Investigating the Writing Achievement of Deaf Learners

Connie Mayer, Beverly J. Trezek

American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 167, Number 5, Winter 2023, pp.
625-643 (Article)

Published by Gallaudet University Press

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/894083

[ Access provided at 11 May 2023 06:08 GMT from Ebsco Publishing ]

 Mayer, C., & Trezek, B. J. (2023). Investigating the writing achievement of deaf learners. American Annals
of the Deaf, 167(5), 625–643.

Investigating the Writing Achievement of Deaf Learners

Connie Mayer and Beverly J. Trezek

Mayer is a professor in the Faculty of Education and the academic coordinator of the Teacher Preparation Program in
the Education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students, York University, Toronto, Canada. Trezek is an associate professor,
Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education, and the Tashia F. Morgridge Distinguished Chair in
Reading, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

This study investigated writing achievement in a Canadian cohort of school-aged deaf learners
(N = 64). In the current context, in which most students are educated in inclusive settings and use
hearing technologies, the goal was to establish whether outcomes approach those of hearing-age
peers and identify demographic factors (e.g., gender, grade, additional disability, home language,
hearing loss, hearing technology, auditory perception) influencing performance. Results indicated
that a high percentage of participants performed in the average range or higher on a standardized,
norm-referenced assessment, the Test of Written Language–Fourth Edition (TOWL-4, Hammill &
Larsen, 2009). Grade, type of hearing loss, higher auditory perception scores, and absence of an
additional disability were identified as variables of significance. As auditory access continues to
improve, additional investigations of writing achievement in this population will be essential to
further inform educational policy and pedagogical practice.

Keywords: deaf, writing, literacy, achievement

Since the 1916 study by Pintner and English morphology, grammar structures,
Paterson, accounts of the literacy achieve- and transformational grammar rules, even
ment of deaf students have consistently by age 21” (Yoshinaga-Itano et al., 1996,
indicated performance that is not com- p. 10). Notwithstanding shifts in commu-
mensurate with that of hearing-age peers, nication philosophies and pedagogical
with deaf students often being character- approaches, such findings have remained
ized as a population that finds learning to remarkably consistent over time (Mayer,
read and write particularly demanding. 2007; Paul, 2009; Trezek et al., 2010). This
With respect to reading, these outcomes mastery deficit impedes access to higher
are often reported in terms of graduation education and the transition to and success
from high school with skills at a fourth- in the workplace for many deaf individuals
grade (i.e., 8-to-9-year-old) level (e.g., (Marschark et al., 2007; Moores, 2001).
Allen, 1986; Qi & Mitchell, 2012; Traxler, However, two developments in the field
2000). In line with these outcomes, typical of deafness—the widespread implementa-
17-to-18-year-old deaf students are tion of newborn hearing screening in
described as writing at levels comparable conjunction with historic improvements in
to those of hearing children ages 8–10 hearing technologies, including cochlear
years (Marschark et al., 2002; Paul, 1998), implants and other implantable devices—
often “failing to master elements of have converged to provide early

625

Winter.indb 625 25-04-2023 15:44:56

 626 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 167, No. 5, 2023

meaningful access to spoken language for including phonology, morphology, lexicon,

most children identified with a hearing grammar, syntax, conceptual coherence,
loss (Archbold, 2015). This access has and text and discourse structures (e.g.,
increasingly allowed for age-appropriate Conte et al., 1996; Musselman & Szanto,
language development that has served as 1998; Taeschner et al., 1988; Yoshina-
the foundation for improving outcomes in ga-Itano et al., 1996), and with the com-
reading and writing (Antia et al., 2020; posing process itself (e.g., Albertini et al.,
Mayer et al., 2021; Nassrallah et al., 2020; 1994; Kelly, 1988.) Written texts are
Pimperton et al., 2016; Smolen et al., 2020). typified by the use of shorter, simpler
To paint a more meaningful picture of the sentences with a reliance on sub-
research, Paul et al. (2013) therefore ject-verb-completion constructions, less
proposed contextualizing literacy out- flexible word order, numerous grammati-
comes in terms of two periods—the era cal errors, and nonstandard English usage
before the advent of modern hearing (see Yoshinaga-Itano, 1986, for discussion),
technologies, including digital hearing with deaf writers using a greater number
aids and cochlear implants, and the of nouns, verbs, and determiners, and
current and emerging phase that includes fewer adverbs, auxiliaries, and conjunc-
the impact of the increasingly widespread tions (Cooper, 1967; F. Heider & G. Heider,
application of early intervention and 1941; R. R. Kretschmer & L. Kretschmer,
amplification that “may positively affect 1978; Myklebust, 1964; Wilbur, 1977). The
the current levels of language and literacy writing is often characterized as evidenc-
development” (Paul & Alqraini, 2019, p. ing features idiosyncratic to deaf students.
182). At the present juncture in the field of The following examples are illustrative of
deaf education, it is critical to move the nature of this writing (Mayer & Trezek,
forward toward the development of 2019):
pedagogical policy and practice based on
research that reflects and is informed by Boy walk see to cat say “Meow” he pet to
this current and emerging reality. While cat. Boy walk to but balloon said help me
there is a growing body of evidence boy hear to balloon boy climb he got to
documenting literacy achievement in the balloon. (8-year-old deaf student)
current context, investigations document-
ing outcomes remain relatively limited, How are you? I’m fine. Yes I want try other
especially with respect to writing. The cheezes on the break. What you buy cheezes
study reported here is intended to address other on the break? What you undecided no
this gap. or yes to me? (13-year-old deaf student)

Historical Background The explanation for these generally poor

outcomes rests on the fact that deaf
A review of the literature on writing students have historically faced challenges
outcomes from the early 20th century in developing age-appropriate levels of oral
onward makes it apparent that deaf language (e.g., an oral language foundation
students rarely evidence age-appropriate in English for reading and writing in
performance in line with that of their English; see Mayer & Trezek, 2015; Paul
hearing-age peers. The research indicates et al., 2013, for discussions). From the
that deaf students encounter difficulties perspective of the Simple View of Writing
with most aspects of text production, (SVW; Berninger et al., 2002; Juel et al.,

Winter.indb 626 25-04-2023 15:44:56

 Writing Achievement of Deaf Learners 627

1986), writers must have control of the knowledge (i.e., oral language competence)
language represented in the text to gener- to encode implicitly in the process of text
ate meaning in print. Writing conse- generation.
quently can be regarded as the product of It is well documented that when deaf
two requisite skills: (a) transcription, or students are endeavoring to convey
the physical act of getting the language meaning, ideas, and content in print, their
down on paper, including representing the writing is less coherent than that of their
sounds of the spoken language in print hearing counterparts (Arfe & Boscolo,
(i.e., spelling, handwriting); and (b) 2006; Yoshinaga-Itano et al., 1996). Even
ideation or text generation (i.e., production when they are able to appropriately apply
of what the writer wants to communicate). discourse rules in narrative production,
This process rests on oral language rep- this performance is “obscured by disfluen-
resentations, since thoughts and ideas cies in writing” (Marschark et al., 1994,
must first be encoded in oral language p. 89), with disfluencies being character-
before they can be transcribed in print ized as a lack of literary and syntactic
(Kim et al., 2011; McCutchen, 2006; see means. In the absence of the intuitive
also Mayer, 2010; Mayer & Trezek, 2019, control of language as described by Singer
for discussions). and Bashir (2004), deaf writers face a
This writing challenge can also be singular challenge. Although they may
framed in terms of the dual space model of have something to say, they have difficulty
the composing process (Bereiter & Scar- constructing these meanings in written
damalia, 1987), in which the content space language as a consequence of not having
is concerned with meaning and what the control of the language of the text in the
writer wants to say, and the rhetorical first place (Mayer & Trezek, 2019).
space is concerned with conveying this
content in a written form so that the writer Changing Landscape
can effectively communicate what they
mean. The challenge for all writers is to Based on the argument made above, it
rearticulate ideas that are realized intra- would be reasonable to anticipate a posi-
mentally in the content space in the tive shift in writing achievement as a result
language of everyday discourse (i.e., of the stronger foundation in oral language
face-to-face language) and commit these now possessed by most deaf students
ideas to the page to clearly reflect what is because of their enhanced access to
meant. Realizing this meaning in written audition via improved hearing technolo-
form requires that it be represented via the gies. These include cochlear implants for
language of the text, with oral language severe to profoundly deaf children, as well
competence being central to this process, as other technologies (e.g., the digitization
as it provides the foundation for morpho- and miniaturization of hearing aids, other
syntactic and semantic understandings forms of implantable devices such as
and the development of phonological bone-anchored hearing aids) that support
awareness and other code-related abilities children across the range of hearing loss
needed for making meaning in print from mild to profound.
(Mayer, 1999; see Dickinson et al., 2003, Early identification of hearing loss via
for a review). Singer and Bashir (2004) the widespread implementation of new-
have described this as the process of born hearing screening means that audio-
depending on intuitive language logical intervention (e.g., hearing aid

Winter.indb 627 25-04-2023 15:44:56

 628 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 167, No. 5, 2023

fitting, cochlear implantation) is typically of age cohorts ranging from 5–7 years to
accomplished in the first year of life. This 15–16 years. Finally, in a study of grade 10
early access has a significant impact on the students (N = 27), a mean standard score
development of spoken language, with of 125 (SD = 29) was reported for a subset
earlier access yielding better outcomes. of participants (n = 15) on a standardized
Ching (2015) reported that earlier age at assessment of writing, indicating that this
intervention is associated with better group of students performed better on the
outcomes at 5 years of age (i.e., within the measure of writing than on the one used to
average range), and that earlier activation assess reading comprehension (M = 99,
of the first cochlear implant and earlier SD =12; Spencer et al., 2004). In sum,
fitting of hearing aids are associated with findings from these studies indicate
higher language scores over time. For average to above-average achievement for
example, Ching found that 5-year lan- approximately 50% of participants.
guage scores were 1.4 standard deviations It is in examination of written language
higher for children who received a coch- samples from these studies that the
lear implant at 6 months than the scores of difference from outcomes reported histori-
those who received one at 24 months, and cally become most apparent. The writing
0.8 SD higher for children who received a does not exhibit the lexical, grammatical,
hearing aid at 3 months than the scores of and syntactical weaknesses of the writing
those who received one at 24 months (see reported in earlier studies, even when the
also Ching & Leigh, 2020). writing was assessed as being below grade
However, the extent to which improved level. For example, in response to a request
outcomes in language affect the literacy to write on the topic “Me and My
achievement of deaf students has not been Implant,” deaf children provided the
widely investigated, and as noted above, following writing samples, clearly illustrat-
there is a decided lack of research on ing improvements from the past (Mayer et
writing, given the well-documented al., 2016). These samples also make evident
history of poor outcomes in this area. For the use of inventive spelling, a feature not
example, in a review of literacy outcomes previously seen in the writing of deaf
for deaf students with cochlear implants children (see Mayer, 2010, for discussion):
(Mayer & Trezek, 2018), we found that only
three of the 21 identified studies included a My name is Harvey and when I went to the
measure of written expression in addition bach and my bdad hung me upsid bane and
to measures reported for reading, and I lost my in plandt so I did not hear. Of
none investigated writing performance anuker yare year when im go swiming I
alone. In one of these studies, Watson ware ear bags so I can hir in the pool. I have
(2002) reported that six of 10 elementary somme colus. I neely war them evry day
school participants evidenced an average (writing produced by a 9-year-old deaf
level of achievement based on grade-level student with cochlear implants, rated as
exemplars from the National Curriculum below-average achievement)
in England. In a second study of 9-to-16-
years-olds (N = 33), 44% of participants My cochlear implants give me a connection
were found to be writing at or above grade to the world and help me hear sounds,
level in the National Curriculum in voices, the world in general. They also give
England assessments of “key stage levels” me a conversation starter and give me more
(Mayer et al., 2016), these levels consisting people to make friends with. For example,

Winter.indb 628 25-04-2023 15:44:57

 Writing Achievement of Deaf Learners 629

there are lots of people who I wouldn’t have writing) of deaf learners conducted in a
a friendship with, if it wasn’t for my large school district in central Canada.
implants: one has a deaf brother, one is deaf Approval for the investigation was granted
and one has two deaf twin sisters. I by both university and school district
wouldn’t knew these people if it wasn’t for ethics committees. At the time of the
my implants. They do, occassionly, bring up study, the school district served approxi-
questions but I am more than happy to mately 1,000 deaf students enrolled in
answer them. (writing produced by a preschool through secondary school and
13-year-old deaf student with cochlear offered various levels of support based on
implants, rated as average achievement) the needs outlined in students’ Individual
Education Plans (IEPs). Educational
services from least to most intensive
The Present Investigation include itinerant support from a teacher of
As improved auditory access has allowed the deaf for students attending their local
deaf learners to develop the discourse-level schools and coenrollment programs at the
oral language to allow for more fluent text kindergarten level (i.e., a reverse integra-
generation as per the SVW and the dual tion model in which hearing students from
space model of the composing process, it general education attend classes with their
becomes important to build on the emerg- deaf peers), to intensive support programs
ing evidence base to demonstrate the extent (i.e., congregated, self-contained classes),
to which this is the case, and to identify and services for deaf students with addi-
how achievement levels in writing have tional disabilities.
been affected. Therefore, the specific focus The diversity of the general population
of the present research was to investigate within the school district, in which more
the written language outcomes of a cohort than 50% of students have a home lan-
of school-aged deaf students. Two research guage other than English, was also antici-
questions guided the investigation: pated in the potential participant pool.
According to information available from
1. How does the writing achievement of the district, more than 120 such home
school-aged deaf learners compare to languages are represented, with the five
age-based norms? most common being Arabic, Bengali,
2. How do demographic variables (i.e., Chinese, Tamil, and Urdu. For that reason,
gender, grade, additional disability, consent forms for the present investigation
home language, type of hearing loss, were translated into several languages and
personal amplification, Categories of available upon parental request.
Auditory Performance [CAP; Archbold In collaboration with the coordinator of
et al., 1995] index ratings) relate to the deaf and hard of hearing program in
outcomes? the school district, the first author facili-
tated initial study recruitment. In accord-
ance with ethics committee guidelines,
Method teachers of the deaf serving students in
Setting and Recruitment grades 4–12 were considered potential
research participants (N = 17) and were
Data for the current study were collected recruited during a regularly scheduled
as part of a larger investigation of the staff meeting. Teacher participants were
literacy achievement (i.e., reading and then responsible for

Winter.indb 629 25-04-2023 15:44:57

 630 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 167, No. 5, 2023

1. distributing information and consent sample (17 years, 11 months). Therefore,

forms to students on their caseload who results of the study represent the remain-
met inclusion criteria for the study (i.e., ing 64 participants (59% female, n = 38).
students with a documented hearing Due to the age limit of the normative
loss enrolled in grade 4 or higher) sample, fewer participants represented the
2. completing a written questionnaire to grades 10–12 band (n = 11, 17%) than the
report demographic information (e.g., bands comprising grades 4–6 (n = 27, 42%)
gender, grade, additional disabilities, and 7–9 (n = 26, 41%). Information drawn
home language, type of hearing loss, from the demographic questionnaire
use of personal amplification) for indicated that 19% of participants (n = 12)
students with parental permission to had an additional documented disability
participate (e.g., learning disability, attention deficit
3. providing CAP index ratings hyperactivity disorder) and 44% (n = 28) a
4. facilitating assessment session home language other than English. Among
scheduling the 64 participants, large majorities had
bilateral hearing losses (n = 56, 88%) and
Providing CAP index ratings involved used personal amplification devices (n =
reviewing brief written descriptions 57, 89%). The remaining seven participants
corresponding to a 0–9 rating scale and (11%) did not consistently use personal
selecting the one that best matched the amplification at school, although it is
individual’s auditory perception without worth noting that most of these partici-
the use of speechreading. For example, a pants (n = 5) were those with a unilateral
rating of 0 indicates no awareness of hearing loss.
environmental sounds or voice, a rating of All study participants received relatively
5 suggests the ability to understand a strong auditory perception ratings on the
common phrase (e.g., push the car), and a CAP index (i.e., 5–9) and used spoken
rating of 9 denotes the ability to use the English as a primary mode of communica-
telephone with an unknown speaker in an tion. Because there were no participants
unpredictable context. with a CAP score of 7, two groups were
created to represent those with lower (i.e.,
Participants 5 or 6, n = 16, 25%) versus higher (i.e., 8 or
9, n = 41, 64%) ratings. CAP ratings were
Parental consent was obtained for 74 missing for seven (11%) participants. See
students, and completed consent forms Table 1 for a summary of demographic
were shared with the first author, who characteristics of the study participants.
organized participants into groups for data
collection based on the geographic loca- Measures
tions of the schools the students attended.
Of the 74 participants, four were unable to Subtests from both the Woodcock-Johnson
compose the minimum number of words III Diagnostic Reading Battery (WJ
(i.e., > 40) required for scoring of the story III–DRB; Woodcock et al., 2004) and the
elicited by the writing measure used in the TOWL-4 were administered to study
present study, the Test of Written Lan- participants as part of the larger investiga-
guage–Fourth Edition (TOWL-4, Ham- tion of literacy achievement, with results
mill & Larsen, 2009), and six were older obtained on the Basic Reading and Read-
than the upper age limit of the normative ing Comprehension clusters of the WJ

Winter.indb 630 25-04-2023 15:44:57

 Writing Achievement of Deaf Learners 631

Table 1. Demographic Variables of the Study Participants Spontaneous Writing (SW) composite
(N = 64)
were administered to participants.
Variable n % Scores on the two subtests of the SW
Gender composite, Contextual Conventions (CC)
Male 26 40.6
Female 38 59.4
and Story Composition (SC), are derived
Grade band
from an elicited story. The examiner
4–6 27 42.2 begins this portion of the TOWL-4
7–9 26 40.6 assessment by reading a sample story
10–12 11 17.2 aloud and highlighting various aspects of
Additional disability the composition (e.g., title, story structure,
Yes 12 18.8
No 52 81.3
action, characters’ names, emotions).
Home language
Following the reading, subjects are pro-
English 36 56.3 vided with a picture prompt and directed
Not English 28 43.8 to spend 5 minutes planning their story
Type of hearing loss and 15 minutes writing it.
Unilateral 8 12.5 The picture card for Form A reflects a
Bilateral 56 87.5
situation in which a student driver is
Personal amplification
None 7 10.9
involved in car accident that results in
CI (unilateral or bilateral) 12 18.8 hitting a fire hydrant, presumably caused
HA only HA 40 62.5 by trying to avoid hitting a dog that was
BAHA 5 7.8 off its leash. Pictured are five individuals
gathered on the sidewalk near the scene
CAP rating
5 6 9.4
of the accident, including a student driver,
6 10 15.6 the dog owner, a driver education instruc-
7 --- --- tor, a police officer, and the dog. A car
8 14 21.9
9 27 42.2
with a “student driver” label on the front
Missing data 7 10.9 passenger door is shown hitting a fire
Notes. CI = cochlear implant. HA = hearing aid. BAHA = hydrant, which caused water to stream
bone-anchored hearing aid. CAP = Categories of from the top of the hydrant. The picture
Auditory Performance index. also shows the fender and grille of the car
being dented on impact, and the hood of
the car sustaining significant damage.
III–DRB previously reported (Mayer et al., The student driver is gesturing toward the
2021). The TOWL-4 is a standardized dog while conversing with its owner, who
measure designed for students in grade 4 has a leash in his hand. The driver educa-
and higher. It contains seven subtests that tion instructor is holding a driver educa-
measure a range of writing-related abilities tion manual and pointing at the dog,
including vocabulary, spelling, punctua- while the police officer observes the
tion, sentence combining, and story discussion and takes notes using a pen
composition. Results from the individual and clipboard.
subtests can then be combined to form The average coefficient alpha for sub-
three composites, Contrived Writing, jects ages 9–17 years across the two forms
Spontaneous Writing, and Overall Writ- of the assessment (Forms A and B) is
ing. Given the specific focus on literacy reported as .80 for the CC subtest, .74 for
outcomes in the present investigation, the SC subtest, and .84 for the SW com-
only the subtests included in the posite (Hammill & Larsen, 2009). A review

Winter.indb 631 25-04-2023 15:44:57

 632 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 167, No. 5, 2023

of the TOWL-4 revealed that this assess- questionnaire, and CAP index ratings.
ment has “appropriate and adequate Participant assent was secured prior to test
psychometric properties” (McCrimmon & administration, with data collectors
Climie, 2011, p. 595), although a lack of reading the form to participants upon
availability of Canadian norms was noted. request. Participant codes were created at
the time of testing based on the data
Procedure collectors’ initials and number and order
of students assessed (e.g., AA-1, AA-2,
Four individuals were identified in collab- AA-3, etc.).
oration with the coordinator of the deaf Data collection for this first cohort of
and hard of hearing program in the school students began in March and continued
district to serve as data collectors. These through June of the 2018–2019 academic
individuals were certified teachers of the year. During test administration sessions,
deaf, each with more than 25 years’ the WJ III–DRB was administered first,
experience working in school settings. followed by Form A of the TOWL-4. In
Prior to beginning data collection, we most instances, all study measures were
offered a 1-day data collector training. administered in one session lasting
Because all four individuals had prior approximately 90 minutes, although two
experience administering standardized sessions were required for some partici-
assessments to deaf learners, the primary pants due to time and/or scheduling
goal of the training was to review the constraints. At the end of the session,
specific administration and scoring students were given a $5 gift card as a
procedures of the assessments used in the token of appreciation for their participa-
investigation and to familiarize the data tion. Regular group communication
collectors with the digital recording between us and the data collectors was
equipment (e.g., iPad Touch, USB storage established and maintained throughout
device). A PowerPoint presentation was the 4-month data collection period. The
developed for the training, and accompa- data collectors also attended a follow-up
nying note-taking handouts were shared. meeting with us approximately 6 weeks
Time was also allocated to establish data after the initial training to discuss progress
collector and teacher participant pairings with data collection and experiences with
based on the projected number of partici- test administration.
pants and geographic locations of schools.
A written guide for the test administration TOWL-4 Scoring
sessions, which included directions for
using the digital recording equipment, a Criteria outlined in the TOWL-4 scoring
list of materials, and assessment proce- form are used to evaluate the elicited story.
dures, was distributed to the data collec- While scoring of the 21 items in the CC
tors following the training. subtest is relatively straightforward (e.g.,
To facilitate data collection, the data number of sentences beginning with a
collectors contacted the teacher partici- capital letter, number of nonduplicated
pants to schedule test administration misspelled words), several of the 11
sessions for students with parental consent elements that make up the SC subtest (e.g.,
to participate in the study. On the day of characterizing the quality of the vocabu-
testing, the data collectors received a copy lary used as “sparse, immature”; “servicea-
of the consent form, completed ble, adequate, competent”; or “rich,

