interactive reading computer programs

Interactive Reading Computer Programs

“The Effects of Interactive Reading Computer Programs on Reading

Achievement of Middle School Students with Special Needs.”

Patricia Green

East Stroudsburg University

ELED 570: Introduction to Research

Dr. Craig A. Wilson

April 26, 2011

1


The Effects of Interactive Reading Computer Programs on Reading Achievement of

Middle School Students with Special Needs

Introduction

The traditional education system focused the role of imparting knowledge to

students solely on the teachers. Through the “chalk and talk” method, students were

expected to listen attentively while the teacher imparts information in a clear and precise

manner. The sole responsibility of the students was to record the information dictated in a

manner that is understandable so that they will be able to retain it and record it when

being tested (Roberts, 2009). Various developments in education led to the inclusion of

technology that was integrated with the expectation of developing students’ learning

capacity in a creative and innovative manner (Technology’s Impact on Learning, 2011).

The term “educational technology” surfaced in the 1960s, when instruction was

coined with the experts in audiovisual to bring about a significant distinction between

traditional education and educational technology. The major task during the 1960s for

technologists and educational professionals surrounded defining the term “educational

technology”, which had to include all areas of education to be integrated with the use of

technology. In 1963, the first official definition of educational technology was publicized.

Teachers defended their authority in the classroom by ensuring that they still maintained

control of the content imparted to students and was not directed by technologists as to

how to be successful at teaching through the use of technology. They found it very

difficult to accept educational technology because of the change that would take place in

their teaching style (Januszewski, 2001).

2


Students currently have access to a wealth of information that can be easily

manipulated through the use of various computer programs to design text or graphics to

produce the desired outcome (Technology’s Impact on Learning, 2011). The use of

educational technology is evident in the present classroom environment as it appeals to

the visual literacy of students. Curriculum planners support visual literacy because it

appeals to the learning capabilities of all students (Januszewski, 2001). Reading is

recognized as one of the core academic subjects for middle school students and requires

extensive mastery of skills in order to do proficiently. However, there are students who

lack the ability to master the skills required in a timely manner and therefore, requires the

assistance of technology to strengthen their ability. Technology has weaved its

components into the education system to perfect the art of learning (Martin, 2011).

Research Problem

The Effects of Interactive Reading Computer Programs on Reading Achievement of

Middle School Students with Special Needs.

Research Questions

1. What are the gain scores on an instrument measuring the academic achievement

of Middle School Reading Students with special needs who participated in

reading activities that involved the use of technology?

2. What are the gain scores on an instrument measuring the academic achievement

of Middle School Reading Students with special needs who did not participate in

reading activities that involved the use of technology?

3. What is the comparison between the scores?

3


Definition of Terms

Educational Technology Also known variously as e-learning, instructional technology

and learning technology, educational technology is the use of technology to support the

learning process. Although the term can refer to all kinds of analogue technologies (e.g.

photographs, film, video, audio recordings), it is usually used to talk specifically about

digital computer technology (Educational Technology Insight).

Reading is the process of constructing meaning from written texts. It is a complex skill

requiring the coordination of a number of interrelated sources of information (Anderson

et al., 1985)

Special Needs is an umbrella underneath which a staggering array of diagnoses can be

wedged. Children with special needs may have mild learning disabilities or profound

mental retardation; food allergies or terminal illness; developmental delays that catch up

quickly or remain entrenched; occasional panic attacks or serious psychiatric problems

(Mauro, 2011).

Test-Score a summary of the evidence contained in an examinee's responses to the items

of a test that are related to the construct or constructs being measured (Thissen & Waine,

2001).

