Vicki Brandon Loyola University ED 670

Problem: Students in my class are very unmotivated writers. They make a lot of spelling errors and only write 2-3 sentences in each paragraph. Purpose: To identify if students will write longer pieces and make fewer spelling errors in their writing if using technology. Goals: Students will write more words with fewer spelling errors in their writing. They will become more confident writers and become more independent during writing. Introduction

Literature Review Factors regarding student outputs Student Motivation-how students act during writing class normally vs. using technology Handwriting Student Outputs using each type of technology Word Prediction Software Word Processor Online Web-based assessment

Logic Model

Methods Participants: 2 third grade classes (48 students) 1 IEP, 6 ESOL students 10 students reading below level 25 students reading above level Setting: Glen Burnie, MD. High poverty (almost 50% FARMS) Data: Number of words Number of spelling errors Survey showing students’ attitude towards writing Teacher notes about how students act during writing

Significance The proposed study will identify if the students benefit from using technology while in writing class. If students are successful, the teacher can change the instruction to better meet the needs of the students. This study will give more information and data about students’ writing and teachers can use that to improve their best practices to meet all students’ needs.

References: Beck, N., & Fetherston, T. (2003). The Effects of Incorporating a Word Processor into a Year Three Writing Program. Information Technology In Childhood Education Annual, 2003(1), Castellani, J., & Jeffs, T. (2001). Emerging Reading and Writing Strategies Using Technology. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 33(5), Dunsmuir, S., & Clifford, V. (2003). Children's Writing and the Use of Information and Communications Technology. Educational Psychology In Practice, 19(3), Englert, C., Zhao, Y., Dunsmore, K., Collings, N., & Wolbers, K. (2007). Scaffolding the Writing of Students with Disabilities through Procedural Facilitation: Using an Internet-Based Technology to Improve Performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(1), Evmenova, A. S., Graff, H. J., Jerome, M., & Behrmann, M. M. (2010). Word Prediction Programs with Phonetic Spelling Support: Performance Comparisons and Impact on Journal Writing for Students with Writing Difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(4), Hetzroni, O. E., & Shrieber, B. B. (2004). Word Processing as an Assistive Technology Tool for Enhancing Academic Outcomes of Students with Writing Disabilities in the General Classroom. Journal Of Learning Disabilities, 37(2),

References (con’t) Landauer, T. K., Lochbaum, K. E., & Dooley, S. (2009). A New Formative Assessment Technology for Reading and Writing. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), Lewis, R. B., Graves, A. W., Ashton, T. M., & Kieley, C. L. (1998). Word Processing Tools for Students with Learning Disabilities: A Comparison of Strategies To Increase Text Entry Speed. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(2), Montgomery, D. J., & Marks, L. J. (2006). Using Technology to Build Independence in Writing for Students with Disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 50(3), Nuvoli, G. (2000). Revision of texts with word-processing. Psychological Reports, 87(3, Pt 2), doi: /PR Peterson-Karlan, G., Hourcade, J. J., & Parette, P. (2008). A Review of Assistive Technology and Writing Skills for Students with Physical and Educational Disabilities. Physical Disabilities: Education And Related Services, 26(2), Silio, M. C., & Barbetta, P. M. (2010). The Effects of Word Prediction and Text-to-Speech Technologies on the Narrative Writing Skills of Hispanic Students with Specific

References (con’t) Williams, S. C. (2002). How Speech-Feedback and Word-Prediction Software Can Help Students Write. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(3), 72. Yuehua, Z. (2000). Technology and the Writing Skills of Students with Learning Disabilities. Journal Of Research On Computing In Education, 32(4), 467.