The purpose of this study was to investigate how different methods of text production affect the writing processes and products of LD students. Eleven fifth and sixth grade LD students, selected for their experience with word processing, composed and revised stories using handwriting, dictation, and word processing. Dictated stories were significantly longer, were of higher quality, and had fewer grammatical errors than handwritten or word processed stories. The handwritten and word processed stories did not differ on any of the product measures, including length, quality, story structure, mechanical or grammatical errors, vocabulary, or mean T-unit length. However, differences between handwriting and word processing were found on the process measures of composing rate and revisions. Implications for writing in struction with LD students are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bridwell, L.S. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth grade students' transactional writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 14(3), 197–222.
2.
Bridwell, L.S., Nancarrow, P.R., & Ross, D. (1984). The writing process and the writing machine: Current research on word processors relevant to the teaching of composition. In R.B. Beach & L.S. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press.
3.
Bryson, M., & Siegel, L. (1986, June). The development of written language production in normally achieving and learning-disabled children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Toronto.
4.
Calkins, L.M. (1980). Children's rewriting strategies. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 331–341.
5.
Cooper, C. (1977). Holistic evaluation of writing. In C. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing (pp. 3–31). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
6.
Daiute, C.A. (1983). The computer as stylus and audience. College Composition and Communication, 34, 134–145.
7.
Daiute, C.A. (1985). Writing and computers.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
8.
Daiute, C.A. (1986). Physical and cognitive factors in revising: Insights from studies with computers. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 141–158.
9.
Deno, S.L., Marston, D. & Mirkin, P. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children, 48, 368–371.
10.
Durrell, D. (1961). Durrell analysis of reading difficulty.New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
11.
Englert, C., & Thomas, C. (in press). Sensitivity to text structure in reading and writing: A comparison of learning disabled and nonhandicapped students. Learning Disability Quarterly.
12.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400–414.
13.
Finn, P. (1977). Computer-aided description of mature word choices in writing. In C. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds), Evaluating writing (pp. 69–89). Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
14.
Gould, J.D. (1980). Experiments on composing letters: Some facts, some myths, and some observations. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 97–127). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
Gould, J.D. (1981). Composing letters with computer-based text editors. Human Factors, 23, 593–606.
16.
Graham, S. (1982). Composition research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional Children, 14, 1–16.
17.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1986, April). Improving learning disabled students' compositions via story grammars: A component analysis of self-control strategy training. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
18.
Graham, S., & MacArthur, C.A. (1987). Written language of the handicapped. In C. Reynolds & L. Mann (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education (pp. 1678–1681). New York: Wiley.
19.
Graham, S., & Miller, L. (1980). Handwriting research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional Children, 12, 1–16.
20.
Graves, D.H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work.Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
21.
Groff, P. (1961). New speeds in handwriting. Elementary English, 38, 564–565.
22.
Hammill, D., & Larsen, S. (1983). Test of written language.Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
23.
Hermreck, L. (1979). A comparison of the written language of learning disabled and non-learning disabled elementary children using the inventory of written expression and spelling. Unpublished manuscript.
24.
Hidi, S., & Hildyard, A. (1983). The comparison of oral and written productions of two discourse types. Discourse Processes, 6, 91–105.
25.
Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels (Research Rep. No. 3). Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
26.
Kerchner, L.B., & Kistinger, B.J. (1984). Language processing/word processing: Written expression, computers, and learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 329–335.
27.
King, M.L., & Rentel, V.M. (1981). Research update: Conveying meaning in written texts. Language Arts, 58, 721–728.
28.
MacArthur, C.A., Haynes, J.A., Malouf, D.B., Taymans, J., Mattson, B., & Dreifuss, S. (1985). Implementation of microcomputers in educational programs for mildly handicapped students (Tech. Report 107). College Park: University of Maryland, Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth.
29.
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.
30.
Moran, M.R. (1981). Performance of learning disabled and low achieving secondary students on formal features of a paragraph-writing task. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 271–230.
31.
Morris, N., & Crump, D. (1982). Syntactic and vocabulary development in the written language of learning disabled and non-learning disabled students at four age levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 163–172.
32.
Myklebust, H. (1973). Development and disorders of written language: Studies of normal and exceptional children.New York: Grune & Stratton.
33.
Nodine, B.F., Barenbaum, E. & Newcomer, P. (1985). Story composition by learning disabled, reading disabled, and normal children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 167–179.
34.
Nold, E.W. (1981). Revising. In C.H. Frederikson & J.F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of written communication (Vol. 2, pp. 67–79). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35.
Otis, A., & Lennon, R. (1979). Otis-Lennon mental ability test.New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
36.
Pea, R.D., & Kurland, M. (1984). Toward cognitive technologies for writing (Tech. Report No. 30). New York: Bank Street College of Education.
37.
Poplin, M.S., Gray, R.Larsen, S., Banikowski, A., & Mehring, T. (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, 46–53.
38.
Poteet, J.A. (1979). Characteristics of written expression of learning disabled and non-learning disabled elementary school students. Diagnostique, 4, 60–74.
39.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook on research on teaching (pp. 778–803). New York: Macmillan.
40.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Goelman, H. (1982). The role of production factors in writing ability. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse (pp. 173–210). New York: Academic Press.
41.
Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Some needed research on writing. College Composition and Communication, 28, 317–320.
42.
Sitko, M.C., & Crealock, C.M. (1986, June). A longitudinal study of the efficacy of computer technology for improving the writing skills of mildly handicapped adolescents. Paper presented at the Research Symposium of Special Education Technology, Washington, DC.
43.
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378–388.
44.
Stein, N., & Glenn, C. (1977). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse processing: Multidisciplinary perspectives in discourse comprehension (pp. 53–120). Hillsdale, NJ: Ablex.
45.
Thomas, C., Englert, C., & Gregg, S. (1987). An analysis of errors and strategies in the expository writing of learning disabled students. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 21–30, 46.
46.
Woodcock, R. (1973). Woodcock reading mastery tests.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
