The effect of presentation media on student reading comprehension

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of display media on reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities. This research examined two types of display media, computer screen and paper. Three groups of subjects were used in this study: (1) readers with learning disabilities; (2) low achieving readers; and (3) average readers. Three instruments were used to gather performance data in this study: (a) a standardized measure of reading comprehension, (b) a measure of individual passage comprehension, and (c) a measure of vocabulary knowledge using words from the experimental passages. The data presented in this study supports the interpretation that presentation media has no effect on the comprehension of reading material by readers with a learning disability.

[1]  Richard C. Anderson.  How to Construct Achievement Tests to Assess Comprehension , 1972 .

[2]  Steven V. Horton,et al.  A Comparison of Two Methods of Administering Group Reading Inventories to Diverse Learners , 1994 .

[3]  John E. McEneaney.  Computer-Assisted Diagnosis in Reading: An Expert Systems Approach. , 1992 .

[4]  Carol S. Holzberg.  Technology in Special Education. , 1994 .

[5]  Netiva Caftori,et al.  Educational Effectiveness of Computer Software , 1994 .

[6]  T. Scruggs,et al.  Best Practices in Promoting Reading Comprehension in Students with Learning Disabilities 1976 to 1996 , 1997 .

[7]  Gerard C. Jorna,et al.  Image Quality Determines Differences in Reading Performance and Perceived Image Quality with CRT and Hard-Copy Displays , 1991, Human factors.

[8]  Joseph K. Torgesen.  Instructional Uses of Microcomputers with Elementary Aged Mildly Handicapped Children. , 1984 .

[9]  E. K. Cook.  The Use of Macintosh Authoring Languages in Effective Computer-Assisted Instruction , 1989 .

[10]  J. Kirby,et al.  Cognitive Patterns of Children with Dyslexia , 1994, Journal of learning disabilities.

[11]  Jerry Willis.  What Conditions Encourage Technology Use? It Depends on the Context. , 1993 .

[12]  William Wresch.  The effect of writing process software on student success: A research summary , 1993, J. Comput. High. Educ..

[13]  Michael I. Axelrod,et al.  Inclusion of Students with Learning Disabilities: An Examination of Data from Reports to Congress , 1999 .

[14]  Jerrold E. Barnett,et al.  Read Something Once, Why Read it Again?: Repetitive Reading and Recall , 1989 .

[15]  Henry Jay Becker,et al.  How Exemplary Computer-Using Teachers Differ From Other Teachers: Implications for Realizing the Po , 1994 .

[16]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Readability and recall of short prose passages: A theoretical analysis. , 1980 .

[17]  J. T. Weld,et al.  E X P E R I M E N T A L AND STATISTICAL EVIDENCE OF THE PARTICULATE NATURE OF THE BACTERIOPHAGE* , 2003 .

[18]  D. Francis,et al.  The Validity of Discrepancy-Based Definitions of Reading Disabilities , 1992, Journal of learning disabilities.

[19]  Barbara A. Greene,et al.  The Use of Theory-Based Computer-Assisted Instruction in Correctional Centers to Enhance the Reading Skills of Reading-Disadvantaged Adults , 1996 .

[20]  Ted S. Hasselbring,et al.  Developing Math Automaticity in Learning Handicapped Children: The Role of Computerized Drill and Practice. , 1988 .

[21]  Joan Lieber,et al.  The Relationship between Group Size and Performance on a Microcomputer Problem-Solving Task for Learning Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Students , 1987 .

[22]  Keith Kennedy.  Determining Readability with a Microcomputer. , 1985 .

[23]  William B. Gillooly.  A Theoretical Analysis of the Effects of Writing System Characteristics on Learning to Read1 , 1971 .

[24]  Claire M. Fletcher-Flinn,et al.  The Efficacy of Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI): A Meta-Analysis , 1995 .

[25]  Robert Waller.  What electronic books will have to be better than , 1986 .

[26]  Margaret G. McKeown,et al.  Revising Social Studies Text from a Text-Processing Perspective: Evidence of Improved Comprehensibility. , 1991 .

[27]  Michael P. Brady,et al.  Computers and Exceptional Individuals , 1987 .

[28]  Kathryn I. Matthew.  A Comparison of the Influence of Interactive CD-ROM Storybooks and Traditional Print Storybooks on Reading Comprehension , 1997 .

[29]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Hypermedia and learning: freedom and chaos , 1988 .

