Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T01:25:01.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Using a Writer in Examinations on Senior Students With and Without Learning Disabilities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Paul Whiting
Paul Whiting*
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
*
Address for correspondence: Dr P. Whiting. The Evelyn McCloughan Children’s Centre, Faculty of Education. University of Sydney NSW 2006.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Provision of a writer for students with learning disabilities in examinations is still controversial among some academics and teachers. This is partly due to a lack of empirical research demonstrating the effects of such provisions on the performance of the student with learning disabilities compared to that of the student without learning disabilities. This study addressed the question of equity in the granting of such a provision, by reviewing the literature on the factors relevant to the written compositions of students with learning disabilities. An exploratory study of the examination scripts of students with learning disabilities and students without learning disabilities was conducted. The scripts were produced with and without the provision of a writer. The study revealed that while students with learning disabilities performed considerably better when using a writer, students without learning disabilities appeared to perform worse. A follow-up questionnaire explored some possible reasons for this pattern of performance. The paper concludes that, while there are still unresolved problems surrounding the use of a writer, such a provision for students with learning disabilities may not put students without learning disabilities at a comparative disadvantage, and so may be accepted as equitable. Further research is suggested.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , 1996 , pp. 61 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bear, G.G., Clever, A. & Proctor, W.A. (1991) Self-perceptions of non-handicapped children and children with learning disabilities in integrated classes. Journal of Special Education, 24 (4), 409–426.Google Scholar
Benderson, A. (Ed.). (1988) Testing, equality and handicapped people. Focus, 21. ED 303944.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. (1993) The emotional effects of dyslexia. In Wright, S.F. & Groner, R., (Eds.), Facets of dyslexia and its remediation. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. Google Scholar
Gajar, A. (1989) A computer analysis of written language variables and a comparison of compositions written by university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 125–130.Google Scholar
Gjessing, H.J., & Karlsen, B. (1989) A longitudinal study of dyslexia. N.Y.: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Gould, J.D. (1980) Experiments on composing letters: Some facts, some myths, and some observations. In Gregg, L.W. & Steinberg, E.R., (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale N.J.: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Graham, S. & Harris, K.B. (1992) Cognitive strategy instruction in written language for learning disabled students. In Vogel, S.A. (Ed.), Educational alternatives for students with learning disabilities. N.Y.: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Graham, S. (1992) The role of production factors in learning disabled students’ compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (4), 781–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hidi, S. & Hildyard, A. (1980) The comparison of oral and written productions of two discourse types. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Educational Research Association, Boston.Google Scholar
Hidi, S. & Hildyard, A. (1983) The comparison of oral and written productions of two discourse types. Discourse Processes, 6, 91–105.Google Scholar
Levi, N. & Bruce, G. (1995) The validation of alternative arrangements for assessment for students with disabilities in higher education. Paper presented at the Equity and Access Conference, July 1995, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
MacArthur, C.A. & Graham, S. (1987) Learning disabled students’ composing under three methods of text production: handwriting, word processing, and dictation. The Journal of Special Education, 21 (3), 22–42.Google Scholar
Nelson, J.R., Dodd, J.M., & Smith, D.J. (1990) Faculty willingness to accommodate students with learning disabilities: a comparison among academic divisions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23 (3), 185–189.Google Scholar
Pumfrey, P.D. & Reason, R. (1991) Specific learning difficulties (Dyslexia): Challenges and responses. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
Ridley, W. (1993) Evaluation of an auxiliary aid: laptop computers for students with learning disabilities. Alstonville High School, NSW, unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1979) The effects of writing rate on children’s composition. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Quoted in Scardamalia, Bereiter & Goelman, (1982) The role of production factors in writing ability. In Nystrand, M., (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process and structure of written discourse. N.Y.: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C. & Goelman, H. (1982) The role of production factors in writing ability. In Nystrand, M., (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process and structure of written discourse. N.Y.: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Whiting, P.R. (1993), Reasonable accommodations for learning disabled students in tertiary settings. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 25 (4), 14–21.Google Scholar