Simple Ways to Assess the Writing Skills of Students with Learning Disabilities
Student writing can be evaluated on five product factors: fluency, content, conventions, syntax, and vocabulary. Writing samples also should be assessed across a variety of purposes for writing to give a complete picture of a student's writing performance across different text structures and genres. These simple classroom help in identifying strengths and weaknesses, planning instruction, evaluating instructional activities, giving feedback, monitoring performance, and reporting progress.
Simple ways to assess the writing skills of students with learning disabilities
A teacher's first responsibility is to provide opportunities for writing and encouragement for students who attempt to write. A teacher's second responsibility is to promote students' success in writing. The teacher does this by carefully monitoring students' writing to assess strengths and weaknesses, teaching specific skills and strategies in response to student needs, and giving careful feedback that will reinforce newly learned skills and correct recurring problems. These responsibilities reveal, upon inspection, that assessment is clearly an integral part of good instruction. In their review of the existing research on effective instruction Christenson, Ysseldyke, and Thurlow (1989) found that, in addition to other factors, the following conditions were positively correlated to pupil achievement:
- The degree to which there is an appropriate instructional match between student characteristics and task characteristics (in other words, teachers must assess the student's prior knowledge and current level of skills in order to match them to a task that is relevant and appropriate to their aptitudes);
- The degree to which the teacher actively monitors students' understanding and progress; and
- The degree to which student performance is evaluated frequently and appropriately (congruent with what is taught).
Assessment, therefore, is an essential component of effective instruction. Airasian (1996) identified three types of classroom assessments. The first he called "sizing-up" assessments, usually done during the first week of school to provide the teacher with quick information about the students when beginning their instruction. The second type, instructional assessments, are used for the daily tasks of planning instruction, giving feedback, and monitoring student progress. The third type he referred to as official assessments, which are the periodic formal functions of assessment for grouping, grading, and reporting. In other words, teachers use assessment for identifying strengths and weaknesses, planning instruction to fit diagnosed needs, evaluating instructional activities, giving feedback, monitoring performance, and reporting progress. Simple curriculum-based methods for assessing written expression can meet all these purposes.
Process, product, and purpose
Curriculum-based assessment must start with an inspection of the curriculum. Many writing curricula are based on a conceptual model that takes into account process, product, and purpose. This conceptual model, therefore, forms the framework for the simple assessment techniques that follow.
Simple ways to assess the process
The diagnostic uses of assessment (determining the reasons for writing problems and the student's instructional needs) are best met by looking at the process of writing, i.e., the steps students go through and strategies they use as they work at writing. How much planning does the student do before he or she writes? Does she have a strategy for organizing ideas? What seem to be the obstacles to getting thoughts down on paper? How does the student attempt to spell words she does not know? Does the student reread what she has written? Does the student talk about or share her work with others as she is writing it? What kind of changes does the student make to her first draft?
In order to make instructionally relevant observations, the observer must work from a conceptual model of what the writing process should be. Educators have reached little consensus regarding the number of steps in the writing process. Writing experts have proposed as few as two (Elbow, 1981) and as many as nine (Frank, 1979). Englert, Raphael, Anderson, Anthony, and Stevens (1991) provided a model of a five-step writing process using the acronym POWER: Plan, Organize, Write, Edit, and Revise. Each step has its own substeps and strategies that become more sophisticated as the students become more mature as writers, accommodating their style to specific text structures and purposes of writing. Assessment of the writing process can be done through observation of students as they go through the steps of writing.
Having students assess their own writing process is also important for two reasons. First, self-assessment allows students an opportunity to observe and reflect on their own approach, drawing attention to important steps that may be overlooked. Second, self-assessment following a conceptual model like POWER is a means of internalizing an explicit strategy, allowing opportunities for the student to mentally rehearse the strategy steps. Figure 1 is a format for both self-observation and teacher observation of the writing process following the POWER strategy. Similar self-assessments or observation checklists could be constructed for other conceptual models of the writing process.
|POWER Looking at How I Write|
|My Comments||Teacher Comments|
|I chose a good topic||Yes||No|
|I read about my topic||Yes||No|
|I thought about what the readers will want to know||Yes||No|
|I wrote down all my ideas on a "think sheet"||Yes||No|
|I put similar ideas together||Yes||No|
|I chose the best ideas for my composition||Yes||No|
|I numbered my ideas in logical order||Yes||No|
|I wrote down my ideas in sentences||Yes||No|
|When I needed help I…
____did the best I could
____looked in a book
____asked my partner
____asked the teacher
|I read my first draft to myself||Yes||No|
|I marked the parts I like||Yes||No|
|I marked the parts I might want to change||Yes||No|
|I read my first draft to my partner||Yes||No|
|I listened to my partner's suggestions||Yes||No|
|I made changes to my composition||Yes||No|
|I edited for correctness||Yes||No|
|I wrote the final draft in my best writing||Yes||No|
Simple ways to assess the product
An effective writing process should lead to a successful product. A writing product fulfills its communicative intent if it is of appropriate length, is logical and coherent, and has a readable format. It is a pleasure to read if it is composed of well-constructed sentences and a rich variety of words that clearly convey the author's meaning. When various conceptual models of writing are compared side by side (Isaacson, 1984) five product variables seem to emerge: fluency, content, conventions, syntax, and vocabulary. Too often teachers focus their attention primarily on surface features of a student's composition related to the mechanical aspects of writing, or conventions. A balanced assessment should look at all five aspects of a student's writing. The following are simple methods for assessing each product variable. In some instances quantifiable measures are used; in others, qualitative assessments seem more appropriate.
The first writing skill a teacher might assess with a beginning writer is fluency: being able to translate one's thoughts into written words. As concepts of print and fine motor skills develop, the student should become more proficient at writing down words and sentences into compositions of gradually increasing length. The developmental route of very young writers involves trying to understand what written language is about as they look at books, become aware of environmental print, and put pencil to paper (Clay, 1982). Then children try to relate their experiences in writing using invented spelling. As they begin to construct little stories they explore spelling patterns and develop new language patterns. Clay (1979, 1993) recommends a simple rating scale for emerging writing skills that focuses on language level (from only letters to sentences and paragraphs), message quality, and directional principles (Figure 2).
|Record the highest level of linguistic organization used by the child:
2. Word (any recognizable word)
3. Word group (any two-word phrase)
4. Sentence (any simple sentence)
5. Punctuated story (of two or more sentences)
6. Paragraphed story (two themes)
|Record the number for the best description on the child's sample:
1. He has a concept of signs (uses letters, invents letters, used punctuation
2. He has a concept that a message is conveyed
3. A message is copied
4. Repetitive use of sentence patterns such as "Here is a…"
5. Attempts to record own ideas
6. Successful composition
|Record the number of the highest rating for which there is no error in the sample of the child's writing:
1. No evidence of directional knowledge
2. Part of the directional pattern is known: start top left, move left to right, or return down left
3. Reversal of the directional pattern (right to left and return down right)
4. Correct directional pattern
5. Correct directional pattern and spaces between words
6. Extensive text without any difficulties of arrangement and spacing of text
A simple curriculum-based measure of fluency is total number of words written during a short writing assignment. When fluency is the focus, misspellings, poor word choice, and faulty punctuation are not considered. Attention is only directed to the student's facility in translating thoughts into words. A baseline of at least three writing samples should be collected and the total number of words counted for each. For the purpose of evaluation, this total can be compared with those of proficient writers of the same age or grade level. However, total words may be used best in monitoring the student's progress, comparing performance with his or her own previous fluency.
- If the total number of words is less than 20, aim for doubling it by the end of the school year.
- If the number of words is between 25 and 30, aim for a 50% increase.
- If the number of words is between 35 and 45, aim for a 25% increase.
- If the number of words is greater than 50, choose another objective.
- Is there a good beginning sentence?
- Is there a clear ending?
- Is there a logical sequence of subtopics or events?
- Cohesion questions include:
- Does the writer stick to the topic?
- Is it clear what words like it, that, and they refer to?
- Does the writer use key words that cue the reader to the direction of the discourse (First… , Then… , Therefore… , On the other hand… )?
- Originality is assessed through questions like:
- Did the writer attempt humor?
- Did the writer present a unique point of view?
- 5 The organization enhances and showcases the central idea or storyline. The order, structure or presentation of information is compelling and moves the reader through the text.
- 3 The organizational structure is strong enough to move the reader through the text without undue confusion
- 1 The writing lacks a clear sense of direction. Ideas, details or events seem strung together in a loose or random fashion-or else there is no identifiable internal structure. (Spandel & Culham, 1993)
- The paper has a recognizable introduction and conclusion. The introduction may not create a strong sense of anticipation; the conclusion may not tie up all loose ends. Sequencing is usually logical, but may sometimes be so predictable that the structure takes attention away from the content.
- Pacing is fairly well controlled, though the writer sometimes spurts ahead too quickly or spends too much time on details that do not matter.
- Transitions often work well; at other times, connections between ideas are fuzzy.
- The organization sometimes supports the main point or storyline; at other times, the reader feels an urge to slip in a transition or move things around. (Spandel & Culham, 1993)
A composition that is somewhat better organized than described by the guidelines for 3 but does not quite fit the descriptors for 5 would receive a rating of 4. Similarly, a rating of 2 falls between the descriptors for 1 and 3.
Analytical scoring guidelines such as these are used in many state writing assessments. There are two limitations to scales such as these. First, teachers must spend many hours learning the rubrics and discussing student compositions in order to establish any degree of integrater reliability. Second, these scales may not be sensitive enough to measure growth in students with emerging literacy skills who are unable to achieve a rating above 1 or-at the most-2.
For many students, writing instruction begins with smaller units of discourse, such as a paragraph. Welch and Link (1992) recommended an informal paragraph assessment that focuses on each of a paragraph's three parts: topic sentence, supporting sentences, and clincher sentence (Figure 3). Each part can receive a point for its existence, its form (grammatical correctness), and its function (relevance to the topic). Both topic sentence and clincher sentence can earn only one point for each of the three criteria, but up to three supporting sentences can be scored for existence, form, and function. This scale could be used to evaluate almost any kind of paragraph.
The large cactus you see in pictures the desert is saguaro cactus. The Squaro cactus is very painfull if you toutch it. But it isn't as painful as being stabbed with a knife. It is against the law kill saguaros in the desert. I have seen som with about therty arms.
|Existence||1||(A topic sentence was written, but it was not grammatically correct.)|
|Existence||1||1||1||(Scored on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sentences.)
(The 3rd sentence does not support the topic. The 4th is not grammatical.)
|Existence||0||No clincher sentence was written.|
|TOTAL POINTS EARNED||=||9|
|TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE||=||15|
|TOTAL POINTS EARNED TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE||
Writing instruction for students with special needs also may focus on specific text structures. An example of a structure-specific scale is one that Isaacson (1995) devised for evaluating factual paragraphs written by middle school students (Figure 4). Isaacson's scale reflects the conceptual definition of fact paragraphs taught to the students: (a) A fact paragraph has more than one sentence; (b) The first sentence tells the topic; (c) All other sentences are about the topic; (d) Sentences tell facts, not opinions; and (e) The most important information is given first. Judgments of factual accuracy and fact vs. opinion make the scale specific to factual paragraphs.
|Does the first sentence tell the topic?||0||1|
|Are all the other sentences about the topic?||0||1|
|Do the sentences tell about facts, not opinions?||0||1|
|Are the facts accurate?||0||1||2|
|0 = Some facts are clearly inconsistent with source material
1 = Some facts are questionable (content not covered in source material
2 = All facts seem accurate
|Is amount of information sufficient?||0||1|
|0 = Very little information given to reader or information is of trivial nature
1 = Sufficient information is provided
|Is information presented in logical order?||0||1||2|
|0 = Random or stream-of-consciousness order
1 = Some improvement possible
2 = Clear, logical order
|Is the most important information or main idea first?||0||1|
|TOTAL SCORE||____/ 9|
Harris and Graham (1992) provided another example of a structure-explicit measure for assessing the inclusion and quality of eight story elements in stories written by students with learning disabilities: introduction of the main character, description of the locale, the time in which the story takes place, a precipitating event (or starter event), the goal formulated by the character in response to the starter event, action(s) carried out in an attempt to achieve the goal, the ending result, and the final reaction of the main character to the outcome. Each story element receives a numerical score for its inclusion and quality of development. The validity of the scale was demonstrated by its correlation with Thematic Maturity scores on the Test of Written Language and holistic ratings of story quality (Graham & Harris, 1986).
A resulting IEP objective for content might read: Using a story map, John will plan, write, and revise a story which includes a description of the character, setting, problem or goal, two or more events, and conclusion. (A story map is a planning sheet that prompts students to think about and write down their ideas concerning the character, setting, and other components of a good story before they write.)
In order to fulfill the communicative function of writing, the product must be readable. Writers are expected to follow the standard conventions of written English: correct spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and grammar and legible handwriting. Consequently, even if the message is communicated, readers tend to be negatively predisposed to compositions that are not presentable in their form or appearance. Teachers traditionally have been more strongly influenced by length of paper, spelling, word usage, and appearance than by appropriateness of content or organization (Charney, 1984; Moran, 1982).
- Place a caret (^) over every correct sequence between the two words that form the sequence.
- Place a large dot between every incorrect sequence. Place dots before and after misspelled words.
Example: o my ^ dog o chasd o the ^ ball^.
- The first sequence is not comprised of two words but marks how the sentence was begun. (Sentence beginning to first word my is marked as an incorrect sequence because the M is not capitalized.) The last sequence is the last word to period, question mark, or other appropriate ending punctuation.
- To control for length of composition either (a) time the writing sample for 3 minutes (the student may continue writing after a mark is made indicating the last word written in the 3-minute period) and/or (b) divide the number of CWS by the total number of sequences (correct and incorrect), which gives the proportion of CWS.
Proportion of correct word sequences, however, does not in itself pinpoint specific concerns about the student's spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, or handwriting. The diagnostic function of assessment will only be met if the teacher also notes the student's strengths and weaknesses as in Figure 5.
About Sell My Cow
I go to the Ranch at 5:30 in morning. I Ride my Horse with My Dad. get my Cow in the Barn. I Leave My cow and Calf. My DaD gave Shot to Calf. We took My Calf to Downtown. My fReind ride my horse. My horse is Black. My freind have red horse. But I need my cow to Born in feB 1st 1992. I am sell my Cow to calf for town But I have fun in Ranch in town. But I Like my money Back to for sell my Calf. But I need money Back to me. My Dad Siad no money back now Wait to little to me.
|Spelling||Almost all words spelled correctly||Reversals in vowel combinations: ie/ei (friend), ai/ia (said)|
|Capitalization||Begins all sentences but one with uppercase letters.||Irregular use of uppercase where not required and even in middle of words. Month ("feB") not capitalized.|
|Punctuation||Correct ending punctuation in every sentence but one. Use of colon for time (5:30).||No comma in date (feB 1st 1992) or before the word but in compound sentence.|
|Grammar||Simple sentences are grammatically correct.||Inconsistent use of past tense. Missing articles ("My DaD gave Shot to Calf.") Problems with gerunds ("am sell"/am selling).|
|Handwriting||Legible. Good spacing and alignment.|
Like the other assessments discussed in this article, these methods can be useful for instructional planning. A resulting IEP objective addressing conventions, for example, might read: Using a 4-step editing strategy, Kevin will reread his composition checking for correct capitals, punctuation, spelling, and overall appearance, writing a final draft with 2 or less mechanical errors.
As discussed previously, a child's early attempts at writing move from writing single words to writing word groups and sentences (Clay, 1993). Beginning writers often produce sentences that follow a repeated subject-verb (S-V) or subject-verb-object (S-V-O) pattern. The composition in Figure 5 was written by a ten-year-old female deaf student. The beginning of the composition reveals this typical repetitious pattern to a certain degree in its first few sentences: "I go… I Ride my Horse… [I] get my Cow… I Leave My cow…" A more mature writer will vary the sentence pattern and combine short S-V and S-V-O sentences into longer, more complex sentences.
Powers and Wilgus (1983) examined three parameters of syntactic maturity: (a) variations in the use of sentence patterns, (b) first expansions (six basic sentence patterns formed by the addition of adverbial phrases, infinitives, and object complements, and the formation of simple compound sentences), and (c) transformations that result in relative and subordinate clauses. Adapting Power and Wilgus's analysis of patterns suggests a simple schema for evaluating the syntactic maturity of a student's writing:
- Fragment : A group of words that does not make a complete sentence
Examples: His old shirt. Nina and Fred too.
- Level 1 Repetitious use of a single pattern (simple sentences)
Example: I like my horse. I like my dog. I like my kitty. I like to feed my kitty.
- Level 2 Use of a variety of simple sentence patterns.
Examples: I have a new toy. (S-V-O) It is big. (S-Vbe -Adj) It came in the mail. (S-V-PP)
- Level 3 First expansions: (a) addition of an adverbial or gerund phrase, or (b) the making of a compound sentence by combining two simple sentences with the word and.
Examples: Our baby sitter sleeps all the time. To go faster, we push it. I ate the cookie and my brother ate the candy bar.
- Level 4 Complex sentences (transformations in which one sentence is embedded within another as a subordinate clause)
Examples: The man wants to live where there is no pollution. Since John was late, we had to start without him.
Seldom does a student write sentences at only one level of syntactic maturity. One determines a syntactic level by analyzing all the sentences in the sample and summarizing them according to the type most often used. Occasionally one might characterize a student's syntactic level as being a transitional Level 2/Level 3 or Level 3/Level 4.
A resulting IEP objective for syntax might read: Daniel will plan, write, and revise a descriptive paragraph using mature sentences, at least half containing embedded clauses or adverbial phrases.
The words used in a student's composition can be evaluated according to the uniqueness or maturity of the words used in the composition. Both quantitative and qualitative methods can be used to evaluate vocabulary. Quantitative methods include calculating the use of unrepeated words in relation to the total number of words, such as Morris and Crump's (1982) corrected type-token ratio. A simpler classroom-based method of looking at vocabulary is to simply make note of words used repetitiously (over-used words) as well as new and mature words the student uses.
Example: Over-Used Words: New Mature Words
A resulting IEP objective for vocabulary might read: Diana will revise her expository compositions, substituting at least five over-used words (e.g., is) for more interesting action words.
Taking into account the purpose
Being skilled is not just knowing how to perform some action but also knowing when to perform it and adapt it to varied circumstances (Resnick & Klopfer, 1989, p. 4). Being a skilled writer requires knowing how to employ the writing process across a range of writing tasks and adapt the process to the specific purpose for writing.
Instruction often begins with story structures because they represent the genre most familiar to children. Children also use and depend upon narrative as their principal mode of thinking (Moffett, 1983). However, several educators (Hennings, 1982; Sinatra, 1991; Stotsky, 1984) have called for more emphasis on descriptive and expository text structures which relate more closely to real life writing tasks.
Different purposes for writing call for different text structures. Writing a story calls for a narrative text structure that includes a character, setting, problem, etc. Writing about one's beliefs calls for a persuasive text structure that includes discussion of the problem, statement of belief, two or three reasons for the belief, facts and examples that support the reasons, etc.
Assessment of writing skills, therefore, should take into account a variety of purposes and text structures. Purposes and genres to consider include: personal narrative (my trip to the state fair), story narrative, descriptive, explanation of a process (how to give your dog a bath), factual report, letter, compare-contrast (compare the Allegheny Mountains with the Rocky Mountains), and persuasive.
Simple curriculum-based assessments can be used to assess the writing process and products of students with learning disabilities, as well as take into account purpose. The assessments recommended in this article also adequately fulfill the purposes of assessment as discussed at the beginning of the article: identifying strengths and weaknesses, planning instruction to fit diagnosed needs, evaluating instructional activities, giving feedback, monitoring performance, and reporting progress. A teacher might use these methods at the beginning of the year to do a quick sizing-up of student instructional needs. The process checklist in Figure 1 gives the teacher important diagnostic information about the strategies a student does or does not use when writing.
A quick assessment of product variables from the first two or three writing assignments also gives the teacher important diagnostic information about skill strengths and weaknesses. The teacher then should use the initial assessment to identify instructional targets. Some students, for example, may do pretty well at planning their composition, but do little in the way of effective editing. Other students may have creative ideas, but need considerable work on conventions. Some students may do pretty well with writing stories, but need to learn how to write factual paragraphs.
All classroom-based assessment should involve the student. Self-assessment helps students take ownership for their own writing and helps them internalize the strategies they are learning. The teacher's feedback should be given judiciously: generous in the encouragement of ideas and improved skills, but cautious in correction. Corrective feedback should only focus on those few skill targets that have been addressed in instruction.