4


Review of the Literature

In 2007, Bell, McCallum and Sorrell conducted a study to examine the

effectiveness of computer-assisted reading using the Kurzweil 3000 (Kurzweil

Educational Systems, 2000) vs. independent reading for 12 teacher-nominated weak

readers. The authors stated that the study had two purposes: the primary purpose of the

study was to compare the effectiveness of a computerized text-to-speech reading

program, Kurzweil 3000, to a traditional (person powered) reading program for

improving reading skills in elementary school readers. The second purpose was to

determine the extent to which rate and comprehension are influenced by varying

computerized oral reading rate. The study was based on the statistical information

obtained through the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The

institute requested information to be presented regarding the severely poor reading

conditions of the United States population which was represented by 40%.

Twelve fifth grade students who were considered below the reading level were

selected by their teachers to participate in this study. The study consisted of five male and

seven female students whose age range between eight to twelve years. They participated

in an after-school research-service project; it was noted that four of the participants were

receiving special educational services due to suffering from reading disabilities. Students

were randomly assigned. Members of the experimental group participated in a 45 minutes

computer reading program for 4 to 5 days per week for 4 weeks, while members of the

controlled group participated in traditional instruction for the same duration. Both

interventions were conducted in the same room, the school’s technology lab, which

included some desks with computers and some without. The specific composition of the

5


experimental or the controlled group was not listed (age, gender distribution, academic

level, etc.).

The study was conducted as an experimental pretest-posttest control group design,

by randomly assigning the students to either the computerized group or the traditional

group after being matched as closely as possible with a peer on reading and grade level.

The independent variable was participation in the 4 weeks reading and comprehension

program, and the dependent variable consist of the scores from the Comprehension quiz

from the Accelerated Reader (AR). The AR comprehension quizzes were choose as a

dependent measure for this study because the AR provides a definitive point value system

based on students’ comprehension scores following reading; it provides daily,

curriculum-based measures of reading comprehension and participants were familiar with

the system and understood how to take the quizzes via computer.

To compare the effectiveness of computer-assisted reading vs. independent

reading, a repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance was conducted. Results

showed similar reading rate and reading comprehension means (dependent measures)

across type of reading presentation (i.e., independent and computer). Although the results

indicated no differences in rate and comprehension overall for the computer vs.

independent conditions, some interesting trends emerged. The average reading rate for

the 12 students at baseline was 77.5 words per minute (wpm). However, for the six

students with baseline reading rates below 78 wpm, scores following the computer

condition increased by 4 wpm whereas scores following the traditional condition

decreased by 2 wpm. As it relates to students reading faster than 78 wpm, their rate

decreased by 1 wpm following the computer condition but increased by 6 wpm after

6


reading on their own. A tendency for slower readers to increase their reading rate after

reading on the computer, whereas faster readers tended to decrease their rate following

computer reading was noted.

High variability in the comprehension scores may have been related to the reading

text selection used. Students read AR stories to and took the corresponding quizzes,

presumably at their instructional reading levels. Because it allowed for reading level to be

controlled and provided consistency in the nature of comprehension checks, ARA was

chosen as the medium for reading and testing. However, other measures of reading

comprehension may have yielded a more sensitive or accurate assessments. Large

standard deviations caused by the variability in scores make significant difference

findings more difficult. Logistical problems also limit the conclusions. The conclusions

are limited by a small population.

In 2006, Kim, Klingner, Kouszekanani, Reutebuch, Vaughn and Woodruff

investigated the effects of computer-assisted comprehension practice using a researcher-

developed computer program, Computer-Assisted Collaborative Strategic Reading

(CACSR), with students who had disabilities.

Two female reading/language arts teachers working in an urban middle school

and their 34 students participated in the study. Students who participated in the study

were: legally identified as having a disability; decoded words at a 2.5 grade level or

above as measured by the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R) Word

Identification (WI) or Word Attack (WA) subtests; were at least 1 year below grade level

in reading comprehension, as measured by the WRMT-R Passage Comprehension (PC)

or the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests; and they attended a reading class for students

7


with reading difficulties, including students with disabilities. Students were randomly

assigned to either the intervention group or the comparison group. A total of 16 students

participated in the intervention group and 18 participated in the comparison group.

Students in the intervention group received the CACSR intervention, which consisted of

50-minute instructional sessions twice per week over 10 to 12 weeks.

The study was conducted as an Experimental Pretest-Posttest Control Group

Research. General procedures used for all of the participants included pretesting of all

participating students, training of participating teachers on the CACSR implementation

procedure; implementation of CACSR through collaboration between the trained teachers

and research assistant; posttesting of all participating students and interviewing the

students in the CACSR group and participating teachers. This study had one independent

variable with 2 levels: the CACSR condition and a comparison condition. The trained

teacher and research assistant implemented the CACSR with students in the CACSR

group twice a week. They received the same reading instruction as the comparison group

during a 3 day period. During the CACSR intervention, each student worked with a

partner to read, discuss, and answer questions on passages. After the intervention period,

the students in both the CACSR and comparison group were assessed individually on the

same reading comprehension measures.

An ANCOVA using the WRMT-R PC scores showed that the experimental group

had outperformed the comparison group on the basis of the adjusted posttest Passage

Comprehension scores. A series of statistical test revealed that students significantly

improved their reading comprehension, as measured by both a researcher-developed,

proximal measure (the CSR measure) and a distal, standardized measure (WRMT –R

8


PC). Standardized mean difference (SMD) effect size also demonstrated positive

outcomes that supported the use of the CACSR intervention. In general the finding of this

study concur with those of previous CSR and reciprocal teaching studies on these

instructional approaches having positive effects on comprehension for students with

reading difficulties.

One limitation of the study was the teachers’ not taking primary responsibility for

implementing the CACSR intervention. Through the decision of collaborative

implementation, the trained research assistant initially would take the lead in

implementing CACSR and the trained teachers gradually take over the primary

responsibility for implementing it. This gradual transfer of responsibility from the trained

assistant to the teachers was challenging. As a result, the teachers played a less significant

role in assisting the research assistant over the intervention period. Another limitation of

this study was the possibility for experimental bias. Pretest and Posttest measures were

administered and scored by the researcher and the trained research assistants. Although

the importance of an unbiased administration and scoring of tests were emphasized

during the training, it is possible that the data may have been unconsciously influenced

by the expectations of the persons collecting the data.

In 2004, Anderson, Fulton, Melton, Replogle, Smothers and Thomas conducted a

study in order to compare the reading achievement growth of fifth grade students

following a year of participation in the Accelerated Reader Program with the reading

achievement growth of fifth grade students who did not participate in the Accelerated

Reader program.

9


Participants in this study included a total of 592 students. In the Jackson

Mississippi area, two schools with similar demographics were chosen for this study. At

Eastside Elementary, part of the Clinton Public School District, the experiemental group

consisted of 322 fifth grade students, consisting of 142 African-American and 180

Caucasian who participated in the Accelerated Reader program. The controlled group

consisted of the 270 fifth grade students, 128 African-American and 142 Caucasian, at

Gary Road Elementary, part of the Hinds County Public School District, were not

involved in the Accelerated Reader program.

A pretest-posttest group design was utilized for this ex-post facto study to determine if a

significant difference existed between the reading achievement growth of fifth grade

students as measured by the Terra Nova standardized reading achievement test with and

without Accelerated Reader program participation. Further study was conducted to

determine if a significant difference existed in the reading achievement growth of fifth

grade students initially scoring in the lower, middle, and upper quartiles for reading

comprehension on the Terra Nova with and without participation in the Accelerated

Reader program.

Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was the statistical treatment performed on the

data to determine if a significant difference existed between the reading comprehension

growth of fifth grade students with and without a year of participation in the Accelerated

Reader program. An ANCOVA was performed using the rank of the posttest reading

score as the dependent measure, the rank of the pretest reading score as a covariate, and

treatment condition, race, sex and quartile factors. Results revealed that the Accelerated

Reader program participants scored significantly lower than those who did not participate

10


in the Accelerated Reader program. The findings showed that the addition of the

Accelerated Reader program to the existing reading program did not result in a

significant increase in the reading achievement growth of participating students when

compared to the reading achievement growth of students who did not participate in the

Accelerated Reader program. In addition, the non-Accelerated Reader students obtained

higher adjusted mean rank scores than those students who participated in the Accelerated

Reader program.

