Relationships between language input and letter output modes in writing notes and summaries for students in grades 4 to 9 with persisting writing disabilities

References

• Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. (1993). Structural equation modeling of relationships among developmental skills and writing skills in primary and intermediate grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 478–508. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.478
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altemeier, L., Jones, J., Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. (2006). Executive factors in becoming writing-readers and reading-writers: Note-taking and report writing in third and fifth graders. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 161–173. doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2901_8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assistive Technology Act of 2004, P.L. 108–364.5.
   Google Scholar
• Barnett, A., Henderson, L., Scheib, B., & Schulz, C. (2007). Detailed assessment of speed of handwriting (DASH) copy best and fast. London, England: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Berninger, V. (2009). Highlights of programmatic, interdisciplinary research on writing. Learning Disabilities. Research and Practice, 24, 68–79. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00281.x
   Google Scholar
• Berninger, V. (2013, March). Educating students in the computer age to be multilingual by hand. Arlington, VA: Invited Commentary on “The Handwriting Debate” NASBE Policy Debate (2012, September) for National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE). Retrieved from http://www.nasbe.org/wp-content/uploads/Commentary-Handwriting-keyboarding-and-brain-development1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (2013). Differences between children with dyslexia who are and are not gifted in verbal reasoning. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 223–233. doi:10.1177/0016986213500342 NIHMSID #526583
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Augsburger, A., & Garcia, N. (2009). Comparison of pen and keyboard transcription modes in children with and without learning disabilities affecting transcription. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 123–141. doi:10.2307/27740364
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berninger, V., Nagy, W., Tanimoto, S., Thompson, R., & Abbott, R. (2015). Computer instruction in handwriting, spelling, and composing for students with specific learning disabilities in grades 4–9. Computers & Education, 81, 154–168. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berninger, V., Richards, T., & Abbott, R. (2015). Differential diagnosis of dysgraphia, dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and neuroimaging evidence. Reading and Writing. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, 1119–1153. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9565-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berninger, V., Rutberg, J., Abbott, R., Garcia, N., Anderson-Youngstrom, M., Brookes, A., & Fulton, C. (2006). Tier 1 and Tier 2 early intervention for handwriting and composing. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 3–30. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berninger, V. W. (2015). Interdisciplinary frameworks for schools: Best professional practices for serving the needs of all students. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14437-002
   Google Scholar
• Bretzing, B. H., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1981). Notetaking and passage style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 242–250. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.73.2.242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, A. L., Day, J. D., & Jones, R. S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing texts. Child Development, 54, 968–979. doi:10.2307/1129901
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryant, B. R., Ok, M., Kang, E., Kim, M., Lang, R., Bryant, D., & Pfannestiel, K. (2015). Performance of fourth-grade students with learning disabilities on multiplication facts comparing teacher-mediated and technology-mediated interventions: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 255–272. doi:10.1007/s10864-015-9218-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bui, D. C., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2013). Note-taking with computers: Exploring alternative strategies for improved recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 299–309. doi:10.1037/a0030367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, C. A. (2004). Relationship between orthographic motor integration and computer use for the production of creative and well structured written text. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 551–564. doi:10.1348/0007099042376373
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, T. (1990). The impact of microcomputer word processing on the performance of learning disabled students in a required first year writing course. Computers and Composition, 8, 49–67. doi:10.1016/S8755-4615(05)80007-6
   Google Scholar
• Connelly, V., Gee, D., & Walsh, E. (2007). A comparison of keyboarded and handwritten compositions and the relationship with transcription speed. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 479–492. doi:10.1348/000709906X116768
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De La Paz, S. (1999). Composing via dictation and speech recognition systems: Compensatory technology for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 173–182. doi:10.2307/1511284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elkind, J., Cohen, K., & Murray, C. (1993). Using computer-based readers to improve reading comprehension of students with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 238–259. doi:10.1007/BF02928184
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, J. L., & Harris, M. B. (1973). Effect of note-taking and review on recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 321–325. doi:10.1037/h0035640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (1995). An investigation of the compensatory effectiveness of speech recognition on the written composition performance of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 159–174. doi:10.2307/1511202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (1997). The compensatory effectiveness of optical character recognition/speech synthesis on reading comprehension of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 75–87.
   Google Scholar
• James, K., Jao, J. R., & Berninger, V. (2015). The development of multi-leveled writing systems of the brain: Brain lessons for writing instruction. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 116–129). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, M. J., & Deshler, D. (2010). Literacy instruction, technology, and students with learning disabilities: Research we have, research we need. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 289–298. doi:10.1177/073194871003300406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 240–245. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.240
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leong, C. K. (1992). Enhancing reading comprehension with text- to-speech (DECtalk) computer system. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 205–217. doi:10.1007/BF01027492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leong, C. K. (1995). Effects of on-line reading and simultaneous Dectalk auding in helping below-average and poor readers comprehend and summarize text. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 101–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacArthur, C., Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & Shafer, W. (1995). Evaluation of a writing instruction model that integrated a process approach, strategy instruction, and word processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 278–291. doi:10.2307/1511234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacArthur, C. A. (1998). Word processing with speech synthesis and word prediction: Effects on the dialogue journal writing of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 1–16. doi:10.2307/1511342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacArthur, C. A. (1999). Word prediction for students with severe spelling problems. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 158–172. doi:10.2307/1511283
   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. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 22–42. doi:10.1177/002246698702100304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S. S., & Graham, S. (1991). Effect of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 201–210.
   Google Scholar
• MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., Haynes, J. A., & DeLaPaz, S. (1996). Spelling checkers and students with learning disabilities: Performance comparisons and impact on spelling. Journal of Special Education, 30, 35–57. doi:10.1177/002246699603000103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margalit, M., & Roth, Y. B. (1989). Strategic keyboard training and spelling improve-ment among children with learning disabilities and mental retardation. Educational Psychology, 9, 321–329. doi:10.1080/0144341890090404
   Google Scholar
• Marom, H. W., & Weintraub, N. (2015). The effect of a touch-typing program on keyboarding skills of higher education students with and without learning disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 47, 208–217.
   Google Scholar
• Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25, 1159–1168. doi:10.1177/0956797614524581
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulcahy‐Ernt, P. I., & Caverly, D. C. (2009). Strategic study‐reading. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (2nd ed., pp. 177–198). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Palmatier, R. A., & Bennett, J. M. (1974). Notetaking habits of college students. Journal of Reading, 18, 215–218.
   Google Scholar
• Peverly, S. T., Garner, J. K., & Vekaria, P. C. (2014). Both handwriting speed and selective attention are important to lecture note-taking. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 1–30. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9431-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peverly, S. T., Ramaswamy, V., Brown, C., Sumowski, J., Alidoost, M., & Garner, J. (2007). What predicts skill in lecture note taking? Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 167–180. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.167
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peverly, S. T., & Sumowski, J. F. (2012). What variables predict quality of text notes and are text notes related to performance on different types of tests? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 104–117. doi:10.1002/acp.1802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peverly, S. T., Vekaria, P. C., Reddington, L. A., Sumowski, J. F., Johnson, K. R., & Ramsay, C. M. (2013). The relationship of handwriting speed, working memory, language comprehension and outlines to lecture note-taking and test-taking among college students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 115–126. doi:10.1002/acp.2881
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 291–312. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0720
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raskind, M. H., & Bryant, B. R. (2002). Functional assessment for assistive technology: Manual. Austin, TX: Psychoeducational Services.
   Google Scholar
• Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. L. (1995). The effects of speech synthesis on the proofreading efficiency of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 141–158. doi:10.2307/1511201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. L. (1999). Speaking to read: The effects of speech recognition technology on the reading and spelling performance of children with learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 251–281. doi:10.1007/s11881-999-0026-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rickards, J. P., & Friedman, F. (1978). The encoding versus the external storage hypothesis in note taking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3, 136–143. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(78)90020-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snow, C. (Ed.). (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward and R & D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
   Google Scholar
• Tanimoto, S., Thompson, R., Berninger, V., Nagy, W., & Abbott, R. (2015). Computerized writing and reading instruction for students in grades 4–9 with specific learning disabilities affecting written language. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31, 671–689. doi:10.1111/jcal.12110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, J. W., Iventosch, L., & Rohwer, W. D. (1987). Relationships among student characteristics, study activities, and achievement as a function of course characteristics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 344–364. doi:10.1016/S0361-476X(87)80005-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, R., Tanimoto, S., Berninger, V., & Nagy, W. (2015). Design studies for stylus and finger-based interactions in writing instruction on tablets. In T. Hammond, S. Valentine, A. Adler, & M. Payton (Eds.), Revolutionizing education with digital ink (pp. 51–69). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.
   Google Scholar
• Van Meter, P., Yokoi, L., & Pressley, M. (1994). College students’ theory of note‐taking derived from their perceptions of note‐taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 323–338. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.3.323
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-johnson III achievement battery. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
   Google Scholar