READING FLUENCY PROGRAM USING SCREEN READER TECHNOLOGY, K-12 AND ADULT EDUCATION
This presentation reviews an instructional program, based on reading fluency theories, to teach people with a print disability how to read using a screen reader.
Ted Wattenberg, Ed.S., CRC
Faculty and Adaptive Technology Coordinator
Disability Support Programs and Services, San Joaquin Delta College
Instructor of Technology in Special Education
Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation, and School Psychology, California State University Sacramento
209.954.5382
Janice Walth
B.S. in Adaptive Technology for Adults with Disabilities
Instructional Assistant, San Joaquin Delta College
Independent Service Provider, California Department of Rehabilitation
VI Archery, U.S. Paralympic Team, 2007
Introduction:
Most reading and language instruction has been based on the same assumptions of how language is processed by the brain that have been used for the last two-hundred years (Chamberlain, 2006; Katzir, et al., 2006; Sandak et al., 2004; Smith, 2005; Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001). This is because of the resistance of educators to change their instructional strategies. There is a resultant lack of reading fluency curriculum based on current research. Current instructional strategies are usually based on the myth that we read with our eyes and that visual reading is the preferred method. In fact, current research using brain imaging techniques clearly show that all language is processed in the same manner, regardless of whether it reaches its brain location through tactile, audio, or visual input.
Janice Walth and Ted Wattenberg will present on their reading fluency program at San Joaquin Delta College that integrates screen reading technology into a top-down instructional strategy. These reading fluency instructional methods are appropriate for all levels of education, K-12 through adult education. The presentation will review supporting research in reading fluency, theories associated with learnability, a unique 3 stage reading curriculum, specific learner outcomes, and methods to measure a new reader’s achievement. Special attention will be given to the importance of the development of positive social behaviors to learnability. Case studies of their students will also be provided.
Learnability Theories
Within the fields of speech pathology, linguistics, and developmental psychology, learnability is a specific construct of language acquisition that measures a person’s ability to acquire and use language communication skills (Haramundanis, 2001; Mirenda, 2003). Learnability theory encompasses areas of grammar and syntax, cognitive science, developmental psychology, and educational theory. Measurement criteria of a person’s level of learnability is based on educational theories that describe learning as an active process involving social communication and the ability to utilize knowledge beyond the immediate moment or situation (Dewey, 1938; Bredo, 1998, Haramundanis, 2001; Mirenda, 2003). Learnability involves three distinct developmental processes (Chamberlain, 2006; Vaughn, 2006; Rasinski, 2001; Putman, 2005; Lepola et al., 2005):
· Conversation
· Reading
· Writing
Each of these processes can range from lower order cognitive levels to higher levels that necessitate the integration of social, neurological, and linguistic development.
Literacy instructional strategies are usually built on a bottom-up or phonological approach to learning how to read based on assumptions of learnability that are over 200 years old (Chamberlain, 2006; Katzir, et al., 2006; Sandak et al., 2004; Smith, 2005; Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001). Bottom-up models of literacy instruction define language acquisition as a developmental process of decoding, word recognition, reading fluency, and flexible reading. The bottom-up stages are sequential. Competencies in lower order stages are required before higher order stages are possible. A person with a print disability has difficulty or cannot successfully develop the lower learnability processes of phonetics, word recognition, and sentence automaticity in order to learn the higher order levels of discourse, reading fluency, and creative writing (Chamberlain, 2006; Vaughn, 2006; Rasinski, 2001; Putman, 2005; Lepola et al., 2005). Without these language competencies, a person with a print disability often feels disconnected from others and left out of a society that requires high levels of learnability.
The National Reading Panel’s report on the role of fluency in reading and the state of instruction in the United States identified the failure of phonological based instructional methods in helping students with reading disabilities (Hiebert & Fisher, 2005). The report found that over half of students in lower grades were not meeting reading fluency goals. This failure was found to be critical for these students in not reaching reading goals in later grades and ultimately not reaching reading fluency levels before adulthood. The sole emphasis on the phonological instructional methods were found to be too limiting for the diverse learning styles and needs of students with print disabilities.
Reading Fluency
The definition of reading fluency needs to be more than just a description of its functions and potential outcomes (Katzir, et al., 2006; Rasinki, 2001; Rasinski, 2003; Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001). A definition of reading fluency should assist in measurement of a person’s level of reading achievement, while also being able to monitor their progress in learning to read. The constructs that correlate with this definition must be capable of being validated and proven reliable. Reading problems must be identified early enough so that interventions can be implemented at the appropriate developmental stage. Additionally, the evaluation process must be easy to administer or it will not be used by teachers and other reading professionals. The following constructs of reading fluency are used by the National Reading Panel (Raskinsi, 2003):
1. Accuracy – the accurate identification of words from printed text.
2. Automaticity – the decoding of words with minimal use of cognitive resources, usually beginning at reading speeds of one-hundred and eighty words per minute.
3. Prosody – the appropriate use of intonation and structure to derive meaning and emotion from read materials.
Recent studies utilizing functional neuroimaging techniques indicates that there is no scientific support for the claims that phonological development is the only way a person can learn to read and develop higher levels of language competencies (Chamberlain, 2006; Katzir, Kim, Wolf, & O’Brien, 2006; Sandak, Mencl, Frost, & Pugh, 2004; Smith, 2005; Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001). These neurobiological studies detail the physiological brain functions during reading. They necessitate new models to explain how people read and understand written text (Wattenberg, 2005a). These reading fluency models should be more flexible than bottom-up models that require strict developmental stages of phonological awareness, word naming, and reading practice.
One alternative to the phonetic model is the Fluent Reading Model or top-down approach. The top-down approach begins with helping a student to read every day (Rasinski, 2001; Smith, 2005). Becoming a good reader, first and most importantly, requires a lot of reading. Reading selections should be interesting, motivating, and challenging. The Fluent Reading Model is supported by fast reading and requires the ability to work with new vocabulary, abstract language, and ambiguity of written expressions. Increased reading comprehension will result from the reader’s ability to draw meaning and purpose from the reading context. Smith asserts that for adults with disabilities, reading motivation and the increased feeling of connectedness that results from being actively engaged in the reading process are more important than building vocabulary and other bottom-up learning strategies.
A Reading Fluency Model that Uses Screen Reading Technology
The use of text-to-speech applications and technologies has been shown to significantly improve learnability of people with mild to severe literacy disabilities (Lai, Wood, & Considine, 2000; Richards, Dager, Corina & Serafini, 1999; Wattenberg, 2004a). Slight improved reading levels have been measured immediately after using screen reader applications for people with print disabilities. More significant reading improvements have been measured in the areas of intelligibility of words and comprehension of phrases with persistent use of a screen reader over two years. A proportion of users of screen readers that have print disabilities have been shown to have enough improvement in visual phonological skills to be able to visually read fluently after two or more years of using a screen reader.
The following set of heuristics comprises the Learnability Heuristics for a Screen Reader (San Joaquin Delta College, 2006a, 2006b). They are used to evaluate, predict, and measure a person’s progress in reading fluency with a screen reader:
1. Affect
2. Reading speed
3. User locus-of-control
4. Persistency of comprehension
5. Social behaviors
6. Diversity of reading contexts
7. Flexible reading
The Learnability Heuristics for a Screen Reader support the Reading Fluency Model of reading. According to this model of learning to read, a new reader learns to read developmentally (Smith, 2005; Wattenberg, 2005a). But, unlike the Phonological Reading Model that has a singular direction of development from basic to advanced skills, the Reading Fluency Model has reciprocal skill development relationships. Reading fluency development encourages both advanced reading cognition and basic word naming. The heuristics are used sequentially in three stages. Within each stage, the heuristics are used to identify learner goals and outcomes. The heuristics are also used as a measurable to predict and evaluate a student’s reading fluency progress.
The following is the sequence of heuristics that is necessary for reading fluency development (San Joaquin Delta College, 2006a, 2006b):
· Stage 1 represents the development of automaticity levels of reading through the attainment of affect and reading speed.
· Stage 2 represents early reading fluency development through the attainment of user-locus-of-control, persistency of comprehension, and social behaviors.
