Go to previous article
Go to next article
Return to 2005 Table of Contents
Presenter(s)
Lauana Yarbrough, Ed.S.
Haysville Unified School District
245 N. Delos
Haysville, KS 67060
Students with learning disabilities have difficulty generating ideas, physically writing, difficulty spelling, and their editing consists of surface corrections in spelling and punctuation. This paper provides information on the many assistive technology devices and software available to aid students with learning disabilities to overcome their difficulties with the writing process.
This paper will focus on the available assistive technology for students with learning disabilities to aid in writing and it effectiveness. Students with learning disabilities struggle in all areas of the writing process. Students with learning disabilities spend very little time in the planning process resulting in compositions that are poorly organized and lack cohesiveness (Berhmann, 1994; Forgave, 2002; Lewis, 1998; MacArthur, 2000; MacArthur et al., 2001). Students with learning disabilities have difficulties with transcription processes including handwriting, punctuation, spelling and word usage (MacArthur et al., 1996). Students with learning disabilities tend to focus on errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
Benefits of Assistive Technology
Assistive technology provides students with the tools necessary to solve authentic problems (Bryant & Bryant, 1998). The performance and productivity of students with disabilities are also increased (Edyburn, 2000).
Assistive technology can provide students with the ability to self-pace learning in classrooms that move too fast. The benefits to students are derived directly from assistive technology's ability to remediate and compensate for the skill deficits of students with learning disabilities. Assistive technology allows students to circumvent their disability (Bryant & Bryant, 1998; Derer et al., 1996; Lewis, 1998), to minimize the impact of the disability" (Derer et al., 1996), or replaces an ability that is either missing or impaired (Quenneville, 2001). For some students with disabilities assistive technology provides a means through which they can successfully communicate either through speech, reading, and/or writing (Derer et al., 1996).
Assistive technology further benefits students by providing teachers with benefits. Assistive technology allows teachers to individualize instruction to a greater degree, providing for the needs of their students (Derer et al., 1996). The ability to greater individualize instruction enhances assistive technology's capacity to remediate and compensate a student's skills. Assistive technology provides students with immediate feedback (Derer et al., 1996) which aids in remediating skills. Much of the literature provides educators with information about the assistive technology available and how it can aid students with disabilities (Barry & Wise, 1996; Berhmann, 1994; Bryant & Bryant, 1998; Duhaney & Duhaney, 2000; Forgave, 2002; Lauffer, 2000; Lewis, 1998; MacArthur, 1999a, 2000; Quenneville, 2001). Assistive technology is an area in which "development generally precedes research" (MacArthur, 1999, p. 172). Assistive Technology
Devices/Software
The devices/software discussed include: spell checkers, speech synthesis software, word prediction, speech to text, and word processing.
Spell Checkers
Many students with learning disabilities have a very difficult time spelling. Spelling difficulties can have a negative impact on teachers' perceptions of the quality of student writing (MacArthur et al., 1996). The difficulty in sounding the words students want to write slows them down, and frustrates them, and may cause them to forget already formulated writing ideas (MacArthur & Graham, 1993; MacArthur et al., 1996). For students with disabilities, spell checkers, dictionaries, and thesaurus programs present in most, if not all, word processing programs aid students' mechanics of writing (Berhmann, 1994; Lauffer, 2000). Spell checkers have "two basic functions: identifying misspelled words and suggesting correct spellings" (MacArthur et al., 1996, p. 18). Students with learning disabilities "typically misspell two to four times more words in their writing then their normally achieving peers, incorrectly spelling 10% to 20% of the words they write" (MacArthur et al., 1996, p. 35). In a study conducted by MacArthur and his colleagues (MacArthur et al., 1996) middle school students with moderate to severe spelling problems were able to correct 37% of their errors using a spell checker. Though spell checkers have been found to aid students in the correction of their spelling errors, research has also documented the limitations of spell checkers in both their ability to identify misspellings and to suggest correct spellings (MacArthur, 1996, 1999, 2000; MacArthur et al., 1996). Students with learning disabilities may "simply choose the first word in the list" (MacArthur et al., 1996, p. 37). Though spell checkers have limitations in their use for students with learning disabilities they can be taught strategies to overcome those limitations (MacArthur, 1999a. MacArthur, 2001; Montgomery, Karlan, & Coutinho, 2001)
Speech Synthesis
"Speech synthesis software (or hardware) translates text into speech" (MacArthur et al., 1996, p. 23) and may provide students with the additional assistance needed to be successful writers (Berhmann, 1994). Using speech synthesis software, students have the ability to listen to what they have written. Researchers have reported the ability of speech synthesis software/programs to support students with learning disabilities in both the areas of reading and writing (Fitzgerald & Koury, 1996; Lewis, 1998; Mac Arthur, 1998; MacArthur, 1999a; van Daal & van der Leij, 1992). Speech synthesis software has also proven effective in increasing word recognition and word identification skills of students with learning disabilities (Fitzgerald & Koury, 1996; Forgave, 2002; Lewis, 1998; MacArthur, et al., 2001), improving phonological awareness (Fitzgerald & Koury, 1996; Forgave, 2002; Lewis, 1998; MacArthur, et al., 2001), decreasing frustration (MacArthur, et al., 2001), improving reading comprehension (Cavanaugh, 2002; Forgave, 2002; MacArthur, et al., 2001; Olson et al., 1997).