[30]  Mike Levy.  Reading and Writing Linear and Nonlinear Texts: A Comparison of Technologies. , 1997 .

[31]  J. Kulik,et al.  Effects of Computer-Based Teaching on Secondary School Students. , 1983 .

[32]  Yuen-Kuang Liao,et al.  Effects of Computer-Assisted Instruction on Cognitive Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis , 1992 .

[33]  Michael Russell,et al.  Testing On Computers , 1999 .

[34]  John F. Cawley,et al.  Comparisons in Reading and Reading-Related Tasks among Students with Average Intellectual Ability and Students with Mild Mental Retardation. , 1995 .

[35]  David McNaughton,et al.  Proofreading for Students with Learning Disabilities: Integrating Computer and Strategy Use , 1997 .

[36]  Anne Reilley Freese,et al.  Reading Rate and Comprehension: Implications for Designing Computer Technology To Facilitate Reading Comprehension , 1997 .

[37]  Sharon Benge Kletzien,et al.  Strategy Use by Good and Poor Comprehenders Reading Expository Text of Differing Levels. , 1991 .

[38]  N. Zigmond,et al.  Mainstream Experiences for Learning Disabled students (Project MELD): preliminary report. , 1990, Exceptional children.

[39]  K. M. Michels.  Response latency as a function of the amount of reinforcement , 1957 .

[40]  Sarah E. Peterson.  A Comparison of Student Revisions When Composing with Pen and Paper versus Word-Processing. , 1993 .

[41]  Dorothy G. Standish.  The Use of CD-ROM Based Books To Improve Reading Comprehension in Second Grade Students. , 1992 .

[42]  Lynne Anderson-Inman,et al.  ISSUES IN TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER-BASED SOLUTIONS FOR SECONDARY STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES: EMERGING ISSUES , 1999 .

[43]  Che Kan Leong,et al.  Effects of on-Line Reading and Simultaneous Dectalk Auding in Helping Below-Average and Poor Readers Comprehend and Summarize Text , 1995 .

[44]  Michael L. Kamil,et al.  Quantitative Trends in Publication of Research on Technology and Reading, Writing, and Literacy , 1998 .

[45]  J. McLeskey,et al.  The Identification and Characteristics of Students with Learning Disabilities in Indiana. , 1990 .

[46]  J. P. Das,et al.  COGNITIVE PROCESSES AND IQ IN READING DISABILITY , 1996 .

[47]  Charles A. MacArthur,et al.  Spelling Checkers and Students with Learning Disabilities: Performance Comparisons and Impact on Spelling , 1996 .

[48]  Rudy Den Buurman,et al.  Eye Movements and the Perceptual Span in Reading. , 1981 .

[49]  A. Blackhurst.  Technology in Special Education–Some Implications , 1965, Exceptional children.

[50]  Harry L. Snyder,et al.  Image Quality Determines Differences in Reading Performance and Perceived Image Quality with CRT and Hard-Copy Displays , 1991 .

[51]  B. Raban.  Text Display Effects on the Fluency of Young Readers , 1982 .

[52]  S Graham,et al.  The Effects of Goal Setting and Self-Instruction on Learning a Reading Comprehension Strategy , 1997, Journal of learning disabilities.

[53]  A. Klockars,et al.  Power to detect additive treatment effects with randomized block and analysis of covariance designs , 1999 .

[54]  William E. Tunmer,et al.  Phonological recoding skill and beginning reading , 1993 .

[55]  H. Bourlard,et al.  S E a R C H , 2002 .

[56]  John D. Gould,et al.  Reading from CRT Displays Can Be as Fast as Reading from Paper , 1987 .

[57]  Michael Russell,et al.  Testing Writing on Computers: An Experiment Comparing Student Performance on Tests Conducted via Computer and via Paper-and-Pencil , 1997 .

[58]  H Herman Bouma,et al.  Visual reading processes and the quality of text displays , 1980 .

[59]  Randall B. Boone,et al.  Hypertext Computer Study Guides and the Social Studies Achievement of Students with Learning Disabilities, Remedial Students, and Regular Education Students , 1990, Journal of learning disabilities.

[60]  Roy B. Clariana,et al.  A computer administered CLOZE placement test and a standardized reading test , 1991 .

[61]  Alexander J. Romiszowski.  Individualization of Teaching and Learning: Where Have We Been; Where are We Going? , 1994 .

[62]  D. Zeaman,et al.  Response latency as a function of the amount of reinforcement. , 1949, Journal of experimental psychology.