The Differential Effects of a Typing Tutor and Microcomputer-Based Word Processing on the Writing Samples of Elementary Students With Behavior Disorders

References

• Bank Street Writer III [Computer software]. (1986). New York: Bank Street College of Education, Franklin E. Smith, and Intential Education Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Bahr, C. M., & Rieth, H. J. (1989). The effects of instructional games and drill-and-practice software on learning disabled students’ mathematical achievement. Computers in the Schools, 6, 87–101.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1982). The self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 69–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlow, D. H., & Hayes, S. C. (1979). Alternating treatments design: One strategy for comparing the effects of two treatments in a single subject. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 199–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (2nd ed.). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Beacon, M. (1988). Mavis Beacon teaches typing [Computer software]. Sherman Oaks, CA: Software Tool Works.
   Google Scholar
• Bottage, B. A., & Hasselbring, T. S. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex, authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math classes. Exceptional Children, 59, 556–566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Word processing and writing in elementary classrooms: A critical review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 67, 107–155.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1994). Implications of constructivism for teaching writing to students with special needs. Journal of Special Education, 28, 275–289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & Harris, K., MacArthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Writing and writing instruction with students with learning disabilities: A review of a program of research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 89–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & MacArthur, C. (1988). Improving learning disabled students’ skills at revising essays produced on a word processor: Self-instructional strategy training. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 133–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & MacArthur, C. (1993). Knowledge of writing and the composing process, attitude towards writing, and self-efficacy for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 237–249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasselbring, T., & Goin, L. I. (1989). Enhancing learning through microcomputing technology. In E. A. Polloway, J. R.Patton, J. S.Payne, & R. A. Payne (Eds.), Strategies for teaching learners with special needs (4th ed., pp. 147–164). Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hawisher, G. (1987). The effects of word processing on the revision strategies of college freshman. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 145–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodges, J. C., & Whitten, M. E. (1986). Harbrace college handbook (10th ed.). San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobi, C. (1986). Word processing for special needs students: Is there really a gain? Educational Technology, 26, 36–39.
   Google Scholar
• Kinsley, T. C., & Langone, J. (1995). Applications of technology for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12, 312–324.
   Google Scholar
• Kinney, P. G., Stevens, K. B., & Schuster, J. W. (1988). The effects of CAI and time delay: A systematic program for teaching spelling. Journal of Special Education Technology, 9, 61–72.
   Google Scholar
• Kurth, R. J. (1987). Using word processing to enhance revision strategies during student writing activities. Educational Technology, 27, 13–19.
   Google Scholar
• Langone, J. (1990). Teaching students with mild to moderate learning problems. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Langone, J., Willis, C., Malone, M., Clees, T., & Koorland, M. (1994-1995). Comparison of computer-based word processing and paper/pencil activities on the paragraph construction of elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27, 171–183.
   Google Scholar
• MacArthur, C. A. (1988). The impact of computers on the writing process. Exceptional Children, 54, 536–542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 19, 248–253.
   Google Scholar
• MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., Schwartz, S. (1993). Integrating word processing and strategy instruction into a process approach to writing. School Psychology Review, 22, 671–681.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacArthur, C. A., & Malouf, D. (1991). Teacher beliefs, plans, and decisions about computer-based instruction. Journal of Special Education, 25, 44–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S., & Graham, S. (1991). A model for writing instruction: Integrating word processing and strategy instruction into a process approach to writing. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 230–236.
   Google Scholar
• MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & Schafer, W. (1995). Evaluation of a writing instruction model that integrated a process approach, strategy instruction, and word processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 278–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGregor, G., Drossner, D., & Axelrod, S. (1990). Increasing instructional efficiency: A comparison of voice plus text vs. text alone on the error rate of students with mild disabilities during CAI. Journal of Special Education Technology, 10, 192–197.
   Google Scholar
• Panyan, M. F., Hummel, J., & Jackson, L. B. (1988). The integration of technology in the curriculum. Journal of Special Education Technology, 9, 109–119.
   Google Scholar
• Shaw, E. L., Nauman, A., & Burson, D. (1994). Comparisons of spontaneous and word processed compositions in elementary classrooms: A three-year study. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 5, 319–327.
   Google Scholar
• Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, K. B., Blackhurst, A. E., & Slaton, D. B. (1991). Teaching memorized spelling with a microcomputer: Time delay and computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 153–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Troyka, L. Q. (1987). Simon & Schuster handbook for writers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Vacc, N. (1987). Word processor versus handwriting: A comparative study of writing samples produced by mildly handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 54, 156–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society (M. Cole, V.John-Steiner, S.Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar