The study investigated the compensatory effectiveness of the Quicktionary Reading Pen II (the Reading Pen), a portable device with miniaturized optical character recognition and speech synthesis capabilities. Thirty participants with reading disabilities aged 10–18 were trained on the operation of the technology and given two weeks to practice decoding single words and using various dictionary functions during independent silent reading in the classroom and other settings. Participants were then given a reading comprehension test under the following conditions: (a) reading passages silently using the Reading Pen, and (b) reading passages silently without assistance. Paired sample comparisons revealed significant differences under the two conditions in favor of using the pen (p<.0001+). Results are discussed in light of previous research on related technologies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AaronP.G.PhillipsS. (1986). A decade of research with dyslexic college students: A summary of findings. Annals of Dyslexia, 36, 44–65.
2.
BruckM. (1988). The word recognition and spelling of dyslexic children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 51–69.
3.
BruckM. (1993). Component spelling skills of college students with childhood diagnoses of dyslexia. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 171–185.
4.
BryantD.P.BryantB.R. (2003). Assistive technology for people with disabilities. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
5.
CrowderR.G. (1982). The psychology of reading: An introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
DanemanM.CarpenterP.A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 280–385.
7.
DayS.L.EdwardsB.J. (1997). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. InHigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.), Technology for students with learning disabilities (pp. 191–204). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
8.
ElkindJ.BlackM.S.MurrayC. (1996). Computer-based compensation of adult reading disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 159–186.
9.
ElkindJ.CohenK.MurrayC. (1993). Using computer-based readers to improve reading comprehension of students with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 238–259.
10.
FernaldG. (1943). Remedial techniques in basic school subjects. New York: McGraw-Hill.
11.
GillinghamA.StillmanB. (1968). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling and penmanship. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
12.
GoughP.B.TunmerW.E. (1986). Decoding reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
13.
HardyckC.D.PetrinovichL.F. (1969). Treatment of sub vocal speech during reading. Journal of Reading, 1, 1–11.
14.
HardyckC.D.PetrinovichL.F. (1970). Sub vocal speech and comprehension level as a function of the difficulty level of material. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 647–652.
15.
HeckelmanR.C. (1969). A neurological impress method of remedial reading. Academic Therapy, 4, 277–282.
16.
HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.) (1997). Technology for students with learning disabilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.
17.
HigginsE.L.RaskindM.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.
18.
HigginsE.L.RaskindM.H. (1997). The compensatory effectiveness of optical character recognition/speech synthesis on the reading comprehension of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 75–87.
19.
HolliganC.JohnstonR. (1988). The use of phonological information by good and poor readers in memory and reading tasks. Memory and Cognition, 6, 522–532.
LeongC.K. (1992). Enhancing reading comprehension with text-to-speech (DECtalk) computer system. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 205–217.
23.
LundbergI. (1995). The computer as a tool for remediation in the special education of reading disabled students: A theory-based approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 89–100.
24.
LundbergI.FrostJ.PetersenO.P. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263–284.
25.
LundbergI.LeongC.K. (1986). Compensation in reading disabilities. InKjelmquistE.NilssonL. (Eds.), Psychological Compensation and Technical Aids (pp. 171–190). Piorth-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
26.
MeyersL.F. (1992). Teach me my language: Teaching children with learning disabilities to link meaning with speech and text. Writing Notebook: Creative Word Processing In the Classroom, 9, 44–46.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (1994). Collective Perspectives on Issues Affecting Learning Disabilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
30.
OlsonR.K., (1985). Disabled reading processes and cognitive profiles. InGrayD.KavanaghJ. (Eds.) Biobehavioral measures of dyslexia, (pp. 215–244). Parkton, MD: York Press.
31.
PerfettiC.A. (1975). Language comprehension and fast decoding: Some psycholinguistic prerequisites for skilled reading comprehension. Paper presented to the Development of Reading Comprehension Seminar of the International Reading Association, Newark, Delaware, July, 1975.
RaskindM.H. (1994). Assistive technology for adults with learning disabilities: A rationale for use. InGerberP.ReiffH. (Eds.) Learning disabilities in adulthood: Persisting problems and evolving issues (pp. 152–163). Boston, MA: Andover Medical Publishers.
34.
RaskindM.H. (1998). Literacy for adults with learning disabilities through assistive technology. InVogelS.A.RederS. (Eds.) Learning disabilities, literacy and adult education. Baltimore MD: Brookes.
RaskindM.H.HigginsE.L. (1995). The effects of speech synthesis on proofreading efficiency of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly. 18, 141–158.
37.
RaskindM.H.HigginsE.L. (1998a). Technology and learning disabilities: What do we know and where should we go?Perspectives, 24 (2), 1.
38.
RaskindM.H.HigginsE.L. (1998b). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 27–40.
39.
RaskindM.H.ScottN. (1993). Technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. InVogelS.A.AdelmanP.B. (Eds.), Success for postsecondary students with learning disabilities (pp. 240–279). New York: Springer-Verlag.
40.
StanovichK.E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and garden-variety poor readers: The phonological-covariable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590–612.
41.
SwansonH.L. (1992). Generality and modifiability of working memory among skilled and less skilled readers. Journal of Education Psychology, 84, 473–488.
42.
TorgesenJ.K. (1994). A longitudinal study of early intervention in phonological awareness. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 276–286.
43.
TorgesenJ.K.BarkerT.A. (1995). Computers as aids in the prevention and remediation of reading disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18,.
44.
WagnerR.TorgesenJ.K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Review, 101, 192–212.
WiseB.W.OlsonR.K. (1992). How poor readers and spellers use interactive speech in a computerized spelling program. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 145–163.
47.
WoodcockR.W.JohnsonM.B. (1987). Woodcock Johnson reading mastery test-revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
48.
WYNN® [Computer software]. (1998). Sunnyvale, CA: Arkenstone, Inc.
