Topic Literacy Students Who Are Deaf Or Hard of Hearing

Join Together:A Nationwide On-Line Community of Practice and ProfessionalDevelopmentSchool Dedicated to Instructional Effectiveness and Academic Excellence within Deaf/Hard of Hearing Education

Objective 2.4 – Assessment

Submitted by:

Topical Team Leaders – John Luckner, Ed.D. and Sandy Bowen, Ph.D.

Topic – Literacy – Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

Rationale

Students who are deaf or hard of hearing have the cognitive ability to be successful with literacy (Schirmer, 2000). The challenge for this population is the absence of or limited acquisition of a language as it relates to literacy. This is evidenced by research that has shown students who are deaf with deaf parents, having exposure to manual communication from birth, perform better in reading and writing than deaf children of hearing parents who may have limited exposure to either oral or manual communication (Padden, 1990) . Additional challenges arise when the reader has limited experiences to bring to a text (Goldin-Meadow & Mayberry, 2001). Research has shown that students who are deaf or hard of hearing have a general understanding of story form, need support on grammar and syntactic components of literacy, and can be successful regardless of communication mode (De Villiers & Pomerantz, 1992; Marschark, Mouradian, & Halas, 1994; McNeill, 1994). At an early age, infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing are already learning to read environmental print (Suzuki & Notoya, 1984). This learning must be enhanced through supported opportunities with contextualizing and decontextualizing of print using increased exposures and varied experiences (Ewoldt & Saulnier, 1994). How are teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing assessing the skills and knowledge of the students they serve?

Multiple studies exist analyzing the lack of literacy skills for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Researchers have attempted to understand this development for students who are deaf or hard of hearing by analyzing discrete aspects of the reading and writing processes. Components of phonological awareness, vocabulary development, background knowledge, maternal educational experience, communication modes, degree of hearing loss, and many more, have all been researched using a variety of experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental research methods. Often, control groups composed of same-age hearing peers and same reading level hearing peers have been used to conduct these studies. General findings indicate that students who are deaf or hard of hearing continue to read between the 3rd and 4th grade levels upon graduation from high school (Bishop, 1983; Caldwell, 1973; Chaleff & Ritter, 2001; Dyer, MacSweeney, Szczerbinski, Green, & Campbell, 2003; Ewoldt & Saulnier, 1994; Gaustad, Kelly, Payne, & Lylak, 2002; Kampfe, 1989; Kluwin & Kelly, 1992; Lewis & Jackson, 2001; Livingston, 1989; Loeterman, Paul, & Donahue, 2002; McIntyre, Odom, & Byassee, 1970; Musselman & Szanto, 1998; Schirmer, 1993; Shuy, 1990; Walker, Munro, & Richards, 1998; Webster, Wood, & Griffiths, 1981; Wood, Griffiths, & Webster, 1981).

The purpose of this section is to focus attention on the testing and assessment of literacy for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. It should be noted that no one test or assessment measure can accurately describe a student’s literary functioning. Rather, a variety of opportunities to triangulate data (i.e., students’ knowledge, skills and understanding) must be achieved. Additionally, interpretation of scores should be made with caution when considering students who are deaf or hard of hearing (Kamphaus, 1993). Understanding the background of the student (e.g., age of onset, degrees of loss, parental hearing status, language level of the student, educational background of the family, IQ, special needs, etc.), as well as the function and required skills students must bring to a test or assessment (Garrison, Dowaliby, & Long, 1992) are critical when interpreting the meaning of test results and how the information will be used for a particular student within various curricular areas. A final note is the reality that few tests and assessments have been designed specifically for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. One rationale is due to the prohibitive costs of designing tests and assessments for such a unique and relatively small population of students (Blennerhassett, Strohmeier, & Hibbett, 1994).

As the result of an extensive review of the literature, five areas of testing and assessment will be discussed as they relate to students who are deaf or hard of hearing within the area of literacy. Types of tests and assessments discussed are, norm-referenced testing, criterion-referenced tests, curriculum-based assessment, performance-based assessment, and test taking strategies. The terms testing and assessing are used interchangeably within the literature. However, for the purposes of this document, the two will be differentiated as defined by Salvia and Ysseldyke (2004); “testing – exposing a person to a particular set of questions in order to obtain a score” (p. 693) and “assessment – the process of collecting data for the purpose of (a) specifying and verifying problems and (b) making decisions about students” (p. 688).

Norm-Referenced Tests

Norm-referenced tests are, “tests that compare an individual’s performance to the performance of his or her peers” (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 2004, p. 691). The goal of this type of testing is to compare a person’s performance with other peers of similar characteristics. Most norm-referenced tests currently available are normed on the majority population: hearing students without disabilities (Gallaudet Research Institute, 1998). This demographic is the main population served in the public schools and tests of this type are “based on people in general” (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 2004, p. 106). Examples of tests used within the public schools to assess literacy include the Weschsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-R), Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational, Woodcock Reading Mastery, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT), and Test of Written Language (TOWL-3) (Gallaudet Research Institute, 1998).

There are two norm-referenced tests generally used within the public schools that have established norms for students who are deaf or hard of hearing: The Stanford Achievement Test – Hearing Impaired (SAT-HI) and the Test of Early Reading Ability – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Version (TERA-D/HH) (Bradley-Johnson & Evans, 1991; Kelly, 1995). The SAT-HI can be group or individually administered, while the TERA-D/HH is designed for individual administration.

The SAT-HI began collecting norms as far back as 1963 and these norms were reestablished in 1996 (Gallaudet Research Institute, 1998; Wolk & Allen, 1984; Wrightstone, Aranow, & Maskowitz, 1963). It’s goal is to measure curriculum commonly taught in the United States within the areas of reading, writing, math, science, and social studies for grades 1 through 9 (Gallaudet Research Institute, 1998; Stanford Achievement Test, 1996). The norms for students who are deaf or hard of hearing allow teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing, administrators who oversee programs for the target population, and researchers to compare students with a hearing loss to other students who are deaf or hard of hearing.

The Test of Early Reading Ability – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Version (TERA-D/HH) is adapted from the Test of Early Reading Ability (Reid, Hresko, & Hammill, 1989). The Deaf and Hard of Hearing version is designed for students ages 3 to 13.11 years with moderate to profound sensory hearing loss (41 to 91 decibels when aided). The purpose of the test is meaning construction, alphabet knowledge and function, and conventions of print. Norms, established in 1985, are reflective of the general population of students who are deaf or hard of hearing across the United States (e.g., demographics, geographic areas, ages, hearing levels, educational placements, etc.) (Gallaudet Research Institute, 1998; Salvia & Ysseldyke, 2004).

The TOWL-3, a norm-referenced test that measures conceptual, linguistic and cognitive aspects of writing in both spontaneous and contrived formats, was standardized with students across the United States in general education classrooms. If classrooms had students with disabilities in the room, they were included within the sample. However, formalized norming with students having specific disabilities was not purposefully conducted and no specific norms for students who are deaf or hard of hearing are provided. In 1996, Yarger raised several concerns about using the Test of Written Language (TOWL-3) with students who have hearing loss. Specifically, concerns regarding students’ ability to extract information out of context, thus limiting or eliminating the opportunity for incorporation of background knowledge; penalties for invented spellings; administration of the test using aural/oral methods rather than manual (i.e., sign language), raising concerns for the validity of individual findings; and finally, lack of generalization of environments during standardization (i.e., no testing in self-contained or residential settings); all bring into question the use of this test as a measure of performance in writing for students who are deaf or hard of hearing (Yarger, 1996). Yarger agrees that information learned from the TOWL-3 can be advantageous, but recommends this test be used as one component of a several tests and assessments eliciting students’ writing, and scores be interpreted cautiously.

Support for Yarger’s concerns were provided by Musselman and Szanto (1998). They assessed student writing using the Test of Written Language (TOWL-2) and determined the standardized scores did not give meaningful information. Rather, analysis of the specific sub-assessments within the TOWL-2 elicited valuable results related to students’ performance in writing (Musselman & Szanto, 1998). French (1999) agrees with Yarger, and Musselman and Szanto, criticizing the use of norm-referenced tests in that they are “inadequate for carrying out the main purpose of assessment: to guide instruction” (French, 1999a, p. 17).

Other criticisms and concerns for using norm-referenced tests both normed and not normed on students who are deaf or hard of hearing are numerous. Knowing a norm-referenced test has not been established for the intended population raises issues with comparability and limits summative evaluation (French, 1999a). A survey of 267 instructional programs across the United States found standardized tests to be the least influential factor related to reading instruction for students who are deaf or hard of hearing (LaSasso & Mobley, 1997). The goal of norm-referenced measures is group comparison. This becomes a challenge when groups are initially heterogeneous in language, exceptionality, and/or culture (Christensen, 2000; Luetke-Stahlman & Luckner, 1991). As a result, many students who are deaf or hard of hearing often perform at levels two to four years below their same-aged peers, even though they may be knowledgeable of the content (Musselman & Szanto, 1998). Reasons for poor performance may be due to students’ inadequate language background, lack of understanding of written English, length of the exam, inaccurate interpretation, and inappropriate comparisons from the administrator of the test, poor test-taking skills on the part of the student, group administration of the test, gap in curriculum exposure, ceiling effect, and poorly written tests (Gallaudet Research Institute, 1998; Sullivan & Montoya, 1997). One or several of these factors may result in incorrect information, inadequate placements, and erroneous label classifications for students who are deaf or hard of hearing (French, 1999a).

