Word Prediction Software

968 Words2 Pages

Remedial Versus Compensatory In order to truly understand the nature of compensatory support I thought it necessary to include a brief comparison to the remediation approach. There are basically two different approaches, which are used to address the learning difficulties by students with disabilities. The first is the remedial approach, which tries to lessen a deficit or improve an area of weakness through additional structured practice or re-teaching of the skill or concept. The second approach is compensatory and tries to work around or bypass a deficit and reduce the barriers to learning by focusing on the strengths of the student. Assistive technology is a compensatory support. For example, if a child is having difficulty expressing ideas in writing due to illegible handwriting, a remedial support may be to work on specific handwriting skills such as re-teaching proper letter formation. A compensatory support might be to teach the student to use a word processing program. It is important to use a balance between remedial and compensatory supports based on the individual needs of the student. General Overview / Who Will Benefit Word prediction programs were originally developed to reduce typing for individuals with physical disabilities (MacArthur, 1998). Word prediction can help students during word processing by predicting a word the student intends to use. Predictions are based on spelling, syntax, and frequent or recent use of a word. This type of compensatory support prompts students who struggle with writing to use proper spelling, grammar and word choice. Word predication can also provide the slow or reluctant writer a means of developing and entering text confidently without spending all their time worrying a... ... middle of paper ... ...gld.net/pdf/teaching_how-tos/from_illegible_to_under.pdf Pacer Center. (2011, August 29). AT minute - word prediction [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhPsYWQBE_0 Peterson-Karlan, G. R. (2011). Technology to support writing by students with learning and academic disabilities: Recent research trends and findings. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits,7(1), 39–62. Swenson, K., Wirkus, M., & Obukowitz, M. (2009). Assistive technology for the composition of written material. In Gierach, J. (Ed.). Assessing students’ needs for assistive technology (ASNAT). The QIAT Leadership Team. (2012). Guiding document: Evaluation of effectiveness. Retrieved from http://indicators.knowbility.org/docs/resources/7 GuideDocEofE2012.pdf Zabala, J. S. (2005). Ready, SETT, go! Getting started with the SETT framework. Closing the Gap, 23(6), 1¬-3.

Open Document