A multiple baseline design investigated the effects of computer graphic organizers on the persuasive composition writing skills of four Hispanic students with specific learning disabilities. Participants reviewed the elements of persuasive writing and then developed compositions using a word processing program. Baseline planning was done with a paper and pencil, while intervention planning was done using a computer graphic organizer program. With variation, the use of computer graphic organizers during planning resulted in an increase in the total number of words written, time spent planning, number of supporting details planned, percentage of planned supporting details transferred to the composition, and syntactical maturity as measured by the number of T-units. Also observed was an improvement in the overall organization of the compositions as measured by an analytical scoring guide or rubric.
BlairR. B.OrmsbeeC.BrandesJ. (2002, March). Using writing strategies and visual thinking software to enhance the written performance of students with mild disabilities. In No child left behind: The vital role of rural schools, 22nd Annual National Conference Proceedings of the American Council on Rural Special Education (ACRES). Reno, Nevada: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED463125)
3.
BriceA. E.MillerK. J.BriceR. G. (2006). Language in the English as a second language and general education classrooms: A tutorial. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27, 240–247.
4.
ChlarsonK. J. (2011). Effects of high-interest writing prompts on performance of students with learning disabilities. Master's thesis. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/1089.
5.
De La PazS.GrahamS. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 687–698.
6.
DiCeccoV. M.GleasonM. M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 306–320.
7.
EnglertC. S.ZhaoY.DunsmoreK.CollingsN. Y.WolbersK. (2007). Scaffolding the writing of students with disabilities through procedural facilitation: Using an Internet-based technology to improve performance. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 30, 9–29.
8.
GándaraP. (2008). The crisis in the education of Latino students. National Education Association Research Visiting Scholars Series, 1(a). Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/achievement/gandara08.html.
9.
GándaraP.RumbergerR.Maxwell-JollyJ.CallahanR., (2003, October). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36), 123–135. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n36/.
10.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R.LarsenL. (2001). Prevention and intervention of writing difficulties for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 74–84.
11.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R.MasonL. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241.
HooverH. D.HieronymusD. A.FrisbieD. A.DunbarS. B.FeldtL. S.ForsythR. A. (1995). Iowa writing assessment: Manual for scoring and interpretation. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.
14.
HooverJ. J.KlingnerJ. K.BacaL. M.PattonJ. M. (2008). Methods for teaching culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
15.
HuntK.MorenbergM.PopeM.RichardsonJ.RogersA.SmithW. L. (1968). An instrument to measure syntactic maturity, preliminary version. (Report No. BR-6-2253). Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED020926)
Kasper-FergusonS.MoxleyR. A. (2002). Developing a writing package with student graphing of fluency. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 249–267.
18.
KimA.VaughnS.WanzekJ.WeiS. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 105–118.
Learning Express. (2003). 501 Writing Prompts. New York, NY: Author.
21.
LinS.StricklandJ.RayB.DennerP. (2004). Computer-based concept mapping as a prewriting strategy for middle school students. Meridian Middle School Computer Technologies Journal. Retrieved from www.ncsu.edu/meridian/sum2004/cbconceptmapping.
22.
LorberM. (2004). Instructional computer technology and student learning: An investigation into using Inspiration™ software to improve eighth grade students' ability to write. Ann Arbor, MI: Pro-Quest Information and Learning. (UMI 3158289)
23.
MacArthurC.CavalierA. (2004). Dictation and speech recognition as test accommodations. Exceptional Children, 71, 43–58.
24.
MayesS. D.CalhounS. L. (2005). Frequency of reading, math, and writing disabilities in children with clinical disorders. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 145–157.
25.
McCormickC. B. (2003). Metacognition and learning. In WeinerI. B. (Series Ed.), ReynoldsW. M.MillerG. E. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 7 educational psychology (pp. 125–148). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
26.
MonroeB. W.TroiaG. A. (2006). Teaching writing strategies to middle school students with disabilities. The Journal of Educational Research, 100, 21–33.
27.
MontgomeryJ. K.KahnN. T. (2007). Ten steps to writing better essays. Greenville, SC: Super Duper Publications.
28.
MylesJ. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 6(2), 1–20.
29.
National Writing Project (2003). National Writing Project Statement on the 2002 NAEP Writing Report Card. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
30.
RoyerR.RoyerJ. (2004). Comparing hand drawn and computer generated concept mapping. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23, 67–81.
31.
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.
32.
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. 355–377). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
SturmJ. M.Rankin-EricksonJ. L. (2002). Effects of hand-drawn and computer-generated concept mapping on the expository writing of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 124–139.
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.
VaughnS.BosC. S.SchummJ. S. (2011). Teaching students who are exceptional, diverse and at risk in the general education classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
WongB. Y. L. (2000). Writing strategies instruction for expository essays for adolescents with and without learning disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(4), 29–44.
