The Effects of Word Prediction and Text-to-Speech Technologies on the Narrative Writing Skills of Hispanic Students with Specific Learning Disabilities
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2010
The Effects of Word Prediction and Text-to-Speech Technologies on the Narrative Writing Skills of Hispanic Students with Specific Learning Disabilities
A multiple-baseline design across subjects was used to investigate the effects of word prediction and text-to-speech alone and in combination on four narrative composition-writing skills (writing fluency, syntax, spelling accuracy, and overall organization) of six fifth-grade Hispanic boys with specific learning disabilities (SLD). Participants were divided randomly and equally into Cohorts A and B. During baseline, both cohorts wrote for 15-minute sessions using word processing only. During intervention, Cohort A participants used word prediction, and then word prediction with text-to-speech. Concurrently, Cohort B participants used text-to-speech followed by text-to-speech with word prediction. The results indicated that word prediction alone or in combination with text-to-speech had a positive effect on the narrative composition-writing skills of the targeted students. With text-to-speech alone, inconsequential results were observed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonC.AndersonK.CherupS. (2009). Investments vs. return: Outcomes of special education technology research in literacy for students with mild disabilities. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 337–355.
2.
ArtilesA. J.KozleskiE. B. (2007). Beyond convictions: Interrogating culture, history, and power in inclusive education. Language Arts, 84, 357–364.
3.
BakkenJ.WhedonC. (2003). Giving students with learning disabilities the POWER to write: Improving the quality and quantity of written products. Learning Disabilities, 12, 13–22.
4.
BlairR.OrmsbeeC.BrandesJ. (2002). Using writing strategies and visual thinking software to enhance the written performance of students with mild disabilities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED463125).
5.
BuiY.SchumakerJ.DeshlerD. (2006). The effects of a strategic writing program for students with and without learning disabilities in inclusive fifth-grade classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 244–260.
CullenJ.RichardsS.FrankC. Lawless (2008). Using software to enhance the writing skills of students with special needs. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(2), 33–44.
8.
EdyburnD. (2000). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(9), 1–23.
FryR. (2006). The changing landscape of American public education: New students, new schools. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
11.
GerstenR.BakerS. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 251–272.
12.
GrahamS. (1990). The role production factors in learning disabled students' compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781–791.
13.
GrahamS.HarrisK.LarsenL. (2001). Prevention and intervention of writing difficulties for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 74–84.
14.
GrahamS.HarrisK.MasonL. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241.
15.
GuibersonM. (2009). Hispanic representation in special education: Patterns and implications. Preventing School Failure, 53, 167–176
16.
Handley-MoreD.DietzJ.BillingsleyF.CogginsT. (2003). Facilitating written work using computer word processing and word prediction. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57, 139–151.
17.
HetzroniO.ShrieberB. (2004). Word processing as an assistive technology tool for enhancing academic outcomes of students with writing disabilities in the general classroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 143–154.
18.
HigginsE.RaskindM. (1997). The compensatory effectiveness of optical character recognition/speech synthesis on reading comprehension of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 75–87.
19.
HooverJ. J.KlingnerJ. K.BacaL. M.PattonJ. M. (2008). Methods for teaching culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
20.
HospJ. L.ReschlyD. J. (2004). Disproportionate representation of minority students in special education: Academic, demographic, and economic predictors. Exceptional Children, 70, 185–199.
21.
HuntK. (1965). A synopsis of clause-to-sentence length factors. The English Journal, 54, 300–309.
22.
LangeA.McPhillipsM.MulhernG.WylieJ. (2006). Assistive software tools for secondary-level students with literacy difficulties. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(3), 13–22.
23.
LewisR.GravesA.AshtonT.KieleyC. (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.
24.
MacArthurC. (1998). Word processing with speech synthesis and word prediction: Effects on the dialogue journal writing of student with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 151–165.
25.
MacArthurC. (1999). Word prediction for students with severe spelling problems. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 158–172.
26.
MacArthurC. (2000). New tools for writing: Assistive technology for students with writing difficulties. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 85–100.
27.
MacArthurC.CavalierA. (2004). Dictation and speech recognition as test accommodations. Exceptional Children, 71, 43–58.
28.
MacArthurC.FerrettiR.OkoloC.CavalierA. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 273–301.
29.
MichaelsC.McDermottJ. (2003). Assistive technology integration in special education teacher preparation: Program coordinators' perceptions of current attainment and importance. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(3), 29–41.
30.
MirendaP.TuroldoK.McAvoyC. (2006). The impact of word prediction software on the written output of students with physical disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(3), 5–12.
31.
MonroeB. W.TroiaG. A. (2006). Teaching writing strategies to middle school students with disabilities. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 21–33.
32.
LienemannT. OrtizGrahamS.Leader-JanssenB.ReidR. (2006). Improving the writing performance of struggling writers in second grade. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 66–78.
33.
RaskindM.HigginsE. (1995). Effects of speech synthesis on the proofreading efficiency of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 141–158.
34.
Salahu-DinD.PerskyH.MillerJ. (2008). The Nation's Report Card: Writing 2007 (NCES Publication No. 2008–468). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
35.
TroiaG.GrahamS. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher directed strategy instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 290–305.
36.
TumlinJ.HellerK. (2004). Using word prediction software to increase typing fluency with students with physical disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(3), 5–14.
37.
UnzuetaC.BarbettaP. M. (2010). The use of computer graphic organizers for persuasive writing by Hispanic students with specific learning disabilities. Unpublished manuscript, Florida International University, Miami.
38.
WilliamsS. (1998). Effects of software equipped with speech feedback and word prediction on the writing of adolescents with learning disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 2929.
