the effect of bias. When using TTS, students accessed twice as much text within the same amount of time. In the second year of the study, students were able to access twice as much infor- mation with improved comprehension, even when material became more difficult. The use of the TTS allowed students to demonstrate improved comprehension scores on factual and inferential (higher level thinking) comprehension questions and the students moved to more fluid use more quickly the second year (week 7 vs. week 11). Their comprehension also improved. Teachers reported improved academic performance, better on- task behavior and more engagement when using TTS. Wood, Moxley, Tighe, & Wagner (2017) completed a definitive meta-analysis of studies of TTS. They excluded students without identified LD and included single subject design studies. They found the use of TTS significantly increased reading comprehen- sion for students with learning disabilities. Although Moorman, Boon, Keller-Bell, Stagliano and Jeffs (2010) found that TTS increased reading rate and comprehen- sion for two students with learning disabilities, TTS alone is usually not enough. Training is still needed in comprehension because students may have missed the opportunity to learn and practice comprehension skills in the past when they were struggling to decode text. It can help them to think aloud about how to self-question and reflect during and after reading. It has also been found to help when students are actively involved in monitoring their understanding and processing text mean- ing (Edmonds, Vaughn, Wexler, Reutebuch, Cable, Tackett, & Schnakenberg, 2009). Use of TTS should be paired with compre- hension strategy training and must be used for a long enough time period for the student to become skilled in its use before expecting to see results. It is best to talk with each student about how it is working/not working for him or her. Parr (2013) reviewed the research on TTS and suggests that it appears to work best for students with: • Slow or inaccurate decoding that is below their cognitive and intellectual potential (i.e., less than 90% accuracy); • Lower levels of fluency, (i.e., less than 92 words per minute); • Good listening comprehension that can be stimulated by TTS; • A reluctance to read due to low levels of confidence and/or internal motivation; • Pacing and attentional difficulties that can be accommodat- ed or regulated by TTS; and • Those who often require multiple readings of assigned text. Other AT to Support Students Struggling with Reading Graphic Organizers can help students take notes, improve comprehension of content, make connections within and be- tween information and participate more in class (Strangman, Vue, Hall & Meyer, 2004; Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007). In a thorough review of research Manoli and Papadopoulou (2012)
concluded that students with learning disabilities who had the lowest abilities were helped the most by their use. Even the use of E-books has been shown to be beneficial for some students with disabilities because they allow changes of font size that may significantly increase legibility for them. Sie- genthaler, Wurtz, & Groner, (2011) collected eye-tracking data on participants and found a significant decreased fixation on the text when compared to paper books, they found the decreased time of fixation represented an increase in legibility for those students. While some studies have found the use of audio books can improve comprehension when compared to reading (Boyle, Rosenberg, Connelly, Washburn, Brinckerhoff, & Banerjee, 2003) other studies suggest it is possibly better suited to recreation- al reading than text book reading. Daniel & Woody (2010) had students without disabilities listen to podcasts or read a text book. Students initially reported preferring to listen, but on a test two days later the listeners scored 59% while the readers scored 81%. Student’s individual preferences and abilities affect the utility and effectiveness of AT for reading.
AT for Writing for Students with High Incidence Disabilities
65% of students referred for learning disabilities have a writ- ing disability (Mayes, Calhoun, and Crowell, 2000). Smith and Okolo (2010) reviewed the National Assessment of Education- al Progress (2009) and noted that only six percent of students with disabilities scored at a proficient level on writing tests. 46% scored below basic level, and 48% performed at basic level. Stu- dents with LD are more likely to have errors in spelling, punctu- ation, capitalization and word usage. Their writing is more likely to be shorter and illegible (DeLaPaz, 1999). Personal computer spell checkers, digitized text, word pre- diction software, speech recognition and alternative writing tools are the most common computer features used in schools to facilitate writing (Cullen, Richards, & Lawless-Frank, 2008; Bar- betta & Spears-Bunton, 2007). Compared to handwriting, even word processing makes a difference. Hetzroni & Shcreiber (2004) found that students had fewer spelling errors, fewer reading er- rors and improved organization and structure when using the computer. MacArther, Graham, Schwartz, and Schafer (1995) found that improved performance depends on how well stu- dents are trained to use the features. Batorowicz, Missiuna, & Pollock, (2012) did a very thorough review of the research on AT for writing. They looked at word processing software, spell checkers, word prediction, speech recognition, concept mapping/organizing software and multi- media. Although the studies are limited, they suggest a positive influence on quality of written text, organization, transcription and revising. AT combined with instruction yields the most pos- itive results. Collaborating with peers when using technology appears beneficial for both composing and revising. They deter-
33
April / May, 2019 | www.closingthegap.com/membership Closing The Gap © 2019 Closing The Gap, Inc. All rights reserved.
BACK TO CONTENTS
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator