Annals of Dyslexia

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 251–281 | Cite as

Speaking to read: The effects of speech recognition technology on the reading and spelling performance of children with learning disabilities

  • Marshall H. Raskind
  • Eleanor L. Higgins
Part IV Strategies For Remediation


In recent literature on persons with learning disabilities (LD), speech recognition has been discussed primarily as an assistive technology to help compensate for writing difficulties. However, prior research by the authors has suggested that in addition to helping persons to compensate for poor writing skills, speech recognition also may enhance reading and spelling; that is, what was designed as assistive technology appears to serve remedial functions as well. The present study was conducted to determine whether elementary and secondary students with LD who used the technology to write self-selected compositions and class assignments would demonstrate improvements in reading and spelling. Thirty-nine students with LD (ages 9 to 18) participated. Nineteen participants used speech recognition 50 minutes a week for sixteen weeks, and twenty students in a control group received general computer instruction. Results indicated that the speech recognition group showed significantly more improvement than the control group in word recognition (p<.0001), spelling (p<.002) and reading comprehension (p<.01). Pre- and posttests on five reading-related cognitive processing measures (phonological, orthographic, semantic processing, metacognitive reading strategies, and working memory) indicated that for the experimental group, only phonological processing improved significantly over the treatment period when compared to controls (p<.04). Further ANCOVA suggested that growth in phonological processing was associated with significant differences among conditions for all three academic measures: word recognition, spelling, and reading comprehension.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexander, A., Anderson, H., Heilman, P. C., Voeller, K. S., and Torgesen, J. K. 1991. Phonological awareness training and remediation of analytic decoding deficits in a group of severe dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia 41:193–206.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, E. W., and Blachman, B. A. 1991. Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recogniiton and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly 26:49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berninger, V., Abbot, R., Rogan, L., Reed, E., Abbot, S., Brooks, A., Vaughan, K., and Graham, S. 1998. Teaching spelling to children with specific learning disabilities: The mind’s ear and eye beat the computer or pencil. Learning Disabilities Quarterly 21:106–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blachman, B., Ball, E., Black, S., and Tangel D. 1994. Kindergarten teachers develop phoneme awareness in low-income, inner-city classrooms: Does it make a difference? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 6:1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley, L., and Bryant, P. 1985. Rhyme and Reason in Reading and Spelling. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bryant, B. R., and Bryant, D. P. 1998. Using assistive technology adaptations to include students with learning disabilities in cooperative learning activities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 31:41–54.Google Scholar
  7. Bryant, B. R., and Seay, P. C. 1998. The technology-related assistance to individuals with disabilities act: Relevance to individuals with learning disabilities and their advocates. Journal of Learning Disabilities 31:4–15.Google Scholar
  8. Bryk, A. S., and Raudenbush, S. W. 1987. Application of hierarchical linear models to assessing change. Psychological Bulletin 101:147–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chabot, R. J., Miller, T. J., and Juola, J. F. 1976. The relation between repetitions and depth of processing. Memory and Cognition 4:677–82.Google Scholar
  10. Cunningham, A. E., and Stanovich, K. E. 1990. Assessing print exposure and orthographic processing skills in children: A quick measure of reading experience. Journal of Educational Psychology 82:733–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Danneman, M., and Carpenter, P. A. 1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19:450–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DragonDictate® 2.5. Computer software. 1997. Newton, MA: Dragon Systems.Google Scholar
  13. Ehri, L. C. 1984. How orthography alters spoken language competencies in children learning to read and spell. In Language Awareness and Learning to Read. J. Downing and R. Valtin, eds. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Ehri, L. C. 1992. Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its relation to recoding. In Reading Acquisition. P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, and R. Treiman, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Elkind, J., Black, M. S., and Murray, C. 1996. Computer-based compensation of adult reading disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia 46:159–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elkind, J., Cohen, K., and Murray, C. 1992. Using Computer-based Readers to Improve Reading Comprehension of Students with Dyslexia. Palo Alto, CA: The Lexia Institute, Report 921.Google Scholar