Winter.indb 632 25-04-2023 15:44:57

 Writing Achievement of Deaf Learners 633

mature, figurative”) are more challenging Analysis

to assess. Scoring guidelines also require
that stories be evaluated according to adult Using age-based norms, we converted
rather than age or grade standards. For participants’ raw scores to subtest-scaled
these reasons, we (rather than the data scores and a composite index for analysis.
collectors) scored the TOWL-4 to ensure In instances in which participants’ com-
consistent application of the rubric. posite index converted to >158 (n = 3), a
As indicated in the TOWL-4 examin- value of 159 was used. Descriptive statis-
er’s manual, individuals preparing to tics were computed to facilitate compari-
score the SW composite must assess 10 sons with existing norms and scores on the
sample stories and obtain the same subtests, and composite were compared
ratings as those in the scoring keys. To across groups formed by demographic
prepare to evaluate stories, we individu- variables. Specifically, analyses of variance
ally scored the samples, compared were conducted, with post hoc multiple
ratings, and discussed and resolved any comparison procedures for independent
differences between our scores and those variables with three groups (i.e., Fisher’s
included in the scoring keys. Engaging in LSD tests) or four or more groups (i.e.,
this process created a shared understand- Tukey’s HSD tests).
ing of the items in the evaluation rubric
and helped us calibrate scoring Results
procedures.
A collaborative process was then used to To address the first research question, the
evaluate participants’ stories. As each story mean standard scores of the TOWL-4 were
was read aloud, the first author marked examined. The following classifications are
examples of important scoring features used to interpret subtest-scaled scores and
(e.g., use of punctuation, misspelled words, the composite index on the TOWL-4:
introductory phrases and clauses) in the
written story, while the second author 1. very superior: scaled score = 17–20,
noted examples in the appropriate catego- composite index >130
ries of the TOWL-4 score form. This 2. superior: scaled score = 15–16, compos-
process allowed scoring metrics to be ite index = 121–130
documented in multiple ways and helped 3. above average: scaled score = 13–14,
determine final ratings for each item in the composite index = 111–120
scoring rubric. Any differences of opinion 4. average: scaled score = 8–12, composite
regarding ratings were discussed until index = 90–110
consensus was reached. All stories were 5. below average: scaled score = 6–7,
scored over a 3-day period in groups composite index = 80–89
organized by data collector and the 6. poor: scaled score = 4–5, composite
participant codes, as previously described. index = 70–79
Because the data collectors administered very poor: scaled score = 1–3, composite
assessments to participants on the basis of index <70
schools’ geographic locations rather than
grade bands, using this method of scoring According to these classifications, the
also allowed the stories to be more easily mean scaled score for the CC subtest
evaluated according to adult rather than (M = 11.70, SD = 3.59, range 2–20) fell in
grade standards. the average range, while the scaled score of

Winter.indb 633 25-04-2023 15:44:57

 634 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 167, No. 5, 2023

Table 2. TOWL-4 Standard Scores of Study Participants (N = 64)

Subtest/ M SD Range Percentage of participants by standard score classification
composite (subtest-scaled scores, composite index)
Very poor Poor Below Average Above Superior Very superior
1–3 4–5 average 8–12 average 15–16 17–20
6–7 13–14
CC 11.70 3.59 2–20 3.2 1.6 6.3 50.0 17.2 12.5 9.5
SC 12.58 5.11 3–20 3.1 14.1 4.7 18.8 17.2 15.6 26.6
Very poor Poor Below Average Above Superior Very superior
<70 average average >130
70–79 80–89 90–110 111–120 121–130
SW 116.94 25.99 58–159 3.2 7.9 4.7 23.6 7.9 17.2 36.1
Notes. TOWL-4 = Test of Written Language–Fourth Edition. CC = Contextual Conventions subtest. SC = Story
Composition subtest. SW = Spontaneous Writing composite.

the SC subtest (M = 12.58, SD = 5.11, range For the SC subtest, no statistically

3–20) and SW composite index (M = significant differences were noted based on
116.94, SD = 25.99, range 58–159) were in gender (F = 1.57, p = .215) or home lan-
the above-average range. In fact, a rela- guage (F = .031, p = .585). However,
tively high percentage of scores were differences were detected for type of
classified as average or higher (above hearing loss (F = 5.40, p = .023), personal
average, superior, very superior) for the CC amplification (F = 3.04, p = .036), grade
(89.2%) and SC (78.2%) subtests as well as (F = 3.16, p = .050), additional disability
the SW (84.8%) composite index. See Table (F = 10.38, p = .002), and CAP rating
2 for a summary of the study participants’ (F = 12.03, p = .000). Specifically, scores for
standard scores on the TOWL-4. participants who had unilateral hearing
Data to address the second research loss, did not have additional disabilities,
question are summarized in Table 3. For had higher CAP ratings (i.e., 8 and 9), and
the CC subtest of the TOWL-4, there was were enrolled in grades 10–12 (as com-
no statistically significant difference in pared to grades 4–6) were higher, at the
mean standard scores based on personal level of statistical significance. In addition,
amplification (F = 1.41, p = .250), home despite a statistically significant omnibus F
language (F = .14, p = .713), or CAP rating test for personal amplification, results of
(F = 2.31, p = .134). However, statistically post hoc Tukey tests failed to detect mean
significant differences were noted for differences among the subgroups’ scores.
gender (F = 6.00, p = .017), type of hearing Results of the SW composite index
loss (F = 4.38, p = .041), grade (F = 5.22, indicated no statistically significant
p = .008), and additional disability differences in mean scores based on gender
(F = 13.31, p = .001). Specifically, mean (F = 3.42, p = .069), personal amplification
scores for females, participants with (F = 2.67, p = .056), or home language
unilateral hearing loss, participants (F = .034, p = .854). However, differences
without additional disabilities, and were noted for type of hearing loss
participants enrolled in grades 7–9 and (F = 6.53, p = .013), grade (F = 4.82,
10–12 (as compared to grades 4–6) were p = .011), additional disability (F = 14.47,
higher, at the level of statistical p = .000), and CAP rating (F = 9.016,
significance. p = .004). Specifically, scores for

Winter.indb 634 25-04-2023 15:44:57

 Writing Achievement of Deaf Learners 635

Table 3. TOWL-4 Scores of Study Participants by Demographic Variable (N = 64)

