Text-to-Speech Technology and Math Performance: A Comparative Study of Students With Disabilities,English Language Learners,and Their General Education Peers

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between text-to-speech (TTS) usage and item-by-item performance in the 2017 eighth-grade National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math assessment, focusing on students with disabilities (SWDs), English language learners (ELLs), and their general education (GE) peers. Results indicate that all students use TTS more for longer and more difficult math items as well as for multiple-choice or short-response formats. Among SWDs and GE students, lower math proficiency and higher perceived time pressure are linked to higher TTS usage. Moreover, among GE students, factors such as male gender, minority status, lower math persistence, and higher math interest and effort during testing contribute to higher TTS usage. TTS usage is positively associated with item performance for SWDs and ELLs who received extended time accommodations but not for those who did not receive such accommodations or for general education students. The study suggests that the time constraints of speeded digital assessments may limit the potential benefits of TTS for SWDs and ELLs in math problem-solving.

Keywords

computerized testing descriptive analysis effect size English language learners extended time accommodation general education students hierarchical linear modeling mathematics education math performance NAEP secondary data analysis special education students with disabilities text-to-speech

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abedi

Zhang

Rowe

S. E.

Lee

(2020). Examining effectiveness and validity of accommodations for English Language Learners in mathematics: An evidence-based computer accommodation decision system. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12328

Albus

D. A.

Lazarus

S. S.

Thurlow

M. L.

Larson

E. D.

Liu

K. K.

(2020). Text-to-speech accommodation policies in 2018–19 (NCEO Report 417). University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOReport417.pdf

Anderson

Liu

Swierzbin

Thurlow

Bielinski

(2000). Bilingual accommodations for limited English proficient students on statewide reading tests: Phase 2 (Minnesota Report No. 31). University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Bolt

S. E.

Thurlow

M. L.

(2007). Item-level effects of the read-aloud accommodation for students with reading disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084070330010301

Bonifacci

Colombini

Marzocchi

Tobia

Desideri

(2022). Text-to-speech applications to reduce mind wandering in students with dyslexia. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(2),440–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12624

Crotts-Roohr

Sireci

S. G.

(2017). Evaluating computer-based test accommodations for English learners. Educational Assessment, 22, 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2016.1271704.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

Eaton

Hamlett

C. L.

Karns

(2000). Supplementing teacher judgment of math test accommodations using objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29(1), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2000.12085998

Hicks

Circi

Lee

S.-Y.

(2021). Linking universal design feature use and performance. Poster presented at the SREE conference, Arlington, VA.

Jiang

(2007). Linear and generalized linear mixed models and their applications. Springer.

10.

Knoop-van Campen

C. A. N.

Ter Doest

Verhoeven

Segers

. (2022). The effect of audio-support on strategy, time, and performance on reading comprehension in secondary school students with dyslexia. Annals of dyslexia, 72(2), 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-021-00246-w

11.

Lee

Buzick

Sireci

S. G.

Lee

Laitusis

(2021). Embedded accommodation and accessibility support usage on a computer-based statewide achievement test. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 26(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.7275/21926674

12.

Lee

S.-Y.

Hicks

Circi

(2020). Insights on text-to-speech as a universal design feature: NAEP mathematics process data. Paper presented at NCME conference virtual conference.

13.

Mayer

R. E.

Moreno

(2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6

14.

Moon

(2012). Web-based text-to-speech technologies in foreign language learning: Opportunities and challenges. In Kim

Fang

Zhang

Cuzzocrea

(Eds.), Computer applications for database, education, and ubiquitous computing. EL DTA 2012. Communications in Computer and Information Science (Vol. 352, pp. 120–125). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35603-2_19

15.

Okonkwo

C. W.

Ade-Ibijola

(2021). Chatbots applications in education: A systematic review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100033

16.

Rose

D. H.

Meyer

Strangman

Rappolt

(2016). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

17.

Schneps

M. H.

Chen

Pomplun

Wang

Crosby

A. D.

Kent

. (2019). Pushing the speed of assistive technologies for reading. Mind, Brain, and Education, 13(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12180

18.

Sireci

S. G.

O’Riordan

(2020). Comparability issues in assessing individuals with disabilities. In Berman

A. I.

Haertel

E. H.

Pellegrino

J. W.

(Eds.), Comparability issues in large-scale assessment: Issues and recommendations (pp. 117–204). National Academy of Education Press.

19.

Svensson

Nordstrom

Lindeblad

Gustafson

Bjorn

Sand

Almgren-Back

Nilsson

(2019). Effects of assistive technology for students with reading and writing disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology, 16(2), 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2019.1646821.

20.

Thurlow

M. L.

Elliott

J. L.

Ysseldyke

J. E.

(2003). Testing students with disabilities: Practical strategies for complying with district and state requirements. Corwin Press.

21.

Tindal

Heath

Hollenbeck

Almond

Harniss

(1998). Accommodating students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An experimental study. Exceptional Children, 64(4), 439–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299806400401

22.

Wagner

R. K.

Zirps

F. A.

Wood

S. G.

(2022). Developmental dyslexia. In Snowling

M. J.

Hulme

Nation

(Eds.), The science of reading (pp. 416–460). John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119705116.ch19

23.

Wei

Zhang

(2023). Extended time accommodation and the academic, behavioral, and psychological outcomes of student’s with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194231195624

24.

Wolf

L. F.

Smith

J. K.

(1995). The consequence of consequence: Motivation, anxiety, and test performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 8(3), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame0803_3

25.

Wolf

M. K.

Kim

Kao

J. C.

Rivera

N. M.

(2009). Examining the effectiveness and validity of glossary and read-aloud accommodations for English language learners in a math assessment (CRESST Report 766). University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

26.

Wolf

M. K.

Kim

Kao

(2012) The effects of glossary and read-aloud accommodations on English Language Learners’ performance on a mathematics assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 25(4), 347–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2012.714693

27.

Wood

S. G.

Moxley

J. H.

Tighe

E. L.

Wagner

R. K.

(2018). Does use of text-to-speech and related read-aloud tools improve reading comprehension for students with reading disabilities? A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416688170

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.16 MB