The effects of listening to and reading passages were compared on the identification and correction of written errors of grammar and syntax. Learning disabled (LD) students were compared with two control groups, one matched on reading level (RDG) and the other on chronological age (CA). Half of all subjects received auditory feedback; the others simply read the passages. For all groups, students listening to the passages located significantly more errors than those reading. Both LD and RDG groups identified fewer errors than did the CA group. These results support the use of auditory feedback and illuminate the relationship between reading and writing disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonP. L. (1982). A preliminary study of syntax in the written expression of learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 359–362.
2.
BoningR. (1963). Getting the facts: Specific skills reading series. Baldwin, NY: Barnell Loft.
3.
ClarkI. L. (1983, March). Listening to writing: Implications for evaluation and pedagogy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service: ED 236 625). Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Detroit.
4.
CohenJ. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
FaigleyL., & WitteS. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400–414.
7.
GiordanoG. (1983). The pivotal role of grammar in correcting writing disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 17, 473–496.
8.
GrahamS., & HarrisK. R. (Eds.). (1988). Research and instruction in written language [Special issue]. Exceptional Children, 54(6).
9.
HammillD. D., & LarsenS. C. (1983). Test of written language. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
10.
HayesJ. R., & FlowerS. (1983). A cognitive model of the writing process in adults. Final report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 240 608). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie-Mellon University.
11.
HumesA. (1983). Research on the composing process. Review of Educational Research, 53, 201–216.
12.
JenkinsJ. R.SteinM. L., & OsbornJ. P. (1981). What next after decoding? Instruction and research in reading comprehension. Exceptional Educational Quarterly, 2(1), 27–38.
13.
KirkR. E. (1968). Experimental design procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont: Brooks-Cole.
14.
LeighJ. E. (1980). Whole language approaches: Remises and possibilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3(4), 62–69.
15.
MacArthurC. A.GrahamS., & SkarvoedJ. (1986). Learning disabled students' composing with three methods: Handwriting, dictation, and word processing. (Tech. Rep. No. 109). College Park, MD: Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth.
16.
MoranM. R. (1981). Performance of learning disabled and low achieving secondary students on formal features of a paragraph writing task. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 271–279.
17.
MyklebustH. R. (1965). Developmental and disorders of written language. Vol. 1. Picture Story Language Test. New York: Grune & Stratton.
18.
MyklebustH. R. (1973). Developmental and disorders of written language. Vol. 2. Studies of normal and exceptional children. New York: Grune & Stratton.
19.
NewcomerP.NodineB., & BarenbaumE. (1988). Teaching writing to exceptional children; Reaction and recommendations. Exceptional Children, 54, 559–564.
20.
OakanR.WeinerM., & CromerW. (1971). Identification, organization, and reading comprehension for good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 71–78.
21.
PoplinM. S.GrayR.LarsenS.BonikowskiA., & MehringT. (1980). A comparison of components of written expression abilities in learning disabled and non-learning disabled students at three grade levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3(4), 46–53.
22.
PoteetJ. A. (1978). Characteristics of written expression of learning disabled and non-learning disabled elementary school students. Diagnostique, 4, 60–74.
23.
RadcliffeT. (1972). Talk-write composition: A theoretical model proposing the use of speech to improve writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 6, 187–199.
24.
RoseT. L. (1984). The effects of two prepractice procedures on oral reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 544–548.
25.
RoseT. L. & SherryL. (1984). Relative effects of two previewing procedures on LD adolescents oral reading performance. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 7(1), 39–44.
26.
SawyerD. J. & KosoffT. O. (1981). Accomodating the learning needs of reading disabled adolescents: A language-processing issue. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4(1), 61–67.
27.
SommersN. (1982). Revision strategies of student writers and experiences adult writers (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 220 839). (Contract No. NIE-P-0029). Washington, DC: National Institution of Education.
28.
WeinerE. S. (1980a). Disagnostic evaluation of writing skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 43–48.
29.
WeinerE. S. (1980b). The diagnostic evaluation of writing skills (DEWS): Application of DEWS criteria to writing samples. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3(2), 54–59.
30.
WisemanD. E.HartwellL. K., & HannafinM. J. (1980). Exploring the reading and listening skills of secondary mildly handicapped students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3(3), 56–61.
31.
ZoellnerR. (1969). Talk-write: A behavioral pedagogy for composition. College English, 30, 267–320.
