This article was downloaded by: [Otterbein University]

On: 16 April 2013, At: 03:09

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41
Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,

Issues and Ideas
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vtch20

Assistive Technology: Empowering Students with Learning

Disabilities
Karen E. Forgrave
Version of record first published: 02 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Karen E. Forgrave (2002): Assistive Technology: Empowering Students with Learning Disabilities, The Clearing
House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 75:3, 122-126

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00098650209599250

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will
be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or
arising out of the use of this material.
 Assistive Technology:
Empowering Students with
Learning Disabilities
KAREN E. FORGRAVE
R ecent advances in the field of technology are not
being employed as widely in schools as some
Downloaded by [Otterbein University] at 03:09 16 April 2013
experts argue they should be (Edyburn 2000). Unfortu-
nately, many teachers, special educators, and adminis-
trators do not realize how new technology can benefit
their students. My purpose in this article is to demon-
strate some of the possibilities that technological inno-
vations hold for middle and high school students with
learning disabilities in reading and writing.
I will focus on reading and writing because many
students with learning disabilities have problems in
these areas, despite the fact that they have average to
above average intelligence. Reading problems vary, but
most students with learning disabilities display slow
and effortful word decoding skills (Lundberg 1995).
These lower-level decoding problems lead to poor com-
prehension of textbooks and course reading materials,
an area of particular concern in the middle and high
school years. The academic performance of students
with learning disabilities can also be hindered by their
writing difficulties. Many have problems with basic
skills, such as spelling and grammar, as well as higher-
level skills, such as the planning, organization, and
revision of a piece of work (Graham et al. 1998).
Mechanical difficulties, including difficulty with hand-
writing, also contribute to the fact that children with
learning disabilities produce less written work and
work that is lower in quality than their typically achiev-
ing peers (Lewis 1998).
The good news is that certain mainstream computer
programs are now in use in regular classrooms to sup-
port the literacy efforts of students with learning dis-
abilities (Edyburn 2000). Word processing programs
with spelling checkers facilitate writing for students
Karen E. Forgrave is a teacher and a master's degree candidate in the Faculty of
Graduate and Undergraduate Studies in Education at Brock University, Ontario.
122
with learning disabilities by compensating for some of
the students' difficulties with the writing process. New
assistive technology enables students to complete tasks
more efficiently and independently and results in
improved performance on a variety of reading and writ-
ing tasks, which in turn leads to greater academic suc-
cess. Lewis (1998) describes assistive technology as
having two purposes: to build on individual strengths,
and to compensate for their disabilities to enable them
to better perform a given task.
In the following sections, I will focus on three areas
that have promise for students in the middle and upper
grades; namely, speech synthesis programs, organiza-
tional software, and voice recognition software. I will
review recent studies in each area and examine the
advantages and limitations of these technological
applications. In addition, I will outline considerations
for the successful adoption of assistive technology by
teachers and school district personnel and make sug-
gestions for future research.
Speech Synthesis (Text---Speech)
Studies have shown that word recognition plays a key
role in reading comprehension (Perfetti, Marron, and
Foltz 1396). Students with learning disabilities have
problems decoding words (making accurate sound-
symbol connections). When errors occur in reading, the
student receives less than complete information from
the text, and comprehension is adversely affected. In
addition, the cognitive resources that could otherwise
be applied to higher-level processes, such as making
meaning from the text, are instead used to decode
words. This interference leads to significant compre-
hension problems.
 Vol. 75, No. 3 Assistive Technology
Speech synthesis programs work by translating text
that appears on the computer screen into computer-
ized speech (Lewis 1998). The computerized speech is
produced by matching the text to preprogrammed pro-
nunciation rules. Text can be entered either by typing
directly into the speech synthesis program or into
another word processing program that is compatible
with the speech synthesis software. Text can also be
entered by using a scanner and optical character recog-
nition software.
Students can instruct speech synthesis programs to
read only selected words, whole lines, or an entire text
selection. The immediate speech feedback allows stu-
dents to correct their reading errors by clicking on a
word they do not know in order to hear the correct pro-
nunciation of the word. Text-to-speech programs
reduce the frustration of inaccurate decoding for stu-
Downloaded by [Otterbein University] at 03:09 16 April 2013
dents with learning disabilities and allow for more
complete comprehension of the text (Lundberg 1995;
Montali and Lewandowski 1996).
Despite concerns that students using text-to-speech
software will not be practicing important reading skills,
several studies have shown that the use of this software
is not only assistive in nature, but also provides reme-
dial benefits. Olson and Wise reported that when stu-
dents with word recognition problems used speech syn-
thesis software while reading stories on the computer,
they demonstrated significantly improved decoding
and word recognition skills (as cited in Higgins and
Raskind 2000). Torgesen and Barker (1995) also report-
ed significant improvements in word recognition and
phonological decoding abilities after students used
books with a voice component. In a longitudinal study
reported by Lundberg (1995), students who began the
experiment with lower scores on word recognition and
spelling ended the experiment three years later with
higher scores than students in the comparison group
who were not supported by computer use.
Penney (as cited in Montali and Lewandowski 1996)
has reported the improved recall of textual information
when it was available both visually and auditorily. In a
study by Montali and Lewandowski (1996), eighteen
average readers and eighteen poor readers in eighth and
ninth grade were presented with content-area reading
exercises on a computer. Each student participated in
reading tasks that were visual only, auditory only, or
bimodal (the text on the screen was presented at the
same time as the words were read aloud by the comput-
er). In the bimodal condition, students who were poor
readers reached the comprehension levels of average stu-
dents who were reading the text silently (visual only).
The authors use this finding to suggest that the bimodal
presentation has a potentially significant benefit for stu-
dents with learning disabilities. The use of speech syn-
thesis technology can be particularly beneficial in con-
tent-area classes such as science or history, where
123
unfamiliar vocabulary can impede the reading process
for students with learning disabilities. When students
can hear the unfamiliar words read to them (without
having to ask the teacher or a nearby friend), reading
speed and comprehension can improve dramatically.
The effectiveness of speech synthesis software varies
with student age and program quality. Anderson-
Inman, Knox-Quinn, and Horney (1996) found that
older elementary students (fifth and sixth grades) were
more successful in using computers with this software
than were younger elementary students. The synthe-
sized speech can be difficult to understand, and
MacArthur (1998a) suggests that students must have
practice listening to it. It could be that younger stu-
dents require more experience working with synthe-
sized speech software before they are able to take full
advantage of the benefits it can provide.
The use of speech synthesis software may increase
students' motivation to read by presenting them with a
more successful reading experience (Montali and
Lewandowski 1396). When students with learning dis-
abilities are motivated to spend more time reading,
studies have shown that increased reading skills (such
as phonological decoding and word recognition) and
improved overall reading ability result (e.g., Lundberg
1995). Thus, the use of speech synthesis technology in
middle and high school classrooms can assist students
with learning disabilities in becoming more indepen-
dent readers and can help them experience greater
reading success.
Organizational Software
Students with learning disabilities often have diffi-
culties with writing (Bahr, Nelson, and Van Mater
1996; MacArthur et al. 2001). The low-level processes,
or mechanics, of writing such as handwriting and the
use of spelling and grammar rules are often problem-
atic (MacArthur 1998a). Focusing on these low-level
writing skills interferes with students' abilities to par-
ticipate in higher-order processes such as organization
and revision, which are essential to high-quality writ-
ten work for students at the middle and high school
level (Graham 1999). Their stories are characterized by
less-developed ideas, the omission of important
details, and illogical progression of the story line (Bahr,
Nelson, and Van Meter 1996). Difficulties with writing
can have a negative impact on the motivation and self-
esteem of students with learning disabilities. As a
result, they are likely to avoid writing whenever possi-
ble, limit their work to the minimum length required,
and avoid using words that they cannot spell correctly
(MacArthur 1998a).
Difficulties with writing can clearly have a profound
effect on the academic capabilities of students with
learning disabilities, but technology can help in
addressing some of these problems. "Technology can
 124 The Clearing House
support the basic skills of producing legible text with
correct mechanics as well as the more complex cogni-
tive processes of planning, drafting, and revising text"
(Graham et al. 1998, 410). Organizational software
such as Inspiration helps students to organize infor-
mation better.
Inspiration helps students to organize information
and ideas through a variety of "webs" or concept-maps
on the computer screen. Brainstormed ideas can be
entered as visual organizers, which the program then
translates into outlines for the students to follow while
writing (Lewis 1998). Information included in the
organizational web can be in the form of text, graphics,
or Internet hyperlinks. The outline's headings and sub-
headings can be easily manipulated to reflect different
organizational styles. This type of software can be used
to gather information before writing a project or a
Downloaded by [Otterbein University] at 03:09 16 April 2013
research paper. As students add new information to
their organizer, the outline is automatically rearranged
to accommodate the new information in a logical
sequence. Students are then ready to write from the
organized outline and can type right into the outline
window of the program. Studies have shown that using
visual organizers ( e g , semantic maps, webs, and out-
lines) to plan the writing process significantly
improves the quality of writing for students with learn-
ing disabilities (Graham et al. 1998).
This technology can also be used to help students
summarize information they have read. Organization-
al programs facilitate this process by creating a visual
format that reflects the important relationships
between ideas or key concepts. Studies have shown that
when students with learning disabilities use these com-
puter-based organizational programs to facilitate their
study in content-area subjects (such as social studies),
higher test scores result (Anderson-Inman, Knox-
Quinn, and Homey 1996).
Of course, one possible disadvantage of organiza-
tional software is that students may spend more time
playing with the graphics than on organizing and writ-
ing (Bahr, Nelson, and Van Meter 1996). Teachers need
to monitor how students are using the software to
obtain maximum benefits. Anderson-Inman, Knox-
Quinn, and Homey (1996) demonstrated that explicit
instruction on the use of the organizational software
allowed the students to use the programs more effec-
tively and attain greater success. It is important that
teachers know how to use the programs effectively.
Voice Recognition Software (Speech-to-Text)
Voice recognition software can help students bypass
their problems with lower-order writing skills by dic-
tating their written work (McEwan 1998). When stu-
dents use voice recognition software they wear a head-
set and operate the computer by voice commands.
Graham worked with learning disabled students in
January/February 2002
fourth to sixth grades to demonstrate that writing
essays written with voice recognition software was sig-
nificantly faster than typing or handwriting (De La Paz
1999). Speech-to-text software allows students to get
their ideas down before they are forgotten because of
slow typing speed. A meta-analysis of five studies
found that stories that students wrote using speech-to-
text dictation were longer, more complex, and con-
tained fewer grammatical errors than ones composed
using other methods. When students with learning dis-
abilities improve the legibility of their work and
decrease the number of errors, research has shown that
their marks will improve (Graham 1999).
Studies have also found this type of technology to
have remedial benefits. Higgins and Raskind (2000)
hypothesized that the benefits are a result of students'
having to attend carefully to what is being written on
the screen as they dictate their work. For example,
when an error is made in the translation process, and
the student instructs the computer to "correct this," the
computer posts a list of alternative possibilities for the
word it has just printed on the screen. The student
must then read the words on the list to figure out
which one is correct (i.e., what they intended the com-
puter to write). Because the alternatives that appear are
usually very similar in spelling, the student must
attend carefully to the structure of the words to select
the right one.
In one study involving thirty-nine students, aged
nine to eighteen, working with voice recognition soft-
ware, the researchers found significant improvements
in reading comprehension, spelling, and word recogni-
tion scores over a control group (Higgins and Raskind
2000). It was interesting that when students used con-
tinuous speech recognition programs (with which they
can speak at a normal rate, without pausing between
words), they also showed improved scores on tests of
working memory. The reason for this improvement
could be that students working with continuous speech
programs must simultaneously concentrate on what
they are saying, remember what they have said, and
compare it with what is appearing on the screen. Stu-
dents who used discrete speech recognition software
(which requires significant pauses between each spo-
ken word) did not show the same improvements in
their working memory scores. Overall, however,
researchers concluded that both continuous and dis-
crete voice recognition software can be used successful-
ly across a range of age and ability levels, not only to
compensate for students' writing difficulties, but also
to improve their writing skills.
There are disadvantages to using voice-recognition
technology. First, training the program to recognize
students' voices can be difficult and time consuming
(Higgins and Raskind 2000; McEwan 1998). Students
must learn the special commands needed to operate
 Vol. 75, No. 3 Assistive Technology
the program successfully, and some of the commands
can be difficult to remember. Any coughing, laughing,
or other noises are interpreted as nonsense words by
the computer and will be added to the text as students
dictate (De La Paz 1999). If students do not correct
errors, their word files will become corrupted, and
what they dictate will no longer be what appears on the
screen (McEwan 1998). Higgins and Raskind conclud-
ed that students with learning disabilities need exten-
sive instruction and monitoring for voice recognition
software to be an effective tool.
With effective instruction on how to use it, students
with learning disabilities can use voice recognition
software to significantly improve their writing (Lewis
1998; MacArthur 199813). When students realize that
voice recognition software allows them to produce neat
work written within a relatively short period of time
Downloaded by [Otterbein University] at 03:09 16 April 2013
(compared to the laboriousness of writing by hand),
their motivation to write will increase (Graham et al.
1998). Wanderman (1995) concluded that “the end
goal is to use the tool to share the depth and complex-
ity of one‘s thinking in a form that others can under-
stand” (4). For students whose oral communication
skills are far superior to their writing abilities, voice
recognition technology has great potential.
Discussion and Conclusion
In this article I have presented evidence on three
types of assistive technology-speech synthesis, organi-
zational software, and voice recognition programs-to
demonstrate how these tools can benefit middle and
high school students with learning disabilities. These
tools build on students’ strengths and compensate for
their disabilities to improve performance on reading
and writing tasks. Using assistive technology, students
with learning disabilities are able to read information,
organize their ideas, and write more clearly. The result
is that students are given ”the means to complete well-
written, organized assignments that truly reflect their
knowledge and skills” ( N e w technologies and applications
for special education 1996, 4). It is evident why studies
have shown that the use of this technology increases
students’ self-esteem and motivation to learn.
In 1988, Congress passed into law the Technology-
Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act
(commonly referred to as the ”Tech Act”). One of its
main goals was to provide financial support to states to
develop assistive technology programs for people with
disabilities (Edyburn 2000; Bryant and Seay 1998). The
act was revised in 1994, making all states eligible to
receive funding. An amendment to the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1397 specif-
ically mandated that individualized education pro-
gram (IEP) teams consider incorporating assistive tech-
nology into the educational programs of students with
disabilities.
125
To ensure that students are matched with the appro-
priate technological tools, teachers and administrators
need to be educated on their use (Edyburn 2000;
MacArthur 1998a). Bryant et al. (1998) called for
incorporating assistive technology into teacher educa-
tion programs and including preservice experiences in
schools that have elaborate assistive technology
resources and staff expertise. Edyburn suggests that the
students who receive access to assistive technology
tend to be those with strong parental advocates. Edy-
burn calls for systematic screening to ensure the evalu-
ation of all students who could benefit from assistive
technology in the classroom environment. He states
that school boards should have panels of experts in
special education technology to review and recom-
mend technology to classroom teachers working with
students who have special needs. Many elements need
to be considered if such a program is to be effective,
including internal factors (e.g., a student’s skills and
abilities) and external factors (e.g., the classroom envi-
ronment and the support available). If these elements
are not carefully considered by the IEP teams, the tech-
nology will not be adequately matched with students’
needs, and desired outcomes will not be attained
(Raskind and Higgins 1998). Expert support should be
available not only during the acquisition of assistive
technology, but also during the implementation and
training of staff and students, and for follow-up evalu-
ation of students’ progress (Edyburn 2000). Moeller
and Jeffers (1996) caution that ”technology can help
individualize teaching and learning, but its effective
use requires careful planning and design” (44).