· Stage 3 represents the development of advanced levels of reading fluency and reading to learn through the attainment of diversity of reading contexts and flexible reading.
Summary of Proposal
This presentation will provide the attendees:
· A discussion of current brain research concerning people with print disabilities;
· A working curriculum and instructional model that supports diverse reading and learning modalities;
· Valid measures to assess reading achievement for people to learn to read fluently; and
· Case studies of people with print disabilities that have learned to read fluently.
References
Bredo, E. (1998, May). Evolution, psychology, and John Dewey’s critique of the reflex arc concept. The Elementary School Journal, 98(5), 447-467.
Chamberlain, S. (2006, Jan). The state of reading research and instruction for struggling readers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(3), 169-175.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education (1st ed.) New York, NY: Touchstone.
Haramundanis, K. (2001). Learnability in information design. In M. J. Northrop, & S. Tilley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation (1st ed., pp. 7-11). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Hiebert, E., & Fisher, C. (2005, May). A review of the National Reading Panel’s studies on fluency: The role of text. The Elementary School Journal, 105 (5), 443-461.
Katzir, T., Kim, Y., Wolf, M., & O’Brien, B. (2006). Reading fluency: The whole is more than the parts. Annals of Dyslexia, 56(1), 51-82.
Lai, J., Wood, D., & Considine, M. (2000). The effect of task conditions on comprehensibility of synthetic speech. In (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACM CHI'2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (1st ed., pp. 321-328). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Lepola, J., Poskiparta, E., Laakkonen, E., Niemi, P., & Pullen, P. (2005). Development of and relationship between phonological and motivational processes and naming speed in predicting word recognition in grade 1. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(4), 367-399.
Mirenda, P. (2003, July). Toward functional augmentative and alternative communication for students with autism: Manual signs, graphic symbols, and voice output communication aids. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 203-216.
Putman, M. (2005). Computer-based reading technology in the classroom: The affective influence of performance contingent point accumulation on 4th grade students. Reading Research and Instruction, 45(1), 19-38.
Rasinski, T. (2001). Reading fluency instruction; Moving beyond accuracy, automaticity, and prosody. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 704-706.
Rasinski, T. V. (2003). Assessing reading fluency. Pacific Resources for Education and Learning, 1, 1-16. Retrieved July, 18, 2006, www.prel.org/programs/rel/rel.asp.
Richards, T. L., Dager, S. R., Corina, D., & Serafini, S. (1999, September). Dyslexic children have abnormal brain lactate response to reading-related language tasks. American Journal of Neuroadiology, 20(1), 1393-1398.
Sandak, R., Mencl, E., Frost, S., & Pugh, K. (2004). The neurobiological basis of skilled and impaired reading: Recent finding and new directions. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(3), 273-292.
San Joaquin Delta College. (2006a) Screen Reader Application – Section A, Department (SP Ed 087A). Stockton, California: San Joaquin Delta College, Department of Special Education.
San Joaquin Delta College. (2006b) Screen Reader Application – Section B, Department (SP Ed 087B). Stockton, California: San Joaquin Delta College, Department of Special Education.
Smith, M. (2005). Literacy and Augmentative and Alternative Communication (1st ed.). London: Elsevier Academic Press.
Vaughn, S., & Edmonds, M. (2006, January). Reading comprehension for older readers. Intervention in School & Clinic, 41(3), 131-138.
Wattenberg, T. L. (2004d, October). Defining user outcomes for students using screen readers. Paper presented at the 2004 California Association for Postsecondary Education and Disability Conference, Monterey, California. Retrieved July, 2006 http://www.wattenberg.org/presentationCAPEDScreeRreading/PresentationCAPED2004-TexToSpeech.ppt
Wattenberg, T. L. (2004a, March). AT&T natural voices used with screen readers for students with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the 20th Annual International Conference "Technology and Persons with Disabilities", California State University Northridge (CSUN). Retrieved March 17, 2004, http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/2004/proceedings/21.htm
Wattenberg, T. L. (2005a, October). Accessibility heuristics utilizing learnability characteristics of synthesized speech applications. In A. Sears, & J. E. Pontelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies (1st ed., pp. 1-3). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 211-239.