Dictation and speech recognition technology as test accommodations

Exceptional Children

Volumn 71, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 43-58

  Macarthur, Charles A ^a,b   Cavalier, Albert R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

^b School of Education   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 16244406214     PISSN: 00144029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/001440290407100103     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Alwang, G. (2002, Feb. 26) Dragon Naturally Speaking Professional Solutions 6.0. PC Magazine Online. Retrieved January 7, 2004, from http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,54637,00.asp
2. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Bolt, S., Krentz, J., & Thurlow, M. (2002). Are we there yet? Accountability for the performance of students with disabilities (Tech. Rep. No. 33). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 7, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/ OnlinePubs/Technical33.htm
4. Cavalier, A. R., & Ferretti, R. P. (1996). Talking instead of typing: Alternate access to computers via speech recognition technology. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 11, 79-85.
5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997). Effects of dictation and advanced planning instruction on the composing of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 203-222.
7. Dragon Systems, Inc. (1998). Dragon Naturally Speaking, v. 4, [computer program]. Peabody, MA: SeanSoft.
8. Erickson, R. N., & Thurlow, M. L. (1996). State special education outcomes 1995. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
9. Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students' compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781-791.
10. Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., & Whitaker, D. (1997). Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 170-182.
11. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Loynachan, C. (1993). The basic spelling vocabulary list. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 363-368.
12. Graham, S., Harris, K., MacArthur, C. A., & Schwartz, S. S. (1991). Writing and writing instruction with students with learning disabilities: A review of a program of research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 89-114.
13. Hammill, D., & Larsen, S. (1988). Test of Written Language 2. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
14. Hidi, S., & Hildyard, A. (1983). The comparison of oral and written productions of two discourse types. Discourse Processes, 6, 91-105.
15. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 1997, § 612(a)(17))(A)).
16. King, M. L., & Rentel, V. M. (1981). Research update: Conveying meaning in written texts. Language Arts, 58, 721-728.
17. Koretz, D. (1997). Assessing of students with disabilities in Kentucky (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 431). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
18. Koretz, D., & Hamilton, L. (2000). Assessing students with disabilities in Kentucky: The effects of accommodations, format, and subject (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 498). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
19. Larsen, S. C., & Hammill, D. D. (1976). Test of Written Spelling (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
20. MacArthur, C. A. (1999). Overcoming barriers to writing: Computer support for basic writing skills. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 169-192.
21. MacArthur, C. A. (2000). New tools for writing: Assistive technology for students with writing difficulties. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 85-100.
22. MacArthur, C., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. Journal of Special Education, 21, 22-42.
23. McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morrison, P. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
24. Mirenda, P., & Beukelman, D. R. (1987). A comparison of speech synthesis intelligibility with listeners from three age groups. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3, 120-128
25. National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2003). Accountability for assessment results in the No Child Left Behind Act: What it means for children with disabilities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 7, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/ NCEO/On-linePubs/NCLBdisabilities.html
26. Phillips, S. E. (1996). Legal defensibility of standards: Issues and policy perspectives. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(2), 5-19.
27. Reece, J. E., & Cummings, G. (1996). Evaluating speech-based composition methods: Planning, dictation, and the listening word processor. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 361-380). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Goelman, H. (1982). The role of production factors in writing ability. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse (pp. 173-210). New York: Academic Press.
29. Spargo, E. (1989). Timed readings (3rd ed., Book 2). Providence, RI: Jamestown.
30. Thompson, S., Blount, A., & Thurlow, M. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Tech. Rep. No. 34). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 7, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/ OnlinePubs/Technical34.htm
31. Thurlow, M. L. (2000). Standards-based reform and students with disabilities: Reflections on a decade of change. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33(3), 1-16.
32. Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S., Thompson, S., & Robey, J. (2002). 2001 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations (Synthesis Report 46). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 7, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/ OnlinePubs/Synthesis46.html
33. Tindal, G., & Fuchs, L. (2000). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for defining accommodations. Lexington, KY: Mid-South Regional Resource Center, University of Kentucky. Retrieved January 7, 2004, from http://www.ihdi.uky.edu/MSRRC/pdf/tindal&fuchs.pdf
34. Tindal, G., Heath, B., Hollenbeck, K., Almond, P., & Harniss, M. (1998). Accommodating students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An experimental study. Exceptional Children, 64, 439-450.
35. Wilkinson, G. S. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test 3. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range.
36. Woodcock, R., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
37. Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., Kozleski, E. & Reschly, D. (1998). Accountability for the results of educating students with disabilities: Assessment conference report on the new assessment provisions of the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.