Speach Rec SW & dysgraphic children

I think SRS helps 2 distinct types
1) keeping up with the flood of text production. ie the quantity is impossible for the student to manage. One would hope that the student is receiving the occupational therapy for motor-planning or the expressive written language therapy to cope with the underlying deficit. The student is able to keep up with content material and normal school procedures while remediating underlying deficts. The reality, however, is that the brain is a tricky organ and remediating these deficits is sometimes very, very difficult. Most schools remediate only academic problems (many have great difficulty offering even that!) not the underlying sensory integration or processing issues. If you look at the parenting with ld board on this site you will see that this is a huge area of concern. Many parents pay for the listening program, tomatis, desensitization, earobics, fastforward, interacrtive metronome, pace, neuronet, vision therapy, etc with no guarantees of success. Many of the programs available have limited independent testing. most are not covered by insurance.

2) some students simply may not be able to produce work written at their cognitive level without assistive technology. The disability is real and can be severe.

The question of addressing individual needs is not unique to speech recognition. With any accommodation, modification or, for that matter, teaching technique we do best by looking at the individual. There is no blanket rule — that speech recognition keeps the kiddo from learning to write, for example.
Addressing the motor needs heads on and using speech recognition software are not mutually exclusive.

Thank you for opening the speech recognition software (SRS) discussion by directing attention to how SRS is an assistive technology that can help a student keep pace with the status quo, as well as better match their comprehensive cognitive talents within a school system’s academic requirements. The lament and the issue of the limited testing of commercial educational programs that mmm, brings to this discussion is a good one, something that is echoed by many. Thank you as well to the listing products.

I couldn’t agree more that remedial intervention in form of training and teaching is of great concern and is basic to a developing child. This concern is what prompted initial posts question.

For clarity, posting this question does not generate from a need for intellectual uniqueness; it is asked openly to generate a dialogue on how a technological/computerized assistive learning system that is structured from and focuses on phonetic, visual sensory integration for transcription of cognitive output services (or disservices), kinesthetic/motor-learning, specifically, handwriting for dysgraphic and other Ld children who are poor writers.

For conversations sake, I disagree that SRS and motor-learning needs are not mutually exclusive on a few basic points. The most apparent is that SRS does not call for a student to exercise their proprioceptive senses, eye-hand coordination, or fine motor skills by creating letter-forms, sentences etc., while they are engaged in transcriptionally processing their thoughts. Another is the accrued time that a child may be allotted SRS vs. Handwriting (HW) training. Focus of attention is on the proportionate use of an assistive technology over a tutorial training system while in the formative years of K-4 (or 6.)

I suspect that data of SRS use over handwriting training have not been tabulated. However, if the collected data of classroom training, and attitudes toward the importance of HW to levels of legible automaticity from the 1990’s remains constant the curve could swing disproportionately toward SRS.

As reference:

In 1993 a preparator of educational materials mailed out 4,970, surveys to US, “regular” K-6 grade schoolteacher’s that inquired of their classroom handwriting methods, materials and personal educational backgrounds, of this population 52% (2,584) replied. The high end of classroom time dedicated to handwriting instruction amounted to 60 minutes per week (12 m. per day), the low end tallied to 30 minutes per week (6 min. per day)[per day averages are rated by a 5hr. day]. Only 36% of the teachers attributed that they received some form of formal handwriting (HW) training while pursuing their teaching credential. (Zaner-Bloster, 1993)

Further, in a similar inquiry that targeted Special Education teachers who belonged to LD professional organizations some 274 questionnaires were circulated, with a return rate of only 34% (93). From that population 70% (65) attributed that, “regular” teachers taught handwriting, emphasizing, their role was to provide supplementary support “as needed” (Stien, R. A., 1990). From parental reports I have received the average amount of time a private, and in school OT spends on handwriting amasses to 15 minutes a week. (I have not formally sought or prepared these specific OT training times, therefore, they may vary from a teacher and student as needed).

As a point of interest to the percentage of survey/questionnaires returned, the percentage of teachers who received formal HW training, and primarily the classroom instruction directed to HW we should look at what is in the literature regarding the general methodology and educational attitudinal philosophy of handwriting instruction over the past 40 years.

If these figures suggest that there is an educational deficit in HW training, the responsibility should not be lumped on the teachers or OT’s alone (Sheffield, B., 1996.) Within an article “Handwriting: a Neglected Cornerstone to Literacy” Sheffield who is an LD Specialist fellow for Orton Gillingham Academy notes that 48 out of 50 states returned surveys asking whether teacher certification called for teaching reading and writing. From the 48, 29 states called for coursework in reading for teaching at the elementary level and only 8 out of the 48 reported writing requirements The term “writing” may be a generalized into a Language Arts program and therefore may be skewed (Sheffield, B 1996.)

However (and maybe because of this) the persistent educational template for handwriting (fine motor-skills, hand - eye & mind) training has slipped into a “Whole Language” methodology of instruction. This excerpt from Grahm & Weintraub sums an attitudinal approach that is akin to an observation that motor-skill training and reading is not mutually exclusive. ” A skill should be taught when a particular child needs it for something else the child is working on.” (Edelsky, C. 1990) via. (Grahm S. Weintraub N. 1996)

(When referring to writing within a motor-learning context the act of handwriting; i.e. structural, precision, fluidity, and legibility are defined as the focus, not literary composition.)

Some educators attest that this shift sprang from a belief that technology, i.e., tape recorder, typewriter, and computer would supersede handwriting as mode of cognitive processing and communication (Phelps J., Stemple L. 1987.) Subsequently, overtures to handwriting instruction formed to something of a fashion with little empirical foundation (Alston J. & Taylor, J. 1987.) that relies on the manners by which each individual instructor has been, or was not taught while attending grade school. Handwriting instruction was (is) then passed along to students as one may play the parlor game “Did you know…” The game starts from a whisper of something to your neighbor and thereafter this message is passed around the circle. When the initial message makes it around the room (2+ generations of teachers) initial message has changed greatly, potentially to a level that is no longer comparable to the original.

How this has changed in light the presence of SRS for dysgraphic and dyslexic children who are poor writers would be welcome information.

Nonetheless, let’s take an argument of individual differences in teaching styles among teachers, and the issue magnifies.

Imagine the level of confusion/frustration that a K-4 (or 6) child encounters from successive teachers through advancing grades (and/or periods of the day) that value one form/style of HW training, or its level of importance to another? Add to this, a factor of emphasizing an assistive technology that can override the outward apparent need for handwriting altogether and don’t we kick up confusion level another set of notchs? If requisite standards are amorphous (classroom interface times, methods and diligence) and potentially demphasize sustained remedial HW motor-learning programs in favor of assistive technologies, aren’t we setting a course that leads to prosthetic dependence? Are there any checks and balance between the utilization of an assistive technology that compensates for a deficit without direct remedial address to the training (or retraining) of the deficit itself?

The subjectively of this argument could be bantered back and forth even without addressing individual differences among students. Yet, it is for the students and the methods that address their individual differences through the introduction of technological tutoring and assistive systems that the posted question asks.

Are we fitting a child with a cognitive prosthesis, instead of physically addressing a child’s individual educational needs?

I can see the broadly generalized local and global advantages to SRS; e.g., Potentially higher self-efficacy from being outwardly accredited with the intelligence they inwardly have. Followed by an improvement in grades so that they no longer poise a deficit to the State, local district, or classroom scholastic ratings. However, what becomes of this child when these systems are not available to them?

As adults we should ask ourselves how often a day and in what critical circumstances we are asked to fill out a form, or write a note for someone else. We should also honestly ask ourselves how we scrutinize and stereotype individuals by their handwriting legibility, to say nothing of the ability to spell correctly.

For conversation I’ll argue that there is the potentiality of a mutually exclusive divide between the kinesthetic/motor learning training/education that enables a child to readily, and self assuredly transcribes their thoughts, and an assistive SRS visual and phonetic sensory integrative mode of cognitive self, academic and occupational expression. This exclusivity is apparent by definition of what an assistive and a tutorial mode of technological instruction gives a child when the technology is not available.

Then again this may be a mute issue to those who may never go outside an extension cord length of an electrical plug, or have pockets full of “Energizer Bunnies.” (-:

References:

Alston J. & Taylor, J. 1987. Handwriting: Theory, Research and Practice. London & Sydney: Croom Helm.

Edelsky, C. 1990. Whose agenda is it Anyway? A response to Robinson, and Miller. Education resource 19: 7-19.

Grahm S. Weintraub N. 1996. A Review of Handwriting Research: Progress and Prospects from 1980 to 1994, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 8 No.1.pp.7-87.

Phelps J., Stemple L. 1987. Handwriting: Evolution and Evaluation, Annals of Dyslexia vol. 37 pp. 228-229

Sheffield, B 1996. Handwriting a Neglected Cornerstone of Literacy, Annals of Dyslexia 1996, p. 21-35.

Stien, R. A. (1990). Teacher recommended Methods and Materials for Teaching Penmanship and Spelling to the Learning Disabled, ERIC Document Reproduction Service (ED 334735), Michigan.

Zaner-Bloster (1993). The Zaner-Bloser Handwriting Survey: Preliminary Tabulations, Zaner-Bolster, Columbus Ohio.

As a teacher I will tell you that I was not well trained in the teaching of reading or the teaching of handwriting. My training in assistive technology has been non-existant.

As a parent of a very verbal and creative child, I will tell you that his teachers have not been well trained in reading, handwriting or assistive technology. Any training he has had, any progress he has made, has been fought for at every turn.

So, although he does not read or handwrite well he learns and he composes. How to get these thoughs into legible form is a matter of great concern. Presently he uses a tape-recorder and I type for him. He dictated a 102page novel which I typed. I am looking at screen reading software and speech recognition so that he has more independence. As in all we do we are left to our own resources to figure out what to buy and how to help him learn to use it.

For parents and students in need of remediation or assistive technology there are very few resources available even for those of us in the special education field.

Angela,
There should be an assistive technology team available through your son’s school. EVERY child on an IEP MUST be considered for AT according to federal law. Has you son been evaluated for AT? If not, you should ask for an assessment so that he will have an opportunity to try out text to speech software (there are several different programs, depending upon the needs of the student) and speech recognition software.

Ah, Karen, we did have an Assistive Technology eval when my son was in 7th grade in our (his and mine) public school district. As was typical with them they did not (would not, could not) follow up with any services. We have since moved our son to a private LD school. While it has many good qualities, AT is not one of their strengths. Our son does not have an IEP at this point. I do work for a large district with an AT department, so I am going to at least get some advice from them. I did just fnd booksource.org and plan to look into its DAISY screen reader. I was going to purchase Kurzweil, but this may be a less expensive way to let my son try e books read to him. Thanks for the advice.

Make that bookshare.org

You are correct that *when* you are using speech recognition you’re not working on the handwriting skills.

However, there is absolutely nothing that says that at another time of the day, those skills cannot be addressed.

You’re right, lots of teachers have inadequate training in handwriting issues. Even fewer are trained in how to get a student going in speech recognition.

Your thesis is interesting but very, very ivory tower and abstract. YOu do touch on a real issue — what do we give up when we to accommodate, whether instead of or in addition to remediating?
Until you *get* those teachers out there trained to remediate whether in handwriting or something else, and give them the setting making it possible to do that remediation, then it’s often a necessary compromise to give the student the devices that enable them to fulfill the requirements of the classroom.

Thank you for acknowledging the basic premise of my question, though I am surprised to find the personalized opinion/critique attached to it. From the brevity of your statements you must be a well-known contributor to this forum.

The issue of training instructors, classroom setting and most specifically study time allotted to minimize compromising skill sets in order to fulfill classroom requirements is also within the fabric of my questions concern.

It would be a shame to relegate to a second or third level of importance one of Piaget’s (et. al.) primary observations of sensory motor integration and childhood education, especially if this is a specific issue such as that of a child who expresses dysgraphic traits.

I mention this next article not to beleaguer the issue but because it supports an inference that the easiest path will often be taken; even if that path may inadvertently or purposely side-step skill sets that are necessary to the child.

In 1987 MacArthur and Graham ran an experiment that looked at Handwriting dictation and word processing at 5 and 6th grade levels. (MacArthur, C and Graham, S. 1987. Learning Disabled Students’ Composing with Three Methods: Handwriting, Dictation, and Word Processing. Journal of Special Education 21 (3): 22-42.)

Their study is mentioned by Betty Sheffield (previously cited) wherein; she notes that the results of quantity and quality of expressive composition via dictation (e.g. could be equated with SRS) over handwriting -dictation was NINE times better than handwriting.

At face value this shoots the disparity of SRS and HW motor skills down by inferring that SRS/dictation is a better mode of composing. However, even more interesting are the results that found that dictation was TWENTY times better than word processing.

Correct me if I am wrong but, it appears that if a child shows persistent dysgraphic traits they are summarily directed to word processing. Then if they have difficulty with typing SRS is introduced. This scenario sets motor skill training to a third level default. In the end, negating the source of the problem.

Handwriting (graphic motor-skills) can be taught to a student on an individual level using contemporary technology. Technology that also interfaces with speech recognition software so that phonetic, spelling and word recognition skills can be built with a sense of similitude along side fine motor skills. There are a few of us out here that are working on such hardware and software that aims to minimize the staid sets of compromise that you mention.

May I suggest some good reading that may open some interesting new avenues and methodologies to Ld education?

William Battig was a big believer in striving for the highest goal even though it may be more difficult to obtain in the short run.

He is noted for introducing the backbone of instruction that has come to known as contextual interference. This method allows a someone to broaden their cognitive and multi-sensory orientations while engaged in learning something new and therefore set the information/skill deeper into their long-term memory. His work was picked up by several others such as Shea and Zimny et. al. It is really fascinating and is beginning to show promise with special cases such as children with learning disabilities.

You know -look for solutions not just brief answers.

Good work to all of us! But most importantly, to those who might help us along the way.

Battig, W.F. (1979). The Flexibility of Human Memory. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of Processing in Human Memory. (pp. 23-44) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Battig,W.F. (1966). Symposium on Coding and Conceptual Processes in Verbal Learning: Evidence for coding Processes in “Route” Paired-Associate Learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 177-181.

Shea, J. B., & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual Interference Effects on the Acquisition, Retention and Transfer of a Motor Skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5. 179-187.

Shea , J. B. & Zimny S. T. (1983). Context Effects in Memory and Learning Movement Information. In R.A. Magill (Ed) Memory and Control of Action (pp. 345-365). NY, North-Holland Publishing Company.

“Correct me if I am wrong but, it appears that if a child shows persistent dysgraphic traits they are summarily directed to word processing. Then if they have difficulty with typing SRS is introduced. This scenario sets motor skill training to a third level default. In the end, negating the source of the problem.”

Yes, this is my experience both in my middle school classroom, but more specifically with my son. Motor issues were NEVER addressed in the early grade where they might have been remediated. But then other issues (reading, spelling) were not addressed either. The school took a wait and see if this gets better on its own approach. He did not have an OT evaluation until 7th grade because I insisted and hired an advocate. He does not have the motor skills to type and nothing was really suggested to help him. As far as speech recognition, his teachers are not trained in using the software, even if they had the equipment. I had a student who was given an Alpha Smart in 8th grade with absolutely no instruction on how to use it. Most schools are woefully unable to provide much help to an LD child.

Here is an idea:

From the flow of conversations that have grown from the original post, it seems that this LD Online web site could use a new forum/bulletin board category -

Perhaps one that was directed to teachers and parents who are seeking input on educational seminars on methodologies, technologies (maybe even legal support) for their children i.e., students, or sons and daughters.

Such a board may offer a quick way for teachers and parents who home school to exchange experiences on how they have bolsterd their hard earned experiential manners and accademic of methods of teaching.

It may also be a good way to feel out by asking what others experience was of a seminar of courses that was billed as an LD teachers training class.

And as well ask about how to find classes that can up date hem on leagal and other issues that may circulate around funding.

just a thought.

Until, if ever, the dysgraphia is resolved, how will the child keep up in school?

That’s the age old dilemma. Children with LD must ‘catch up while keeping up’. But how is that really possible?

I’d also say that to my knowledge dysgraphia is not well remediated by motor training. A true dysgraphia is not a motor issue at all.

Sara,

Thank you, for returning the discussion to some underling keynote expressions that have run through other posts within this thread.

Angela in CA‘s compassionate and compelling posts have heartfeltly expressed a present tenseness that only a concerned parent and teacher could express.
Your salient notation also weaves within this tread.

>”Until, if ever, the dysgraphia is resolved, how will the child keep up in school?”

This is a frustrating dilemma that sprints back to an evolving variation to the original post. Should we promote via prosthetics, or invest in root/systemic educational training?

>”That’s the age old dilemma. Children with LD must ‘catch up while keeping up.’ But how is that really possible?”

The maxim, “ ‘catch up while keeping up’ ” sounds plausible given the paradigm that an LD child is intrinsically by psychological norms and extrinsically by academic/societal standards partitioned to the same quadrant of responses as a child without Ld traits ( I my be straying to a related but separate question that could be posted.)
There has been and continues to be a great deal of discussion along the lines of Hicks Law and I. Q. (Jensen, A. R. (1993). Why is reaction time correlated with psychometric g? Current Direction in Psychological Science, 2, 53-56.) An interesting (and humorous) study that refutes this conjecture is: Vickrey,-Coryn; Neuringer,-Allen, (2000) Pigeon reaction time, Hick’s law, and intelligence. Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2000 Jun; Vol 7(2): 284-291.

How is it really possible? I suppose that we must not resign ourselves, remain open to new research and with especially keen senses to those whom we wish to reach.

>”I’d also say that to my knowledge dysgraphia is not well remediated by motor training. A true dysgraphia is not a motor issue at all.“

A true dysgraphia?

Please elaborate on this term.
Does the definition of a true dysgraphia extend beyond ocular culminates that involve the posterior parietal cortex and magnocellular transfer to the kinesthetic operative ability to act or react? Subjective observations are keen and often key to leading empirical studies, please
define what a true dysgraphic is.

Sharing [your] knowledge is what this is all about.
At best we are all questioning, seeking cumulative and progressive ways to address and circulate constructive conversations on this issue.

Please go on,

Bill

You’re right, I’ve been around here a while. You’re also right that there’s room for theoretical discussion — it’s a mistake to say “oh, but that’s not how it is” and stop considering possibilities.
I guess it’s becuase I completely and utterly agree that it’s a mistake to abandon motor skills for technology… at least a mistake to believe that that’s the better option. And yes, it adds insult to injury to have a middle school or high schooler with unaddressed motor developmnet needs told “ok, you have dysgraphia. We’ll give you access to word processing!” Funny thing, the same motor issues don’t disappear in front of a keyboard, either, and these folks don’t learn typing by osmosis.
I do find the study that would seem to indicate writing is better than word processing because dictation was 20 x as good ais it was interesting. This is contrary to my experience — I generally see an increase in quality and quantity when kids are turned loose with word processors (and there are a goodly number of studies showing the same thing in circulation). It would be interesting to tease out the differing factors there.
I guess my feeling is that the problem to be addressed is not in determining whether or not graphomotor issues should be addressed. It’s that bigger issue of dealing with the long term instead of the short term.
For that matter, the issue could be broadened… we too easily put humans in cars instead of on their legs or bicycles, and don’t develop all kinds of motor skills and fitness… but I digress :)

Dysgraphia is like dyslexia — you have to get it defined more specifically for individual students. For lots of people it really does mean a motor handicap — difficulty with the motor task of handwriting. It can happen without any cognitive issues whatsoever — though the language skills will end up being affected because writing is a language skill that requires tons of practice.
I’d even venture to say that there are students who have remediatable dysgraphia … which I think is one of Bill’s main points. If we get started early and don’t give up the task, the motor skills can catch up.
OTOH I don’t think the language skills should be held back while waiting for graphomotor skills to develop.
Difficulty organizing language for writing is a different animal and of course a whole lot more complicated.

I have a “dysgraphic” daughter. She receives private OT, public school OT. She now has very nice handwriting; however, copying from the board is extremely slow, full of omissions and errors, unless she has LOTS of time.

She uses a word processer/Dana and it helps her stay up with the rest of the kids that can write faster.

She dictated the FCAT answer (spoke up and said that’s what she wanted to do when asked). She told the ESE teacher, “I do better when I dictate”.

She’s still “dysgraphic”, though much improved. She has fine motor problems, SI problems, VPD, and motor planning problems. She began remediation at age 7. (beginning of 2nd grade due to late b-day).

I can’t even begin to verbally dialogue with Bill, but just wanted to add my 2 cents about personal experience.

It is amazing how quickly our children grow and trying to fix the problems and still let them have an education and a life is a major hurtle for us and our child. He doesn’t have the motor skills to write or to type. He thinks and talks and composes at lightening speed and writing is so labored and then so illegible, too. So we find a middle ground. Some work is dictated, some is rewritten, some is left alone so he can relax and we can enjoy our time as a family.

Our new computer arrived yesterday and I have Dragon to load and learn, a Kurzweil order to place, and a bookshare application to fill out. Plus I have a big boy to entice to learn these new things. But he has another novel in the works and I think once I show him how technology can help, he’ll put in the effort needed.

Two more years until college and we have lots to do.

I am very interested on how it goes with Dragon, Kurweil et al.

I understand that the Kurzweil has “changed the lives” of some kids. My friends is getting one (it just arrived) for her very dyslexic 9th grader. (She’s been asking since last July and it’s the 3rd 9 wks).

Please post and let us know how it helps your son.

I installed Dragon Preferred 6.0 this evening and my son read the training passage that years ago was quite difficult. (Yeah, his reading is improving!) He then played with the program for a few minutes and it performed beautifully. Within days he should be dictating a homework assignment. He seemed happy and I am thrilled.

It will be a little while for Kurzweil. I spoke to the sales rep, but have not sent in my order yet. I am planning to start with just the read software, so he can read email and internet sites.

For bookshare.org I have to get a disability verification from school. Then his membership will allow him to download books to read on the screen. He really prefers audio books, but I know there will be good uses. His English class was reading Julius Caesar and he could have accessed the passages he needed on the computer.

My plan is to get him using technology independtly on the desktop at home. Eventually, he’ll have a laptop that will go with him to classes and eventually to college.

I appreciate your interest and support. I’ll keep you posted.

Squeegee, squeegee…

It seems that dozen eggs I’ve been juggling have came down, so pardon the need to wipe the egg of my face before I begin this post.

Leah-FL and Angela in CA, the descriptions of your children and the educational struggles you contend with are exactly who and what I am working for and toward. All of the work so far would be for not if communications are lost or seem inapproachable.

I’ll try not to stutter too much here…

Two main things struck me from your most recent posts.

Leah, that your child has nice handwriting, yet it falls out when she works from the board.
And Angela, that your child doesn’t have the motor skills to type or write.

Angela, may I be precocious and ask if your boy can follow, mimic gestures, even if they are large and abstract at first. If this works may be these can be scaled down to simulate handwriting movements. Can he sign/write his name?

Leah, this disconnect that you describe is a large part of why I think that computerized intervention may be very useful in the training of handwriting, reading and audio verbal tutoring systems. I am working on trying to integrate the moter skills into the stream of technological devises and systems that you all are struggling to get hold of.

Recently research has found that dyslexica can be expressed through defects (harsh term, so let’s say synaptic lapses) of magnocellular functioning. This part of the brain attributed to the recognition of motion among other things. When we take this and couple it with a low threshold of visual tonal contrast, we may be able to then describe how “noise” presents itself to a dyslecic’s sensory perceptive and cognitive information processing pathways. (I’m using the term noise as a general term used in signal detection theory. It does not specifically infer auditory distraction but more so distraction as a whole.)

A systems engineer likes to eliminate noise from a system so that all the information that comes in can go directly to where it is intended to go. But then we are not an engineers system and the curiosities of sensation and intention is amazingly individual. Yet there are norms that can be used as guides. The whole means, mode, and median curve thing.

What I’m getting at is, when your children’s attention and intention is focused to a dynamic translation of a lesson (task) that is within their proprioceptive reach they tend to receive more of the information than they would say as the information is presented on the chalk board. That’s how a computer and in Angelas situation her unwavering dedication to serve as the conduit for her son works as well as it does.

But you all intrinsically know this, unfortunately it takes lots of checks and double checks before any of these observations come to form in a tangible manner. If the trails show promise this may change.

I wish there was more I could do at this moment other than say
we/I’m working on it, and your and the many other posts on this board have encouraged me to work harder.

Bill

Readings:

The Role Of Importance And Interest In Processing Text

Alexander P. A., Jetton T. L. (1996) The Role Of Importance and Interest in Processing Text Educational Psychology Review 8,1,
89-121

The Neural Consequences Of Conflict Between Intention And The Senses

Fink, G. R., Marshall, J. C, Halligan, P. W., Frith, C. D., Driver J. R., Frackowiak S. J., & Dolan R. J., (1999), The Neural Consequences of Conflict Between Intention and the Senses Brain 122, 497–512.

Neuromotor Control In Handwriting And Drawing: Introduction And Overview

van Galen, G., Morasso, P. (1998) Neuromotor Control in Handwriting and Drawing: Introduction and Overview Acta Psychologica, 100: 1-7.

Contrast sensitivity and coherent motion detection measured at photopic luminance levels in dyslexics and controls.

Cornelissen, P., Richardson, A., Mason, A., Fowler, S., & Stein, J. (1995). Contrast sensitivity and coherent motion detection measured at photopic luminance levels in dyslexics and controls. Vision Research, 35, 1483-1494.

Differences In Eye Movements And Reading Problems In Dyslexic And Normal Children.

Eden, G.F., Stein, J.F., Wood, H.M., & Wood, F.B. (1994). Differences in Eye Movements and Reading Problems in Dyslexic and Normal Children. Vision Research, 34, 1345-1358

Visual motion sensitivity in dyslexia: Evidence for temporal and energy integration deficits.

Talcott, J.B., Hansen, P.C., Assoku, E., & Stein, J.F. (2000). Visual motion sensitivity in dyslexia: Evidence for temporal and energy integration deficits. Neuropsychologia, 38, 935-943. [PDF] http://www.cogneuro.ox.ac.uk/dyslexia/neuropsychologia_2000.pdf

Dynamic sensory sensitivity and children’s word decoding skills.

Talcott, J.B., Witton, C., McClean, M.F., Hansen, P.C, Rees, A., Green, G.G.R., & Stein, J.F. (2000). Dynamic sensory sensitivity and children’s word decoding skills. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 97, 2952-2957. [download PDF] http://www.cogneuro.ox.ac.uk/dyslexia/ldunit_pubs.html

Thanks for continuing your quest to help our kids.

Bill, you are so kind to care and to try to apply the impressively complicated knowledge you have to the real world in which LD children and their families live. It is quite a foreign concept to me as a parent and the reason why I frequent this site and bbs where there are people who know what we face.
My bright and very verbal little boy did not learn to read or write in the primary grades. The school pretty much teaches one way and if your child doesn’t learn, it is his fault and your fault. Nothing that costs money in terms of evalualtion, training, or implementing is suggested by the schools. Every manner of expert is quick to give a fancy diagnosis and then send you on your way with no idea what to do now. It is my understanding that my son has motor planning issues (from the Occupational Therapist), finger tapping issues and auditory processing issues (from the neuropsychologist). He has a pencil grip that uses the tips of all his fingers to hold the pencil. He did learn to write his signature. He can type about 6 to 8 words per minute, but he can’t spell. He prints most of his school assignments but the spacing is poor and most of it is unintelligible.
These difficulties make him an invisible and expendable child. Oh well, he won’t learn to read. He won’t graduate. His (and my) school district had some access to assitive technology, but rarely implemented its use. A few children were sent home with an Alpha Smart, but no directions about how to use it. I had speech recognition and kursweil on the library computer at the school, but no one except me was interested in learning to use them in order to teach our students (45 eighth graders).
My son now attends a private college prep high school of LD students. While they do many things right, they have no skill in assistive technology. So I am driven to do these things myself. My son is growing. He is a wonderful son with a wonderful mind and I refuse to allow him to be unchallenged and unfulfilled. I want an independent life for him and if I do not make it happen, it won’t. I have a cousin who is blind. He is an attorney who travels all over the country to work with his clients and the courts. His computer reads to him and he makes other things happen. No one made him sit on the corner with a cane and a cup. My son’s disability is smaller by comparison, but it is also often ignored by the very community that should be helping him.
Assistive technology offers a way to get things done. I am the parent and the teacher. I will learn to help my son and through his example other children will have a chance, too. Your job, Bill, as I see it, is to make this stuff work and then God help us both to get it to the children who need it.

He dictated the first actual assignment tonight and it was hard. It is a struggle not to watch the screen and go word-by-slow-word–which the program doesn’t understand. It took about a half hour to get one page dictated. Still, we made it through and I know it will get better. Phew!!!

