This study examined the efficacy of pentop computers on the written expression of three secondary students with mild disabilities. A multiple-probe design was used to establish pentop computers as a potentially effective tool for increasing the quality and quantity of written expression. Each student learned to use the pentop computer and the accompanying writing software. Students were instructed to write essays without using the pentop computer during baseline, and then with it during the intervention phase. When using the pentop computer, students' essay quality scores increased from baseline; during generalization students' scores decreased. Although a few technological problems were encountered, the pentop computer was found to be a valuable tool for students to use in planning and writing essays.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbadianoH. R.TurnerJ. (2004). Expanding the writing process to accommodate students with learning disabilities. The NERA Journal, 4(1), 75–79.
2.
BakerS.GerstenR.ScanlonD. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: Tools for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process, and for providing meaningful access to the general education curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 65–77.
3.
BarlowD. H.HersenM. (1984). Single case experimental designs (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
4.
BeersS. F.NagyW. E. (2007). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre?Reading and Writing, 22, 185–200.
5.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R. (2003). Assistive technology for people with disabilities. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
EnglertC. S.ManaloM.ZhaoY. (2004). I can do it better on a computer: The effects of technology-enabled scaffolding on young writers' composition. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(1), 1–15.
7.
EnglertC. S.MariageT. (1991). Making students partners in the comprehension process: Send for the Reading POSSE. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 123–138.
8.
EnglertC. S.WuX.ZhaoY. (2005). Cognitive tools for writing: Scaffolding the performance of students through technology. Learning Disability Research and Practice, 20, 184–198.
9.
EnglertC. S.ZhaoY.DunsmoreK.CollingsN. Y.WolbersK. (2007). Scaffolding the writing of students with disabilities through procedural facilitations: Using an Internet-based technology to improve performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 9–29.
10.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3–12.
11.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R. (2005). Improving the writing performance of young struggling writers: Theoretical and programmatic research from the Center on Accelerating Student Learning. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 19–35.
12.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R.Fink-ChorzempaB. (2003). Primary grade teachers' instructional adaptations for struggling writers: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 279–292.
13.
GrahamS.PerinD. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.
14.
HayesJ. R.FlowerL. (1987). On the structure of the writing process. Topics in Language Disorders, 7, 19–30.
15.
IsaacsonS. (2007). Written language. In SchlossP. J.SchlossM. A.SchlossC. N. (Eds.), Instructional methods for secondary students with learning and behavior problems (4th ed., pp. 213–232). New York, NY: Pearson.
16.
JeonJ.CroftW. B.LeeJ. H.ParkS. (2006). A framework to predict the quality of answers with non-textual features. Paper presented at the ACM Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Seattle, WA. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1148170.1148212.
17.
Karchmer-KleinR.MacArthurC. A.NajeraK. (2008, December). The effects of concept mapping software on fifth grade students' writing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Orlando, FL.
18.
KazdinA. E. (1982). Single case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19.
KennedyC. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
LeapFrog. (2005b). FLY through writing: Master the steps to writing essays, stories, and poems. [Educational software]. Emeryville, CA: LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc.
22.
MacArthurC. A. (2009). Reflections on research on writing and technology for struggling writers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 93–103.
23.
MacArthurC.GrahamS. (1987). Learning disabled students' composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. Journal of Special Education, 21(3), 22–42.
24.
MasonL. H.GrahamS. (2008). Writing instruction for adolescents with learning disabilities: Programs of intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 103–112.
25.
MonroeB. W.TroiaG. A. (2006). Teaching writing strategies to middle school students with disabilities. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 21–30.
26.
Peterson-KarlanG. R.ParetteH. P. (2007). Supporting struggling writers using technology: Evidence-based instruction and decision making. Washington, DC: National Center for Technology Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.techmatrix.org/researchProfile.aspx?rid=411.
27.
PollowayE. A.MillerL.SmithT. E. C. (2004). Language instruction for learners with special needs. Denver, CO: Love.
28.
PollowayE. A.PattonJ. R.SernaL. (2005). Strategies for teaching learners with special needs (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
29.
PoplinM. S.GrayR.LarsenS.BanikowskiA.MehringT. (1980). A comparison of components of written expression abilities in learning disabled and non-disabled students at three grade levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3(4), 46–53.
30.
PrenskyM. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
31.
PrenskyM. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently?On the Horizon, 9(6), 1–6.
32.
RideoutV.RobertsD. F.FoehrU. G. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8–18 year olds. Washington, DC: Kaiser Family Foundation.
33.
SabornieE. J.deBettencourtL. U. (2004). Teaching students with mild and high-incidence disabilities at the secondary level. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
34.
SaddlerB.AsaroK. (2007). Increasing story quality through planning and revising: Effects on young writers with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 30, 223–234.
35.
Salahu-DinD.PerskyH.MillerJ. (2008). The nation's report card: Writing 2007 (NCES 2009468). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
36.
SitkoM. C.LaineC. J.SitkoC. (2005). Writing tools: Technology and strategies for struggling writers. In EdyburnD.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 571–598). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
37.
SturmJ. M.Rankin-EricksonJ. L. (2002). Effects of hand-drawn and computer-generated concept mapping on the expository writing of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 124–139.
