Advertisement

Use of Technology for Literacy Acquisition Among Children with Communication Difficulties

  • Orit E. Hetzroni
Chapter
Part of the Literacy Studies book series (LITS, volume 7)

Abstract

This chapter addresses some of the assistive technology (AT) uses that have been developed to enhance literacy skills by children with communication difficulties (CD). The chapter addresses the importance of communication development and its essential role in a literacy-based society. The importance of AT and its impact on the development and use of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) strategies are addressed. Results of studies that demonstrate the significant impact that AT and AAC have on the enhancement of literacy acquisition among children with CD are provided, as well as an understanding as to the scaffolding nature and impact graphic symbols may have on enhancing reading and writing skills. This chapter describes results of a study that implemented AAC and AT strategies using graphic and orthographic symbols for enhancing language and literacy in six schools for children with CD. Results of this study demonstrated a significant increase in language and communication skills measured across all schools. This chapter reflects on existing technologies and on the need to develop systematic instruction to enable skillful understanding of their potential.

Keywords

Autism Spectrum Disorder Graphic Symbol Literacy Skill Cochlear Implant Language Acquisition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Angermeier, K., Schlosser, R. W., Luiselli, J. K., Harrington, C., & Carter, B. (2008). Effects of iconicity on requesting with the picture exchange communication system in children with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2, 430–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beukelman, D. R., & Mirenda, P. (2005). Augmentative and alternative communication (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  3. Binger, C., & Light, J. (2007). The effect of aided AAC modeling on the expression of multi-symbol messages by preschoolers who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23, 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bishop, K., Rankin, J., & Mirenda, P. (1994). Impact of graphic symbol use on reading acquisition. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 2, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breen, C. (2009). The iPhone pocket guide (4th ed.). Berkeley: Peachpit Press.Google Scholar
  6. Browning, N. (2002). Literacy of children with physical disabilities: A literature review. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69, 176–182.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, P. H., Milbourne, S., Dugan, L. M., & Wilcox, M. J. (2006). A review of evidence on practices for teaching young children to use assistive technology devices. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 26, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cook, A. M., & Hussey, S. M. (1995). Assistive technologies: Principles and Practice. St. Louis: Mosby.Google Scholar
  9. Dahlgren-Sandberg, A., Smith, M., & Larsson, M. (2010). An analysis of reading and spelling abilities of children using AAC: Understanding a continuum of competence. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26(3), 191–202.Google Scholar
  10. Dresang, E. T. (2008). Radical change: Books for youth in a digital age. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 277–293.Google Scholar
  11. Edyburn, D. L. (2000). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32, 1–24.Google Scholar
  12. Erickson, K. A., & Koppenhaver, D. A. (1995). Developing a literacy program for children with severe disabilities. The Reading Teacher, 48, 676–684.Google Scholar
  13. Erickson, K., & Sachse, S. (2010). Reading acquisition, AAC and the transferability of English research to languages with more consistent or transparent orthographies. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26, 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fewell, R. R., & Deutscher, B. (2004). Contributions of early language and maternal facilitation variables to later language and reading abilities. Journal of Early Intervention, 26, 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flippo, K. F., Inge, K. J., & Barcus, M. (1995). Assistive technology: A resource for school, work, and community. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  16. Foley, B. E. (1993). The development of literacy in individuals with severe congenital speech and motor impairments. Topics in Language Disorders, 13, 16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuller, D., Lloyd, L., & Schlosser, R. (1992). Further development of an augmentative and alternative communication symbol taxonomy. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 8, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (1998). Integrating technology for meaningful learning. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  19. Hetzroni, O. E. (2004). AAC and literacy. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26, 1305–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hetzroni, O. E., & Lloyd, L. L. (2000). Shrinking Kim: Effects of active versus passive computer instruction on the learning of element and compound Blissymbols. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hetzroni, O. E., & Ne’eman, A. (in press). Influence of color on acquisition and generalization of graphic symbols. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research.Google Scholar
  22. Hetzroni, O. E., & Ne’eman, A. (2010). AAC continuing education programs for ­multi-disciplinary teams: Does it make a difference. In ISAAC’2010 Biennial Conference, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  23. Hetzroni, O. E., Reinders-Kafri, S., & Almog, O., (2009). Writing with symbols: Supported intervention in schools. Paper, presented at the annual convention of International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disability (IASSID), Singapore.Google Scholar
  24. Hetzroni, O. E., Rubin, C., & Konkol, O. (2002). Use of a computer-based intervention for teaching girls with Rett syndrome to identify symbols. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 27, 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hetzroni, O. E., & Schanin, M. (2002). Emergent literacy in children with severe disabilities using multimedia interactive stories. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 14, 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hetzroni, O. E., & Shalem, U. (2005). From logos to orthographic symbols: A multilevel fading computer program for teaching nonverbal children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hetzroni, O. E., & Shrieber, 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, 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hetzroni, O. E., & Tannous, J. (2004). Effects of a computer-based intervention program on the communicative functions of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones, F. W., Long, K., & Finlay, W. M. L. (2007). Symbols can improve the reading comprehension of adults with learning disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 51, 545–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Judge, S. L., & Lahm, E. A. (1998). Assistive technology applications for play, mobility, communication, and learning for young children with disabilities. In S. L. Judge & H. P. Parette (Eds.), Assistive technology for young children with disabilities. A guide to family centered services (pp. 16–44). Cambridge: Brookline.Google Scholar
  31. Judge, S. L., & Parette, H. P. (Eds.). (1998). Assistive technology for young children with disabilities: A guide to providing family centered services. Cambridge: Brookline.Google Scholar
  32. Kamhi, A., & Catts, H. (1986). Toward an understanding of developmental language and reading disorders. The Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 51, 337–347.Google Scholar
  33. Kaye, H. S., Yeager, P., & Reed, M. (2008). Disparities in usage of assistive technology among people with disabilities. Assistive Technology, 20, 194–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. King, T. W. (1999). Assistive technology: Essential human factors. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  35. Kinsley, T. C., & Langone, J. (1995). Application of technology for infants, toddlers, and ­preschoolers with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12, 312–324.Google Scholar
  36. Kofsky-Scholnik, E. (2002). Language, literacy, and thought: Forming a partnership. In E. Amsel & J. P. Byrnes (Eds.), Language, literacy, and cognitive development: The development and consequences of symbolic communication (pp. 3–27). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  37. Koppenhaver, D. A., & Erikson, K. A. (2009). Literacy in individuals with autism spectrum disorders who use AAC. In P. Mirenda & Y. Iacono (Eds.), Autism spectrum disorders and AAC (pp. 385–413). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  38. Koppenhaver, D., & Williams, A. (2010). A conceptual review of writing research in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26, 158–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Koppenhaver, D. A., & Yoder, D. E. (1993). Classroom literacy instruction for children with severe speech and physical disabilities (SSPI): What is and what might be. Topics in Language Disorders, 13, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Koul, R., Corwin, M., & Hayes, S. (2005). Production of graphic symbol sentences by individuals with aphasia: Efficacy of a computer-based augmentative and alternative communication ­intervention. Brain and Language, 92, 58–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kozma, R. B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: An international study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 1–15.Google Scholar
  42. Lahm, E. A. (1996). Software that engages young children with disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 11, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lahm, E. A., & Sizemore, L. (2002). Factors that influence assistive technology decision making. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17, 15–26.Google Scholar
  44. Lewis, R. (1993). Special education technology. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  45. Lloyd, L. L., & Kangas, K. A. (1994). Augmentative and alternative communication. In G. H. Shames, E. Wiig, & W. Secord (Eds.), Human communication disorders (4th ed., pp. 606–657). New York: Merrill/Macmillan.Google Scholar
  46. Lonigan, C. J., & Shanahan, T. (2010). Developing early literacy skills. Educational Researcher, 39, 340–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. MacArthur, C. A. (2000). New tools for writing: Assistive technology for students with writing difficulties. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McKeough, A., Phillips, L. M., Timmons, V., & Lupart, J. L. (Eds.). (2006). Understanding literacy development: A global view. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  49. Mills, K. A. (2010). A review of the “Digital turn” in the new literacy studies. Review of Educational Research, 80, 246–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mineo Mollica, B. (2003). Representational competence. In J. Light, D. Beukelman, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Communicative competence for individuals who use AAC (pp. 107–145). Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
  51. Mirenda, P. (2001). Autism, augmentative and alternative communication, and assistive technology: What do we know? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mizuko, M. (1987). Transparency and ease of learning of symbols represented by Blissymbols, PCS, and Picsyms. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3, 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nelson, K., & Kessler-Shaw, L. (2002). Developing a socially shared symbolic system. In E. Amsel & J. P. Byrnes (Eds.), Language, literacy, and cognitive development: The development and consequences of symbolic communication (pp. 27–59). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  54. Parette, H. P., Boeckmann, N. M., & Hourcade, J. J. (2008). Use of writing with symbols 2000 software to facilitate emergent literacy development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Parette, H. P., & Stoner, J. B. (2008). Benefits of assistive technology user groups for early ­childhood education professionals. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 313–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pennington, R. C. (2010). Computer-assisted instruction for teaching academic skills to students with autism spectrum disorders: A review of literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25(4), 239–248. doi: 10.1177/1088357610378291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Preis, J. (2006). The effect of picture communication symbols on the verbal comprehension of commands by young children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 2, 192–210.Google Scholar
  58. Quist, R. W., & Lloyd, L. L. (1997). Principles and uses of technology. In L. L. Lloyd, D. R. Fuller, & H. H. Arvidson (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: A handbook of principles and practices (pp. 107–126). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  59. Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. L. (1998). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  61. Romski, M. A., & Sevcik, R. A. (2005). Early intervention and augmentative communication: Myths and realities. Infants and Young Children, 18, 174–185.Google Scholar
  62. Scherer, M. J. (2002). Assistive technology: Matching device and consumer for successful ­rehabilitation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schlosser, R. W. (1997). Nomenclature of category levels in graphic symbols, part 2: Role of ­similarity in categorization. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13, 14–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schlosser, R. W., & Blischak, D. M. (2004). Effects of speech and print feedback on spelling by children with autism. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 848–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schlosser, R. W., Blischak, D. M., Belfiore, P. J., Bartley, C., & Barnett, N. (1998). The effects of synthetic speech output and orthographic feedback on spelling in a student with autism: A ­preliminary study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28, 319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sevcik, R. A., Romski, M. A., & Wilkinson, K. (1991). Roles of graphic symbols in the language acquisition process for persons with severe cognitive disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Smith, M. (2005). Literacy and augmentative and alternative communication: Augmentative and alternative communications perspectives. Oxford: Academic.Google Scholar
  68. Soto, G., & Hartmann, E. (2006). Analysis of narratives produced by four children who use augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Communication Disorders, 39, 456–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sturm, J. M., & Clendon, S. A. (2004). Augmentative and alternative communication, language, and literacy. Topics in Language Disorders, 24, 76–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sturm, J., & Koppenhaver, D. A. (2000). Supporting writing development in adolescents with developmental disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Van Balkom, H., & Verhoeven, L. (2010). Literacy learning in users of AAC: A neurocognitive perspective. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26, 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wasson, C. A., Arvidson, H. H., & Lloyd, L. L. (1997). AAC assessment process. In L. L. Lloyd, D. R. Fuller, & H. H. Arvidson (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication. A handbook of principles and practices. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  73. Watson, A. H., Ito, M., Smith, R. O., & Andersen, L. T. (2010). Effect of assistive technology in a public school setting. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64, 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilkins, J., & Ratajczak, A. (2009). Developing students’ literacy skills using high-tech speech-generating augmentative and alternative communication devices. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wolff Heller, K. W., & Coleman-Martin, M. B. (2007). Strategies for promoting literacy for ­students who have physical disabilities. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 28, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zangari, C., Kangas, K. A., & Lloyd, L. L. (1988). Augmentative and alternative communication: A field in transition. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 60–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations