technology to assist postsecondary struggling readers : a mixed-methods research study
DESCRIPTION
Technology to Assist Postsecondary Struggling Readers : A Mixed-Methods Research Study. Presented by: Mary Anne Steinberg, Ph.D., Cheryl Morgan, Ph.D., & Victoria Steinberg. Learning Outcomes. Participants will review current research on reading at the postsecondary level. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Technology to Assist Postsecondary Struggling
Readers:A Mixed-Methods Research Study
Presented by:Mary Anne Steinberg, Ph.D.,
Cheryl Morgan, Ph.D., & Victoria Steinberg
Learning Outcomes
Participants will review current research on reading at the postsecondary level.
Participants will review research results from a recent study on the use of text to speech technology with postsecondary students with disabilities.
Reading Statistics 85% of all learning comes from independent
reading in college.Nist & Simpson, 2000
Textbooks are central to learning in postsecondary education settings.
Alfasi, 2004
College students who are not metacognitively aware will probably experience academic problems.
Baker & Brown, 1984; Kiewra, 2002; Maitland, 2000
Reading Research
What do think happens to this gap as students go to college?
How does this gap impact your students’ performance?
Literature Review Research has shown that only 2% of students who receive
remedial education or special education services (for difficulties learning to read) will complete a four-year education.
Lyon, 2002
This may be due to the fact that students with disabilities may be less likely to take general education classes in high school.
Carter & Unruh, 2012; Steinberg & Murphy, 2012
Technology can be an option that can help students with disabilities experience academic success in college.
Edyburn, 2007; Gregg, 2007
Our Study
Purpose The purpose of our study was to investigate the impact of Kurzweil 3000-firefly as a means of improving the reading comprehension of college students with disabilities.
Research Questions: Will the use of Kurzweil 3000-firefly improve a student’s
reading comprehension as measured by idea units? What are the perceptions of students who use Kurzweil
3000-firefly to improve comprehension?
Methodology
Participants 5 college students with disabilities
participated in this study.
Participant
Gender
Ethnicity Age Disability
1 Female
Caucasian 25 Apert Syndrome & Hydrocephalus
2 Male Black 33 ADHD3 Male Middle
Eastern24 Dyslexia & ADHD
4 Male Caucasian 30 LD & ADHD the inattentive type
5 Female
Black 24 ADHD the inattentive type
SettingTwo postsecondary institutions were included in the study:
The first school was a public university Over 50,000 students enrolled More that 100 undergraduate degree programs (majors) More than 200 graduate degree programs
The second school was a public college Over 16,000 students enrolled 90 certificate and associate’s degree programs 5 bachelor’s degree programs
MaterialsEach student was provided:
The Contexts Reader by Hartmann & Uggen (2012)
A license of Kurzweil 3000-firefly
Other materials used during the study:
Idea Unit score sheets
Tape recorder
Measurement Procedures
Target Behavior (d.v.): reading comprehension as measured through retelling (idea units) Retelling= the ability to recall important
ideas contained in the passage Idea Unit= an individual idea in a text
The d.v. was measured by counting the correctly stated idea units for each passage
Single Subject Design
Multiple baseline across subject design was used.
Baseline Students read The Contexts Reader in a “traditional” way. Acceptable baseline was established when 3-4 data points were
stable in trend and level.
Intervention Students were given Kurzweil 3000-firefly. They then read passages from The Context Reader with
Kurzweil 3000-firefly. Visual analysis of data was completed as well as calculating
PND and PEM scores.
Qualitative Design Phenomenological research design was used to obtain
perceptions of the use of Kurzweil through first-person accounts in informal interviews with participants.
Moustakas, 1994
All participants were interviewed using open-ended questions.
Interviews were then recorded and transcribed.
The analysis looked for themes that described each individual’s experiences.
Then researchers looked across each transcript for recurring or common themes that resonated with multiple participants.
Results
Student 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 220
10
20
30
40
50
60
baselineintervention
Session Number
Perc
enta
ge o
f Co
rrec
t Id
ea U
nits
Student 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 220
10
20
30
40
50
60
baselineinterventionbaseline2
Sessions
Perc
enta
ge o
f Co
rrec
t Id
ea U
nits
Student 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 220
10
20
30
40
50
60
baselineintervention
Session Number
Perc
enta
cge
of C
orre
ct I
dea
Uni
ts
Student 4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 220
10
20
30
40
50
60
baselineinterventionbaseline 2
Session Number
Perc
enta
ge o
f Co
rrec
t Id
ea U
nits
Student 5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 220
10
20
30
40
50
60
baselineinterventionbaseline 2
Session Number
Perc
enta
ge o
f Co
rrec
t Id
ea U
nits
A Side-by-Side Comparison
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
BaselineInterventionBaseline2
1 2 3 4 5Student
Aver
age
Perc
enta
geag
e o
f Co
rrec
t Id
ea U
nits
by
phas
e
Implications for Future Research
Future studies need to continue to examine the effectiveness of text-to-speech technology for postsecondary students with disabilities.
Future research should also consider implementing a similar study using texts that each student is currently using in their coursework versus a text chosen by researchers.
Limitations Our study findings cannot necessarily be generalized
beyond participants in this study.
Findings may also be limited due to the fact that several study participants had to exit the study due to the end of the semester, making it impossible to extend the length of the intervention or include them in a return to baseline condition.
Using an expository text (e.g. history or astronomy) may have yielded different results.
In addition, reading passages outside of the student’s own coursework may have affected motivation and performance on the retelling task.
Questions?Comments? Thoughts?
