Effect of Speech Synthesis and Word Processing on Reading Achievement
Abstract
The use of technology with at-risk or low achieving students is having a positive impact on learning and student achievement. Studies indicate that speech synthesis software and the use of the word processor during writing increase motivation for the writing process for students with reading and writing disabilities. Hearing the story while composing helps students foster reading with meaning; however researchers found that student writers using word processors and speech synthesis software revise more, write more, and spend more time writing, produce neater, more error-free texts an important part of writing. More studies are advised to correlate the use of speech synthesis and reading for meaning with increased student achievement.
Introduction
Educational reform worldwide is increasingly concerned and preoccupied with school failure. School failure has a double meaning – the failure of some students to secure educational achievements and opportunities on a par with their peers; and the failure of schools to provide all of their students, especially those from poor or minority backgrounds, with those achievements and opportunities (Haegreaves, 2004)
Many low-income children enter school already behind their more affluent peers. Teachers must embrace their responsibility to help students acquire a solid foundation for school success (Musti-Raa and Carteledge, 2007). There is accumulating evidence that teachers’ instructional interactions with children have the greatest value for students’ performance when they are focused, direct, intentional, and characterized by feedback loops involving student performance. Explicit teaching experiences and practice (i.e. phonemic skills, vocabulary), productive classroom teaching, learning, intensive scaffolding and feedback to students about their progress can lead to higher academic achievement.
The value of intentional, focused interaction and feedback is not limited to reading, but appears to be a key component in other skill domains such as writing that may extend to cognition and higher order thinking (Hamre & Pianta, 2005). The use of technology with at-risk or low achieving students is having a positive impact on learning and achievement. The Apple Classrooms for Tomorrow (ACOT) Project has reported positive impacts on student attitudes, motivation, and learning (Puma, 2000). When students work with computer technologies, instead of being controlled by them, they enhance the capabilities of the computer. When this occurs the computer enhances students thinking and learning skills (Jonassen, Carr and Yueh, 1998). Other studies indicate that it is not simply access to technology that is important, but rather, how teachers use it as a tool to enhance learning (Puma, 2000).
Literature Review
At-Risk Students
Home issues that place students at risk of school failure are low maternal education (Hamre & Pianta, 2005); parent and sibling substance abuse, family violence, lack of parental supervision, lack of parental educational support and involvement, parents who speak English as a second language, criminal parental behavior (Johnson, 1997. Educators often see these issues as a major influence on whether or not an at-risk student will succeed in school. Some teachers are perceived as having the attitude that low-achieving students do not have the same ability as their low-risk peers. Actions and behaviors directed toward students indicate a lack of belief in their academic abilities. Students reported teachers telling them that they were destined to work at Burger King or McDonald’s (Lee, 1999). Lack of teacher expectation and teacher-centered classrooms is one factor in students not achieving in the classroom. In these teacher-centered classrooms lectures are the common way of teaching along with minimal communication resulting in limited learning (Lee, 1999).
Students’ perception of school was a place where they can feel safe, comfortable and cared about (Lee, 1999). Child-centered classrooms nurture positive relationships between teacher and student. These classrooms provided explicit teaching and practice, intensive scaffolding and feedback to students about their progress (Hamre & Pianta, 2005). Direct instruction is required for those students having limited language competencies and minimal background experiences (Johnson, 1997). Teachers need to take the time to present concepts and ideas in multiple ways (lectures, group work, visual aides, manipulatives, varying text, music) to ensure comprehension (Lee, 1999). Greater achievement for Title I students was associated with the use of task oriented teaching that avoided classroom disruptions, the use of academically challenging materials and asking more “opinion” rather than simple factual questions (Puma, 2000).
Reading
The importance of being able to read is critical to student achievement. The U.S. Department of Education clearly defines the five essential components of reading instruction as described in Reading First, part of the ESEA Act.
Phonemic Awareness: the ability to hear, identify, and manipulate the individual sounds – phonemes – in spoken words. Phonemic awareness is the understanding that the sounds of spoken language work together to make words.
Phonics: the understanding that there is a predictable relationship between phonemes – the sounds of spoken language – and graphemes – the letters and spellings that represent those sounds in written language. Readers use these relationships to recognize familiar words accurately and automatically and to decode unfamiliar words.
Vocabulary Development: the development of stored information about the meanings and pronunciation of words necessary for communications.
Fluency: the ability to read text accurately and quickly. It provides a bridge between word recognition and comprehension. Fluent readers recognize words and comprehend at the same time.”
Comprehension: strategies for understanding, remembering, and communicating with others about what has been read. Comprehension strategies are sets of steps that purposeful active readers use to make sense of text (Reading Recovery, 2003).
Teaching students to read should be educators’ number one priority but how that happens depends on the reader’s background knowledge and educational experiences. Some children grasp the process no matter what way they are taught; others require different approaches (Scherer, 2007). The National Reading Panel find that teachers should adopt a “balanced” reading approach with instruction in phonemic awareness, alphabetic understanding, and automaticity with the code forming the framework of beginning reading instruction. Good reading instruction is explicit, intensive and systematic (Musti-Rao and Carteledge, 2007).
Reading involves the use of various cue systems or knowledge structures that interact during the act of reading. These cues provide information to the reader in order that meaning can be constructed from the text. The skilled reader can comprehend quickly by using only minimal cues from each of the systems. These cues are described as phonetic, semantic, orthographic, syntactic, lexical or sources of information outside the reader. The reader will backtrack for more cues if those already picked out are not sufficient for the text to make sense (Lafreamboise, 1989).
Students with reading disabilities have a particularly difficult time with word recognition, especially phonological decoding skills (Higgins, Raskind and The Frostig Center, 2005). The poor reader may not have sufficient information provided by sight vocabulary and syntactic, phonic, and orthographic cues to bring meaning to the text. The reader may be hindered from being able to construct meaning from text (Laframboise, 1989).
Technology can be a powerful compensatory tool – it can augment sensory input or reduce distractions; it can provide support for cognitive processing or enhance memory and recall; it can serve as a personal “on demand” tutor and as an enabling device that supports independent functioning (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1996). Efforts should be made to ensure access to appropriate technology for children with special needs, for whom assistive technologies may be essential for successful inclusion (NAEYC, 1996).
Optical Character Recognition
The use of optical character recognition (OCR) systems combined with speech synthesis has become increasingly accepted as a means to compensate for reading difficulties (Higgins, Raskind and The Frostig Center, 2005). OCR systems convert printed text to the spoken word. Students with reading disabilities can bypass their phonological difficulties by hearing the printed word, which may be a more efficient way of comprehending text (Higgins, et al., 2005).
OCR systems are generally desktop computers combined with flatbed full-page scanners. Users scan printed documents; the printed text is converted to electronic text that is read aloud by a speech synthesizer. The text is displayed on the screen while the text is read aloud by the speech synthesizer. The Quicktionary Reading Pen is handheld unit approximately 1” X ¾” X 6.” The unit allows the user to scan printed text either a word or line at a time. Scanned words appear on the screen within 1-3 seconds and are read aloud by a built-in speech synthesizer (Higgins, et al., 2005).
Statistical analysis revealed significant increases in correct responses to reading comprehension. Other studies have shown that speech synthesis, in combination with optical character recognition, improved comprehension of collect students with severe reading deficits (Higgins, et al., 2005). Over time, the constant exposure to new vocabulary that stimulates the exploratory, analytic behavior could conceivably result in significant improvements in reading vocabulary and affect comprehension positively (Higgins, et al.).
The authors (Higgins, et al.) caution that the use of OCR technology with more able readers can disrupt the comprehension process because of the auditory input that was not necessary for them. They also caution about generalizing the efficacy values in their study to other chronological ages and grade levels, or to other populations of disabled and non-disabled readers (p. 35).
