You are here:

Using Technology with Students with Mild Disabilities: A Review of Literature
Article

, Roosevelt University, United States ; , Hope College, United States ; , Oak Park District 97, United States

CITE Journal Volume 9, Number 3, ISSN 1528-5804 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

This article presents a review of the research on technology integration in the area of literacy for individuals with mild disabilities. It describes relevant legislation, including how special education technology is impacted by the No Child Left Behind Act (2001). Included studies focus on research in the core content areas of reading and written language most likely to impact inclusive classrooms. In the area of reading, research has investigated such technologies as the use of computer-assisted instruction and text-to-speech synthesis in reading instruction. Written language research in special education technology has studied the use of word processors, text-to-speech synthesis, word prediction, and spelling and grammar checkers.

Citation

Anderson, C.L., Cherup, S. & Anderson, K.M. (2009). Using Technology with Students with Mild Disabilities: A Review of Literature. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 337-355. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved March 1, 2021 from .

© 2009 Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Anderson-Inman, L., Knox-Quinn, C., & Horney, M.A. (1996). Computer-based study strategies for students with learning disabilities: Individual differences associated with adoption level. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(5), 461-484.
  2. Beck, J. (2002). Emerging literacy through assistive technology. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 44-48.
  3. Blackhurst, A.E., & Lahm, E.A. (2000). Technology and exceptionality foundations. In J.D. Lindsey (Ed.), Technology and exceptional individuals (3rd. Ed., pp. 3-45). Austin,
  4. Boyle, E., Rosenberg, M., Connelly, V., Gallin Washburn, S., Brinckerhoff, L.C., & Banerjee, M. (2003). Effects of audio texts on the acquisition of secondary-level content by students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(3), 203-214.
  5. Brooks, D., & Zhang, Y. (1992). ROBO-Writer [Computer software]. Lincoln: University of Nebraska.
  6. Campbell, M.L., & Mechling, L.C. (2009). Small group computer-assisted instruction with SMART Board technology: An investigation of observational and incidental learning on nontarget information. Remedial and Special Education, 30(1), 47-57.
  7. Center for Applied Special Technology. (2006). NIMAS in IDEA 2004. Retrieved from http://nimas.cast.org/about/idea2004/index.html
  8. Council for Exceptional Children. (2005). Public policy update: CEC’s summary and update of PL 108-364, The Assistive Technology Reauthorization Act of 2004. Retrieved from Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3) http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PolicyAdvocacy/CECPolicyResourceS/CEC_AT_Update.pdf
  9. Dawson, L., Venn, M., & Gunter, P.L. (2000). The effects of teacher versus computer reading models. Behavioral Disorders, 25(2), 105-113.
  10. Edyburn, D.L. (2000). Assistive technology and mild disabilities. Assistive technology and mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(9), 1-24.
  11. Elder-Hinshaw, R., Manset-Williamson, G., Nelson, J.M., & Dunn, M.W. (2006). Engaging older students with reading disabilities: Multimedia inquiry projects supported by reading assistive technology. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 6-11.
  12. Graham, S., & MacArthur, C.A. (1988). Improving learning disabled students' skills at revising essays produced on a word processor: Self-instructional strategy training. The Journal of Special Education, 22(2), 133-152.
  13. Hebert, B.M., & Murdock, J.Y. (1994). Comparing three computer-aided instruction output modes to teach vocabulary words to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research& Practice, 9(3), 136-141.
  14. Hetzroni, O., Shrieber, B. (2004). Word processing as an assistive technology tool for enhancing academic outcomes of students with writing disabilities in the general classroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 143-154.
  15. Higgins, E.L., & Raskind, M.H. (2000). Speaking to read: The Effects of continuous vs. Discrete speech recognition systems on the reading and spelling of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(1), 19-30.
  16. Hitchcock, C., & Stahl, S. (2003). Assistive technology, universal design, universal design for learning: Improved opportunities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(4), 45-52.
  17. Huot, B. (1990). The literature of direct writing assessment: Major concerns and prevailing trends. Review of Educational Research 60(2), 237-263.
  18. Lance, A.A., McPhillips, M., Mulhern, G., & Wylie, J. (2006). Assistive software tools for secondary-level students with literacy difficulties. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(3), 13-22.
  19. MacArthur, C.A. (1998). Word processing with speech synthesis and word prediction: Effects on the dialogue journal writing of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21(2), 151-166.
  20. MacArthur, C.A. (1999). Word prediction for students with severe spelling problems. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22(3), 158-172.
  21. MacArthur, C.A., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. Journal of Special Education, 21(3), 22-42.
  22. MacArthur, C.A., Graham, S., Schwartz, S.S., & Schafer, W.D. (1995). Evaluation of a writing instruction model that integrated a process approach, strategy instruction, and word processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 278-291.
  23. National Assistive Technology Research Institute. (2006). Assistive technology legal mandates. Retrieved from http://natri.uky.edu/resources/fundamentals/laws.html
  24. National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Children 3 through 21 years old served in federally supported programs for the disabled, by type of disability: Selected years, 1976-77 through 2003-04 [Data file]. Retrieved from Digest of Education Statistics Website: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_050.asp
  25. National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2009). IDEA 2004 final regulations update. Retrieved from http://www.ncld.org/on-capitol-hill/federal-laws-aamp-ld/idea/idea2004-final-regulations-update
  26. Raskind, M.H., & Higgins, E.L. (1999). Speaking to read: The effects of speech recognition technology on the reading and spelling performance of children with learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 251-281.
  27. Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2000). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(1), 67-70.
  28. Rose, D.H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Chapter 4: What Is Universal Design for Learning? In Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/chapter4_2.cfm
  29. Stahl, S., & Aronica, M. (2002). Digital text in the classroom. Journal of Special Education Technology 17(2), 57-59.
  30. Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C.A. (1992). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learningdisabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 76103.
  31. Sturm, J.M., & Rankin-Erickson, J.L. (2002). Effects of hand-drawn and computergenerated concept mapping on the expository writing of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research& Practice, 17(2), 124-139.
  32. Texthelp. (2002). Readwrite Gold (Ver. 6) [Computer software]. Woburn, MA: Texthelp Systems Ltd.
  33. Twyman, T., & Tindal, G. (2006). Using a computer-adapted, conceptually based history text to increase comprehension and problem-solving skills of students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 5-16.
  34. U.S. Department of Education. (2003, December 9). New No Child Left Behind provision gives schools increased flexibility while ensuring all children count, including those with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2003/12/12092003.html
  35. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Toward a new Golden Age in American education: How the Internet, the law and today's students are revolutionizing expectations. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/plan.pdf
  36. Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Swanson, E.A., Edmonds, E., & Kim, A.H. (2006). A synthesis of spelling and reading interventions and their effects on the spelling outcomes of students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(6), 528-43.
  37. Zhang, Y. (2000). Technology and writing skills of LD students. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4) 467-478.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections