"Education, Faculty of"@en . "Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education (ECPS), Department of"@en . "DSpace"@en . "UBCV"@en . "Snider, Laurie Margaret"@en . "2010-07-26T21:05:59Z"@en . "1987"@en . "Master of Arts - MA"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "This study used the word processor as a tool for written output to examine the effects of an experiential 'Write to Read' program on typing performance, decoding strategies and successive processing in learning disordered children with motor dysfunction.\r\nA case history approach was taken in view of the small number of subjects available, and in order to adequately describe each individual's unique and complex cognitive motor profile. Subjects involved in the study were three male students in a Junior Learning Assistance Class in a Lower Mainland British Columbia school district elementary school. Each of the students had a history of poor motor performance, poor handwriting and delayed reading ability.\r\nThe three subjects were involved in an eight week intervention program which taught keyboarding and word processing techniques using the 'Write to Read' program, a systematic method of training the motor skills required.\r\nIt was hypothesized that, if the learning disabled student with poor motor skills could use the word processor as an adjunct to handwriting, the improved legibility would facilitate consistent decoding by the student of his own work, reinforcing acquisition of early reading skills.\r\nWithin the case history format, a theoretical frame of reference based on the simultaneous - successive information processing model was chosen and a limited time series design measured the effects of the intervention on successive processing as determined by a block sequencing task (Das, Kirby and Jarman, 1980). The data was collected for each student and graphed for visual inspection, graphic analysis and statistical analysis. One subject showed a stable and significant intervention effect, and no stable trends or significant results for successive processing were found in the other two subjects. Rates of word processing output increased over the course of the study and the number of errors declined.\r\nAll subjects made progress in measures of decoding and word analysis.\r\nImplications for future research and professional practice were described."@en . "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/26923?expand=metadata"@en . "APPLICATIONS FOR KEYBOARDING WITH STUDENTS WITH MOTOR DYSFUNCTION By LAURIE MARGARET SNIDER B.Sc. (O.T.), McGill University, 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Special Education) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 1987 \u00C2\u00A9 Laurie Margaret Snider, 1987 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date -Jc^Q /3 /98\" cv Department DE-6(3/81) i i ABSTRACT This study used the word processor as a tool for wr itten output to examine the ef fects of an exper ient ia l 'Write to Read1 program on typing performance, decoding strategies and successive processing in learning disordered chi ldren with motor dysfunction. A case history approach was taken in view of the small number of subjects ava i l ab le , and in order to adequately describe each i nd i v i dua l ' s unique and complex cognit ive motor p r o f i l e . Subjects involved in the study were three male students in a Junior Learning Assistance Class in a Lower Mainland B r i t i s h Columbia school d i s t r i c t elementary school. Each of the students had a h istory of poor motor performance, poor handwriting and delayed reading a b i l i t y . The three subjects were involved in an eight week intervent ion program which taught keyboarding and word processing techniques using the 'Write to Read' program, a systematic method of t ra in ing the motor s k i l l s required. It was hypothesized that , i f the learning disabled student with poor motor s k i l l s could use the word processor as an adjunct to handwriting, the improved l e g i b i l i t y would f a c i l i t a t e consistent decoding by the student of his own work, re in forc ing acqu i s i t i on of early reading s k i l l s . Within the case history format, a theoret ica l frame of reference based on the simultaneous - successive information processing model was chosen and a l im i ted time series design measured the effects of the intervention on successive processing as determined by a block sequencing task (Das, Kirby and Jarman, 1980). i i i The data was collected for each student and graphed for visual inspection, graphic analysis and s tat i s t ica l analysis. One subject showed a stable and signif icant intervention effect, and no stable trends or signif icant results for successive processing were found in the other two subjects. Rates of word processing output increased over the course of the study and the number of errors declined. All subjects made progress in measures of decoding and word analysis. Implications for future research and professional practice were descri bed. i v ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would l i k e to thank the ind iv iduals who guided and supported me throughout the preparation of th i s thes i s . My committee members have contributed the i r experience and knowledge with patience and c l a r i t y . I extend my sincere thanks to Dr. David Kendal l , my major advisor, and Dr. Rita Watson. Dr. Walter Boldt acted as a consultant to the study and I great ly value the precious hours he spent with me. My thanks to Paula da Luz and Glenys Cameron for the typing and word processing of the manuscript. Ms. Meredith Kezar graciously welcomed me into her classroom, allowing me to work with her students who acted as subjects in the study and provided me with a venue to appreciate the f ine art of classroom teaching. J u l i a Zarudzka, my dear fr iend and valued colleague, acted as my insp i ra t ion at th i s and many other leve l s of my l i f e . My husband, David Vowles, provided his i r replaceable fr iendship with patience and encouragement. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract i i Acknowledgement iv L i s t of Tables vi L i s t of Figures v i i i L i s t of Appendices ix CHAPTER 1. Introduction 1 2. Review of the L i te rature 9 H i s to r i ca l Perspective 9 Computer-Aided Instruct ion and Word Processing Appl icat ions 15 Written Language 17 Attention and Reading 19 Applications of the Word Processing Model 20 Remediation Approaches 24 Summary 26 3. Statement of the Problem 29 4. Method 31 Subjects 31 Design 36 Measures 38 Procedures 42 5. Results 46 Subject #1 46 Subject #2 63 Subject #3 77 6. Conclusions 96 Discussion 96 L imitat ions of the Study 103 Implications for Future Research and Professional Pract ice 104 Appendices Bibliography 107 286 vi LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE I Subject #1 Mean Rates (letter/minute) of Word Processing and Handwriting Samples 53 II Subject #1 Mean Number of Errors in Word Processing and Handwriting Samples 53 III Subject #1 Error Types in Word Processing Samples 54 IV Subject \u00C2\u00A71 Error Types in Handwriting Samples 55 V Subject #1 Corre lat ion of Block Sequencing Scores Between Baseline and Intervention Phases 56 VI Subject n Mean Rates (letter/minute) of Word Processing and Handwriting Samples 68 VII Subject #2 Mean Number of Errors in Word Processing and Handwriting Samples 68 VIII Subject #2 Error Types in Word Processing Samples 69 IX Subject #2 Error Types in Handwriting Samples 70 X Subject #2 Corre lat ion of Block Sequencing Scores Between Baseline and Intervention Phases 71 XI Subject #3 Mean Rates (letter/minute) of Word Processing and Handwriting Samples 82 XII Subject #3 Mean Number of Errors in Word Processing and Handwriting Samples 82 vi i LIST OF TABLES, cont'd. TABLE XIII Subject #3 Error Types in Word Processing Samples XIV Subject #3 Error Types in Handwriting Samples XV Subject #3 Correlat ion of Block Sequencing Scores Between Baseline and Intervention Phases vi i i L I S T O F F I G U R E S Page FIGURE 1. Data for Block Sequencing Task - Subject 1 57 2. Trend Lines for Block Sequencing Task - Subject 1 58 3. Mean Level Lines for Block Sequencing Task - Subject 1 59 4. Data for Block Sequencing Task - Subject 2 72 5. ' Trend Lines for Block Sequencing Task - Subject 2 73 6. Mean Level Lines for Block Sequencing Task - Subject 2 74 7. Data for Block Sequencing Task - Subject 3 86 8. Trend Lines for Block Sequencing Task - Subject 3 87 9. Mean Level Lines for Block Sequencing Task - Subject 3 88 i x L I S T OF APPENDICES Page APPENDICES A Subject #1: Case History 107 B Subject #1: Data: Block Sequencing Task 133 C Subject #1: Test Results ., 135 D Subject #1: C l i n i c a l Observations 138 E Subject #1: Motor S k i l l s : Video Discussion 159 F Subject #2: Case History 162 G Subject #2: Data: Block Sequencing Task 167 H Subject #2: Test Results 169 I Subject #2: C l i n i c a l Observations 172 J Subject #2: Motor S k i l l s : Video Discussion 187 K Subject #3: Case History 190 L Subject #3: Data: Block Sequencing Task 203 M Subject #3: Test Results 205 N Subject #3: C l i n i c a l Observations 208 0 Subject #3: Motor S k i l l s : Video Discussion 219 P Subject #1: Output Samples 222 Q Subject #2: Output Samples 239 R Subject #3: Output Samples 256 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Typing as an adjunct to manuscript wr i t ing in the development of \" s p e l l i n g , reading and composition\" (Conrad, 1935, p. 264) has been perceived as a va l id educational tool in the l i t e r a t u r e since the early 1930s. It i s not c lear why the use of typing as an ins t ruct iona l mi l ieu has not received a more enthusiast ic response in programming for basic s k i l l s i n s t r uc t i on , although the pragmatic reader can make tentat ive hypotheses. What i t may r e a l l y boi l down to is that the mighty pen was on the scene long before Underwriter designed the f i r s t typewriter. This inexpensive, replaceable, low maintenance tool i s usable by the majority of the school-aged population. Since school programs do not require keyboarding s k i l l s , there has not been real reason to learn these s k i l l s for performance of school tasks. One cannot overlook the curriculum planning with in the school system in which the academic students take academic courses and the vocational students learn to type. It seems l og i ca l to assume that the demand for keyboarding s k i l l s has been l im i ted to a spec i f i c population of business students and that , unt i l recent ly, the majority of students had no real need to learn these s k i l l s , as there was no arena for t he i r app l icat ion in the work place. The e f fect s of the microcomputer on the da i l y l i v e s of the population has, however, created that demand. Future-minded parents now send the i r 2 chi ldren o f f to computer camp to learn BASIC instead of canoeing and reef knots. The myriad appl icat ions of the microcomputer are becoming c lear to educators in business, mainstream teaching and special education. Increased frequency of computer teaching in the schools has benefited many students. This paper w i l l address the appl icat ions of the microcomputer and word processing programming to the reinforcement of basic reading and wr i t ing s k i l l s of students with h i s to r ie s of motor dysfunction and attent ional d e f i c i t s which manifest as poor pr int ing s k i l l s and delayed reading s k i l l s . The development of pr int ing s k i l l s , which can act as an a c t i v i t y for the development of attent ion in reading for normal ch i ld ren , i s a slow and laborious process for the chi ldren with motor dysfunction and presents no c e i l i n g for success. However, ch i ldren with educational diagnoses of visual motor and attent ional d e f i c i t s are often placed on an exper ient ia l wr i t ing to read program in order to es tab l i sh a meaningful framework for the focus of attent ion on decoding and comprehension in reading. Despite marked e f f o r t , the qua l i ty of performance in wr i t ing i s never equivalent to the peer group performance. It would seem that continuous pract ise does not necessar i ly or ient the ch i l d to the task, but, rather, feeds into underlying impuls iv i ty through f a i l u r e and diminishing f ru s t ra t i on tolerance. The c l e a r , consistent resu l t offered by the use of a keyboard eliminates t h i s v isual motor performance aspect of the wr i t ing task and may f a c i l i t a t e the process of attent ion to decoding in reading through wr i t i n g . 3 The nature of typing on a keyboard i s such that i t presents the simultaneous visual stimulus of the l e t t e r s , enabling the student to focus attent ion on the features of one letter/st imulus at a time rather than laboring through the motor sequence of creating the aspects of the le t te r s and words. Theoretical Models In order to develop a consistent approach for development of strategies for remediation of dysfunction, i t i s helpful to adopt an appropriate theoret ica l framework in order to explain observed behavioral responses. Simultaneous and Successive Synthesis Model The work of Das, Kirby and Jarman (1979) and Lur ia (1966a, 1966b) provides a theoret ica l and empi r ica l l y sound model of information processing and task analysis based on a simultaneous and successive synthesis approach to learn ing. Kirby and Das (1978) del ineate the d i s t i n c t i v e elements of th i s approach: \"Simultaneous processing can be characterized as involv ing the synthesis of separate elements into groups that generally have spat ia l overtones, with a l l the portions of the synthesis being surveyable or access ible without dependence on the i r pos it ion within the synthesis. This type of processing i s required, for instance, in the formation of any h o l i s t i c ge s ta l t , or in the discovery of the re lat ionships among two or more objects. Successive processing on the other hand, involves the integrat ion of separate elements into groups whose essent ial nature i s temporal. Portions of th i s synthesis are access ible only in the temporal order of the ser ies - each element i s dependent on the 4 preceding elements. Successive processing is necessary for the formation or production of any ordered series of events\" (p. 59). The model l inks successive synthesis with motor and auditory modal i t ies, and simultaneous synthesis with the visual modality. Further research hypothesizes that the simultaneous, spat ia l modality may be a function of the r ight bra in, while the sequent ia l , temporal modality may be based in the l e f t bra in. K ra f t , et al (1980), in invest igat ing EEG records of ch i l d ren , reported greater r ight hemispheric processing during as s imi lat ion of information with a de f i n i t e s h i f t to the l e f t during re t r ieva l and verbal/ log ica l expression of information. High reading scores were related to greater inter-hemispheric processing, or the a b i l i t y to s h i f t from one mode of processing to the next. Jarman (1980) argued, however, based on his analysis of paradigmatic and syntagmatic associations within the study of language funct ion, that th i s hemispheric interpretat ion of brain function was unsophisticated. His f indings indicated that these functions were not cons i s tent ly l a t e r a l i z ed into consistent and predictable hemispheric locat ions . Gordon (1980) hypothesized a developmental lag in l e f t brain function as the basis for dys lex ia . The a b i l i t y to perceive the s e r i a l order of auditory or visual s t imul i was thought to be dependent on temporal or sequential processing. Dysfunction with in the sequential modality created learning d i f f i c u l t i e s in reading, mathematics and other a b i l i t i e s involving ana ly t i ca l processes. Learning-disabled ind iv idua l s were \" locked i n \" to a simultaneous mode of processing, thereby rendered unable to u t i l i z e the intermodal s h i f t required for successful learn ing. 5 The key to sequential learning was proposed to l i e with the a b i l i t y to se l ec t i ve l y attend to c r i t i c a l variables of presented s t imul i (Reid and Hresko, 1981). A longitudinal study based on the simultaneous and successive synthesis framework used task analysis and empirical va l idat ion to establ i sh a series of tasks designed to tap simultaneous and successive a b i l i t y in an early i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of learning-disabled chi ldren project (Jarman and Das, 1980). This theoret ica l model proposed that task information i s presented to sensory modal it ies in a successive or simultaneous manner. The tasks themselves were categorized as mnestic, perceptual and conceptual. The nature of output or task response can also be simultaneous or successive. \"Simultaneous output depends at a l l points on what has already been done, such as in the drawing of a c i r c l e ; even though some of the c i r c l e may be complete, the balance of the drawing depends upon the completed part in order to produce a correct f igure. Successive output i s temporal in nature and does not depend upon previous responses as d i r e c t l y ; for example, r eca l l of a d i g i t in a set does not depend funct iona l l y upon a l l of the previously reca l led d i g i t s \" (Jarman and Das, 1980, p. 30). Process Disorder Model Reid and Hresko (1981) proposed a process disorder model in the theoret ica l discussion of learning d i s a b i l i t y . These were divided into modal and non-modal disorders. Modal disorders manifested themselves as dysfunction at the i n t e r -sensory integrat ion level or d i f f i c u l t y with the in teract ion between input and output. These were related to sensory modes of reception. 