  17. Elkind, J., Cohen, K., and Murray, C. 1993. Using computer-based readers to improve reading comprehension of students with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia 43:238–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Felton, R. H., and Wood, F. B. 1989. Cognitive deficits in reading disability and attention deficit disorder. Journal of Learning Disabilities 22:3–13.Google Scholar
  19. Fernald, G. 1943. Remedial Techniques in Basic School Subjects. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  20. Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Novy, D. M., and Liberman, D. 1991. How letter-sound instruction mediates progress in first grade reading and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology 83:456–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Winikates, D., Mehta, P., Schatschneider, C., and Fletcher, J. M. 1997. Early interventions for children with reading disabilities. Scientific Studies of Reading 1:255–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foster, K. C., Erickson, G. C., Foster, D. F., Brinkman, D., and Torgesen, J. K. 1994. Computer administered instruction in phonological awareness: Evaluation of the Daisy Quest program. Journal of Research and Development in Education 27:126–37.Google Scholar
  23. Fox, B., and Routh, D. K. 1984. Phonemic analysis and synthesis as word attack skills: Revised. Journal of Educational Psychology 16:1056–64.Google Scholar
  24. Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Davidson, K. C., and Thompson, N. M. 1991. Analysis of change: Modeling individual growth. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 59:27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fulk, B. M. 1997. Think while you spell: A cognitive motivational approach to spelling instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children 29:70–71.Google Scholar
  26. Gerber, M. M., and Hall, R. J. 1989. Cognitive-behavioral training in spelling for learning handicapped students. Learning Disability Quarterly 12:159–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gillingham, A., and Stillman, B. 1968. Remedial Training for Children with Specific Disability in Reading, Spelling and Penmanship. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  28. Graham, S., and Voth, V. P. 1990. Spelling instruction: Making modifications for students with learning disabilities. Academic Therapy 4:447–57.Google Scholar
  29. Guyer, B. P., and Sabatino, D. S. 1989. The effectiveness of a multisensory alphabetic phonetic approach with college students who are learning disabled. Journal of Learning Disabilities 22:430–33.Google Scholar
  30. Heckelman, R. C. 1969. A neurological impress method of remedial reading. Academic Therapy 4:277–82.Google Scholar
  31. Heshusius, L. 1989. The Newtonian mechanistic paradigm, special education, and contours of alternatives: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities 22:403–15.Google Scholar
  32. Higgins, E. L., and Raskind, M. H. 1995. An investigation of the compensatory effectiveness of speech recognition on the written composition performance of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly 18:159–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Higgins, E. L., and Zvi, J. C. 1995. Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: From research to practice. Annals of Dyslexia 45:123–42.Google Scholar
  34. IBM® Voice Type 3.0. Computer software. 1997. Austin, TX: International Business Machines Corp., Special Needs Systems.Google Scholar
  35. Jones, Z. 1993. Writing to read: Computer-assisted instruction and reading achievement. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED365980.Google Scholar
  36. Juel, C., Griffith, P., and Gough, P. 1986. Decoding, reading and reading disability. Reading and Special Education 78:243–55.Google Scholar
  37. Karlsen, B., Madden, R., and Gardner, E. F. 1984. Stanford Diagnostic Reading Inventory-III. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  38. Kerchner, L. B., and Kistenger, B. J. 1984. Language processing/word processing: Written expression, computers, and learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly 7:329–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leong, C. K. 1991. From phonemic awareness to phonological processing to language access in children developing reading proficiency. In Phonological Awareness in Reading: The Evolution of Current Perspectives. O. J. Sawyer and B. J. Fox, eds. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  40. Lewis, R. B. 1998. Assistive technology and learning disabilities: Today’s realities and tomorrow’s promises. Journal of Learning Disabilities 31:16–26, 54.Google Scholar
  41. Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., and Liberman, A. M. 1989. The alphabetic principal and learning to read. In Phonology and Reading Disability. D. Shankweiler and I. Y. Liberman, eds. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lie, A. 1991. Effects of a training program for stimulating skills in word analysis in first-grade children. Reading Research Quarterly 26:234–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lindamood, C. H., and Lindamood, P. C. 1979. Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.Google Scholar