More studies are needed to determine if there is a significant difference in

students' attitudes toward reading before and after participation in the program.

Need for the Study

Much more research is needed to develop the education system that is designed in

such a way that it reflects the impact and effects of integrating technology in the

curriculum. The literature review showed a limited amount of study that focused on

Interactive Reading Computer Programs on Reading Achievement of Middle School

Students with Special Needs.

Based on the literature review, the latest study conducted in this area was 2007.

Interactive Reading Computer Programs are advancing on a rapid pace; hence the need

for more current study is needed. This study will aid in developing a curriculum that is

suited to assist students with special needs to advance in various reading programs.

11


Methodology

Research Design

The quantitative study will be conducted as a quasi-experimental research,

utilizing two different intact elementary school classes with one group classified as the

experimental group and the other as the control group. A pretest-posttest, nonequivalent

control group designed will be used because the students are of intact groups which

require no random assignment. Both classes will complete a reading assignment that tests

their reading and comprehension skills through traditional classroom instruction and

cooperative learning. The experimental group will use a computerized reading program

using the integrated learning system (ILS) SuccessMaker. The quasi-experimental design

is diagrammed as follows:

G1 O1 X1 O2 GS1

G2 O3 - O4 GS2

G1 and G2 represent the two reading classes participating in the study. G1 is the

experimental group that will be exposed to the experimental treatment. The experimental

treatment is using the computerized reading program and is represented by “X”. G2 is the

control group that will not be exposed to the experimental treatment. A dash (-) is used to

denote the control group. O1 and O3 denote the mean scores for each group on the pretest

treatment, O2 and O4 represents the mean scores on the posttest. In calculating the gain

score of the two groups, the mean of the pretest score is subtracted from the mean of the

posttest score. GS1 is the gain score for the experimental group and GS2 is the gain score

for the control group.

12


Subject Selection

Twenty fifth grade students who are legally identified as having a disability will

be participating in this research, age range between 10 to 12 years old attending Langston

Hughes School in East Orange, New Jersey. The school is strategically located in a

developing community with mixed socioeconomic profile and a steady increase in

academic performance. The students are enrolled in the Basic Skills Instruction (BSI)

program which is based on low NJ PASS standardized test scores (below 200) and below

grade level fluency records. The population will consist of 55% African-American, 20%

White, 15% Hispanic and the remaining 10% Asian students. Gender will be

approximately equivalent among the groups.

Two intact groups will be utilized for this research. Students will enroll in an

after-school reading comprehension program; the material selected will align with the

reading curriculum for fifth grade students. Section assignment will be done using a

computer program. Each group will consist of 10 students, who attend the same school,

have received the same instruction, have similar academic performance results, the same

reading difficulty level and the same teacher. The program will be held in the school’s

technology room, with some desk with computers while the others are without. Both

sections will be instructed together after-school and the tests will be given to both groups

at the same time.

Procedure

The subjects will be instructed by the same teacher who will issue the same

reading material and use the same teaching methods for both sections. Both the

experimental and control group will receive tradition BSI in reading and participate in the

13


program for 30 minutes each day for 3 days per week for 2 weeks. Students will be issued

the same pretest on the first day of the study. The pretest scores will serve the baseline for

understanding the students’ reading and comprehension level and will be used to compare

the later measures. The scores from the pretest will aid in predicting the level of interest

that students have in the subject area. After the completion of the pretest, the students

will be divided into two groups (G1 and G2). Both groups will receive identical reading

chapters for the pretest and posttest.

Throughout the unit, both groups will participate in identical learning activities

designed to enhance their reading and comprehension skills. The topics to be covered

during BSI instruction will be: locating information in a story to answer comprehension

questions, identify the characters and setting of a story, building vocabulary and using a

dictionary.

G1, the experimental group, will receive instruction using SuccessMaker for

various reading skills as determined by the computer program’s interpretation of

individual students needs. The program will provide students with a strong instructional

focus on developing phonological awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary and

comprehension skills through a lesson-based format that allows them to practice and

apply these skills.

G2, the controlled group, will participate in traditional instruction for the same

duration. The control group will engage in reading tasks that are facilitated by the teacher

such as reading grade level books or reviewing prior reading skills using worksheets as

determined by the classroom teacher. The teacher will be required to assist with

supervision of the experiment and provide any form of guidance required by the students.

14


At the end of the 2 weeks period, all students will be required to take the posttest. Scores

from the pretest and posttest will be used to determine the gain scores.

Measuring Instrument

A pre-existing from the Bench Mark assessment series for Grade 5 will be used

for both the pretest and the posttest measures. A copy of the pretest and posttest

instruments is attached. The measures consist of short stories, a series of multiple choice

questions and a short written response or extended written response. Both instruments

will measure the subjects’ reading and comprehension of the poem and short story. The

pretest, entitled Ducks, has six multiple choice questions and one short answer question.

The posttest, entitled The Soccer Game, consist of five multiple choice questions and a

short answer question. According to the rubric provided by the test creators, each

multiple choice question is worth 1 point, short written response is worth 2 points and

extended written response is worth 4 points. The subjects’ responses will be pooled and

averaged in order to determine the mean scores on the instrument for qualitative analysis.

The bench mark assessment tests are closely parallel to the national and state

reading assessments. Additionally, program authors and editors conducted a careful

alignment of the assessments to states’ Reading and Language Arts Standard. The results

are sets of test that are closely linked to both national and state language arts standards

assuring their content validity. The empirical validity of the test was assured through a

tryout that included over 14,000 students at grade 1 to 6 in school districts thought the

United States. The socioeconomic population of the schools closely paralleled that of the

entire population of the U.S (Farr,?). The test items were designed to measure reading

and comprehension ability as defined by this study.

15


Data Analysis

Pretest and posttest scores will be recorded the experimental and control group in

order to determine the possible gain scores. The gain scores will be calculated by

subtracting the pretest mean scores from the posttest mean scores. The results will be

represented in a table as follows:

Mean Gain Scores of the Reading and Comprehension Instrument

Experimental Group(G1 SuccessMaker)

Control Group(G2 No SuccessMaker)

Mean Score Pretest O1 O3

Mean Score Posttest O2 O4

Gain Score GS1 GS2

GS1 and GS2, the gain scores, for each group will be compared in order to

interpret the outcome of the study and verify any experimental effect due to the

independent variable of experimental interest (SuccessMaker). A copy of the measuring

instrument is attached.

16


Significance

Anticipated Outcomes

The proposed study is designed to answer three research questions. The first

question is, “What are the gain scores on an instrument measuring the academic

achievement of Middle School Reading Students with special needs who participated in

reading activities that involved the use of technology?” I predict students in the

experimental group will demonstrate positive gain scores, which will be moderately high,

in the range of +2 to +3.

The second question asked, “What are the gain scores on an instrument measuring

the academic achievement of Middle School Reading Students with special needs who

did not participate in reading activities that involved the use of technology?” I predict

students in the control group will also demonstrate positive gain scores, but moderately

low, less than +2 point.

The final research question asked, “What is the comparison between the scores?”

This question is the core of the entire study. I predict there will be an experimental effect

due to the independent variable. In analyzing this research question, I would expect this

effect to be evidenced by the mean gain scores of the experimental group being

significantly greater than the mean gain scores of the control group. The results obtained

through answering this question will reflect the impact of integrating an interactive

reading computer program (ILS SuccessMaker) on reading achievement of middle school

students with special needs. Basic Skill Instruction helps to instruct students of lower

reading and comprehension ability, however, SuccessMaker has the ability to

17


individualize learning to the needs of each student, as was evidenced by some of the

research studies I reviewed in preparation of this proposal.