Congratulations!

I have seen some folks, primarily adults I’ve worked with, simply turn the monitor off or cover the screen while learning to dictate. Then every so often they go back and take a peek. It seemed to work well for them. Most people can’t learn to type very well either if they keep looking at the screen.

John

AS an OT in the school system. I can tell you most teachers are not providing students with an organized explicit method of teaching handwriting. Few students magically learn this on thier own. Some students need tons of practice. It needs to start in the ealy grades prewritning and some writing in kindergarten, Capitals and lower case in 1.2 grades and cursive in 4 & 5. Good teaching methods and some time allocated each day, even 15 minutes per day, would minimize the writing problems we see in the 6th grade and above. By then, it’s usually too late mainly, becuse the student does not want handwritng remediation in middle school, therefore we go to AT/keyboarding.

RA,
Thanks for bringing it back to the main page.
Time, staging, diligence, practice, & the willingness to instruct.
Imbuing a childs self confidence with the ability to create something directly communicative with their hand is a great and immediate thing.

I have been using this bulletin board for assistance in trying to select some technology to help my LD students. .

To understand why handwriting and spelling have fallen onto the wayside, I think you would have had to attend the workshops we had for whole language about 10 years ago.. All the “skills” that teachers used to focus on— letter formation, letter sounds, went out the window. So, you had teachers talking about the alliteration in the text and having the children write an alliterative poem, meanwhile, kiddo is sitting there thinking, “down, ….around, ….back up. ” Early grade levels were urged to write at length, but didnt know enough about letter formation, grammar, spelling and punctuation to do it, and relied on teacher editing to fix errors. I have felt by asking students to write more before they have some basics, we actually are teaching them less. :roll:

Our supervisors are very negative about worksheets, everything must be a center with social interaction and meaningfulness built in. They abhor any drill type work. Other workshops I have attended used the term automaticity– forming letters and having a firm letter sound association should be done without thinking so the child can focus on communicating. But we move the kids too fast into writing extensively and then editing their mistakes. Then in third and fourth grade, when they are still dependent on our editing, we wonder whats wrong.

Just some comments:
Someone mentioned that handwriting is not a motor issue, not quite. It is not a FINE motor issue. A child can have terrific fine motor skill and be dysgraphic. It is a grapho-motor issue. I’m not sure how this fits in in the grand scheme of learning in the Piagetian sense. Probably not at all.
There is nothing natural about reading and writing, we are sort of using existing equipment and putting brand new schema (to use a Piagetian term) on that equipment and saying “do it”. And not eveyone’s does.

I have no doubt that it might be better in the theoretical world to try and remediate handwriting first. But this is the real world where kids are given homework and asked to keep up. Handwriting can be a tricky thing to remediate where the remediation is not exactly going to produce efficient clear handwriting but merely be a way for the person to be able to print or write notes clearly. Gosh there is a big need for that, imo. But also in this real world people are doing less handwriting and more word processing. I can’t remember the last time I wrote a LOT of stuff long hand. Unfortunately, word processing can be hard to teach dysgraphic kids as well, esp. if they have dyslexia (a common co- condition).

Then there is the problem that some of the AT is just as hard to learn as handwriting, ok well that’s my opinion. Text to speech is just plain difficult for anybody and a not ready for prime time technology, imo/ime. Still
*some* dysgraphic people have used this with great help. You must be trained to use it and you must correct it and you must train the software. Daunting. But if you can do all that, no telling you are prolly using many brain pathways!!! Word prediction (predicting ahead of the sentence by the first few letters) is a bit more ready for prime time and easier but very slow. I have used the later and think it would be slightly faster if it could just read your mind!! :-) It, also, presents some problems of finger placement.

I see speech to text a technology that is most evolved. I can’t see denying this to any kid who in a later grade can’t read well. I don’t see that this will get in the way of teaching to read.

—des

Do you mean text to speech as having evolved? (starts out as text, the computer turns it into speech)

I’d agree on both counts — but (as with anything) it’s all about playing to strengths and working on weaknesses — and it can be so easy to underestimate both of them or to miss a bit of instruction that could overcome a seemingly insurmountable barrier.

In Mel Levine’s “educational care” book he does a great job of explaining just how complex the writing task is, and the fifty million places it can break down. Better still, he explains it so it’s comprehensible so you can figure out where it’s probably breaking down and deal with that.

And just to complicate things, writing really is a very difficult task. Even excellent writers who do it for a living often wrestle fiercely with it. I know very good writers who in seventh or eighth grade were, to put it bluntly, awful. One of ‘em went on to be his college newspaper editor — and was good at it.

[quote=”Sue”]Do you mean text to speech as having evolved? (starts out as text, the computer turns it into speech)

Nope,sorry i meant speech to text (or speech recognition, ala Via Voice or Dragon ). Text to speech is ready for prime time. But not speech to text.

>And just to complicate things, writing really is a very difficult task. Even excellent writers who do it for a living often wrestle fiercely with it. I know very good writers who in seventh or eighth grade were, to put it bluntly, awful. One of ‘em went on to be his college newspaper editor — and was good at it.[/quote]

Well another problem with speech recognition. You have to “write” out loud without the written thing there. Very difficult for most people.

—des

Des and Sue,
But we always have to think of each student as an individual learner with their own strengths and areas of weakness, and I know that you both do.
I can’t help but write about a student that I know who had YEARS of Lindamood Bell back when it was ADD, was taught to use voice recognition back when it was one-word-at-a-time (discrete speech) and who is now a senior in honors courses but couldn’t survive the complex printed text without Kurzweil and is independent with written work because of his use of voice recognition, Dragon Naturally Speaking. He was motivated from a young age as was his mother who encouraged him in every endeavor. Speech to text AND text to speech have allowed him to be independent.
Voice recognition can be very effective.

Amen :)

Richard Wanderman also has good things to say about it on his site (http://www.ldresources.com) — and the folks on the spk2wrt listserv do, too.

