mined that technology motivates children and enhances their opportunities to practice writing.
ger than their writing skills (Li & Hamel, 2003). A good guide is Speech Recognition as AT for Writing (Cochrane & Key, 2014). It can be downloaded from http://pub.lucidpress.com/2f091482- 82da-44a9-b8da-0f9c52f81482/ One of the most compelling reasons to provide AT to stu- dents with disabilities comes from comparing postsecondary outcomes of students with high incidence disabilities who re- ported receiving AT in high school to those who reported not receiving AT (Bouck, E., 2106). Bouck analyzed the data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. She found that 99.8% of the students who received AT graduated versus 79.6% of those who did not receive AT. 80.9% of students who received AT attended a post-secondary institution compared to 40.1% of students who did not receive AT. 80% of those who received AT had a paying job after high school, while only 50.8% of those who did not receive AT had a paying job at the time of the study. While this data does not show a causative relationship, because there is no way to know if there were other significant differenc- es in services or abilities, it does provide a picture of the broad impact of AT use for at least some students with disabilities. Finding AT Research Look for research articles in peer-reviewed professional journals such as Augmentative and Alternative Communica- tion-www.isaac-online.org/en/publications/aac.html, Assistive Technology-www.resna.org, Journal of Research on Technology in Education- www.iste.org, or the Journal of Special Education Technology-https://journals.sagepub.com/home/jst. Then com- pare to find the “best evidence”, evaluate the applicability of re- search to your situation, then use it to make better decisions. Finding a meta-analysis of multiple studies can be very helpful because it gives you an overview of the findings on a specific topic. The material I have included in this two-part series can be found on the National Assistive Technology in Education (NATE) Network website under the AT Research section- https://www. natenetwork.org/. I will periodically update that section, so you can check there for more information. The NATE network web- site is also currently developing a section of information for AT Teams that will include both research and resources, so keep checking there for useful tips and ideas. References Barbetta, P. M. & Spears-Bunton, L. A. (2007). Learning to write: Technology for students with disability in secondary in- clusive classroom. The English Journal, 96(4) 86-93. Batorowicz, B., Missiuna, C. A., & Pollock, N. A. (2012). Tech- nology supporting written productivity in children with learning disabilities: A critical review. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79(4), 211-224. Blair, R. B., Ormsbee, C., & Brandes, J. (2002, March). Using writing strategies and visual thinking software to enhance the
Word Prediction The term word prediction may include both word completion (guessing the remainder of a word based on the first letter or two) and true word prediction (guessing the next word based on the current word) aspects. Studies of word prediction software prior to 2003 did not have phonetic spelling, so word prediction was less accurate. However, even older studies showed benefit. Word prediction alone and in combination with TTS have had a positive impact on the written output of students with identi- fied learning disabilities (Silió & Barbetta, 2010; Cullen, Richards, & Lawless-Frank, 2008; Tam, Archer, Mays, & Skidmore, 2005). Most studies look at number of words written, spelling accuracy and writing rubric scores (including total unit length). Graphic Organizers to Support Writing Studies of the use of graphic organizers as AT for writing show increases in number of words written, amount of time spent on planning and common story elements (Blair, Ormsbee, & Brandes, 2002; Sturm & Rankin-Erickson, 2002; Unzueta & Bar- betta, 2012; Gonzalez-Ledo, Barbetta, Unzueta, 2015). Changes in overall organization of the written product were found in some, but not all of these studies. In addition, electronic graphic organizers allow educators to change the visual representation of the images and text, convert the information in a concept map to an outline, and add audio and text and allow students to manipulate text, alternate between concept map and outlin- ing, and insert information. Englert, Wu, and Zhao (2005) found that the 12 students in their study performed significantly bet- ter when using the graphic organizer than without it. Sturm and Rankin-Erickson (2002) found students demonstrated a more positive attitude to the computer based graphic organizer than to the hand drawn graphic organizer or a no organizer condi- tion. Speech Recognition In several studies the use of speech recognition produced passages with more words and fewer errors than handwritten passages (Quinlan, 2004; MacArthur & Cavalier 2004; McCullum, Nation, & Gunn 2014). However, the use of speech recognition requires the ability to plan phrases and sentences and to dictate without stopping to correct every error (Cullen, Richards, & Law- less-Frank, 2008). It has a large impact for some, but not all, stu- dents. McCullum, Nation, & Gunn (2014) looked at total words, total multisyllabic words and correct writing sequences. They determined writing sequences by looked at every pair of words. For some students, changes were dramatic, going from writing 18 words in the pre-test to 118 in the post-test. For others, the performance changes were much smaller. Speech recognition is particularly beneficial for those whose oral skills are stron-
34
www.closingthegap.com/membership | April / May, 2019
BACK TO CONTENTS
Closing The Gap
© 2019 Closing The Gap, Inc. All rights reserved.
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator