ExceptionaJ Children, Voi. 65, No. 3. pp. 383-397. ©1999 The Councilfor Exceptiotiai Children.
Using a Writing Assessment Rubric for Writing Development of Children Who Are Deaf BARBARA R. SCHIRMER
Kent State University JILL BAILEY
Oregon Schoolfor the Deaf, Northwest Regional Program SHAWN M. FITZGERALD
Kent State University
ABSTRACT: The purpose of the study was to explore whether a writing assessment ruhrie eould he used as an ejfeetive teaching strategy with children who are deaf. From September through June, the teacher evaluated the students' com.positions using a writing assessment rubric. From, fall to spring the fifth and seventh graders showed significant improvement in four writing qualities and no significant improvement in five qualities. All of the compositions reflected the students' ability to use language functionally both interpersonally and intrapersonally. As an instructional strategy, teachers ean individualize rubrics by student, class, age level, genre, or assignment to target the developmental needs of students who are deaf and other students with special needs.
W
riting typically presents a tremendous challenge to children who are deaf. When writing, children must be able to manipulate the syntactic and morphological structures of the language in order to express themselves. For children with a hearing loss who are not fluent in spoken English or a face-to-face form of English in sign language, the task is daunting. Both hearing children and children who are deaf begin to develop as readers and writers from the point in early childhood when they become aware of print in their envi-
Exceptional Children
ronment and the uses of print by significant individuals in their lives. Preschool children who are deaf have been found to demonstrate developmentally appropriate knowledge and understanding of written language and uses of literacy even when language acquisition is delayed v^^hen compared to hearing children (Rottenberg & Searfoss, 1992; Williams, 1994; Williams & McLean, 1997). However, as children who are deaf are engaged in formal reading and writing instruction in school, delayed English language development appears to impact literacy develop-
383
ment (Holt, 1993; LaSasso & Mobley, 1997; Wolk& Allen, 1984). Traditional approaches for teaching writing are sometimes referred to as product approaches because they focus the teacher's and child's attention on how well the child's completed compositions represent the skills and rules he or she has been taught and given opportunities to practice. These approaches were popular in education until the whole language movement of the 1980s, when process writing approaches emerged (Graves, 1983; Tompkins, 1994). Process writing approaches focus the teacher's and child's attention on the child's thinking, from inception of idea to completed composition. For example, in Writers Workshop, a popular instructional model that refiects the process approach, children are encouraged to engage in all stages of the writing process (i.e., planning, drafting, revising, and editing), to write about self-selected topics at their own pace, and to determine whether any given composition will be completed and shared with an audience. In this model, htde instructional time is devoted to teaching children the rules, conventions, or qualities of writing. Instead, children are expected to develop increasingly sophisticated notions about writing through sharing their writing and discussing writing with others (Calkins, 1994). It is difficult to find evidence in the re-
children who are deaf needed for developing as writers. The product approach requires children with hearing loss to apply the rules and skills of a language in which they are not proficient. The process approach assumes that children who are deaf will internalize the rules and skills through ample opportunities to write and discuss writing. We decided to investigate the possibility that an instructional strategy reflecting the strengths of both approaches might better meet the developmental needs of children who are deaf. During the past decade, a number of school districts, and a few states, have adopted analytical scoring procedures for systematic assessment of student writing. In these scoring procedures, several traits of writing are identified as representing important qualities of writing and a scale is developed for each trait. When a composition is evaluated, it receives a separate j^ore for each trait. For example, the Six-Trait Analytical Scale (Spandel & Stiggins, 1997) identifies six writing traits—ideas, organization, ^^i^e, word choice, sentence fiuency, and conventions—and uses a 5-point scale. While anay^^^ ^^^ring procedures have been used for the purpose of writing assessment in children who ^^^ j ^ ^ (Heefner & Shaw, 1996), we felt that it ^^^j j ^e more valuable as an instructional ^^j^j Specifically, we felt that it could be used ^^ (^^ articulating the qualities of writing that
