankland, R (2006).
Writing into the twenty-first century: An overview of research on writing, 1999-2004.
Written Communication, 23(4), 451-476.

Klecan-Aker, J., & Blondeau, R (1990). An examination of the written stories of
hearing-impaired school-age children. The Volta Review, 92, 275-282.

Kluwin, T. N., & Kelly, A B. (1992). Implementing a successful writing program in
public schools for students who are deaf. Exceptional Children, 59(1), 41-53.

Kraker, M. J. (2000). Classroom discourse: teaching, learning and learning disabilities.
Teaching and teacher education, 16, 295-313.

Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (2002). Collaborative writing in L2: The effect of group
interaction on text quality. In S. Ransdell & M. Barbier (Eds), New directions for
research in L2 writing. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lang, HG. & Albertini, J .A. (2001). Construction of meaning in the authentic science
writing of deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies aid Deaf Education, 6(4), 258-
284.

Lantolfi J .P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed), Sociocultural
theory and second language leaning. New York: Oxford University Press.

Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center (n.d.). Communication choices with deaf
and had of heaing children. Retrieved September 13, 2002, from
http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/SupportServices/series/4010.htrnl

LaSasso, C. & Heidinger, V. A (1983). The language experience approach with deaf
readers: Whose language? Teaching English to Deaf and Second-Laiguage
Students, 2(1), 8-11.

225

LaSasso, C. J. & Mobley, R. T. (1997, March). Results of a national survey of reading
instruction for deaf students. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association of
College Educators - Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Santa Fe, NM.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (2003). Situated leaning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lederberg, AR, & Spencer, PE. (2001). Vocabulary development of deaf and hard of
hearing children. In M. D. Clark, M. Marschark, 8c M. Karchmer (Eds), Context,
cognition, and deafiness (pp. 88-112). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University
Press.

Lee, C. D., & Smagorinsky, P. (2000). Constructing meaning through collaborative
inquiry. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds), Vygotsla'a: perspectives on
literacy research. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, leaning, and values. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex

Lindfors, J .W. (1999). Children 's inquiry: Using language to make sense of the world
New York: Teachers College Press.

Luckner, J ., Sebald, A, Cooney, J., Young, J. & Muir, S.G. (2006). An examination of
the evidence-based literacy research in deaf education. America: Annals of the
Deaf; 150(5), 443-456.

MacArthur, C.A, Graham, S. & Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Handbook of writing research.
New York: The Guilford Press.

Mariage, T. V. (1996). The construction and reconstruction of two discourse spaces in a
special education classroom: A sociolinguistic examination of Sharing Chair and
Morning Message. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1996).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 133.

Mariage, T. V. (2001). Features of an interactive writing discourse: Conversational
involvement, conventional knowledge, and internalization in "Morning Message."
Journal of Leaning Disabilities, 34(2), 172-196. '

Marschark, M., Lang, H.G., Albertini, J .A., (2002). Educating deaf students: From
research to practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mason, L. H., Harris, K. R, & Graham, S. (2002). Every child has a story to tell: Self-

regulated strategy development for story writing. Education and Treatment of
Children, 25(4), 496-506.

226

Matsuda, P.K., Cox, M., Jordan, J. & Ortrneier-Hooper, C. (2006). Second-language
writing in the composition classroom: A critical sourcebook. New York:
Bedford/St.Martin's

Mayer, C. (1999). Shaping at the point of utterance: An investigation of the composing
processes of the deaf student writer. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,
4(1), 37-49.

Mayer, C. & Akamatsu, T. (1999). Bilingual-bicultural models of literacy education for
deaf students: Considering the claims. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 4(1), 1-8.

Mayer, C., Akamatsu, C.T. & Stewart, D. (2002). A model for effective practice:
Dialogic inquiry with students who are deaf. Exceptional children, 68(4), 485-
502.

