Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction (SIWI) involves teaching cognitive writing strategies and apprenticing novices within collaborative writing communities. It is responsive to deaf students' diverse language experiences through embedded metalinguistic/linguistic components. A randomized controlled trial of SIWI was conducted with 15 teachers and 79 students in grades 3-5. Recount, information report, and persuasive genres were taught across three 9-week periods. Writing samples analyzed for writing traits, language clarity, and language complexity were collected prior to instruction for the genre, immediately following, and 9 weeks after withdrawal of instruction for the genre. Standardized writing measures and motivation surveys were collected at the beginning and end of the academic year. Genre-specific writing outcomes were statistically significant for recount and information report writing, with substantial effect sizes for treatment and maintenance. Standardized writing outcomes mirrored these results. All others variables demonstrated small to moderately large treatment effects, although not all statistically significant.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallD. L.ThamesM. H.PhelpsG. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
2.
BlanchN.ForsytheL. C.Van AllenJ. H.RobertsS. K. (2017). Reigniting writers: Using the literacy block with elementary students to support authentic writing experiences. Childhood Education, 93(1), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2017.1275238
3.
BowersL.DostalH.WolbersK.GrahamS. C. (2018). The assessment of written phrasal constructs and grammar of deaf and hard of hearing students with varying expressive language abilities. Education Research International, 2018, 1–10, Article ID 2139626. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2139626
4.
BrimoD.Hall-MillsS. (2019). Adolescents’ production of complex syntax in spoken and written expository and persuasive genres. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 33(3), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2018.1504987
5.
CamachoA.AlvesR. A.BoscoloP. (2020). Writing motivation in school: A systematic review of empirical research in the early twenty-first century. Educational Psychology Review, 33(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09530-4
6.
CroweK.GuibersonM. (2019). Evidence-based interventions for learners who are deaf and/or multilingual: A systematic quality review. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 28(3), 964–983. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_AJSLP-IDLL-19-0003
DerewiankaB. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Primary English Teaching Association.
9.
De SmedtF.Van KeerH. (2014). A research synthesis on effective writing instruction in primary education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 693–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1219
10.
DostalH.BowersL.WolbersK.GabrielR. (2015). “We are authors”: A qualitative analysis of deaf students’ writing during one year of strategic and interactive writing instruction (SIWI). Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal, 11(2), 1–19. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/211326093.pdf
11.
DostalH.WolbersK. (2014). Developing language and writing skills of deaf and hard of hearing students: A simultaneous approach. Literacy Research and Instruction, 53(3), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2014.907382
12.
DostalH.WolbersK. (2015). Video review and reflection for ongoing inservice teacher professional development. In OrtliebE.ShanahanL.McVeeM. (Eds.), Video research in disciplinary literacies: Literacy research, practice and evaluation, volume 6 (pp. 329–352). Emerald Group.
13.
DostalH.WolbersK.KilpatrickJ. (2019). The language zone: Differentiating writing instruction for students who are deaf and hard of hearing. Writing & Pedagogy, 11(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.30045
14.
EasterbrooksS. R. (2020). Language learning in children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Oxford University Press.
15.
EllisN. C. (1994). Implicit and explicit language learning: Their dynamic interface and complexity. In RebuschatP. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 3–23). John Benjamins.
16.
EnglertC. S.BerryR.DunsmoreK. (2001). A case study of the apprenticeship process: Another perspective on the apprentice and the scaffolding metaphor. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(2), 152–171. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002221940103400205
17.
EnglertC. S.MariageT. V.DunsmoreK. (2006). Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruction research. In MacArthurC.GrahamS.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 208–221). Guildford Press.
18.
FlowerL.HayesJ. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
19.
GoughD. S. (2014). Exploring deaf student motivation towards learning English literacy [Doctoral dissertation]. Lamar University.
