Introduction
Background
Students with learning disabilities have difficulty
producing writing samples that are grade appropriate. They have
weaknesses
in spelling, sentence structure, grammar, and organization. Many
times students with writing disabilities also have deficits in
reading. Often their attempts at inventive spelling are not phonemically
close to the target word. They are unable to locate the target
word in a list of possible words.
Either they don’t recognize the target word as the one
they want or they aren’t close enough to the target
word for the software to suggest that word. Most word processing
programs have limited spell-prediction capabilities.
Students with writing disabilities often have poor organization
skills, which is reflected in their writing. Stories are often
out of sequence, veer off the topic, or continue on and on.
This can result in increased frustration and low motivation
with reference
to writing activities. This perception results in a continuous
cycle of increased resistance to writing and decreased writing
proficiency.
Purpose of the Study
This paper is a case study about the effect of word prediction
software and computer-based graphic organizers on the
writing ability of a student with a learning disability. Word
prediction software such as Co:Writer 4000® was designed with enhanced
word prediction capabilities. This newer version is able to predict
target words that are not phonemically close to the inventive
spelling. Students with learning disabilities are often poor
readers. Many times they choose a target word that is close to
the word they are attempting to spell, but is still incorrect.
Co:Writer 4000® has a read aloud function so the
user can hear each choice before a selection is made.
Graphic organizers provide learners with an outline of
information to be learned or to be written. The use of
graphic organizers
can enhance the understanding and organization of information.
Using this program for prewriting activities can facilitate
writing. Graphic organizers in an electronic environment
make the process
more accessible and less frustrating for students with
writing difficulties. Computer-based graphic organizers
such as Kidspiration® help
students organize their thoughts in a concise and logical
manner.
Research Questions
I plan to determine if implementation of instruction
in the use of word prediction software and computer-based
graphic
organizers measurably improve the writing
abilities of the case study participant.
1. Will the student make measurable gains on the BRIGANCE® Comprehensive
Inventory of Basic
Skills writing subtests?
2. Will the student make measurable gains in
writing organization?
3. Will the student make measurable gains in spelling?
4. Will the student make measurable gains in mechanics?
5. Will student’s self-perception about writing
be more
positive?
Assumptions
Although Kidspiration is available through the school network,
Co:Writer 4000® is not. An assistive technology request will
be completed for the participant to utilize this software. It
is assumed that this request will be granted. A second assumption is that the participant will be present on
a regular basis during the implementation and stay at this school.
Limitations
The presence of students not involved in the case study may interfere
with the implementation process. The intervention results of
this one participant may or may not be duplicated with other
participants due to varying factors such as level of disability,
type of disability, motivation, and attention.
Importance of the study
Helping students attain good writing skills in elementary school
is important for higher education and job proficiency. Writing
assignments are required in all subjects. I feel that learning-disabled
students are capable of being self-sufficient adults. If they
can learn to write more proficiently, this ability will open
doors for them academically and enhance their employability.
Intervention results can be shared with other special educators.
Overview of the Methodology
A case study will be completed on a participant having a learning
disability that affects her writing. Implementation will include
word prediction software and computer-based graphic organizers.
Data will be collected regarding achievement writing subtests,
organization, spelling, mechanics, and self-perception.
Students
with learning disabilities have difficulty producing writing
samples that are grade appropriate. They have
weaknesses in spelling, sentence structure,
grammar, and organization.
Many times students with
writing disabilities also have deficits in
reading. Often their attempts at inventive spelling are not
phonemically
close to
the target word. They
are unable to locate the target word in a
list of possible words. Either they don’t recognize the target word as the one they want or they
aren’t close enough to the target word for the
software to suggest that word. Most word
processing programs have limited
spell-prediction
capabilities.
Literature Review
Learning Disabilities
Learning Disabilities include difficulties in the areas of reading,
writing, math, oral expression, and listening comprehension.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the literature on learning
disabilities, specifically writing disabilities and the interventions
taken to correct this weakness. Interventions will include
writing instruction, word prediction software, and computer-based
graphic organizers.
