Writing Aides

This category includes articles that examined the use of writing tools (e.g., word prediction software and smart pens) to enhance learning and improve student outcomes.

Computer-based spelling instruction for students with developmental disabilities

Jul 1, 2013, 15:07 PM
Vedora, J. & Stromer, R. (2007). Computer-based spelling instruction for students with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 28, 489-505.

Characteristics

  • Grade/Age Level: Age 14 and 17
  • Specific Difficulty Addressed: Spelling  
  • Type of AT Used: Computer-aided spelling, Boardmaker

Setting

Method

  • Experiment 1: 
  • Participants were Alan (age 14) and Suzy (age 17), who were diagnosed with mental retardation.
  • Three sets of 3 target words were taught using 3 naming tasks and 6 matching-to-sample tasks.
  • A multiple probe design was used.
  • On 9 trials, students wrote words on index cards, or wrote words after seeing pictures on the screen. After a correct response, the experimenter pressed “J” on the keyboard and 3 seconds of a flashing computer display would appear. After an incorrect response, the screen would darken for 5 seconds.
  • Students used anagram spelling from dictation, pictures, or words, with 12 letters on the screen as options.
  • After 2 weeks and 5 months, performance was assessed with a 5 tabletop tasks: matching objects to dictation; naming picture when asked; writing lists on paper when shown pictures; reading lists after writing; sorting objects on lists; and selecting objects from lists.
  • Experiment 2: 
  • PowerPoint® was used to create a computer-based spelling program.
  • Alan relearned the words from experiment 1, due to his low performance on the written follow-up. Suzy learned a new set of 9 words.
  • Slides showed a photograph, dictated words, had a word construction area, and a keyboard for letter selection. If a correct word was spelled, positive feedback was given with a brief animation. If the word was spelled incorrectly, the screen darkened for 3 seconds.

Results

  • Experiment 1: 
  • Alan received scores of 83% or better for matching and naming tasks, except for Set 3 words, in which he scored 78%.
  • Suzy scored 83% of better for many matching and naming tasks. She scored lower for Set 2 and 3 words, in which she scored 56% and 61%, respectively. She also scored 67% on matching printed words to dictation, and 78% on matching words to pictures.
  • On the tabletop tasks, Alan made few errors at 2 weeks post-intervention and at 5 months, except spelling accuracy which dropped to 22%. Suzy completed the tasks accurately at both 2 weeks and 5 months follow-up.
  • Experiment 2: 
  • Initially, Alan scored 2 out of 6 on word Sets 1 and 2, and 0 on Set 3. After teaching, he met criterion for each set with very few errors.
  • Suzy did not spell any words correctly on the initial testing, but after teaching rapidly met criteria for Sets 4, 5, and 6.
  • Alan performed well on the tabletop tasks, scoring almost perfect on follow-up at 2, 3, 5, and 8 weeks.
  • Suzy also performed well on tabletop tasks, scoring perfect on naming, writing lists, and retrieving objects, but making 1 error on reading the lists.
  • Suzy was pre- and post-tested on her ability to read the 9 words. After initially scoring 0 out of 9, she learned to read all 9 words.
  • Computer teaching lead to increased accuracy of written spelling.
Categories:
  • Writing
Tags:

Computer Assisted Instruction

Computer-based spelling instruction for students with developmental disabilities

Jul 1, 2013, 15:07 PM
Vedora, J. & Stromer, R. (2007). Computer-based spelling instruction for students with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 28, 489-505.

Characteristics

  • Grade/Age Level: Age 14 and 17
  • Specific Difficulty Addressed: Spelling  
  • Type of AT Used: Computer-aided spelling, Boardmaker

Setting

Method

  • Experiment 1: 
  • Participants were Alan (age 14) and Suzy (age 17), who were diagnosed with mental retardation.
  • Three sets of 3 target words were taught using 3 naming tasks and 6 matching-to-sample tasks.
  • A multiple probe design was used.
  • On 9 trials, students wrote words on index cards, or wrote words after seeing pictures on the screen. After a correct response, the experimenter pressed “J” on the keyboard and 3 seconds of a flashing computer display would appear. After an incorrect response, the screen would darken for 5 seconds.
  • Students used anagram spelling from dictation, pictures, or words, with 12 letters on the screen as options.
  • After 2 weeks and 5 months, performance was assessed with a 5 tabletop tasks: matching objects to dictation; naming picture when asked; writing lists on paper when shown pictures; reading lists after writing; sorting objects on lists; and selecting objects from lists.
  • Experiment 2: 
  • PowerPoint® was used to create a computer-based spelling program.
  • Alan relearned the words from experiment 1, due to his low performance on the written follow-up. Suzy learned a new set of 9 words.
  • Slides showed a photograph, dictated words, had a word construction area, and a keyboard for letter selection. If a correct word was spelled, positive feedback was given with a brief animation. If the word was spelled incorrectly, the screen darkened for 3 seconds.

Results

  • Experiment 1: 
  • Alan received scores of 83% or better for matching and naming tasks, except for Set 3 words, in which he scored 78%.
  • Suzy scored 83% of better for many matching and naming tasks. She scored lower for Set 2 and 3 words, in which she scored 56% and 61%, respectively. She also scored 67% on matching printed words to dictation, and 78% on matching words to pictures.
  • On the tabletop tasks, Alan made few errors at 2 weeks post-intervention and at 5 months, except spelling accuracy which dropped to 22%. Suzy completed the tasks accurately at both 2 weeks and 5 months follow-up.
  • Experiment 2: 
  • Initially, Alan scored 2 out of 6 on word Sets 1 and 2, and 0 on Set 3. After teaching, he met criterion for each set with very few errors.
  • Suzy did not spell any words correctly on the initial testing, but after teaching rapidly met criteria for Sets 4, 5, and 6.
  • Alan performed well on the tabletop tasks, scoring almost perfect on follow-up at 2, 3, 5, and 8 weeks.
  • Suzy also performed well on tabletop tasks, scoring perfect on naming, writing lists, and retrieving objects, but making 1 error on reading the lists.
  • Suzy was pre- and post-tested on her ability to read the 9 words. After initially scoring 0 out of 9, she learned to read all 9 words.
  • Computer teaching lead to increased accuracy of written spelling.
Categories:
  • Writing
Tags: