Text-to-Speech: How Does it Work?
It's All There - Ruby with Proloquo2Go using the new Rosie Voice
Pencil Grips
Supporting Writers
This blog was created to explore the writing process and the challenges (both physical and cognitive) that may be encountered by students. It’s intended to be used by educators and parents who are interested in assisting children with writing output difficulties.
Writing is a process that involves an enormous amount of brain systems working together to create the written product. The process begins with the seemingly simple task of knowing what to write about, going through the process of selecting a writing tool and medium, and engaging in the actual writing itself (including juggling the content, conventions, letter formation, sequencing, etc.). At each step of this process, writers require attention to the task at hand. Reading and writing are closely linked: reading is the process of linking oral language to symbols (decoding), while writing requires this knowledge as a prerequisite in order to be efficient (encoding).
As Beeson (2004) notes, this process begins at an early age:
“To appreciate the ways in which writing may be impaired, let us consider some basic principles about how single words are represented in our mind. Words convey concepts, which can be considered part of semantic knowledge, that is, our knowledge about the world. During language development, a child learns to associate objects, ideas, or attributes with specific spoken words. By the time most children begin kindergarten, they have learned hundreds of words as well as the skills necessary to combine words into meaningful sentences to express complex thoughts.”
In exploring how we support children with written output challenges, there is often a double-standard of support. For example, if a student arrived in our classroom with a temporary and obvious physical disability, (e.g. broken arm) teachers would generally be quick to accommodate him/her. In supporting students with chronic written output issues, because a disability is largely an invisible one, it is often overlooked or supported inappropriately (e.g. remedial vs. compensatory strategies). Maggie Mamen (2007) states:
“Willingness to help a child with a written expressive disorder involves an attitude rather than the acquisition of new teaching skills or the investment of a great deal of time.”
Teachers need to be willing to embrace these new technologies in support of all of our students. Such use has demonstrated far-reaching benefits for students across the curriculum. As George Peterson-Karlan (2011) notes:
“Technology-supported writing can advance all phases of writing—planning, transcribing, and editing and revising using tools … technology also enables writing in new ways. Technology provides new sources for and means of obtaining information (e.g., the Internet, search engines) and enables sharing, editing, and collaboration among writers, teachers, and peers.”
Technology allows us to level the playing field for students with written output deficiencies (either mechanical or cognitive-based). It allows students greater access to information by removing the barriers inherent in the written word.
For students with written output challenges, there is a range of assistive technology that allows students to increase the quality of their content while adapting the medium or tools used to generate the writing – if the teacher is willing to allow the student to use these tools.
Remedial strategies for writing may be beneficial for students who have the cognitive capacity to juggle the physical writing with the mental content tasks. For example, helping young children improve their physical pencil grip, absent any other cognitive impairments, is a good example of a remedial strategy that could be beneficial. Apple Apps directed at remediation of fine motor disabilities are abundant (e.g. Dexteria, Injini).
For other students (such as students with Autism), the cognitive process involved in completing the physical writing is so great that it actually impedes their ability to generate high-level content. As noted in Leslie Broun’s article Take the Pencil Out of the Process (2009):
“For a student with ASD, difficulties with handwriting can underscore all areas of academic participation. … It often takes great concentration to write legibly and therefore the child’s focus is moved from the work to the writing (Winter, 2003). This echoes the research shared by Dr. Marcel Just at the International Meeting for Autism Research in 2006. He reported that when an individual with ASD is presented with multiple tasks (e.g., printing and thinking), a “systems-wide resource constraint” sets in. The available resources (blood and oxygen) for each component task are reduced and the coordination of brain areas decreases. “
For these students, compensatory strategies would be a more sensible approach. Allowing students to use technological tools to complete the physical task of writing so that they may focus on the content and ideas can yield greater quality writing, and thus improve academic outcomes. The use of computer word processors, for example, can shift the effort from completing the actual writing task to being able to focus more on what the student wants to say. Broun continues:
“Teachers must exercise caution in trying to elicit a skill that may never reach a level of proficiency sufficient to enable students to demonstrate what they know or think in an efficient and fluid manner. When a student’s struggles with the pencil are interfering with intellectual output, there is an option. Instead of practicing handwriting “longer, harder, and louder,” learning to use the keyboard is a sensible and doable alternative to handwriting. For many students with autism, the computer is a comfortable medium—it is visual, and there are systems and operational patterns that make its usage easily understood.”
Compensatory tools also provide for a greater level of independent student thinking, allowing for students to take more ownership of their learning.
References
Beeson, P. M. (2004). Remediation of Written Language. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 11(1):37-48.
Broun, Leslie. (2009). Take the Pencil Out of the Process. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(1), 14-21.
Mamen, Maggie. (2007). Written Expressive Difficulties in Children: Suggestions for Teacher. NLD Ontario. Retrieved from: http://www.nldontario.org/articles/WrittenExpMamen.html
Peterson-Karlan, George. (2011). Technology to Support Writing by Students with Learning and Academic Disabilities: Recent Research Trends and Findings. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits Focused Issue: Assistive Technology and Writing, 7(1), 39-62.
Writing is a process that involves an enormous amount of brain systems working together to create the written product. The process begins with the seemingly simple task of knowing what to write about, going through the process of selecting a writing tool and medium, and engaging in the actual writing itself (including juggling the content, conventions, letter formation, sequencing, etc.). At each step of this process, writers require attention to the task at hand. Reading and writing are closely linked: reading is the process of linking oral language to symbols (decoding), while writing requires this knowledge as a prerequisite in order to be efficient (encoding).
As Beeson (2004) notes, this process begins at an early age:
“To appreciate the ways in which writing may be impaired, let us consider some basic principles about how single words are represented in our mind. Words convey concepts, which can be considered part of semantic knowledge, that is, our knowledge about the world. During language development, a child learns to associate objects, ideas, or attributes with specific spoken words. By the time most children begin kindergarten, they have learned hundreds of words as well as the skills necessary to combine words into meaningful sentences to express complex thoughts.”
In exploring how we support children with written output challenges, there is often a double-standard of support. For example, if a student arrived in our classroom with a temporary and obvious physical disability, (e.g. broken arm) teachers would generally be quick to accommodate him/her. In supporting students with chronic written output issues, because a disability is largely an invisible one, it is often overlooked or supported inappropriately (e.g. remedial vs. compensatory strategies). Maggie Mamen (2007) states:
“Willingness to help a child with a written expressive disorder involves an attitude rather than the acquisition of new teaching skills or the investment of a great deal of time.”
Teachers need to be willing to embrace these new technologies in support of all of our students. Such use has demonstrated far-reaching benefits for students across the curriculum. As George Peterson-Karlan (2011) notes:
“Technology-supported writing can advance all phases of writing—planning, transcribing, and editing and revising using tools … technology also enables writing in new ways. Technology provides new sources for and means of obtaining information (e.g., the Internet, search engines) and enables sharing, editing, and collaboration among writers, teachers, and peers.”
Technology allows us to level the playing field for students with written output deficiencies (either mechanical or cognitive-based). It allows students greater access to information by removing the barriers inherent in the written word.
For students with written output challenges, there is a range of assistive technology that allows students to increase the quality of their content while adapting the medium or tools used to generate the writing – if the teacher is willing to allow the student to use these tools.
Remedial strategies for writing may be beneficial for students who have the cognitive capacity to juggle the physical writing with the mental content tasks. For example, helping young children improve their physical pencil grip, absent any other cognitive impairments, is a good example of a remedial strategy that could be beneficial. Apple Apps directed at remediation of fine motor disabilities are abundant (e.g. Dexteria, Injini).
For other students (such as students with Autism), the cognitive process involved in completing the physical writing is so great that it actually impedes their ability to generate high-level content. As noted in Leslie Broun’s article Take the Pencil Out of the Process (2009):
“For a student with ASD, difficulties with handwriting can underscore all areas of academic participation. … It often takes great concentration to write legibly and therefore the child’s focus is moved from the work to the writing (Winter, 2003). This echoes the research shared by Dr. Marcel Just at the International Meeting for Autism Research in 2006. He reported that when an individual with ASD is presented with multiple tasks (e.g., printing and thinking), a “systems-wide resource constraint” sets in. The available resources (blood and oxygen) for each component task are reduced and the coordination of brain areas decreases. “
For these students, compensatory strategies would be a more sensible approach. Allowing students to use technological tools to complete the physical task of writing so that they may focus on the content and ideas can yield greater quality writing, and thus improve academic outcomes. The use of computer word processors, for example, can shift the effort from completing the actual writing task to being able to focus more on what the student wants to say. Broun continues:
“Teachers must exercise caution in trying to elicit a skill that may never reach a level of proficiency sufficient to enable students to demonstrate what they know or think in an efficient and fluid manner. When a student’s struggles with the pencil are interfering with intellectual output, there is an option. Instead of practicing handwriting “longer, harder, and louder,” learning to use the keyboard is a sensible and doable alternative to handwriting. For many students with autism, the computer is a comfortable medium—it is visual, and there are systems and operational patterns that make its usage easily understood.”
Compensatory tools also provide for a greater level of independent student thinking, allowing for students to take more ownership of their learning.
References
Beeson, P. M. (2004). Remediation of Written Language. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 11(1):37-48.
Broun, Leslie. (2009). Take the Pencil Out of the Process. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(1), 14-21.
Mamen, Maggie. (2007). Written Expressive Difficulties in Children: Suggestions for Teacher. NLD Ontario. Retrieved from: http://www.nldontario.org/articles/WrittenExpMamen.html
Peterson-Karlan, George. (2011). Technology to Support Writing by Students with Learning and Academic Disabilities: Recent Research Trends and Findings. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits Focused Issue: Assistive Technology and Writing, 7(1), 39-62.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment