A predictive text input system, PAL, was introduced into a school
environment with a group of 17 children representing a wide range of
special educational needs. The group included non-speakers and also
children with severe spelling and language problems. In all but one of
the cases, this system was found to be very successful in improving the
quantity and quality of the written work which the pupils produced.
This work shows that, not only can predictive systems be used as an
acceleration technique for physically-disabled people, they can also be
of great benefit both as a prosthesis and a training aid for children with a
wide range of spelling and language dysfunction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Beattie, W., Booth, L., Newell, A.F. and Arnott, J.L.1990: The role of the predictive computer programs in special education. Augmentative and Alternative Communication6, 89.
2.
Berninger, V.W. and Gans, B.M.1986: Assessing word processing capability of the nonvocal, nonwriting. Augmentative and Alternative Communication2, 56-63.
3.
Blackstone, S.1990: My left brain. In Mineo, B., editor, Augmentative and alternative communication in the next decade (University of Delaware: Applied Science and Engineering Laboratories).
4.
Booth, L., Beattie, W. and Newell, A.F.1990: I know what you mean. Special Children41, 26-27.
5.
Brophy, B., Colvin, J.B., Fuller, D., Swiffin, A.L., Newell, A.F., Condie, D.N. and Hood, H.E.1989: Communication aids for the neurologically impaired child and young adult in the school and community. Final Report to the Scottish Home and Health Department, November.
6.
Burgess, R.G.1982: Field research: a sourcebook and field manual. London: Allen and Unwin.
7.
Cromer, R.F.1980: Spontaneous spelling by language-disordered children . In Frith, U., editor, Cognitive processes in spelling. London: Academic Press.
8.
Crystal, D.1986: ISAAC in chains: the future of communication systems . Augmentative and Alternative Communication2, 140-145.
9.
Higginbotham, D.J.1990: The evaluation of keystroke efficiency for five augmentative and alternative communication technologies. Department of Communicative Disorders and Sciences, State University of New York at Buffalo , USA.
10.
Kidder, L.H. and Judd, C.M.1986: Research methods in social relationsNew York: CBS College Publishing.
11.
Koppenhave, D.A. and Yoder, D.E.1990: Facilitating literacy learning in children with speech and physical impairments. Augmentative and Alternative Communication6, 107.
12.
Kraat, A.1990: AAC Focus for the 90's: New Technologies or Consumer Use and Outcomes. In Mineo, B., editor, Augmentative and Alternative Communication in the Next Decade , University of Delaware.
13.
Lowrance, R. and Wagner, R.A.1975: An extension of the string-to-string correction problem . Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery5, 177-183
14.
Newell, A.F., Arnott, J.L., Booth, L., Beattie, W., Brophy, B. and Ricketts, I.W. in press: The effect of the 'PAL' word prediction system on the quality and quantity of text generation. Augmentative and Alternative Communication.
15.
Swiffin, A.L., Arnott, J.L. and Brophy, B.1988: Function and content words in a predictive system . Proceedings of the International Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Rehabilitation Engineering. Montreal , Canada, 70-71.
16.
Swiffin, A.L., Arnott, J.L. and Newell, A.F.1987: Adaptive and predictive techniques in a communication prosthesis. Augmentative and Alternative Communication3, 181-191.
17.
Waller, A., Beattie, B. and Newell, A.F.1991: The computer is mightier than the sword. Speech Therapy in Practice, January, 18-20.
18.
Wright, A.G. and Newell. A.F.1991: Computer help for poor spellers. British Journal of Educational Technology22, 146-148.
