Commercially available word processing is being shown to be an effective accommodation for the writing deficiencies of high functioning learning disabled college students. Essential to the success of this accommodation is readable documentation of the software used. Features of previously validated pedagogical interventions are brought to bear on creating documentation and instructions that bypass the generally ineffective and inaccessible instructions accompanying some word-processing products. An example of these procedures is provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlleyG., & DeschlerD. (1979). Teaching the learning disabled adolescent: Strategies and methods.Denver: Love.
2.
ArkinM., & GallagherB. (1984). Word processing and the basic writer. Connecticut English Journal, 15 (2), 60–66.
3.
ArkinM.GallagherB.GreenbaumJ.LynchD.PearlK., & SchneiderE.C. (1984). Word processing: A catalyst for the basic writing student. In AkstG. (Ed.), Microcomputers and basic skills in college.New York: The City University of New York, Instructional Resource Center.
4.
ArmsV.M. (1984). A dyslexic can compose on a computer. Instructional Technology, 39–41.
5.
BilyeuE.E. (1982). Practice makes closer to perfect.Ellensburg: Central Washington University, HELDS Project.
6.
CaninoF. (1981). Learned helplessness theory: Implications for research in learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 15, 471–484.
7.
CohenS.B., & SchwartzT.A. (1983). The use of microcomputers in teaching training. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 300–302.
8.
CollinsT., & PriceL. (1985). Testimony from learning disabled writers on the efficacy of word processing in their composing process (Working paper of the Learning Disabled College Writers Project). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, General College.
9.
DegnanS.C., & HummelJ.W. (1985). Word processing and special education students: Worth the effort. T.H.E. Journal, 80–82.
10.
Engen-WedinN., & CollinsT. (1986). Composition, word processing, and the learning disabled college writer: An annotated bibliography (Working paper of the Learning Disabled College Writers Project). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, General College.
11.
GreggN. (1983). College learning disabled writers: Error patterns and instructional alternatives. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 334–338.
12.
HendersonA., & WardR. (1982). Customer information about general purpose computer systems: Unique problems in technical writing. Proceedings of the Conference of the IEEE Professional Society.
13.
HindsK. (1985). Dyslexia. Brown Alumni Monthly,25-31.
14.
HummelJ. (1985). Word processing and word processing related software for the learning disabled. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 9.
15.
KerchnerL.B., & KistingerB.J. (1984). Language processing, word processing: Written expression, computers, and learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 7, 329–335.
RichardsA. (1985). College composition: Recognizing the disabled writer. Journal of Basic Writing, 4 (2), 68–79.
18.
RosegrantT. (1985). Using a microcomputer as a tool for learning to read and write. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18,113-115.
19.
SabatinoD.A.MillerT.L., & SchmidtC. (1981). Learning disabilities: Systematizing teaching and service delivery.Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems.
20.
SchumakerJ.B.DeschlerD.D.NolanS.ClarkF.L.AlleyG.R., & WarnerM.M. (1981). Error monitoring: A learning strategy for improving academic performance of LD adolescents. (Research report 32). Lawrence: University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
