Niedo Jasmin, Tanimoto Steve, Thompson Robert H, Abbott Robert D, Berninger Virginia W
Facilitator, University of Washington Extension Continuing Education.
Professor of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Washington.
Learn Disabil (Pittsbg). 2016;21(2):14-30. doi: 10.18666/LDMJ-2016-V21-I2-7751.
Students in grades 5 to 9 (ages 10 to 14; 6 girls, 27 boys) who had persisting specific learning disabilities in transcription (handwriting and spelling) completed three kinds of composition tasks requiring translation (thought to written language) on iPads using alternating transcription modes (stylus or keyboard) across every three lessons: personal narratives (6 lessons) and written summaries about read source material (integrated reading-writing) and heard source material (integrated listening-writing) (12 lessons). Before composing summaries, students clicked sequentially one at a time onto translation strategies, which they read and heard through earphones, and could click on again as needed during summary writing: (a) Level I composing of the very next sentence, and (b) Level II composing of a higher-level discourse structure. ANOVAs showed that Level I strategies were used significantly more often than Level II strategies; but the main effect for transcription mode was not significant. Written summaries of read source material had more errors in main ideas and factual details than heard source materials, but not more irrelevant statements. Applications of results are discussed for using computers for writing instruction, not just accommodations, for students with persisting transcription disabilities.
5至9年级（年龄10至14岁；6名女生，27名男生）在抄写（书写和拼写）方面存在持续性特定学习障碍的学生，使用iPad，通过在每三节课中交替使用抄写模式（手写笔或键盘），完成了三种需要翻译（从思想到书面语言）的作文任务：个人叙述（6节课）以及关于阅读源材料（读写整合）和听力源材料（听写整合）的书面总结（12节课）。在撰写总结之前，学生们依次点击翻译策略，通过耳机阅读并听取这些策略，并且在总结写作过程中可根据需要再次点击：（a）下一个句子的一级写作，以及（b）更高层次语篇结构的二级写作。方差分析表明，一级策略的使用频率显著高于二级策略；但抄写模式的主效应不显著。阅读源材料的书面总结在主要观点和事实细节方面的错误比听力源材料更多，但无关陈述并不更多。讨论了研究结果在为存在持续性抄写障碍的学生使用计算机进行写作教学（而非仅仅提供便利措施）方面的应用。