The research on the use of speech synthesis software with students with learning disabilities has produced mixed results. In a study by van Daal and Reitsma (1993) students with learning disabilities practiced reading single words with either whole word feedback, segmented feedback, or without feedback. Students receiving speech feedback, under either condition, were more accurate on measures of word recognition than students in the control group receiving no feedback. Olson, Wise and their colleagues reported on two studies (Olson & Wise, 1992; Olson et al., 1997) in which they provided students with learning disabilities speech feedback while reading meaningful content. "In the earlier study students in the sub word groups gained more than students in the whole-word group condition on pseudo word reading" (MacArthur, 2001, p. 281). In 1995, Raskind and Higgins studied the use of speech synthesis during revising with college students with learning disabilities. The students in this study found the greatest proportion of errors (35%) using speech synthesis. A third study, (MacArthur, 1998a, 1999a) focused on the use of speech synthesis software combined with word prediction. In this study, five students with severe spelling deficits used a word processor with speech synthesis in order to complete daily dialogue journals. Without the use of speech synthesis with word prediction, the "students ranged from 55% to 85% legible words and 42% to 75% correctly spelled words" (Mac Arthur, 1998a, p. 68). MacArthur (1998a) concluded that speech synthesis with word prediction provided compensatory support but "did not result in improved independent spelling skill" (p 68).
Word Prediction Software
Word prediction software was originally developed for students with physical disabilities in order to facilitate typing by reducing the keystrokes needed (MacArthur, 1999a, 2000). Word prediction software holds many benefits for students with learning disabilities. By responding with several choices of words from which to select, word prediction software can aid students who have difficulty with word recall and can increase typing speed (Berhmann, 1994). The research to date supports the use of word prediction software by students with learning disabilities. MacArthur (1998a, 1998b, 1999a) conducted a series of three studies of word processing. In his 1998a study five students used word prediction software in the completion of daily dialogue journals. In this study students increased their percentage of legible words and correctly spelled words to 90% - 100% during the use of word prediction from baselines of 55% to 85% legible words and 42% to 75% correctly spelled words. In the second study, the three students used an alternating treatment of word prediction, handwriting, and word processing. For two of the students their percentage of readable words increased from 68% and 70% readable words and 58% and 63% correctly spelled words using word processing to 85% and 85% readable words and 81% and 83% correctly spelled words using word prediction. While word prediction software does hold great promise for students with learning disabilities, it also has disadvantages.
Speech Recognition
Dictation has long been an accommodation used to aid students with learning disabilities to write. In a study conducted by Raskind and Higgins (MacArthur, 1999a; Raskind & Higgins, 1995), 29 college students with learning disabilities wrote essays under three conditions: speech recognition software, standard dictation, and word processing without the use of a spell checker. When the students used speech recognition software, the holistic quality ratings of their writing were higher (MacArthur, 1999a; Raskind & Higgins, 1995).
Speech recognition software benefits students by improving the skills needed to both read and write. MacArthur (2000) found that after initial training speech recognition software systems recognized 90% of the words dictated by adults and 95% after extensive use. Speech recognition software offers students with disabilities many advantages over typical word processing or standard dictation. Word Processing Word processors ease the physical burdens of writing, thereby, easing the transcription process (Duhaney & Duhaney, 2000; Graham & Larsen, 2001; MacArthur, 1996, 2000; MacArthur & Graham, 1993; Quenneville, 2001). Word processors make it easy for students to produce neat, legible (MacArthur, 1996, 1999; Quenneville, 2001), error free text (Mac Arthur, 1998, 1999b; MacArthur, 1996; Quenneville, 2001).