Criterion Referenced Tests

Another common type of assessment used within educational settings is criterion-referenced testing. Salvia and Ysseldyke (2004), discuss criterion-referenced testing as an evaluation of a “person’s mastery of particular information and skills in terms of absolute standards” (p. 31). Stated another way, criterion-referenced testing helps answer specific questions of interest, such as, “Does Billy Rose, who attends the fifth grade at the PennsylvaniaSchool for the Deaf, use nouns, verbs, adjectives, and prepositions within his writing? If so, to what extent?”

For criterion-reference testing to be successful, teachers employing this type of measure must know what questions they have relative to their students. Additionally, teachers must understand that scores from these measures communicate information different from norm-referenced measures. Specifically, student performance is compared against the established criteria, rather than compared against other students. If the student’s score is equal to or better than the established criteria, that student is said to have mastered, or passed, that aspect of the criteria. Findings from criterion-referenced testing are often used to allow educators to make decisions regarding instruction and its effectiveness (Anderson-Inman, 1980; Hicks, 1980).

Types of criterion-based tests used with students who are deaf or hard of hearing are numerous and vary greatly depending upon the questions being asked, skills involved in the criteria, and whether a test is in existence. Most published criterion-referenced tests were not developed for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. However, teachers of the deaf or hard of hearing and general educators continue to administer these measures to students with a hearing loss. Most often, the rationale for this choice is the increased numbers of students served within general education settings. Caution should be used when interpreting results for criterion-referenced measures that have been adapted for use with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Altering a measure in any way may invalidate the results. Examples of alterations for students who are deaf or hard of hearing may include administration using manual communication when this was not the intended administration design; rewording questions to aid the student’s understanding of what is being asked; or allowing extra time to complete the test, if one of the criteria being measured is speed of test completion. While these adaptations are commonly used within general and special education classrooms working with students who are deaf or hard of hearing, interpretation of test results must be done carefully, explaining any alterations or deviations made before, during, or after testing. With this in mind, the following are criterion-referenced tests designed specifically for students who are deaf or hard of hearing in the areas of reading and writing.

Reading

There are no published criterion-referenced tests that have been designed specifically for students who are deaf or hard of hearing in the area of reading. There are, however, informal criterion assessment measures that have been used and researched with this population. The cloze procedure (deletion of every fifth word within a passage) is one criterion-referenced measure that is often used in schools with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Degree of hearing loss and age of onset are two factors that have been shown to effect test performance on cloze procedures for students who are deaf or hard of hearing (Reynolds, 1986). Care must be taken when using this type of measure with students who have hearing loss, as research and practice have both advocated and questioned its effectiveness and reliability for use as a reading assessment and decision-making tool (Banks, Macaulay, & Gray, 1991; Bolte, 1989; Kelly & Ewoldt, 1984; LaSasso, 1980; McKnight, 1989; Reynolds, 1984; Treece, 1989).

Two criterion-referenced assessments that have been designed for use with this population include the Early Reading Checklist and the Reading Checklist (French, 1999b). Readers are assessed as they progress through four developmental levels (emerging, beginning, developing and maturing). Criteria are presented in a checklist format for ease of documentation and use. Analysis of the completed checklist allows general education and deaf education teachers the opportunity to see student strengths and needs at a glace, thus helping to guide instruction. Criterion assessed using the four developmental levels are: conventions of print, alphabet knowledge, visual or listening comprehension, sight word vocabulary, use of cue systems, story retelling, reading comprehension strategies and finally word analysis strategies (French, 1999b).

Writing

The Cleary Language Assessment measures written and signed communication was developed by The Cleary School for the Deaf in New York, as no criterion-referenced measure existed prior that addressed questions posed by the staff (e.g., language usage, grammar, mechanics of writing). The written portion of the Cleary Language Assessment measures six areas of writing using four levels: level one being the beginning stages of writing and level four being the overall goal. At the highest level of achievement (four) students’ writing should 1) develop the topic in an interesting and imaginative way; 2) produce a product that is organized in a logical manner; 3) support ideas using relevant information; 4) skillfully produce grammatically correct sentences; 5) use voice that is specific and vivid in language; and 6) have few to no mechanical errors (spelling, punctuation, capitalization) (Kelly et al., 1994).

Another tool for use in assessment of writing is the Writing Levels developed by the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School (French, Hallau, & Ewoldt, 1985). Here meaning, linguistic features, conventions of writing, and story compile the categories assessed using the four level of development (emerging, beginning, developing and maturing). A total of eight levels are divided among the four developmental stages. Writing levels one-two constitute emerging literacy, levels three-five reflect a writer who is at the beginning level, levels six-seven constitute a developing writer and level eight indicates the writer is mature in her written literacy. Again, as in the Early Reading Checklist and the Reading Checklist, criteria indicating skills achieved for a particular level vary. Criteria for level one in the category of conventions of writing indicate students have some conventional letters. However, at level four, the writer has success with capitalization, attempts punctuation, and has words spaced appropriately. Thus, this criterion-referenced scale breaks down the development of writing into manageable and teachable stages.