Students with disabilities often lack the skills required to access the general education curriculum and achieve success in school and postschool environments. Evidence suggests that using assistive technologies such as digital texts and translational supports enhances outcomes for these students (Anderson-Inman & Horney, 2007). The purpose of the current study was to examine the effects of a text-to-speech screen reader program on the academic achievement of high school students with disabilities in an online transition curriculum emphasizing information literacy. The text-to-speech support was introduced and withdrawn in a reversal design across 10 curriculum units. Findings suggest that the text-to-speech support increased unit quiz and reading comprehension performance with large effect sizes. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson-InmanL. (2009). Supported eText: Literacy scaffolding for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(3), 1–7.
2.
Anderson-InmanL.HorneyM. (2007). Supported eText: Assistive technology through text transformations. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 153–160.
3.
AndersonS.YilmazO.Washburn-MosesL. (2004). Middle and high school students with learning disabilities: Practical academic interventions for general education teachers–a review of the literature. American Secondary Education, 32, 19–38.
4.
BalajthyE. (2007). Using text-to-speech software with struggling readers. College Reading Association Yearbook, 28, 364–370.
5.
BehrmannM.JeromeM. K. (2002). Assistive technology for students with mild disabilities: Update 2002. Arlington, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EDOEC0201.)
6.
BooneR.HigginsK. (2007). The role of instructional design in assistive technology research and development. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 135–139.
7.
BurgstahlerS. (2003). The role of technology in preparing youth with disabilities for postsecondary education and employment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(4), 7–19.
EdyburnD. (2000). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children32(9), 1–24.
12.
ElkindK.ElkindJ. (2007). Text-to-speech software for reading. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, Summer, 11–16.
13.
ERIC/OSEP Special Project. (1999, Fall. Universal Design: Ensuring access to the general education curriculum. Research Connections in Special Education (Number 5). Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from http://www.ericcec.org.
14.
ForgraveK. E. (2002). Assistive technology: Empowering students with learning disabilities. Assistive Technology, 73, 122–126.
15.
Fried-OkenM. (2007). Assistive technology in communication disorders. In PaulR.CascellaP. W. (Eds.), Introduction to clinical methods in communication disorders (2nd ed., pp. 303–320). Portland, OR: Brookes.
16.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from http://dibels.uoregon.edu.
17.
HewardW. L. (2001). Guided notes: Improving the effectiveness of your lectures. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Partnership Grant for Improving the Quality of Education for Students with Disabilities. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from http://ada.osu.edu/resources/fastfacts/Guided_Notes.htm.
18.
HodgesB. (1999). Electronic books: Presentation software makes writing more fun. Learning and Leading with Technology, 27, 18–21.
19.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), Amendments of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004). Retrieved August 16, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/idea.pdf.
20.
IzzoM. V. (2008, April). Preparing Teachers for UDL Implementation: Lessons from Research and Practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Boston.
IzzoM. V.JacksonR.MeoG.PreviteP.RalabateP. (2008, April). Preparing teachers for UDL implementation: Lessons from research to practice. Invited paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children Annual Convention, Boston.
Kochhar-BryantC. A.BassettD. S. (Eds.). (2002). Aligning transition and standards-based education: Issues and strategies. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
PattersonK. (2005). Increasing positive outcomes for African American males in special education with the use of guided notes. Journal of Negro Education, 74, 311–320.
28.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
29.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
30.
ShinnM. R.ShinnM. M. (2002). AIMSweb training workbook: Administration and scoring of reading Maze for using in general outcome measurement. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.
31.
SymingtonL.StangerC. (2000). Math = success: New inclusionary math software programs add up to a brighter future. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 32(4), 28–33.
32.
TincaniM. (2004). Improving outcomes for college students with disabilities: Ten strategies for instructors. College Teaching, 52, 128–132.
33.
ThompsonT. (2003, Fall). Interdependent roles of all players in making technology accessible. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(4).
34.
WebbB. J. (2000). Planning and organizing assistive technology resources in your school. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 32(4), 48–57.
35.
WissickC. A.GardnerJ. E. (2008). Conducting assessments in technology needs: From assessment to implementation. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(2), 78–93.