  44. Lindamood, C., and Lindamood, P. 1984. Auditory Discrimination in Depth. Columbus, OH: Science Research Associates/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  45. Lovett, M. W., and Steinbach, K. A. 1997. The effectiveness of remedial programs for reading disabled children of different ages: Does the benefit decrease for older children? Learning Disability Quarterly 20:189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lundberg, I. 1978. Aspects of linguistic awareness related to reading. In The Child’s Conception of Language. A. Sinclair, R. J. Jarvella, and W. J. M. Levelt, eds. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  47. Lundberg, I. 1984. Språk och läsning. Malmö: Liber Förlag.Google Scholar
  48. Lundberg, I. 1995. The computer as a tool of remediation in the education of students with reading disabilities—a theory-based approach. Learning Disability Quarterly 18:89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lundberg, I., Frost, J., and Petersen, O. P. 1988. Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23: 263–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. MacArthur, C. A. 1996. Using technology to enhance the writing processes of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 29:344–54.Google Scholar
  51. Mann, V. A. 1993. Phoneme awareness and future reading ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities 26:256–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McNaughton, D., Hughes, C., and Clark, K. 1993, February. “An Investigation of the Effect of Five Writing Conditions on the Spelling Performance of College Students with Learning Disabilities.” Paper presented at the 30th International Conference of the Learning Disabilities Association of America, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  53. Myers, P. I., and Hammill, D. D. 1982. Learning Disabilities: Basic Concepts, Assessment Practices and Instructional Strategies. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  54. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. 1994. Collective Perspectives on Issues Affecting Learning Disabilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  55. Oakland, T., Black, J. L., Stanford, G., Nussbaum, N. L., and Balise, R. 1998. An evaluation of the dyslexia training program: A multisensory method for promoting reading in students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 31:140–47.Google Scholar
  56. Olofsson, A. and Lundberg, I. 1983. Can phonemic awareness be trained in kindergarten? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 24:35–44.Google Scholar
  57. Olson, R., Kliegl, R., Davidson, B., and Foltz, G. 1985. Individual and developmental differences in reading disability. In Reading Research: Advances in Theory and Practice, 4. G. E. MacKinnon and T. Waller, eds. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  58. Olson, R. K., and Wise, B. W. 1992. Reading on the computer with orthographic and speech feedback. Reading and Writing. An Interdisciplinary Journal 4:107–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., and Lipson, M. Y. 1984. Informed strategies for teaching: A program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 76:1239–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Perfetti, C. A., Beck, I., Bell, L., and Hughes, C. 1987. Phonemic knowledge and learning to read are reciprocal: A longitudinal study of first grade children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 33:283–319.Google Scholar
  61. Poplin, M. 1988. The reductionist fallacy in learning disabilities: Replicating the past by reducing the present. Learning Disability Quarterly 7:389–400.Google Scholar
  62. Raskind, M. H. 1994. Assistive technology for adults with learning disabilities: A rationale for use. In Adults with Learning Disabilities. P. J. Gerber and H. B. Reiff, eds. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  63. Raskind, M. H., and Higgins, E. L. 1995a. The effects of speech synthesis on proofreading efficiency of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly 18:141–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Raskind, M. H., and Higgins, E. L. 1995b. Reflections on ethics, technology and learning disabilities: Avoiding the consequences of ill-considered action. Journal of Learning Disabilities 28:425–38.Google Scholar
  65. Raskind, M. H., and Higgins, E. L. 1998. Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities 31:27–40.Google Scholar
  66. Raskind, M. H., Higgins, E. L., and Herman, K. L. 1997. Technology in the workplace for persons with learning disabilities: Views from the inside. In Learning Disabilities and Employment. P. J. Gerber and D. S. Brown, eds. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  67. Raskind, M. H., Higgins, E. L., Slaff, N. B., and Shaw, T. K. 1998. Assistive technology in the homes of children with learning disabilities: An exploratory study. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal 9:47–56.Google Scholar