Learning Disabilities occur in approximately 5% of students (Lyon,
1996). There are seven areas in which disabilities can occur:
basic reading, reading comprehension, written expression, math
calculations, math reasoning, oral expression, and listening
comprehension. Learning disabilities can occur in more than one
area, with social skills deficits, behavior disorders or attention
deficits. Interventions vary in their effectiveness, depending
on the severity of the disability.
Writing disabilities can manifest as difficulties with spelling,
poor handwriting, and trouble putting thoughts on paper. Difficulties
in writing have an adverse impact on academic achievement in
school and subsequently on business and industry. It has been
estimated that writing disabilities cost American industries
and businesses $30 billion per year.
Written expression involves a complete set of underlying processing skills such
as memory, motor skills, and language.
Possible symptoms of a writing disability (Lerner, 1993) include:
· Awkward Pencil Grip
· Illegible Handwriting
· Avoiding Writing Tasks
· Tiring Quickly While Writing
· Saying Words Out Loud While Writing
· Unfinished Or Omitted Words
· Difficulty Organizing Thoughts On Paper
· Difficulty With Syntax Structure And Grammar
· Large Gap Between Written Ideas And Oral Discussions
Interventions
These difficulties with motor and processing skills often cause students to be
reluctant writers. Current trends to help students overcome these difficulties
include writing instruction, word processing programs, word prediction software,
and computer-based graphic organizers.
Writing Instruction
Students who have difficulty with the physical components of writing can be taught
remediation of those skills. The goal is to have students develop a greater understanding
of the purpose of writing and to help them develop more efficient skills.
Expressive Writing is an instructional method that was designed to teach students
how to organize what they want to say and to guide them in the process of getting
it down on paper. This method contains three key components:
1. Adhere to a basic framework for planning, writing and revision.
2. Explicitly teach critical steps in the writing process.
3. Provide feedback guided by the information explicitlytaught.
Gersten, Baker, and Edwards, (1999) completed studies on
the effectiveness of this method. Each step was taught
using several examples and supported by mnemonic
devices. The results indicated an improvement in the quality of students’ written
products. However, the studies did not address whether or not students transferred
the writing strategies to other subject matter areas.
Word Processing Programs
Word processing programs have been shown to be an effective tool for students
with writing disabilities (Ashton, 1998). Using word processing for creating
and revising text allows the students to have more flexibility. Revising and
editing are not hampered by motor difficulties. Students can concentrate more
on content. Spelling and grammar checking aspects to word processing aid these
students as well.
Although students gain benefits from these programs, there are weaknesses.
Students who have trouble with generalizing may take a while to learn these
programs.
Poor spellers are not benefited as much by the spell checking features. They
do not get phonetically close to the word they are writing to enable the checker
to give them accurate guesses or corrections. Students with learning disabilities
do not always recognize the correct spelling of a word when given a list of
choices.
Simply having access to word processing was found to have little impact on
the revision phase of learning disabled students’ writing (MacArthur, 1996).
However, instruction regarding the revision phase combined with word processing
was found to significantly increase the amount and quality of revision by students
with learning disabilities.
Word Prediction Software
Word prediction programs were originally developed to reduce typing for individuals
with physical disabilities. They predict what word the user intends to use
based on the first letters typed (MacArthur, 1998). Students appear to benefit
from
these programs during the initial writing phase. These programs may be helpful
for students with serious problems in spelling, punctuation, and syntax.
Studies by Staples, Heying, and McLellan (1995) found that the use of a word
prediction program improved scores in spelling, usage, punctuation, and grammar.
Another positive outcome was that student apprehension toward writing was reduced.
Computer-based Graphic Organizers
The use of graphic organizers to assist students in grasping concepts has proven
to be successful. Graphic organizers allow students to depict, organize, and
relate information in a graphical or symbol-based format. Anderson-Inman, Ditson,
and Ditson (1998) found that electronic mapping allows students to see a visual
representation of information and the ability to manipulate this information.
This helps students with learning disabilities to organize their ideas.
