This study investigated the effects of computer-assisted comprehension practice using a researcher-developed computer program, Computer-Assisted Collaborative Strategic Reading (CACSR), with students who had disabilities. Two reading/ language arts teachers and their 34 students with disabilities participated. Students in the intervention group received the CACSR intervention, which consisted of 50-min instructional sessions twice per week over 10 to 12 weeks. The results revealed a statistically significant difference between intervention and comparison groups' reading comprehension ability as measured by a researcher-developed, proximal measure (i.e., finding main ideas and question generation) and a distal, standardized measure (i.e., Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, Passage Comprehension). Effect sizes for all dependent measures favored the CACSR group. Furthermore, a majority of students expressed positive overall perspectives of the CACSR intervention and believed that their reading had improved.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bahr, C., Kinzer, C.K., & Rieth, H. (1991). An analysis of the effects of teacher training and student grouping on reading comprehension skills among mildly handicapped high school students using computer assisted instruction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 11, 136—154.
2.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. (1984). Metacognitive skills in reading. In P. Pear-son, M. Kamil , P. Mosenthal, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353—394). New York: Longman .
3.
Bryant, D.P., Linan-Thompson, S., Ugel, N., Hamff, A., & Hougen, M. (2001). The effects of professional development for middle school general and special education teachers on implementation of reading strategies in inclusive content area classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 251—264.
4.
Bryant, D.P., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Ugel, N., Hamff, A., & Hougen, M. (2000). Reading outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities in general education middle school content area classes . Learning Disability Quarterly, 23(3), 24—38.
5.
Carnine, D. (1989). Phonics versus whole-word correction procedures following phonic instruction. Education and Treatment of Children , 3, 323—330.
6.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
7.
Englert, C.S., & Thomas, C.C. (1987). Sensitivity to text structure in reading and writing: A comparison between learning disabled and non-learning disabled students . Learning Disability Quarterly, 10(2), 93— 105.
8.
Farmer, M., Klein, R., & Bryson S. (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.
Forness, S.R., Kavale, K.A., Blum, I.M., & Lloyd, J.W. (1997). Mega-analysis of meta-analyses: What works in special education and related services. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(6), 4—9.
11.
Gersten, R., & Carnine, D. (1986). Direct Instruction in reading comprehension. Educational Leadership, 43(7) 70-78.
12.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L.S., Williams, J.P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279—320.
13.
Hall, T.E., Hughes, C.A., & Filbert, M. (2000). Computer assisted instruction in reading for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis. Education & Treatment of Children, 23(2), 173—193.
14.
Horton, S.V., Lovitt, T.C., Givens, A., & Nelson, R. (1989). Teaching social studies to high school students with academic handicaps in a mainstreamed setting: Effects of a computerized study guide. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(2), 102—107.
Ihnot, T., & Ihnot, C. (1997). Read Naturally. Saint Paul, MN: Read Naturally. Keene, S., & Davey, B. (1987). Effects of computer presented text on LD adolescents' reading behaviors. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10(4), 283—290.
17.
Kim, A. (2002). E fects of computer-assisted collaborative strategic reading (CACSR) on reading comprehension for students with learning disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas , Austin.
18.
Klingner, J.K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language . The Elementary School Journal, 96, 275—293.
19.
Klingner, J.K., & Vaughn, S. (1999). Promoting reading comprehension, content learning and English acquisition through collaborative strategic reading. The Reading Teacher, 52, 738—747.
20.
Klingner, J.K., Vaughn, S., Arguelles, M.E., Hughes, M.T., & Ahwee, S. (2004). Collaborative strategic reading: Real world lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 291—302.
21.
Klingner, J.K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J.S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading in heterogeneous classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 99, 3—21.
22.
Lewis, C. (2000). Limits of identification: The personal, pleasurable, and critical in reader response. Journal of Literacy Research , 32, 253—266.
23.
MacArthur, C.A., & Haynes, J.B. (1995). Student assistance for learning from text (SALT): A hypermedia reading aid. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 150—159.
Moats, L.C. (1998). Reading, spelling, and writing disabilities in the middle grades. In B. Wong, Learning about learning disabilities (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press .
26.
National Reading Panel (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 instructions (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
27.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). The reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction , 1, 117—175.
28.
Pressley, M., & El-Dinary, P.B. (1997). What we know about translating comprehension-strategies instruction research into practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 486—488, 512.
29.
Pressley, M., Johnson, C.J., Symons, S., McGoldrick, J.A., & Kurita, J.A. (1989). Strategies that improve children's memory and comprehension of text. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 3—32.
30.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards an R&D program in reading comprehension . Retrieved February 8, 2002, from http://www.rand.org/multi/achievementforall/reading/readreport.html
31.
Rieth, H., & Semmel, M.I. (1991). Use of computer-assisted instruction in the regular classroom. In G. Stoner, M. R. Shinn, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 215—239). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
32.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research . Review of Educational Research, 64, 479—530.
33.
Scanlon, D., Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J.B. (1996). Can a strategy be taught and learned in secondary inclusive classrooms?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 41—57.
34.
Snow, C.E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
35.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36.
Strucker, J. (1995). Patterns of reading in adult basic education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
37.
Swanson, H.L. (1999). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 32, 504—532.
38.
Swanson, H.L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 277-321.
39.
Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.T., Schumm, J.S., & Klingner, J.K. (1998). A collaborative effort to enhance reading and writing instruction in inclusion classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21(1), 57—74.
40.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S., & Sinagub, J.M. (1996). The focus group interview: Use and application in education and psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
41.
Weisberg, R. (1988). 1980s: A change in focus of reading comprehension research: A review of reading/learning disabilities research based on an interactive model of reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(2), 149—159.
42.
Williams, J.P. (1998). Improving comprehension of disabled readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 68, 213—238.
43.
Wissick, C.A., & Gardner, J.E. (2000). Multimedia or not to multimedia. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(4), 34—43.
44.
Wong, B.Y.L. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: A review . Review of Educational Research, 55, 227—268.
45.
Woodcock, R.W. (1998). Woodcock reading mastery test—Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service .
46.
Woodward, J., Carnine, D., Gersten, R., Gleason, M., Johnson, G., & Collins, M. (1986). Applying instructional design principles to CAI for mildly handicapped students: Four recently conducted studies. Journal of Special Education Technology, 8(1), 13—26.
