Restorative versus CompensatoryIn order to truly understand the nature of compensatory support, I thought it necessary to include a brief comparison with the rehabilitative approach. There are essentially two different approaches used to address the learning difficulties of students with disabilities. The first is the remedial approach, which attempts to reduce a deficit or improve a weakness through additional structured practice or reteaching the skill or concept. The second approach is compensatory and attempts to work around or circumvent a deficit and reduce barriers to learning by emphasizing the student's strengths. Assistive technology is compensatory support. For example, if a child has difficulty expressing ideas in writing due to illegible handwriting, a remedial solution may be to work on specific writing skills, such as relearning correct letter formation. Compensatory assistance could include teaching the student to use a word processing program. It is important to find a balance between remedial measures and compensatory measures based on the individual needs of the student. Overview / Who will benefit Word prediction programs were originally developed to reduce typing in people with physical disabilities (MacArthur, 1998). Word prediction can help students when processing word by predicting a word that the student intends to use. Predictions are based on spelling, syntax, and frequent or recent use of a word. This type of compensatory support encourages students who have writing difficulties to use spelling, grammar, and word choice correctly. Word preaching can also provide the slow or reluctant writer with a way to confidently develop and enter text without spending all of their time worrying about the middle of a sheet......gld.net/ pdf/teaching_how-tos/from_illisible_to_under.pdfPacer Center. (August 29, 2011). Up to the minute - word prediction [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhPsYWQBE_0Peterson-Karlan, G.R. (2011). Technology to support the writing of students with learning and academic disabilities: Recent trends and research findings. Outcomes and Benefits of Assistive Technologies,7(1), 39-62.Swenson, K., Wirkus, M., and Obukowitz, M. (2009). Assistive technology for composing written documents. In Gierach, J. (ed.). Assessment of Student Needs for Assistive Technology (ASNAT). The QIAT management team. (2012). Guidance Document: Evaluating Effectiveness. Retrieved from http://indicators.knowbility.org/docs/resources/7 GuideDocEofE2012.pdfZabala, J. S. (2005). Ready, SETT, go! First steps with the SETT framework. Closing the gap, 23(6), 1¬-3.