Auditory Feedback and Writing: Learning Disabled and Nondisabled Students
- 1 September 1988
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Exceptional Children
- Vol. 55 (1) , 45-51
- https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298805500105
Abstract
The effects of listening to and reading passages were compared on the identification and correction of written errors of grammar and syntax. Learning disabled (LD) students were compared with two control groups, one matched on reading level (RDG) and the other on chronological age (CA). Half of all subjects received auditory feedback; the others simply read the passages. For all groups, students listening to the passages located significantly more errors than those reading. Both LD and RDG groups identified fewer errors than did the CA group. These results support the use of auditory feedback and illuminate the relationship between reading and writing disabilities.This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- Research and Instruction in Written Language: Introduction to the Special IssueExceptional Children, 1988
- The Pivotal Role of Grammar in Correcting Writing DisabilitiesThe Journal of Special Education, 1983
- Research on the Composing ProcessReview of Educational Research, 1983
- A Preliminary Study of Syntax in the Written Expression of Learning Disabled ChildrenJournal of Learning Disabilities, 1982
- Analyzing RevisionCollege Composition and Communication, 1981
- Performance of Learning Disabled and Low Achieving Secondary Students on Formal Features of a Paragraph-Writing TaskLearning Disability Quarterly, 1981
- What next after decoding? instruction and research in reading comprehensionExceptional Education Quarterly, 1981
- A Comparison of Components of Written Expression Abilities in Learning Disabled and Non-Learning Disabled Students at Three Grade LevelsLearning Disability Quarterly, 1980
- Whole-Language Approaches: Premises and PossibilitiesLearning Disability Quarterly, 1980
- Identification, organization, and reading comprehension for good and poor readers.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971