Writing
Special education students often have difficulties in written expression such as accurately conveying their ideas in written language or generating stories (Kelly, Kratcoski and McClain, 2006). Children who are experiencing difficulties with writing receive little regular, additional or remedial instruction. Students have a limited conception of the nature of revision, concentrating mainly on mechanical errors in punctuation and spelling, rather than on text-meaning alterations (Wilkinson and Anderson, 1992).
Writing is, by its nature, a process in addition to being a product (Laframboise, 1989). The Balanced Literacy Model (2003) defines the essential components of the writing process.
Prewriting – the opportunity to generate ideas and discover what is known and what to say about a topic
Writing – translating ideas into sentences and paragraphs and writing for a particular audience, voice and purpose in mind.
Revising – adding new details, making sentences clearer, reading the writing as readers not writers, reorganizing and focusing ideas.
Editing – applying state standard information, making the writing ready for publication or presentation – correcting the spelling, sentences, punctuation and usage.
Sharing – reading, seeing and/or hearing others’ writing (pp. 50).
Word Processor
Intervention is a normal part of life in a lifetime of learning (Scherer, 2007). Neuman (2007) defines intervention as “systematic and intentional efforts to provide supplemental health, education and social services to at-risk children and their families” (p. 17). Writing with a word processor could be viewed as an intervention, rather than a long-term writing method in the classroom (Kelly, et. al., 2006). The lack of specific remedial instruction in writing for these students is suggested by several researchers (e.g. Christenson, Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & McVicar, 1989) as a factor in their failure to improve. This is supported by reports of positive effects on productivity, cohesiveness and accuracy when specific instruction in aspects of writing has been used in intervention. Mann (1999) found that consistent student access to the technology, positive attitudes towards technology and teacher training in the technology leads to greater student achievement gains (p. 7).
Computers can be tools for enhancing written language, yet using the computer requires literacy (Dalute, 2000). Literacy development depends in large part on having extensive, engaging exposure to print and involvement with communication technologies that is print intensive. Students who do not have access to these technologies may be at a disadvantage (Dalute, 2000). Children communicating via computers face social and ethical challenges, requiring that they understand and control the contexts, purposes and processes of written language. They are involved in critical literacy as they continue to master the mechanics of writing (Dalute, 2000). Teachers should look for ways to use computers to support the development and learning that occur in other parts of the classroom and development and learning that happen with computers in complement with activities off the computer (NAEYC, 1996).
Student writers using word processors revise more, write more, and spend more time writing, produce neater, more error-free texts than they do with paper and pencil (Wilkinson and Anderson, 1992). The word processor presents the text in a form the reader can view immediately on the computer monitor or later on a printout. Word processors reduce short-term memory burdens, especially for younger writers who find it easier to type and correct mistakes than to form letters, words, and sentences, and easier to give commands than to recopy entire texts (Dalute, 2000). Students who use computers when writing are more engaged and motivated, and also produce written work that is longer and of a higher quality than students who do not use computers to write (Kelly, et.al., 2006). High motivation aside, word processing may actually enhance learning by influencing the cognitive processes of language production (Laframboise, 1989).
Speech synthesis features may hold particular promise for students in special education, because hearing text aloud may provide additional prompts to help them revise their work (Kelly, et.al., 2006). Speech synthesis converts the text to speech while word prediction software predicts the intended word based on the beginning of the word that the user types. The addition of speech to word processors to enable text to be read back to the writer may, within the appropriate instructional context, enhance aspects of the writing process (Wilkinson and Anderson, 1992).
One effect of speech synthesis was the positive impact on revision during the writing process. Kelly, et. al. (2006) referenced a teacher’s observation of the reduction of spelling errors during the use of the speech synthesis program Write Out Loud. This program speaks while students are writing making it easier for them to edit their work.
“When we went to Write Out Loud, they were very aware of the spelling errors, because they could hear the way the word was being pronounced. So they tended more to the screen and the configuration of the words and whether or not all of the sounds were there and right now I see that when they are typing an e-mail or something they will go back, even though they are not hearing the word, they’re going back and they are able to recognize letters that are missing or sounds that are missing in words because I think they have had that experience of hearing the typed word” (p. 6).
