See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326285997

A National Survey of Teachers of the Deaf on Disciplinary Writing

Article  in  Exceptionality · July 2018

DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2018.1480952

CITATIONS READS

0 209

4 authors:

Hannah M. Dostal Kimberly Wolbers

University of Connecticut University of Tennessee
35 PUBLICATIONS   227 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   644 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Shana Ward Rachel Saulsburry

University of Tennessee University of Tennessee
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   34 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Strategic & Interactive Writing Instruction View project

Disciplinary Literacy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shana Ward on 25 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Exceptionality
A Special Education Journal

ISSN: 0936-2835 (Print) 1532-7035 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hexc20

A National Survey of Teachers of the Deaf on

Disciplinary Writing

Hannah M. Dostal, Kimberly Wolbers, Shana Ward & Rachel Saulsburry

To cite this article: Hannah M. Dostal, Kimberly Wolbers, Shana Ward & Rachel Saulsburry
(2018): A National Survey of Teachers of the Deaf on Disciplinary Writing, Exceptionality, DOI:
10.1080/09362835.2018.1480952

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2018.1480952

Published online: 09 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hexc20
EXCEPTIONALITY
https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2018.1480952

A National Survey of Teachers of the Deaf on Disciplinary Writing

a b b c
Hannah M. Dostal , Kimberly Wolbers , Shana Ward , and Rachel Saulsburry
a
University of Connecticut; bUniversity of Tennessee; cHawkins County Public Schools

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate how content area teachers of
the deaf integrate writing instruction, and factors that impact content area
writing practices. Integrating writing into the disciplines is currently empha-
sized in order to support literacy and content learning. Teachers of the deaf
(N = 134) responded to a national survey that included the following
categories of questions: content area writing practices; classroom environ-
ment and resources; diverse learners; and teachers’ beliefs. Even though the
majority of teachers believed writing to be important for success in their
disciplines and feasible to integrate into their classrooms, they reported
that teaching students with delayed expressive and receptive language,
diverse reading levels, and limited knowledge of academic language pre-
sented challenges. Content area teachers of the deaf could benefit from
professional development focused on the integration of guided writing
practices that offer greater language and literacy support for deaf and
hard of hearing students.

Introduction
Over the past decade, standards have highlighted a need to incorporate reading and writing instruction in
the content areas (Gabriel & Dostal, 2015; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2014). Content area teachers are expected
to support the development of multiple literacies associated with participation in their areas of study
(Gabriel & Dostal, 2015; Moje, 2008). As Fang and Schleppegrell (2010) have demonstrated, each of the
disciplines has their own unique way of using language to convey ideas across various text types. In order to
be ready for college and career opportunities, students need to develop literacy skills specialized to various
disciplines including history, science, mathematics, and literature (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). Since
writing instruction in discipline-specific classes can support both literacy learning and content engagement,
there is a need to understand the teachers’ practices of integrating writing in content instruction (Gillespie,
Graham, Kiuhara, & Hebert, 2013; Graham, Capizzi, Harris, Herbert, & Morphy, 2014; Kiuhara, Graham, &
Hawken, 2009).
Studies with general education teachers (Applebee & Langer, 2011; Gillespie et al., 2013; Graham
et al., 2014; Kiuhara et al., 2009) have shown that there is little writing instruction in middle and
high school content area classrooms, even though standards documents like the CCSS include
literacy standards in History/Social Studies, Science, and technical subjects. For example, standard
6–8.1 requires students to “Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content” (CCSS, 2010).
Content area teachers of the deaf have an added responsibility in the area of literacy development
because of the unique language and literacy needs of deaf and hard of hearing (d/hh) students
(Strassman & Schirmer, 2013), and the persistent trend towards low literacy achievement among d/
hh students (Allen, 1986; Pintner & Paterson, 1916; Qi & Mitchell, 2012; Traxler, 2000). In this
article we describe the results of a survey directed at teachers of the deaf focused on how they
integrate writing instruction, and factors that impact content area writing practices.

CONTACT Hannah M. Dostal hannah.dostal@uconn.edu Curriculum and Instruction, University of Connecticut, 249
Glenbrook Road, Storrs 06269-3033, USA
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
2 H. M. DOSTAL ET AL.

The integration of writing in the disciplines

Over the past several years, researchers have investigated writing assignments in content area classes via
large-scale surveys of teachers and/or students (e.g., Applebee & Langer, 2006, 2011; Gillespie et al., 2013;
Graham et al., 2014; Kiuhara et al., 2009) aimed at understanding the frequency, length, and format of
writing across the content areas. For example, researchers asked about the number of times writing is
assigned per week, the proportion of writing assignments that required more than a sentence or
paragraph in length, and the format of student writing assignments (e.g., letter, report, class notes). In
addition, Applebee and Langer (2011) included observations in 20 schools that represented the “best case
scenario” for writing instruction in order to investigate writing instruction across content areas. Even at
sites where teachers were aware observers were looking for examples of writing instruction during their
observations, writing instruction was unevenly distributed across content areas, infrequent, and often
limited to short assignments (Applebee & Langer, 2011; Kiuhara et al., 2009).
Although reports and observations of writing instruction in the content areas suggest otherwise,
teachers on the whole agree that writing is important both for career readiness and for content
learning (Graham et al., 2014). The majority of content area teachers surveyed agree that it is their
responsibility to teach writing (Graham et al., 2014), which is a departure from trends reported
before the CCSS era in which many did not see writing instruction as part of their responsibility as
content area teachers (Draper, Smith, Hall, & Sieber, 2005; O’Brien, Stewart, & Moje, 1995; Stewart
& O’Brien, 1989). However, this post-CCSS reported sense of responsibility is not evenly distributed
across content areas. English/Language Arts (ELA) teachers report a sense of responsibility at a
significantly higher rate than other content areas. Social studies teachers are the second most likely to
claim responsibility, with science teachers following (Graham et al., 2014). Given that preparation
programs for teachers of the deaf often focus on all grades (K-12) and content areas, and given the
shortage of certified teachers of the deaf with many teaching outside of their content specialties, we
wondered whether teachers of the deaf would report rates of responsibility that were similar to their
general education colleagues.
Among those who report assigning writing activities in content area courses, note taking is by far
the most common activity (Gillespie et al., 2013), followed by short answer and fill-in questions
(Applebee & Langer, 2011). Although more than two-thirds of content area teachers report assigning
some writing activities (Gillespie et al., 2013), Kiuhara et al. (2009) found that 80% do not assign
more than a paragraph on a weekly basis, and 47% do not assign more than a paragraph even on a
monthly basis. Similarly, Applebee and Langer (2009) analyzed 8,542 samples of student writing
across content areas from a 9-week term and found that less than 19% of all student writing was a
paragraph or more in length.

Preparedness to teach writing in the content areas

There are factors such as amount of teacher preparation in the teaching of writing that may impact
one’s decisions to integrate writing practices and experiences into content area classes. Previous
surveys on content area writing indicate that approximately two thirds of teachers report having little
to no college preparation in the teaching of writing, both at the middle school level (Graham et al.,
2014) and high school level (Gillespie et al., 2013; Kiuhara et al., 2009). Approximately one half of
the same teachers report little to no in-service preparation in teaching writing or using writing to
support learning. With little preparation for content area writing happening during teacher pre-
paration programs or in-service training, nearly 90% have sought out information and training on
their own, and more than half of teachers report that their efforts in this regard were adequate or
extensive (Gillespie et al., 2013; Graham et al., 2014). Just as ELA teachers report a greater sense of
responsibility toward writing instruction than other teachers, it is also more frequently the case that
they have received more college and/or in-service training on the topic, or more vigorously sought
information on their own (Gillespie et al., 2013).
 EXCEPTIONALITY 3

The amount of preparation teachers receive on writing in the content areas appears to be directly
linked to the integration of writing activities in their classrooms. It also has an impact on their regard
for students’ writing abilities. In Gillespie and colleagues’ (2013) survey of high school content area
teachers, teacher preparation significantly predicted whether teachers incorporated writing in sup-
port of students’ learning. Prepared teachers also held more positive regard for their students’
writing capabilities, and were more likely to teach weaker writers. Similarly middle school teachers
having greater preparation were more likely to use evidence-based writing practices with students of
varying capabilities (Graham et al., 2014). Current literature suggests that evidence-based practices
in writing are lacking in the classroom. For example, only 32% of the 59 science classrooms observed
during Applebee and Langer’s (2011) study incorporated writing-related instruction, and less than
20% of those classrooms were providing evidence-based instruction, such as studying models or
explicitly teaching writing strategies. Highly prepared teachers believe themselves more capable and
see writing as critically important to their disciplines. This, in turn, impacts how they approach
integrating writing in their classes.
In summary, the majority of middle and high school teachers believe writing to be important to
their content areas and seek out information or training in this area. Whereas this does appear to
impact the amount of writing that is integrated into classes, the total amount is still relatively low,
and only a small percentage of that time is given to best practices in writing instruction. This may
suggest that greater preparation in college and in-service training is urgent, or that there are
competing beliefs preventing greater implementation of writing in content area classes.

The context for teaching and learning in deaf education

Specific factors associated with the unique teaching and learning contexts of d/hh children may
impact the infusion of writing across content area classes. D/hh students’ language and develop-
mental needs can be markedly different from their hearing peers. For example, many d/hh students
receive language services with a speech therapist or American Sign Language specialist, and those
with additional special needs may receive physical therapy or occupational therapy throughout the
day. These students are often pulled from classroom instruction to receive services. Teachers of the
deaf have to navigate these unique demands while also addressing the state standards and pacing
guidelines. Additionally, d/hh students have different levels of access to disciplinary content and
vocabulary through hearing, and may use various methods of amplification that require maintenance
and adjustment throughout the day. D/hh students may similarly have different levels of American
Sign Language proficiency which impact their access to disciplinary concepts presented and dis-
cussed in American Sign Language. Due to limited access to spoken language as well as late or
insufficient exposure to American Sign Language, many d/hh children are at risk to experience
impoverished language development in both English and American Sign Language. Language delay
and deprivation (English and American Sign Language) create challenges for literacy development
(Mayberry, 2002). When students are lacking a developed and complex language through which to
communicate, teachers of the deaf must approach the teaching of disciplinary concepts in unortho-
dox ways that can support both conceptual understanding and language development. Teachers of
the deaf may view the integration of writing in the content areas differently from general education
teachers.
We hypothesize that differences in teacher preparation, student populations, and contexts
for learning, may lead content area teachers of the deaf to approach writing differently than
general education teachers. We build on the work of previous surveys to ask four primary
research questions: What are teachers’ beliefs about writing in the disciplines?; How frequently
are teachers of the deaf incorporating writing?; How frequently do teachers of the deaf identify
challenges that impact writing instruction in their classrooms?; Are content area teachers of the
deaf prepared to provide discipline-specific writing instruction?
4 H. M. DOSTAL ET AL.

Method
Survey instrument
The research team reviewed seven surveys on writing instruction (Gilbert & Graham, 2010; Gillespie et al.,
2013; Graham et al., 2014; Kiuhara et al., 2009; “Literacy Survey,” n. d.; Strategic Education Research
Partnership, 2014; West Virginia Department of Education, 2008). None were developed specifically for
teachers of the deaf. A focus group of 16 content area teachers of the deaf was given the seven surveys and
asked to identify questions of importance, comment on whether questions were relevant to their teaching
context, indicate what information needed to be additionally considered, and indicate what questions
should be revised or omitted. Based on teachers’ feedback, survey questions were selected and revised, and
new questions were developed. The same focus group of teachers responded to a drafted version of the
survey and provided additional feedback. The final revised survey consisted of a total of 39 questions
organized into five sections: demographics, content area writing, diverse learners, classroom environment
and resources, and beliefs. The survey was developed using Qualtrics, which allowed it to be distributed via
email and accessed via a web link.
The demographics section consisted of fifteen questions. In addition to common demographic ques-
tions about age, years teaching, subject(s) taught, and grade level, the survey included questions specifically
related to teachers of the deaf. Such questions included hearing level, experience using American Sign
Language, school placement (e.g., residential school, day school for the deaf, itinerant, self-contained), and
communication philosophy of the school (e.g., listening and spoken language, bilingual, total
communication).
A section related to instructional practices for content area writing included 16 questions. In this section,
responders were asked about the frequency with which they incorporated specific writing activities (e.g.,
lists, short answer responses, lab reports, literary analysis, etc.) and how often students were engaged in
such writing activities. A lengthy list of activities drawn from other surveys of writing instruction was
included to capture the breadth of what teachers considered writing or writing-related activities. The list of
activities, ordered from simple to more complex forms, included text types that could appear in any content
area (e.g. summary writing), some content-specific text types (e.g., lab report), and writing activities
observed or reported in prior research and not necessarily best practices in content area writing (e.g.,
short answer responses). Our goal was to identify current practices of teachers of the deaf related to writing
in content area classes. Teachers were asked how often they implemented a variety of approaches to writing,
including the following: assess and establish goals for students’ writing, teach or model components of the
writing process, use model texts, and share with outside readers.
The next section contained three questions with several sub-items on the extent to which diverse
learners and classroom environment/resources impacted instruction. Learner-related items included the
presence of additional disabilities, diverse communication needs, diverse reading levels, students’ English
language proficiency, significant expressive and receptive language delays, and limited knowledge of
academic language. Classroom environment and resources included technology access, support and
training, sufficient materials, instructional space, and pacing of curriculum. Relevant to teachers of the
deaf, a subsection of items addressed absent or improperly working hearing aids or cochlear implants and
pull out services (e.g., speech, occupational therapy, physical therapy).
A section on teachers’ beliefs about writing in content areas consisted of five questions regarding who
the teacher feels is responsible for teaching writing, their confidence in teaching writers of varying ability
levels, their own proficiency as writers in their disciplines, and the percentage of students they feel are
prepared to write and like to write in their classes.

Procedures
Participants were identified through two sources. First, researchers reviewed the directory listing of
Educational programs for deaf students (2014) in the United States and the District of Columbia in
 EXCEPTIONALITY 5

the reference issue of American Annals of the Deaf (AAD). Second, researchers reviewed State
Department of Education websites in order to identify any programs not listed in the AAD
publication. From these searches that were inclusive of all states and levels (pre-k to 12), four
distribution lists were created that included (a) administrator email addresses without respective
teacher email addresses (n = 602), (b) administrator email addresses for which we had respective
teacher email addresses (n = 111), (c) direct teacher email addresses (n = 1084), and (d) contacts
with no available email addresses (n = 57).
The survey link and an accompanying informational letter were distributed via email to program
administrators and teachers of the deaf. Administrators of programs for which there were no
individual teacher email addresses available were sent an email requesting that they forward the
survey link to teachers of the deaf associated with their programs. Administrators of programs for
which there were individual teacher email addresses publically available were sent a courtesy email to
inform them of the survey. The teachers were sent an email describing the project and were provided
with a unique and unidentifiable link to the survey.

Participating teachers, students, and schools

A total of 990 emails were successfully emailed directly to teachers, and 94 were undeliverable. An
additional 46 teachers accessed the survey through a forwarded email. Of the 1036 distributed survey
links, a total of 180 responses (or 17.4%) were received. Not all surveys were fully completed, and
therefore the total N varies by question.
More than half of the respondents had a Master’s degree or beyond (Master’s degree in deaf
education: 49%, Master’s degree in another field: 22%, EdS, Master’s +30: 16%, Doctorate: 1%). Over
half of respondents taught ELA (55%), approximately 30% taught content area classes (Mathematics
9%, Science 7%, Social Studies 9%), while 20% taught elective subjects (e.g., Art 5%, Health 7%,
Music 4%, PE 4%) or something other (i.e., preschool, vocational, speech). Of the respondents who
indicated years of experience (N = 134), 57% had taught more than 10 years. Every grade level was
represented, with preschool having the fewest teachers (8%) and ninth grade having the most (26%).
Many teachers taught more than one grade level. The reported average class size was 8.04 students
(SD = 6.67).
Respondents were located in one of three areas: rural (14%), suburban (45%), or urban (41%).
Most respondents (52%) reported their program as having a bilingual communication philosophy,
with 20% reporting total communication (with American Sign Language allowed), 18% total com-
munication (e.g., sim-com, English-based sign, conceptually accurate signed English), and 9%
reporting listening and spoken language. Twenty-three percent of respondents indicated that they
use commercial programs to teach writing, such as writers’ workshop (Calkins, 2006), 6 + 1 Traits of
Writing (Culham, 2003), and Apple Tree Curriculum for Developing Written Language (Anderson,
Boren, Kilgore, Howard, & Krohn, 1999).

Results
Given our interest in teachers’ preparation and knowledge to teach writing in each content area, we
report results for two groups: (1) ELA teachers and (2) teachers of all other content areas. This allows
us to consider how the preparation of ELA teachers might offer more explicit support for imple-
menting writing instruction, and allows us to investigate the extent to which content area teachers
view writing as part of their responsibilities and instructional skill sets. A long line of research
suggests that content area teachers face barriers, resist or otherwise minimize literacy instruction in
favor of approaches that foreground content knowledge acquisition (Bean, 1997; Lesley, 2004; Siebert
& Draper, 2008, O’Brien et al., 1995). We wondered if the same general trend across content area
teachers held true among teachers of the deaf, given the unique language and literacy needs of d/hh
students. This strategy of reporting across two composite groups (ELA and Other) also ensures
6 H. M. DOSTAL ET AL.

sufficient group size to make meaningful comparisons. However, when there were observable
differences found in the composite group of “other,” we report these differences individually.

Research question 1: what are teachers’ beliefs about writing in the discipline?
All teachers responded that less than a third of their students (M = 28.79%) had the requisite skills
for writing in their content areas. When asked how their students felt about writing in their classes,
teachers indicated that less than half (an average of 40.75%) of students liked writing. This
percentage varied by group with ELA teachers reporting that students liked writing in their classes
more (M = 45.99%) than other content areas (M = 34.23%). Given this data, it was somewhat
surprising that on a 7-point Likert-scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, the majority
of teachers across the content areas agreed or strongly agreed that they should teach writing in their
classes. Further, the majority of other content area teachers somewhat disagreed to strongly disagreed
that the ELA teacher should be responsible for writing in the content areas. (See Table 1.) Another
notable finding was that an overwhelmingly high number of all respondents (92%) felt that
integrating writing into their classes was achievable. Further, nearly all teachers in both groups
agreed writing is an essential skill for students to be successful in the teachers’ disciplines (M = 5.92);
it is necessary to teach them writing skills so they can be successful on high stakes assessments
(M = 5.68); and students need writing practice in order to be successful in college classes and careers
related to the teachers’ disciplines (M = 6.29). (See Table 2.)

Research question 1: how frequently are teachers of the deaf incorporating writing?
On a 7-point Likert-scale ranging from never to daily, approximately 33% of ELA teachers surveyed
reported engaging students in independent writing activities in class on a daily basis, and 4%
assigned independent daily writing homework. Among other content area teachers, approximately
13% of teachers reported engaging students in independent writing activities in class on a daily basis,
and 2% assigned independent daily writing homework
ELA teachers differed from other content area teachers when it came to writing together as a
class. More than half (60%) of ELA teachers reported writing together as a class daily or multiple
times per week, while 28% of other content area teachers reported similar frequency. When it came to
providing individual feedback on writing, 49% of ELA teachers reported doing this daily or multiple
times per week, while 40% of other content area teachers also reported this level of frequency.

Table 1. Teachers’ beliefs on integrating writing into the discipline.

Strongly Somewhat Strongly
disagree Disagree Somewhat Neither agree Agree agree
Statement (1) (2) disagree (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) M(SD)
The ELA teacher should teach disciplinary writing.
Language Arts 8% 11% 8% 10% 15% 28% 20% 4.74(1.94)
(N = 72)
Content Areas 15% 25% 10% 9% 13% 15% 13% 3.78(2.08)
(N = 60)
I should teach writing of this discipline.
Language Arts 0% 3% 3% 10% 10% 34% 40% 5.92(1.26)
(N = 72)
Content Areas 5% 0% 2% 8% 29% 36% 20% 5.44(1.39)
(N = 59)
Integrating writing in this discipline is
achievable.
Language Arts 0% 0% 0% 4% 20% 33% 43% 6.15(0.88)
(N = 72)
Content Areas 0% 0% 7% 5% 28% 33% 27% 5.68(1.12)
(N = 60)
 EXCEPTIONALITY 7

Table 2. Teachers’ beliefs on application of writing.

Strongly Somewhat Strongly
disagree Disagree Somewhat Neither agree Agree agree
Statement (1) (2) disagree (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) M(SD)
Writing is essential to success in this discipline.
Language Arts 0% 0% 1% 3% 3% 29% 64% 6.51(0.81)
(N = 70)
Content Areas 3% 6% 7% 10% 18% 33% 23% 5.23(1.63)
(N = 61)
I need to teach writing so students can do well on assessments.
Language Arts 1% 4% 0% 9% 10% 23% 53% 6.01(1.42)
(N = 70)
Content Areas 5% 8% 1% 11% 16% 26% 31% 5.3(1.77)
(N = 61)
Writing practice is essential to the success in college and careers of this discipline.
Language Arts 2% 0% 0% 7% 4% 27% 60% 6.34(1.08)
(N = 70)
Content Areas 0% 1% 2% 5% 10% 28% 54% 6.23(1.09)
(N = 61)