Research needs to be conducted on how assistive
technology can be most effectively incorporated into
middle and high school programs and how teachers
and other education personnel can obtain the infor-
mation that will enable them to accommodate stu-
dents’ learning needs. In a review of fifteen years of
research on the use of assistive technology, MacArthur
et al. (2001) highlighted findings of several studies that
suggested that the mere use of, or exposure to, assistive
technology is not sufficient to dramatically improve
students’ literacy skills or competence. Some students,
especially those with severe reading difficulties, require
the explicit teaching of reading and writing skills in
addition to instruction and practice with the assistive
technology. Teachers must be adequately trained to
integrate effective instruction with assistive technology
to maximize student success.
In addition, more research needs to explore how stu-
dents can benefit from using a range of software appli-
cation programs for various purposes. The majority of
empirical studies to date have focused on one specific
program in isolation. Students are likely to benefit
from access to a variety of hardware and software tools
(e.g., scanners and speech synthesis programs for read-
 126 The Clearing House
ing, organizational software for planning and writing).
Wong (2001) commented that “researchersshould give
more thought to what actually pertains to students’
current learning in their classrooms when they make
decisions about what electronic enhancements to
design and provide” (364). To help educators realize
the potential of assistive technology, they need to see
the results of research that closely reflects their class-
room environment.
In reviewing the research cited in this paper, I found
the usefulness of some results to be limited by small
sample size. For example, the study by MacArthur
(1999) contained only five students with learning dis-
abilities. Future studies should also examine the
impact of technology on students in various age
groups, to determine how best to use technology as
students mature, and to see how it affects students’
Downloaded by [Otterbein University] at 03:09 16 April 2013
long-term academic progress.
It is hoped that future research will include tighter
control on students’ characteristics, the degree of their
engagement with the software, and the amount of
training and practice required, to offer further empiri-
cal support for the use of assistive technology in today’s
classrooms. The results from this research should be
used to make educational decisions about how assis-
tive technology can be most effectively used to meet
the needs of students with learning disabilities.
Technology is not an answer to all the problems that
students with learning disabilities face, but there are
many reasons why its use should be considered for
these students. When they have the means to build on
their strengths and to compensate for their weaknesses
in reading and writing, increased motivation, higher
rates of learning, and improved achievement can result
(Martin 1998). Educators need to understand how the
increased use of assistive technology in the education-
al environment can empower students with learning
disabilities to work more independently and to com-
plete assignments that verify their true strengths and
abilities.
Key words: learning disabilities, assistive technology,
reading comprehension, organizational software
REFERENCES
Anderson-lnman, L., C. Knox-Quinn, and M. A. Homey. 1996. Com-
puter-based study strategies for students with learning disabilities:
Individual differences associated with adoption level. Journal of
Learning Disabilities 29 (5): 461-84.
Bahr, C. M., N. W. Nelson, and A. M. Van Meter. 1996. The effects of
text-based and graphics-based software tools on planning and
organizing of stories. Journal ofLearning Disabilities 29 (4): 355-70.
Bryant, B. R., and P. C. Seay. 1998. TheTechnology-Related Assistance
for Individuals with Disabilities Act: Relevance to individuals with
January/February 2002
learning disabilities and their advocates. Journal of Learning Dis-
abilities 31 (1): 4-15.
