This study investigated the use of a word processor for enhancing the academic outcomes of three students with writing disabilities in a junior high school. A single-subject ABAB design was used to compare academic output produced during class time with and without a computer equipped with a word processor. The number of spelling errors, the number of reading errors, and the number of words used per text were counted, and the overall structure and organization of text were examined across all in-class materials. The data demonstrated a clear difference between handwritten and computer phases. In traditional paper-and-pencil phases, students produced outcomes that had more spelling mistakes, more reading errors, and lower overall quality of organization and structure in comparison with the phases in which a computer equipped with a word processor was used. The results did not indicate any noticeable difference in the number of words per text. Implications and future research directions are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson-Inman, L., Knox-Quinn, C., & Horney, M.A. (1996). Computer-based study strategies for students with learning disabilities: Individual differences associated with adoption level . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 461—484.
2.
Bahr, C.M., Nelson, N.W., & Van Meter, A.M. (1997). The effects of text-based and graphics-based software tools on planning and organizing stories. In K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), Technology for students with learning disabilities: Educational applications (pp. 25—54). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
3.
Berninger, V.W. (1994). Future directions for research on writing disabilities . In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New view on measurement issues. Baltimore: Brookes.
4.
Bryant, B.R., & Seay, P.C. (1998). The Technology-Related Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities Act: Relevance to individuals with learning disabilities and their advocates. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 4—15.
5.
Bryant, D.P., & Bryant, B.R. (1998). Using assistive technology adaptations to include students with learning disabilities in cooperative learning activities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 41—54.
6.
Day, S.L., & Edwards, B.J. (1996). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 29, 486—492.
7.
Deuel, R.K. (1994). Developmental dysgraphia and motor skill disorders. Journal ofChild Neurology, 10, 6—8.
8.
Duffy, G.G. (1990). Reading in the middle school. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
9.
Harris, A.J., & Sipay, E.R. (1979). How to teach reading: A competency-based program . New York: Longman.
10.
Harris, L.A., & Smith, C.B. (1986). Reading instruction: Diagnostic teaching in the classroom. New York: Macmillan.
11.
Graham, S., & MacArthur, C.A. (1988). Improving learning disabled students' skills at revising essays produced on a word processor: Self-instructional strategy training. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 133—152.
12.
Graham, S., & Weintraub, N. (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from 1980 to 1994. Educational Psychology Review , 26, 689—699.
13.
Johnson, D.J., & Carlisle, J.D. (1996). A study of handwriting in written stories of normal and learning disabled children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 45—59.
14.
Kazdin, A.E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
Kratochwill, T.R., & Levin, J.R. (1992). Single case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education. Hills-dale, NJ : Erlbaum.
16.
Langone, J., & Willis, C. (1994—1995). Effects of computer-based word processing versus paper/pencil activities on the paragraph construction of elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27, 171—184.
17.
Lewis, R.B. (1998). Assistive technology and learning disabilities: Today's realities and tomorrow's promises. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 16—26.
18.
Lewis, R.B., Ashton, T.M., Haapa, B., Kieley, C.L., & Fielden, C. (1999). Improving the writing skills of students with learning disabilities: Are word processors with spelling and grammar checkers useful?Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 9, 87—98.
19.
Lewis, R.B., Graves, A.W., Ashton, T.M., & Kieley, C.L. (1998). Word processing tools for students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies to increase text entry speed. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 95—108.
20.
MacArthur, C.A. (1997). Using technology to enhance the writing processes of students with learning disabilities. In K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), Technology for students with learning disabilities: Educational applications (pp. 7—23). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
21.
MacArthur, C.A. (2000). New tools for writing: Assistive technology for students with writing difficulties. Topics in Language Disorders , 20, 85—100.
22.
MacArthur, C.A., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students' composing under three methods of test production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. The Journal of Special Education, 21(3), 22—42.
23.
MacArthur, C.A., & Shneiderman, B. (1986). Learning disabled students' difficulties in learning to use a word processor: Implications for instruction and software evaluation. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 19, 248—253.
24.
Margalit, M., & Roth, Y.B. (1989). Strategic keyboard training and spelling improvement among children with learning disabilities and mental retardation. Educational Psychology, 9, 321—329.
25.
McHale, K., & Cermak, S.A. (1992). Fine motor activities in elementary school: Preliminary findings and provisional implications for children with fine motor problems . The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46, 898—903.
26.
Newcomer, P.L., & Barenbaum, E.M. (1991). The written composing ability of children with learning disabilities: A review of the literature from 1980—1990 . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 578— 593.
27.
Owston, R.D., & Wideman, H.H. (1997). Word processors and children's writing in a high-computer-access setting. Journal of Research on Computing in Education30, 202—219.
28.
Raskind, M.H., & Higgins, E.L. (1998). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 27—40.
29.
Richards, S.B., Taylor, R.L., Ramasamy, R., & Richards, R.Y. (1999). Single subject research: Applications in educational and clinical settings. San Diego: Singular.
30.
Samuels, S.J., & Farstrup, A.E. (1992). What research has to say about reading instruction (2nd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
31.
Schumaker, J.B., Nolan, S.M., & Deshler, D.D. (1985). The error monitoring strategy: Learning strategies curriculum. Lawrence: The University of Kansas.
32.
Siegel, L.S. (1999). Issues in definition and diagnosis of learning disabilities: A perspective on Guckenberger vs. Boston University. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 304—319.
33.
Villa, R.A., Thousand, J.S., Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1993). Restructuring for caring and effective education . Baltimore: Brookes.
34.
Wong, B.Y.L. (1996). The ABCs of learning disabilities. San Diego: Academic Press.
