Construction of meaning in the authentic science writing of deaf students.

This study examines how students construct meaning through writing during authentic science activities. To determine how well students understood science concepts, we analyzed 228 writing samples from deaf students in grades 6 through 11 as well as the explanatory and reflective comments of their teachers. The analyses indicate that certain process writing strategies were differentially useful in helping deaf students to construct meaning and in allowing teachers to evaluate the constructed meaning. Three instructional conditions and two teacher variables were found to play roles in determining the accuracy and adequacy of the writing: (1) the writing prompts the teachers used, (2) the focus for the writing, (3) follow-up to the initial writing activity, (4) the teacher's content knowledge, and (5) the teacher's ability to interpret student writing. The authors recommend future applications of writing-to-learn strategies and suggest directions for further research and changes in teacher education.

Deaf college students' reading comprehension and strategy use.

Two comprehension studies were conducted with 46 deaf college students. In the first, 20 deaf college students representing higher and lower reading-ability levels were tested for correctly stating the main idea of a passage, answering content questions, indicating their understanding of the words and phrases, and recognizing a topically incongruent sentence embedded in the passage. The results suggest that deaf students profess a better understanding of what they read than they are able to demonstrate. The students' inability to identify a topically incongruent sentence in the passage further suggests a need for them to more carefully and accurately evaluate their understanding of what they are reading. A second study investigated the effect of strategy review instruction on deaf college students' comprehension of short reading passages. Students reading at a higher level showed improved comprehension on the posttraining passage, but students reading at a lower level did not. Similarly, the control group of deaf students comparable to the higher-level readers did not show improved comprehension.