This study determined the degree to which computer mediated presentations of text influence learning disabled children's reading comprehension and whether cognitive factors related to metacognition, attribution, and working memory influence treatment effects. To this end, 60 learning disabled (LD) and 60 average (AV) readers from grades 4-6 were assigned randomly to one of four treatment conditions: control, paper (off-line), computer-no reread, and computer reread. Within each condition, traditional and cloze comprehension questions were presented at three levels of passage difficulty. Subjects were administered the following pre and posttest measures: Metacognition and Attribution questionnaires, Nelson Reading Skills Test, and the Working Memory Span task. Regardless of treatment condition, average readers scored higher than LD readers on measures of reading comprehension, working memory, and metacognition. The results indicate that computer mediated text was no better than off-line conditions in improving learning disabled readers' comprehension. Further, attribution and metacognitive sophistication were independent of treatment effects. The only factor associated with performance on computer mediated text presentations was working memory. The results support the notion that the attributes of the instructional medium (computer, off line) do not directly affect disabled readers' comprehension.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJ., & AdamsA. (1984). Steps to Comprehension (computers program). St. Charles, Illinois: Educational Publishing Concepts, Inc.
2.
BakerL., & BrownA. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 353–394). NY: Longman.
3.
BosC. S., & FilipD. (1982). Comprehension monitoring skills in learning disabled and average students. Topics in Learning & Learning Disabilities, 2 (1), 79–86.
4.
ButkowskyI. S., & WillowsD. M. (1980). Cognitive-motivational-characteristics of children varying in reading ability: Evidence for learned helplessness in poor readers. Journal of Education Psychology, 72, 408–422.
5.
ClarkR. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–459.
6.
CosdenM. A., & EnglishJ. P. (1987). The effects of grouping, self esteem, and locus of control on microcomputer performance and help seeking by mildly handicapped students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 443–459.
7.
CosdenM. A.GerberM. M.SemmelD. S.GoldmanS. R., & SemmelM. I. (1987). Microcomputer use within micro-educational environments. Exceptional Children, 53, 399–409.
8.
DanemanM. (1987). Reading and working memory. In BeechJ. R. & ColleyM.A. (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to reading, (pp. 57–86). NY: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
9.
DanemanM., & CarpenterP. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466. Federal Register, 42, (No. 250), Thursday, December 29, 1977.
10.
FeldmanS. C., & FishM. C. (1988). Reading comprehension of elementary, junior high and high school students on print vs. microcomputer-generated text. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 159–166.
11.
FishM. C., & FeldmannS. C. (1987). A comparison of reading comprehension using print and microcomputer presentation. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14, 57–61.
12.
FletcherJ. M. (1985). Memory for verbal and nonverbal stimuli in learning disability subgroups: Analyses by selective reminding. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 40, 244–259.
13.
GoldmanS. R., & PellegrinoJ. W. (1987). Information processing and educational microcomputer technology: Where do we go from here?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 144–154.
14.
GouldJ. D., & GrischkowskyN. (1984). Doing the same work with hard copy and with cathode-ray tube (CRT) computer terminals. Human Factors, 26, 323–337.
15.
HannaG. S.SchellL. M., & SchreinerR. (1977). The Nelson Reading Skills Test (Teacher's Manual). Iowa City, IA: Houghton-Mifflin.
16.
HeppnerF. H.AndersonJ. G. T.FarstrupA. E., & WeidermanN. H. (1985). Reading performance on a standardized test is better from print than from computer display. Journal of Reading, 28, 321–325.
17.
JacobsenB.LoweryB., & DuCetteJ. (1986). Attributions of learning disabled children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 59–64.
18.
JonesK. M.TorgesenJ. K., & SextonM. A. (1987). Using computer guided practice to increase decoding fluency in learning disabled children: A study using the Hint and Hunt 1 program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 122–128.
19.
KeeneS., & DaveyB. (1987). Effects of computer-presented text on LD adolescents' reading behavior. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 283–290.
20.
KrendlK. A., & LiebermanD. A. (1988). Computers and learning: A review of recent research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 357–389.
21.
LichtB. G. (1983). Cognitive-motivational factors that contribute to the achievement of learning-disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 483–490.
22.
LichtB. G.KistnerJ. A.OzkaragozT.ShapiroS., & ClausenL. (1985). Causal attributions of learning disabled children: Individual differences and their implications for persistence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 208–216.
23.
MuterP.LatremouilleS.TreurnietW., & BeamP. (1982). Extended reading of continuous text on television screens. Human Factors, 24, 501–508.
24.
PalincsarA. S. (1986). Metacognitive strategy instruction. Exceptional Children, 53, 118–124.
25.
ParisS. G.CrossD. R., & LipsonM. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children's reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 129–1252.
26.
ReinkingD. (1987). Computers, reading, and a new technology of print. In ReinkingD. (ed.), Reading and computers: Issues for theory and practice (pp. 3–23). NY: Teachers College Press.
27.
ReinkingD. (1988). Computer-mediated text and comprehension differences: The role of reading time, reading preference, and estimation of learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 13, 485–499.
28.
ReinkingD., & SchreinerR. (1985). The effects of computer-mediated text on measures of reading comprehension and reading behavior. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 536–552.
29.
RiethH.BahrC.OkoloC.PolsgroveL., & EckertR. (1988). An analysis of the impact of microcomputers on the secondary special education classroom ecology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 425–441.
30.
RogersH., & SaklofskeD. H. (1985). Self-concepts, locus on control and performance expectations of learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 273–278.
31.
RothS. F., & BeckI. L. (1987). Theoretical and instructional implications of the assessment of two microcomputer word recognition programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 197–218.
32.
SchunkD. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive achievement: Implications for students with learning problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 14–22.
33.
SwansonH. L.CochranK. F., & EwersC. A. (1989). Working memory in skilled and less skilled readers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 145–157.
TorgesenJ. K. (1986). Using computers to help learning disabled children practice reading: A research-based perspective. Learning Disabilities Focus, 7 (2), 72–81.
36.
TurnerM., & EngleR. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent?Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127–154.
37.
WongB. Y. L. (1987). Directions in future research on metacognition in learning disabilities. In H. L. Swanson (Ed.)Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, Supplement 2, -Memory and Learning Disabilities, 335–356. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.