Mayer, P. & Lowenbraun, S. (1990). Total communication use among elementary
teachers of hearing-impaired children. America: Annals of the Deed, 135, 257-
263.

Mayer, C. & Wells, G. (1996). Can the linguistic interdependence theory support a
bilingual-bicultural model of literacy education for deaf students? Journal of
Deaf Studies and DeafEducation, 1, 93-107.

McAnally, P. L., Rose, 8., & Quigley, S. P. (1994). Language leaning practices with
deqfchildren (2" ed). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc.

McAnally, P.L., Rose, S., & Quigley, S. (1999). Reading practices with deaf leaners.
Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

McCutchen, D. (2006). Cognitive factors in the development of children's writing. In
C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds), Hancfiook of writing reseach
(pp. 115-130). New York: The Guilford Press.

McNaughton, S. (2002). Meeting of the minds. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning
Media Limited.

Mehan, H. (1979). Leaning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Michigan Educational Assessment Program (2004). Grade 7 writing. Retrieved August
11, 2006, from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/W04_Gr7_Rel_Item_Wrt_
Scorept_5_1 10881_7.pdf

Miller, K. J ., & Luckner, J. L. (1992). Let's talk about it: Using conversation to facilitate
language development. American Annals of the Deaf 137(4), 345-450.

227

Montgomery, W. (2001). Creating culturally responsive, inclusive classrooms. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 33(4), 4-9.

Moores, D. F., & Miller, M. S. (2001). Literacy Publications: American Annals of the
Deaf 1996 to 2000. American Annals of the Deaf 146(2), 77-80.

Morris, S. (2005, April). Eflect size estimation from pretest-posttest-control designs with
heterogeneous vaiances. Paper presented at the 20m Annual Conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA

Nassaji, H. & Wells, G. (2000). What's the use of triadic dialogue?: An investigation of
teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376-406.

National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Early Hearing
Detection and Intervention Program. (2005). National EDI-ll goals. Retrieved
August 23, 2006, from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/ehdi/nationalgoalshtm

National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. (2004).
Writing: A ticket to work. . . or a ticket out. A survey of business leaders. New
York: College Entrance Examination Board.

National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges. (2003). The
neglected “R The need for a writing revolution. New York: College Entrance
Examination Board.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the
Natiornal Reading Patel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific reseach literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: US.
Government Printing Office. ‘

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (2005). 6 + 1 trait writing. Retrieved August
3, 2006, fi'om http://www.nwrel.org/assessment/department.php?d=1

Nystrand, M (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynanics of la:guage and
leaning in the English classroom New York: Teachers College Press.

Padden, C. & Ramsey, C. (1993). Deafculture and literacy. American Annals of the Deaf,
138(2), 96-99.

Paul, P. (1990, July). Use of ASL to teach reading and writing to deaf students: An
interactive theoretical perspective. Paper presented at the meeting of the Bilingual
Considerations in the Education of Deaf Students: ASL and English Conference.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED ED337928)

228

Paul, P. (1998). Literacy and deqiness: The development of reading, writing and literate
thought. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

PBS Home. (2000). Edison 's miracle of life. Retrieved August 26, 2006, fi'om
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/edison/filmmore/transcript/index.htrnl

Peters, 8., Wolbers, K. & Dimling, L. (in press). Reframing global education from a
disability rights movement perspective. In S. Gabel & S. Danforth (Eds),
Disability studies in education: An international reader. New York: Peter Lang.

Powers, A. R, & Wigus, S. (1983). Linguistic complexity in the written language of
hearing-impaired children. Volta Review, 85(4), 201-210.

Pressley, M. (2006). Reacting instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd
ed). New York: Guilford Press.

Pressley, M. & McCormick, CB. (1995). Advanced educational psychology for
educators, researchers, and policymakers. New York. HarperCollins

Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C.A MacArthur, S. Graham, J.
Fitzgerald (Eds. ), Haxflnook of writing reseach (pp. 54-66). New York: The
Guilford Press.

