Overview 

        Symbol libraries (or symbol processors) are word processing programs that assist in comprehension and communication when vocabulary or printed text is a barrier. They can be used for both reading and writing, and provide the same functionality of a normal word processor, except with the addition of symbols. The reading function accompanies most words with a representative graphic, and the writing function allows the user to choose their word-symbol pairs from a word bank. Symbols have been found to be most effective in increasing the reading comprehension of those with a lower baseline reading capability (Jones, Long, & Findlay, 2007). However, while the use of symbol libraries with students showed an initial increase in writing competency (both in quality and productivity), there was found to be a decrease in quality after the first year of use (Prest, Mirenda, & Mercier, 2010). There is conflicting evidence over the efficacy of word and symbol pairings to increase literacy, as there is some evidence that graphics can cause a “blocking effect” when building a visual vocabulary (Sheehy & Howe, 2001). It has been suggested that symbol libraries could be a great tool for accessibility and motivation towards literacy, and could help students build confidence when reading and writing (Pampoulou & Detheridge, 2007).

 

Research Rating: There is limited research on this topic, though the research that has been completed is experimental in nature.

 

Advantages:

• Helps students to write independently. 

• Some evidence of increased word comprehension with accompanying symbols. 

• Students can compose written documents without phonics, spelling or alphabet. 

​

Disadvantages:

• In order to gain maximum benefit from the use of symbol libraries, a third party must develop individualized grids, templates, word banks or topic dictionaries that will support context changes in the curriculum (Prest, Mirenda, & Mercier, 2010).

• There is some evidence of a “blocking effect”, where associations are made between the symbol and the meaning, but not the text itself.

• There is no universally agreed upon set of symbols. 

• It is difficult to graphically represent complex or abstract words (ie. democracy). 

• Some words have no graphic attached to meaning (ie. if, so, but, the), so a certain baseline vocabulary would be required.

 

To Consider

• Due to the third party involvement needed to create word banks for writing, this software may be used most effectively in individualized instructional settings.

• May be more effective for general literacy development rather than being applicable to other areas of academia.

• Some evidence suggests that graphic libraries may be more applicable to reading comprehension rather than writing.