6 Non-modal disorders were based on the a b i l i t y to attend to c r i t i c a l variables of presented s t i m u l i . This dysfunction of se lect ive attent ion may be the basis for the academic learning behaviors of the learn ing-disabled population. The cons te l l a t ion of these learning behaviors included the i n a b i l i t y to process sequentially-presented information, lack of general izat ion between learning s i tua t i on s , lack of awareness of cause and e f f e c t , and the i n a b i l i t y to learn by inference. Select ive attention d e f i c i t s prevented the indiv idual from synthesizing a meaningful network out of d i sc rete , symbolic or non-meaningful information received from the envi ronment. Using the theoret ica l frame of reference described, the c l i n i c a l remediator can proceed to devise strategies for teaching the learn ing-disabled i nd i v i dua l . One of the e f fec t i ve strategies described by Reid and Hresko (1981), has been to switch the order of presentation of information. Rather than teach in a temporal, sequential way, the remediator presented the information in a simultaneous way. For example, teaching through experience, learning by doing, emphasized the simultaneous mode of learning (Wittrock, 1978). Once the meaningful framework evoked by the exper ient ia l s i tua t ion was establ i shed, the addit ional data was applied to i t . In th i s way, conceptual learning took place. Task Analysis of Printing and Keyboarding Using the Model of Simultaneous and Sequential Synthesis The underlying process of handwriting i s v isual motor integrat ion (Beery, 1982). According to the task analys is of Jarman and Das (1980), the process of visual motor integrat ion i s simultaneous in nature. 7 The nature of the motor aspect of handwriting i s sequential (Kirby and Das, 1978) and impaired motor performance loads an addit ional sequencing variable on to the requirements for successful task performance. Changing the motor nature of printed output by placing the l e t te r s on a keyboard format el iminates the sequenced motor aspect of pr int ing and changes the motor task into targett ing the appropriate l e t t e r choice, a much simpler motor requirement. By s impl i fy ing the motor requirement, the task emphasis returns to the visual simultaneous input and conceptual simultaneous processing output described by the Jarman and Das (1980) task analys is chart (F ig. 1, p. 3). This places the learning disabled student in an area of r e l a t i ve strength: simultaneous synthesis. The letter-symbol choices are arranged in a visual display which can be translated into a meaningful framework using strategies described in Chapter 2 of th i s paper. By breaking the task into i t s component parts and problem-solving for f a c i l i t a t i o n according to the theoret ica l framework of simultaneous and successive synthesis, the complex task of printed output can be brought within the processing capacity of the c h i l d with motor dysfunction and learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . Use of keyboard and word processing combinations cannot el iminate the sequential aspects of pr int ing words. Words are, by the i r nature, a sequence of l e t t e r s . It remains for the remediator to discover a meaningful way to present a reading and wr i t i ng task which allows motor s k i l l automation (Stelmach and La r i sh , 1980) to re inforce the sequenced aspects of the task. 8 The \"Write to Read\" typing program i s a written reading program which uses a word family and phoneme recognit ion approach. Finger positions are al located on the keyboard and typing of word fami l ies involves consistent finger/key a l l o ca t i on . For example, in the f i r s t lesson, the student must type, RED, FED, LED, WED, BED repeatedly and then type the sentence \"Ted had a red bed\". The program emphasizes the goal of \"ed\" sound symbol sequence being reinforced by the motor \" e -d \" becoming more automatic with pract i se. The use of the word processor technology to back up the keyboard is a further s imp l i f i c a t i on of a complex task. In i t s simplest form, the word processing function allows the student to correct his errors on the monitor and f a c i l i t a t e s er ror - f ree printed output. The conventional typewriter does not o f fe r such ease of error correct ion and, as i t does not o f f e r the more complex edit ing functions of the word processor, can be considered a more l im i ted keyboard m i l i eu . As learning disabled students c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y f a i l to generalize between learning environments, i t seems wise to i n i t i a t e the students onto a keyboard system that w i l l taken them as far as possible into the area of written language, making the word processor the technology of choice to re inforce basic reading and wr i t ing s k i l l s . Summary The use of microcomputer and word processing technology to re inforce basic reading and wr i t ing s k i l l s can be task-analyzed according to the simultaneous-successive synthesis model of information processing described by Das, Kirby and Jarman (1979), and applied to a population of students with motor dysfunction and attent ional d e f i c i t s . 9 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Historical Perspective It i s s t i l l necessary to learn to type in order to 'keyboard ' . T r ad i t i ona l l y , typing i s taught at the secondary l e v e l . Some educators have advocated for i t s inc lus ion in primary grades on the basis that gains can be achieved in motor a b i l i t y , w r i t i n g , spe l l i ng and language s k i l l s (Whitmi l l , 1973; Er ikson, 1972). Evidence points out that f ine motor s k i l l s necessary for typing are intact in primary students (Whitmi l l , 1973) and that elementary students can compete successfu l ly with high school students on various complex tasks \" inc lud ing a six-page manuscript with quotations, footnotes and bibl iography\" (Whitmi l l , 1973, p. 41). In order for these s k i l l s to be taught at the elementary l e v e l , performance object ives need to be establ i shed. Erikson (1972) proposed a ' c r i te r i on - re fe renced ins t ruct iona l model' which emphasized: \" 1 . s pec i f i ca t i on of performance goals 2. pre-assessment of the learner 3. provis ion of adequate ins t ruct ion that includes va l idat ion of the learning through proper repet i t i on and with measurement against some c r i t e r i o n 4. se lect ion of appropriate evaluation procedures that emphasize s e l f -motivation of the learner through the reinforcement that he gets from his own learning and progress as measured by his a b i l i t y to meet minimum performance goals as well as i nd iv idua l i zed performance goals\" (p. 20). 10 Erikson (1972) pointed out that \"at the elementary school level the notion pers i sts that a l l that i s necessary i s to put the youngster at a typewriter with a typing book, and perhaps some tapes, and he can learn to typewrite. Anyone who has ever worked with elementary school youngsters w i l l a t tes t to the fact that they are eager learners and that they are espec ia l l y motivated when the learning involves a thing to be manipulated such as a typewriter. The fact i s . . . that elementary school pupils learning to typewr i te . . . need the . . . guidance of a . . . teacher i f they are to achieve at a level that bears a re lat ionsh ip to t he i r potential to achieve. To do less i s to short change the learner\" (p. 20). Performance goals were related to : 1) basic typing s k i l l , 2) selected typing app l i cat ions , 3) typing and language arts learning (Erikson, 1972). Use of a keyboard for output with regular stream chi ldren was advocated for on the fol lowing basis: \" 1 . Learning to type fascinates ch i ldren bored with regular c la s s . 2. A typing program adds uniqueness to remedial reading. 3. Incidental reading takes place in the typing lessons such as reinforcement of the basic sight words. 4. Spel l ing i s aided through the typing lessons. 5. The ch i l d experiences frequent success through short lessons and praise\" (Se l tzer , 1978, p. 13). The use of the keyboard in the classroom as a motivator in the pract ice of basic s k i l l s has been recognized (Se l tzer , 1978; Er ikson, 1978; Tet rau l t , 1970). Despite the general a i r of pos i t iv i sm, few studies were ava i lab le for analys i s . Tetrault (1970) studied fourteen f i r s t graders using performance within the 24 to 54%i^ e on the Gates Reading Readiness Tests as c r i t e r i o n for inc lus ion in the study. 11 Pos i t ive resu lts from th i s p i l o t study (using e l e c t r i c typewriters and d i c ta t ion equipment with a regular phonics program and basal readers) led to a longer study in the fol lowing year. Students were randomly assigned to two groups. One group received regular reading i n s t ruc t i on , the other group used technical aids to re inforce reading. At mid-term, a ' s i g n i f i c a n t gap' between groups in s pe l l i n g , l e t t e r recognit ion, word reading and study s k i l l s as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test, was noted in favor of the technical aids group. It i s not evident what c r i t e r i a were used to measure s ign i f icance or i f the Standard Achievement Test was an appropriate measure to be administered three times in s ix months. At mid-term, the groups switched programs and went on to complete the term. Findings indicated that the \"group using the equipment during the second half of the term was about even with the group that had used i t in the f i r s t hal f \" (p. 116). No attempt was made to d i f f e ren t i a te results in terms of r e l a t i ve gains made by the f i r s t group who may have had an i n i t i a l benefit in having c lear reinforcement of basic s k i l l s through technical aids at the outset of the program. One wonders what the progress of a group who received only one or the other types of intervention would have been under s im i la r condit ions. Empirical nightmares such as th i s character ize the l i t e r a t u r e , but are usual ly followed by educational ly sound, pragmatic ideas for program implementation. While t h i s i s , indeed, helpful to the educator in the classroom, the use of keyboarding as an adjunct to manuscript wr i t ing remains subject to 12 the whims and passing fancies of the art of education without an empirical basis for th i s kind of intervent ion. Tate (1935) reported a study she carr ied out with ' retarded* students to \"determine the usefulness of the typewriter in remedial ins t ruct ion in reading and language in the intermediate grades\" (p. 481). Two matched groups (on grade equivalents of the Standard Achievement Test and i n te l l i gence quotients from the Ca l i f o rn i a Test of Intel l igence) were selected from Grades 4, 5 and 6. Groups were i den t i f i ed by choosing the chi ldren f a l l i n g below the 50th%1* 1 e of each class group. Scores on subtests of Paragraph Meaning, Word Dictat ion and Language Usage and D ictat ion (Spell ing) were compared between groups. While differences did not achieve s t a t i s t i c a l s i gn i f i cance, . the experimental group fared better than the controls in ranked order of Language, D i c ta t i on , Paragraph Meaning and Word Meaning. The author concluded that, although s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t , the study indicated the merits of keyboard use as an intervention tool in the remediation of reading and s pe l l i n g , mentioning student motivation and teacher pa r t i c ipa t ion as another pos i t ive aspect of the study i t s e l f . Conrad (1935) conducted a two-year study on typing in the primary grades. Her rat iona le was straightforward and precise: \" - ch i ldren are interested in the machine, i t requires 1 i t t l e muscular development, i t does not s t ra in immature muscles, ch i ldren can express ideas in wr i t ing by a motor pressure rather than a more contro l led movement, i t should help the ch i l d with poor motor con t ro l , i t should a s s i s t the left-handed ch i l d - the resu l t s are accurate, quickly obtained and are very s a t i s f y i n g , i t apparently t i e s up c lo se ly with reading\" (p. 256). 13 The study sampled 150 chi ldren in the Horace Mann School in the northeastern United States. Two classes of Grades 2, 3 and 4 were paired on chronological and mental age (no measures reported). One group used typewriters for wr i t ten work, the other group used manuscript wr i t i ng . Gains in favor of the experimental group were reported in written speed and output speed, however, grade differences were noted and att r ibuted to general maturational progress. The Grade 2 ch i l d ren ' s performance was not as c l ea r l y d i f fe rent ia ted between typing and manuscript w r i t i n g , while the Grade 4 group showed a greater d i spa r i t y of output rate in favor of the typewriter. Merrick (1941) found that students with low handwritten composing rates made the greatest \"growth and f a c i l i t y of expression\" (p. 294) when handwritten and typewritten composing rates were compared. This author did observe that \"pup i l s at the younger l e v e l , p a r t i c u l a r l y the l i t t l e boys, l o s t time ear ly in the year part ly through inattent ion and part ly because they ran out of something to say before f i ve minutes passed\" (p. 295). Cowles (1983) pointed out that, in the rage for applying technology to education, the basic issues of whether chi ldren can develop adequate keyboarding s k i l l s had not been addressed to his s a t i s f a c t i on . In a study designed to examine the re lat ionsh ip between typing s k i l l development and motor prof ic iency, a random sample of 24 ch i ldren was selected with equal numbers of f i v e , s i x , seven and eight year o lds , and equal numbers of males and females in each group. The group was assessed for motor prof ic iency on the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Prof ic iency and the teaching program used was \"Touch to Type\" by Nash and Geyer (1983). 14 The students' work was co l lected da i l y and 30-second timings were scored for speed and accuracy, and recorded at regular i n te rva l s . Students were observed da i l y over 20 observations on task behavior. Pearson r ' s and Spearman rho's were calculated to determine the nature of the re lat ionsh ip between motor prof ic iency and typing performance. S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i gn i f i c an t corre lat ions were not found. C l i n i c a l observations indicated more o f f task behavior in the f i ve and s ix year old group, but that the typing program experience was generally pos i t i ve . The students were motivated and enjoyed the c lass . Students were able to learn to type cor rect l y (th is typing program stresses f inger placement and speed). The f i ve to s ix year old group were able to output words, the seven to eight year olds were able to type words and sentences. This seemed to be more related to reading a b i l i t y than to motor s k i l l , however, motor s k i l l was more related to the success of the seven to eight year old group in output rate. This study was one of the more a r t i c u l a t e ones in terms of experimental design. The group was selected randomly and matched for sex and age. Further examination of o f f task behavior in the f i ve to s ix year old group would have given the reader more ins ight into the basis for the o f f task behavior. Was the task too demanding or not meaningful enough? Was the behavior seen in other learning s i tuat ions? Did i t improve with increased teacher ' s v i l igance? The s ize of the sample was r e l a t i v e l y smal l . Further studies could include matching across the groups for reading a b i l i t y in order to examine the ef fect of motor prof ic iency on typing s k i l l more c l e a r l y . 15 These studies indicated that the motor prof ic iency for acquiring keyboarding s k i l l s was intact in elementary school-aged chi ldren and that these chi ldren were able to approach the complex task of using the typing process to increase speed of output. The development of typing prof ic iency seemed to correspond with a general maturational process of motor s k i l l as well as reading a b i l i t y in the age range selected for the study, and was not just related to motor prof ic iency. The l i t e r a t u r e stressed the pos i t ive ef fect of keyboard use on student motivation and emphasized the f a c i l i t a t i v e e f fect on output for students with poor motor control (Conrad, 1935; Tate, 1935). However, no studies were done with students with poor motor cont ro l . Related Research Computer-Aided Instruction and Word Processing Appl ications Kol ich (1985) discussed the advent of the microcomputer in the school system and described the incorporation of technology into the in s t ruct iona l curriculum. Three areas of computer-aided ins t ruct ion (CAI) were i d e n t i f i e d . D r i l l and pract ise from the f i r s t stage was bu i l t upon in the second stage by the incorporation of the aspect of decision-making which can be programmed into software. The t h i r d stage was determined to be t u t o r i a l , an in te ract i ve systematic in s t ruct iona l sequence. The author indicated that th i s format placed the student at the controls of his own learning experience. Hummel (1985) reported on the function of computer appl icat ion to d r i l l and pract ice. When using the microcomputer/word processor combination for wr i t ten output, he notes that \"these chi ldren need 16 systematic t ra in ing in typing and word processing in order to rea l i ze the potential benefits of integrat ing word processing in composition i n s t ruc t i on \" (p. 559). Hoffman (1986) used a Piagetian frame of reference to suggest that the microcomputer created an environment for learning which allows the ind iv idua l to in teract with the information in a se l f - d i r ec ted way. This provided the basis for increased gene ra l i z ab i l i t y of knowledge. Rosegrant (1985) described an ongoing four-year study in which word processing software was used with 12 learning-disabled students ( c r i t e r i a unknown for determining diagnosis of learning d i s a b i l i t y ) . The students were ranged in age from s ix to ten years of age. The purpose of the intervent ion was to f a c i l i t a t e acqu i s i t ion of basic reading and wr i t ing s k i l l s . These ch i ldren demonstrated poor mastery of handwriting, were general ly unhappy about t he i r handwriting appearance, were often unable to read what they had wr i t ten , and showed poor spat ia l organization of the text on the page. The group was also noted to \"often lose t he i r t r a i n of thought when wr i t ing and showed fatigue in the wr i t ing process\" (p. 113). This f r u s t r a t i on led the author to suggest that the group demonstrated \"decreased amounts of r i s k - t ak i ng , explorat ion, strategy-creat ing and hypothesis t e s t i ng \" (p. 113). The study involved use of a word processing program which had been interfaced with a synthesized speech program as the c l a s s ' pr inc ipa l reading and wr i t ing instrument. Children were encouraged to be as s e l f -directed as poss ib le, with a \"read - text \" mode which highl ighted the words on the screen as the voice synthesizer reproduced the wr i t ten t e x t . 17 During the f i r s t s ix months of th i s program, each ch i l d had made 12 months of gain in reading l e v e l , however, the measures used were not indicated. Reading sub - sk i l l s showed improvements in increased use of phonics in decoding s k i l l s as well as an increase in sight word vocabulary. It would have been more enlightening for the reader i f the author had described the measures used to assess progress in reading l e v e l . Rosegrant discussed four essential factors in the use of the microcomputer to f a c i l i t a t e acqu i s i t ion of the basic s k i l l s of reading and wr i t ing in learning-disabled students: \" 1 . To provide v i s u a l , auditory and motoric modes of support... use of the cursor provided da i l y exercise at visual tracking without any sense of pract ice. 2. To lower r i sks encountered in making errors. 3. To provide a high degree of control over reading and wr i t ing tasks. 4. To provide a meaningful learning context in which exploration and analysis of wr itten language can occur\" (p. 115). While concrete resu lts were not reported in the study, weaknesses can be noted in the wide age range of students and the small sample of students studied. This study was valuable in i t s descr ipt ion of the students' task approach as well as the detai led explanation of the intervent ion program. Written Language Fredriksen (1981) viewed language as the essential component in learning to write and breaks down the task of wr i t ing into i t s component parts as fo l lows: \" 1 . a cognit ive a c t i v i t y 18 2. a pa r t i cu la r form of language and language use 3. a communicative process 4. a contextual ized, purposive a c t i v i t y \" (p. 2). From the perspective of th i s study, i t seems expedient to add a f i f t h consi deration: 5. a s pec i f i c and precise motor a c t i v i t y . Fredriksen drew on the work of Piaget when he proposed that \"cognit ive demands of wr i t ing are s im i l a r to those required by other symbol-making a c t i v i t i e s . . . wr i t ing might be s im i l a r to ( i . e . continuous with) symbolic a c t i v i t i e s in pretend play, drawing and story t e l l i n g , and d i s s im i l a r to ( i . e . discontinuous with conversational language... that d i f f e r s in i t s social in teract iona l support for sustained language production\" (p. 10). and went on to d i f f e r en t i a t e further between oral and wr itten language. Without the immediate l i s t ene r react ion, and socia l and conversational cueing inherent in conversational language, the wr i ter must c l ea r l y d i f f e r en t i a t e between an intended meaning and what i s actua l l y stated in p r in t . He must ant ic ipate the reader 's reaction in absentia and determine \" l eve l s of communicative competence (which) are re f lected in young w r i t e r ' s a b i l i t y to estimate the leve l s of inference required to read what they wr i te \" (p. 11). From th i s perspective, wr i t ten language was presented as a d i s t i n c t and separate i den t i t y evolving as a resu l t of increas ingly complex cognit ive and l i n g u i s t i c i n te ract ions . Woodruff (1986) studied the e f fect s of word processing on the wr i t ing a b i l i t y of students in an enriched program in order to determine what the differences in focus of attent ion between enriched and average students was 19 within the framework of the task, and determined that the wr i t ing s k i l l of the student was the determining factor in the qual i ty of assistance offered by the word processor. Enriched students focused on compositional s ty le and theme development, however, the average students performed better on punctuation. The enriched students were more able to use the advanced edit functions of the word processor to organize and develop the i r compositions. The overlapping parameters of cogn i t ion, language and wr itten language and motor s k i l l presents a complex p ic ture. The authors who are pursuing l i n g u i s t i c and cognit ive consequences of wr i t ing are not addressing the motor-disabled group of writers and motor s k i l l in wr itten output is taken for granted in th i s f i e l d of l i t e r a t u r e . This focuses the need for the development of basic wr i t ing and reading s k i l l s even more s a l i e n t l y for the motor dysfunction population when the v i t a l i t y of written output i s examined. The development of written language to i t s f u l l e s t extent would seem to be a basic academic goal, however, i t i s i n i t i a l l y dependent on the physical wr i t ing process i t s e l f . Attention and Reading The normal reader spent less attent ional capacity in decoding of indiv idual words and thus was able to go beyond th i s into reading for comprehension and meaning. The microcomputer's inherent a b i l i t y to be programmed for a c t i v i t i e s which sustain attent ion made i t a method of choice in reading in s t ruc t ion for learning-disabled populations (Torgeson, 1983). 20 Torgeson (1983) in establ ishing p r i o r i t i e s for appl icat ion of microcomputers for education of the learning disabled i den t i f i ed \"the primary locus of d i f f i c u l t y for poor readers... at the indiv idual word rather than discourse level of processing\" (p. 235). Major word reading d i f f i c u l t i e s of the learning disabled reader were i den t i f i ed as poorly-established phonetic basis for decoding new words and a low rate for reading of indiv idual words including f am i l i a r words (Torgeson, 1983). Appl icat ions of the Word Processing Model MacArthur (1986) found that app l icat ion of the word processor for wr itten work in the classroom resulted in increased motivation for wr i t ing as a resu l t of the neat copy achieved as well as the immediate results offered by the edi t ing power of the computer. He noted that: \"students work by typing rather than handwriting... producing better looking copy... ( th i s i s ) easier for LD and other students with poor handwriting.\" Various authors (MacArthur, 1986; Woodruff, 1986) have observed pr imit ive technical s k i l l s for typing and edi t ing in students using word processing in the classroom, but th i s did not i n te r fe re with motivational aspects, and as th i s was a s k i l l and not an a b i l i t y , i t was proposed that these s k i l l s could be developed in order to contr ibute to a higher level of integrated funct ioning. It would be naive to assume that the learning disabled (LD) student with poor handwriting could switch to another mode of output with ease. This overlooks the basic process disorder inherent in the student 's approach to cognit ive and organizational tasks. 21 MacArthur (1986) examined types of errors made by LD students in using two d i f fe rent word processing software programs. The subjects were two groups of four LD students from a summer remedial reading c l i n i c . Age range was 9.6 years to 12.2 years, spanning grades 4 to 6. These chi ldren were of average in te l l i gence as measured by the WISC-R, PPVT and Detro it Tests of Learning Aptitude with a l l scores (except two i nva l i d scores from two English as a Second Language (ESL) students f a l l i n g within one standard deviation of the mean. Standardized test ing of reading a b i l i t y (tests not described) showed that the students were 1.9 to 3.2 years behind t he i r age peers. A l l the students, except two who attended pr ivate schools, had been i den t i f i ed by t he i r schools as learning d isabled. None of the students had previous experience with word processing. The two programs which were examined were Mi H i ken Word Processor (M i l l i k en , 1984) and Cut and Paste (E lectronic Ar t s , 1983). Mi 11 iken used a desk top graphic analogy as a four choice menu for wr i t ing t oo l s , f i l e s , typewriter and help. This was better for the students who understood that they could press the escape button (ESC) un t i l they got back to the desk graphic for menu choices. In contrast , Cut and Paste presented highl ighted menus and the students manipulated the arrow keys to h igh l ight the menu of the i r choice and then pressed the return button to choose. This was a more complex sequence and also required more reading s k i l l s . The students had more d i f f i c u l t i e s . Ove ra l l , the Mil 1iken program was more suited to the group's organizational a b i l i t i e s , although one student took the desk top analogy 22 quite literally and tried to file two stories in the same computer file (as in file folder) thereby erasing his first story. The investigators kept detailed notes on planned and actual instruction as well as narrative notes detailing student errors, questions, successful use of word processing functions and affective responses. Typing skills were at the two-handed \"hunt and peck\" level resulting in an output speed of 10 to 20 letters per minute, although this rate was not frustrating for the children. Typing errors included spacing errors and the use of CAPS LOCK instead of SHIFT for single capital letters. The children also adopted inefficient habits when using the cursor. They found it hard to switch to the ^ or ^ arrows preferring to use the \u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 or *v\u00E2\u0080\u0094 arrows repeatedly to get to other lines. No problems were encountered using the delete key (DEL), although once the students figured this function out, they tended to ignore the arrow functions for individual word correction and deleted entire words for retyping when single letters could have been replaced using a more sophisticated approach using the arrow keys. Other error types involved the concepts of space on the screen. Some children felt they had to use the space bar in order to create a space for a letter to be inserted and would then erase it instead of trusting the computer function to manipulate the spaces. The abstraction of the three types of empty space on the computer was difficult for the students. There were spaces as defined by the space bar, no visible representation of \"return\" and null spaces at the ends of lines where the words wrapped around. 23 The authors noted four error types which indicated the student 's confusion about manipulating space: 1. Attempted to move the cursor into the nul l space and then did not understand why i t would not work. 2. Typing ' r e tu rn ' at the end of a l i n e instead of re ly ing on the wrap around feature. 3. Use of the space bar instead of ' r e t u rn ' to get to the next l i n e . 4. Typing a series of spaces to make a blank l i n e instead of ' r e t u r n ' . These errors make the screen format look acceptable, but do not reproduce in pr int ing and reformatting. Insertion of blank l ines and s p l i t t i n g l i n e s , and paragraphs was most d i f f i c u l t for these students to comprehend. Based on these observations, the authors f e l t that the programs which employ modeless ed i t ing were most appropriate for these students as the system was always in i n se r t , the arrow keys directed the cursor and the delete key erased the l e t t e r to the l e f t of the cursor. Programs which employed separate modes for cursor movement or delete functions were not appropriate as they were confusing to the students (Apple Bank Street Wr i ter ) . Structure of the program was best when simplest so students can \"create a mental map\". This was consistent with the f indings of Gordon (1980), and Reid and Hresko (1981) who suggested a simultaneous visual mode of learning for chi ldren with learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . Students had pers istent d i f f i c u l t y with confusion about the space aspects of the computer and i n s i s ted on reta in ing approaches which made the text on the screen look presentable but were unable to predict or plan ahead based on what the printout would look l i k e . 24 The students ' responses continued to be enthusiast ic and they wrote continuously a l be i t at a slow rate. Compositions were longer on the word processor than when using handwriting. The excitement of being able to pr int e r ro r - f ree work had a compelling ef fect on these students, and they maintained an enthusiast ic approach to the task throughout the study. This study provided spec i f i c anecdotal data on task approach and task behavior. More numbers of subjects could have generated more information on ind iv idual differences and smal l , well matched groups could have contributed some s t a t i s t i c a l data using methods designed for ' smal l populations (Hersen and Barlow, 1976; Revusky, 1967). The descr ipt i ve nature of the study was appropriate and provided ins ight into the problem solving d i f f i c u l t i e s experienced by students with learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . Remediation Approaches The l i t e r a t u r e does indicate some support for use of word processing to re inforce basic reading and wr i t ing functions in chi ldren with learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . Insight into the nature of process disorders when formulating the organizational framework for the software program for word processing was instrumental to the success of student task approach. It i s important to maintain th i s ins ight into the nature of process disorders when teaching the learning-disabled ch i l d with motor dysfunction to or ient himself to the keyboard. The \"Touch to Type\" (Curriculum Associates, 1981) program presented a color-coded layout to a s s i s t with l e t t e r key l oca t ion . The ch i ldren may 25 also wear colored dots on the fingers a l located to each colored area of the keyboard in order to re inforce correct use of a l l f ingers in typing. \"Keyboard Town\" (Gallagher, 1961) reinforced keyboard layout memory by using the analogy of a community with a Home Keys Street, uptown and downtown, and way up town to correspond to the four rows of keys. Fingers rested i n i t i a l l y at Home Keys Street and the i so lated f inger movement was taught by having the character associated with the l e t t e r name move to uptown and downtown locat ions which employed the i n i t i a l consonants of the l e t t e r keys. For example, the f i f t h f inger rested on \"A\" in middle town. Ann went downtown to feed the zebras at the zoo and uptown to v i s i t Mr. QWERT's house, a large house which occupies half of the space in uptown. Visual maps were presented to re inforce the image of Keyboard Town and a diagonal road intersected the town to indicate the d i f f e r en t i a t i o n between keys struck by the l e f t hand and keys for the r i gh t . Given the d i f f i c u l t i e s with f inger sequencing a b i l i t i e s of learn ing-disabled students with motor dysfunction (Gaddes, 1980), i t may be un rea l i s t i c to expect the students to use a l l f ingers , pa r t i c u l a r l y the fourth and f i f t h f ingers which are d i f f i c u l t to i s o l a t e ; however, the use of two hands to s p l i t the keyboard may ass i s t in speed of l e t t e r key locat ion and an ordered sequence of d i g i t introduction may proceed as fo l lows: b i l a t e r a l index f ingers , index fingers and thumbs, leading to the introduction of the t h i r d f inger as automaticity of f inger-key associat ion develops. Techniques which re inforce memory of the spat ia l organization of the keyboard and encourage b i l a t e r a l hand use would seem appropriate for th i s 26 population in order to reinforce speed and accuracy of typing, and. in order for the student to progress at his own maximal rate in developing competence on the keyboard. Use of the word processor would provide a neat, consistent, error-f ree, wr i t ten output for students with motor dysfunction. The student would be taught strategies with which to approach the task of learning keyboarding s k i l l s and these strategies should be consistent with the student 's cognitive-motor p r o f i l e . The visual motor aspect of output is thus de-emphasized and the anxious or discouraged student may proceed with the cognit ive aspects of the task in a r e l a t i v e l y motor-free environment. Summary The review of the l i t e r a t u r e showed a majority of studies to have poorly defined parameters regarding student populations studied. The use of vague and subject ive measures of c l i n i c a l change ref lected a paucity of academic r i go r , p a r t i c u l a r l y in the e a r l i e r studies on the development of keyboarding s k i l l s in elementary school ch i ldren (Tate, 1935; Conrad, 1935). The f a c i l i t a t i v e e f fect of keyboard use on written output for students with poor motor control was discussed by the e a r l i e r authors (Conrad, 1935; Tate, 1935), but no data were reported for th i s spec i f i c population. Studies describing microcomputer/word processor combinations for written output are more spec i f i c in describing student populations as being learning disabled or from the normal student population. Rosegrant (1985) described her learning disabled student 's poor handwriting mastery, but did 27 not give any deta i l s regarding any h istory of motor incoordination or physical d i s a b i l i t y . It i s not known whether any consideration was given to these factors when determining the most appropriate means for i ntervention. MacArthur (1986) provided a valuable ins ight into error types made by LD students in using two d i f fe rent word processing software programs. Typing s k i l l s were described at the two-handed 'hunt and peck1 l e v e l . The study focused on the conceptual nature of the task and did not examine or i so la te any student d i f f i c u l t i e s which may have been motor in nature. None of the studies examined or described a systematic method of t ra in ing the motor s k i l l s required for teaching chi ldren with learning d i s a b i l i t i e s and motor dysfunction keyboarding s k i l l s on a word processor. This approach would require ins ight into the nature of the c h i l d ' s learning d i s a b i l i t y as well as the nature of his motor dysfunction. The studies did describe a motivational factor inherent in word processor use which seemed to be related to the production of perfect copy. This i s valuable to the t eache r - c l i n i c i an , but no spec i f i c measures related to motivation and self-esteem were reported, and the findings were based on \u00E2\u0080\u00A2general observation (Tetraul t , 1970; Se l t ze r , 1978; Erikson, 1978; Rosegrant, 1985; MacArthur, 1986). None of the studies interpreted t he i r data or analyzed the tasks required of the students according to a theoret ica l framework such as the simultaneous-sequential information process model. The use of a descr ipt ive approach i s invaluable in programming e f f e c t i v e l y for ch i ldren with complex learning needs, as demonstrated by MacArthur (1986) and Rosegrant (1985). 28 Several authors commented on motor maturation as a factor in keyboarding s k i l l s development (Conrad, 1935; Cowles, 1983) as well as suggesting that a b i l i t y in written language and reading were factors a f f l i c t i n g output rate. Cowles (1983) also indicated that o f f tasks behavior was one of the c r i t i c a l var iables a f fect ing the development of speed and accuracy of output. Information on effects of keyboarding on reading, wr itten language and attention was inadequate and required further study. Erikson (1972) and Kol ich (1985) both commented on the need for a structured and systematic t ra in ing in order to maximize keyboard s k i l l s , although neither compared performance between groups of students who were trained and students who practised the i r own 'hunt and peck1 methods. Indeed, most studies of learning disabled students on keyboards tended to allow the students to randomly approach the keyboard without any l e t t e r key locat ion or ientat ion except for random visual scanning and h i t or miss ta rget t ing . It would seem important to minimize the f rust rat ions inherent in th i s method. As no studies reported any d i f f i c u l t y , the question raised i s was there r e a l l y no d i f f i c u l t y or has the foundation task of motor t ra in ing of LD students in keyboard use been overlooked? 29 CHAPTER 3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM This study undertook to examine-the appl icat ions of teaching keyboarding s k i l l s on a word processor to learning-disordered chi ldren with motor dysfunction. There has been much discussion in the l i t e r a t u r e regarding use of the word processor as a tool for wr itten output. Studies have examined the appl icat ions for the g i f ted student population in development of wr i t ing s k i l l s and wr i t ten language (Woodruff, 1986, 1982b) as well as the d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered by the learning-disabled population when learning to use the word processor (MacArthur, 1986). Although Rosegrant (1985) described the qua l i ty of handwritten output of her learning-disabled population as i l l e g i b l e and lacking in spat ia l organizat ion, there i s a paucity of information ava i lab le which describes the app l i cat ion of word processing techniques for the learning-disabled student with motor dysfunction whose wr i t ten output i s compromised by the i n a b i l i t y to grade motor responses, poor postural cont ro l , f ine motor dysfunction, d i f f i c u l t y with b i l a t e r a l motor coordination and motor sequencing. It was hypothesized that , i f the learning-disabled ch i l d with motor dysfunction could be taught to use the word processor as an adjunct to pract ise of handwritten output, the improved l e g i b i l i t y of the l e t t e r s and words would f a c i l i t a t e consistent decoding by the student of his own work, re inforc ing acqu i s i t i on of early reading s k i l l s . 30 A systematic t ra in ing method which incorporated knowledge of the c h i l d ' s learning d i s a b i l i t y as well as the nature of motor dysfunction was required in order to f a c i l i t a t e the student 's approach to the complex task of keyboarding and word processing. 31 CHAPTER 4 METHOD Subjects Three boys, aged 6.9 to 8.10 years of age served as subjects. The diagnosis of motor dysfunction was based on each c h i l d ' s medical h i s tory, medical diagnosis and motor assessment. A l l three boys had h i s tor ies of slow motor development and poor academic performance. Two of the boys had been diagnosed with minimal cerebral palsy and were receiving weekly occupational therapy at school from a community-based therapy agency. A review of the records of the school performance of each student showed discrepant s k i l l s in psychological test ing and documentation of e r r a t i c c l i n i c a l p ro f i l e s of learning and a t tent ion . The boys' handwriting s k i l l s were poor and reading levels were two years behind for two of the subjects, and showed delayed acqu i s i t i on for the youngest subject, who was in Grade One. Written approval for conducting the study was obtained from the pr inc ipa l of the school which the subjects attended. Once wr i t ten approval was obtained, the parents were sent information l e t t e r s and consent forms. In order to comprehend the nature and et io logy of the c h i l d ' s motor dysfunction, a deta i led examination of each c h i l d ' s medical and developmental h istory was undertaken. The de ta i l s of the case h i s to r ie s are presented in the Appendices (see Appendix A, F and K), and the relevant features w i l l be presented in th i s chapter. 32 Subject #1 Name: C M . Date of B ir th: July 28, 1977 Chronological Age: 8.10 years Date: June 1, 1986 C M . was apprehended at birth as a result of his natural parents' non-compliance to methadone therapy for their heroin addiction. He was treated for severe heroin withdrawal during his f i r s t weeks of l i f e and was discharged from Intensive Care to foster care. C M . had neurological and behavioral sequelae as a result of his prenatal birth history and was followed closely during infancy and early childhood by a medical team of special is ts . He was diagnosed with minimal cerebral palsy and exotropia of the left eye, receiving ongoing physiotherapy, infant stimulation and speech therapy. C M . demonstrated ongoing delays in motor, adaptive, language and behavioral s k i l l s . He was noted to be i r r i t a b l e , resistant to introduction of new toys or different ways to manipulate familiar materials. C M . developed nocturnal seizures at 2% years of age and was placed on medication. He is s t i l l on medication for seizure control . C M . attended special needs pre-school, but went onto an integrated day care setting with a 1:1 special needs worker. He spent his kindergarten year in the day care program and was integrated into the kindergarten class at his local school for the last three months. He then repeated kindergarten on a ful l-t ime basis, the following year. C M . was referred to occupational therapy for evaluation of his fine motor and perceptual motor development. He was noted to be d is tract ib le in school, had problems with prehension, and poorly established hand dominance and poor basic concepts. Visual motor s k i l l s were s ignif icantly poor (VMI: 33 2.10 years, at a chronological age of 5.6 years and Motor Accuracy scoring at 2.1 standard deviation below the mean). CM. was referred for ongoing occupational therapy at a community therapy agency. Psychological testing (September 1983) found the boy's behavior and functioning pattern to resemble that of a severely learning-disordered youngster. His educational needs required a highly individualized program in a setting designed for students with multiple learning handicaps. Pr ior i t ies for planning were on controll ing behavior, increasing attention span, development of perceptual and cognitive ab i l i t i e s and acquiring basic academic s k i l l s . The recommendation was made that the multisensory approach be used extensively. CM. was placed in a small class setting at his local school the following year. He continued to demonstrate poor printing and visual motor s k i l l s . Reversals and sequencing errors persisted in his printing and organization of letters into word groupings, and spacing between words were areas of d i f f i c u l t y . Attentional def ic i t s continued to interfere with learning and output. Subject 12 Name: O.R. Date of Birth: August 3, 1979 Chronological Age: 6.10 years Date: June 1, 1986 O.R. is the youngest son of a single parent who has a university education and works in the Computer Systems Technology f i e l d . 34 When O.R. was i n i t i a l l y diagnosed with minimal cerebral palsy and b i l a te ra l club feet , his mother raised funds from various service clubs in order to take him for patterning therapy at the In s t i tu te for the Achivement of Human Potential in Ph i lade lph ia, Pennsylvania. O.R. spent his kindergarten year at a Special Needs Day Care where he exhibited a discouraged approach to tasks and had d i f f i c u l t y with a c t i v i t i e s requir ing f ine motor cont ro l . Day Care recommendations on graduation noted that areas for improvement were w r i t i n g , pencil con t ro l , se l f -conf idence, and alphabetic and numerical sequences. Psychological test ing placed O.R. with in the normal range with poor perceptual motor performance and visual motor in tegrat ion . At the end of Grade One, O.R. s t i l l required 1:1 assistance for f i ne motor s k i l l s , had no real understanding of numbers greater than ten, and was reading at the th i rd level of the Ginn Reading program. The ch i l d was s t i l l quite play-oriented and the school-based team recommended retent ion. Subject #3 Name: I.R. Date of B i r t h : October 18, 1977 Chronological Age: 8.7 years Date: This boy's h istory of English as a second language, b i l a t e r a l conductive hearing loss and extended school absenteeism have complicated the in terpretat ion of his results of psychological and language te s t i ng . His performance s k i l l s were noted to f a l l into the low average range and verbal performance was affected by his ESL background and was not f e l t to be i nd i ca t i ve of his potent ia l . I.R.'s visual motor a b i l i t i e s f e l l at the 3 r d % i l e on the Test of Visual Motor Integration at a chronological age of 5.10 years. He had d i f f i c u l t y fol lowing instruct ions and had poor coordination in c ra f t a c t i v i t i e s . He was noted to have spec i f i c weakness in language and f ine motor areas. I.R. was placed in an Observation Class a f te r an unsuccessful kindergarten year and was placed in a Junior Learning Assistance Class the fol lowing year, as he required a small c lass se t t i ng . Pr int ing was poor and he had trouble with spacing between the words. He was described as d i s t r a c t i b l e and continued to work at a low reading l e v e l . Summary Three boys with learning d e f i c i t s , motor dysfunction, visual motor integrat ion d i f f i c u l t i e s and poor p r i n t i ng , who were reading at an early Grade One l e v e l , acted as subjects in th i s study which took a case history approach to examine the appl icat ions of teaching keyboarding s k i l l s on a word processor to chi ldren with learning and motor dysfunction. Subject #l ' s medical history revealed the most severe motor involvement with abnormal ga i t , immature prehension, poorly established hand dominance and severe d i f f i c u l t y with visual motor in tegrat ion. Subject #2 had a moderate amount of motor d i f f i c u l t y with f ine motor d e f i c i t s , poor pencil s k i l l s and visual motor delay. Subject #3 presented with a motor s k i l l delay in f ine and gross motor areas, but the medical and developmental h istory did not ind icate spec i f i c neurological involvement. 36 Design Given the unique cognitive-motor prof i le s of the population under consideration, an experimental design approach to the problem was i n s u f f i c i e n t . The number of students in the study was very smal l , and on close scrut iny of the academic and developmental h i s tor ies of each student, they were poorly matched in et iology and severity of motor dysfunction as well as academic performance. A case h istory approach was chosen to place a l l the c r i t i c a l factors a f fect ing the students into perspective. This approach also allowed the invest igator to generate insights into new hypotheses based on c l i n i c a l observations and s i tuat iona l analyses during the study. The observational data were gathered in a na tu r a l i s t i c s e t t i ng , the classroom, and provided for documentation and interpretat ion of a broad range of phenomena. A s ingle case l im i ted time series was u t i l i z e d to examine the ef fects of the word processing intervention on a block sequencing task, measuring successive processing. These results formed one aspect of the data obtained during the study. The design was chosen because of the small number of subjects as well as the unique nature of the cognitive-motor p ro f i l e s of the indiv idual subjects (Hersen and Barlow, 1976). The study was presented with in the case history format and included an ABAB intervent ion design. Each phase lasted two weeks and eight contacts were made with the students in each phase. The A phase provided a baseline measurement of performance on the dependent va r i ab le , Knox Cubes, a block sequencing task. Testing of the dependent var iable was administered da i l y . 37 During the B phase, the block sequencing task administration continued and the 'Write to Read' intervention (Nash and Geyer, 1981) was introduced using the classroom word processor as a wr i t ing t o o l . The effects of the intervention are ref lected i f performance on the dependent variable shows a stable, pos i t ive trend during the B phases of the design (Towney and Gast, 1984). The intervent ion was withdrawn a f te r two weeks and the A phase was reintroduced for the next two weeks in order to reestabl i sh baseline performance of the dependent var iab le. The l a s t B phase reintroduced the 'Write to Read' in tervent ion, in order to determine i f the student 's a b i l i t y to perform a sequencing task would be affected by the keyboarding task. Comparison between phases was afforded by the ABAB design. Spec i f i c data co l l e c t i on as to b i l a t e r a l hand use, pos i t ion ing, appl icat ion of word processor command sequences and visual recognition of errors was made da i l y during the intervent ion B phases and recorded under ' C l i n i c a l Observations ' . Daily scoring of l e t t e r s per minute and errors in typed and handwritten samples was also done during the B phases of the design. The students were assessed to determine baseline performance on the Bruininsks-Oseretsky Test of Motor P ro f i c iency , Durrel l Reading Analysis and the Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration (VMI). The Word Analysis subtest of the Durrel l Reading Analysis was readministered at the end of the study. In order to teach the word processing and keyboarding s k i l l s e f f e c t i v e l y , and to develop an approach consistent with theoret ica l considerations for teaching learning-disabled students, a task analysis approach based on the simultaneous and successive processing model was 38 taken. A meaningful, conceptual framework was applied to the keyboard display and reinforced by cueing to reinforce motor learning. Measures The Bruininsks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency was used to provide a comprehensive battery of subtests to assess motor function. The Developmental Test of Visual.Motor Integration (VMI) was used to provide a measure of visual motor integration. The Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty was used to assess reading levels and to provide insight into the children's word analysis ability. The word analysis subtest was readministered at the end of the study. Knox Cubes, a subtest of the Arthur Point Scale of Performance, was utilized to act as a measure of successive processing. Bruininsks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency This battery is comprised of eight subtests which measure gross and fine motor aspects of motor development. The subtests measure: Running Speed and Agility, Balance, Bilateral Coordination, Strength, Upper Limb Coordination, Response Speed, Visual Motor Control, and Upper Limb Speed and Dexterity. Performance on these subtests is expressed as a gross motor composite, a fine motor composite and a battery composite. These scores can be expressed in standard scores or percentiles. Performance on subtests is expressed in standard scores, age equivalents and stanines. The mean of the standard score measurement is 15 with a standard deviation of 5. 39 Evidence of construct v a l i d i t y i s presented in the manual based on cor re la t ion of test scores with chronological age (.57 to .86 with a median of .78), internal consistency of the subtests (between item point scores and subtest point scores: median range of .65 to .87 and between item point scores and tota l point scores: median range of .86 to .56, and factor analysis of the subtest items with varimax ro tat ion . The manual presents studies which indicate that normal subjects perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than populations of mi ld ly retarded, moderately to severely retarded and learning disabled subjects. These learning disabled students were c l a s s i f i e d on the basis of enrollment in special education programs and were two years below grade leve l in reading. Populations in these studies were small (^ 100 subjects). R e l i a b i l i t y was established through te s t - re te s t r e l i a b i l i t y coe f f i c i en t s and standard error of measurement. These were found to be sa t i s fac tory (Bruininsks, 1978). Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration (VMI) This i s a measure of visual motor integrat ion and \" i s a sequence of twenty-four geometric forms to be copied with pencil on paper (Beery, 1982, p. I D . Studies to determine i n te r ra te r r e l i a b i l i t y , t e s t - re te s t r e l i a b i l i t y have found the r e l i a b i l i t y to be good (Beery, 1982). The VMI correlates well with chronological age (.89) and motor s k i l l (.76). The cor re la t ion between the VMI and readiness tests has ranged around .50 (Beery, 1982). 40 Raw scores are converted into percent i le ranks, standard scores and age equivalents. Standard scores have a mean of ten with a standard deviation of three. Durrel l Analysis of Reading D i f f i c u l t y This comprehensive assessment allows the examiner to observe and analyze the student 's d i f f i c u l t i e s in oral reading and word recognit ion. The analysis provides assessment and measurement of ten areas of reading a b i l i t y : Oral Reading, S i l en t Reading, Listening Comprehension, Word Recognition/Word Analys is , L istening Vocabulary, Pronunciation of Word Elements, Spe l l i ng , Visual Memory of Words, Auditory Analysis of Words and Word Elements, and Prereading Phonics A b i l i t i e s Inventories. The authors state that i t s v a l i d i t y i s attested to by i t s widespread c l i n i c a l use since i t s inception in 1932. Studies involving subtests used in Grade 1 reading measurement in September found corre lat ions with reading achievement at the end of the school year as fo l lows: Syntax Matching (.60), Writ ing Letters (.60), Ident i fy ing Phonemes (.60) and Naming Letters (.55). R e l i a b i l i t y studies for the grade leve l s of Oral and S i l en t Reading using reading rate as the factor for determining grade level found corre lat ions between Oral Reading of .85 and between S i l en t Reading of .80. The Kuder-Richardson Formula #21 was used to establ i sh the r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the rest of the subtests and presented a range of corre lat ions from .97 (Spell ing-Intermediate) to .63 (Visual Memory of Words-Primary). The population studied was a randomly chosen group of 200 chi ldren taken from Grades 2 to 6. 41 Knox Cubes Knox Cubes test i s a subtest of the Arthur Point Performance Scale, a measure incorporating f i ve subtests. Each subtest i s separately standardized and the scores are combined into a s ing le point scale (Buros, 1953). Jarman and Das (1980) task analyzed the Knox Cubes subtest and found i t to be a measure of successive visual processing. The dependent var iable was a s t r a t i f i e d sample of 55 items. These items were based on the Knox Cubes sequencing task. Block sequence patterns incorporating sequences of 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were generated at random from the pool of possible combinations and each level was equally represented in the sample. The patterns were placed on cards, shuff led and selected at random during each administration of the dependent var iab le. In th i s way, the pract ise ef fect was el iminated. The materials consisted of four 1\" square cubes made out of plain wood and glued to a wooden base at ha l f - inch i n te r va l s . Verbal d i rect ions were chosen to make the instruct ions as c lear as possible. The examiner tapped the top of the f i r s t block and the second block with the index f inger and sa id: \"You tap the blocks I tap. I f I tap th i s one (#1), then you tap th i s one too. \" If the c h i l d did not automatically tap, then his f inger was phys ical ly moved to tape the f i r s t block and the examiner sa id : \" I f I tap these (#1, then #2), which ones do you tap?\" 42 The blocks were tapped at a rate of one per second. Once the ch i l d c l ea r l y understood the d i rect ions , the examiner proceeded with the test items saying: \"Touch the blocks just l i k e I do.\" ( M i l l e r , 1982) Procedures Working at the Computer An Apple He computer and pr inter with Mi 11 iken word processing software (M i l l i k en , 1984) comprised the equipment used. The keyboard was divided into two halves, l e f t and r i gh t , by a red pencil held diagonally between T and Y, G and H, B and N. This physical bar r ie r provided t a c t i l e cueing for red i rect ing the students toward correct b i l a t e r a l hand use. A visual reinforcement of the l e f t - r i g h t keyboard s p l i t was reinforced by placing red adhesive dots on the keys \"Y\" , \"H\" and \"N \" . The r ight hand did not cross th i s l i n e and the l e f t hand typed a l l the keys to the l e f t of i t . At the beginning of each sess ion, the software was in place and the i n i t i a l desk graphic of the M i l l i k en program was on the screen. Students were required to access the wr i t i ng mode of M i l l i k e n , a two stage sequence including select ing the ' w r i t e ' menu from the i n i t i a l menu and then choosing ' w r i t e ' , once the menu appeared. The 'Write To Read' (Nash & Geyer, 1981) program card was placed in a stand to the l e f t of the monitor and angled for easy v i s i b i l i t y . The tutor was seated to the student 's r i ght . The student 's attent ion was then drawn to the f i r s t word of the 'Write to Read' card and he was asked to say the word in order to place the l e t t e r sequence of the word into the meaningful framework of language. I f the 43 student was successfu l , he was asked what the meaning of the word was and to put i t into a sentence i f th i s was appropriate to the understanding of the c h i l d . For example, to explain ' l e d ' as the past tense of ' l e a d ' was considered too complex. The student then typed a l i n e of each word fol lowing the same procedure. As he typed the tutor provided the phonetic associat ion with the i n i t i a l consonant or blend and the word ending in order for the student to hear the sound-symbol assoc iat ion. For example, the word ' r ed ' was sounded out ' ruh-ed ' by the tutor for the f i r s t three t r i a l s of the typing of the series of the word. This method was consistent with the Glass analysis method for decoding which was being used in regular classroom work. I n i t i a l blends, such as ' b r i m ' , were sounded out as ' b r ' as the student typed the corresponding l e t te r s and not as ' b u h ' - ' r u h ' . The student then typed the sentence from the 'Write to Read' card, having f i r s t sounded out and read the sentence. Errors in spacing or typing were brought to the student's attent ion i f he did not observe them himself and he was asked to use the arrows to move the cursor and the delete functions in order to correct the sentence. The student then typed the sentence again without intervention from the tutor and was expected to recognize his own errors in typing and spacing and correct them. This sentence was timed by the tutor and scored for errors of l e t t e r s and spacing. The student then printed his work on the p r in te r , a four stage sequence which involved going back to the desk graphic menu, se lect ing 'T ' for type menu, se lect ing the correct response on the type menu (#4) and pressing ' r e t u r n ' to act ivate the pr in ter . 44 Once the work was typed, the student then wrote the sentence again in his own handwriting and th i s was also timed by the tutor and scored for errors of l e t t e r s and spacing. If the student could not say the word, i t was decoded by the tu to r . For example, \" 'RED 1 , The f i r s t l e t t e r says ' r u h ' . These l e t t e r s say ' e d ' . Ruh-ed. Red.\" I f the student did not know the meaning of the word, the tutor gave him an example, in order to place the l e t t e r sequence of the word into a meaningful framework of language. I f the student was unable to provide a sentence using the word, the tutor provided a sentence in order to give meaning to the word in the context of a sentence. The students were oriented to the visual map of the keyboard by t e l l i n g a s imp l i f i ed version of the Keyboard Town Story (Gallagher, 1961) at points B#l and B#5 of each B phase a tota l of four times during the intervention phases, placing emphasis on the i n i t i a l consonant of the words chosen to represent the l e t t e r keys (banana, buh; tough, tuh) . Directions regarding the way, way uptown keys were not given (%, $, #). The major emphasis was on the locat ion of the downtown, Home Keys Street, uptown and the diagonal road cutt ing through the town. The cues 'downtown, Home Key Street, uptown and Mr. Qwert's house' were used when necessary to l i m i t the scanning time taken by the ch i l d to locate the l e t t e r keys. Detai ls of the Keyboard Town l e t t e r keys ( i . e . , Sad Sam, Frank and George) were not used as cues during the typing of the Write to Read words 45 and sentences, as th i s was judged to be potent ia l l y confusing to the students. Cueing for which hand to use for which l e t t e r key was provided by presenting the physical bar r ie r to the hand as i t t r i e d to cross the l i ne and the words, 'Try the other hand'. I f necessary, the words \"This hand types on the l e f t side of the l i n e , th i s hand types on the r ight side of the l i n e , \" were reinforced with a tap on the dorsum of the corresponding hands. Verbal and t a c t i l e cues were provided together or simultaneously or not at a l l , according to the judgement of the tu to r . Later on in the program, the students were asked to decide themselves which hands were to be used co r rec t l y . 46 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Analysis of Dependent Variable Data This evaluation was done through visual analysis of mean level lines and trend lines (using the s p l i t middle method) for stability or vari a b i l i t y . The effects of the intervention were reflected i f performance on the dependent variable showed a stable positive trend direction during the intervention (B) phases of the design (Towney and Gast, 1984). The data from measurements of the dependent variable were plotted on line graphs to allow visual inspection of changes of levels and trends of performance across the phases of the time series. Using a fifteen percent (15%) s t a b i l i t y criterion, the acceptable s t a b i l i t y range for levels and trends was calculated on the highest data point value of each of the phases. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the data points must f a l l within the acceptable criterion range for the trend to be considered stable (Towney and Gast, 1984). Statistical analysis was done using the \"C s t a t i s t i c \" treatment of the data (Tryon, 1982). Subject #1 Discussion of Test Results CM. scored below the f i r s t percentile of the battery composite of the Bruininsks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency. Gross and Fine Motor Composite scores also f e l l below the f i r s t percentile. He had a history of 47 epilepsy and continued to take medication. He had retained some pr imit ive movement patterns associated with minimal cerebral palsy (see video, Appendix E). A l l subtest scores were markedly below the mean (see Appendix C) and ind icat i ve of gross and f ine motor coordination d e f i c i t s . The Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration placed CM . below the th i rd percent i le (see Appendix C). The Durrel l Reading Analysis placed C.M.'s reading s k i l l s at the low Grade One level with the exception of the Sounds in I so lat ion subtest which was performed at the mid Grade One l e v e l . CM. was given a l e t t e r grade of ' B ' in the Pre-reading Phonics A b i l i t i e s Inventories (see Appendix C). Performance on the Word Recognition/Word Analysis subtest showed that CM . recognized two words on the f lash phase and no further recognition of any words on the analysis phase, although he was able to reca l l the i n i t i a l consonant of each word during the f lash phase. CM. pronounced the phoneme of the i n i t i a l consonant and then substituted another word beginning with the same i n i t i a l consonant during the analysis phase of the word l i s t . The Word Recognition/Word Analysis subtest was readministered at the end of the study. CM . recognized seven words in the word l i s t and decoded one more word (morning) during word analys i s . His approach to analysis was e r r a t i c , but he attempted to break the words down, being unable to combine the sounds back into words (father = f a t - r ) . On other examples, CM . added extra sounds (tree = t-o-eek, name -nam-k-eek). 48 On one example, CM. looked at the f i r s t and l a s t l e t t e r , and made a guess based on that configuration (sleep = stop. 'That ' s s, tha t ' s p, s t o p . ' ) , subst i tut ing one of his sight words. On retest ing at the end of the program, C.M.'s overal l performance on th i s subtest placed him at the low Grade One level with a quant itat ive gain in decoding s t rateg ies , but no r e l i a b l e word analysis s k i l l s emerging. His sight word vocabulary had improved. Cl in ica l Observations During Word Processing CM. a C.M.'s task approach was impulsive, and he demonstrated an i r r i t a b l e and f rustrated a f fec t which swung quickly to recognition re f lex laughter when he was successful with a strategy or made a connection between events. He was d i s t r a c t i b l e and fatigued ea s i l y . I n i t i a l l y , he started every statement with a refusal to attempt the task, followed by an immediate attempt at the task. CM. was re t i cent to t r y a new approach to problem-solving and th i s was pa r t i c u l a r l y noted in his d i f f i c u l t i e s conceptualizing the function of the return key to i n i t i a t e the next l i n e as opposed to the use of the d i rect iona l arrows, preferred use of the CAPS LOCK key instead of the sh i f t key for c a p i t a l i z a t i o n , and delet ion of ent i re words for correct ion in l i e u of the use of the d i rec t i ona l arrows to move the cursor in and out of the words, with delet ion and in ser t ion of s pec i f i c l e t t e r s or spaces using the space bar. He struggled to master cursor movement using the d i rec t iona l arrows as he had d i f f i c u l t y with grading his pressure on the keys, and th i s made locat ing the cursor at s pec i f i c locat ions on the screen i n i t i a l l y quite 49 d i f f i c u l t . He had no d i f f i c u l t y understanding where to place the cursor in order to make a change on the screen. C.M.'s f a c i l i t y with cursor movement increased steadi ly throughout the study. At the end, he was observed to make appropriate choices between correct ional s t rateg ies . CM. preferred to use one hand for typing, but could be directed toward b i l a te ra l hand use in order to f a c i l i t a t e targett ing speed. This intervention was withdrawn on days when CM . was pa r t i c u l a r l y ag i tated, as i t was judged to be too intense and complex for CM. to cope with on these days. C.M.'s d i f f i c u l t y with b i l a t e r a l coordinat ion, seen in formal te s t ing , may have been the basis for th i s ret icence. He was able to coordinate hand movement for three l e t t e r words which had the i n i t i a l consonant l e t t e r key on one side of the keyboard and the other two l e t te r s on the s ide. He had d i f f i c u l t y with three l e t t e r words which required R-L-R or L-R-L sequenced hand use. CM . also appeared to be guided by the auditory, phonetic decoding strategy used during the intervent ion. For example, PEN was decoded as P-EN and CM. seemed to use one hand for P and the other for EN, typing EN as a un i t . Words of four l e t t e r sequences which were s p l i t in hal f by the L/R keyboard or ientat ion were subject to l e t t e r reversals and CM . eventually in s i s ted on a one-handed approach to these l e t t e r s in order to get them in the r ight sequence. He rejected his newer keyboarding strategy as the degree of d i f f i c u l t y of the l e t t e r sequence increased. CM. was able to correct his errors by visual inspect ion. During the f i r s t intervent ion phase he overlooked errors in spacing, c ap i t a l i z a t i on and s pe l l i n g , but by the end of the second phase, he was typing error - f ree copy. 50 This was in marked contrast to his pr int ing which was e r r a t i c , d i s torted and characterized by reversa l s , mixed upper and lower case l e t t e r s , and poor spacing between words. Inspection of errors in the handwritten sample was impulsive and unre l i ab le . CM. had mastered the word processing commands at the end of the second intervent ion. The command sequences required reinforcement at the beginning of the second intervent ion, as they had not been retained completely during the second baseline phase. D i f f i c u l t i e s with l e t t e r recognition (b/d, 1/i) persisted during word processor use, but output of reversed l e t t e r s was eliminated and the-consistent appearance of the l e t t e r s allowed CM . a better opportunity to correct his errors by visual inspect ion. The r e l a t i ve f a c i l i t y of correct ion on the word processor served as a basis for motivation in correct ion of errors. CM. i n i t i a l l y was confused about typing lower case l e t t e r s from upper case keys. He had some d i f f i c u l t y scanning for l e t t e r key locations and seemed to be assisted by Keyboard Town cues. At the end of the study, CM. was spontaneously using two hands for typing. He did switch into a one-handed approach (preferr ing r i gh t , but also using l e f t ) , and was a l ternat ing one-handed and two-handed approaches during sentence copying. CM . did not show much enthusiasm for placing the words on the word l i s t into language contexts. These words and sentences were not pa r t i cu l a r l y meaningful for him. He used verbal mediation spontaneously as a strategy to guide himself through sequenced operations. 51 Mean Rates, Number of Errors and Error Types in Word Processing and Handwriting Each intervent ion phase was divided in half and the mean rate (letters/minute) for word processing and handwriting was ca lcu lated. The mean rates with in intervention phases were then compared. In the f i r s t intervention phase, Subject #l 's rate of word processing decreased by a mean rate of -0.43 l e t t e r s per minute. This r e f l ec t s a minimal decrease. In the second intervention phase, the mean rate increased by 5.37 l e t t e r s per minute (see Table I ) . The rate of word processing at the end of the second phase was highest of a l l previous rates. The word processing rate had f a l l e n o f f at the i n i t i a l phase of the second intervention (see Table I). These resu lts r e f l e c t an overal l improvement in rate of word processing and a drop in rate of output fol lowing the second baseline phase. The mean number of errors in word processing increased s l i g h t l y (0.75) during the intervention phase. No errors were noted in the B\u00C2\u00A3 intervention phase ind icat ing an overa l l decrease in errors over the course of the study and mastery of the word processing aspect of the task (see Table I I ) . The mean rate of handwriting increased in intervent ion phase Bi by +2.16 l e t t e r s per minute but decreased in intervention phase 63 by -1.73 l e t t e r s per minute. The mean rate of handwriting at the end of the B2 intervent ion was the lowest of a l l previous mean rates. This represents a decl ine in handwriting speed over the course of the study (see Table I I ) . 52 The mean number of errors in handwriting increased during intervention Bi and decreased during intervention B2. The mean number of errors represents a trend of fewer errors in handwriting over the course of the study (see Table I I ) . 53 Subject #1 Table I Mean Rates (letters/minute) of Word Processing and Handwriting Intervention Phase Bl B2 (Day (Day Mean Rates X 1 9-12) X? 13-16) (Day (Day X 3 25-28) X 4 29-32) Word Processing 11.37 10.94 Handwriting 10.97 13.13 8.23 13.60 10.42 8.69 Difference Between Means ( X j - X2) ( x 3 - x 4 ) Word Processing -0.43 Handwriting +2.16 +5.37 -1.73 Table II Mean Number of Errors in Word Processing and Handwriting Samples Intervention Phase Bl B2 Mean Number _ (Day _ (Day of Errors X 1 9-12) X* 13-16) (Day (Day X 3 25-28) X 4 29-32) Word Processing 1.25 1.25 Handwriting 5.5 6.0 0 0 6.75 4.0 Difference __ _^ Between Means ( X j - X2) ( x 3 - X 4 ) Word Processing 0.0 Handwriting +1.5 0 -2.75 54 Subject #1 Table III Error Types in Word Processing Samples Intervention Phase Bl B 2 Day 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Error Free Reversals Upper Case Omissions Letter Errors Extra Letters Capi t a l i z a t i o n Errors Punctuation Errors Spacing Errors X X X X 1 1 2 2 2 1 X X X X X X X Total 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 Subject #1 Table IV Error Types in Handwriting Samples Intervention Phase Bl B 2 Day 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Error Free Reversals 5 1 Upper Case 4 1 1 1 Omissions 3 4 2 Letter Errors 2 1 4 1 4 2 2 6 2 1 2 Extra Letters 1 1 Cap i t a l i z a t i on Errors 1 Punctuation Errors 1 Spacing Errors 3 2 3 5 1 3 4 5 2 1 5 2 Total 12 2 4 4 7 1 9 7 8 10 8 1 3 2 6 5 56 Subject #1 Table V Correlation of Block Sequencing Scores Between Baseline and Intervention Phases Bi B 2 .731 2.86* .92 3.10* *p .01 There was no s i gn i f i can t trend in the Ai baseline phase. There were s i gn i f i c an t trends between the f i r s t baseline and intervention phases, and between the second baseline and intervention phases. C s t a t i s t i c treatment of Ai B 2 phases was not carr ied out as th i s procedure only allows for comparison between adjacent phases (Tryon, 1982). 57 Data for Block Sequencing Task - Subject #1 Number Correct on Block Sequencing Ta\u00C2\u00ABk 50 40 30 201 1\u00C2\u00AB Baaelinei (A) H 1 1 1\u00E2\u0080\u00944\u00E2\u0080\u0094| ! h Intervention) (B) H \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I H 16 Baaeline? (A) Intervention? (B) H\u00E2\u0080\u0094I\u00E2\u0080\u0094h I ! 24 H \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I 1\u00E2\u0080\u0094I\u00E2\u0080\u0094I 1 r 32 Days Figure 1 58 Trend Lines for Block Sequencing Task - Subject #1 Number C o r r e c t on B l o c k SO Sequencing Tank AO 30 20 10 Baoeline -J I\u00E2\u0080\u0094I\u00E2\u0080\u0094I 1 1 1 f-*-*\u00E2\u0080\u0094t i n t e r v e n t i o n ! I t Daya B a s e l i n e ? I n t e r v e n t i o n ? \u00E2\u0080\u00A24 1\u00E2\u0080\u00941 1 1\u00E2\u0080\u0094t- - * \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ^ \u00E2\u0080\u0094 < -16 32 Figure 2 Within Conditions Analysis Trend S t a b i l i t y Percentage S t a b i l i t y Al Stable (100%) Bl Stable (100%) A2 Variabl e (75%) B2 Variable (75%) Between Adjacent Conditions Analysis Bx/Ax A 2/Bi Change in Trend Direct ion Change in Trend S t a b i l i t y pos i t ive stable to s table negati ve stable to var iabl e B2/A2 pos i t ive var iable to var iable Percentage of Overlap of Data Points 25% 50% 12.5% 59 Mean Level Lines for Block Sequencing Task - Subject i l Ba\u00C2\u00ABelinei I n t e r v e n t i o n ! B a a e l i n e i Number C o r r e c t on B l o c k SO Sequencing Teak I n t e r v e n t i o n - ; Days Figure 3 Within Conditions Analysis Level S t a b i l i t y Percentage S t a b i l i t y Range of Data Points Level Change Al Stable (100%) (21-23) +2 Bl Variabl e (62.5%) (23-34) +9 A2 Stable (87.5%) (22-26) -1 Between Adjacent Conditions Analysis Bl/Ai A2/Bx B2/A2 Change in Level (23-23) 0 (34-23) -11 (22-26) +4 B2 Variable (87.5%) (26-35) +4 60 Discussion of Visual Analysis of Graphic Data The data presented in Figure 1 represent a pos i t ive change in performance on the block sequencing task when the computer keyboard intervention (B) was i n i t i a t e d . The acceptable s t a b i l i t y range for leve l s and trends was calculated on the highest data point value of each of the phases of the time series using a f i f t e e n percent (15%) s t a b i l i t y c r i t e r i o n . E ighty- f ive percent (85%) of the data points must f a l l within the acceptable c r i t e r i o n range for the trend to be considered stable (Towney & Gast, 1984). Subject #1 established a baseline with a stable trend and stable level in the k\ phase. Introduction of the computer keyboard intervent ion (B) in the Bi phase resulted in a stable improving trend in performance on the block sequencing task. Days 9 and 10 r e f l e c t continued baseline performance. On the t h i r d day of intervention (Day 11), there was improved performance on the block sequencing task when compared to the l a s t day of the baseline condition (Day 8). Performance on the l a s t day of the f i r s t intervention (Day 16), was higher than on the f i r s t day of the intervent ion (Day 9). This indicated a pos i t ive e f fect on block sequencing during the intervent ion phase. Withdrawal of the computer keyboard intervention (B) resulted in a decaying, var iable trend in performance on the block sequencing task. There was an abrupt deter iorat ion in performance between phase Bi and phase A 2 r e f l e c t i n g a return to baseline performance upon withdrawal of the intervention program (B). This i s re f lected in the mean leve l s of both baseline phases. 