  68. Raskind, M. H., and Scott, N. 1993. Technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. In Success for Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities. S. A. Vogel and P. B. Adelman, eds. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  69. Rogosa, D. R., Brandt, D., and Zimowski, M. 1982. A growth curve approach to the measurement of change. Psychological Bulletin 90:726–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. SAS Institute, Inc. 1992. SAS Technical Report P-229, SAS/SAT Software: Changes and Enhancement. Release 6.07. Cary, NC: Author.Google Scholar
  71. Schwartz, L., and Armstrong, B. 1989. Select a Story: Instant Ideas for Creative Writing. Santa Barbara, CA: The Learning Works.Google Scholar
  72. Senn, J. A. 1992. 325 Creative Prompts for Personal Journals. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.Google Scholar
  73. Share, D. L. 1995. Phonological recoding and self-teaching: sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition 55:151–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Singh, B. 1991. “IBM’s Writing to Read Program: The Right Stuff or Just High Tech Fluff?” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Florida Educational Research Association, November.Google Scholar
  75. Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., and Cramer, B. B. 1984. Assessing phonological awareness in kindergarten children: Issues of task comparability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 38:175–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Swanson, H. L. 1992. Generality and modifiability of working memory among skilled and less skilled readers. Journal of Educational Psychology 65:473–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Swanson, H. L., and Alexander, J. E. 1997. Cognitive processes as predictors of word recognition and reading comprehension in learning-disabled and skilled readers: Revisiting the specificity hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology 89:128–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Swanson, H. L., Cochran, K. F., and Ewers, C. A. 1989. Working memory in skilled and less skilled readers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 17:145–56.Google Scholar
  79. Swanson, L. H., and Ramalgia, J. M. 1992. The relation between phonological codes on memory and spelling tasks for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilites 25:396–407.Google Scholar
  80. Swanson, L. H., and Trahan, M. F. 1992. Learning disabled readers’ comprehension of computer mediated text: The influence of working memory, metacognition and attribution. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 7:74–86.Google Scholar
  81. Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities, Act of. 1988. P.L. 100-47, 29 U.S.C. 2201, 2202.Google Scholar
  82. Torgesen, J. K. 1993. “Computers as Aids in the Prevention and Remediation of Reading Disabilities.” Paper presented at the Fourth International Symposium on Learning Disabilities, Missillac, France, July.Google Scholar
  83. Torgesen, J. K. 1995. A model of memory from an information processing perspective: The special case of phonological memory. In Attention, Memory, and Executive Function: Issues in Conceptualization and Measurement. G. R. Lyon and N. A. Krasnegor, eds. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing.Google Scholar
  84. Torgesen, J. K., and Davis, C. 1996. Individual difference variables that predict response to training in phonological awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 63:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Torgesen, J. K., Morgan, S., and Davis, C. 1992. The effects of two types of phonological awareness training on word learning in kindergarten children. Journal of Educational Psychology 84:364–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Torgesen, J. K., Waters, M. D., Cohen, A. L., and Torgesen, J. L. 1988. Improving sight recognition skills in LD children: An evalauation of three computer program variations. Learning Disabilities Quarterly 11:125–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wagner, R. K., and Torgesen, J. K. 1987. The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin 101:192–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., and Rashotte, C. A. 1994. The development of reading-related phonological processing ability: New evidence of bi-direcitonal causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology 30:78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wechsler, D. 1974. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  90. Wechsler, D. 1991. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-III. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  91. Wiederholt, J. L. 1986. Formal Reading Inventory. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  92. Wilkinson, G. S. 1993. Wide Range Achievement Test-3. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range, Inc.Google Scholar
  93. Willett, J. B. 1988. Questions and answers in the measurement of change. Review of Research in Education 15:345–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wilmes, L., and Wilmes, D. 1983. Everyday Circle Times. Elgin, Illinois: Building Blocks Publication.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Dyslexia Association 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marshall H. Raskind
    • 1
  • Eleanor L. Higgins
    • 1
  1. 1.Frostig CenterPasadena

Personalised recommendations