Writing sample evaluations by students with and without LD.

Abstract

Approximately 200 elementary and secondary teachers evaluated a 6th grade student writing sample; only half were told the essay was written by a student with a severe learning disability. All teachers were asked to use the same rubric to grade the essay. Overall, results indicated that a discrepancy exists between the evaluated writing skill performance of students with and without learning disabilities.

Present Situation and Hypothesis

Developing writing skills is an essential component of classroom curriculum. Students master language skills at varying rates and progress is dependent upon numerous factors, teacher feedback being among the most critical (Lerner, 2000). Teachers' expectations of their students have been shown to play a significant role in determining the quality and quantity of output students produce (Mercer & Mercer, 2001). Of particular concern to a student is the climate, or socioemotional mood, created by the person holding the expectations, often communicated nonverbally; the feedback, providing both affective information and cognitive information; and input, suggesting that teachers tend to teach more to the students from whom they expect more (Tauber, 1998). Given the variety and multitude of messages students receive from their teachers, and the impact these messages may have on the depth of their learning, students with learning disabilities (LD) may be at a distinct disadvantage if their teachers have biased impressions or expectations about their scholastic performance, aptitude, or interest.

Given the difficulties that students with LD face in making academic achievements, this research was conducted to begin an in-depth examination of the relationship between teacher perceptions of students with learning disabilities and the nature and quality of the feedback they offer to such students. Given that students with LD typically master skills at a slower rate than their general education (GE) peers (Rodis, Garrod, & Boscardin, 2001), tend to require more prompting, guidance, reinforcement to progress towards mastery of essential concepts (Olson & Platt, 2000), and often continue to exhibit LD several years following initial diagnosis (Lyon, 1996), it is especially crucial to quantitatively determine the extent to which extraneous factors influence the academic achievements students with LD are making. Research clearly shows that "teachers' attitudes influence both their expectations for their students and their behavior toward them. These attitudes, expectations, and behaviors influence both student self-image and academic performance" (Alexander & Strain, 1978, as cited in ERIC, 1985, p. 1). Additionally, the Pygmalion Effect [also known as the self-fulfilling prophecy], or the idea that one's expectations about a person can eventually lead that person to behave and achieve in ways that conform to those expectations (Brehm & Kassin, 1996), is a powerful phenomenon and may be influencing the output they receive from their students, rather than the work (perceived to be below standard) being the sole result of LD.

Method

Participants

Teacher respondents were recruited from the school campuses of a large urban school district in California. A total of 202 teachers participated; 73 secondary and 46 elementary teachers with more than one year of teaching experience, and 83 teachers (combined secondary and elementary) with less than one year of formal teaching experience.

Instruments and Procedures

All respondents were given identical copies of a student essay along with a brief questionnaire asked respondents to provide information regarding their professional background, including years of formal teaching experience. Approximately one half of the respondents were told that the essay was written by a 6th grade student with a severe LD; the other half was simply told that the essay was written by a 6th grade student.

The evaluation rubric assessed 14 individual skill categories. Each category was addressed individually, and responses to each question were not contingent upon responses made prior to or following each evaluative category. The categories evaluated were: (1) sentence begins with a capital letter, (2) paragraph indentation, (3) correct punctuation, (4) correct spelling, (5) each paragraph starts a new idea, (6) each paragraph has a clear main idea, (7) each paragraph effectively develops the main idea, (8) correct and consistent subject/verb agreement, (9) descriptive language used throughout, (10) demonstrates a strong command of the English language, (11) proper verb tense, (12) responds fully and effectively to the given prompt, (13) interesting essay, and (14) neat and easy to read.

Teacher respondents were grouped into six subgroups according to their years of teaching experience and grade level(s) taught. Initially, teachers were divided into the following three groups: secondary teachers (grades 6-12) with at least 1 year of formal teaching experience; elementary teachers (grades Kindergarten-5) with at least 1 year of formal teaching experience; and teachers with less than 1 year of formal teaching experience. Each of the three groups was then divided into two categories: either 1) they evaluated the essay written by a student with LD, or 2) they evaluated the essay written by a student without LD.

Data Analysis

In analyzing the data, individual category and overall average scores for each of the six subgroups were determined from a 4-point Likert scale devised by the principal author. Scores for the student presented without LD within each subgroup of teacher respondents were compared to scores of students presented with LD within the same subgroup of teacher respondents. Based on said comparisons, results were computed by determining the divergence between the average scores of the student presented with LD against the average scores of the student without LD. Positive numbers indicate the degree to which the student with the learning disability scored higher than the student without LD. Negative numbers indicate the degree to which the student with LD scored lower than the student without LD.