61 Re-introduction of the intervention program (B) resulted in an improving var iable trend in performance on the block sequencing task. The f i r s t day of the second intervention phase (Day 26) indicated an improvement in block sequencing over the l a s t day of the second baseline phase (Day 24). The f i na l day of the second intervention phase (Day 32) showed higher performance than on the f i r s t day of the second intervent ion phase (Day 25). The mean level of the second intervention phase was higher than the f i r s t intervention ind icat ing a stronger performance in block sequencing in the second phase (Figure 3). The l a s t three data points (Days 30, 31, 32) ind icate a s t a b i l i z i n g level in performance on the block sequencing task during the second intervent ion. There was a 25% overlap in the number of correct response on the block sequencing task between conditions k\ and B j . The data points from the f i r s t two days of intervent ion (Days 9 and 10) r e f l e c t a continuation of baseline performance and thus overlap with data in condition A]_. El iminat ion of these data points from the range of data points in condit ion Bi resulted in a 0% overlap in data points and a strong pos i t ive e f fect on the block sequencing task performance during the f i r s t intervention phase. A 50% overlap in data points between conditions A 2 and Bi was seen. Data points from Days 17, 19 and 20 overlap with the i n i t i a l baseline level of condition Bi causing a greater percentage of data point overlap. El iminat ion of the baseline data points from the range of data points in Bi resulted in a 12.5% overlap. This was interpreted as a return to baseline performance and, given the change in trend d i r e c t i o n , strong negative ef fect on performance on the block sequencing task a f te r withdrawal of the intervention program. 62 Twelve and one-half percent of the data points between phases B 2 and A 2 overlapped and re f lected a marked improvement in block sequencing performance with the re- introduct ion of the intervention program (B), given the change in trend condit ion. 63 Subject #2 Discussion of Test Results O.R.'s performance on the Bruininsks-Oseretsky Battery Composite placed him below the l % i ^ e rank. The Gross Motor Composite was also below the l % i ^ e rank and the Fine Motor Composite score was at the 8 t h % ^ e . These scores were ind ica t i ve of gross and f ine motor dysfunction. Tonal anomalies consistent with minimal cerebral palsy with club feet were observed (see video, Appendix J ) . The Visual Motor Control and Upper Limb Speed and Dexterity subtest scores were within the average range; however, the Fine Motor Composite Score was pulled down by the score on the Response Speed subtest, which measures hand response to a moving visual stimulus. The Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration resu l t s placed O.R. at the 2 5 t h % i l e rank and his copied forms showed poor spat ia l o r ien ta t ion . Results on the Durrel l Analysis of Reading D i f f i c u l t y placed O.R. at the low Grade One level on a l l subtests with the exception of L istening Comprehension, which placed him at the low Grade Three l e v e l . The Pre-Reading Phonics Inventories were scored with a l e t t e r grade of A/B. I n i t i a l performance on the Word Recognition/Word Analysis subtest showed f i v e words recognized during the f l a sh phase with no further words recognized during the analysis phase. O.R. reca l led i n i t i a l consonants, but subst i tuted word guesses beginning with the same phoneme or gave up on the word. This subtest was readministered at the end of the study. 64 O.R. now recognized nine words in the f lash phase and eight more words during analys i s . His successful analysis attempts seemed to be based on sounding.individual l e t t e r s out and combining the sounds into words. Unsuccessful, but l og i ca l attempts revealing ignorance of i r r e g u l a r i t i e s or more complex phoneme combinations included: away: a-wee, ch i ld ren: k i l u n , other: on-er. O.R.'s overa l l performance on th i s subtest placed him at the low Grade One level with quant i tat ive and qua l i t a t i ve gains in word recognit ion and analys i s . His sight word vocabulary had improved. 65 Cl in ica l Observations During Word Processing O.R. n O.R. presented as a passive ch i l d with a f l a t unresponsive a f fec t . He tended to 'come a l i v e ' verbal ly in front of the word processor, but would revert into pass iv i ty when confronted with a complex task. He had great d i f f i c u l t y with maintaining postural tone when s i t t i n g at the keyboard. This, in turn, affected his a b i l i t y to grade his hand movements and he made a l o t of grading errors in the i n i t i a l stages of the study. As a re su l t , he was required to use the cursor frequently to delete long rows of repeated l e t t e r s and required the d i rec t ion of the cursor to spec i f i c locat ions. The rearrangements of O.R.'s seating helped him s i t upright and seemed to improve his a b i l i t y to grade his f inger pressure. This ch i l d took every opportunity to lean against something for postural support. O.R. i n i t i a l l y preferred to use one hand for ta rget t ing , but responded to cueing, seeming pa r t i cu l a r l y responsive to t a c t i l e cues in the ear ly stages of the intervent ion. He did not require any d i rec t ion for b i l a t e r a l hand use in the study. O.R. seemed to understand the word processing commands, but had some d i f f i c u l t y remembering the sequences. He frequently sought adult assistance and was subsequently encouraged to f i nd his answer on the visual d i sp lay, and even to make a few errors in order to f ind his way through the command sequences. O.R. had d i f f i c u l t y with three l e t t e r words requir ing a l ternate hand sequences and four l e t t e r word sequences were i n i t i a l l y subject to reversed order. O.R. managed to persevere with the two-handed approach and correct 66 reversal errors with visual inspect ion, using the d i rect iona l arrows to lcate the correct ive cursor at spec i f i c locat ions. On occasion, he used a tota l delete approach to correct, but generally used the more complex strategy. O.R.'s pr int ing was poorly organized in space, but did not include reversals or gross d i s t o r t i on s ; however, the lack of spacing made the handwritten samples d i f f i c u l t to read. He made errors in c ap i t a l i z a t i o n in the written sample and l e t t e r s ize was very incons istent, g iv ing the appearance of cap i ta l l e t t e r s in mid sentence. He tended to make punctuation periods into c i r c l e s and th i s added to the general confusion. On one lesson, O.R. used a dash between words on the wr i t ten sample to replace the space bar pos it ion in the typed copy. Most of his errors in the typed samples were spacing er rors , but at the end of the study, O.R. had typed er ror - f ree copy for four consecutive lessons. O.R. had no d i f f i c u l t y scanning for l e t t e r s on the keyboard. He enjoyed the Keyboard Town story, but never required addit ional cueing for l e t t e r key l oca t i on . O.R. read through the word l i s t s using the decoding strategy modelled by the tu to r . This evolved into a sight word response. Increased a b i l i t y on the Write to Read word l i s t s did not general ize into the classroom, according to his teacher. O.R. seemed to enjoy placing the words into a meaningful language context, and often came up with several meanings for the words. 67 Mean Rates, Number of Errors and Error Types in Word Processing and Handwriting Each intervention phase was divided in half and the mean rates (letters/minute) for word processing and handwriting was ca lcu lated. The mean rates within intervention phases were then compared. In the f i r s t intervention phase, Subject #2's rate of word processing decreased by a mean rate of -0.3 l e t t e r s per minute. This re f l ec t s a minimal decrease. In the second intervention the mean rate increased by 2.14 1etters/minute. The word processing rate had increased at the i n i t i a l phase of the second intervention and the rate of word processing at the end of the second phase was the highest of a l l the previous rates. These results r e f l e c t a steady gain in rate of word processing throughout the study. The mean number of errors decreased s l i g h t l y (-0.5) over the course of the study. 68 Subject #2 Table VI Mean Rates (letters/minute) of Word Processing and Handwriting Samples Intervention Phase B l B2 Mean Rates (Day (Day X l 1-4) X* 5-8) (Day (Day X 3 1-4) X* 5-8) Word Processing 10.51 10.81 12.53 14.67 Handwriting 12.41 9.68 10.72 16.77 Di fference Between Means (Xl - X2) (x 3 - x 4) Word Processing -0.3 +2.14 Handwriting -2.73 +6.05 Table VII Mean Number of Errors in Word Processing and Handwriting Samples Intervention Phase B l B2 Mean Number of Errors (Day _ o (Day X l 1-4) X 2 5-8) (Day (Day X 3 1-4) X 4 5-8) Word Processing 0.75 1 0.25 0 Handwriting 2 2.25 2.5 0.25 Difference Between Means (Xi - X~2) (x\"3 - M) Word Processing +0.25 -0.25 Handwriting +0.25 -2.25 69 Subject 12 Table VIII Error Types in Word Processing Samples Intervention Phase Bl B 2 Day 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Error Free X X X X X X X X X X Reversal s Upper Case Omissions Letter Errors 1 Extra Letters Capitalization Errors 1 1 Punctuation Errors 1 Spacing Errors 1 2 1 Total 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 70 Subject \u00C2\u00A72 Table IX Error Types in Handwriting Samples Intervention Phase Bl B2 Day 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Error Free x X X X X X Reversals Upper Case 2 1 1 Omissions 1 1 Letter Errors 1 1 Extra Letters Cap i t a l i z a t i on Errors 1 1 1 1 Punctuation Errors 1 Spacing Errors 1 1 2 5 Total 4 1 0 3 1 0 2 1 0 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 71 Subject 12 Table X C o r r e l a t i o n o f Block Sequencing Scores Between B a s e l i n e and I n t e r v e n t i o n Phases Bl B 2 1.92* 1.03 -1.13 .235 *p < .05 There was no s i gn i f i cant trend in the baseline phase (p .05). No other s i gn i f i c an t trends were noted between phases of the dependant var iab le. Because of the trend in the i n i t i a l basel ine, a comparison series between the k\ and B 2 phases was created to determine i f the trend in the treatment phase departed from the trend set in the baseline phase. No s i gn i f i can t trend was found. C s t a t i s t i c treatment of Ai B 2 phases was not carr ied out as th i s procedure only allows for comparison between adjacent phases (Tryon, 1982). 72 Data for Block Sequencing Task - Subject #2 Baseline (A) Number Correct on Block 501 Sequencing Task AO 30 20 1\u00C2\u00AB Interventioni (B) Baseline? Intervention? CB) i 6 .24 36 Days Figure 4 73 Trend Lines for Block Sequencing Task - Subject #2 Baseline) timber Correct oo Block SO Sequencing Task 40 30 20 10 - 1 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 * \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 r -Interventioni -I 1\u00E2\u0080\u0094t r-Days Baseline-? Intervention? H\u00E2\u0080\u0094d -fel ) or? the 5 0 ^ Whe\" \u00C2\u00AB\u00C2\u00BB*>e n o d d e d - i i DAD DAD DAD DAD DAD dad dad dad dad -fad f a d -fad -fad -fad -fad -fad -Fad -fad -fad had had had had had had had had had had mad mad mad mad mad mad mad mad mad sad sad s a d sad sad s a d s a d s a d sad bad bad bad bad bad bad badbad bad A bad l a d had a mad dad A bad l a d had a mad dad . Q ia 'd 1\u00C2\u00B0 A ( ) ft] 228 4 ^ jam jam jam jam jam jam jam jam jam ham ham ham ham ham ham ham ham ham ram ram ram ram ram ram ram ram ram tarn tarn tarn tarn tam tarn tarn tam tam yam yam yam yam yam yam yam yam yam pam saw the ram upset the jam. pam sawthe ram upset the jam.\u00C2\u00A3 4 *i dim dim dim dim dim r i m r i m r i m him b r i m b r i m b r i m b r i m Kim p u t t r i m on t h e Kim put f i n on t h e dim dim dim dim r i m r i m r i m r i m r i m r i m him him him him him him him b r i m b r i m b r i m t r i m t r i m t r i m t r i m t r i m t r i m t r i m b r i m o-f h e r h a t . a \u00C2\u00A9 b r i m o-f h e r h a t . I \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ' 230 C 4 * e gum gum gum gum gum gum gum gum hum hum hum hum hum hum hum hum hum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum drum drum drum drum drum drum drum p l u m p l u m p l u m p l u m p l u m p l u m p l u m Keep t h e gum on t h e d r u m . Keep t h e g n u on t h e d r u m . I 231 CM B2 #1 den den den den den den den den den ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten pen pen pen pen pen pen pen pen pen men men men men men men men men men hen hen hen hen hen hen hen hen hen Ten men chased the hen i n t o the pen. Ten men chased the hen i n t o the pen . CM / B2#2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2fin - fin f i n -fin -fin f i n - f i n - f i n f i n p i n p i n p i n p i n p i n p i n p i n p i n p i n t i n t i n t i n t i n t i n t i n t i n t i n t i n win win win win win win win win win b i n b i n b i n b i n b i n b i n b i n b i n b i n L i n w i l l - f l i p t h e p i n i n t o t h e t i n b i n . \u00E2\u0080\u00A23 L i n w i l l - f l i p t h e p i n i n t o t h e t i n b i n . A ' 233 fan fan -fan fan fan fan fan fan fan man man man man man man man man man ran ran ran ran ran ran ran ran ran can can can can can can can can can van van van van van van van van van pan pan pan pan pan pan pan pan pan Jan ran past the tan van. Jan ran past the tan van. C* ^QVQ e f t 234 fun -fun -fun fun fun -fun -fun fun fun gun gun gun gun gun gun gun gun gun run run run run run run run run run bun bun bun bun bun bun bun bun bun sun sun sun sun sun sun sun sun sun The g i r l had fun running i n the sun . The g i r l had fun running i n the sun. < j hat hat hat hat hat hat hat hat hat pat pat pat pat pat pat pat.pat pat bat bat bat bat bat bat bat bat bat vat vat vat vat vat vat vat vat vat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat Put the hat on the cat, Pat. Put the hat on the c a t , Pat. ,4f> ex' D . < a t f a t f a t f a t f a t f a t f a t f a t f a t r a t r a t r a t r a t r a t r a t r a t r a t r a t s a t s a t s a t s a t s a t s a t s a t s a t s a t mat mat mat mat mat mat mat mat mat t h a t t h a t t h a t t h a t t h a t t h a t t h a t The f a t r a t s a t on t h e mat. ,-The f a t rat. s a t on t h e mat. I I 237 C / o 5**1. d i p d i p d i p d i p d i p d i p d i p d i p d i p r i p r i p r i p r i p r i p r i p r i p r i p r i p t i p t i p t i p t i p t i p t i p t i p t i p t i p l i p l i p l i p l i p l i p l i p l i p l i p l i p h i p h i p h i p h i p h i p h i p h i p h i p h i p s h i p s h i p s h i p s h i p s h i p s h i p s h i p t r i p t r i p t r i p t r i p t r i p t r i p t r i p K'ip e n j o y e d h i s t r i p on a s h i p . 238 stop stop stop stop stop stop stop hop hop hop hop hop hop hop hop hop top top top top top top top top top pop pop pop pop pop pop pop pop pop mop mop mop mop mop mop mop map mop Can Pop hop over the mop? APPENDIX Q SUBJECT #2: OUTPUT SAMPLES 240 -Off RED RED RED RED RED RED RED RED RED FED FED FED FED FED FED FED FED FED LED LE D LED LED LED LED WED WED WED WED WED WEDD BED BED BED BED BED BED BED TED HAD A RED BED TED HED A RED BED. Qr c 5 \:\Q 241 OX 6j *\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 d e n d e n d e n a e n d e n d e n d e n d e n d e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n p e n p e n p e n p e n p e n p e n p e n p e n p e n m e n m e n m e n m e n m e n m e n m e n m e n s e n h e n h e n h e n h e n h e n h e n h e n h e n h e n T e n m e n c h a s e d t h e h e n i n t o t h e p e n . J * * J y * aft s o d w h e n \u00C2\u00AB h * \u00C2\u00BB n o d d e d . Tloe. Nod f o . l l on sad/ She VO/OCUP/I 261 //f SJ ^ d a d d a d d a d d a d d a d d a d d a d d a d d a d f a d f a d f a d f a d f a d f a d f a d f a d f a d h a d h a d h a d h a d h a d h a d h a d h a d h a d m a d m a d m a d m a d m a d m a d m a d m a d m a d s a d s a d s a d s a d s a d s a d s a d s a d s a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d A b a d l a d h a d a m a d d a d . A b a d l a d h a d a m a d d a d . 262 4 ^ j a m j a m j a m j a m j a m j a m j a m j a m j a m h a m h a m h a m h a m h a m h a m h a m h a m h a m r a m r a m r a m r a m r a m r a m r a m r a m r a m t a r n t a r n t a r n t a r n t a r n t a r n t a r n t a r n t a r n y a m y a m y a m y a m y a m y a m y a m y a m y a m P a m S \u00C2\u00AB M t h e r a m u p s e t t h e j a m . P a m s a ? f i t h e r a m u p s e t t h e J^ 263 4 *1-d i m d i m d i m d i m d i m d i m d i m d i m d i m r i m r i m r i m r i m r i m r i m r i m r i m r i m h i m h i m h i m h i m h i m h i m h i m h i m h i m b r i m b r i m b r i m b r i m b r i m b r i m b r i m t r i m t r i m t r i m t r i m t r i m t r i m t r i m K i m p u t t r i m o n t h e b r i m o f h e r h a t . K i m p u t t r i m o n t h e b r i m o f h e r h a t . 6/ *8 g u m g u m g u m g u m g u m h u m h u m h u m h u m h u m b u m b u m b u m b u m b u m d r u m d r u m d r u m d r u m p l u m p l u m p l u m p l u m K e e p t h e g u m o n t h e d r u m . K e e p t h e g u m o n t h e d r u m . ^ 255 d e n d e n d e n d e n d e n d e n d e n d e n d e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n p e n p e n p e n p e n p e n p e n p e n p e n p e n m e n m e n m e n m e n m e n m e n m e n m e n m e n h e n h e n h e n h e n h e n h e n h e n h e n h e n 0'.Z>\u00C2\u00A3~-T e n m e n c h a s e d t h e h e n i n t o t h e p e n . T e n m e n c h a s e d t h e h e n i n t o t h e p e n . Ten c W s c d i h f t h f t n i n t - n \" t ^ f p-P \ \ 266 fin - f i n - f i n fin fin fin fin fin fin p i n p i n p i n p i n p i n p i n p i n p i n p i n t i n t i n t i n t i n t i n t i n t i n t i n t i n w i n w i n w i n w i n w i n w i n w i n w i n w i n b i n b i n b i n b i n b i n b i n b i n b i n b i n L i n w i l l f l i p t h e p i n i n t o t h e t i n b i n . L i n w i l l - f l i p t h e p i n i n t o t h e t i n b i n . I 267 mt' \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 f a n - f a n f a n f a n f a n f a n f a n f a n f a n m a n m a n m a n m a n m a n m a n m a n m a n m a n r a n r a n r a n r a n r a n r a n r a n r a n r a n c a n c a n c a n c a n c a n c a n c a n c a n c a n v a n v a n v a n v a n v a n v a n v a n v a n v a n p a n p a n p a n p a n p a n p a n p a n p a n p a n J a n r a n p a s t t h e t a n v a n . J a n r a n p a s t t h e t a n v a n . 268 f u n fun fun fun fun fun fun f u n f u n f v g u n gun g u n g u n g u n g u n g u n g u n g u n r u n r u n r u n r u n r u n r u n r u n r u n r u n b u n b u n b u n b u n b u n b u n b u n b u n b u n a i r l n a a , \u00C2\u00AB n r u n n i n , * n tne s u n . T h e g i h a t h a t h a t h a t h a t h a t h a t h a t h a t p a t p a t p a t p a t p a t p a t p a t p a t p a t b a t b a t b a t b a t b a t b a t b a t b a t b a t v a t v a t v a t v a t v a t v a t v a t v a t v a t c a t c a t c a t c a t c a t c a t c a t c a t c a t P u t t h e h a t o n t h e c a t , P a t . P u t t h e h a t o n t h e c a t , P a t . Pn.t tnC n,nt QfO the. Ctit^^QLL^JJL. 270 r. K f a t - f a t - f a t - f a t - f a t f a t - f a t - f a t - f a t r a t r a t r a t r a t r a t r a t r a t r a t r a t s a t s a t s a t s a t s a t s a t s a t s a t s a t m a t m a t m a t m a t m a t m a t m a t m a t m a t t h a t t h a t t h a t t h a t t h a t t h a t t h a t T h e f a t r a t s a t o n t h e m a t . T h e - f a t r a t s a t o n t h e m a t . Tkp f p v t r^t~ Soif or\ f l o p IMMJ^ . on* J d i p d i p d i p d i p d i p d i p d i p d i p d i p r i p r i p r i p r i p r i p r i p r i p r i p r i p t i p t i p t i p t i p t i p t i p t i p t i p t i p l i p l i p l i p l i p l i p l i p l i p l i p l i p h i p h i p h i p h i p h i p h i p h i p h i p h i p s h i p s h i p s h i p s h i p s h i p s h i p s h i p t r i p t r i p t r i p t r i p t r i p t r i p t r i p R i p e n j o y e d h i s t r i p o n a s h i p . R i p e n j o y e d h i s t r i p o n a s h i p . P \" 272 s t o p s t o p s t o p s t o p s t o p s t o p s t o p h o p h o p h o p h o p h o p h o p h o p h o p h o p t o p t o p t o p t o p t o p t o p t o p t o p t o p p o p p o p p o p p o p p o p p o p p o p p o p p o p m o p m o p m o p m o p m o p m o p m o p m o p m o p C a n P o p h o p o v e r t h e m o p ? C a n P o p h o p o v e r t h e m o p ? Q'. ^ 273 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anzai, Y. and Simon H. The theory of learning by doing. Psychological Review, 1979, 86, No. 2, 124 - 140. Badian, N.A. and Wolff, P.H. Manual asymmetries of motor sequencing in boys with reading d i s a b i l i t y . Cortex, 1977, 13, 343 - 349. Bannatyne, A. The spa t i a l l y competent learning disabled c h i l d . Academic Therapy, 1978, 14, 133 - 155. Beery, K.E. Revised Administration, Scoring and Teaching Manual for the Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration. Cleveland, Toronto: Modern Curriculum Press, 1982. Borg, W.R. and G a l l , M.D. Educational Research, An Introduction. New York and London: Longman, 1983. Bruininsks, R.H. Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Prof ic iency, Examiner's Manual. C i r c l e Pines, Minnesota: American Guidance Service, 1978. Buros, O.K. (ed.) The Fourth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1953. Capehart, B.E. and McNish, M. The typewriter as an inst ruct iona l tool -what the research says. National Elementary P r i n c i pa l , 1959, 38, 23 -26. ~~ Cermak, S.A., Drake, C , Cermak, L.S. and Kenney, R. The effect of concurrent manual a c t i v i t y on the dichot ic l i s ten ing performance of boys with learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . American Journal of Occupational Therapy, (1978), 32, 493 - 499. Conrad, E. A study of the influence of manuscript wr i t ing and of typewriting on ch i ldren ' s development. Journal of Educational Research, 1935, 29, 254 - 263. Das, J.P. The uses of attent ion. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, June 1973, 19, No. 2. Das, J .P . , Kirby, J . and Jarman, R.F. Simultaneous and Successive Cognitive Processes. New York: Academic Press, 1979. Das, J.P.., Kirby, J . and Jarman, R.F. Simultaneous and successive synthesis: An a l ternat ive model for cognitive a b i l i t i e s . Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1975, 82, No. 1, 87 - 103. 274 Das, J .P . , Kirby, J . and Jarman, R. Theoretical and Methodological Issues in the Early Ident i f i cat ion of Cognitive-Developmental D i s a b i l i t i e s : Descriptions of a Longitudinal Study. In R.F. Jarman and J.P. Das (Eds) Issues in Developmental D i s a b i l i t i e s Ann Arbor: University Microfilms Internat ional, 1980. Das, J .P . , Leong, C.K. and Wil l iams, N. The re lat ionship between learning disabled and simultaneous successive processing. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1978, 11, No. 10, 16 - 23. Dresen et al physical work capacity and classroom attention of handicapped ch i ldren. International Journal of Rehabi l i tat ion Research, 1982, 5, 5 - 12. '\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Du r re l l , D.D. and Catterson, J.H. Durrel l Analysis of Reading D i f f i c u l t y (Third Ed i t ion) . New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1980. Erikson, L.W. Performance goals at the elementary l e v e l . Business Education Forum, 1972. Fox, A.M. Psychological problems of phys ical ly handicapped ch i ldren. B r i t i s h Journal of Medicine, 1977, 50, 479 - 490. Fu l l e r , P.W., Guthrie, R.D. and Alvord, E.C. A proposed neuropsychological basis for learning d i s a b i l i t i e s in chi ldren born prematurely. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, (1983), 25_, 214 - 231. Gaddes, W.H. Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s and Brain Function. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1980. Gallagher, A.M. Keyboard Town Story, Pittsburgh, Walter Adv & Pub, 1961. Hersen, M. and Barlow, D. Single-case Experimental Designs: Strategies for studying behavior change. New York: Pergamon, 1976. Hoffman, R. Piaget and microcomputer learning environments. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1986, 19, No. 3, 181 - 184. Hummel, J.W. Word processing and word processing related software for the learning disabled. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1985, 18, No. 9, 559 - 561. . \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ~~ Hummel, J.W. and Balcom, F.W. Microcomputers: Not just a place for pract ice. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1984, 17, No. 7, 432 -435. Jarman, R.F. Modal i ty-spec i f ic information processing and i n te l l e c tua l a b i l i t y . In te l l i gence, 1980, 4, 201 - 217. 275 Jarman, R.F. Cognitive processes and syntact ical structure: Analysis of paradigmatic and syntagmatic associations. Psychological Research, 1980, 41, 153 - 167. Kazdin, A.E., Hussain Tuma, A. Eds. Single Case Research Designs, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1982. Kirby, J.R. and Das, J.P. Information processing and human a b i l i t i e s . Journal of Educational Psychology, 1978, 70, 58 - 66. Kratochwi l l , T.R., N=l: An alternate research strategy for school psychologists. Journal of School Psychology, 1977, 15, No. 3, 238 -249. Ko l ich, E.M. Microcomputer technology with the learning disabled: A review of the l i t e r a t u r e . Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1985, 18, No. 17, 428 - 431. Locher, P.J. Use of haptic t ra in ing to modify impulse and attention control d e f i c i t s of learning-disabled ch i ldren. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1985, 18, 89 - 93. Lur ia , A.R. Higher Cort ica l Functions in Man. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. Lur ia , A.R. Human Brain and Psychological Processes. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. MacArthur, C.A., Shneiderman, B., Learning disabled students' d i f f i c u l t i e s to use a word processor: Implications for Instruction and Software Evaluation. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1986, j_9, No. 4, 248 -253. Magi 11, J . and Barton, L. Single subject research designs in occupational therapy l i t e r a t u r e . Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1985, 52, No. 2, 53 - 58. Merrick, N. The effect of inst ruct ion in typing on fluency and accuracy in written expression. School Review, 1941, 49, 284 - 296. M i l l e r , L.J. M i l l e r Assessment for Preschoolers. L i t t l e t o n , CO: Foundation for Knowledge in Development, 1982. Mil l i ken . Mil l iken Word Processor and Writing Workshop. St. Louis: Mil l i k e n , 1984. Nash, K. and Geyer, C. Touch to Type Typing Program. North B i l l e n i c a , Massachusetts: Curriculum Associates, Inc., 1983. Nash, K. and Geyer, C. Extended Write to Read Typing Program Curriculum Associates Inc., North B i l l e r i a , MA 01862, 1981. 276 Reid, O.K. and Hresko, W.P. A Cognitive Approach to Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981. Revusky, S.H. Some s t a t i s t i c a l treatments compatible with individual organism methodology. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1967, 10, 319 - 30. Rosegrant, T. Using the microcomputer as a tool for learning to read and wr i te. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1985, 18, No. 2, 113 - 115. Samuels, S.S., M i l l e r , N.L. Fai lure to f ind attention differences between learning disabled and normal chi ldren on classroom and laboratory tasks. Exceptional Children, 1985, 51, No. 5, 358 - 375. Sa t t l e r , J.M. Assessment of Chi ldren 's Intel l igence and Special A b i l i t i e s . 2nd Ed i t ion, Boston, Massachusetts: Al lyn & Bacon, 1982. Satz, Paul and Morris, Robin. Learning d i s a b i l i t y subtypes: a review from Neuropsychological and Cognitive Processes in Reading, New York: Academic Press, 1975. Scardamalia, M. How chi ldren cope with the cognitive demands of wr i t i ng . In C H . Fredrikson and J.F. Dominic (Eds) Writ ing: The Nature, Development and Teaching of Written Communication, H i l l s da l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 81 - 103. Se l tzer , D., Se l tzer , R. \"Typing keys unlock the doors to reading enrichment\". Business Education Forum, February 1978, 10 - 13. Stelmach, G.E. and Lar i sh, D.D. A new perspective on motor s k i l l automation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 1980, 51, No. 1, 141 - 157. Stewart, J . , Jones, B.W. Keyboarding in s t ruct ion : elementary school options. Business Education Form, Apr i l 1983, 11 - 12. Tate, M.W. Use of the typewriter in remedial reading and language. Elementary School Journal, Apr i l 1983, 43, 481 - 485. Towney, J.W. and Gast, D.L. Single Subject Research in Special Education, Columbus, Ohio: Charles & Merrell Publishing Co., 1984. Tetraud, G.E. Typewriter d ic tat ion to boost reading s k i l l s . Instructor Magazine, February 1970, LXXIX. Torgeson, Joseph. Problems and prospects in the study of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . Review of Child Development Research, 5_, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975. 277 Torgeson, J.K., Young, K.A., P r i o r i t i e s for the use of microcomputers with learning disabled ch i ldren. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1983, 16, No. 4, 234 - 237. Tryon, W.W. A s imp l i f i ed time-series analysis for evaluating treatment interventions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1982, 15_, No. 34, 34 - 429. Van Eyck, J.W. Motor development and learning d i f f i c u l t i e s : II. Academic Therapy, 1980, 5, 577 - 587. Whitmi l l , L.B. Typewriting: An integral part of the elementary and middle school curriculum. Business Education Forum, Apr i l 1973, 41 -42. Wittrock, M. Education and the Brain. Chall and Missky Eds. Univers ity of Chicago Press, 1978. Wolcott, Harry F. The Man in the P r i nc i pa l ' s Of f ice: An Ethnography, New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1973. Woodruff, E. \"Computers and the composing process: An examination of computer - wr i ter i n te rac t i on \" . The proceedings of a research/practise conference held at SWRL Educational Research and Development, Los Alamitos, Ca l i f o r n i a , Apr i l 22, 23, 1982. Woodruff, E., Bere i ter , C , On the road to computer-assisted compositions Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 1982, 10, No. 2, 133 - 147. Woodruff, E., Lindsay, P., Bryson, M. and Joram, E. \"Some Cognitive Effects of Word Processors on Enriched and Average 8th Grade Writers \" . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associat ion, San Francisca, CA, Apr i l 1986. Zogdan, B.C. and B ik len, S.K. Qual i tat ive Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Al lyn and Bacon, 1982. Cowles, M i l ley and Others. An Analysis of Young Children Learning Keyboarding S k i l l s (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 238 542, 1983). Schneider, W. and Fisk, A.D. Attention Theory and Mechanisms for S k i l l ed Performance (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 226 699, 1982). "@en . "Thesis/Dissertation"@en . "10.14288/1.0054362"@en . "eng"@en . "Special Education"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en . "Graduate"@en . "Applications for keyboarding with students with motor dysfunction"@en . "Text"@en . "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/26923"@en .