It’s very powerful; but like any language task it’s more complicated than it appears. Those lovely “you talk and it types!” ads just don’t tell the story…

I’ve been looking through this thread and a few things strike me:

1. few if any of the people taking part in it are LD themselves (or are “out” as LD themselves).

Most LD students and adults who I know, including me, who use technology have a very different view about our tools than the one many of you seem to think we have. In short, using tools like computers is not only about academic success; it’s about personal growth and expression and fitting in socially.

2. few people in this thread have a lot of direct experience with technology, or so it seems: text to speech, speech to text, etc.

Text to speech has been around for years and is available on virtually any modern personal computer. Some speech synthesizers are better than others and the current leading edge from ATT is darn good. However, this technology is not as good as a human voice (yet) but even after it is (and it will be at some point) it will never take the place of a speech pathologist or a language training instructor. What it will allow, which is incredibly meaningful, is for anyone using it to have The New York Times read aloud daily (or anything else on their computer screen).

The issue to sort out here is how to balance that with learning how to read on your own. It’s a great issue but it doesn’t only apply to “assistive technology,” it applies to all technology.

Most of us walk less now that we have cars. Should we get rid of cars? See my point? Yes, the use of text to speech on a computer might slow down the necessary reading practice for learning to read independently but hey, The New York Times and the world isn’t gonna wait and neither should the reader.

Who gets to decide which work arounds are okay and which aren’t?

3. the idea that “work arounds” do not teach is an interesting one and one that I completely disagree with from experience.

If using a computer with whatever fancy stuff you want to load onto it gets a person “in the game” writing, then that’s probably more writing than they would have done otherwise.

I doubt many here would disagree that the way to learn how to write is to write. The more writing, in any form, the better.

In my experience, daily online chatting and email as well as posting to discussions like this one is just as if not more important than killing one’s self over the structure of a 5 paragraph essay. I mean really!

So, you use the technology at hand and you go for it and after a while, you see some improvement in your writing.

How do I know this? From my own experience and from the experience of many other LD adults who have become excellent writers and thinkers by working around their writing problems through the use of technology.

I’m severely dysgraphic. For those of you who are not dysgraphic, trust me when I tell you, the keyboard is my best friend. I touch type and once I learned I never looked back.

Could I improve my handwriting if I spent more time with it? Sure. Do I care to? No. Why? Because I’m a successful adult and I’ve done just fine without it, thank you. Those who push handwriting hard and disallow the keyboard (AlphaSmart, computer, whatever) have no idea how frustrating it is to have ideas and not have a decent, high fidelity way to express them (hint, a tape recorder works wonders pre-touch typing).

I recently did an article on some of these ideas for Perspectives, the IDA newsletter. I posted it here at my web site for anyone interested:

http://www.ldresources.com/articles/tools_and_dyslexia.html

PS: sorry about the long url, the admins of this discussion should fix it so that BB Code actually works. I turned it on in my profile but it did nothing.

Thanks for the link… I think the main point as far as “it doesn’t teach writing” goes is *not* that that should mean you don’t use it — just that you don’t, as happens a little too often, get the software, and then wonder why the student isn’t suddenly a writer. (Bob Follansbee does a good job of explaining that in one of the other articles in the same Perspectives issue.) And we were, specifically, talking about academic use of the tools.

One of the nastiest assumptions about reading is that you learn to do it by doing it and therefore if a child doesn’t know how to read we should just hand her more interesting books that she doesn’t have teh skills to read and hope for the best. Yes, it’s extrapolating, but I do believe the same is true for writing. Expecting students to learn to write *simply* by giving them that opportunity means that you’re leaving a bunch of students by the wayside.
I realize we’ve plucked a nerve by bringing up the “not ready for prime time” stuff and seemingly dismissing speech rec — but too many people *have* been acutely disappointed in speech recognition. And… speaking of plucked nerves… oh, that’s real experience speaking, not hypothetical. I would appreciate it if you didn’t assume that I’m making assumptions when I’m not, though. I know, I can’t understand, it’s an LD thang… but again, that’s *your* assumption. (Okay, I’m off my soapbox now… ) It’s far, far more likely to be used *successfully* if some of the real issues about using it are dealt with.

OH, the link works by the way :) - would you mind if I linked to your article from the Follansbee one, which is on my site (at http://www.resourceroom.net/older/speechrec.asp )?

And (and no, I swear I’m not doing this so my name will ahve more posts by it… it’s an LD thing ;)) — I *am* curious — what do you think of the Follansbee article?

Sue,

“And… speaking of plucked nerves… oh, that’s real experience speaking, not hypothetical. I would appreciate it if you didn’t assume that I’m making assumptions when I’m not, though. I know, I can’t understand, it’s an LD thang… but again, that’s *your* assumption. (Okay, I’m off my soapbox now… ) It’s far, far more likely to be used *successfully* if some of the real issues about using it are dealt with.

Who said I was talking to you? There’s a tone in many of the posts in this thread, some yours, some others’. That tone made me feel that we differ in our opinion of

1. what it feels like to have a learning disability

2. how using technology can change that feeling

If you don’t know what I’m talking about then you don’t. But, people who do know what I’m talking about think differently than the gist of this thread.

“Expecting students to learn to write *simply* by giving them that opportunity…”

Did I say that? I don’t think so. What I said is that the way to learn how to write is to do a lot of writing. For me, a computer, an AlphaSmart or almost any keyboard-driven electronic tool makes that process easier and so, leads to more writing. I’m dysgraphic; writing by hand is hard for me. Keyboarding is not. I write more with a keyboard than I do by hand. The more I write the better I get. That’s my point. Get it now?

“OH, the link works by the way - would you mind if I linked to your article from the Follansbee one, which is on my site”

Certainly. Feel free and thanks for asking.

I know the link works, but BB code does not. It is possible to turn it on in your profile but it has no effect on posts. The board administrator needs to learn how to set up the board correctly. If you are that person I would be glad to help; I run two boards with phpBB and know it well.

