This investigation assessed the effects of computer-displayed text on LD students' reading comprehension, strategic behaviors, task-completion time, and attitudes toward the reading task. Fifty-one LD high-school students were randomly assigned to read two lengthy expository passages either from a computer monitor or from a comparably formatted printed page. Subjects were encouraged to use six reading strategies as often as necessary to help them comprehend. Total time spent interacting with the passages was recorded in seconds. Subjects were then assessed on comprehension of the passage content, on their use of the six strategies, and their attitudes toward the task. They were retested on passage content one week later. Results indicated that, overall, the computer-displayed text format did not affect comprehension processing, five strategic behaviors, or time on task. However, computer use appeared to facilitate the lookback text strategy and made users' attitude toward the reading task more favorable.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AckermanP.T.DykmanR.A. (1982). Automatic and effortful information-processing deficits in children with learning and attention disorders. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2 (2), 12–22.
2.
AlvermannD.E.RatekinN.H. (1982). Metacognitive knowledge about reading proficiency: Its relation to study strategies and task demands. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14 (3), 231–241.
3.
AndreM.AndersonT. (1978/79). The development and evaluation of a self-questioning technique. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 605–623.
4.
BakerL. (1982). An evaluation of the role of metacognitive deficits in learning disabilities. Topics in Learning Disabilities, 2 (1), 27–36.
5.
BakerL.BrownA.L. (1980). Metacognitive skills and reading. Technical report from the Center for the Study of Reading. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, No. 188.
6.
BloomeD. (1983). Classroom reading instruction: A sociocommunicative analysis of time on task. In NilesJ.A.HarrisL.A. (Eds.), Thirty-second yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 275–288).)
7.
BorkA. (1980). Interactive learning. In TaylorP. (Eds.), The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.)
8.
BowmanJ.DaveyB. (1986). The effects of presentation mode on the comprehension-monitoring behaviors of LD adolescents. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9 (4), 250–257.
9.
BrownA.L.SmileyS.S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: A problem of metacognitive development. Child Development, 48, 1–8.
10.
CanneyG.WinogradP. (1979). Schemata for reading and reading comprehension performance. Technical report from the Center for the Study of Reading. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, No. 120.
11.
ClarkF.L.WarnerM.M.AlleyG.R.DeshlerD.D.SchumakerJ.B.VetterA.F.NolanS.M. (1981). Visual imagery and self-questioning: Strategies to improve comprehension of written material. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 217 655)
12.
ForrestD.L.WallerT.G. (1981, April). Reading ability and knowledge of important information. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston.
13.
FryE. (1975). Reading drills for speed and comprehension. Providence, RI: Jamestown Publishers.
14.
GarnerR.ReisR. (1981). Monitoring and resolving comprehension obstacles. An investigation of spontaneous text lookbacks among upper-grade good and poor comprehenders. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 569–582.
15.
GerellH.R.MasonG.E. (1983). Computer-chunked and traditional text. Reading World, 22, 241–245.
16.
HathawayM.D. (1984). Variables of computer screen display and how they affect learning. Educational Technology, 24, 7–11.
17.
HenneyM. (1981, October). The effect of all-capital print on a microcomputer screen on reading speed and accuracy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Plains Regional Conference of the International Reading Association, Des Moines, IA.
18.
JensenC.B. (1982). The enhanced CAI tutorial. In Proceedings of the National Educational Computing Conference, Kansas City.
19.
KolersP.A.DuchnickyR.L.FergusonD.C. (1981). Eye movement measurement of readability of CRT displays. Human Factors, 23, 517–527.
20.
KolichE.M. (1985). Microcomputer technology with the learning disabled: A review of the literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19 (7), 428–431.
KulikJ.A.KulikC.C.CohenP.A. (1980). Effectiveness of computer-based college teaching: A metaanalysis of findings. Review of Educational Research, 50 (40), 525–544.
23.
LawtonJ.GerschnerV.T. (1982). A review of the literature on attitudes toward computers and computerized instruction. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 16, 50–55.
24.
MarkmanE.M. (1977). Realizing that you don't understand: A preliminary investigation. Child Development, 48, 986–992.
25.
McAndrewD.A. (1983). Underlining and notetaking: Some suggestions from research. Journal of Reading, 27 (2), 103–108.
26.
MosleyM.L. (1984, January). Computer-assisted instruction and continuing motivation. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, Cincinnati, OH.
27.
PedhazurE.J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
28.
PflaumS.W.BryanT.H. (1980). Oral reading behaviors in the learning disabled. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 252–258.
29.
RagostaM.HollandP.W.JamisonD.T. (1982, June). Computer-assisted instruction and compensatory education: The ETG/LAU SD study The executive summary and policy implications (Project Report No. 20). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
30.
RamselD.GrabeM. (1983). Attention allocation and performance in goal-directed reading: Age difference in reading flexibility. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15 (3), 55–65.
31.
ReinkingD.SchreinerR. (1985). The effects of computer-mediated text on measures of reading comprehension and reading behavior. Reading Research Quarterly22 (5), 536–552.
32.
SarachoO.N. (1982). The effects of a computer-assisted instruction program on basic skills achievement and attitudes towards instruction of Spanish-speaking migrant children. American Educational Research Journal, 19 (2), 201–219.
33.
ScanlonN. (1984). Reading related skills and strategies for the computer age. Computers, Reading and Language Arts, 2 (1), 35–39.
34.
SilfenR.HowesA.C. (1984). A summer reading program with CAI: An evaluation. Computers, Reading and Language Arts, 1 (4), 20–22.
35.
SuppesP. (1980). Impact of computers on curriculum in the schools and universities. In TaylorR.P. (Ed.), The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.)
36.
TaberF.M.HannafordA.E. (1983, March). Uses for the microcomputer in special education. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Uses of Microcomputers in Special Education, Hartford, CT.
37.
ThomasD.B. (1979). The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in secondary schools. AEDS Journal, 12 (3), 103–116.
38.
TorgesenJ.K. (1982). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner: Educational implications. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 45–52.
39.
TorgesenJ.YoungK. (1983). Priorities for the use of microcomputers with learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16 (4), 234–237.
40.
WongB.Y.L. (1980). Activating the inactive learner: Use of questions/prompts to enhance comprehension and retention of implied information in learning disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 29–37.
41.
ZigmondN.VallecorsaA.LeinhardtG. (1980). Reading instruction for students with learning disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 1, 89–98.