There were minimal differences between ELA and other content area teachers with regard to the
frequency of peer feedback on writing, writing in pairs, or writing in small groups. All teachers
across both groups reported engaging in these peer-supported writing practices rarely, with the
majority assigning them on less than a monthly or yearly basis. (See Table 3.)
Teachers were asked to rate how often they incorporate certain writing activities using the same
7-point Likert-scale that ranged from never to daily. Respondents across both groups reported
incorporating short answers (M = 4.53), documenting thinking or problem solving (M = 4.29),
graphic organizers (M = 4.32), and journal writing (M = 4.10) as the types of writing they use most
frequently on a weekly to monthly basis. (See Table 4.)
We found that mathematics teachers (N = 12) reported having their students document their
thinking or problem solving (M = 6.08, a few times a week), take notes (M = 5.00, weekly), and write
step by step instructions (M = 5.00, weekly) more often than journaling (M = 1.92, once or twice a
year). Like mathematics teachers, social studies teachers (N = 12) reported having their students take
notes weekly (M = 4.92), which was more often than ELA teachers (M = 3.80). Social studies teachers
also reported incorporating graphic organizers (M = 5.00), timelines (M = 4.58), summary writing
(M = 4.58), question generation (M = 4.42), and lists (M = 4.33) more regularly (on a monthly to
weekly basis) than teachers in other disciplines.
More complex genres such as argumentative writing were rarely implemented in any group
(M = 2.00).
Teachers were asked to rate how often they teach or model specific writing skills, strategies, or
processes. ELA teachers reported much higher frequency of strategies for elements of the writing
process compared to teachers of all other content areas. For example, 61% of ELA teachers reported
frequently using strategies for planning while 28% of other content area teachers reported this level
of frequency. Similarly, 53% of ELA teachers reported frequently teaching strategies for revision
compared to 19% of all other content area teachers. It should be noted that while nearly half of all
ELA teachers report frequently teaching strategies for editing and revising, nearly a third of all other
content teachers report never doing this. This may be related to the text types teachers incorporate
into content areas such as notes, lists, and observations which are unlikely to require multiple drafts
or be written for an outside audience. (See Table 5.)
Although notetaking and writing as part of research/inquiry were reported to happen frequently
across both groups, 40% of other content teachers reported rarely or never teaching strategies for
notetaking and research writing, and 50% of ELA teachers reported rarely or never teaching such
strategies. As might be expected, nearly 50% of ELA teachers report teaching grammar daily or
 8

Table 3. How often teachers reported independent and supported writing activities.
Once or twice a
H. M. DOSTAL ET AL.

Never year Every few months Monthly Weekly A few times a week Daily
Activity (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) M(SD)
Teacher-student writing conferences
Language Arts (N = 72) 3% 3% 14% 17% 33% 25% 5% 4.72(1.35)
Content Areas (N = 61) 15% 10% 24% 20% 18% 10% 3% 3.59(1.63)
Independent writing in class
Language Arts (N = 72) 4% 0% 3% 7% 22% 31% 33% 5.68(1.42)
Content Areas (N = 61) 5% 5% 18% 20% 26% 13% 13% 4.49(1.6)
Independent writing at home
Language Arts (N = 69) 23% 6% 13% 16% 29% 9% 4% 3.65(1.83)
Content Areas (N = 60) 43% 8% 12% 19% 8% 8% 2% 2.72(1.81)
Individualized writing support
Language Arts (N = 72) 1% 3% 4% 15% 28% 20% 29% 5.4(1.41)
Content Areas (N = 61) 23% 7% 20% 11% 21% 8% 10% 3.66(1.96)
Peer feedback on writing
Language Arts (N = 65) 25% 8% 12% 29% 22% 3% 1% 3.31(1.63)
Content Areas (N = 51) 37% 14% 21% 12% 10% 6% 0% 2.61(1.59)
Writing in pairs
Language Arts (N = 65) 31% 9% 17% 28% 9% 5% 1% 2.95(1.62)
Content Areas (N = 52) 29% 17% 25% 17% 10% 2% 0% 2.67(1.4)
Writing in small groups
Language Arts (N = 65) 20% 5% 18% 18% 25% 8% 6% 3.71(1.79)
Content Areas (N = 52) 27% 12% 27% 13% 17% 4% 0% 2.94(1.54)
Writing together as a class
Language Arts (N = 65) 5% 9% 11% 15% 29% 22% 9% 4.57(1.6)
Content Areas (N = 53) 19% 6% 30% 17% 17% 7% 4% 3.45(1.65)
Table 4. How often teachers reported incorporating types of writing.
Never Once or twice a year Every few months Monthly Weekly A few times a week Daily
Type of Writing (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) M(SD)
Lists
Language Arts (N = 71) 18% 11% 15% 24% 13% 13% 6% 3.62(1.8)
Content Areas (N = 61) 8% 8% 17% 35% 22% 7% 3% 3.89(1.42)
Timeline
Language Arts (N = 69) 37% 22% 22% 9% 6% 4% 0% 2.36(1.42)
Content Areas (N = 60) 35% 17% 23% 13% 7% 2% 3% 2.58(1.57)
Copying text
Language Arts (N = 71) 24% 10% 4% 10% 25% 13% 14% 3.97(2.15)
Content Areas (N = 60) 23% 5% 15% 24% 25% 3% 5% 3.52(1.75)
Graphic organizer
Language Arts (N = 72) 8% 1% 6% 26% 28% 18% 13% 4.68(1.59)
Content Areas (N = 59) 15% 5% 15% 19% 36% 7% 3% 3.88(1.63)
Question generation
Language Arts (N = 72) 14% 7% 13% 19% 21% 15% 11% 4.17(1.86)
Content Areas (N = 60) 27% 3% 15% 22% 27% 3% 3% 3.42(1.74)
Short answer
Language Arts (N = 72) 11% 0% 7% 13% 32% 22% 15% 4.82(1.73)
Content Areas (N = 61) 11% 3% 15% 20% 33% 11% 7% 4.2(1.63)
Interview Q&A
Language Arts (N = 72) 38% 18% 18% 12% 7% 3% 4% 2.58(1.68)
Content Areas (N = 60) 43% 15% 15% 10% 10% 4% 3% 2.52(1.73)
Journal
Language Arts (N = 70) 14% 0% 4% 10% 20% 20% 32% 5.07(2)
Content Areas (N = 61) 41% 8% 12% 10% 18% 3% 8% 2.98(2.04)
Note-taking
Language Arts (N = 70) 36% 3% 0% 14% 21% 10% 16% 3.76(2.3)
Content Areas (N = 61) 23% 7% 11% 16% 15% 13% 15% 3.92(2.11)
Outline
Language Arts (N = 70) 37% 7% 16% 14% 17% 9% 0% 2.93(1.78)
Content Areas (N = 61) 39% 8% 21% 17% 10% 3% 2% 2.66(1.63)
Summary writing
Language Arts (N = 72) 15% 1% 8% 28% 21% 21% 6% 4.22(1.73)
Content Areas (N = 61) 15% 15% 11% 21% 28% 8% 2% 3.64(1.63)
Poem
Language Arts (N = 72) 36% 31% 19% 13% 1% 0% 0% 2.13(1.08)
Content Areas (N = 61) 74% 18% 6% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1.36(0.68)
Letter: Personal
Language Arts (N = 71) 21% 27% 30% 15% 6% 0% 1%
EXCEPTIONALITY

2.63(1.26)
Content Areas (N = 61) 65% 16% 10% 7% 2% 0% 0% 1.62(1.01)
Letter: Business
(Continued )
9
 10

Table 4. (Continued).
Never Once or twice a year Every few months Monthly Weekly A few times a week Daily
Type of Writing (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) M(SD)
Language Arts (N = 71) 65% 18% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1.55(0.84)
Content Areas (N = 61) 83% 8% 5% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1.28(0.7)
Personal Narrative
Language Arts (N = 71) 16% 4% 23% 30% 18% 8% 1% 3.62(1.51)
Content Areas (N = 60) 45% 20% 15% 15% 2% 3% 0% 2.18(1.36)
Descriptive
Language Arts (N = 71) 17% 3% 21% 32% 13% 11% 3% 3.66(1.6)
H. M. DOSTAL ET AL.