Studies have shown that learning-disabled writers spend little time on planning
and do very little editing. These programs have been found to facilitate brainstorming,
synthesizing of information, and outline creation with writing disabled students
(Kight, 1998).
Summary
In the “No Child Left Behind” legislation, integration of technology
is seen as essential to increasing student achievement (Richardson, 2002). A
key element of this legislation is a new technology initiative: Enhancing Education
Through Technology. The goals of this initiative include providing assistive
technology for students with disabilities. Assistive technology has been recognized
as beneficial for students with physical disabilities. In the last several years,
students with learning disabilities have also been assisted from these technological
advances.
Although current studies show that use of technology has made improvements
in student writing, there are still many questions regarding the subject of
writing
disabilities and assistive technology. Will the use of word processing and
word prediction programs improve the spelling and mechanics of students with
writing
disabilities? Will the use of graphic organizers help these students become
better at organizing their writing? Will improvement in writing transfer across
other
subject areas?
Methods
Participant
The participant in this paper is an eleven-year-old fifth grader
who I will call Cindy. Cindy was born as an only child to middle
class parents. Although she appeared bright, she began having
difficulties in academics during kindergarten. She repeated
kindergarten, but her academic problems continued. In second
grade, she was referred for an evaluation with the school psychologist.
It was determined that she had average intellectual ability
with deficits in reading and writing. She was diagnosed as
having a learning disability and began receiving special education
resource services for three periods a day.
Recently, her special education services were increased. Cindy currently receives
all academic instruction in a self-contained learning disabilities classroom.
While math is an area of strength, Cindy is not consistent enough in that subject
to be mainstreamed. She is very eager to learn and well behaved. Her writing
skills are two years below grade level. Oral communication and comprehension
is good.
Instruments
During the week prior to intervention, a baseline will was established using
the following information:
·
BRIGANCE® Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills – writing subtest
score
· A minimum of three writing samples graded with the rubric (see Appendix
A)
· Interview of student to determine self-perception regarding writing
(see Appendix
B)
Implementation Procedures
The intervention process was conducted for six weeks. This intervention was in
addition to regular classroom writing and spelling instruction.
Week 1:
The participant was given twenty minutes daily of computer time. During these
twenty minutes, the researcher instructed the participant in how to use the capabilities
of Co:Writer 4000® and Kidspiration®. The participant had guided practice
time.
Weeks 2 through 6:
The participant was given twenty minutes daily of computer time. On alternating
days, the participant:
1. Used Kidspiration® for prewriting and organization of ideas.
2. Used Co:Writer 4000® to develop and revise a writing assignment.
Analysis
On-going assessment took place during the implementation phase.
On a weekly basis, a writing sample was evaluated using the
rubric (see Appendix A). A weekly spelling test was given.
Post-intervention assessment includes the following:
·
BRIGANCE® Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills – writing
subtest score
· A minimum of three writing samples graded with the rubric (see
Appendix A)
· Interview of student to determine self-perception regarding writing
(see Appendix B)
Results and Discussion
The
participant was evaluated prior to intervention using three
initial writing samples and
a rubric (see Appendix A). Throughout the intervention, she was
assessed using one writing sample each week for six weeks. After
the intervention phase, three more writing samples were obtained
and scored using the rubric (see Appendix A). These results were
compared with the baseline data.
Writing Subtest
Research question:
Will the student make measurable gains on
achievement writing subtests?
During the baseline phase, the Brigance Basic Skills Inventory
writing subtest was administered. Cindy scored at a 2.5 grade
level. When re-administered, she scored at a 3.0 grade level.
The participant improved her writing by .5 of a grade level.
She made a gain of six months in a 6-week period. Pre-writing
activities and writing samples reflect this improvement, (see
appendices C & D).
Writing Organization
Research Question:
Will the student make measurable gains in
writing organization?
Story organization improved in that Cindy began including a topic
sentence more frequently. Her detail sentences were related to
her topic sentence. Sequencing of her stories was logical. She
did not always have a conclusion (see figure 1). Cindy also wrote
lengthier compositions throughout the study (see table 1). The
number of words and sentences increased as
her stories became better organized.
Figure
1. Composition Analysis
Figure
1. Composition analysis of pre-assessment and
post-assessment writing samples
based
on rubric.
Cindy
also wrote lengthier compositions throughout the study. The
number of words and sentences increased as her stories became
better organized (see table 1).
Table
1. Story Length
Table
1. Length of words and sentences in writing samples
When
she used Kidspiration® for pre-writing, she initially put
one main idea and a few details. Over the course of the six-week
implementation stage, her pre-writing began to be more complex
(see figure 2).
Figure
2. Kidspiration® samples.
Figure
2. Sample of pre-writing at pre-assessment and
post-assessment using Kidspiration®.
As her pre-writing became more detailed, her stories became more
detailed as well. She initially had one paragraph. Throughout
the six-week implementation period, she began to increase her
paragraphs (see figure 3).
Figure
3. Writing Samples
Figure
3. Samples of writing at pre-assessment and
post-assessment using Co:Writer 4000®.
Error
Analysis
Research questions:
Will the student make measurable gains in
spelling?
Will the student make measurable gains in mechanics?
Cindy improved in the areas of spelling and capitalization
as noted in figure 4.
Figure
4. Error Analysis.
Figure
4. Error analysis of writing samples during pre-assessment,
intervention
and post- assessment
phases.
Survey
results
Research question: Will student’s self-perception about
writing be more positive?
The participant was administered a survey to determine her perceptions
regarding writing during the baseline and post-intervention phases
(see Appendix B). There are seven positive statements and four
negative statements on the survey. The participant indicated "Yes" to
a response she felt described her perceptions about writing and "No" to
a response that didn't describe her perceptions about writing.
She answered "Yes" to:
Writing is hard for me.
Writing is fun for me.
I forget to use capitals.
I have trouble spelling.
I don’t like to write.
She answered "No" to:
I am good at writing.
I like writing.
I remember to use punctuation.
I am good at spelling.
I remember to use correct punctuation.
I remember to use capitals.
During the
baseline phase, she indicated one positive response to the
11 questions. She agreed with "Writing is fun for
me". She indicated a negative response to the other ten
questions. On the post-intervention survey, the participant indicated
two positive responses to the 11 questions.
She answered "Yes" to:
Writing is hard for me.
I remember to use punctuation.
I forget to use capitals.
I have trouble spelling.
I remember to use correct punctuation.
I don’t like to write.
She answered "No" to:
I am good at writing.
I like writing.
Writing is fun for me.
I am good at spelling.
I remember to use capitals.
Conclusions
The purpose of this case
study was to determine the effect of word prediction software
and computer-based graphic organizers on the writing ability
of a student with a learning disability.
The research questions
were:
1. Will the student make measurable gains on the
BRIGANCE® Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills writing
subtests?
2. Will the student make measurable gains in writing organization?
3. Will the student make measurable gains in spelling?
4. Will the student make measurable gains in mechanics?
5. Will student’s self-perception about writing be more positive?
Implementation included the use of word prediction software and computer-based
graphic organizers for a period of six weeks in addition to normal writing instruction.
Results indicate that the participant made considerable gains in writing over
the 6-week study. In addition to improvement in story organization, it was noted
that the number of words and sentences per story increased (see table 1).
Spelling and mechanics improved. However, spelling errors did not decrease to
the extent that other errors did. The researcher observed that the participant
did not spend a lot of time trying to sound out words she spelled. She was impulsive
when spelling words. When the researcher asked the participant to sound out a
misspelled word in a sample, she often could correctly spell the word or get
a closer approximation of the word. She also had very good performance on spelling
tests. Her impulsivity may have negatively impacted her spelling performance.
Sharing the results of the rubric and offering incentives for decreased spelling
errors appeared to improve her performance.
Cindy’s perception about writing did not significantly improve. She indicated
one more positive response to the survey administered during the post-assessment
but the two statements were similar. She did not indicate that she enjoyed writing
even though she had improved a lot in that area.
