Examples of Technology to Support the Strategic System in Routine Actions

The most obvious routine action in written production is handwriting. Until a child can form letters efficiently and automatically, much of the conscious effort in writing will be directed toward this task, rather than toward the larger goal of written expression.

While those with significant motor disabilities have difficulty with handwriting (and may never become functional writers), others with less obvious motor deficits also find handwriting difficult. Their problem may be due to poor fine motor control, which affects the complex distal finger movements needed to manipulate a pencil; to difficulty remembering what the letters look like; or to a more specific difficulty in translating the image of a letter into a motor output (Cermak, 1991; Stillwell & Cermak, 1995; Ziviani, 1995). Additionally, some children are able to write quickly and automatically, but their writing is so poor that it can be read only by those who are familiar with it. Improving legibility comes at the cost of automaticity.

If handwriting is not a routine action, whether because of frank or subtle deficits, then the most common alternative is computer word processing. Word processing is now used by most students for some, if not all, written assignments, and it is rapidly becoming the primary method of formal written production in schools. Word processing enables students to produce assignments that are both legible and neat, and it is a great help to children whose handwriting cannot be read easily. Ease of revising and editing are also among its benefits.

Word processing requires that students learn to keyboard, a new skill that at first seems easier to acquire than handwriting skills, especially for children with fine motor problems and difficulties learning routine actions. Pisha (1993) studied keyboarding skill acquisition in 92 4th-6th graders, 40 percent of whom had identified mild special needs (but no severe motor deficits). Speed of handwriting was predictive of the speed of keyboarding skill acquisition: students with special needs were slower at keyboarding initially and acquired keyboarding skills more slowly than others, but both groups learned faster when they worked with a keyboarding tutorial program.