Advertisement

Annals of Dyslexia

, Volume 55, Issue 2, pp 246–265 | Cite as

Benefits of computer-presented speed training for poor readers

  • Rosemarie S. Irausquin
  • Jeanine Drent
  • Ludo Verhoeven
Article

Abstract

The effects of computer-presented automatization exercises in a group of 14 poor readers were assessed in comparison to a matched control group of 14 poor readers that received computer-presented exercises aimed at the use of context for word identification and comprehension. Training took place three sessions a week for 15 minutes per session and lasted about two months in each group. Results showed that the automatization or “speed” group progressed more than the context group in word and text reading efficiency, and the effect transferred to more complex word types than the CVC word type that was presented in the exercises. Both groups progressed to the same extent in accuracy, but the speed group made more progress in speed. No effects were found for reading comprehension. The findings make clear that computer-supported automatization exercises can be effective in reducing reading problems of poor readers in a short period of time. Implications for practice are discussed.

Key Words

Automaticity beginning reading computer-assisted instruction context use poor readers speed training word recognition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackerman, P. T., & Dykman, R. A. (1993). Phonological processes, confrontation naming, and immediate memory in dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 597–609.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Blok, H., Oostdam, R., Otter, M. E., & Overmaat, M. (2002). Computer-assisted instruction in support of beginning reading instruction: A review. Review of Educational Research, 72, 101–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cito. (1979). Lees en Begrijp 1. Een schoolvorderingentoets voor begrijpend lezen aan het eind van het eerste leerjaar. Handleiding [Read and Comprehend 1. A school progression test for reading comprehension at the end of first grade. Manual]. Arnhem: Cito.Google Scholar
  5. Das-Smaal, E. A., Klapwijk, M. J. G., & van der Leij, A. (1996). Training of perceptual unit processing in children with a reading disability. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 221–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deutsch-Smith, D. (1998). Special education. Teaching in an age of challenge. Needhan Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  7. Ehri, L. C. (1994). Development of the ability to read words: Update. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 323–358). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  8. Elbro, C. (1996). Early linguistic abilities and reading development: A review and a hypothesis. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 453–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Erdner, R. A., Guy, R. F., & Bush, A. (1998). The impact of a year of computer assisted instruction on the development of first grade learning skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18, 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldsmith-Phillips, J. (1989). Word and context in reading development: A test of the interactive-compensatory hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gough, P., Ehri, L., & Treiman, R. (Eds.). (1992). Reading acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lyon, G. R., & Moats, L. C. (1997). Critical conceptual and methodological considerations in reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 578–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. MacArthur, C. A., Ferretti, R. P., Okolo, C. M., & Cavalier, A. R. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 273–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McBride-Chang, C., & Manis, F. (1996). Structural invariance in the associations of naming speed, phonological awareness, and verbal reasoning in good and poor readers: A test of the double deficit hypothesis. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 323–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Evolution of fluency training: Old approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283–306.Google Scholar
  18. Meyer, M. S., Wood, F. B., Hart, L. A., & Felton, R. H. (1998). The selective predictive values in rapid automatized naming within poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 106–117.Google Scholar
  19. Morrison, F. J. (1991). Learning (and not learning) to read: A developmental framework. In L. Rieben & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and its implications (pp. 163–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.Google Scholar
  21. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Samuels, S. J. (1994). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading, revisited. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 816–837). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  24. Samuels, S. J., & Flor, R. F. (1997). The importance of automaticity for developing expertise in reading. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 13, 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schwantes, F. M., Boesl, S. L., & Ritz, E. G. (1980). Children’s use of context in word recognition: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Child Development, 51, 730–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  27. Snowling, M. (1998). Dyslexia as a phonological deficit: Evidence and implications. Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 3, 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. (1994). The road not taken: An integrative theoretical model of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 91–103, 122.Google Scholar
  29. Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Feeman, D. J. (1984). Intelligence, cognitive skills and early reading progress. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 278–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tunmer, W. E. (1989). The role of language-related factors in reading disability. In D. Shankweiler & I. Y. Liberman (Eds.), Phonology and reading disability: Solving the reading puzzle (pp. 91–131). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  32. Tunmer, W. E., & Hoover, W. A. (1992). Cognitive and linguistic factors in learning to read. In P. Gough, L. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 175–214). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. van den Bosch, K., van Bon, W. H. J., & Schreuder, R. (1990). Flashcards; een vergelijking van toepassingsprocedures [Flash cards: A comparison of practice procedures]. Tijdschrift voor Orthopedagogiek, 24, 233–244.Google Scholar
  34. van den Bosch, K., van Bon, W. H. J., & Schreuder, R. (1995). Poor readers’ decoding skills: Effects of training with limited exposure duration. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 110–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van der Leij, A. (1994). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on word and pseudoword reading of reading-disabled students. In K. P. van den Bos & L. S. Siegel (Eds.), Current directions in dyslexia research (pp. 251–267). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  36. van der Leij, A., & van Daal, V. H. P. (1999). Automatization aspects of dyslexia: Speed limitations in word identification, sensitivity to increasing task demands, and orthographic compensation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 417–428.Google Scholar
  37. Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 2–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Verhoeven, L. (1995). Drie-minuten-toets. Handleiding [Three-minutes-test. Manual]. Arnhem: Cito.Google Scholar
  39. Visser, J., van Laarhoven, A., & ter Beek, A. (1998). AVI-toetspakket. Handleiding [AVI-Testpackage. Manual]. ’s-Hertogenbosch: KPC.Google Scholar
  40. Wagner, R., Torgesen, J., & Rashotte, C. (1994). The development of reading related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bi-directional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30, 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. (1999). The “double deficit hypothesis” for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wolf, M., Bowers, P. G., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-speed processes, timing, and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 387–407.Google Scholar
  43. Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 211–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wolf, M., Miller, L., & Donnelly, K. (2000). Retrieval, automaticity, vocabulary elaboration, orthography (RAVE-O): A comprehensive, fluency-based reading intervention program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 375–386.Google Scholar
  45. Yap, R. L., & van der Leij, A. (1994). Automaticity deficits in word reading. In A. Fawcett & R. Nicolson (Eds.), Dyslexia and children: The acquisition and development of skills (pp. 77–107). Hemel Hempstead, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Dyslexia Association 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosemarie S. Irausquin
    • 1
  • Jeanine Drent
    • 1
  • Ludo Verhoeven
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Special Education, Faculty of Social SciencesRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations