Restorative and CompensatoryTo truly understand the nature of compensatory support I felt it was necessary to include a brief comparison with the restorative approach. There are basically two different approaches, which are used to address the learning difficulties of students with disabilities. The first is the corrective approach, which seeks to reduce a deficit or improve an area of ​​weakness through further structured practice or reteaching of the skill or concept. The second approach is compensatory and seeks to work around or circumvent a deficit and reduce barriers to learning by focusing on the student's strengths. Assistive technology is compensatory support. For example, if a child has difficulty expressing ideas in writing due to illegible handwriting, remedial support might be to work on specific writing skills, such as re-teaching correct letter formation. Compensatory support could be to teach the student to use a word processing program. It is important to use a balance of corrective and compensatory supports based on the student's individual needs. General Overview / Who Will Benefit Word prediction programs were originally developed to reduce typing for individuals with physical disabilities (MacArthur, 1998). Word prediction can help students during word processing by predicting a word that the student intends to use. Predictions are based on spelling, syntax, and a word's frequent or recent use. This type of compensatory support pushes students who struggle with writing to use correct spelling, grammar, and word choice. Word preaching can also provide the slow or reluctant writer with a means to develop and insert text confidently without spending all their time worrying about...... middle of paper ......gld.net/pdf/ teaching_how-tos/ from_illegged_to_under.pdfPacer Center. (2011, August 29). In the minute - word prediction [video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhPsYWQBE_0Peterson-Karlan, G. R. (2011). Technology to support writing by students with learning and academic disabilities: Recent research trends and findings. Outcomes and benefits of assistive technologies, 7(1), 39–62. Swenson, K., Wirkus, M., & Obukowitz, M. (2009). Assistive technologies for composing written material. In Gierach, J. (ed.). Assessment of student needs in terms of assistive technologies (ASNAT). The QIAT Leadership Team. (2012). Guidance document: Evaluation of effectiveness. Retrieved from http://indicators.knowbility.org/docs/resources/7 GuideDocEofE2012.pdfZabala, J. S. (2005). Ready, SETT, go! Getting started with the SETT framework. Bridging the gap, 23(6), 1¬-3.