GrahamS.McKeownD.KiuharaS.HarrisK. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 879. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0029185
HallM. L.De AndaS. (2021). Measuring “language access profiles” in deaf and hard-of-hearing children with the DHH language exposure assessment tool. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 64(1), 134–158. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00439
24.
HallW. C. (2017). What you don’t know can hurt you: The risk of language deprivation by impairing sign language development in deaf children. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 21(5), 961–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-017-2287-y
25.
HallW. C.LevinL. L.AndersonM. L. (2017). Language deprivation syndrome: A possible neurodevelopmental disorder with sociocultural origins. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 52(6), 761–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-017-1351-7
26.
HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (2016). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Policy implications of an evidence-based practice. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624216
27.
HarrisK. R.GrahamS.MasonL.FriedlanderB. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Brookes.
28.
HedgesL. V. (2007). Effect sizes in cluster-randomized designs. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 32(4), 341–370. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998606298043
29.
HennerJ.Caldwell-HarrisC. L.NovogrodskyR.HoffmeisterR. (2016). American Sign Language syntax and analogical reasoning skills are influenced by early acquisition and age of entry to signing schools for the deaf. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1982. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01982
30.
HillH. N. (2016). Tutoring for transfer: The benefits of teaching writing center tutors about transfer theory. Writing Center Journal, 35(3), 77–102. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43965691
31.
KnoorsH. (2016). Language use in the classroom: Accommodating the needs of diverse deaf and hard-of-hearing learners. In MarscharkM.LampropoulouV.SkordilisE. K. (Eds.), Perspectives on deafness. Diversity in deaf education (pp. 219–246). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190493073.003.0008
32.
KoutsoubouM.HermanR.WollB. (2007). Does language input matter in bilingual writing? Translation versus direct composition in deaf school students’ written stories. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(2), 127–151. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb391.0
33.
KrollB.ReidJ. (1994). Guidelines for designing writing prompts: Clarifications, caveats, and cautions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 231–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(94)90018-3
34.
LederbergA. R.SchickB.SpencerP. E. (2013). Language and literacy development of deaf and hard-of-hearing children: Successes and challenges. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029558
35.
LittellR. D.MillikenG. A.StroupW. W.WolfingerR. D.SchabenbergerO. (2006). SAS For mixed models (2nd ed.). SAS Institute.
MartínJ. L. O.HameleersI. B.Trujillo-TorresJ. M.Moreno-GuerreroA. J. (2020). A comparison between collaborative and individual writings in promoting motivation and language acquisition. Sustainability, 12(19), 7959. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197959
38.
MayberryR. I.KluenderR. (2018). Rethinking the critical period for language: New insights into an old question from American sign language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(5), 886–905. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000724
39.
MyhillD.JonesS.WatsonA. (2013). Grammar matters: How teachers’ grammatical knowledge impacts on the teaching of writing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.005
40.
MyhillD.NewmanR. (2016). Metatalk: Enabling metalinguistic discussion about writing. International Journal of Educational Research, 80, 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.07.007
41.
National Assessment Governing Board. (2010). Writing framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress.
42.
NippoldM. A. (2014). Language intervention at the middle school: Complex talk reflects complex thought. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(2), 153–156. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_LSHSS-14-0027
43.
NippoldM. A.Ward-LonerganJ. M.FanningJ. L. (2005). Persuasive writing in children, adolescents and adults: A study of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic development. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(2), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2005/012)
44.
ParkS.OliverJ. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6
45.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC. (1983). The development of evaluative, diagnostic, and remedial capabilities in children's Composing. In MartlewM. (Ed.), The psychology of written language: A developmental approach (pp. 67–95). Wiley.
46.
SchickB.De VilliersP.De VilliersJ.HoffmeisterR. (2007). Language and theory of mind: A study of deaf children. Child Development, 78(2), 376–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01004.x
47.
SchleppegrellM. J. (2010). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum.
48.
SchrankF. A.McGrewK. S.WoodcockR. W. (2001). Technical abstract (Woodcock-Johnson III assessment service bulletin no. 2). Riverside.
49.
SchrodtK. E.EllemanA. M.FitzPatrickE. R.HastyM. M.KimJ. K.TharpT. J.RectorH. (2019). An examination of mindset instruction, self-regulation, and writer's workshop on kindergarteners’ writing performance and motivation: A mixed-methods study. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 35(5), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1577778
50.
SkerritP. (2017). Practices and routines in SIWI lessons that develop reading proficiency for D/HH learners. Caribbean Curriculum, 25, 38–52. https://doi.org/10.5539/jedp.v8n1p99
51.
StoddardB.MacArthurC. A. (1993). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learning-disabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(1), 76–103. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171213
52.
StrassmanB. K.MarashianK.MemonZ. (2019). Teaching academic language to D/deaf students: Does research offer evidence for practice?American Annals of the Deaf, 163(5), 501–533. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2019.0001
53.
StrassmanB. K.SchirmerB. (2013). Teaching writing to deaf students: Does research offer evidence for practice?Remedial and Special Education, 34(3), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512452013
54.
TroiaG. A.HarbaughA. G.ShanklandR. K.WolbersK. A.LawrenceA. M. (2013). Relationships between writing motivation, writing activity, and writing performance: Effects of grade, gender, and ability. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 17–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9379-2
55.
TroiaG. A.ShanklandR. K.WolbersK. A. (2012). Motivation research in writing: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 28(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2012.632729
56.
VillarrealI.Gil-SarrateaN. (2020). The effect of collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting. Language Teaching Research, 24(6), 874–897. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1362168819829017
57.
VostalB. R.WardM. S. (2015). Adapting self-regulated strategy development in persuasive writing for adolescents who are deaf or hard of hearing. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 88(5), 161–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2015.1065785
58.
WallerL.PapiM. (2017). Motivation and feedback: How implicit theories of intelligence predict L2 writers’ motivation and feedback orientation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.01.004
59.
WendelE.CawthonS. W.GeJ. J.BeretvasS. N. (2015). Alignment of single-case design (SCD) research with individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing with the What Works Clearinghouse standards for SCD research. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 20(2), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enu049
60.
What Works Clearinghouse (2020). What Works Clearinghouse standards handbook, version 4.1. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/handbooks
61.
WhiteA. H. (2007). A tool for monitoring the development of written English: T-unit analysis using the SAWL. American Annals of the Deaf, 152(1), 29–41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26234421
62.
WilliamsC. (2011). Adapted interactive writing instruction with kindergarten children who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 156(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2011.0011
63.
WolbersK. (2008). Strategic and interactive writing instruction (SIWI): Apprenticing deaf students in the construction of English text. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156(1), 299–326. https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034441
64.
WolbersK. (2010). Using ASL and print-based sign to build fluency and greater independence with written English among deaf students. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 10(1), 99–125. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2010.10.01.05.
65.
WolbersK.DostalH.BowersL. (2012). “I was born full deaf”: Written language outcomes after one year of strategic and interactive writing instruction (SIWI). Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enr018
66.
WolbersK.DostalH.CihakD.HolcombL. (2020). Written language outcomes of deaf elementary students engaged in authentic writing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 25(2), 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enz047
67.
WolbersK.DostalH.GrahamS.Branum-MartinL.KilpatrickJ.SaulsburryR. (2018). Strategic and interactive writing instruction: An efficacy study in grades 3-5. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 8(1), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.5539/jedp.v8n1p99
68.
WolbersK.DostalH.GrahamS.CihakD.KilpatrickJ.SaulsburryR. (2015). The writing performance of elementary students receiving strategic and interactive writing instruction. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 20(4), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/env022
69.
WolbersK.DostalH.SkerritP.StephensonB. (2016). A three-year study of a professional development program's Impact on teacher knowledge and classroom implementation of strategic and interactive writing instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 110(1), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1039112
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
