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.

Scott F Beers, Virginia Berninger, Terry Mickail, Robert Abbott
{"title":"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.","authors":"Scott F Beers,&nbsp;Virginia Berninger,&nbsp;Terry Mickail,&nbsp;Robert Abbott","doi":"10.18666/LDMJ-2018-V23-I2-9008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Participants in this study completed an on-line experiment in which they wrote essays by stylus or keyboard. Three translation measures (length of language burst, length of pauses, and rate of pausing) and four transcription measures (total words, total time, words/minute, and percent spelling errors) for composition were analyzed for two research aims. Research Aim 1 addressed whether upper elementary and middle school students with carefully diagnosed transcription disabilities (dysgraphia with impaired handwriting, <i>n</i>=18, or dyslexia with impaired spelling, <i>n</i>=20) showed significant differences from pretest to posttest, across modes of transcription (stylus or keyboard), and between diagnostic groups. Results showed significant (a) change after intervention (18 computerized lessons with learning activities in letter formation/selection, spelling, and composing) in length of pauses, total time, and words per minute; (b) mode effects (fewer words and less time by stylus; fewer pauses per minute by keyboard); and (c) interactions with diagnostic group in response to intervention on some measures. Research Aim 2 addressed whether following intervention each of the diagnostic groups performed comparably to a typical control group (<i>n</i>=15) in the same on-line experiment. Results showed (a) comparable performance of the dysgraphia and control groups on all keyboarding tasks but differences on two stylus measures; and (b) lack of comparable performance of the dyslexia and control groups on two stylus measures (total words and percent spelling errors) and the four keyboarding tasks related to transcription. Implications for assistive technology and writing instruction for dysgraphia and dyslexia are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":89434,"journal":{"name":"Learning disabilities (Weston, Mass.)","volume":"23 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6380177/pdf/nihms982387.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning disabilities (Weston, Mass.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2018-V23-I2-9008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Participants in this study completed an on-line experiment in which they wrote essays by stylus or keyboard. Three translation measures (length of language burst, length of pauses, and rate of pausing) and four transcription measures (total words, total time, words/minute, and percent spelling errors) for composition were analyzed for two research aims. Research Aim 1 addressed whether upper elementary and middle school students with carefully diagnosed transcription disabilities (dysgraphia with impaired handwriting, n=18, or dyslexia with impaired spelling, n=20) showed significant differences from pretest to posttest, across modes of transcription (stylus or keyboard), and between diagnostic groups. Results showed significant (a) change after intervention (18 computerized lessons with learning activities in letter formation/selection, spelling, and composing) in length of pauses, total time, and words per minute; (b) mode effects (fewer words and less time by stylus; fewer pauses per minute by keyboard); and (c) interactions with diagnostic group in response to intervention on some measures. Research Aim 2 addressed whether following intervention each of the diagnostic groups performed comparably to a typical control group (n=15) in the same on-line experiment. Results showed (a) comparable performance of the dysgraphia and control groups on all keyboarding tasks but differences on two stylus measures; and (b) lack of comparable performance of the dyslexia and control groups on two stylus measures (total words and percent spelling errors) and the four keyboarding tasks related to transcription. Implications for assistive technology and writing instruction for dysgraphia and dyslexia are discussed.

持续性阅读困难高中生认知转化为语言的网络写作过程及手写体和键盘翻译书面语的研究。
这项研究的参与者完成了一项在线实验,他们用手写笔或键盘写文章。为了两个研究目的,分析了作文的三个翻译指标(语言突发长度、停顿长度和停顿率)和四个转录指标(总单词、总时间、单词/分钟和拼写错误百分比)。研究目标1探讨了被仔细诊断为转录障碍的小学和中学高年级学生(书写障碍伴书写障碍,n=18,或阅读障碍伴拼写障碍,n=20)在前测和后测、转录模式(手写笔或键盘)以及诊断组之间是否表现出显著差异。结果显示:(a)干预后(18节计算机课程,包括字母形成/选择、拼写和写作方面的学习活动)停顿时间、总时间和每分钟单词数发生了显著变化;(b) 模式效果(使用手写笔减少单词和时间;使用键盘减少每分钟暂停次数);以及(c)针对某些措施的干预与诊断组的互动。研究目标2探讨了干预后,在同一在线实验中,每个诊断组的表现是否与典型对照组(n=15)相当。结果显示(a)书写困难组和对照组在所有键盘任务上的表现相当,但在两项触笔测量上存在差异;以及(b)阅读障碍组和对照组在两项手写笔测量(单词总数和拼写错误百分比)和与转录相关的四项键盘任务上缺乏可比的表现。讨论了辅助技术和写作指导对书写困难和阅读障碍的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信