Search

Students with hearing loss (HL) often fall behind hearing peers in complex language tasks such as narrative writing. This study explored the effects of school grade, gender, cognitive and linguistic predisposition and audiological factors on narrative text quality in this target group. Eleven students with HL in Grades 5–6 and 7–8 (age 12–15) who took part in a writing intervention wrote four narrative texts over six months. A trained panel rated text quality. The effects of the students' working memory capacity, language comprehension, reading comprehension, school grade and gender and the intervention were analyzed as a mixed-effects regression model. Audiological factors were considered separately. The analysis showed that throughout the period, texts written by female students in Grade 7–8 received the highest text quality ratings, while those written by male students in Grade 7–8 received the lowest ratings. There was no effect of the intervention, or of the linguistic and cognitive measures. The students with the lowest text quality ratings received amplification later than those with high ratings, but HL severity was not associated with text quality. Hearing loss severity was not a decisive factor in narrative text quality. The intervention which the students took part in is potentially effective, with some adaptation to the special needs of students with HL. The strong gender effects are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Observational learning has shown to be a successful intervention for writing. Until now, however, studies have only been performed with normal-hearing participants, usually high school or university students. Additionally, there have been conflicting results in whether subjective text quality correlates with one or more objectively measured text characteristics. In this study, we measured the effect of observational learning in a group of four university students with hearing impairment, and compared the results with those of a group of 10 students with normal hearing who did the same intervention, and those of a control group consisting of 10 students with normal hearing who did not do the intervention. Subjective text quality ratings and nine objectively measured text characteristics were collected for three argumentative texts written by each of the participants. In between writing these three texts, the participants in the experimental groups watched a video of a model writer who read out loud and corrected a similar kind of text. The statistical analysis showed significant correlations between the subjective ratings and four out of the nine objective measures, but no significant intervention effect. These findings suggest that observation-learning intervention is most effective when the model writer is a peer learner, and when the intervention is stretched out over time. Additionally, the method may be better suited for learners younger than the ones who were included in the present study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Self-efficacy for writing is an important motivational factor and considered to predict writing performance. Self-efficacy for narrative writing has been sparsely studied, and few studies focus on the effects of writing intervention on self-efficacy. Additionally, there is a lack of validated measures of self-efficacy for elementary school students. In a previous study, we found that a trained panel rated personal narrative text quality higher for girls than for boys, which led to our aim: to investigate boys' and girls' self-efficacy for narrative writing before and after an intervention, and to explore associations between self-efficacy and text quality. An 18-item self-efficacy scale was developed. Fifty-five fifth-grade students (M 11:2 years, SD 3.7 months) filled out the scale before and after a five-lesson observational learning intervention. Self-efficacy was then related to writing performance as measured by holistic text quality ratings. The students demonstrated strong self-efficacy, which increased significantly post-intervention. Girls and boys demonstrated similar self-efficacy, despite girls' higher text quality. There were moderate correlations between self-efficacy and writing performance pre- and post-intervention. The results support previous findings of strong self-efficacy at this age. The interaction between writing self-efficacy and performance is complex. Young students may not be able to differentiate between self-efficacy, general writing skills, task performance, and self-regulation. Self-efficacy scales should thus be carefully constructed with respect to age, genre, instruction, and to students' general educational context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]