Text-to-speech (TTS) technology holds promise as a compensatory tool for adolescents with learning disabilities in accessing grade-level expository text. A multiple-baseline-across-participants design examined the effectiveness of TTS on oral reading fluency, comprehension, and task completion time for two males and one female with reading disabilities in a Midwest junior high school. TTS did not affect students' fluency, comprehension, or task completion time, although social validity interviews revealed that each student valued the independence and efficiency TTS provided. Students believed they comprehended fully, read more fluently, and finished the reading task more quickly with TTS than without it. Limitations and implications for future research are addressed in this article.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson-InmanL.HorneyM. A. (2007). Assistive technology through text transformations. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 153–160.
CalhoonM. B. (2005). Effects of a peer-mediated phonological skill and reading comprehension program on reading skill acquisition for middle school students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 424–433.
5.
CassidyJ.GarrettS. D.BarreraE. S.IV (2006). What's hot in adolescent literacy 1997–2006. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50, 30–36.
6.
DeshlerD. D.PalincsarA. S.BiancarosaG.NairM. (2007). Informed choices for struggling adolescent readers: A research based guide to instructional programs and practices. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
7.
EdmondsM. S.VaughnS.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC.CableA.TacketK. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79, 262–300.
8.
EdyburnD. L. (2007). Technology-enhanced reading performance: Defining a research agenda. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 146–152.
9.
ElbroC.RasmussenI.SpellingB. (1996). Teaching reading to disabled readers with language disorders: A controlled evaluation of synthetic speech feedback. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 37(2), 140–155.
10.
ElkindJ. (1998). Computer reading machines for poor readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 159–186.
11.
ElkindJ.CohenK.MurrayC. (1993). Using computer-based readers to improve reading comprehension of students with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 238–259.
FarmerM. E.KleinR.BrysonS. E. (1992). Computer-assisted reading: Effects of whole-word feedback on fluency and comprehension in readers with severe disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 13, 50–60.
14.
Faggella-LubyM. N.DeshlerD. (2008). Reading comprehension in adolescents with LD: What we know, what we need to learn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 70–78.
15.
FitzgeraldG.KouryK.MitchemK. (2008). Research on computer-mediated instruction for students with high incidence disabilities. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(2), 201–233.
16.
FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.BoudosquieA.KalinowskiS.CopelandK.YoungV. (2006). Effects of accommodations on high-stakes testing for students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 136–150.
17.
GajriaM.JitendraA. K.SoodS.SacksG. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225.
18.
GastD. L.SpriggsA. D. (2010). Visual analysis of graphic data. In GastD. L. (Ed.), Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences (pp. 199–233). New York, NY: Routledge.
19.
GiessS.RiversK. O.KennedyK.LombardinoL. J. (2012). Effects of multisensory phonics-based training on the word recognition and spelling skills of adolescents with reading disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 27, 60–73.
20.
HartasC.MosleyD. (1993). ‘Say that again please’: A scheme to boost reading skills using a computer with digitized speech. Support for Learning, 8(1), 16–21.
21.
HigginsK.BooneR.LovittT. C. (1996). Hypertext support for remedial students and students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities29, 402–412.
22.
HigginsE. L.RaskindM. H. (2005). The compensatory effectiveness of the Quicktionary Reading Pen II on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(1), 31–39.
23.
HospM. K. (2004). Variables that affect the correlation between fluency and accuracy with a measure of reading comprehension. Nashville, TN: Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Retrieved from aimsweb-qa.ratchet.com/uploads/pdfs/michellehosp.pdf.
24.
KennedyC. H. (2007). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
25.
KennedyM. J.DeshlerD. D. (2010). Literacy instruction, technology, and students with learning disabilities: Research we have, research we need. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 23, 289–298.
26.
LangeA. A.McPhillipsM.MulhernG.WylieJ. (2006). Assistive software tools for secondary-level students with literacy difficulties. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(3), 13–22.
27.
LeongC. K. (1992). Enhanced reading comprehension with text-to-speech (DECtalk) computer system. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 205–217.
28.
LundbergI.OlofssonÅ. (1993). Can computer speech support reading comprehension?Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 283–293.
29.
MontaliJ.LewandowskiL. (1996). Bimodal reading: Benefits of a talking computer for average and less skilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 271–279.
NewmanL.WagnerM.KnokeyA. M.MarderC.NagleK.ShaverD. (2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011-3005). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from www.nlts2.org/reports/.
33.
OlofssonÅ. (1992). Synthetic speech and computer aided reading for reading disabled children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 165–178.
34.
ParkB. J.AlonzoJ.TindalG. (2011). The development and technical adequacy of seventh-grade reading comprehension measures in a progress monitoring assessment system. (Technical Report No. 1102). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.
35.
PaukW. (2010). Six-way paragraphs, middle level: 100 passages for developing the six essential categories of education (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: Jamestown.
36.
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, 259–281.
37.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.BerkeleyS.GraetzJ. E. (2009). Do special education interventions improve earning of secondary content? A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 437–450.
38.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.CastoG. (1987). The qualitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 24–33.
39.
StetterM. E.HughesM. T. (2010). Computer-assisted instruction to enhance the reading comprehension of struggling readers: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(4), 1–16.
40.
StoddenR. A.RobertsK. D.TakahishiK.ParkH. J.StoddenN. J. (2012). Use of text-to-speech software to improve reading skills of high school struggling. Procedia Computer Science, 14, 359–362.
41.
StrangmanN.DaltonB. (2005). Using technology to support struggling readers: A review of the research. In EdyburnD.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 545–569). Port Chester, NY: National Professional Resources.
University of Oregon (2006–2012). easyCBM Lite Edition [Software]. Retrieved from http://easycbm.com.
44.
Van DaalV. H. P.ReitsmaP. (2000). Computer-assisted learning to read and spell: Results from two pilot studies. Journal of Research in Reading, 23(2), 181–193.