I apologize… you’re right, as being not the center of the universe, assuming you were responding to my tone was foolish. Gosh, weren’t mine the only posts you read <self-effacing wince> — they were the only ones I remembered.
I share the frustration with “turning on” the BB code; no, I can’t control it. The linking would be from my site (when my 6 month grant at LD OnLine ended at the end of 98 I moved along - but had realized that yes, one person could do a website that could make a difference, present company included :-))
And no, you didn’t say that… but it’s rarely actually said — it’s just common practice.

Well, it can be that dysgraphia or dysgraphic tendencies diminish with age and maturity. We don’t all develop at the same pace. Not every child is ready to walk at 10 months and not every child is ready to write 5 paragraph essays in the 3rd grade. Speech recognition software allows the child some breathing room so the Ds and Fs don’t start rolling in.

And - how exactly do we deal with dysgraphia head-on? Every time I check medical science continues to tell us that dysgraphia does NOT respond well to remediation and intervention. Your question assumes there are successful therapies out there for dysgraphia.

Last but not least, the question is moot, is it not, as speech recognition software doesn’t work well. Unless they’ve got some new and nifty programs out there, I have yet to meet the SPR that works well.

Sara,
Read the link to the Follansbee article that Sue posted on the previous page. I would have to say that the question is not moot.
There are a number of students that greatly benefit from the availability and use of voice recognition software programs.
I know a gifted student who is dyslexic and who is now a senior, already accepted to college for next year who has been using VR since the discrete speech days. All of his written work is produced using Dragon Naturally Speaking (subsequent upgrades). He would not be where he is today without voice recognition. He was determined and motivated and has done very well as a result.

‘tis true, you may not have met the programs, but they are out there and do work well. No, not the instantaneous “You talk and it turns it into a five-paragraph essay!” that spam would like you to believe, but ‘tis definitely *not* moot.

Last but not least, the question is moot, is it not, as speech recognition software doesn’t work well. Unless they’ve got some new and nifty programs out there, I have yet to meet the SPR that works well.[/quote]

Sarah,

When I had my AT evaluation for speech recognition software, because of my executive function difficulties due to NLD/ADHD and the fact I had heard similar comments like yours, I wasn’t expecting too much. But actually, the program I was evaluated on, Dragon Dictate 7, worked very well for me. I felt comfortable. The experience would have been even better if I had been trying it on a Pentium IV instead of a Pentium III.

I had looked into speech recognition software because of my carpal tunnel symptoms that have lessened greatly, much to my pleasant surprise. If I hadn’t had them, I would have never considered SRS as I type 40-50 wpm. So obviously, there is no need for me to pursue this option any longer.

But I wanted to share my experience in case other people were considering speech recognition software as an option. It may be a more successful experience than you think.

PT

I’m 52 (is that enough age?) and dysgraphic but I’d say that my handwriting has gotten worse, not because the dysgraphia but because I don’t practice handwriting enough. Why? I use a keyboard. Do I wish I had better handwriting? Yes. Am I doing anything about it? No. I have lots of work to do and the keyboard allows me to do it.

As far as speech to text goes, Bob is a fiend of mine and we’ve “discussed” these issues on panels at conferences. My take is a bit different.

1. We’re in the stone age of that technology and at some point it will be much better and maybe replace the keyboard for many if not all use.

2. Current Dragon and Via voice software requires enough training that there are issues with people who do not read well building voice files with problems becuase they okay the wrong words (they say one word, the software writes another, and they okay that word thinking its right).

3. We have to be careful what we say about these things because many people are so desperate for a speech solution that they will spend a lot of money upgrading computers and buying software only to find that there’s quit a bit of work involved in training and that for some the end result is not all that great (yet).

All of this said, I’ve seen amazingly good results with some users and in time speech will improve and be easier to use. Until then, I don’t widely recommend it because I don’t want to support the general assumption that it works. Of course, all technology is like this: an AlphaSmart might not be the right solution for some people so it’s hard to make a general recommendation. However, I’m more willing to make a general recommendation with tools like tape recorders and AlphaSmarts than I am with speech to text at this point.

[
<< We have to be careful what we say about these things because many people are so desperate for a speech solution that they will spend a lot of money upgrading computers and buying software only to find that there’s quit a bit of work involved in training and that for some the end result is not all that great (yet).

All of this said, I’ve seen amazingly good results with some users and in time speech will improve and be easier to use. Until then, I don’t widely recommend it because I don’t want to support the general assumption that it works. >>

Hi Richard,

Of course, using SRS is going to take alot of work and I didn’t mean to infer it would be a piece of cake. But why shouldn’t I be encouraging when my experience was positive after I thought I would have trouble with it? Also, since everyone seemed to be so negative about VRS, I wanted to offer a positive voice.

We all understand that in the end, it is up to the individual to get the necessary information and make the appropriate choices. Gosh, I only thought I had to use a million qualifications when I write about my experiences with meds. I didn’t realize it applied to technology posts.

I am not sure I understand your reasoning.
Just like with any technology, VRS isn’t for everyone but in my opinion, that is a different issue than saying it doesn’t work. The software I tried sure did. Of course, I realized that was just one environment but it seemed according to all the naysayers on VRS, I didn’t have a snowballs chance of it even succeeding the first time.

PT

I don’t think I said it doesn’t work, what I said was that using it involves enough training so that in my experience watching people use it (extensive) it’s not for everyone.

Information spreads like a virus and what happens are that the details get stripped away during the spread.

We might all agree here that Speech to Text is a useful technology, not for everyone yet but useful for some.

4 generations down the pike it reads:

Speech to Text is useful technology.

It is, but not for everyone and I would argue that at this point the number of people who can benefit is less than the number who can benefit from the use of a tape recorder.

Why?

Because there is more complexity and training involved in using it effectively.

I doubt Bob would disagree with that.

Trust me, I use many products that involve speech… just not on my computer (yet).