Content Areas (N = 61) 19% 10% 21% 28% 7% 5% 0% 2.87(1.5)

Narrative
Language Arts (N = 70) 20% 4% 22% 30% 17% 6% 1% 3.43(1.55)
Content Areas (N = 61) 54% 15% 18% 10% 2% 1% 0% 1.95(1.23)
Book Report
Language Arts (N = 71) 31% 17% 18% 28% 4% 2% 0% 2.62(1.36)
Content Areas (N = 60) 66% 15% 17% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1.53(0.83)
Biography
Language Arts (N = 71) 44% 34% 17% 3% 1% 1% 0% 1.89(1.03)
Content Areas (N = 61) 62% 21% 13% 2% 2% 0% 0% 1.59(0.89)
Autobiography
Language Arts (N = 71) 45% 44% 8% 0% 3% 0% 0% 1.72(0.84)
Content Areas (N = 61) 69% 20% 10% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1.48(0.88)
Cause and Effect
Language Arts (N = 72) 22% 17% 19% 21% 13% 8% 0% 3.1(1.58)
Content Areas (N = 61) 31% 22% 18% 18% 3% 8% 0% 2.66(1.55)
Lab Report
Language Arts (N = 72) 64% 8% 14% 8% 4% 2% 0% 1.85(1.3)
Content Areas (N = 61) 79% 3% 5% 8% 5% 0% 0% 1.57(1.19)
Persuasive
Language Arts (N = 72) 31% 26% 25% 14% 1% 3% 0% 2.38(1.24)
Content Areas (N = 61) 64% 21% 10% 5% 0% 0% 0% 1.56(0.86)
Screenplay
Language Arts (N = 72) 89% 6% 4% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1.18(0.56)
Content Areas (N = 61) 88% 7% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1.18(0.56)
Critique
Language Arts (N = 72) 68% 14% 7% 7% 3% 1% 0% 1.67(1.18)
Content Areas (N = 61) 61% 25% 12% 2% 0% 8% 0% 1.61(0.95)
Literary Analysis
Language Arts (N = 72) 54% 15% 6% 14% 8% 3% 0% 2.15(1.52)
Content Areas (N = 61) 85% 5% 8% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1.28(0.75)
Step-by-step instructions
Language Arts (N = 72) 26% 13% 14% 14% 14% 9% 10% 3.44(2.01)
(Continued )
Table 4. (Continued).
Never Once or twice a year Every few months Monthly Weekly A few times a week Daily
Type of Writing (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) M(SD)
Content Areas (N = 61) 21% 13% 16% 18% 12% 7% 13% 3.57(2)
Explain thinking or problem solving
Language Arts (N = 72) 17% 7% 7% 17% 22% 14% 16% 4.29(2.01)
Content Areas (N = 61) 10% 10% 11% 18% 16% 20% 13% 4.3(1.89)
Compare and Contrast
Language Arts (N = 72) 17% 8% 21% 31% 14% 8% 1% 3.47(1.54)
Content Areas (N = 61) 29% 16% 18% 20% 10% 7% 0% 2.84(1.58)
Informative/Research Report
Language Arts (N = 72) 21% 40% 22% 13% 3% 1% 0% 2.4(1.11)
Content Areas (N = 59) 8% 24% 20% 10% 0% 0% 0% 1.9(0.93)
EXCEPTIONALITY
11
12 H. M. DOSTAL ET AL.

Table 5. How often teachers reported teaching or modeling writing skills, strategies, or processes.
Once or twice a Every few A few times a
Never year months Monthly Weekly week Daily
Activity (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) M(SD)
Establishing an outside
reader
Language Arts 45% 16% 19% 9% 11% 0% 0% 2.26(1.4)
(N = 69)
Content Areas (N = 61) 64% 11% 12% 10% 3% 0% 0% 1.77(1.18)
Sharing model texts
Language Arts 4% 4% 3% 10% 23% 28% 28% 5.39(1.59)
(N = 71)
Content Areas (N = 60) 18% 15% 8% 27% 12% 13% 7% 3.65(1.86)
Planning writing
Language Arts 7% 1% 12% 19% 25% 25% 11% 4.72(1.61)
(N = 69)
Content Areas (N = 60) 15% 20% 18% 19% 17% 8% 3% 3.4(1.67)
Organizing writing
Language Arts 6% 3% 10% 21% 25% 20% 15% 4.79(1.59)
(N = 71)
Content Areas (N = 61) 15% 13% 21% 23% 18% 10% 0% 3.46(1.53)
Writing
Language Arts 1% 3% 10% 14% 32% 22% 18% 5.11(1.39)
(N = 72)
Content Areas (N = 61) 13% 13% 21% 23% 21% 7% 2% 3.52(1.52)
Rereading
Language Arts 7% 4% 13% 13% 33% 18% 12% 4.65(1.63)
(N = 72)
Content Areas (N = 61) 21% 13% 16% 18% 23% 7% 2% 3.34(1.68)
Revising
Language Arts 10% 7% 10% 20% 29% 14% 10% 4.34(1.7)
(N = 71)
Content Areas (N = 61) 28% 13% 20% 20% 13% 5% 1% 2.98(1.63)
Editing
Language Arts 8% 4% 11% 14% 27% 21% 15% 4.69(1.74)
(N = 72)
Content Areas (N = 61) 24% 15% 16% 20% 15% 8% 2% 3.16(1.7)
Summarizing reading
Language Arts 14% 6% 7% 35% 20% 12% 6% 3.99(1.67)
(N = 69)
Content Areas (N = 61) 23% 7% 16% 23% 26% 3% 2% 3.39(1.63)
Note taking
Language Arts 35% 13% 19% 10% 13% 3% 7% 2.91(1.89)
(N = 69)
Content Areas (N = 61) 26% 15% 16% 12% 21% 5% 5% 3.21(1.83)
Researching and inquiring
Language Arts 23% 19% 25% 20% 12% 0% 1% 2.84(1.41)
(N = 69)
Content Areas (N = 60) 25% 23% 22% 18% 7% 3% 2% 2.75(1.48)
Writing more complex sentences
Language Arts 16% 1% 8% 30% 26% 13% 6% 4.1(1.68)
(N = 70)
Content Areas (N = 61) 34% 6% 25% 13% 15% 5% 2% 2.89(1.69)
Using academic language
Language Arts 21% 2% 14% 14% 24% 12% 13% 4.04(2)
(N = 70)
Content Areas (N = 61) 23% 12% 16% 23% 21% 2% 3% 3.26(1.65)
Grammar lessons
Language Arts 2% 0% 10% 7% 31% 32% 18% 5.37(1.27)
(N = 71)
Content Areas (N = 61) 34% 15% 15% 13% 15% 6% 2% 2.85(1.75)
Identifying authentic forms of disciplinary writing
Language Arts 22% 4% 6% 34% 20% 13% 1% 3.68(1.73)
(N = 71)
Content Areas (N = 61) 35% 13% 18% 21% 8% 3% 2% 2.72(1.59)
 EXCEPTIONALITY 13

multiple times per week while 50% of other content teachers report rarely or never teaching grammar.
Grammar is generally considered a sub-area of ELA; however, given the need to support language
development among d/hh students, we hypothesized that content area teachers of the deaf might
have been more involved in this area than their mainstream counterparts. (See Table 6.)

