Assessment Protocols

Weschsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-Revised) and Kaufman-Assessment Battery for Children with Hearing Impaired (K-ABC) are two intelligence/cognitive formal assessments that has the nonverbal performance scale, which is a good way of measuring intelligence in deaf and hard of hearing students without measuring language abilities. Language disorders or delays in deaf and hard of hearing students may cause the scores to be off in the intelligence assessments that has verbal intelligence scale (Braden, 1992, p. 90). This test will assist in the big picture of the student's potential and ability, which will help us to understand the student's needs. In turn, it will help us to develop the IEP goals and objectives for that student.

Stanford Achievement Test for the Hearing Impaired (SAT-HI) is an academic assessment used for deaf and hard of hearing students to measure academic skills including reading, language, study skills, spelling, mathematics, science and social studies. This test has different types of assessment for different grade levels, K-1, 1-9 and 9-community college (Taylor, 2000, p. 272). This also provides us another piece of the big picture of the student's capabilities and to provide information for the student's IEP.

Using a formal language test in deaf and hard of hearing students will not be effective, because many of these tests do not include deaf or hard of hearing students in the sample. The content in these tests do not match the language needs of the deaf and hard of hearing students. The best way to assess language skills is to observe and to document as much as possible. I would work with the speech language pathologist to determine what areas of language in which the student needs improvement (Lecture notes, Language Assessment & Instruction for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students, Dr. Harold Johnson, Kent State University). This information will effect how much the student needs intervention for language and for the other areas of education. For example, if the student does not have much language, then IEP will be focused on developing language skills for the student to be able to learn the academic skills. Again, this is another piece of a puzzle for educators, parents, and professionals to determine what would be appropriate education for the student. This also helps to determine the goals and objectives to be implemented in the "Language Across Curriculum."

For younger grades, I would use the criterion-referenced test, Brigance Inventory of Basic Skills - Revised, which measures the academic abilities of the students and compares the results against what the student knows, not the standardized sample. This has been used for several years for deaf education classrooms, and it helps teachers of the younger grades to develop IEP goals and objectives. This would not be a good test for the older grades who have low academic skills. I do not want to do any harm to their self-esteem, and it would not be effective to use that test (Taylor, 2000, p. 299). This assessment gives us teachers another tool to determine the academic abilities without having to use the formal assessment tool.

For all grades, I would use miscue analysis to determine the errors in reading and to determine what grade level is the student reading. The student will read a book of his/her choice and will read the story to me. I would keep track of all the errors and determine the score. After the student finished reading the story, the student will retell the story including all the details that he/she can recall. Based on the retelling, I can then determine the reading comprehension (French, 1999, p. 72-78). This assessment gives us a better picture of student's reading level, and supports the "Language Across Curriculum." The reading strategies, DRTA and LEA, also are supported by this type of assessment. We can determine the student's independent, instructional and frustration levels, and how to plan according to these levels in our daily lesson planning and in the IEP. 

For the content areas of math, science and social studies, I would use performance assessment in addition to traditional assessment (teacher-made tests and homework assignments). Performance assessment will be most likely be projects where students will do such as producing, demonstrating, performing, creating, constructing, applying, solving, planning, persuading and/or explaining a task. When designing a project, I would develop a rubric which has characteristics that would tell me if the student has done exemplary, competent, minimal, inadequate or no attempt (Taylor, 2000, p. 134). This supports the constructivism philosophy for mathematics, science and social studies and incorporates hands-on activities in the classroom. At the same time, it encourages students to do higher order of thinking and to take responsibility for their own work. 

Portfolio assessment will also be used for all grades where the student and I will choose the work that we both feel that demonstrates the student's best ability in all subjects. That portfolio will be kept as long as the student is part of the school system. The students can use the portfolio as a gauge to see how they have progressed over time, and this is a concrete example where their skills have improved. This is also related to real life experiences, because in many fields, they often require a portfolio as well as a resume for the job interview (Taylor, 2000, p. 138; Clark, 1996, p. 7). This supports the Functional Language approach, because it incorporates real life situation into the classroom setting and uses language to communicate ideas and thoughts. 

Assessing writing in deaf and hard of hearing students is the hardest of the areas that I feel, because I know that as a teacher one does not want to criticize the student's writing without doing too much damage to the student's self-confidence and self-esteem. I am deaf myself, and I certainly can thank my old teachers for doing the right amount of criticism to improve my writing. I have found this article that I found to be helpful for teachers to use as a way of assessing students' writing ability. They used the Six Trait Analytical Scale, which includes ideas and content, organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency, and writing conventions. These traits are all based on a rubric from 1 to 5 with 5 being the best. This test seems to be a reliable gauge for teachers to use as a tool for teaching the writing workshop (Heefner & Shaw, 1998, p. 162-3,166-8). I can use this to determine if there is progress in student's writing process using the writing workshop, and what areas needed to be improved through mini-lessons.