Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In recent literature on persons with learning disabilities (LD), speech recognition has been addressed primarily as an assistive technology to compensate for writing difficulties. However, prior research by the authors has shown that speech recognition may have a remedial effect on reading and spelling. The present study was conducted to compare the effects of two types of speech recognition systems, discrete speech and continuous speech, in terms of their relative remedial effects. Thirty-nine students with LD (aged 9-18) had participated in a previous study. Nineteen had used discrete speech systems for 50 minutes a week for sixteen weeks to write on self-selected topics, while twenty students in a control group had received general computer instruction. In the following semester, an additional experimental condition was added. Thirteen participants used continuous speech recognition systems 50 minutes a week for sixteen weeks to write on self-selected topics. Results were then compared across all three groups. Both discrete and continuous speech groups showed significant improvement in word recognition (p<.002, p<.018) and reading comprehension (p<.043, p<.041) over the control group and the discrete condition also showed significant improvement in spelling (p<.015). Pre- and post-tests on five reading-related cognitive processing measures (phonological, orthographic and semantic processing, metcognitive reading strategies, and working memory) indicated that only phonological processing improved significantly, and only for the discrete speech group when compared to controls (p<.04). Results were related to specific differences between continuous and discrete speech systems in terms of the task requirements for generating and correcting text using the two systems.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chabot

R.J.

Miller

T.J.

, & Juola

J.F.

, (1976). The relationship between repetitions and depth of processing. Memory and Cognition, 4, 677–682.

Cunningham

A.E.

, & Stanovich

K.E.

(1990). Assessing print exposure and orthographic processing skills in children: a quick measure of reading experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 733–740.

Danneman

& Carpenter

P.A.

(1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.

Dragon Dictate [Computer software]. (1996). Newton, Mass: Dragon Systems, Inc.

Dragon Naturally Speaking [Computer software]. (1997). Newton, Mass: Dragon Systems, Inc.

Elkind

Black

M.S.

, & Murray

(1996). Computer-based compensation of adult reading disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 159–186.

Fernald

(1943). Remedial techniques in basic school subjects. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Foster

K.C.

Erickson

G.C.

Foster

D.F.

Brinkman

, & Torgesen

J.K.

(1994). Computer administered instruction in phonological awareness: Evaluation of the Daisy Quest program. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27, 126–137.

Gillingham

, & Stillman

(1968). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling and penmanship. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

10.

Goodman

K.S.

(1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading specialist, 6, 126–135.

11.

Heckelman

R.C.

(1969). A neurological impress method of remedial reading. Academic Therapy, 4, 277–282.

12.

Higgins

E.L.

, & Raskind

M.H.

(1995). An investigation of the compensatory effectiveness of speech recognition on the written composition performance of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 159–174.

13.

Higgins

E.H.

, & Zvi

(1995). Assistive technology with postsecondary students with learning disabilities: From research to practice. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 123–142.

14.

Karlsen

Madden

, & Gardner

E.F.

(1984). Stanford Diagnostic Reading Inventory-III. New York: Psychological Corporation.

15.

Kerchner

L.B.

, & Kistinger

B.J.

(1984). Language processing/word processing: Written expression, computers and learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly 7, 329–335.

16.

Leong

C.K.

(1992). Enhancing reading comprehension with text-to-speech (DECtalk) computer system. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 205–217.

17.

Lundberg

, & Olofsson

(1993). Can computer speech support reading comprehension? Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 282–293.

18.

MacArthur

C.A.

Graham

, & Schwartz

(1991). Knowledge of revision and revising behavior among students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 14, 61–73.

19.

Myers

P.I.

, & Hammill

D.D.

(1982). Learning disabilities: Basic concepts, assessment practices and instructional strategies. Austin TX: Pro-Ed.

20.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (1994). Collective perspectives on issues affecting learning disabilities. Austin TX: PRO-ED.

21.

Olson

Kliegl

Davidson

, & Flotz

(1985). Individual and developmental differences in reading disability. In MacKinnon

G.E.

& Waller

(Eds.). Reading research: Advances in theory and practice, 4, (pp. 1–64).

22.

Olson

R.K.

, & Wise

B.W.

(1992). Reading on the computer with orthographic and speech feedback. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 107–144.

23.

Raskind

M.H.

, & Higgins

E.L.

(1998). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 27–40.

24.

Raskind

M.H.

, & Higgins

E.L.

(1999). Speaking to read: The effects of speech recognition technology on the reading and spelling performance of children with learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia.

25.

Schwartz

& Armstrong

(1989). Select a story: Instant ideas for creative writing. Santa Barbara, CA: The Learning Works.

26.

Senn

J.A.

(1992). 325 creative prompts for personal journals. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.

27.

D.I.

(1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.

28.

Smith

(1978). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

29.

Swanson

H.L.

, & Alexander

J.E.

(1997). Cognitive processes as predictors of word recognition and reading comprehension in learning-disabled and skilled readers: Revisiting the specificity hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 128–158.

30.

Swanson

H.L.

Cochran

K.F.

, & Ewers

C.A.

(1989). Working memory in skilled and less skilled readers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 17, 145–156.

31.

Torgesen

J.K.

(1993). Computers as aids in the prevention and remediation of reading disabilities. Paper presented at the Fourth International Symposium on Learning Disabilities, Missillac, France, July.

32.

Torgesen

J.K.

Waters

M.D.

Cohen

A.L.

, & Torgesen

J.L.

(1988). Improving sight recognition skills in LD children: An evaluation of three computer program variations. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 125–130.

33.

VoiceType [Computer software]. (1996). Armonk, NY: IBM Corporation.

34.

Wechsler

(1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for children-Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation.

35.

Wechsler

(1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition. New York: Psychological Corporation.

36.

Wiederholt

J.L.

(1986) Formal Reading Inventory. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

37.

Wilkinson

G.S.

(1993). Wide Range Achievement Test. Wilmington, DL: Wide Range, Inc.

38.

Wilmes

& Wilmes

(1983). Everyday Circle Times. Elgin, Illinois: Building Blocks Publication.

Speaking to Read: The Effects of Continuous vs. Discrete Speech Recognition Systems on the Reading and Spelling of Children with Learning Disabilities

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References