Two design experiments were conducted to improve the word recognition performance of students at risk of school failure. In Study 1, an Internet-based software from the TELE-Web project was used to remediate the word recognition performance of 4 students at risk of retention and reading disabilities in first grade. In Study 2, the Internet-based software was used with an entire classroom of first-grade students in an effort to prevent reading difficulties and to accelerate reading performance. The results indicated that TELE-Web was effective in improving sight-word recognition and that these improvements transferred to a standardized measure of reading achievement. These findings suggest the promise of Internet-based software in supporting the reading programs of young readers at risk for retention or referral.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21—24.
2.
Blok, H., Oostdam, R., Otter, M.E., & Overmaat, M. (2002). Computer-assisted instruction in support of beginning reading instruction: A review. Review of Educational Research , 72(1), 101—130.
3.
Campbell, J.R., Donahue, P.L., Reese, C.M., & Phillips, G.W. (1996). NAEP 1994 reading report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Chall, J.S., Jacobs, V.A., & Baldwin, L.E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in education research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9—13.
7.
Cohen, A.L., Torgesen, J.K., & Torgesen, J.L. (1988). Improving speed and accuracy of word recognition in reading disabled children: An evaluation of two computer programs. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 333— 341.
8.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York : Academic Press.
9.
Dolch, E.W. (1936). A basic sight vocabulary. The Elementary School Journal., 36, 456—460.
10.
Englert, C.S., Manalo, M., & Zhao, Y. (2004). I can do it better on the computer: The effects of technology-enabled scaffolding on young writers' composition. Journal of Special Education Technology.19 (1), 1-15.
11.
Englert, C.S., & Zhao, Y. (1999). Technology-enhanced learning environments on the Web: The TELE-Web project. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
12.
Fredericksen, J.R., Warren, B.M., & Rosebery, A.S. (1985). A componential approach to training reading skills: Part 2. Decoding and use of context. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 271—338.
13.
Grigg, W.S., Daane, M.C., Jin, Y., & Campbell, J.R. (2003). The nation's report card: Reading 2002. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
14.
Kulik, C.C., & Kulik, J.A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75—94.
15.
Martin, J.H., & Friedberg, A. (1986). Writing to read: A parent's guide to the new learning programs for young children. New York: Warner.
16.
National Council for Social Studies. (1994 ). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies (Bulletin No. 89). Washington, DC: Author.
17.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
18.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
19.
National Research Council. (1995). The national science education standards. Washington, DC : National Academy of Sciences.
20.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.
21.
Okolo, C.M., Cavalier, A.R., Ferretti, R.P., & MacArthur, C.A. (2000). Technology, literacy, and disabilities: A review of the research. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Ed.), Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 179—250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
22.
Olson, R., Foltz, G., & Wise, B. (1986). Reading instruction and remediation with the aid of computer speech. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 18(2), 93—99.
23.
Olson, R.K. & Wise, B.W. (1995). Computer-based phonological awareness and reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 99—122.
24.
Ooyang, R. (1993). A meta-analysis: E fectiveness of computer-assisted instruction at the level of elementary education (K—6). Indiana: Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
25.
Renaissance Learning. (2001). STAR reading: Computer-Adaptive Reading Test & Database. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.
26.
Roth, S.F., & Beck, I.L. (1987). Theoretical and instructional implications of the assessment of two microcomputer word recognition programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 197—218.
27.
Shavelson, R.J., Phillips, D.C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M.J. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32, 25—28.
28.
Slavin, R.E. (1991). Reading effects of IBM's “Writing to Read” program: A review of evaluations. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 1—11.
29.
Torgesen, J.K., & Horen, N.M. (1992). Using computers to assist in reading instruction for children with learning disabilities. In S. A. Vogel (Ed.), Educational alternatives for students with learning disabilities (pp. 159—181). New York: Springer Verlag.
30.
Torgesen, J.K., Waters, M.D., Cohen, A.L., & Torgesen, J.L. (1988). Improving sight word recognition skills in LD children: An evaluation of three computer programs. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 125—132.
31.
Vadasy, P.F., Sanders, E.A., Jenkins, J.R., & Peyton, J.A. (2002). Timing and intensity of tutoring: A closer look at the conditions for effective early literacy tutoring. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 227—241.
32.
van Daal, V.H.P., & van der Leij, A. (1992). Computer-based reading and spelling practice for children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 186—195.
