Children from non-English-speaking homes are doubly disadvantaged when learning English in school. They enter school with less prior knowledge of English sounds, word meanings, and sentence structure, and they get little or no reinforcement of their learning outside of the classroom. This article compares the classroom standard practice of sustained silent reading with the Project LISTEN Reading Tutor which uses automated speech recognition to “listen” to children read aloud, providing both spoken and graphical feedback. Previous research with the Reading Tutor has focused primarily on native speaking populations. In this study 34 Hispanic students spent one month in the classroom and one month using the Reading Tutor for 25 minutes per day. The Reading Tutor condition produced significant learning gains in several measures of fluency. Effect sizes ranged from 0.55 to 1.27. These dramatic results from a one-month treatment indicate this technology may have much to offer English language learners.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AistG. (2000, June). Human tutor and computer tutor story choice in listening to children read aloud. Proceedings of the ITS'2000 Workshop on Modeling Human Teaching Tactics and Strategies, Montreal, Canada, pp. 8–10.
AistG., & MostowJ. (1997, October). When speech input is not an afterthought: A reading tutor that listens. Proceedings of the Workshop on Perceptual User Interfaces, Banff, Canada.
4.
AistG., & MostowJ. (2000, June). Improving story choice in a reading tutor that listens. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS'2000), Montreal, Canada, p. 645.
5.
AistG.MostowJ.TobinB.BurkheadP.CorbettA.CuneoA.JunkerB., & SklarM. B. (2001). Computer-assisted oral reading helps third graders learn vocabulary better than a classroom control—About as well as one-on-one human-assisted oral reading. In MooreJ. D.RedfieldC. L., & JohnsonW. L. (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: AI-ED in the wired and wireless future (pp. 267–277). San Antonio, TX/Amsterdam: IOS Press.
6.
AriasM. B. (1986). The context of education for Hispanic students: An overview. American Journal of Education, 95, 26–57.
7.
AugustD. (2003). Supporting the development of English literacy in English language learners: Key issues and promising practices. CRESPAR Tech. Rep. No. 61.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. Retrieved May 30, 2004 from www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report61.pdf.
8.
AugustD., & HakutaK. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda.Washington, DC: National Research Council.
9.
BakerS. K., & GoodR. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement of English reading with bilingual Hispanic students: A validation study with second-grade students. School Psychology Review, 24(4), 561–578.
10.
Congressional Budget Office. (1987). Educational achievement: Explanations and implications of recent trends.Washington, DC: The Congress of the United States.
11.
Chu-ChangM. (1981). The dependency relation between oral language and reading in bilingual children. Journal of Education, 163(1), 30–55.
12.
De la ColinaM.ParkerR. I.HasbrouckJ. E., & Lara-AlecioR. (2001). Intensive intervention in reading fluency for at-risk beginning Spanish readers. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(4), 417–452.
13.
De La RosaD., & MawC. (1990). Hispanic education: A statistical portrait.Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza.
14.
DenoS. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 184–192.
15.
DentonC. A.AnthonyJ. L.ParkerR., & HasbrouckJ. E. (2004). Effects of two tutoring programs on the English reading development of Spanish-English bilingual students. The Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 289–305.
16.
DurgunogluA. Y. (1998). Acquiring literacy in English and Spanish in the United States. In DurgunogluA. Y. & VerhoevenL. (Eds.), Literacy development in a multilingual context: Cross-cultural perspective (pp. 135–146). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17.
FoormanB. R., & TorgesenJ. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(4), 203–212.
18.
FuchsL. S., & DenoS. L. (1991). Effects of curriculum within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 58(3), 232–243.
19.
GuerreroM. D., & SloanK. (2001). When exemplary gets blurry: A descriptive analysis of four exemplary K-3 Spanish reading programs in Texas. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(1&2). Retrieved May 21, 2004 from http://brj.asu.edu/v2512/pdf/ar9.pdf.
JiaP.BeckJ. E., & MostowJ. (2002, June 3). Can a reading tutor that listens use inter-word latency to assess a student's reading ability?ITS 2002 Workshop on Creating Valid Diagnostic Assessments, San Sebastian, Spain, pp. 23–32.
23.
KaoG., & TiendaM. (1995). Optimism and achievement: The educational performance of immigrant youth. Social Science Quarterly, 76, 1–19.
24.
LiK. (2002). The Reading Tutor: A pilot investigation of the usability and benefits for English as a second language learners. Unpublished cust 590 graduating paper, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
MeskillC.MossopJ., & BatesR. (1999). Electronic text and English as a second language environments.Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning & Achievement.
27.
MirkinP. K., & DenoS. L. (1979). Formative evaluation in the classroom: An approach to improving instruction. (Research Report No. 10). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
28.
MossM., & PumaM. (1995). Prospects: The congressionally mandated study of educational growth and opportunity. First Year Report on Language Minority and Limited English Proficient Students. Prepared for Office of the Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Education by Abt Associates, Inc., Cambridge, MA.
29.
MostowJ., & AistG. (2001). Evaluating tutors that listen: An overview of project listen. In RofbusK. D. & FeltovichP. J. (Eds), Smart machines in education (pp. 169–234). Cambridge, MA: AAAI Press/The MIT Press.
30.
MostowJ.AistG.BeyJ.BurkheadP.CuneoA.JunkerB.RossbachS.TobinB.ValeriJ., & WilsonS. (2002, June 27–30). Independent practice versus computer-guided oral reading: Equal-time comparison of sustained silent reading to an automated reading tutor that listens. Ninth Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Chicago, Illinois.
31.
MostowJ.AistG.BurkheadP.CorbettA.CuneoA.EitelmanS.HuangC.JunkerB.SklarM. B., & TobinB. (2003a). Evaluation of an automated reading tutor that listens: Comparison to human tutoring and classroom instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(1), 61–117.
32.
MostowJ.AistG.HuangC.JunkerB.KennedyR.LanH.IVD. L.O'ConnorR.TassoneR.TobinB., & WiermanA. (2003b). 4-Month evaluation of a learner-controlled reading tutor that listens. In DelCloqueP. & HollandM. (Eds.), Speech technology for language learning.Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
33.
MostowJ., & BeckJ. (2003, November 3–4). When the rubber meets the road: Lessons from the in-school adventures of an automated reading tutor that listens. Conceptualizing scale-up: Multidisciplinary perspectives, Washington, DC: Park Hyatt Hotel.
NRP. (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. (NIH Publication No. 00–4754). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health & Human Development.
37.
OrfieldG. (1986). Hispanic education: Challenges, research, and policies. American Journal of Education, 95, 1–25.
38.
PadolskyD. (2002). How has the Limited English Proficient student population changed in recent years?The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA). Retrieved April 27, 2004 from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/08leps.htm.
39.
QuintanaC. C. (2001). The development and description of an inventory to measure the reading preferences of Mexican immigrant students. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(4), 417–435.
40.
Ruiz de VelascoJ., & FixM. (2000). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students in U.S. secondary schools.Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
41.
SederR. C. (1998). Bilingual education: Reading, writing, and rhetoric.Los Angeles, CA: Reason Public Policy Institute (RPPI).
42.
SlavinR. E., & CheungA. (2003). Effective reading programs for English language learners: A best-evidence synthesis. CRESPAR Tech. Rep. No. 66. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. Retrieved May 30, 2004, from www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report66.pdf.
43.
SlavinR. E., & CheungA. (2004). How do English language learners learn to read?Educational Leadership, 61(6), 52–57.
44.
SnowC. E.BurnsM. S., & GriffinP. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
45.
ThomasW. P., & CollierV. P. (2001). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students long-term academic achievement.Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (CREDE).
46.
Van HookJ., & FixM. (2000). A profile of the immigrant student population. In Ruiz de VelascoJ.FixM., & Chu ClewellB. (Eds.), Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students in U.S. secondary schools.Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
47.
VerhoevenL., & AartsR. (1998). Attaining functional biliteracy in the Netherlands. In DurgunogluA. Y. & VerhoevenL. (Eds.), Literacy development in a multilingual context: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 111–133). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
48.
ZehlerA. M.FleischmanH. L.HopstockP. J.StephensonT. G.PendzickM. L., & SapruS. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities. Volume I: Research report. Submitted to U.S. Department of Education, OELA. Arlington VA: Development Associates, Inc.