Simple classroom-based methods also can be used to monitor student performance and report progress. Figure 6 is an assessment summary sheet that could be used to give a profile of a student's skills across a variety of writing purposes and genres. In an assessment portfolio the summary sheet would be accompanied by representative samples of a student's writing with both the student's and teacher's evaluations. After an initial assessment of student strengths and weakness across fluency, content, conventions, syntax, and vocabulary, the teacher would not necessarily need to monitor all the product factors, just those that focus on the student's greatest challenges and priority instructional objectives.
|Writing Portfolio Summary|
|Number of Words|
|Structure (Beginning, middle, end; story schema or other text structure)|
|Cohesion (Adherence to topic; use of key words)|
|Originality (Unique point of view; attempts at humor)|
|% Correct Word Sentences|
|Spelling Problems, punctuation or capitalization errors, grammar, other|
|Level 1 (simple repeated)|
|Level 2 (simple varied)|
|Level 3 (expansions)|
|Level 4 (complex)|
In conclusion, on-going assessment of writing is integral to effective teaching of writing. A teacher cannot make an appropriate instructional match between a student's skills and appropriate tasks without assessment. A teacher cannot ensure a student's success and make necessary adjustments in instruction without engaging in frequent assessment. Careful, thorough assessment of a student's writing requires that the teacher have a sound conceptual model of written expression taking into account process, product, and purpose.
Click the "References" link above to hide these references.
Airasian, P. W. (1996). Assessment in the classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Charney, D. (1984). The validity of using holistic scoring to evaluate writing: A critical overview. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 65-81.
Christenson, S. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Thurlow, M. L. (1989). Critical instructional factors for students with mild handicaps: An integrative review. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 21-31.
Clay, M. M. (1979). The early detection of reading difficulties: A diagnostic survey with recovery procedures (2nd ed.). Auckland New Zealand: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (1982). Learning and teaching writing: A developmental perspective. Language Arts, 59, 65-70.
Clay, M. M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Auckland New Zealand: Heinemann.
Deno, S., Mirkin, P. K., & Wesson, C. (1984). How to write effective data-based IEPs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 16, 99-104.
Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. New York: Oxford University Press.
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., & Stevens, D. D. (1991). Making strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 337-372.
Frank, M. (1979). If you're trying to teach kids how to write, you've gotta have this book! Nashville, TN: Incentive Publications.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (April, 1986). Improving learning disabled students' compositions via story grammar training: A component analysis of self-control strategy training. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992). Helping young writers master the craft: Strategy instruction & self-regulation in the writing process. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Hennings, D. G. (1982). A writing approach to reading comprehension - schema theory in action. Language Arts, 59, 8-17.
Isaacson, S. (1984). Evaluating written expression: Issues of reliability, validity, and instructional utility. Diagnostique, 9, 96-116.
Isaacson, S. (February, 1995). A comparison of alternative procedures for evaluating written expression. Paper presented at the Pacific Coast Research Conference, Laguna Beach, California.
Moffett, J. (1983). Teaching the universe of discourse. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Moran, M. R. (1982). Analytical evaluation of formal written language skills as a diagnostic procedure. Diagnostique, 8 17-31.
Morris, N. T., & Crump, D. T. (1982). Syntactic and vocabulary development in the written language of learning-disabled and non-learning-disabled students at four age levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 163-172.
Parker, R., & Tindal. G. (1989). Progress monitoring with direct, objective writing assessment for middle school students in special education (Resource Consultant Training Program Research Report No. 1). Eugene, OR. University of Oregon, Special Education Area.
Powers, A. R., & Wilgus, S. (1983). Linguistic complexity in the written language of hearing-impaired children. Volta Review, 85, 201-210.
Resnick, L. B., & Klopfer, L. E. (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: An overview. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (1989 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Sinatra, R. (1991). Integrating whole language with the learning of text structure. Journal of Reading, 34, 424-433.
Spandel, V., & Culham, R. (1993). Analytical trait scoring guide. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Stotsky, S. (1984). Commentary: A proposal for improving high school students' ability to read and write expository prose. Journal of Reading, 28, 4-7.
Videen, J., Deno, S., & Marston, D. (1982). Correct word sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in written expression (Research Report No. 84). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
Welch, M., & Link, D. P. (1992). Informal assessment of paragraph composition. Intervention in School and Clinic, 27(3), 145-149.
Stephen L. Isaacson Portland State University This article is adapted for LD OnLine from a similar article by Isaacson published in The Volta Review, 1996, Vol. 98, No. 1, pp. 183-199.