Research question 3: how frequently do teachers identify challenges that impact writing
instruction in their classrooms?
As might be expected, there were very few significant differences in ELA and other content area
teachers’ reports of challenges that might impact writing instruction in their classrooms. Teachers
across both groups rated how frequently they experience 18 different factors as challenges that impact
writing instruction in their classrooms using a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from never to always. Of the
18 factors presented, 80% of teachers indicated that teaching students with limited academic language
was challenging most of the time or always (M = 4.19). Reported as almost equally challenging,
approximately three-quarters of the respondents indicated that teaching students with diverse reading
levels (M = 4.08) and teaching students with expressive/receptive language delays (M = 4.02) impacts
writing instruction most of the time. Notably, the three factors mentioned above were set apart from the
remaining 15 factors given that less than half of the teachers identified them as frequent (4–5 on Likert-
scale) challenges. (See Table 7.) Some factors that were reported as rarely impacting writing instruction
were: number of students per class, discipline problems, student attendance, parental involvement,
absent or improperly working hearing aids or cochlear implants, instructional technology access, pull-
out services, and teaching students from non-English speaking homes.

Research question 4: are teachers of the deaf prepared to provide discipline-specific writing
instruction?
ELA teachers and teachers of other content areas responded very similarly to a set of questions about
their level of preparation and confidence to teach writing in their respective disciplines, with 50%–
60% of teachers indicating they agreed or strongly agreed with statements indicating preparation and
confidence. However, ELA teachers were more likely to indicate that they strongly agreed with these
statements.
More than half of all teachers in both groups reported minimal to no preparation for teaching
writing. At the same time, 82% of the respondents reported being proficient or very proficient at
teaching writing within their disciplines. There were some slight differences by content area, with
teachers of social studies and ELA reporting the highest means, respectively at 3.50 and 3.27 on a 4-
point Likert-scale with 4 representing very proficient, and teachers of science and mathematics
reporting somewhat lower means at 3.00. (See Table 8.)

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore the extent to which teachers of the deaf integrate writing
into content area instruction, and how various factors impact writing instruction and practices with
d/hh students. We compared ELA teachers and all other content areas to explore the extent to which
ELA classrooms bear or share responsibility for the teaching of writing. We found that there were
strong similarities between ELA teachers and other content area teachers in many areas, but that
ELA teachers were much more likely to teach strategies for writing and the writing process, and
reported slightly higher levels of confidence in their ability to teach writing to all students. We
hypothesize that the areas of difference may be related to the centrality of writing in ELA standards
compared to other areas. Teachers did report similar challenges to teaching writing, such as d/hh
students with limited academic language, diverse reading levels, and/or language delays which may
be due to receiving similar preparation.
 14

Table 6. How often teachers reported engaging students in writing skills, strategies, or processes.
Never Once or twice a year Every few months Monthly Weekly A few times a week Daily
Activity (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) M(SD)
Use word processing software
Language Arts (N = 71) 20% 6% 8% 16% 25% 18% 7% 4.04(1.92)
H. M. DOSTAL ET AL.

Content Areas (N = 61) 31% 11% 13% 20% 12% 11% 2% 3.1(1.82)
Planning
Language Arts (N = 70) 6% 3% 6% 17% 40% 24% 4% 4.73(1.38)
Content Areas (N = 60) 23% 15% 12% 15% 20% 12% 3% 3.42(1.86)
Organizing
Language Arts (N = 71) 8% 0% 9% 14% 39% 24% 6% 4.7(1.49)
Content Areas (N = 61) 15% 6% 20% 24% 18% 15% 2% 3.75(1.63)
Writing
Language Arts (N = 72) 3% 1% 1% 3% 19% 31% 42% 5.93(1.33)
Content Areas (N = 60) 5% 7% 18% 20% 23% 12% 15% 4.45(1.66)
Editing
Language Arts (N = 71) 7% 3% 4% 7% 38% 28% 13% 5.01(1.55)
Content Areas (N = 60) 15% 13% 17% 15% 22% 13% 5% 3.75(1.79)
Revising
Language Arts (N = 71) 13% 4% 6% 11% 37% 22% 7% 4.51(1.74)
Content Areas (N = 60) 22% 15% 15% 17% 18% 12% 1% 3.37(1.76)
Researching
Language Arts (N = 70) 21% 33% 20% 16% 7% 2% 1% 2.64(1.36)
Content Areas (N = 60) 25% 30% 20% 12% 12% 1% 0% 2.6(1.37)
Imitating model texts
Language Arts (N = 66) 27% 11% 18% 23% 12% 6% 3% 3.12(1.71)
Content Areas (N = 61) 38% 16% 20% 10% 13% 3% 0% 2.54(1.54)
Self-monitoring strategies
Language Arts (N = 70) 21% 6% 11% 19% 20% 19% 4% 3.83(1.89)
Content Areas (N = 60) 22% 20% 13% 20% 15% 10% 0% 3.17(1.65)
Sharing with an outside reader
Language Arts (N = 71) 31% 13% 14% 20% 12% 7% 3% 3.03(1.78)
Content Areas (N = 61) 34% 21% 20% 16% 7% 2% 0% 2.44(1.36)
 EXCEPTIONALITY 15

Table 7. How often teachers reported challenges that impact writing instruction.
Never Rarely Sometimes Most of the time Always
Factor (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) M(SD)
Number of students per class
Language Arts (N = 72) 30% 24% 32% 10% 4% 2.33(1.13)
Content Areas (N = 61) 39% 18% 35% 6% 2% 2.13(1.06)
Discipline problems
Language Arts (N = 72) 15% 23% 49% 9% 4% 2.63(0.98)
Content Areas (N = 59) 22% 29% 44% 3% 2% 2.34(0.91)
Student attendance
Language Arts (N = 72) 13% 33% 43% 8% 3% 2.56(0.91)
Content Areas (N = 60) 15% 23% 52% 8% 2% 2.58(0.9)
Parental involvement
Language Arts (N = 71) 17% 18% 31% 14% 20% 3.01(1.34)
Content Areas (N = 61) 30% 15% 26% 18% 11% 2.67(1.36)
Absent and/or improperly working hearing aids, CI, etc.
Language Arts (N = 72) 39% 17% 30% 8% 6% 2.25(1.21)
Content Areas (N = 61) 39% 20% 38% 0% 3% 2.08(1.03)
Instructional technology access
Language Arts (N = 71) 20% 35% 32% 9% 4% 2.42(1.03)
Content Areas (N = 61) 26% 26% 38% 5% 5% 2.36(1.07)
Technology training or support
Language Arts (N = 71) 23% 42% 25% 4% 6% 2.28(1.04)
Content Areas (N = 61) 33% 28% 33% 5% 1% 2.15(0.99)
Class materials and resources (e.g., textbooks)
Language Arts (N = 72) 21% 25% 29% 17% 8% 2.67(1.21)
Content Areas (N = 60) 30% 31% 10% 16% 13% 2.32(1.18)
Instructional space
Language Arts (N = 72) 40% 26% 20% 10% 4% 2.11(1.16)
Content Areas (N = 60) 46% 27% 12% 13% 2% 1.97(1.12)
Pacing expectations for coverage of curriculum
Language Arts (N = 71) 8% 10% 28% 34% 20% 3.46(1.16)
Content Areas (N = 60) 17% 12% 27% 28% 16% 3.17(1.31)
Pull-out services and school meetings
Language Arts (N = 72) 8% 28% 42% 17% 5% 2.83(0.99)
Content Areas (N = 61) 16% 23% 36% 20% 5% 2.74(1.1)
Teaching students with additional special needs
Language Arts (N = 72) 7% 11% 28% 30% 24% 3.53(1.17)
Content Areas (N = 61) 5% 7% 49% 28% 11% 3.34(0.94)
Teaching students with diverse hearing losses
Language Arts (N = 72) 19% 13% 20% 19% 29% 3.26(1.48)
Content Areas (N = 60) 25% 20% 25% 10% 20% 2.8(1.44)
Teaching student with diverse communication needs
Language Arts (N = 72) 17% 18% 18% 19% 28% 3.24(1.45)
Content Areas (N = 61) 20% 21% 31% 8% 20% 2.87(1.36)
Teaching students with diverse reading levels
Language Arts (N = 72) 1% 2% 15% 29% 53% 4.31(0.88)
Content Areas (N = 59) 5% 8% 22% 29% 36% 3.81(1.16)
Teaching students with expressive/receptive language delays
Language Arts (N = 72) 1% 6% 11% 29% 53% 4.26(0.96)
Content Areas (N = 61) 0% 15% 26% 30% 29% 3.74(1.04)
Teaching students with limited academic language
Language Arts (N = 71) 3% 3% 10% 27% 57% 4.34(0.96)
Content Areas (N = 61) 2% 5% 21% 34% 38% 4.02(0.97)
Teaching students from non-English speaking homes
Language Arts (N = 72) 21% 14% 30% 17% 18% 2.97(1.36)
Content Areas (N = 60) 17% 30% 33% 10% 10% 2.67(1.16)