Quigley, S. P., Steinkamp, M. W., Power, D. J. & Jones, B. W. (1978). Test of syntactic
abilities. Beaverton, OR: Dormac, Inc.

Ransdell, S. & Barbier, M. (2002). New directions for reseach in L2 writing. Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ransdell, S. & Barbier, M. (2002). An introduction to new directions for research in L2
writing. In S. Ransdell & M. Barbier (Eds), New directions for reseach in L2
writing. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ransdell, S. Lavelle, B. & Levy, CM. (2002). The efl'ects of training a good working
memory strategy on L1 and L2 writing. In S. Ransdell & M. Barbier (Eds), New
directions for reseach in L2 writing. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Raphael, T. E., & Englert, C. S. (1990). Writing and reading: Partners in constructing
meaning. Reading Teacher, 43(6), 388-400.

Reyes, M. de la Luz (1992). Challenging venerable assumptions: Literacy instruction for
linguistically different students. Havad Educational Review, 62(4), 427-446.

Rickford, J .R & Rickford, RJ. (2000). Spoken soul: The story of black English. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

229

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Saddler, B., Moran, S., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R (2004). Preventing writing
difficulties: The effects of planning strategy instruction on the writing
performance of struggling writers. Exceptiornality, 12(1), 3-17.

Sanders, T. & Schilperoord, J. (2006). Text structure as a window on the cognition of
writing: How text analysis provides insights in writing products and writing
processes. In C.A MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds), Hauflrook of
writing reseach (pp. 386-402). New York: The Guilford Press.

Sasaki, M. (2002). Building an empirically-based model of EFL learners’ writing
processes. In S. Ransdell & M. Barbier (Eds), New directions for reseach in L2
writing. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Scardarnalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed), Haxfiook of reseach on teaching (3rd ed, pp. 778-803). New
York: MacMillan.

Schirmer, B. R (1994). Language and literacy development in children who ae deaf.
New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Schirmer, B. R, & Bailey, J. (2000). Writing assessment rubic: An instructional approach
with struggling writers. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 33(1), 52-58.

Schirmer, B. R, Bailey, J ., & Fitzgerald, S. M. (1999). Using a writing assessment rubric
for writing development of children who are deaf. Exceptional Children, 65(3),“
383-3 97.

Schneidermarr, E. (1995). The efl‘ectiveness of an interactive instructional context.
America: Annals of the Deaf; 140, 8-15.

Schoenfeld, AH. (2002). A highly interactive discourse structure. Social Constructivist
Teaching, 9, 131-169.

Siegel, L. (2000). The educational and communication needs of deaf and hard of hearing
children: A statement of principle on fundamental educational change. America:
Annals of the Deaf; 145(2), 64-77.

Singer, B. D., & Bashir, A S. (2004). Developmental variations in writing composition
skills In C. A Stone, E. R Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds), Hancflnook of
language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 559-5 82). New York:
Guilford.

230

Stewart, D. (2006). Instructional and practical communication: ASL and English-based
signing in the classroom. In D. F. Moores & D. S. Martin (Eds), Deaf learners:
New developments in curriculum and instruction (pp. 207-220). Washington,
DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Stewart, D., & Clarke, BR (2003). Literacy and your deaf child. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press.

Stone, CA (1998). The Metaphor of Scafl‘olding: Its Utility for the Field of Learning
Disabilities. Journal of Leaning Disabilities, 31(4), 344-364.

Stone, CA. (2004). Contemporary approaches to the study of language and literacy
development: A call for the integration of perspectives. In Stone, C.A., Silliman,
E.R, Ehren, B.J. & Apel, K. (Eds), Handbook of Language and
Literacy: Development and Disorders (pp. 3-24). NY: The Guildford Press.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, LS. (2001). Using multiva'iate statistics (4"!l ed). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.

Taeschner, T. (1988). Aflixes and function words in the written language of deaf
children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9(4), 385-401.

Tharp, R & Gallimore, R (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, leaning, and
schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Troia, G. A, & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-
directed strategy instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of
students with learning disabilities. Journal of Leaning Disabilities, 35(4), 290-
305.

Troia, G. A, Harris, K. R, & Graham, S. (1999). Teaching students with learning
disabilities to mindfirlly plan when writing. Exceptional Children, 65(2), 23 5-252.

Tucker, I. & Powell, C. (1991). The hea'ing impaired child and school. London:
Souvenir.

United States Department of Education. (n.d). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved August
8, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/1anding.jhtml?src=ov

United States Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999, September). The
NAEP 1998 writing report cad for the nation of the states. Washington, DC:
Author.

United States Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and

Improvement. National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). The nation ’s
report cad: Writing 2002. Washington, DC: Author.

231

Valdes, G. (2006). Bilingual minorities and language issues in writing: Toward
professionwide responses to a new challenge. In P.K. Matsuda, M. Cox, J. Jordan
& C. Ortmeier-Hooper (Eds), Second-la:guage writing in the composition
classroom: A critical resource (pp. 31-70). New York: Bedford/St.Martin's.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, Eds).
Cambridege, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1994). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Press.

Ward, 1. (1994). Literacy ideology, and dialogue: Towards a dialogic pedagogy. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.

Warriner, J. E. (1988). English composition and granma (Benchmark ed). Chicago:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: T owads a sociocultural practice and theory of
education. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In
C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds), Vygotsla'an perspectives on literacy research
(pp. 51-85). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind; A sociocultural approach to mediated action.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

\Vilbur, R B. (2000). The use of ASL to support the development of English and literacy.
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 81-104.

Wolbers, K. (2005). [Personal narrative writing sample]. Unpublished raw data.

Wolbers, K. (2006). Using an interactive writing activity to improve the higher- level and
lower-level writing skills of deaf students. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Wolbers, K. & Miller, J. (2006). Adqoting morning message for writing instruction with
deaf children. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Wolff, S. (1977). Cognition and communication patterns in classrooms for deaf students.
America: Annals of the Deaf 122(3), 319-327.

Wolfram, W., Adger, C. T. & Christian, D. (1999). Dialects in schools and communities.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

232

Wong, B. Y. L. (2000). Writing strategies instruction for expository essays for
adolescents with and without learning disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders,
20(4), 29-44.

Wong, B. Y. L. & Berninger, V. W. (2004). Cognitive processes of teachers in
implementing composition research in elementary, middle, and high school
classrooms. In C. A Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds),
Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 600-624).
New York: Guilford.

Wong, B.Y.L., Harris, KR, Graham, S., & Butler, D.L. (2003). Cognitive strategies
instruction research in learning disabilities. In H.L. Swanson, KR Harris, & S.
Graham (Eds), Handbook of Leaning Disabilities (pp. 383-402). NY: The
Guilford Press.

Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (1996). How deaf and normally hearing students convey meaning
within and between written sentences. Volta Review, 98(1), 9-38.

Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Downey, D. M. (1996a). Analyzing deaf or hard-of-hearing
students' written metacognitive strategies and story-grammar propositions. Volta
Review, 98(1), 63-64.

Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Downey, D. M. (1996b). Development of school-aged deaf, hard-
of-hearing, and normally hearing students' written language. Volta Review, 98(1),
3-7.

Yoshinaga—Itano, C., & Snyder, L. (1985). Form and meaning in the written language of
hearing-impaired children. Volta Review, 87(5), 75-90.

Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Snyder, L.S. & Mayberry, R (1996). How deaf and normally

hearing students convey meaning within and between written sentences. Volta
Review, 98(1), 9-38.

233

IIIll/WIlilll/lllllllllllfllllll

3 1293 02956 0 38