Contextual Story Composition Spontaneous Writing

Conventions subtest subtest composite
n M SD M SD M SD
Gender
Male 26 10.42 3.41 11.62 5.62 109.81 28.37
Female 38 12.58 3.49 13.24 4.69 121.82 23.37
Type of hearing loss
Unilateral 8 14.13 2.10 16.38 4.17 138.00 20.49
Bilateral 56 11.36 3.64 12.04 5.03 113.93 25.43
Personal amplification
None 7 13.71 2.29 17.43 3.46 139.86 16.88
CI (unilateral or bilateral) 12 12.58 4.38 12.33 4.08 119.00 24.55
HA only 40 11.08 3.59 11.60 5.35 111.63 26.80
BAHA 5 11.80 1.92 14.20 3.70 122.40 17.36
CAP rating
5–6 16 10.56 3.92 9.13 4.70 101.88 24.36
8–9 41 12.22 3.61 14.10 4.43 123.66 24.71
Missing data 7 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Grade band
4–6 27 10.15 3.52 10.85 5.21 106.30 26.24
7–9 26 12.58 3.58 13.42 4.60 122.27 23.14
10–12 11 13.45 2.30 14.82 5.06 130.45 23.72
Additional disability
Yes 12 8.58 1.24 8.58 3.15 93.58 11.68
No 52 12.42 3.58 13.50 5.05 122.33 25.44

Home language
English 36 11.56 3.69 12.89 4.73 117.47 25.33
Not English 28 11.89 3.52 12.18 5.62 116.25 27.27

Notes. TOWL-4 = Test of Written Language–Fourth Edition. CI = cochlear implant. HA = hearing aid. BAHA = bone-
anchored hearing aid. CAP = Categories of Auditory Performance index.

participants who had unilateral hearing hearing technologies. To explore the

loss, did not have additional disabilities, hypothesis that these changes are effecting
had higher CAP ratings (i.e., 8 and 9), and a positive shift in outcomes, this investiga-
were enrolled in grades 7–9 and 10–12 (as tion was motivated by two research
compared to grades 4–6) were higher, at a questions, one focused on comparing the
statistically significant level. writing achievement of school-aged deaf
learners to age-based norms on a stand-
Discussion ardized measure and the second on
examining demographic variables affect-
A key motivation for the present study was ing outcomes.
to add to the relatively thin evidence base With respect to the first research
on the writing achievement of deaf stu- question, the results undoubtedly indi-
dents in the current environment of cated performance that was significantly
increasingly extensive implementation of better than that reported in research that
early intervention and early access to predates the era of earlier identification

Winter.indb 635 25-04-2023 15:44:57

 636 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 167, No. 5, 2023

and intervention with improved hearing with a SW standard score classification of

technologies. Among the 64 students in very superior (composite index = 146); this
the present study, scores of average or was a female student enrolled in grade 9
higher (above average, superior, very (age 14.8 years) with a CAP rating of 9 (CC
superior) were obtained by 89% on the CC scaled score = 17, very superior; SC scaled
subtest, 78% on the SC subtest, and 85% on score = 16, superior). However, there were
the SW composite index. These results some instances in which students per-
indicate that the clear majority of partici- formed slightly better on the SC subtest
pants were performing at an age-appropri- than on the CC subtest, as was the case of
ate level or better, and thus at a level the participant with a SW standard score
commensurate with that attained by their classification of average (composite index =
hearing-age peers. These findings represent 109); this participant was a female student
a striking improvement in achievement for enrolled in grade 7 with a CAP rating of 8
this population of students. (CC scaled score = 9, average; SC scaled
While these scores clearly demonstrate score 13, above average).
improved achievement, it is an examina- What is most apparent from a review of
tion of the written language samples that the texts of the students in the average
provides the most compelling evidence of range and above, who constitute the vast
this positive shift. The three elicited story majority of study participants, is that the
samples included in Table 4 represent writing is indistinguishable from that of
writing that had been rated poor (70–90), hearing students relative to the examples
average (90–110), and very superior (>130) provided in the TOWL-4 examiner’s
based on the SW composite index of the manual. For instance, even though the
TOWL-4. For purposes of comparison, the elicited story classified as poor contains
participants who composed these samples numerous spelling errors (e.g., exploxe for
were selected on the basis of similarities explode), imprecise vocabulary (e.g.,
across demographic variables including firethingy for fire hydrant), and immature
grade level (i.e., intermediate), type of sentence construction (e.g., six of nine
hearing loss (i.e., bilateral), and type of sentences begin with and), it does not
personal amplification device (i.e., two evidence the idiosyncratic and disfluent
hearing aids). Coincidentally, these writing that was the hallmark of the
participants also had higher CAP ratings writing of deaf students reported in earlier
(i.e., 8 or 9) and home languages other investigations.
than English. While the improvements in written
In terms of the specific results for each language performance are evident from a
of these three students, the participant review of the elicited stories, given the
representing a SW standard score classi- historical literacy challenges experienced
fied as poor (composite index = 77) was a by deaf learners, the relatively high per-
male student enrolled in grade 8 (age 13.6 centage of participants with scores of
years) who had a CAP rating of 8. As was average or higher was somewhat surpris-
the case with most participants, this ing. In fact, we found that higher mean
student performed slightly better on the standard scores were obtained on the
CC subtest (scaled score = 8, average) than TOWL-4 than those on the Basic Reading
on the SC subtest (scaled score = 4, poor). (M = 94.41) and Reading Comprehension
This pattern of performance was also (M = 86.07) clusters of the WJ III–DRB,
reflected in the results for the participant which were also administered to study

Winter.indb 636 25-04-2023 15:44:57

 Writing Achievement of Deaf Learners 637

Table 4. TOWL-4 Elicited Story Samples Representing Poor, Average, and Very Superior Performance (n = 3)

Demographic characteristics TOWL-4 TOWL-4 elicited story (Form A)

standard
scores
Gender Age Grade CAP CC SC SW
(years)
M 13.6 8 8 8 4 77 So the day was going with a student driver and driving his car
around the neighborhood with a driver Ed. As the day was going
on he lost his crotted and crashed into a firethingy. And the
water thing exploxe out the fire thingy. And the dog owner was
walking on his neighborhood. And saw the crash so he called
911. And walk up to the crash. Then the cop came at the crash.
And took some notes. And that what happened.
F 12.5 7 8 9 13 109 One sunny afternoon, Mike is going to get his driver’s tested. In
oreder to do that he needs to get an driver ed. So he storted
driving smoothly. Then, the road got bumy even more and he
could not control it, he tried in various differt ways. Nothing
worked. The Dog was walking downthe street. Mike crashed and
nearly hit the dog. The dog moved to the side quickly. The dog
got saved. Mike crashed towards a poll. Then, the water splashed
every where. One of the houses got all wet. The owner came out
and got mad and dial the number 911. The police man came and
charged Mike and Mike can never get his driver licence again.
The End
F 14.8 9 9 17 16 146 The Crazy Disaster
John was a drivers ED student wanting to get his license. His first
test drive was in 5 minutes, and he was nervous but excited at
the same time. He met his instructor, Mr. S, and started his test
drive. Everything was going smoothly and normal. John was
doing very well, and he was almost done his test drive.
Out of Nowhere, a dog jumped onto the street infront of John’s
test car. Out of panic, John swerved away and hit a fire hydrant.
The fire hydrant started gushing out tons of water, and John
couldn’t believe what just happened. Ms. S was angry and
worried at the same time. John and Ms. S got out of the car and
don’t know what to do.
Out of anger, John starts yelling at the dog. Ms. S finally
decides to call 911 for help. When the officer arrived, John told
her the whole story. The dog was just sitting there. They had
realized that the dog didn’t have an owner, so they checked the
dog’s collar. There was a phone number, so they called it, and it
turns out that a man had lost his dog. When The owner came,
John started yelling at him. After lots of yelling, the dog owner
offered to pay for the cost of the car and any other
complications.
John calmed down and apologized to Ms. S for everything
that had happened. The police officer called someone to fix the
dire Hydrant, and the expenses of the car were paid off.
Everything was all resolved, but John still hadnt got his license.

Notes. TOWL-4 = Test of Written Language–Fourth Edition. CAP = Categories of Auditory Performance index.
CC = Contextual Conventions scaled score. SC = Story Composition scaled score. SW = Spontaneous Writing
composite.

Winter.indb 637 25-04-2023 15:44:57

 638 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 167, No. 5, 2023

participants (Mayer et al., 2021). However, significance, as students’ writing tends to

these findings are consistent with those improve and become increasingly sophisti-
reported by Spencer et al. (2004) in their cated as the result of direct instruction and
investigation of reading and writing corrective feedback, opportunities for
among cochlear implant users. It could be practice, and exposure to various genres of
speculated that these results can be writing, all of which are associated with
attributed to a lack of Canadian norms for grade level progression.
the TOWL-4 or to an artifact of the In considering the impact of the CAP
writing assessment itself. rating on performance, a connection needs
In addressing the focus of the second to be made between this score and oral
research question, the impact of demo- language proficiency. To review, the CAP
graphic variables on performance, the measures auditory perception without the
findings indicate that hearing loss, grade, use of speechreading in increasingly
CAP rating, and presence of an additional challenging listening situations (e.g., the
disability were variables of significance. highest rating requires understanding a
The finding that hearing loss had an telephone conversation). In this way, the
impact on performance is accounted for by CAP score provides indications of lan-
the difference between students with guage comprehension across a range of
unilateral and bilateral hearing losses. The listening environments, and, as such, can
students with unilateral losses achieved reasonably be construed as a proxy for oral
higher scores in all areas, which is not language. Given this, the finding that
surprising given that language develop- students with a higher CAP rating evi-
ment for such students is less affected. denced better written language scores is in
While these children may also face chal- line with the argument that oral language
lenges (Nassrallah et al., 2020), they do not proficiency is a critical foundation for
encounter the same barriers to language developing as a writer.
access that confront deaf children with It is also worth noting the demographic
bilateral and more profound hearing variables that did not appear to affect
losses. performance on the TOWL-4. As previ-
As has been consistently reported in the ously indicated, even though differences
literature on both hearing and deaf were detected in relation to personal
populations, the presence of an additional amplification on the SC subtest, results of
disability tends to have a negative impact post hoc tests failed to detect mean
on student performance (e.g., Cupples differences among the subgroups’ scores.
et al., 2013, 2018; Nelson & Bruce, 2019; One could infer from this finding that
Nikolopoulos et al., 2008). The effect for irrespective of type, the personal amplifi-
grade (i.e., students in higher grades cation devices used by participants were
evidenced better scores) needs to be providing them with the necessary audi-
interpreted in light of the scoring proce- tory access for developing the oral lan-
dures outlined in the TOWL-4, in which it guage abilities required to make the
is noted that “the Story Composition relationship between oral and written
subtest should be scored according to adult language.
standards for composition rather than age An interesting finding was that the
or grade standards” (Hammill & Larsen, variable of home language did not have an
2009, p. 44). On this basis, it is not surpris- impact on writing achievement on the
ing that grade was a variable of TOWL-4. Among the 64 participants, 44%

Winter.indb 638 25-04-2023 15:44:57

 Writing Achievement of Deaf Learners 639

(n = 28) had a home language other than structural equation modeling) that allow
English, with 18 different languages and a for investigating the extent to which oral
variety of writing systems (e.g., alphabetic, language proficiency affects the writing
abjad, abugida or alphasyllabary, logo- achievement of deaf students. Addressing
graphic) represented. This finding suggests this issue in future investigations is
that exposure to a language other than particularly essential in a context in which
English in the home was not a barrier to most deaf children are showing signifi-
developing written language composition cantly improved oral-language
skills in English for this subgroup of performance.
participants, as long as they also evidenced Given the findings of the present study,
competence in oral language in English. future investigations would be enhanced
by including a more robust measure of oral
Implications language (e.g., the Test of Language
Development; Newcomer & Hammill,
Despite the importance of the issue, there 2019) to explore the relations between oral
is a relative paucity of research to reflect and written language and by comparing
the literacy achievement that is possible in outcomes for writing to those obtained for
the current context of deaf education reading. Data from our broader investiga-
(Mayer et al., 2021). Although the available tion of literacy could be used to investigate
research on both reading and writing is this phenomenon to some degree, as
limited, there are far fewer investigations specific subtests from the WJ III–DRB that
of writing than of reading (Mayer & address oral language abilities (i.e., Oral
Trezek, 2018; Williams & Mayer, 2015). It Vocabulary, Oral Comprehension) and
seems obvious (and long past due) that other components of reading (e.g., phono-
researchers should pay more attention to logical awareness, phonics knowledge)
literacy in general, and writing in particu- were also administered to study
lar. A suggestion, especially in a field as participants.
small as deaf education, would be to
encourage literacy researchers to include Limitations of the Study
assessments of writing along with those of
reading in their study designs in order to While the number of participants in the
increase the breadth and robustness of present study exceeded those in recent
literacy investigations, and thus broaden investigations of writing (e.g., Mayer et al.,
the evidence base. Such an approach would 2016; Spencer et al., 2004; Watson, 2002)
also align with a bidirectional model of and offered sufficient statistical power to
reading and writing development (Graham detect meaningful differences, increasing
et al., 2018), as the data collected in one the sample size in future studies would
domain would inform the other, providing provide additional support for the
a fuller picture of written language obtained results. However, it should be
achievement as a result. noted that data collection for a second
On the basis of the nascent findings cohort of students was planned for spring
that point to the importance of an oral 2020 but had to be canceled due to school
language foundation for the development closures resulting from the COVID-19
of age-appropriate writing (i.e., the global pandemic. Data collection is
applicability of the SVW), researchers also planned to resume once it is feasible and
should consider study designs (e.g., can be safely conducted.

