Recent Writing Interventions for

Students with LD Using Digital

Tools
April C. Whitehurst, Ph.D.
Kathy B. Ewoldt, Ph.D.
Introduction
• 2016 CLD Tech Committee Lit Review
• Evmenova et al (2017) Trends in Research on Assistive/Instructional
Technology for Students with LD — Review of Literature
• Writing Interventions for students with LD - > 2020
• Writing is the most difficult academic task (Elander et al., 2007;
Graham, 2006)
• AT in IEP 1990
Purpose: To understand how AT has been
studied for students with LD recently and
which tools have been effective.
Review AT for students with LD
Build on:
Perelmutter et al., (2017) Adolescent & older students with LD in all
content areas
Qahmash (2018) Mobile tech supporting writing for students will
disabilities
Peterson-Karlan (2011) Writing for students with LD
2010+
Journals more likely to be read by researchers of LD
Inclusion: CLD Data Set
Keywords:
Databases: Web of Science, PsychInfo, Education Research Complete,
Education Full Text, and ERIC.
Journals hand search: Exceptional Children, Journal of Learning
Disabilities, Journal of Special Education Technology, Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, Learning Disabilities Quarterly,
Remedial and Special Education.
Ancestry/descendant: By authors who published 2 or more articles
previously identified
1990-2017 in English, peer-reviewed journals
Inclusion:
From CLD data set
• Writing: Any skill required to compose written expression including
handwriting, spelling, transcription, keyboarding, mechanics,
grammar, organization, content of the writing, writing strategies,
and note-taking.
• Intervention
• At least 1 participant having a learning disability
Excluded
• Focus on perceptions or attitudes
• Struggling or at-risk learners without identification as LD
• Overviews of technology
• DV did not measure a writing skill
Research Questions
How have interventions and research using AT to support writing
for students with LD evolved since 2010?

What types of technology have been studied to improve writing for

students with LD?

What types of technology have shown promise for teaching students

with LD to write?
Definitions
Assistive Technology Device: “Any piece of equipment, whether
acquired commercially of the shelf, modified, or customized, that is
used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of a child
with a disability (Assistive Technology Act, 2004, 20 USC § 1401 Sec.
602 (1))

Educational and/or Instructional ? - When used by a student with a

disability to support their disability (Dalton & Rousch, 2010)
Definitions of how tech was used:
Compensatory: Immediate support to overcome difficulties.
Examples: spelling checkers, word prediction, and speech recognition

Instructional: Primarily used for instruction, with little to no immediate

compensatory support to overcome difficulties.
Examples: video self-modeling, spelling instruction with computer-
assisted time delay.
Characteristics 2010-2020
Total n students with LD = 186 Studies n = 20
Study Design

Study Design Group Single- Mixed Qualitative Total

Subject Method
# of Studies 6 12 1 1 20

Grade Levels
Grade Levels Studied
Grades K-3 4-6 7-8 9-12 Post-
Secondary
# of Studies 1 9 8 7 1
Characteristics: Type of Technology
Compensatory Technology
Tech Tool Number of Studies Number of
Participants with LD
Word Processors 3 6
Speech to Text 1 4
Electronic Pens 2 11
Digital Books 1 22
 Characteristics: Types of Technology
Instructional

Tech Tool Number of Studies Number of Participants

with LD
Video Self-Modeling 1 3
Computer-delivered Instruction 7 123
Computer-based Planner 4 17
 Word Processing with Support
Author, Date Number of Grade How Tech Was Used Results
Participants Levels
with LD
Beers et al., 42 4-9 Compensatory Both Showed
2018 Compared Using a Stylus Improvements
to a Keyboard
Corkett & 9 6 Compensatory Increased in spelling
Benevides, 2016 Used a word processor on accuracy with iPAD
the iPad as compared to
handwriting
Evmenova et al, 4 4,5,6,7 Compensatory Word prediction showed
2010 Comparison of Co-Writer, most gains in spelling
Word Q and Write Assist accuracy
Silio & Barbetta, 6 5 Compensatory Overall improvement in
2010 Word Processing with writing quality with word
word cuing and tts prediction or wp and tts.
Tts alone not meaningful
Speech to Text
Author, Date Number of Grade How Tech Was Used Results
Participants Level
with LD
Nelson & 4 Post- Compensatory Varied, based on
Reynolds, secondary Used to aid college student confort and
2015 students in writing type of difficulty, faster
papers than keyboarding,
requires persistence
and toleration of
errors
Electronic Pens
Author, Date Number of Grade How Tech Was Used Results
Participants Levels
with LD
Bouck, et al., 1 of 3 9, 10, 11 Compensatory Improved essays; did
2010 Pentop provided not generalize
writing support
Belson, 10 High Compensatory Improved note taking
Hartman, & School Digital pens paired results and use of
Sherman with Cornell note note taking strategies
system
Computer Based Planners: 1 of 2
Author, Date Number of Grade How Tech Was Used Results
Participan Levels
ts with LD
Dunn & Miller, 4 4th & 5th Instructional Spoken and written
2016 Picture and content improved for 3
visualization App of 4 participants
during planning
Evmenova et al., 5 7th & 8th Instructional Quality of writing
2016 Computer-based increased for all; most
graphic organizer with improved quantity of
SRSD for persuasive writing
essay
Computer Based Planners: 2 of 2
Author, Date Number of Grad How Tech Was Used Results
Participants e
with LD Level
s
Gonzalez-Ledo, 4 4th & Instructional Improved number of
et al., 2015 5th Kidspiration words*
Planning time, story
elements; no difference
in organization
Unzueta & 4 7th & Instructional Increased # of words,
Barbetta, 2012 8th Planning using a Time spent planning,
computer-based improved syntactic
graphic organizer maturity, and overall
versus paper and organization
pencil
Computer-Delivered Instruction 1 of 2
Author, Date Number of Grade How Tech Was Used Results
Participants Levels
with LD
Berninger et al., 35 4th - 9th Instructional Significant improvement
2015 iPad based spelling, on handwriting & spelling
handwriting, and and written and oral
sentence-combining syntax construction
activities/instruction
Datchuck 2019 3 5,6 Instructional Mixed as initially there
5th & 6th was no improvement, but
supplemental writing a delayed and gradual
intervention - 6 writing performance
studies on sentence across all students.
construction using During maintenance
handwriting, and then students showed the
14 studies using most accurate and quick
typing to construct writing while typing
sentences sentence.
 Computer-Delivered Instruction 2 of 2
Author, Date N= Grade Levels How Tech Was Used Results
Schumaker 44 Middle & Instructional Higher scores on
2019 High School Interactive/multimedia punctuation tests, fewer
software program used to incorrect punctuation
teach punctuation marks. Strategies
strategies generalized to use with
own sentences
Straub & 4 6, 8, 9, & 10 Instructional Increased number of
Vasquez,2015 Online Synchronous essay elements
Strategy Instruction
Weigelt-Marom 25 Post- Instructional At maintenance
& Weintraub, Secondary Handwriting speed vs keyboarding was faster
2018
keyboarding than handwriting
Zannikos et al., 4 5 Instructional Students improved
2018 Audio taped spelling spelling with AT
intervention (Cover, Copy,
Compare)
Digital Books
Author, Date Number of Grade How Tech Was Used Results
Participants Levels
with LD
Curcic & 22 6,7 Compensatory Use of digital books
Johnstone, Digital books were read improved writing
2016 before students wrote summaries as
summaries. compared to when
reading print book
Video Self Monitoring
Author, Date Number of Grade How Tech Was Results
Participants Levels Used
with LD
Miller & Little, 3 3rd Instructional Essay elements
2018 Self-regulation increased, 2 of 3
strategy design students
with video self- increased total
monitoring words, improved
writing duration
Language Levels
Language level measured
- Word
Beers et al., 2018
Belson et al., 2013*
Berninger et al., 2015
Bouck et al., 2010
Corkett & Benevides, 2016
Evmenova et al., 2010
Evmenova, et al., 2016
Gonzalez-Ledo, et al., 2015
Nelson & Reynolds, 2015
Silió & Barbetta, 2010
Weigelt-Marom & Weintraub,
2018
Zannikos et al., 2018
*Note-taking
Sentence Paragraph +
Belson et al., 2013* Bouck et al., 2010
Berninger et al., 2015 Curcic & Johnstone, 2016
Bouck et al., 2010 Dunn & Miller, 2016
Corkett & Benevides, 2016 Evmenova, et al., 2016
Datchuk et al., 2019 Gonzalez-Ledo, et al., 2015
Evmenova, et al., 2016 Miller & Little, 2018
Schumaker et al., 2019 Mitchem et al., 2013*
Silió & Barbetta, 2010 Nelson & Reynolds, 2015
Straub & Vasquez, 2015 Silió & Barbetta, 2010
Unzueta & Barbetta, 2012 Straub & Vasquez, 2015
Unzueta & Barbetta, 2012
Language Level Measured By Type of Tech
- Word Sentence Paragraph +
Beers et al., 2018 Corkett & Benevides, 2016 Silió & Barbetta, 2010
Corkett & Benevides, 2016 Silió & Barbetta, 2010 Bouck et al., 2010
Evmenova et al., 2010
Silió & Barbetta, 2010 Belson et al., 2013* Nelson & Reynolds, 2015
Belson et al., 2013* Bouck et al., 2010 Dunn & Miller, 2016
Bouck et al., 2010 Evmenova, et al., 2016 Evmenova, et al., 2016
Nelson & Reynolds, 2015 Unzueta & Barbetta, 2012 Gonzalez-Ledo, et al., 2015
Evmenova, et al., 2016
Gonzalez-Ledo, et al., 2015 Datchuk et al., 2019 Unzueta & Barbetta, 2012
Berninger et al., 2015 Schumaker et al., 2019 Mitchem et al., 2013*
Weigelt-Marom & Weintraub, Berninger et al., 2015 Straub & Vasquez, 2015
2018 Straub & Vasquez, 2015 Curcic & Johnstone, 2016
Zannikos et al., 2018
Miller & Little, 2018
Note-taking Word Processing Electronic Pens Speech to Text Electronic Pens Computer
*
-Based Planner Computer-Directed Instruction Digital books Video Self-Monitoring
 What Do We Know and What do We need to
Know: Instructional
Tech Tool Previous Other Fields/Populations Where Do We Go From Here
Studies - Group Participation Please
1990 -
2010
Video Self- 0 Effective for students with
Modeling autism(Bellini & Akullian,
2007)
Computer- 3 (Multi-faceted)
delivered
Instruction
Computer-Based 3 Non-Computerized has been
Planner shown to be effective for
students with LD (Englert, et
al., 2007)
What Do We Know and What Do We Need to
Know: Compensational
Tech Tool Previou Other Fields/Populations - Group Participation
s Please
Studies
1990
-2010
Word Processors 10 Established as effective for
struggling writers (Graham &
Perin, 2007)
Speech to Text 6 Small positive effect (Perelmutter,
et al., 2007)
Electronic Pens 0 Overall positive effect - total of
four studies (Perelmutter, et al.,
2007)
Digital Books 0 (Used as a prompt)
Discussion
Difficulty with variety of IVs & DVs
e.g. digital storybook to read story prior to writing summary (Curcic &
Johnstone, 2016) verus online synchronous instruction (Straub &
Vasquez, 2015)
Peterson-Karlan, 2011 categories: Planning, Transcription, Revision,
Editing
Little replication
Only 1 qualitative (Nelson & Reynolds, 2015)
Questions for the field
• Defining writing?
• Dependent variables: What should be measured?
• Purpose? Certify technology as EBP or use tech to support EBP (Smith
& Okolo, 2010) or build new uses?
 References
Beers, S. F., Berninger, V., Mickail, T., & Abbott, R. (2018). Online writing processes in translating cognition into language and transcribing written language by
stylus and keyboard in upper elementary and middle school students with persisting dysgraphia or dyslexia. Learning Disabilities-a Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(2),
70–86. https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2018-V23-I2-9008
Bellini, S., & Akullian, J. (2007). A meta-analysis of video modeling and video self-modeling interventions for children and adolescents with autism spectrum
disorders. Exceptional Children, 73(3), 264–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300301
Belson, S. I., Hartmann, D., & Sherman, J. (2013). Digital note taking: The use of electronic pens with students with specific learning disabilities. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 28(2), 13–24.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1511340
Berninger, V. W., Nagy, W., Tanimoto, S., Thompson, R., & Abbott, R. D. (2015). Computer instruction in handwriting, spelling, and composing for students with
specific learning disabilities in grades 4–9. Computers & Education, 81, 154–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.005
Bouck, E. C., Doughty, T. T., Flanagan, S. M., Szwed, K., & Bassette, L. (2010). Is the pen mightier? using pentop computers to improve secondary students’ writing.
Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(4), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341002500403
Corkett, J. K., & Benevides, T. (2016). iPad versus handwriting:
Pilot study exploring the writing abilities of students with learning disabilities. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 19(1), 15–24.
https://doi.org/10.9782/JISNE-D-15-00011.1
Curcic, S., & Johnstone, R. S. (2016). The effects of an intervention in writing with digital interactive books. Computers in the Schools, 33(2), 71–88.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2016.1181478
Datchuk, S. M., Smith, S., & Wang, L. (2019). Using multiple modes of transcription to improve the sentence typing of elementary students with disabilities. Journal
of Special Education Technology, 34(4), 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419832993
Dunn, M., & Miller, D. (2016). Improving story writing: Integrating the story mnemonic strategy with iPad apps for art and keyboarding. International Journal for
Research in Learning Disabilities, 3(1), 11–28. eric.
Elander, J., Harrington, K., Norton, L., Robinson, H., & Reddy, P. (2006). Complex skills and academic writing: A review of evidence about the types of learning
required to meet core assessment criteria. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500262379
 References
Englert, C., Zhao, Y., Dunsmore, K., Collings, N., & Wolbers, K. (2007). Scaffolding the writing of students with disabilities through procedural facilitation: Using an
Internet-based technology to improve performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 9–29.
Evmenova, Anna S., Graff, H. J., Jerome, M. K., & Behrmann, M. M. (2010). Word prediction programs with phonetic spelling support: performance comparisons and
impact on journal writing for students with writing difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Wiley-Blackwell), 25(4), 170–182. a9h.
Evmenova, Anya S., Regan, K., Boykin, A., Good, K., Hughes, M., MacVittie, N., Sacco, D., Ahn, S. Y., & Chirinos, D. (2016). Emphasizing planning for essay
writing with a computer-based graphic organizer. Exceptional Children, 82(2), 170–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915591697
Gonzalez-Ledo, M., Barbetta, P. M., & Unzueta, C. H. (2015). The effects of computer graphic organizers on the narrative writing of elementary school students with
specific learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 30(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341503000103
Graham, S. (2006b). Writing. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.),Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457– 478).
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445.
Miller, K. M., & Little, M. E. (2018). Examining the effects of SRSD in combination with video self-modeling on writing by third grade students with learning
disabilities. Exceptionality, 26(2), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2017.1283622
Mitchem, K. J., Fitzgerald, G., Miller, K., & Hollingsead, C. (2013). Using electronic performance support systems to improve academic performance of secondary
students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341302800301
Nelson, L. M., & Reynolds, T. W. (n.d.). Speech recognition, disability, and college composition. 17.
Peterson-Karlan, G. R. (2011). Technology to support writing by students with learning and academic disabilities: Recent research trends and findings. Assistive
Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 7(1), 39–62.
Perelmutter, B., McGregor, K. K., & Gordon, K. R. (2017). Assistive technology interventions for adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: An evidence-based
systematic review and meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 114, 139–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.005
Qahmash, A. I. M. (2018). The potentials of using mobile technology in teaching individuals with learning disabilities: A review of special education technology
literature. TechTrends, 62(6), 647–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0298-1
 References
Schumaker, J. B., Fisher, J. B., & Walsh, L. D. (2019). Effects of computerized instruction on the use of punctuation strategies by students with LD. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 34(3), 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12203
Silió, M. C., & Barbetta, P. M. (2010). The effects of word prediction and text-to-speech Technologies on the Narrative Writing Skills of Hispanic Students with Specific
Learning Disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(4), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341002500402
Smith, S. J., & Okolo, C. (2010). Response to intervention and evidence-based practices: Where does technology fit? Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(4), 257–272.
https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871003300404
Straub, C., & Vasquez III, E. (2015). Effects of synchronous online writing instruction for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology,
30(4), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643415618929
Unzueta, C. H. 1, & Barbetta, P. M. 1. (2012). The effects of computer graphic organizers on the persuasive writing of Hispanic middle school students with specific
learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 27(3), 15–30.
Weigelt-Marom, H., & Weintraub, N. (2018). Keyboarding versus handwriting speed of higher education students with and without learning disabilities: Does touch-
typing assist in narrowing the gap? Computers & Education, 117, 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.008
Zannikos, M. E., McCallum, E., Schmitt, A. J., & Pearson, K. E. (2018). A comparison of the taped spelling intervention and cover, copy, and compare for students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 27(3), 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-018-9293-z