search literature for the success of either instruc-
.,^ «,o^^^j ^ u u i u ^ ^u ^ i. L - U we wanted to highlight so that the children tional approach with children who are deaf. A u 0.005, nor were the differu J r u ences observed from pretest to posttest between ^^^^^ ^^^^y^ ^ ^ 7^ ^ ^ OQ^^ ^ ^ Q c,28. How^^^^^ differences observed from pretest to p^^^^^^ independent of grade level, were signif-^^^^^ ^ ^ 7) ^ 19 135^ ^ ^ 0 OO3 ^^^^^ ^^-^^ suggests that while both fifth and seventh g^.^^^^.^ improved significantly on the organiza^^^^ composite scores over time, the improve^.ent was simUar for both grade levels, Text Structure Composite Scores. The interaction effect between grade level and time of test ^^s not significant, F{1,7) = 1.38, p = 0.277. In addition, differences observed from pretest to posttest between grade levels were also not significant, F{1,7) = 2.147, p = 0.186. In addition, differences observed from pretest to posttest, independent of grade level, were not significant, i^(l,7) = 12.837, p > 0.005. This suggests that fifth and seventh graders did not improve significantly on the text structure composite scores over time. Voice/Audience Composite Scores. A pattern of results similar to those found with the text structure composite scores was found when analyzing these scores. Specifically, the interaction effect was not significant, i^(l,7) = 1.54, p = 0.253. In addition, differences observed from pretest to posttest between grade levels and differences observed from pretest to posttest, independent of grade level, were also not significant [Fil,7) = 0.006, p = 0.938 and Fil,7) = 16.726, 389 p 0.005, respectfully]. This suggests that fifth and seventh graders did not improve signifi-
TA BLE
3
Descriptive Statistics for tbe Composite Scores on Facb Trait by Crade Level and Time Administered Fifth Grad^ Composite Score
Pretest
Posttest
Seventh Grade Pretest
Posttest
Topic
M
2.00
3.25
2.60
4.13
SD
0.72
0.50
0.72
0.29
M
2.08
3.58
2.53
3.808
SD
0.73
0.68
0.69
0.29
M
2.41
4.00
2.53
3.46
SD
0.50
0.72
0.90
0.38
M
2.00
3.75
2.66
3.13
SD
0.38
0.56
0.74
0.38
M
1.75
3.33
2.46
3.26
SD
0.41
0.47
0.83
0.49
M
2.66
3.91
2.93
3.60
SD
0.54
0.41
0.89
0.14
M
2.41
3.50
2.60
3.59
SD
0.91
0.33
1.03
0.34
M
1.58
3.16
2.13
3.13
SD
0.32
0.63
0.76
0.83
M
1.66
3.33
2.06
2.73
SD
0.76
0.47
0.98
0.36
Content
Story Development
Organization
Text Structure
Voice/Audience
Word Choice
Sentence Structure
Mechanics
Fifth Grade n = 4. I'For Seventh Grade w = 5.
cantly on the voice/audience composite scores posttest between grade levels were also not sigover time. nificant, F{1,7) = 0.100, p = 0.761. In addition. Word Cboice Composite Scores. The inter- differences observed firom pretest to posttest, inaction effect between grade level and time of test dependent of grade level, were not significant was not significant, F{1,7) = 0.025, p = 0.879. F{1,7) = 15.681, p = 0.005. This suggests that In addition, differences observed from pretest to fifth and seventh graders did not improve signif-
39O
Spring 1999
icantly on the word choice composite scores over tirne. Sentence Structures Composite Scores. The interaction effect between grade level and time of test was not significant, F{\,7) = 0.693, p = 0.433. In addition, differences observed from pretest to posttest betw^een grade levels were also not significant, F{1,7) = 0.725, p = 0.432. In addition, differences observed from pretest to posttest, independent of grade level, were not significant, F{1,7) = 13.59, p> 0.005. Once again this suggests that fifth and seventh graders did not improve significantly on the sentence structures composite scores over time. Mechanics Composite Scores. The interaction effect between grade level and time of test was not significant, F{\,7) = 2.69, p = 0.145. In addition, differences observed from pretest to posttest between grade levels w^ere also not significant, F(l,7) = 0.079, p = 0.787. In addition, differences observed from pretest to posttest, independent of grade level, w^ere not significant, F(l,7) = 14.65, p > 0.005. These results are similar to those found with the text structure, voice/audience, w^ord choice, and sentence structures composite scores in that they suggest that fifth and seventh graders did not improve significandy on the composite scores over time. In summary, no interaction effects were ,
I.
1
•
•
•J
J •
I•
shown in Table 4, organization showed the greatest change for fifth graders and the least change for seventh graders. Mechanics showed the second greatest change for fifth graders but was third from the last for seventh graders. While topic showed the greatest change for seventh graders, it was tied for second to last for fifth graders. Mechanics and content were almost completely reversed; mechanics was second at fifth grade and third from last for seventh grade while content was second for seventh grade and third from last for fifth grade. The comparison of greatest to least change may be even clearer when viewed as percentage of change. The fifth graders made a 35% improvement in organization whereas the seventh graders improved just 9%. In mechanics, the fifth graders improved 3 3 % and the seventh graders just 12%. On the other hand, although seventh graders showed their greatest improvement in topic, it represented a 29% change, whereas it was third from the bottom for fifth graders and still represented a 25% change. And although content showed the second greatest change for seventh graders and it was fourth from last for fifth graders, the fifth graders showed a 28% gain and the seventh graders a 25% gain in this trait. ^ ,. Qualitative
observed in the nine traits considered in this study suggesting that if there was an effect for We found that the patterns that emerged in the time of testing across grade, the effect was con- data centered on the pragmatics of writing and sistent. This is evident when considering the re- specifically the functions that language serves suits related to differences observed over time of both interpersonally and intrapersonally. We testing in conjunction with the results related to found first that the students used all of the funcdifferences observed from pretest to posttest, in- tions originally identified by Halliday (1975) as dependent of the grade level of the students for appearing in the spoken language of young chilseveral of the traits. The results related to the dren (see Table 5). Second, these functions did analysis of composite scores for topic, content, not appear equally in all students' compositions story development, and organization each indi- nor did they appear equally throughout the year, cated that both fifth and seventh graders im- Table 6 compares the functions that appeared proved significantly on the composite score over early and later in the school year, and compares time, but the improvement was similar for both functions that appeared in the compositions of grade levels. No significant differences across at least three students but no more than six with time or between grade levels were realized for functions that appeared in the compositions of the other composite scores. most of the students. As shown in Table 6, 4 When we examined the changes from fall functions appeared more frequently in the first to spring for each trait, we found descriptive dif- third of compositions written during the year ferences in which traits showed greatest and least and 11 functions appeared more frequently in change for the fifth and seventh graders. As the later compositions (i.e., written from the Exceptional Cbildren
391
T A B L E
4
Greatest to Least Change for Each Trait Fifth Grade
Fall-Spring Change
Seventh Grade
Fall-Spring Change
Organization
+ 1.75
Topic
+ 1.47
Mechanics
+ 1.66
Content
+1.27
Sentence Structures
+ 1.59
Story Development
+ 1.00
Story Development
+ 1.58
Word Choice
+ 1.00
Text Structure
+ 1.58
Sentence Structures
+ 1.00
Content
+ 1.41
Text Structure
+0.86
Topic
+ 1.25
Mechanics
+0.66
Voice/Audience
+ 1.25
Voice/Audience
+0.60
Word Choice
+ 1.08
Organization
+0.46
T A B L E
5
Functions of Language Function
Definition
Instrumental
To give and ask for help.
Regulatory
To direct others.
Interactional
To interact w^ith others.
Personal
To conununlcate feelings.
Imaginative
To create imaginative worlds.
Heuristic
To explore ideas.
Informative
To provide information.
midpoint). Of the four functions that appeared more frequently in early compositions, the personal function of expressing emotions appeared in the compositions of nine students. Of the 10 functions that appeared more frequently in later compositions, the heuristic function of problemsolving appeared in the compositions of eight students, and the imaginative function of storytelling and the informative function of describing appeared in t h e compositions of nine students. In addition to these functions, humor
392
showed up more frequently in the mid-late compositions of six students. We found differences in the Functions used by fifth and seventh graders. We exercised some caution when comparing fifth and seventh graders on use of functions because we had tallied the total use of functions, and there were only 4 fifth graders compared to 6 seventh graders. We found that of the functions that were predominant in the early compositions of three to six students, the instrumental function
Spring 1999
T A B L.E
6
Functions Appearing in Farly and Mid-Late Compositions Number of Students 3-6 Students
7-9 Students
Early Compositions
Instrumental—express personal Instrumental—request help needs Interactional—compliment
Interactional—express feelings for others; promise, share problems
Heuristic—request information
Heuristic—predict Personal—express opinions Regulatory—direct behavior of others; dissuade; threaten Informative—instruct others; compare/contrast
Personal—express emotions
Heuristic—problem solve Imaginative—story tell Informative—describe; discuss cause/effect
of expressing personal needs and the interactional ftmction of complimenting appeared only in the compositions of fifth graders and the heuristic function of requesting information appeared in the composition of only 1 seventh grader. Several of the functions that were pre° *^ dominant in the mid-late compositions of three to six students involved a mix of fifth and seventh graders including the instrumental ftinction of requesting help, the interactional ftinction of expressing feelings for others, and the informative ftinction of compare/contrast. The interactional ftinction of promising, however, appeared almost exclusively in the compositions of seventh graders. The majority of compositions that involved the interactional ftinction of sharing problems appeared in midlate compositions but these were always written by fifith graders. When seventh graders used this function, it was in their early compositions. Only 1 seventh grader used the heuristic function of predicting and the regulatory ftmction of dissuading and threatening. The informative ftinction of instructing others was used exclusively by fifth graders. The personal function of expressing opinions and the regulatory ftinction Exceptional Children
Mid-Late Compositions
of directing the behavior of others were only used by 2 seventh graders in one composition each, DISCUSSION -ri r L J i u L 1 he purpose ot the study was to explore whether ^ ^ ^ j ^ - ^ ^ assessment rubric could be used as an ^^^^^^^^ teaching strategy with children who are ^ ^ ^ Quantitative analysis of compositions writ^^^ ^^^j^ ^ j j ^ ^ ^ ^ -^^ ^^^ ^^^ indicated that use ^f ^ ^ ^^^ric as a teaching strategy significantly improved four traits of writing for both the fifth ^nd seventh graders—topic, content, story development, and organization. However, the strategy did not improve their performance on five traits—text structure, voice/audience, word choice, sentence structures, and mechanics. The strategy was equally effective with students at both grade levels. Qualitative analysis indicated that several functions were consistently used in the compositions of both fifth and seventh graders, and these particular functions appeared with the same pattern. The personal function of expressing emotions appeared most frequently in the students' early compositions whereas the heuris393
tic function of problem-solving, imaginative function of story telling, and informative function of describing and discussing cause/effect appeared most frequently in their mid-late compositions. The pattern of appearance may be an artifact of topics but given the variety of composition topics throughout the school year, it appears that as the students engaged in more writing, they abandoned the function of simply expressing their emotions and engaged more often in using writing to problem solve, to create imaginative stories, and to give information to the reader in terms of descriptions and explanations of cause and effect. There also appeared to be a more narrow focus of functions used by the fifth graders. All of the functions that appeared in the early compositions of three to six students and 7 of the 11 functions that appeared in the mid-late compositions of three to six students were dominant in the compositions