The present study assessed the compensatory effectiveness of four assistive software tools (speech synthesis, spellchecker, homophone tool, and dictionary) on literacy. Secondary- level students (N = 93) with reading difficulties completed computer-based tests of literacy skills. Training on their respective software followed for those assigned to the Assistive Software and the Microsoft Word Control groups. Posttests revealed an improvement for the Assistive Software group on reading comprehension, homophone error detection, spelling error detection, and word meanings. The Microsoft Word Control group also improved on spelling error detection and word meanings, but performed worse on homophone error detection. A Full Control group showed no significant improvements on any of the measures. Overall, results indicate a significant assistive value of the four software tools (from the software package Read & Write Gold, 2002) across several domains of literacy.
BeechJ. R. (2004). Using a dictionary: Its influence on children's reading, spelling, and phonology. Reading Psychology, 25, 19–36.
3.
Burton-RadzelyL. (Ed.). (1998). A national perspective on special educators' use of technology to promote literacy: Technical report. Washington, DC: MACRO International and The Council for Exceptional Children.
4.
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (2003). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved on October 14, 2005, from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/.
5.
Cochran-SmithM. (1991). Word processing and writing in elementary classrooms: A critical review of related literature. Review of Educational Research, 61, 107–155.
6.
Council for Learning Disabilities Research Committee. (1993). Minimum standards for the description of participants in learning disabilities research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 210–213.
ElkindJ.CohenK.MurrayC. (1993). Using computer-based readers to improve reading comprehension of students with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 238–259.
9.
FawcettA. J. (2003). The international adult literacy survey in Britain: Impact on policy and practice. Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research & Practice, 9, 99–121.
10.
GoyetteE. S. (1997). The effects of dictionary usage on text comprehension. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(10), 4264A. (UMI No. 12375). Retrieved November 2, 2005, from PsychINFO database.
11.
HarkerJ. K.FeldtL. S. (1993). A comparison of achievement test performance of nondisabled students under silent reading and reading plus listening modes of administration. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 307–320.
12.
HigginsE. L.RaskindM. H. (1997). The compensatory effectiveness of optical character recognition/speech synthesis on reading comprehension of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 75–87.
13.
HigginsE. L.ZviJ. C. (1995). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: From research to practice. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 123–142.
JohnsJ. L. (1993). Informal reading inventories. DeKalb, IL: Communitech International Incorporated.
16.
KuhnM. R.StahlS. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3–21.
17.
LeongC. K. (1992). Enhancing reading comprehension with text-to-speech (DECtalk) computer system. Reading & Writing, 4, 205–217.
18.
LASS Secondary [Software]. (2002). East Yorkshire, UK: Lucid Research, Limited.
19.
LyonG. R. (1999). Keys to successful learning: A national summit of research in learning disabilities. Washington DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Retrieved November 2, 2005, from http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/reading/ncld_summit99.html.
20.
MacArthurC. A. (1996). Using technology to enhance the writing processes of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 344–354.
21.
MacArthurC. A.GrahamS.HaynesJ. B.DeLaPazS. (1996). Spelling checkers and students with learning disabilities: Performance comparisons and impact on spelling. Journal of Special Education, 30, 35–57.
22.
McNaughtonD.HughesC.OfieshN. (1997). Proofreading for students with learning disabilities: Integrating computer and strategy use. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12, 16–28.
23.
MontgomeryD. J.KarlanG. R.CoutinhoM. (2001). The effectiveness of word processor spell checker programs to produce target words for misspellings generated by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(2), 27–42.
24.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2003). National assessment of educational progress: The nation's report card. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
25.
NeuwirthS. (1993). Decade of the brain (NIH Publication No. 93–3611). Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health.
26.
NealeM. D. (1997). Neale Analysis of Reading Ability (2nd rev. British ed.). London: Nfer-Nelson.
27.
Nfer-Nelson. (1999). Group Reading Test II [GRTII]. London: Nfer-Nelson.
PedlerJ. (2001). Computer spellcheckers and dyslexics: A performance survey. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 23–37.
30.
Psychological Corporation (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
31.
RaskindM. H.HermanK. L.TorgesenJ. K. (1995). Technology for persons with learning disabilities: Report on an international symposium. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 175–184.
32.
RaskindM. H.HigginsE. L. (1998). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 27–40.
33.
RaskindM. H.HigginsE. 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, 49, 251–281.
34.
RaskindM. H.HigginsE. L. (1995). Effects of speech synthesis on the proofreading efficiency of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 141–158.
35.
RaskindM. H.HigginsE. L.HermanK. L. (1997). Technology in the world for persons with learning disabilities: Views from the inside. InGerberP. J.BrownD. S. (Eds.), Learning Disabilities and Employment (pp. 307–330). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
SchulzW.DertmannJ.JaglaA. (2003). Reading and writing disorder: Self-esteem and integrative learning therapy [German]. Kindheit Und Entwicklung, 12, 231–242. Retrieved November 2, 2005, from PsychINFO database.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. (2003). 25th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
43.
Van DaalV. H.ReitsmaP. (1993). The use of speech feedback by normal and disabled readers in computer-based reading practice. Reading & Writing, 5, 243–259.
44.
WiseB. W.RingJ.OlsonR. K. (2000). Individual differences in gains from computer-assisted remedial reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 197–235.
45.
WiseB. W.RingJ.OlsonR. K. (1999). Training phonological awareness with and without explicit attention to articulation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 271–304.