According to the survey findings, teachers engage students in writing on a regular basis. An
analysis of teachers’ beliefs indicates that they consider writing in the content areas to be essential to
future success. Nearly all teachers agreed that writing is a necessary skill for high-stakes testing and
future college classes or careers associated with their disciplines. Furthermore, the majority of
16 H. M. DOSTAL ET AL.

Table 8. Teachers’ preparation in and beliefs on teaching writing.

Strongly Somewhat Strongly
disagree Disagree Somewhat Neither agree Agree agree
Statement (1) (2) disagree (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) M(SD)
I am confident teaching writers on grade level.
Language Arts 1% 7% 11% 1% 21% 39% 20% 5.28(1.55)
(N = 72)
Content Areas 2% 2% 10% 10% 15% 46% 15% 5.35(1.36)
(N = 60)
I am confident teaching writers below grade level.
Language Arts 1% 2% 11% 6% 21% 33% 26% 5.49(1.41)
(N = 72)
Content Areas 2% 5% 12% 10% 22% 31% 18% 5.13(1.52)
(N = 60)
I am confident teaching writers above grade level.
Language Arts 4% 4% 13% 6% 21% 32% 20% 5.11(1.65)
(N = 71)
Content Areas 0% 5% 10% 13% 20% 37% 15% 5.18(1.38)
(N = 60)
I know the present writing levels of my
students.
Language Arts 0% 1% 4% 4% 13% 42% 36% 5.97(1.12)
(N = 72)
Content Areas 0% 0% 2% 7% 22% 43% 26% 5.87(0.94)
(N = 60)

content area teachers take responsibility for teaching the writing of their disciplines rather than
placing responsibility on the ELA teacher, and 92% of teachers felt that integrating writing into their
content area classes was achievable.
When asked what kind of writing instruction is implemented on a regular basis, teachers reported
that documenting one’s thinking or problem solving, writing on graphic organizers, journaling, and
providing short answer responses were the most common writing practices. A first review of these
findings may indicate that students are not exposed to or engaged frequently in genres that are
authentic to the disciplines; however, data by content area reveal that the types of writing appro-
priately varies by context. In mathematics, teachers reported engaging their students primarily in
documenting their thinking/problem solving or writing step-by-step instructions. Social studies
teachers more often engaged students in writing timelines or summaries, and science teachers
reported their students write lab reports on a weekly to monthly basis. Conversely, argumentative
writing is a necessary post-secondary skill which is reported to be rarely implemented or practiced
across content areas.
While it is clear that teachers of the deaf are engaging their students in content-specific writing
practices on a regular basis, they also report specific challenges. Teachers reported that less than half
of their students (approximately 30%–40%) enjoyed writing in their classes, and only a quarter of
their students actually had the skills necessary to write in the content areas. This may provide some
explanation as to why the majority of teachers have very minimal expectations (i.e., every few
months to never) for writing homework outside of class.
Although teachers reported language-related factors as challenges when teaching d/hh students,
they indicated feeling prepared to deal with such challenges—over three-quarters of teachers of the
deaf have confidence in their abilities to teach d/hh students who are at or below grade level. One
cause for concern, however, is that the majority of writing happening in class on a regular basis is
done independently. When support is provided, it is in the form of individualized guidance or
conferencing, and was most likely to occur in ELA classes. Teachers reported engaging less
frequently in guided or shared writing as a class, in small groups, or in pairs. Shared writing
provides benefit to struggling writers by providing guidance through all parts of the writing process
rather than merely conferencing after writing. It is a model of support whereby novice learners are
 EXCEPTIONALITY 17

apprenticed (in this case by disciplinary experts) with the thinking, talk, and task of writing (Englert
& Dunsmore, 2002). Students are engaged in a level of decision making that is challenging yet
supportive, and such an approach pushes development toward independence without allowing
students to flounder or become overly frustrated (Thompson, 2013). Among d/hh students who
have experienced failure with writing and are largely unmotivated, guided and shared writing
instruction can build writing skills and confidence (Dostal, Bowers, Wolbers, & Gabriel, 2015).
Previous research has demonstrated that teacher beliefs about students’ academic abilities
impact teachers’ expectations of students, the nature of classroom instruction they provide, and
ultimately students’ performance and outcomes (Delpit, 2012; Fang, 1996; Scharlach, 2008).
Given this, it is possible that teachers of the deaf do not often integrate guided support for writing
nor independent out-of-class opportunities in their content area classes because of beliefs regarding
language proficiency and motivation to write. The majority of teachers we surveyed reported beliefs
that d/hh student motivation and language proficiency are significant challenges for writing instruc-
tion. Such beliefs are likely to impact instructional decisions and expectations for learners (Delpit,
2012; Fang, 1996; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; Scharlach, 2008).
Though this survey demonstrated that students are given opportunities to write in class,
writing itself is rarely taught using mentorship or apprenticeship models of instruction. This
pattern is not unique to the classrooms of teachers of the deaf. Previous studies have shown
that after grade 3, most teachers spend little time teaching writing skills or strategies (Applebee
& Langer, 2011; Cutler & Graham, 2008; Gilbert & Graham, 2010; Kiuhara et al., 2009). We
argue that there is added urgency for high-quality content area writing instruction not only
because of low literacy rates but also because of the under-representation of d/hh people in
professional fields. This inadequate representation highlights the need to focus on discipline-
specific literacies for access and participation in the discipline, above and beyond the need to
develop literacy in general. Given that content area writing provides “rich opportunity to use
writing in ways that are unique to subject area instruction” (Strassman & Schirmer, 2013), we
view content area classes as important potential sites for writing development.

Limitations
A limitation of the study is the relatively small sample size of respondents. Of the 134 teachers of the
deaf who responded, approximately 51 were elementary teachers. While elementary teachers deal
with content area writing to some extent, the survey was targeted at teachers of middle and
secondary students who deal primarily in disciplinary teaching and learning, and who are likely
engaging students in more nuanced forms of writing in their content areas.
An additional limitation of the study was the design of the introduction to the survey. Teachers
were asked to respond to the survey questions based on the subject that they teach the most often,
versus to respond based on their instruction in a specific content area. Since the majority of teachers
of the deaf teach ELA for a substantial part of the school day, a little over half of the responses were
categorized as ELA, thus eliminating responses from the teachers who also teach content area classes.

Future directions
There is a need for professional development and teacher training for teachers of the deaf that is
focused on the integration of supportive writing practices into content area classes. For example,
learning how to implement guided, collaborative writing would allow content teachers to teach
complex, content-specific genres such as argumentative writing while providing scaffolding for
students who struggle. In addition, as students share their thinking about both the content and
construction of text, teachers may become more aware of students particular needs. This could be
especially beneficial for teachers of students who are delayed in expressive and academic language,
lack motivation to write, and/or those who are not exhibiting foundational writing skills. Guided,
18 H. M. DOSTAL ET AL.

collaborative writing thus creates learning opportunities for teachers and students when the thinking
and conversation around content and writing is happening within the student’s zone of proximal
development, and the teacher is prepared to guide students to new realizations using supportive
techniques. Future research might compare how much writing, what genres of writing, and what
writing practices are being implemented by teachers of the deaf with and without such training.

ORCID
Hannah M. Dostal http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3430-3141
Kimberly Wolbers http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4992-0508
Shana Ward http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5026-2266
Rachel Saulsburry http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6427-763X

References
Allen, T. E. (1986). Patterns of academic achievement among hearing impaired students: 1974 and 1983. In A.
Schildroth & M. Karchmer (Eds.), Deaf Children in America(pp. 161–206). Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Anderson, M., Boren, N. J., Kilgore, J., Howard, W., & Krohn, E. (1999). The apple tree curriculum for developing
written language (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.
Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle and high schools. English Journal, 100(6),
14–27.
Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2006). The state of writing instruction in America’s schools: What existing data tell us.
Albany, NY: Center on English Learning and Achievement.
Applebee, A. N, & Langer, J. A. (2009). What is happening in the teaching of writing?. English Journal, 98(5), 18–28.
Bean, T. (1997). Preservice teachers’selection and use of content area literacy strategies. The Journal Of Educational
Research, 90(3), 154–163.
Burman, D., Evans, D., Nunes, T., & Bell, D. (2008). Assessing deaf children’s writing in primary school: Grammar and
story development. Deafness and Education International, 10(2), 93–110.
Calkins, L. (2006). A guide to the writing workshop, grades 3-5. Portsmouth, NH: First Hand.
Culham, R. (2003). 6+1 traits of writing: The complete guide, grades 3 and up. New York, NY: Scholastic Professional
Books.
Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100(4), 907–919.
Delpit, L. D. (2012). Multiplication is for white people: Raising expectations for other people’s children. New York, NY:
The New Press.
Dostal, H., Bowers, L., Wolbers, K., & Gabriel, R. (2015). “We are authors”: A qualitative analysis of deaf students
writing during one year of strategic and interactive writing (SIWI). The Review of Disability Studies: an
International Journal, 11(2), 1–19.
Draper, R. J., Smith, L. K., Hall, K. M., & Sieber, D. (2005). What’s more important—literacy or content? Confronting
the literacy-content dualism. Action in Teacher Education, 27(2), 12–21.
Educational programs for deaf students. (2014). American Annals of the Deaf, 159(2), 87–176. Gallaudet
UniversityPress. Retrieved from Project MUSE database.
Englert, C. S., & Dunsmore, K. (2002). A diversity of teaching and learning paths: Teaching writing in situated activity.
In J. Brophy (Ed.), Social constructivist teaching: Affordances and constraints. Boston, MA: JAI.
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47–65.
Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Supporting secondary reading
through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(7), 587–597.
Gabriel, R., & Dostal, H. (2015). Interactive writing in the disciplines: A common core approach to disciplinary writing
in middle and high school. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 88(2), 66–71.
Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4 – 6: A national survey. The
Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 494–518.
Gillespie, A., Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., & Hebert, M. (2013). High school teachers use of writing to support students’
learning: A national survey. Reading and Writing, 27(6), 1043–1072. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9494-8
Graham, S., Capizzi, A., Harris, K. R., Herbert, M., & Morphy, P. (2014). Teaching writing to middle school students:
A national survey. Reading and Writing, 27(6), 1015–1042. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9495-7
Kiuhara, S. A., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 136–160. doi:10.1037/a0013097
 EXCEPTIONALITY 19

Lesley, M. (2004). Looking for critical literacy with postbaccalaureate content area literacy students. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(4), 320–334.
Mayberry, R. I. (2002). Cognitive development in deaf children: The interface of language and perception in
neuropsychology. In S. J. Segalowitz & I. Rapin Eds., Handbook of neuropsychology (Vol. 8, 2nd ed., pp. 71–107,
Part II). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Moje, E. B. (2008). Responsive literacy teaching in secondary school content areas. In M. W. Conley, J. R. Freidhoff, M.
B. Sherry, & S. F. Tuckey (Eds.), Meeting the challenge of adolescent literacy: Research we have, research we need (pp.
58–87). New York, NY: Guilford.
Literacy survey for teachers regarding current literacy work in school.(n.d.) Unpublished Instrument. Retrieved from
http://www.createsurvey.com/c/56760-kYKrZI/
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common
core state standards. Washington, D.C: Author.
O’Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary
school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 442–463.
doi:10.2307/747625
Pintner, R., & Paterson, D. G. (1916). A measurement of the language ability of deaf children. Psychological Review, 23(6), 413.
Qi, S., & Mitchell, R. E. (2012). Large-scale academic achievement testing of deaf and hard-of-hearing students: Past,
present, and future. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17(1), 1–18.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Scharlach, T. D. (2008). These kids just aren’t motivated to read: The influence of preservice teachers’ beliefs on their
expectations, instruction, and evaluation of struggling readers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(3), 158–173.
doi:10.1080/19388070802062351
Shanahan, C., & Shanahan, T. (2014). The implications of disciplinary literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
57(8), 628–631.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy.
Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.
Siebert, D., & Draper, R. J. (2008). Why content- area literacy messages do not speak to mathematics teachers: A
critical content analysis. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(4), 229–245.
Stewart, R. A., & O’Brien, D. G. (1989). Resistance to content area reading: A focus on preservice teachers. Journal of
Reading, 33, 396–401.
Strassman, B. K., & Schirmer, B. (2013). Teaching writing to deaf students: Does research offer evidence for practice?
Remedial and Special Education, 34(3), 166–179. doi:10.1177/0741932512452013
Strategic Education Research Partnership. (2014). The Carnegie content-area literacy survey (CALS). Boston, MA:
Author. Retrieved from http://cals.serpmedia.org/
Thompson, I. (2013). The mediation of learning in the zone of proximal development through a co-constructed
writing activity. Research in the Teaching of English, 47(3), 247–276. doi:10.1111/j.1754-8845.2011.01117
Traxler, C. B. (2000). The Stanford achievement test: National norming and performance standards for deaf and hard-
of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(4), 337–348.
West Virginia Department of Education. (2008). AIM literacy survey. Retrieved from http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/
RTIAIMLitSurvey5-28-08.doc

View publication stats