This study used a multiple baseline across subjects design to explore the effects of using a computer graphic organizer program during planning on the narrative writing compositions of four fourth- and fifth-grade boys with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD). Four dependent variables were measured: total number of words, total minutes planning, number of common story elements, and overall organization. Baseline planning was done with paper and pencil, while intervention planning was done using the computer graphic organizer program Kidspiration 3.0 (2011). Compositions in both conditions were written and edited using paper and pencil. The results indicated that computer graphic organizers used during planning had a positive effect on three of four dependent measures. When looking at mean scores, participants wrote more words (from 20.25 to 41.86 more), planned for longer periods of time (from 1.00 to 5.00 more minutes), and included more story elements in their compositions (from 0.80 to 3.10 more out of a possible 6.00). There were nominal to no improvements in overall organization across the four participants. The results suggest that teachers of students with SLD should consider using computer graphic organizers for narrative writing planning. Future research should investigate the effects of computer graphic organizers with other writing genres, across multiple writing days per composition, with participants of varied demographics, and/or in combination with other remedial composition instruction.
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, NV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED463125.
3.
CapretzK.RickerB.SasakA. (2003). Improving organizational skills through the use of graphic organizers (M.A. Research Project, Saint Xavier University and Skylight Professional Development, City, IL). ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED473056
4.
CiulloS. P.ReutebuchC. (2013). Computer-based graphic organizers for students with LD: A systematic review of literature. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 196–210.
5.
CooperJ. O.HeronT. E.HewardW. L. (2007). Applied Behavior Analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
6.
De la PazS.GrahamS. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 687–698.
7.
Deatline-BuchmanA.JitendraA. K. (2006). Enhancing argumentative essay writing by fourth-grade students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 29, 39–54.
8.
DexterD. D.HughesC. A. (2011, Winter). Graphic organizers and students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 34, 51–72.
9.
DiCeccoV. M.GleasonM. M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 306–320.
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.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R.LarsenL. (2001). Prevention and intervention of writing difficulties for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 74–84.
14.
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.
15.
GrahamS.PerinD. (2007a). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools—A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.
16.
GrahamS.PerinD. (2007b). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.
17.
HillocksG. (1986). Research on Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching. Urbana, IL: Eric Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.
18.
HuntK. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE Research Report No. 3. Champaign, IL: NCTE.
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.
22.
LaneK. L.GrahamS.HarrisK. R.WeisenbachJ. L. (2006). Teaching writing strategies to young students struggling with writing and at risk for behavioral disorders: Self-regulated strategy development. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(1), 60–73.
23.
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 http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/sum2004/cbconceptmapping.
24.
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: ProQuest Information and Learning Company. UMI 3158289.
25.
MartinD.MartinM.CarvalhoK. (2008). Reading and learning-disabled children: Understanding the problem. The Clearing House, 81, 113–117. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document No. 1428819441)
26.
MayesS. D.CalhounS. L. (2005). Frequency of reading, math, and writing disabilities in children with clinical disorders. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 145–157.
27.
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.
28.
MonroeB. W.TroiaG. A. (2006). Teaching writing strategies to middle school students with disabilities. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 21–33.
29.
National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges. (2003). The neglected “R”: The need for a writing revolution. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
30.
Peterson-KarlanG. R. (2011). Technology to support writing by students with learning and academic disabilities: Recent research trends and findings. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 7, 39–62.
31.
PerskyH. R.DaaneM. S.JinY. (2003). The nation's report card: Writing 2002 (NCES 2003-529). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
32.
SaddlerB.MoranS.GrahamS.HarrisK. R. (2004). Preventing writing difficulties: The effects of planning strategy instruction on the writing performance of struggling writers. Exceptionality, 12, 13–17.
33.
Salahu-DinD.PerskyH.MillerJ. (2008). The nation's report card: Writing 2007 (NCES 2008-468). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Educational Sciences.
34.
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.
35.
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.
36.
SwansonH. L.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. G. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of Learning Disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford.
37.
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.
38.
UnzuetaC.BarbettaP. (2012). The effects of computer graphic organizers on the persuasive writing of Hispanic middle school students with specific learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 27, 15–30.
39.
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.
40.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2002). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
41.
WongB. Y. L. (2000). Writing strategies instruction for expository essays for adolescents with and without learning disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 29–44.