Results

Secondary Teachers

Of the evaluations of secondary teachers with more than one year of formal teaching experience, results suggest that secondary students (grades 6-12) with identified LD are perceived as having more frequent grammatical errors in their writing samples, less coherent paragraph organization and thorough development, and less developed fine motor skills as measured by the degree to which their writing is considered neat and legible. Based on these findings, the frequency with which their academic grades are lower than their GE peers may be partially or primarily due to teachers' attitudes toward the students' disabilities rather than a pure, objective reflection of the quality of the work they have produced.

Evaluations show that the student presented with LD scored, on average, .25% lower than his/her GE counterparts. While this particular figure may not appear significant, further exploration shows that the degree of variance between the general and special education students (between each of the three teacher categories) further substantiates the above stated hypothesis.

Of the secondary teacher respondents, the disparity between the average scores ranges from -.16 points (out of 4 points total) lower than the GE student, to +.31 points above the GE student. The categories in which the student with LD scored higher than the GE peer are: proper punctuation (+.29), spelling (+.05), and demonstrates strong command of the English language (+.31). The categories in which the student with LD scored lower than the GE peer are: correct capitalization (-.10), correct indentation (.02), paragraphs start a new idea (-.02), paragraphs contain a clear main idea (-.07), paragraphs effectively develop the main idea (-.10), consistent subject/verb agreement (-.30), descriptive language used throughout the essay (-.06), consistent proper verb tense (-.16), full and effective response to given prompt (-.02), neat writing (-.02), and overall average (-.01). Of the teachers in this category, the scope of the disparity between the students ranges from -.16 to +.31 for a total difference of .47 points across the evaluative categories. In evaluating these scores, the reader must keep in mind that secondary teachers were not asked their discipline. This might have made a significant difference in the types of results received. See issue's website <http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/sum02.htm>

Teachers with Less Than One Year of Formal Teaching Experience

Of the teacher respondents with less than one year of formal teaching experience, results were strikingly different from those of the secondary teachers with more than one year of experience. In this study, teachers with minimal experience attributed significantly higher scores to the student presented with LD. While experienced teachers tended to grade students with LD on a relatively harsher scale, it would appear that less experienced teachers marked the same students on a much more lenient grading scale, overlooking many evaluative categories in favor of "padding" the score so as to not (apparently) discourage the student.

The teachers in this category assessed the student with LD as, on average, .14 point above the GE student. Additionally, this is .15 point above the overall average score given by secondary teachers and .02 point above the score ascribed by elementary teachers. Of the teachers in this category, the scope of the disparity between the students ranges from -.09 to +.37 for a total difference of a .46 point disparity across the evaluative categories.

In this group of teachers, the student presented with LD scored lower than the GE counterpart in two categories: each paragraph contains a clear main idea (-.01) and consistent, proper verb tense used throughout the essay (-.09). In the remaining categories, the student with LD was shown to have substantially higher scores overall. The breakdown is as follows: sentences begin with a capital letter (+.16), paragraphs indented (+.06), proper punctuation used throughout essay (+.28), correct spelling throughout (+.18), each paragraph begins a new idea (+.09), each paragraph develops the main idea effectively (+.03), consistent subject/verb agreement throughout essay (+.26), descriptive language used throughout essay (+.09), demonstrates a strong command of the English language (+.03), essay provides a full and effective response to the given prompt (+.35), neat writing (+.17), and overall average (+.14).

Elementary Teachers

Teachers qualifying as elementary teachers were those who had been teaching in grades Kindergarten through 5th and had more than one year of formal teaching experience. In this category of teachers, the degree of the disparity exceeded the other two categories by .16 point, with a total disparity among all evaluative categories of .65 point. There was only one evaluative category in which the student with LD scored lower than the student without LD. It was "demonstrates a strong command of the English language." The student with LD scored .04 point lower than the GE peer. Other than that relatively low score, the elementary teachers appraised the student with LD with scores ranging from .01 point higher to .80 point higher than the GE student.

Common Patterns

Overall, the student with a learning disability scored surprisingly higher with all three teacher groups in the categories addressing proper punctuation, correct spelling, and interesting overall. Of the three groups of teacher respondents, the only category in which the student without LD scored higher than the student with LD was demonstrates a strong command of the English language, in which the elementary teachers assigned the student with LD -.04 lower than the student without LD. The teachers with less than one year of formal teaching experience assigned the student with LD .03 higher than the student without LD. Secondary teachers assigned the student with a learning disability .31 points higher than the student without a learning disability.