Word processing enables students to publish error free work in a variety of formats with few errors (MacArthur, 1996, 1999a; MacArthur, et al., 2001; MacArthur & Graham, 1993). The text being on the computer screen may act to facilitate student collaboration because both students can see the work in progress and share inn the composing, editing, and revising of the work (MacArthur, 1996, 2000; MacArthur, et al., 2001; MacArthur & Graham, 1993). It enables students to write different sections without their handwriting identifying their individual contributions (MacArthur, 1996; MacArthur, et al., 2001). In a study conducted by Graham & MacArthur (1988) students with learning disabilities made two to five times as many revisions after strategy instruction in using word processing in the revision of essays than at baseline. Studies regarding the use of word processing with students with learning disabilities proves that word processing and its inherent features can have great impact on students' writing, however the students need guidance and instruction in its use and in the writing process. Research with students with learning disabilities definitively documents that students with learning disabilities have difficulties in every aspect of the writing process, and assistive technology devices and software exists that can aid students with disabilities to compensate for these difficulties. There is no one assistive technology device or software program that will work with all students. In the area of written language a combination of assistive technology software such as word processing, word prediction, and speech synthesis can be combined to aid the student in more than one area of the writing process. Easing the transcription and editing process and aiding the student in spelling and grammar. Simply making assistive technology available does not improve student's spelling or the quality or quantity of their writing. Assistive technology is not a magic pill that will over come a student's weaknesses.
This paper shows that assistive technology can provide students with the tools to compensate for their deficits; however, it does not take the place of instruction. Simply making assistive technology available does not improve student's spelling or the quality or quantity of their writing. Assistive technology is not a "cure all" and will not perform miracles. It is a tool for both the student and teacher. It provides the student with a tool that enables them to overcome difficulties in spelling, makes editing easier, eases the physical aspects of the transcription process, and can enable a student to hear their writing as it is being written. However, teachers must use the technology in order to teach students how to plan, organize, and edit their work. It is imperative, as evidenced by research, that teachers employ empirically-based sound teaching strategies incorporating the use of the device. Assistive technology is not a magic pill that will over come a student's weaknesses. Assistive technology is a tool that is to be used to aid a student in reaching their full potential.
References
Barry, J., & Wise, B.J. (1996). Fueling inclusion through technology. Students with disabilities can rise to new heights with assistive technology. School Administrator Retrieved 11-13, 01, from http://www.netc.org/cdrom/fueling/html.htm
Beck, J. (2002). Emerging literacy through assistive technology. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 44-48.
Berhmann, M.M. (1994). Assistive technology for students with mild disabilities. Intervention in School & Clinic, 30(2), 70-83.
Bryant, D.P., Bryant, B.R., & Marshall, H.R. (1998). Using assistive technology to enhance the skills of students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School & Clinic, 34(1), 53.
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(1), 41.
Cavanaugh, T. (2002). Ebooks and accommodations: Is this the future of print accommodation. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 56-61.
Dalton, B., Winbury, N. E., & Morocco, C. C. (1990). "If you could just push a button": Two fourth grade boys with learning disabilities learn to use a computer spelling checker. Journal of Special Education Technology, 10(4), 177-191.
Derer, K., Polsgrove, L., & Herbert, R. (1996). A survey of assistive technology applications in schools and recommendations for practice. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12(2), 62-80.
Duhaney, L.M.G., & Duhaney, D.C. (2000). Assistive technology: Meeting the needs of learners with disabilities. International Journal of Instructional Media Retrieved November 13, 2001, from http://ehostvgw8.epnet.com/fulltext.asp?resultSetID=R00000004&hitNum=34&boolean
Edyburn, D.L. (2000). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(9), 1-23.
Fitzgerald, G.E., & Koury, K.A. (1996). Empirical advances in technology assisted instruction for students with mild and moderate disabilities. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 526.
Forgave, K.E. (2002). Assistive technology Empowering students with learning disabilities. Clearing House, 75(3), 122.
Gardner, C. (2001). Assistive technology and learning disabilities. Retrieved November 25, 2001, from http://www.rit.edu/~easi/easisem/gardnerc.htm
Graham, K.R., & Larsen, L. (2001). Prevention and intervention of writing difficulties for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(2), 74-84.
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(2), 133-152.