of fifth graders. The seventh graders seemed to incorporate a greater range of functions within their compositions The study has three major limitations. The first is the small sample size. It is quite common for studies with children who are deaf to use small sample numbers because deafness is a low-incidence disability and typical class sizes are six to eight students. This study involved an instructional intervention implemented by a classroom teacher for a fiill academic year, which mandated a relatively small number of subjects. Thus, the population of the study precluded a large sample size and generalizability of findings is limited. The second limitation is the potential confounding effect of using the rubric as both the instructional strategy and the tool to evaluate the effectiveness of the instructional strategy. This effect was moderated by using an evaluation rubric with several different characteristics from the instructional rubric, and also by adding a qualitative analysis component that evaluated aspects of the students' writing other than those which appeared on either rubric. A related issue is whether some students, or one of the classes, received differing amounts of feedback. All of the students received feedback for each composition, though on occasion a student did not turn in an assignment, and the numbers of compositions written by the fifth and seventh graders 394
were approximately the same for the year, as Jill was theming her instruction in the middle school language arts classes. The third limitation is the lack of control over topics and timing of compositions. The students wrote on a variety of topics throughout the school year and some writing tasks took relatively little time while others took several weeks. It was, therefore, not possible to compare compositions between grade levels or to analyze the relationship between topic and quality of compositions. On the other hand, the setting is one that matches many classrooms with students who are deaf so the findings can be applied directly to future classroom instruction,
IMPLICATIONS F O R PRACTICE ^he narrowest implications of the study relate specifically to the rubric as an instructional strategy. The findings suggest that teachers can ^^^ ^ writing rubric to help their students who ^^ ^^^^ ^^ recognize some qualities of writing ^^^ incorporate these qualities into their own compositions. The writing traits that we in"^^^^^d in the instructional rubric are key quali^^^s of writing. These particular traits represent attributes of the many kinds of writing that stu^^nts are expected to do including narrative, expository, descriptive, and persuasive (Harris & Hodges, 1995). The rubric we used for evaluation included several additional qualities comnion to what is viewed as good writing (Spandel & Stiggins, 1997). Teachers can create a rubric that articulates relatively few qualities of writing or create a rubric that encompasses a greater number of qualities depending on the writing development of their students, Given that the instructional rubric we used included some traits that the students incorporated significantly more often in their compositions, it appears that the partictdar qualities of writing identified for this study included ones that were relatively unfamiliar and the students learned to incorporate these traits in their writing. It also appears that the rubric included traits that were either relatively familiar to the students at the outset or the strategy simply was not effective with these traits. Instead of develSpring 1999
oping a universal rubric, the classroom teacher could preassess the students' writing and develop grade-level or individualized rubrics. Another modification of the rubric is to develop genrespecific or assignment-specific rubrics. As students become skilled at incorporating general qualities of writing, the teacher can create rubrics based on the genre that the students are writing or aspects of a writing assignment. A rubric for poetry, for example, would look quite different from a rubric for an essay. And a rubric for a research report would look different from a rubric for a newspaper article. Another instructional modification is for the students to develop their own rubrics, in which they incorporate qualities they believe to be important in their w^riting. The broader implications arise from what the teacher did and why she did it. When examined from this perspective, four implications can be seen: (a) reflective practice of special education teachers, (b) expectations for performance by students identified as exceptional, (c) dedication to one theoretical perspective versus receptivity to a multiple theoretical perspective, and (d) w^illingness to examine the literature of related disciplines. This study w^as originally motivated by the classroom teacher's search for an instructional strategy