The repeated-reading strategy and optical character recognition were paired to demonstrate a functional relationship between the combined strategies and two factors: the reading rates of students with visual impairments and the students’ self-perceptions, or attitudes, toward reading. The results indicated that all five students increased their reading rates, and four students’ attitudes toward reading improved.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbertoP. A., & TroutmanA. C. (2003). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (6th ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
2.
BakerL., & WigfieldA. (1999). Dimensions of children's motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement [Electronic version]. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 452–477.
3.
CarverR. (1990). Reading rate: A review of research and theory.San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
4.
CornA., WallR., JoseR., BellI, WilcoxK., & PerezA. (2002). An initial study of reading and comprehension rates for students who received optical devices. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 322–333.
5.
EdwardsB., & LewisS. (1998). The use of technology in programs for students with visual impairment in Florida. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 92, 302–311.
6.
ErinI, & SumranvethP. (1995). Teaching reading to students who are adventitiously blind. REview, 27, 103–112.
7.
FelleniusK. (1996). Reading competence of visually impaired pupils in Sweden. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 90, 237–248.
8.
FelleniusK. (1999). Reading environment at home and at school of Swedish students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 93, 211–222.
9.
FrankJ. (2000). Requests by persons with visual impairment for large-print accommodation. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 94, 716–720.
10.
FridalG., JansenL., & KlindtM. (1981). Courses in reading development for partially sighted students. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 75, 4–7.
11.
GoodrichG., BennettR., De l'AuneW., LauerH., & MowinskiL. (1979). Kurzweil reading machine: A partial evaluation of its optical character recognition error rate. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 73, 389–399.
12.
HallK. (2000a). Reading stories for comprehension success intermediate grades.West Nyack, NY: Center for Applied Research in Education.
13.
HallK. (2000b). Reading stories for comprehension success junior high level.West Nyack, NY: Center for Applied Research in Education.
14.
HenkW.A., & MelnickS. A. (1995). The reader self-perception scale (RSPS): A new tool for measuring how children feel about themselves as readers. Reading Teacher, 48, 470–482.
15.
HigginsE., & RaskindM. (1997). The compensatory effectiveness of optical character recognition/speech synthesis on reading comprehension of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities, 8, 75–87.
16.
IveyG. (1999). A multicase study in middle school: Complexities among young adolescent readers [Electronic version]. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 172–193.
17.
IveyG., & BroaddusK. (2000). Tailoring the fit: Reading instruction and middle school readers [Electronic version]. Reading Teacher, 54, 68–79.
KoenigA. I., & HolbrookM. C. (1991). Determining the reading medium for visually impaired students via diagnostic teaching. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 85, 61–68.
20.
KrischerC. C., & MeissenR. (1983). Reading speed under real and simulated visual impairment. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 77, 386–388.
21.
LaGrowS. (1981). Effects of training on CCTV reading rates of visually impaired students. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 75, 368–372.
22.
LaytonC., & KoenigA. (1998). Increasing reading fluency in elementary students with low vision through repeated readings. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 92, 276–292.
23.
LazarusB., & CallahanT. (2000). Attitudes toward reading expressed by elementary school students diagnosed with learning disabilities. Reading Psychology, 21, 271–282.
24.
LeyT., SchaerB., & DismukesB. (1994). Longitudinal study of the reading attitudes and behaviors of middle school students. Reading Psychology, 15, 11–38.
25.
Lovie-KitchenJ., & WhittakerS. (1998). Relative-size magnification versus relative-distance magnification: Effect on reading performance of adults with normal and low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 92, 433–435.
26.
MangoldS., & MangoldP. (1989). Selecting the most appropriate primary learning medium for students with functional vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 83, 294–296.
27.
OlsenM. R., HarlowS., & WilliamsJ. (1977). An evaluation of McBride's approach to rapid reading for braille and large print readers. Education of the Visually Handicapped, 5.16–23.
RasinskiT. (2000). Speed does matter in reading [Electronic version]. Reading Teacher, 54, 146–152.
30.
SchlossP. J., & SmithM. A. (1999). Conducting research.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31.
SewellD. (2001). Assessment kit: Kit of informal tools for academic students with visual impairments.Austin: Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired.
32.
VollandsS., ToppingK., & EvansR. (1999). Computerized self-assessment of reading comprehension with the accelerated reader: Action research [Electronic version]. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15, 197–215.