Higgins, E.L., & Raskind, M.H. (2000). Speaking to read: The effects of continuous vs. discrete speech recognition systems on the reading and spelling of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(1) Retrieved June 30, 2002, from World Wide Web: http//jset.unlv.edu/15.1/Higgins/first.html
Lauffer, K.A. (2000). Accommodating students with specific writing disabilities. Journalism & Mass Communication, 54(4), 29-46.
Lewis, R.B. (1998). Assistive technology and learning disabilities: Today's realities and tomorrow's promises. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(1), 16-26.
Lundberg, I., & Olofsson, A. (1993). Can computer speech support reading comprehension? Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 283-293.
Mac Arthur, C.A. (1996). Using technology to enhance the writing processes of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 344.
Mac Arthur, C.A. (1998). From illegible to understandable: How word recognition and speech synthesis can help. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(6), 66-70.
Mac Arthur, C.A. (1998). Word processing with speech synthesis and word prediction: Effects on the dialogue journal writing of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22.
Mac Arthur, C.A. (1999). Overcoming barriers to writing: Computer support for basic writing skills. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15, 169-192.
Mac Arthur, C.A. (1999). Word prediction for students with severe spelling problems. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22, 158-172.
Mac Arthur, C.A. (1999). Word processing with speech synthesis and word prediction: Effects on the dialogue journal writing of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22.
Mac Arthur, C.A., Ferretti, R.P., Okolo, C.M., & Cavalier, A.R. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. The Elementary School Journal, 101(3).
MacArthur, C.A. (1996). Using technology to enhance the writing processes of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities Retrieved 4, 29, from Retrieved 11/16/01 from the World Wide Web: http://ehostvgw10.epnet.com/resultlist.asp?booleanTeam=JN+%22Journal%20of%20Learning%20Disabilities%22+AND+DT+19980101"/t"_self
MacArthur, C.A. (1999). Overcoming barriers to writing: Computer support for basic writing skills. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15, 169-192.
MacArthur, C.A. (2000). New tools for writing: Assistive technology for students with writing difficulties, Topics in Language Disorders (, Vol. 20, pp. 85-100).
MacArthur, C.A., Ferretti, R. P., Okolo, C. M., & Cavalier, A. R. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. The Elementary School Journal, 101(3).
MacArthur, C.A., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. Joural of Special Education, 21, 22-42.
MacArthur, C.A., & Graham, S. (1993). Integrating strategy instruction and word processing into a process approach to writing instruction. School Psychology Review, 22(4), 671.
MacArthur, C.A., Graham, S., Haynes, J.B., & DeLaPaz, S. (1996). Spelling checkers an studetns with learning disabilities: Performance comparisons and impact on spelling. The Journal of Special Education, 3(1), 35-57.
McNaughton, D., Hughes, C. A., & Ofiesh, N. (1997). Proofreading for students with learning disabilities: Integrating computer use and strategy use. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12, 16-28.
Montgomery, D.J., Karlan, G.R., & Coutinho, M. (2001). The effectiveness of word processor spell checker programs to produce target words for misspelling gererated by students with learning disabilties. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(2).
Olson, R.K., & Wise, B. (1992). Reading on the computer with orthographic and speech feedback: An overview of the Colorado Remediation Project. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 4, 107-144.
Olson, R.K., Wise, B., Ring, J., & Johnson, M. (1997). Computer-based reading remedial training in phoneme awareness and phonological decoding: Effects on the posttraining development of word recognition. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(3), 235-253.
Quenneville, J. (2001). Tech tools for students with learning disabilities: Infusion into inclusive classrooms. Preventing School Failure, 45(4), 167-170.
Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. L. (1995). Effects of speech synthesis on the proofreading efficiency of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 18, 141-158.
Van Daal, V. H. P., & Reitsma, P. (1993). The use of speech feedback by normal and disabled readers in computer-based reading practice. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 243-259.
van Daal, V.H., & van der Leij, A. (1992). Computer-based reading and spelling practice for children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(3), 186-195.
Wetzel, K. (1996). Speech-recognizing computers: A written-communication tool for students with learning disabilities?. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 371-380.
Wise, B., Olson, R., Ansett, M., Andrews, L., Terjak, M., Schneider, V., et al. (1989). Implementing a long-term computerized remedial program with synthetic speech feedback: Hardware, software, and real-world issues. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 21, 173-180.
Go to previous article
Go to next article
Return to 2005 Table of Contents