Studies have shown that when information is presented through visual and auditory channels simultaneously (i.e., bimodal presentation), speed of processing and memory recall are enhanced. The present study demonstrated the efficacy of a bimodal approach to fostering reading comprehension. Eighteen average readers (9 girls and 9 boys) and 18 less skilled readers (8 girls and 10 boys) in Grades 8 and 9 participated in the study. Students were presented with social studies and science passages via a computer. Passages were presented in three conditions: visually (on screen), auditorily (read by digitized voice), and bimodally (on screen, highlighted, while being voiced). Following each passage, students answered 10 oral-response, short-answer comprehension questions. Results indicated that less skilled readers comprehended more with bimodal versus unimodal presentations. Overall, their performance in the bimodal condition was commensurate with average readers' comprehension in the visual condition. For less skilled readers, an increase in word recognition from pre- to posttesting on word lists was found across conditions. In addition, results of a brief consumer satisfaction survey suggested that low-skilled readers felt most successful in terms of their comprehension when passages were presented bimodally. Several clinical issues involved in presenting information bimodally using computers are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Broadbent, D. E. (1956). Successive responses to simultaneous stimuli. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 8, 145–152.
2.
Cosden, R., & English, J. (1987). Computers and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 443–460.
3.
Davidson, J. (1990). The use of speech in computer-assisted-learning programs for beginning readers. Support for Learning, 5, 216–219.
4.
Davidson, J. W., & Batchelor, J. E. (1991). The American nation.Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
Elkind, J., Cohen, K., & Murray, C. (1993). Using computer-based readers to improve reading comprehension of students with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 238–259.
6.
Fletcher, J., & Pumfrey, P. D. (1988). Differences in text comprehension amongst 7–8 year old children. School Psychology International, 9, (2), 133–145.
7.
Frick, R. W. (1984). Using both an auditory and a visual store to increase digit span. Memory and Cognition, 12, 507–514.
8.
Fry, E. (1977). Fry's readability graph: Clarifications, validity and extension to level 17. Journal of Reading, 21, 242–252.
9.
Halpern, J., & Lantz, A. E. (1974). Learning to utilize information presented over two sensory channels. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 321–328.
10.
Hardy, N. D., & Jerman, M. E. (1985). Read-ability estimator.Seattle, WA: Berta-Max.
11.
Hede, A. J. (1980). Dichotic and bisensory grouping effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 295–306.
12.
Horton S. V., Lovitt, T. C., Givens, A., & Nelson, R. (1989). Teaching social studies to high school students with academic handicaps in a mainstreamed setting: Effects of a computerized study guide. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 102–107.
13.
Hursh, S. B., & Lewandowski, L. J. (1985). Bimodal word processing of adult dyslexics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Las Vegas.
14.
Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. (1986). Chicago: Riverside.
15.
Johnson, G., Gersten, R., & Carnine, D. (1987). Effects of instructional design variables on vocabulary acquisition of LD students: A study of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 206–213.
16.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1985). Kaufman test of educational achievement.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
17.
Kinchla, R. A. (1974). Detecting target elements in multi-element arrays: A confusability model. Perception and Psychophysics, 15, 149–158.
18.
Krendl, K. A., & Lieberman, D. A. (1988). Computers and learning: A review of recent literature. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 367–389.
Lewandowski, L. J., Hursh, S. B., & Kobus, D. A. (1985). Multimodal versus unimodal information processing of words (Report No. 1056). Groton, CT: Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory.
21.
Lewandowski, L., & Kobus, D. A. (1989). Bimodal processing in sonar performance. Human Performance, 2, 73–84.
22.
Lewandowski, L., & Kobus, D. A. (1993). The effects of redundancy in bimodal word processing. Human Performance, 6, 229–239.
23.
Liberman, I. Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1985). Phonology and the problems of learning to read and write. Remedial and Special Education, 6, (6), 8–17.
24.
Loveless, N. E., Brebner, J., & Hamilton, P. (1970). Bisensory presentation of information. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 161–199.
25.
Lovitt, T. C., & Horton, S. V. (1991). Adapting textbooks for mildly handicapped adolescents. In G. Stoner, M. R. Shinn, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 439–471). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
26.
Martin, M. (1980). Attention to words in different modalities: Four-channel presentation with physical and semantic selection. Acta Psychologies, 44, 99–115.
27.
Miller, J. O. (1982). Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 247–279.
28.
Miller, S. D., & Smith, D. E. (1990). Relations among oral reading, silent reading and listening comprehension of students at differing competency levels. Reading Research and Instruction, 29, 73–84.
29.
Oka, E., & Paris, S. (1986). Patterns of motivation and reading skills in under-achieving children. In S. Ceci (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 2, pp. 115–145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30.
Olofsson, A. (1992). Synthetic speech and computer aided reading for reading disabled children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 165–178.
31.
Olson, R., Foltz, G., & Wise, B. (1986). Reading instruction and remediation with the aid of computer speech. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 18, (2), 93–99.
32.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1991). Promoting metacognition and motivation of exceptional children. Remedial and Special Education, 11, (6), 7–13.
33.
Penney, C. G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory & Cognition, 17, 398–422.
34.
Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Human ability: An information processing approach (pp. 59–81). New York: W.H. Freeman.
35.
Raynor, K. (1986). Eye movements and the perceptual span: Evidence for dyslexic typology. In G. Pavlidis & D. F. Fisher (Eds.), Dyslexia: Its neuropsychology and treatment (pp. 111–127). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36.
Roberts, R., & Lewandowski, L. (1994). Bimodal facilitation in serial word recall. Manuscript submitted for publication.
37.
Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, M. (1989). A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.
38.
Smith, C. R. (1994). Learning disabilities: The interaction of learner, task, and setting.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
39.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
40.
Thorndike, R., & Hagen, E. (1986). Cognitive abilities test.Chicago: Riverside.
41.
Torgesen, J. K. (1986). Computer-assisted instruction with learning disabled children. In J. K. Torgesen & B. Y. Wong (Eds.), Psychological and educational perspectives on learning disabilities (pp. 417–433). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
42.
Torgesen, J. K. (1988). Studies of children with learning disabilities who perform poorly on memory span tasks. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 605–612.
43.
Torgesen, J. K., & Young, K. (1983). Priorities for the use of microcomputers with learning-disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 234–237.
44.
Vellutino, F. R. (1979). Dyslexia: Theory and research.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45.
Vellutino, F. R., Steger, B. M., Moyer, S. C., Harding, C. J., & Niles, J. A. (1977). Has the perceptual deficit hypothesis led us astray?. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 54–62.
46.
Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler intelligence scale for children–Revised.San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
47.
Wise, B. (1992). Whole words and decoding for short-term learning: Comparisons on a “talking-computer” system. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54, 147–167.
48.
Wise, B., Olson, R., Anstett, M., Andrews, L., Terjack, M., Schneider, V., Kostuch, J., & Kriho, L. (1989). Implementing a long-term computerized remedial reading program with synthetic feedback: Hardware, software, and real-world issues. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 21, 173–180.
49.
Wise, B., Olson, R., & Treiman, R. (1990). Subsyllabic units in computerized reading instruction: Onset-rime vs. postvowel segmentation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 1–19.