Relevance

If the students who participate in integrating an interactive reading computer

program (ILS SuccessMaker) to demonstrate a higher mean gain score in improving

reading achievement than the control group, who did not use the interactive reading

computer program, then this study will contribute further evidence to support integrating

interactive reading computer programs, ILS SuccessMaker in particular, to positively

impact student’s learning in reading and comprehension in conjunction with teacher

instruction and guidance. These results also provide additional support specifically to the

notion that interactive reading computers aid in improving reading and comprehension

skills of students suffering with various learning disabilities.

If the study achieved the expected results, then educators should seriously consider using

SuccessMaker and other interactive reading computer programs to enhance traditional

BSI instruction to aid in improving students’ reading and comprehension abilities. Such

activities should be seen as a way to further individualize instruction to meet students’

needs in order to foster positive growth and development in academic learning.

18


Reference List

Anderson, Eugene., Fulton, Ray., Melton, Cindy M., Replogle, William H., Smothers,

Bobbie C., and Thomas, Lisa. (2004). A Study on the Effects of the Accelerated

Reader Program on Fifth Grade Students’ Reading Achievement Growth.

Retrieved March 16, 2011 from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?

a=o&d=5006657841.

Anderson, Richards C. (1985). Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the

Commission on Reading—A Critical Review. Retrieved March 16, 2011 from

http://www.lessonsense.com/info/word-identification.html.

Bell, Sherry Mee., McCallum, R. Steve., and Sorrell, Christy A. (2006). Reading Rate

and Comprehension as a Function of Computerized versus Traditional

Presentation Mode: a Preliminary Study. Retrieved March 16, 2011 from

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5035163207.

Educational Technology Insight. Why Educational Technology? Retrieved March 16,

2011 from http://edtech.twinisles.com/rb/.

Farr, Roger C. (?). Bench Mark Assessments Grade 5 3rd Edition. Harcourt School

Publishers.

Januszewski, Alan. (2001). Educational Technology: the development of a concept.

Englewood, CO: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Kim, Ae-Hwa., Klingner, Janette K., Kouzekanani, Kamiar., Reutebuch, Colleen Klein.,

Vaughn, Sharon., and Woodruff Althea L. (2006). Improving the Reading

Comprehension of Middle School Students with Disabilities through Computer-

19

http://edtech.twinisles.com/rb/

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5035163207

http://www.lessonsense.com/info/word-identification.html




Assisted Collaborative Strategic Reading. Retrieve March 16, 2011 from

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5016671666.

Martin, Anni. (2011). Middle School Reading and Assistive Technology. Retrieved

March 16, 2011 from http://www.ehow.com/facts_5660750_middle-school-

reading-assistive-technology.html.

Mauro, Terri. (2011). What are “Special Needs”? Retrieved April 5, 2011 from

http://specialchildren.about.com/od/gettingadiagnosis/p/whatare.htm

Roberts, Hermes. (2009). The disadvantages of a traditional classroom. Retrieved March

15, 2011 from http://www.helium.com/items/1319506-the-disadvantages-of-a-

traditional-classroom.

Technology’s Impact on Learning. Retrieved March 15, 2011from

http://www.nsba.org/sbot/toolkit/tiol.html.

Thissen, D., & Wainer, H. (2001). Test Scoring. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

20

http://www.nsba.org/sbot/toolkit/tiol.html

http://www.helium.com/items/1319506-the-disadvantages-of-a-traditional-classroom

http://www.helium.com/items/1319506-the-disadvantages-of-a-traditional-classroom

http://specialchildren.about.com/od/gettingadiagnosis/p/whatare.htm

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5660750_middle-school-reading-assistive-technology.html

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5660750_middle-school-reading-assistive-technology.html