Discussion

This discussion focuses primarily on comparing the data collected from secondary teachers to the data collected from teachers with less than one year of formal teaching experience. The phenomena indicated by these results suggests that teachers with less experience evaluated the work of the student with LD to be of a higher quality than the student without LD. Although this may suggest that the Self Fulfilling Prophecy may work to counteract the detrimental impact of artificially harsh grading systems, this set of circumstances presents an equally disadvantageous situation for a student with LD attempting to acquire new skills. Although this may initially appear to be incongruous to the primary tenet of this article, it is a close relative of the animal being addressed; namely, inconsistent and nebulous grading scales resulting from reactionary expectations of students with LD. Despite the positive feedback (established here as artificial) a student with LD may receive from a less experienced teacher, the educational implications will ultimately prove to be crippling. Specifically, students who do not receive accurate feedback addressing specific areas of strengths and weaknesses cannot determine areas of need requiring additional reinforcement.

Consider Jonathan, a fully included sixth grade student with dysgraphia (i.e., LD in written language) and an auditory processing disorder impacting his ability to assimilate spoken directions with accuracy and speed. He often requires prompting from his peers to follow directions within the classroom, and loses track of classroom activities easily, especially during times of great excitement or activity. Unknown to his GE teacher, Jonathan's LD does not impact his ability to express his ideas in writing, nor does he exhibit difficulty comprehending and recalling information read at his grade level. In fact, his reading skills are both measured to be over standard score 110.

Although his GE teacher is aware that he has a LD, she does not understand the specific nature of it nor does she make accommodations that address his particular needs. She has access to his Individual Education Plan, but prefers to make generic modifications to her curriculum and allows all of her students with LD to have access to the same materials. For example, she creates two versions of each exam, an "easy" one and a "hard" one. She allows her students with LD to turn in partially completed assignments as long as they have made an "honest effort," and she often uses a slightly easier grading scale when evaluating their writing assignments. She states, "Learning can be so difficult for students with learning disabilities, I don't want to break their spirit. I may be a little bit too easy on them, but they deserve to feel successful at least once in a while."

When Jonathon receives an "A" on an essay that is, in comparison to the rest of his classmates, worthy of a "C," he assumes the quality of his writing is as good as or better than most of his classmates. While the message he is receiving may motivate him to continue to persevere in further writing assignments, he will progress without the benefit of accurate teacher feedback reflecting areas in need of development. Additionally, because the accommodations he receives are the same as the other students with LD, the standards he is held to are far beneath his current ability level. Consequently, he is not advancing at the rate at which he is capable.

In this study, secondary teachers evaluated the student with LD. 15 point lower than the teachers with minimal teaching experience, and an average of .16 point less than they evaluated the student without LD. The educational implications of this circumstance create similarly crippling educational options for a student struggling with LD. Expository writing skills are introduced and cultivated in the middle grades (6th through 8th), while they are refined and polished in the upper grades (9th through 12th). It is during this time that students rely upon specific input from their teachers to guide them in developing the minute details that determine the overall complexity and clarity of their work. Teacher feedback has a tremendous impact on student work.

An interesting trend in special education has developed in recent years. The passing of IDEA and its 1997 amendments has been followed by a sharp increase in the number of students identified with special needs, particularly those with LD, participating in GE classrooms. In this case, as with many sudden changes in legislation, the mandate preceded the education and resources necessary to accommodate the increased demands made upon GE teachers. Currently, GE teachers are called upon to make daily modifications and accommodations to classroom curriculum, often with inconsistent achievement from the student with LD. Many teachers now find that the easiest way for a student with LD to demonstrate mastery is by lowering their grading standards or diminishing the complexity of the curriculum to meet the perceived limitations of the student. Students considered to be of lower capabilities are "usually offered less exciting instruction, less emphasis on meaning and conceptualization, and more rote drill and practice activities than those in high or heterogeneous groups and classes" (Cotton, 1989, p. 2). If a student cannot earn a true "A," the teacher makes his/her job easier by reducing the curriculum and/or inflating the grade reported. This cat and mouse game creates an atmosphere where the student with LD is expected to achieve less than his/her peers, and the instructional content is "dumbed down" to the point that a student is no longer exposed to the rigors of a typical general education, nor is he or she privy to the same educational opportunities following an educational career reflective of the one just described.

References

Boorstein, M. (1999, March 9). Adults with ADD. SouthCoast Today, B4.

Cotton, K. (1989). Expectations and student outcomes. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests Measurement and Evaluation. (1997). Measuring teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming. Princeton, NJ. (Report No. ED289885)

Lerner, J. (2000). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis & teaching strategies (8th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Lyon, G. R. (1996). Special education for students with disabilities. The Future of Children, 6, 116.

Mercer, C. D., & Mercer, A. R. (2001). Teaching students with learning problems (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Olson, J. L., & Platt, J. M. (2000). Teaching children and adolescents with special needs (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Rodis, P., Garrod, A., & Boscardin, M. L. (2001). Learning disabilities & life stories. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gaines is a master's degree candidate in Special Education at California State University, Northridge. She is a Resource Specialist in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Ashton, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor and Teacher Education Coordinator in the Department of Special Education.