Winter.indb 639 25-04-2023 15:44:57

 640 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 167, No. 5, 2023

Even though communication modal- vital that this research inform the field of
ity was not a component of the inclusion deaf education with respect to future
criteria, all 64 study participants used directions in research, policy, and practice.
spoken English as their primary mode of To date, the available evidence indicates
communication; therefore, the findings that the only group of deaf students
of the present study cannot be general- achieving at or close to age-appropriate
ized to deaf students who use signed levels in writing is the cohort that has
language. Conducting studies to explore benefited from early intervention with
the writing achievement of signing deaf hearing technologies that enable enhanced
students, particularly those who use early access to spoken language. As we
American Sign Language (ASL), would have argued in the present article, this
add to the evidence base. Specifically, access affords the opportunity to develop
data from these studies would allow the discourse-level oral language needed
researchers to examine the performance for text generation and more fluent idea-
across a broader range of deaf learners tion, making it possible for deaf writers to
in relation to the normative sample, engage more successfully in the act of
given that investigations using standard- composing.
ized assessments of literacy, particularly In a climate in which meaningful
in environments where ASL is the access to spoken language is now possible
language of instruction, remain rela- for so many, and in which there is no
tively rare (see Mayer & Trezek, 2020, for evidence that any writing intervention or
discussion). approach, however well designed, has
The present study’s use of a standard- been as successful in achieving age-ap-
ized measure of writing, the TOWL-4, can propriate outcomes (e.g., Scott & Hoff-
be considered a relative strength of the meister, 2018; Wolbers et al., 2015; see
study design. However, the fact that fidelity Mayer & Trezek, 2019; Strassman &
of test administration and interrater Schirmer, 2012, for discussions), it is
reliability was not monitored could be imperative that studies be designed that
considered a limitation of the study. This take stock of outcomes that reflect the
limitation is mitigated to some degree by present reality. In this way, research can
the fact that the data collectors had serve not only to provide a more accurate
extensive experience administering account of the current achievement levels
standardized assessments to deaf learners of deaf writers, but also test the proposi-
and that we employed a collaborative and tion that language has a critical impact on
systematic approach to scoring the elicited performance. These understandings are
stories. This limitation could be addressed vital to moving the field in directions in
in future studies by digitally recording test which writing research can inform
administration and assessing the interrater practice that optimizes outcomes for all
reliability of a percentage of writing deaf students.
samples.
Authors’ Notes
Conclusion This research was supported by Grant 435-2018-
Although the evidence base signaling a 1498 from the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada and a Fulbright
positive change in writing achievement for Scholar award from Fulbright Canada. We have no
deaf students remains relatively scant, it is conflicts of interest to disclose.

Winter.indb 640 25-04-2023 15:44:57

 Writing Achievement of Deaf Learners 641

Correspondence concerning this article should children with congenital hearing loss. Hearing
be addressed to Connie Mayer, Faculty of Education, Balance and Communication, 18(4), 215–224.
York University, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada. https://doi.org/10.1080/21695717.2020.1846923
Email: cmayer@edu.yorku.ca Conte, L. P., Rainpelli, L. P., & Volterra, V. (1996).
Deaf children and the construction of written
texts. In C. Pontecorvo & L. Orsolini (Eds.), Chil-
References dren’s early text construction (pp. 303–319).
Erlbaum.
Albertini, J. A., Heath-Lang, B., & Harris, D. P.
Cooper, R. (1967). The ability of deaf and hearing
(1994). Voice as message and medium: The views
children to apply morphological rules. Journal of
of deaf college students. In K. Yancy (Ed.), Voices
Speech and Hearing, 10(1), 77–86. https://doi.
on voice: Perspectives, definitions, inquiry (pp.
org/10.1044/jshr.1001.77
172–190). National Council of Teachers of
Cupples, L., Ching, T. Y. C., Crowe, K., Day, J., &
English.
Seeto, M. (2013). Predictors of early reading skill
Allen, T. (1986). Patterns of academic achievement
in 5-year-old children with hearing loss who use
among hearing impaired students: 1974 and
spoken language. Reading Research Quarterly,
1983. In A. Schildroth & M. Karchmer (Eds.),
49(1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.60
Deaf children in America (pp. 161–206). College
Cupples, L., Ching, T. Y. C., Leigh, G., Martin, L.,
Hill Press.
Gunnourie, M., Button, L., et al. (2018).
Antia, S. D., Lederberg, A. R., Easterbrooks, S.,
Language development in deaf or hard-of-
Schick, B., Branum-Martin, L., Connor, C. M., &
hearing children with additional disabilities:
Webb, M. (2020). Language and reading progress
Type matters! Journal of Intellectual Disability
of young deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Jour-
Research, 62(6), 532–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/
nal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 25(3),
jir.12493
334–350. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enz050
Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., Anastasopoulos, L.,
Archbold, S. (2015). Being a deaf student: Changes
Peisner-Feinberg, E., & Poe, M. D. (2003). The
in characteristics and needs. In H. Knoors & M.
comprehensive language approach to early liter-
Marschark (Eds.), Educating deaf learners: Creat-
acy: The interrelationships among vocabulary,
ing a global evidence base (pp. 23–46). Oxford
phonological sensitivity, and print knowledge
University Press.
among preschool-aged children. Journal of Edu-
Archbold, S., Lutman, M. E., & Marshall, D. H.
cational Psychology, 95(3), 465–481. https://doi.
(1995). Categories of auditory performance.
org/10.1037/0022–0663.95.3.465
Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology,
Graham, S., Liu, X., Bartlett, B., Ng, C., Harris, K. R.,
166(Suppl.), 312–314.
Aitken, A., et al. (2018). Reading for writing:
Arfe, B., & Boscolo, P. (2006). Causal coherence in
A meta-analysis of the impact of reading
deaf and hearing students’ written narra-
interventions on writing. Review of Educational
tives. Discourse Processes, 42(3), 271–300.
Research, 88(2), 243–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/
doi:10.1207/s15326950dp4203_2
0034654317746927
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychol-
Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (2009). Test of Writ-
ogy of written composition. Erlbaum.
ten Language–Fourth Edition. PRO-ED.
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott. S. P.,
Heider, F., & Heider, G. (1941). Comparison of sen-
Graham, S., & Richards, T. (2002). Writing and
tence structure of deaf and hearing children. Psy-
reading: Connections between language by hand
chological Monographs, 52(1), 42–103. https://doi.
and language by eye. Journal of Learning Disabili-
org/10.1037/h0093463
ties, 35(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acqui-
002221940203500104
sition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children
Ching, T. (2015). Is early intervention effective in
in first and second grade. Journal of Educational
improving spoken language outcomes in children
Psychology 78(4), 243–255. https://doi.
with congenital hearing loss? American Journal of
org/10.1037/0022-0663.78.4.243
Audiology, 24(3), 345–348. https://doi.
Kelly, L. P. (1988). Relative automaticity without
org/10.1044/2015_AJA-15-0007
mastery: The grammatical decision making of deaf
Ching, T., & Leigh, G. (2020). Considering the
students. Written Communication, 11(5), 325–351.
impact of universal newborn hearing screening
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088388005003004
and early intervention on language outcomes on

Winter.indb 641 25-04-2023 15:44:57

 642 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 167, No. 5, 2023

Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C., Sidler, J. F., Mayer, C., Trezek, B. J., & Hancock, G. H. (2021).
Greulich, L., & Wagner, R. K. (2011). Componen- Reading achievement of deaf students: Challeng-
tial skills of beginning writing: An exploratory ing the fourth grade ceiling. Journal of Deaf Stud-
study. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(5), ies and Deaf Education, 26(3), 427–437. https://
517–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enab013
lindif.2011.06.004 Mayer, C., Watson, L., Archbold, S., Ng, Z. Y., &
Kretschmer, R. R., & Kretschmer, L. (1978). Lan- Mulla, I. (2016). Reading and writing skills of
guage development and intervention with the deaf pupils with cochlear implants. Deafness and
hearing impaired. Topics in Language Disorders, Education International, 18(2), 1–16. https://doi.
9, 17–32. org/10.1080/14643154.2016.1155346
Marschark, M., Lang, H., & Albertini, J. (2002). Edu- McCrimmon, A. W., & Climie, E. A. (2011). Test
cating deaf students: From research to practice. review. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
Oxford University Press. 29(6), 592–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Marschark, M., Mouradian, V., & Halas, M. (1994). 0734282911406646
Discourse rules in the language production of McCutchen, D. (2006). Cognitive factors in the
deaf and hearing children. Journal of Experimen- development of children’s writing. In C. MacAr-
tal Child Psychology 57(1), 89–107. https://doi. thur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook
org/10.1006/jecp.1994.1005 of writing research (pp. 115–130). Guilford Press.
Marschark, M., Rhoten, C., & Fabich, M. (2007). Moores, D. (2001). Educating the deaf: Psychology,
Effects of cochlear implants on reading and aca- principles, and practices (5th ed.). Houghton
demic achievement. Journal of Deaf Studies and Mifflin.
Deaf Education, 12(3), 269–282. https://doi. Musselman, C., & Szanto, C. (1998). The written
org/10.1093/deafed/enm013 language of deaf adolescents: Patterns of perfor-
Mayer, C. (1999). Shaping at the point of utterance: mance. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Educa-
An investigation of the composing processes of tion, 3(3), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1093/
the deaf student writer. Journal of Deaf Studies oxfordjournals.deafed.a014354
and Deaf Education, 4(1), 37–49. https://doi. Myklebust, H. (1964). The psychology of deafness:
org/10.1093/deafed/4.1.37 Sensory deprivation, learning, and adjust-
Mayer, C. (2007). What really matters in the early ment (Vol. 2). Grune & Stratton.
literacy development of deaf children. Journal of Nassrallah, F., Fitzpatrick, E. M., Whittingham, J.,
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(4), 411–431. Sun, H., Na, E., & Grandpierre, V. (2020). A
https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enm020 descriptive study of language and literacy skills of
Mayer, C. (2010). The demands of writing and the early school–aged children with unilateral and
deaf writer. In M. Marschark & P. Spencer mild to moderate bilateral hearing loss. Deafness
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, lan- and Education International, 22(1), 74–92.
guage, and education, volume 2 (pp. 144–155). https.//doi.org/10.1080/14643154.2018.1555119
Oxford University Press. Nelson, C., & Bruce, S. M. (2019). Children who are
Mayer, C., & Trezek, B. J. (2015). Early literacy devel- deaf/hard of hearing with disabilities: Paths to
opment in deaf children. Oxford University Press. language and literacy. Education Sciences, 9(4),
Mayer, C., & Trezek, B. J. (2018). Literacy outcomes 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020134
in deaf students with cochlear implants: Current Newcomer, P. L., & Hammill, D. D. (2019). Test of
state of the knowledge. Journal of Deaf Studies Language Development–Primary (5th ed.). WPS.
and Deaf Education, 23(1), 1–16. https://doi. Nikolopoulos, T. P., Archbold, S., Wever, C. C., &
org/10.1093/deafed/enx043 Lloyd, H. (2008). Speech production in deaf
Mayer, C., & Trezek, B. J. (2019). Writing and deaf- implanted children with additional disabilities
ness: State of the evidence and implications for and comparison with age-equivalent implanted
research and practice. Education Sciences, 9(3), children without such disorders. International
Article 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 72(12),
educsci9030185 1823–1828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Mayer, C., & Trezek, B. J. (2020). English literacy ijporl.2008.09.003
outcomes in sign bilingual programs: Current Paul, P. V. (1998). Literacy and deafness: The develop-
state of the knowledge. American Annals of the ment of reading, writing, and literate thought.
Deaf, 164(5), 560–576. doi:10.1353.aad.2020.0003 Allyn & Bacon.

Winter.indb 642 25-04-2023 15:44:58

 Writing Achievement of Deaf Learners 643

Paul, P. V. (2009). Language and deafness (4th ed.). The Laryngoscope, 114(9), 1576–1581. https://doi.
Jones & Bartlett Learning. org/10.1097/00005537-200409000-00014
Paul, P. V., & Alqraini, F. (2019). Conclusion: Per- Strassman, B., & Schirmer, B. (2012). Teaching writ-
spectives on language, literacy, and deafness. ing to deaf students: Does research offer evidence
Education Sciences, 9(4), 286. https://doi. for practice? Remedial and Special Education,
org/10.3390/edusci9040286 34(3), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Paul. P. V., Wang, Y., & Williams, C. (2013). Deaf 0741932512452013/rase.sagepub.com
students and the qualitative similarity hypothesis: Taeschner, T., Devescovi, A., & Volterra, V. (1988).
Understanding language and literacy development. Affixes and function words in the written lan-
Gallaudet University Press. guage of deaf children. Applied Psycholinguistics,
Pimperton, H., Blythe, H., Kreppner, J., Mahon, M., 9(4), 385–401. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/
Peacock, J. L., Stevenson, J., et al. (2016). The SO142716400008079
impact of universal newborn hearing screening Traxler, C. B. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test,
on long-term literacy outcomes: A prospective 9th edition: National norming and performance
cohort study. Archives of Disease in Childhood, standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students.
101(1) 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1136/ Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(4),
archdischild-2014-307516 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/5.4.337
Pintner, R., & Patterson, D. (1916). A measure of the Trezek, B. J., Wang, Y., & Paul. P. V. (2010). Reading
language ability of deaf children. Psychological and deafness: Theory, research, and practice. Cen-
Review, 23(6), 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/ gage Learning.
h0072260 Watson, L. (2002). The literacy development of chil-
Qi, S., & Mitchell, R. E. (2012). Large-scale academic dren with cochlear implants at age seven. Deaf-
achievement testing of deaf and hard-of-hearing ness and Education International, 4(2), 84–98.
students: Past, present, and future. Journal of Deaf https://doi.org/10.1179/146431502790560872
Studies and Deaf Education, 17(1), 1–18. https:// Wilbur, R. (1977). An explanation of deaf children’s
doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enr028 difficulty with certain syntactic structures. Volta
Scott, J., & Hoffmeister, R. (2018). Superordinate Review, 79, 85–92.
precision: An examination of academic writing Williams, C., & Mayer, C. (2015). Writing in young
among bilingual deaf and hard of hearing stu- deaf children. Review of Educational Research
dents. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 85(4), 630–666. https://doi.org/10.3102/
23(2), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ 0034654314564882
enx052 Wolbers, K., Dostal, H., Graham, S., Cihak, D., Kil-
Singer, B. D., & Bashir, A. S. (2004). Developmen- patrick, J. R., & Saulsburry, J. (2015). The writing
tal variations in writing composition skills. In performance of elementary students receiving
C. Stone, E. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel strategic and interactive writing instruction. Jour-
(Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: nal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 20(4),
Development and disorders (pp. 559–582). 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/env022
Guilford Press. Woodcock, R. W., Mather, N., & Schrank, F. A.
Smolen, E. R., Hartman, M. C., & Wang, Y. (2020). (2004). Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading
Reading achievement in children with hearing Battery. Riverside.
loss who use listening and spoken language: Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (1986). Beyond the sentence
Results and implications from a 2-year study. level: What’s in a hearing-impaired child’s story?
Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, Topics in Language Disorders, 6(3), 71–83. https://
5(6), 1380–1387. https://doi. doi.org/10.1097/000113631986060000-00008
org/10.1044/2020_PERSP-20-10006 Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Snyder, L. S., & Mayberry, R.
Spencer, L. J., Gantz, B. J., & Knutson, J. F. (2004). (1996). How deaf and normally hearing students
Outcomes and achievement of students who convey meaning within and between sentences.
grew up with access to cochlear implants. Volta Review, 98(1), 9–38.

Winter.indb 643 25-04-2023 15:44:58

Copyright of American Annals of the Deaf is the property of American Annals of the Deaf
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.