that would help her students who are deaf to become increasingly more proficient writers. She had tried the whole language approach of giving the students extensive opportunity to write and discuss their writing. Throughout the process of figuring out an instructional strategy that would work for her students, Jill was engaging in what Schon (1983) originally referred to as reflective practice. The reflective process in which she engaged has implications for special education practice because it led her to question the models and strategies she w^as using, observe her students, document their progress over time, and search for better approaches. It is crucial for teachers, parents, and administrators who are involved in the education of children with disabilities to look for instructional interventions that improve performance rather than to accept limited progress. The literature on the education of children who are deaf is replete with information
Exceptional Children
about the low-achievement levels of this population (Commission on Education of the Deaf, 1988; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1994; Wolk & Allen, 1984). Jill could have assumed that the progress her students were making was normal. Instead, she assumed they could perform better. When Jill decided that neither approach to teaching writing would help her students make what she felt to be appropriate progress in writing, she was willing to consider an approach that has recently been termed balanced literacy instruction (Pressley, 1998). In the last 3 decades, the pendulum in literacy education has swung from approaches based on behaviorist theory to those based on constructivist theory. When Jill implemented the rubric strategy, she took two important steps. First, she looked beyond the special education literature to figure out a strategy that might be effective with her students. Second, she used an instructional strategy that reflected a combination of two learning theories, behaviorist and constructivist. At one end of the continuum, an instructional approach based on behaviorist theory includes teaching writing rules and skills, giving students explicit w^riting assignments, providing opportunity to practice rules and skills, and evaluating how well the students correctly use the targeted rules and sldlls in their compositions. At the other end of the continuum, an instructional approach based on constructivist theory includes allowing students to choose their own writing assignments, giving them ample time to write and engage in the stages of the writing process, and discussing their writing. The rubric strategy included aspects of explicit skills instruction as well as writing immersion. Special education teachers w^ho reflect on their teaching, view the difficulties of their students as temporary challenges rather than permanent obstacles, and are open to approaches that have been developed in related disciplines and reflect more than one theoretical perspective are able to add instructional models and strategies to their repertoires. The writing assessment rubric is one such strategy. The link between assessment and instruction continues to be an important area of research and practice for special educators. The
395
current study adds to a relatively limited body of research on writing assessment and instruction. As Dahl and Farnan (1998) wrote, Assessments in writing serve multiple roles. They report learner progress and, perhaps more importantly, they function as part of the feedback loop between new learnings and increasing expertise. Research in this area has definite implications for teaching and learning. It also raises important points of inquiry, which, as we look ahead, will be important for classroom teachers and university researchers to explore. (p.l33)
REFERENCES
Akamatsu, C. T. (t988). Summarizing stories: The role of instruction in text structure in learning to write. American AnnaLs of the Deaf, 133, 294-302.
Holt, J. (1993). Stanford Achievement Test—8th edition: Reading comprehension subgroup results. American AnnaLs of the Deaf, 138, 172-175. Kepple, G. (1991). Design and anaLysis: A researcher's handbooLz. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.* Kluwin, T. N., & Kelly, A. B. (1992). Implementing a successful writing program in public schools for students who are deaf. ExceptionaL ChiLdren, 59, 41-53. LaSasso, C. J., & Mobley, R. T. (1997). National survey of reading instruction for deaf or hard-of-hearing students in the U.S. The VoLta Review, 99, 31-58. LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (1993). Ethnography and quaLitative design in educationaL research (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic* Lieberth, A. K. (1991). Use of scaffolded dialogue journals to teach writing to deaf students. Teaching EngLish to Deaf and Second-Language Students, 9{X), 10-13.
Luckner, J. L., & Isaacson, T. L. (1990). Teaching expressive writing to hearing-imipaired students. JournaL Bratcher, S. (1994). Evaluating chiLdren's writing: A of ChiLdhood Communication Disorders, 13, 135-152. handbooLz of communication choices for cLassroom National Association of State Directors of Special Edteachers. New York: St. Martin's.* ucation. (1994). Deaf and hard of hearing students: Calkins, L. M. (t994). The art of teaching writing EducationaL service guideLines. Alexandria, VA: Author. (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.* (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 377 614) Cambra, C. (1994). An instructional program apPatton, M. Q. (1990). QuaLitative evaLuation and reproach to improve hearing-impaired adolescents' narsearch methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.* ratives: A pilot study. The VoLta Review, 96, 237-245. Commission on Education of the Deaf. (1988). To- Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that worLts: The case for baLanced teaching. New York: Guilford ward equaLity: Education of the deaf. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.(ERIC Docu- Press.*
ment Reproduction Service No. 303 932)
Rottenberg, C. J., & Searfoss, L. W. (1992). BecomDahl, K. L., & Farnan, N. (1998). ChiLdren's writing: ing literate in a preschool class: Literacy development Perspectives from research. Newark, DE: International of hearing-impaired children. JournaL of Reading Behavior, 24, 463-479. Reading Association.*
Glencoe Publishing Company. (1984). GLencoe Eng- Schirmer, B. R., & Bond, W. L. (1990). Enhancing Lish Series, Teacher's resource booLz. Encino, CA: Au-the hearing impaired child's knowledge of story structure to improve comprehension of narrative text. thor.* Reading Improvement, 27, 242-254. Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and chiLdren Schleper, D. R. (1996). Write that one down!: Using at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.* anecdotal records to inform our teaching. The VoLta Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean: ExReview, 98, 201-208. pLorations in tLje deveLopment of Language. New York: Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New Elsevier North-Holland.* York: Basic Books.* Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (Eds.). (1995). The Literacy dictionary: The vocabuLary of reading and writ- Spandel, V, & Stiggins, R. J. (1997). Creating writers: ing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Linking writing assessment and instruction (2nd ed.). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 385 820) New York: Longman.* Heefner, D. L., & Shaw, P C. (1996). Assessing the written narratives of deaf students using the Six-Trait Analytical Scale. The VoLta Review, 98, 147-168.
396
Tompkins, G. E. (1994). Teaching writing: BaLaiicing process and product (2nd ed.). Scarborough, Ontario, Canada: Prentice Hall.*
Spring 1999
Williams, C. L. (1994). The language and literacy worlds of three profoundly deaf children. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 125-155.
Address correspondence to Barbara R. Schirmer, Kent State University, 405 White Hall, Kent, OH 44242. (E-mail:
[email protected])
Williams, C. L., & McLean, M. M. (1997). Young deaf children's response to picture book reading in a The authors would like to thank Jane Mulholpreschool setting. Research in the Teaching of English, land. Educational Director at the Oregon School 31, 337-366. for the Deaf at the time of the study and curWolk, S., & Allen, T. E. (1984). A 5-year follow-up of reading comprehension achievement of hearing-impaired students in special education programs. The Journal of Special Education, 18, 161-176.
rently Assistant Superintendent of Special Schools for the Oregon Department of Education, for her support during this investigation.
A B O U T
Manuscript received August 1998; revision accepted December 1998.
T H E
A U T H O R S
BARBARA R. SCHIRMER (CEC #214), Profes-
sor of special Education and Ghair of the Department of Educational Foundations and Special Services, Kent State University, Ohio. JILL BAILEY, Goordinator of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services, Northwest Regional Program, Oregon School for the Deaf, Portland. SHAWN M. FITZGERALD, Assistant Professor
of Evaluation and Measurement, Kent State University, Ohio.
*To order books referenced in this journal please call 24 hrs/365 days: (800) BOOKS-NOW (266-5766) or (801) 261-1187, or visit them on the Weh at http://vvww.BooksNow.com/Exceptional Children.htm. Use Visa, M/C, or AMEX or send check or money order + $4.95 S&H ($2.50 each add'l item) to: BooksNow, 448 E. 6400 South, Suite 125, Salt Lake City, UT 84107.
UNIVERSITY QF LOUl DISTANCE EDUCATION P
UofL Distance Education Programs deliver fully accredited courses, self-paced and real time, over the Internet and interactive satellite. Fields of study include visual impairment, autism, assistivi technology, behavior disorders, learning disorders, and inclusion.
For more information about our programs ana to see the latest distance learning technology, stop by the University of Louisville booth at the CEC convention in Charlotte, NC WWW.LOUISVILLE.EDU/EDU/EDSP/DISTANCE/
Exceptional Children
397
