Methods

9

For my experiment, I have nine writing samples, three each from my junior and senior years in high school and three from my freshman year in college. I chose the three samples “Argument Essay,” “Chapter 1 Reaction Paper,” and “Free Response Essay” because of the limited amount of choices I had from my junior year in high school. For my senior year in high school, I selected “It’s Easy Being Green,” “ELP #1,” and “Final Exam Essay” because I wanted variety in the types and purposes of the samples. Furthermore, I thought it was important to select papers from different classes. As for my first year in college, I decided on “Paper 4,” “School Uniforms,” and “Research Plan” because they, too, represent a variety of papers. For more information on the writing samples I chose, see Table 1 below.

Table 1

General Information on the Writing Samples

10

After collecting and organizing the data for the samples and creating a chart in which to log my findings, I began analyzing the samples by the following criteria: punctuation errors, repetitive words, word choice, sentence structure, and fully developed ideas. The process for each analysis was repeated throughout.

11

First, I read through the sample one time and only noted confusing areas or parts that I thought could be developed more. I also observed if the argument of the paper was backed up with evidence and if the argument was weak or strong. This was pertinent for the category of fully developed ideas. It allowed me to look at the paper as a whole before I critiqued specific areas of the paper.

12

Next, I reread the paper, sentence by sentence, to find any kind of punctuation errors. It was very important for me to go sentence by sentence because it allowed me focus on the information on a smaller level. If I had not done this, I would have merely viewed the sentences grouped together in paragraphs which, in turn, would have made me focus on understanding what the paragraph itself was saying, rather than the mechanics of each individual sentence.

13

Subsequently, I began to read the paper through again, this time looking at word choice, repetitive words, and sentence structure. As I read it, I noted any words I felt that I had seen too many times. I counted the number of times each word was overused with the help of Microsoft Word’s word find. I also made distinct remarks on the sentence structure throughout the sample. The areas of sentence structure I focused on were length (findings of fragments or run-ons), syntax variety, and word positioning in sentences. Finally, but importantly, I commented on the paper’s word choice. The Flesch Reading Grade Level assessment on Microsoft Word helped me determine the sophistication and complexity of the words used in the writing samples. For each paper, I highlighted a few areas throughout the paper and took note of the Flesch Reading Grade Level stated. Also, as part of word choice, I examined word variety.

14

At the end of each group of samples (junior, senior, and college freshman), I made notes on what I thought any of it could possibly mean. In addition, I wrote my thoughts regarding each of the individual criteria for every group of samples. At the very end of all nine samples, I made some overall notes concerning my findings.

15

As a student, I want to believe that my method of analysis was the most efficient, but as a researcher, I know it is not. Like any study, mine has its weaknesses and strengths.

16

Despite the fact that my study provides specific and detailed insights into the writing of a hearing impaired person, it cannot be generalized for a broad population; this raises a problem. If my research does not help a general population, then what good is the information? Rather than provide these sorts of concrete answers, I see my research as a starting point. The information I found can help build a case study that could be generalized for the hearing impaired population. It could also compete with studies that have already been done and lead researchers to search for more answers.

I feel that the personal interest I have in this study gives it tremendous strength.

17

I feel that the personal interest I have in this study gives it tremendous strength. The personalization of my study may inspire educators, scientists, or anyone interested in this topic to see the subject from a different perspective. However, at the same time, some may view my personal investment in this study as a biased perspective and I would have to agree. Since I am the researcher of the study in addition to the subject being researched, it presents some conflict. Although I have tried to remain as objective as possible throughout the entire study, it is possible that I may have allowed my personal bias to slip in.

18

Another weakness of my study is the fact that I may not have used enough samples. I only used three samples to represent an entire academic year. Three pieces of writing cannot form an adequate representation of each school year. However, I think it is important I used writing samples from different classes to give a more balanced representation of each academic school year.

19

Furthermore, we must take into account the circumstances, besides hearing impairment, that may have influenced my writing. These include factors such as the teacher and the class the piece of writing was for, the things I was going through at the specific time in my life, how much time I spent on the writing sample, the type and purpose of the paper, and so on. There are an overwhelming number of factors that could be taken into consideration; consequently, all of my results must be taken with caution.

20

Last but not least, I feel confident about my choice of research methods; I think it was the most appropriate way to go about my research. For example, I read through each sample three times, each time focusing on different criteria. I felt this was the best way to go about it since, if I had only read each sample once, I would have overwhelmed myself trying to look for all of my criteria in one reading. Reading for everything at once would have led me to miss important findings. However, since I broke the criteria into separate parts, it enabled me to be more focused on the specific areas I was looking at; as a result, it allowed for a more accurate read of the individual sample.

21

Another crucial part of my methods was looking at my own writing versus samples selected randomly from strangers. I chose my own writing samples because I felt that I was able to trust my own writing more than samples from strangers. Also, I would most likely not have been able to get enough writing samples from one individual with a hearing loss to answer my research question. With another person’s writing samples, I would have had no background knowledge of the participant without ample conversation and contact. Without any knowledge of my participant, I would not have known the other factors that might have influenced that person’s writing. The lack of trust I would have had in the writing samples would have affected my confidence in the information and shown throughout this entire research paper. For all of these reasons, I believe that my methods of research were strong and sufficient.