Observations
During the implementation, the researcher noticed that the participant was using
the word prediction incorrectly. Initially her stories had many spelling errors
even though Co:Writer 4000® has very good spell prediction capabilities.
She did not monitor the suggested words or take the time to listen to each one.
She picked a word impulsively and continued. Although the student did not appear
to be highly motivated during writing, the researcher noted that the participant
did not complain about writing when using the software programs to aid her. Only
when the writing was timed or completed by hand did she express a reluctance
to complete the task.
Further Study
I feel there is a need for more research that involves the study of motivation
on the part of learning disabled students using word prediction software and
computer-based graphic organizers. I believe a comparison of those results to
students who were taught traditional writing methods would be beneficial. Voice-activated
programs and their impact on the writing of learning disabled students is an
area of research that could benefit teachers of learning disabled students.
Recommendations and Implications
Learning disabled students should be given opportunities to use word prediction
software and computer-based graphic organizers to enhance their writing capabilities.
Learning disabled students could improve their pre-writing skills by utilizing
software such as Kidspiration®. Spelling and mechanics could be improved
with the use of software such as Co:Writer 4000®. Teachers should be provided
with access to these or similar programs and training should be provided. Close
supervision of students as they learn to use these programs is important to ensure
that they use them correctly.
Summary
In summary, the use of word prediction software and computer-based graphic organizers
will improve the writing of learning disabled students. Results of this study
showed improvement in organization, spelling, and mechanics. The length of the
composition increased over the implementation stage as well. By using these programs,
teachers can help learning disabled students close the gap between their ability
level and writing achievement scores.
References
Anderson-Inman,
L., Ditson, L., & Ditson, M.T.(1998). Computer-based concept
mapping: Promoting meaningful learning in science for students
with disabilities.
Information Technology and Disabilities 5, Retrieved September
17, 2003, from
www.rit.edu/~easi/itd/itdv05n1-2/article2.html
Ashton, T. (1998). Making technology work in the inclusive classroom: A spell
checking strategy for students with learning disabilities. Available from http://www.ldonline.org
Bredberg, E.(1999, March). Writing disability history: problems, perspectives
and sources. Disability & Society, 14(2), 189-201. Retrieved July 3, 2004
from EBSCOhost.
Gersten, R., Baker, S., Edwards, L. (1999, December). Teaching Expressive Writing
to students with learning disabilities. The Council for Exceptional Children.
Available from http://www.ldonline.org
Hetzroni, O. E., Shrieber, B. (2004, Mar/Apr). 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(2)143-154. Retrieved
July 3, 2004 from EBSCOhost.
Lerner, J. W. (1993). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching
strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Lyon, R. G. (1996, Spring). Special education for students with disabilities:
The future of children. Learning Disabilities, 6(1). Available from http://www.ldonline.org
MacArthur, C. A. (1996, July). Using technology to enhance the writing processes
of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4),
344-354. Available from http://www.ldonline.org
MacArthur, C. A. (1998, August). From illegible to understandable: How word
prediction and speech synthesis can help. Teaching Exceptional Children,
July-August. Available
from http://www.ldonline.org
Richardson, C. L.(2002, November/December). Success for all students: Leaving
no child behind in the digital age. Retrieved October 15, 2003, from TTAC Link
Lines http://www.wm.edu/TTAC/articles/assistivetech/
nclbdigital.html
Sinatra, R. (1994). Using a computer-based semantic mapping, reading, and writing
approach with at-risk fourth graders. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education,
5(1), 93-112.
Staples,
A., Heying, K. & McLellan J. (1995). A study of
the effects of Co:Writer® word prediction software on
the writing achievement of students with learning disabilities.
Retrieved
October 19, 2003, from http://www.donjohnston.com/pdf/researchcowriter.pdf
Stein, M., Dixon, R. C. (1994). Effective writing instruction
for diverse learners. School Psychology Review,23(3), 392-406.
Appendix
A
Writing
Rubric
Appendix
B
Survey
of Writing Perceptions