Soundproof is a speech synthesis program students can activate whenever required in their word processing program. They are able to specify whether to read words, lines, sentences or paragraphs and could also navigate around the text and choose to read different text segments. As each word is read it is highlighted on the screen. Students could listen to the speech synthesizer through speakers or, more preferably, headphones (Wilkinson and Anderson, 1992).
Soundproof was extensively and successfully used by the students at the language convention level. Students often changed spelling and attended to capital letters as a result of listening to their stories (Wilkinson and Anderson, 1992).
One aspect of the study that did not materialize the way the researchers planned was the increase in analyzing the writing through meaning. Wilkinson and Anderson (1992) noted students occasionally made alterations to story endings, but there was no evidence to indicate that they were using speech feedback to rephrase or re-sequence their stories (p. 12). The students used the speech synthesizing software to attend to mechanical errors rather than meaning.
A positive aspect of the use of word processors and/or speech synthesizers in the writing process was the increase in motivation on the part of students. There were numerous studies (Wilkinson & Anderson, 1992; Kelly, et.a., 2006; Schactez, 1999; Higgins, Raskind and The Frostig Center, 2005; Dalute, 2000) that cited the motivation for writing while using technology was a factor in increased achievement in reading and writing. More studies need to be completed on how to motivate our at-risk students in order to raise their achievement level.
References
Balanced Literacy Model (1st ed). (2003). Fort Wayne, IN.
Dalute, Colette. (in press). Writing and Communication Technologies. In Roselmina Indrisano & James R. Squire (Eds) Perspectives on Writing: Research, Theory and Practice: International Reading Association, April 2000.
ESEA fact sheets describing Reading Recovery in relation to the federal definition of scientifically based reading research and the five essential elements of reading instruction. http://www.readingrecovery.org/sections/home/adv_esea_factsheets.asp.
Hamre, Bridget K. & Pianta, Robert. (2005). Can Instructional and Emotional Support in the First-Grade Classroom Make a Difference for Children at Risk of School Failure. Child Development, v76, n5, September/October 2005, pp. 949-967.
Higgins, Eleanor, Raskind, Marshall & The Frostig Center. (2005). The Compensatory Effectiveness of the Quicktionary Reading Pen II on the Reading Comprehension of Students with Disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 20(1), Winter 2005, pp. 31-40.
Jonassen, David, Carr, Chad & Yueh, Hsiu-Ping. (1998). Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking. TechTrends, v 43 n2 pp. 24-32 March 1998.
Kelly, Jennifer, Kratcoski, Annette & McClain, Karen. (2006). The Effects of Word Processing Software on the Writing of Students with Special Needs. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, Winter 2006, pp. 1-16.
Laframboise, Kathryn. (1989). The Effects of Sentence-Combining Using Word Processing Technology on the Reading Comprehension and Writing Fluency of Low-Achieving Fourth Grade Students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Savannah, GA.
Lee, Patrick W. (1999). An Ethnographic Study of Low-Achieving Students within the Context of School Reform. Urban Education, v34, n2, May 1999, pp. 214-244.
Musti-Rao and Cartledge, Gwendolyn. (2007). Delivering What Urban Readers Need. Educational Leadership, v54, n2, October 2007, pp. 56-61.
National Association for the Education of Young Children (1996). Technology and Young Children – Ages 3 through 8. Washington DC.
Neuman, Susan B. (2007). Changing the Odds. Educational Leadership, v65, n2, October 2007, pp. 17-21.
Puma, Michael. (2000). Exploring New Directions. Title I in the Year 2000. The National School Boards Association, 2000.
Schactez, John. (1999). The Impact of Education Technology on Student Achievement: What the Most Current Research Has to Say. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.
Scherer, Marge. Interventions That Work. Educational Leadership, v65 n2 October 2007 p7.
Wilkinson, Lois & Anderson, Bill. (1992). Talking back and writing: Using a speech synthesizer and strategy instruction with students who have difficulty writing. Paper presented at the Joint AARE/NZARE Conference, Deakin University, Geelong, pp. 22-26, November 1992.
No comments:
Post a Comment