Language Processing/Word Processing: Written Expression, Computers and Learning Disabled Students

Abstract

queness, their coping strategies, their ability to elude precise definition; and yet, commonalities do emerge to form a composite picture of these students. That portrait depicts a child awkwardly grasping a pencil and much-used eraser, attempting to fulfill an assignment by writing words on paper. We might entitle this portrait Personification of Frustration. As educators, we have added, albeit unwittingly, many of the brush strokes to create this portrait. By subscribing to the theories that children must first learn to read, spell, and punctuate properly before attempting to write, we have expended our energies on these neverperfected tasks until the children have reached the normally self-conscious stage of adolescence, missing--perhaps forever--sequential developmental written language experiences. Researchers who study language and composition skills of normally achieving students are recognizing that those students, as well as their learning disabled classmates, are being handicapped by our inattention or misdirected attention to written expression. Inspired by Graves (1979) and the procedure used in his Writing Process Laboratory, the English-teacher equivalents of revolutionaries are making a few converts among the nation's writing teachers. Nowhere is their presence more needed than in special education where we must compensate for years of neglect and where academic progress is usually only painstakingly achieved. Hypothesis Our consciousness-raising regarding written expression is occurring at a time when technology may aid us in remediating the written language of learning disabled students. By combining the process approach to writing with the word-processing capabilities of the microcomputer, we may enable our LD students to become proficient writers. Results of an experimental classroom intervention utilizing such a treatment design are encouraging. The proposed program is holistic, treating reading and language development, as well as written expression. Relationship Between Needs and Research When PL 94-142 became law in 1975, special educators were in general agreement with Myklebust's theories of hierarchical language development. That is, a child first had to understand spoken language, and then he spoke. He had to read, and then he wrote (Myklebust, 1965). As a result, we never got to the writing stage with LD students in elementary school. There were always isolated skills not yet mastered, words not yet read. Having spent years training processes (e.g., auditory memory, visual perception) and skills (e.g., punctuation, capitalization) with little effect, special educators are now listening to different voices, expressing different views. Mann, Goodman, and Wiederholt (1978) observed that lower performance measures at the secondary level can be explained by extensive exposure to remedial strategies, ignoring students' strengths. Hence we may actually cause disabilities in strength areas through neglect. Chomsky (1971) posited that the order of our

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 82 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.