Bryant, D. P., I. Erin, R. Lock, I. M. Allan, and P. E. Resta. 1998. infus-
ing a teacher preparation program in learning disabilities with
assistive technology. Journal of Learning Disabilities 31 (1): 55-66.
De La Paz, S. 1399. Composingvia dictation and speech recognition
systems: Compensatory technology for students with learning dis-
abilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly 22 (3): 173-82.
Edyburn, D. L. 2000. Assistive technology and students with mild
disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children 32 (9): 1-24.
Graham, S. 1999. The role of text production skills in writing devel-
opment: A special issue-I. Learning Disabilities Quarterly 22 (2):
75-77.
Graham, S., K. R. Harris, C. MacArthur, and S. Schwartz. 1998. Writ-
ing instruction: Use of technology. In Learning about learning dis-
abilities, 2d ed., edited by B. Won& 410-14. Burnaby, BC: Academ-
ic.
Higgins, E. L., and M. H. Raskind. 2000. Speaking to read: The effects
of continuous vs. discrete speech recognition systems o n the read-
ing and spelling of children with learning disabilities. Journal of
Special Education Technology 15 (1): 19-30.
Inspiration. Inspiration Software, Inc., Portland, OR.
Leong, C. K. 1995. Effects of on-line reading and simultaneous
DECtalk auding in helping below-average and poor readers com-
prehend and summarize text. Learning Disabilities Quarterly 18 (2):
101-14.
Lewis, R. B. 1998. Assistive technology and learning disabilities:
Today’s realities and tomorrow’s promises. Journal of Learning Dis-
abilities 31 (1): 16-26.
Lundberg, I. 1995. The computer as a tool of remediation in the edu-
cation of students with reading disabilities: A theory-based
approach. Learning Disabilities Quarterly 18 (2): 89-99.
MacArthur, C. A. 1999. Word prediction for students with severe
spelling problems. Learning Disabilities Quarterly 22 (3): 138-72.
-_- . 1998a. Assistive technology for writing. Perspectives Newslet-
tmof the Orton Dyslexia Sociery 24 (2): 16-18.
-__ . 1998b. Word processing with speech synthesis and word pre-
diction: Effects on the dialogue journal writing of students with
learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly 21 (2): 151-67.
MacArthur, C. A,, R. P. Ferretti, C. M. Okolo, and A. R. Cavalier. 2001.
Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A
critical review. The Elementary School Journal 101 (3): 273-301.
Martin, C. 1998. Supporting special needs with software. TEACH
Magazine 6:1-6.
McEwan, R. 1998. New applications of existing technology. Learning
Disabilities Association of LondonlMiddtesex Info-Guide 8 (1): 7-8.
Moeller, B., and L. leffers. 1936. Technology for inclusive teaching.
Electronic Learning 16 (1): 44.
Montali, I., and L. Lewandowski. 1996. Bimodal reading: Benefits of
a talking computer for average and less skilled readers. Iournal of
Learning Disabilities 29 (3): 271-79.
New technologies and applications for special education. 1996.
Council for Exceptional Children Today 3 (2): 1-5.
Perfetti, C. A., M. A. Marron, and P. W. Foltz. 1996. Sources of com-
prehension failure: Theoretical perspectives and case studies. In
Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention, edited
by C. Cornoldi and 1. Oakhill, 137-65. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum.
Raskind, M. H., and E. L. Higgins. 1998. Assistive technology for
postsecondary students with learning disabilities: An overview.
Journal of Learning Disabilities 31 (1): 27-40.
Torgesen, 1. K., and T. A. Barker. 1995. Computers as aids in the pre-
vention and remediation of reading disab
ties Quarterly 18 (2): 76-87.
Wanderman, R. 1995. About technology and dyslexia. Perspectives
Newsletter of the Orton Dyslexia Society 21 (1): 20-22.
Wong, B. Y. 2001, Commentary: Pointers for literacy instruction from
educational technology and research on writing instruction. The
Elementary School Journal 101 (3): 359-77.