Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Effects of an iPad-Supported Phonics Intervention on Decoding Performance and Time On-Task

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Behavioral Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite their recent popularity in schools, there is minimal consensus in the educational literature regarding the use of mobile devices for reading intervention. The word box intervention (Joseph Read Teach 52:348–356, 1998) has been consistently associated with improvements in student decoding performance. This early efficacy study examined an iPad-supported approach to the word box intervention. The participants were three students from the same first grade classroom, all of whom lacked basic decoding skills and two of which were English language learners. The research question was evaluated with a multielement single-case experimental design that compared the standard materials to an equivalent iPad application. Results did not reveal a clear pattern on measures of decoding across the participants. Time on-task was high for both conditions for all three participants. Results indicated a need for future study of mobile-supported reading interventions in similar contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2005). Applied behavioral analysis for teachers (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvero, A. M., Struss, K., & Rappaport, E. (2007). Measuring safety performance: A comparison of whole, partial, and momentary time-sampling recording methods. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 27, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AtReks. (2013). Build a word—easy spelling with phonics (Version 3.0) [Mobile application Software]. http://itunes.apple.com.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. K. (2004). Empirical analysis of drill ratio research: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 167–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Boice, C. H. (2008). Best practices in intensive academic interventions. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

  • Cavus, N., & Ibrahim, D. (2009). m-Learning: An experiment in using SMS to support learning new English language words. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 78–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). How features of educational technology applications affect student reading outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 7, 198–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiong, C., & Shuler, C. (2010). Learning: Is there an app for that? Investigations of young children’s usage and learning with mobile devices and apps. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chun, D. M. (2006). CALL technologies for L2 reading. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.) Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching (pp. 69–98). CALICO Monograph Series Volume 5. Texas State University San Marcos, TX: CALICO Publications.

  • Ciotti-Gardenier, N., MacDonald, R., & Green, G. (2004). Comparison of direct observational methods for measuring stereotypic behavior in children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25, 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, T. M., & Draper Rodriguez, C. D. (2013). Integrating the iPad into language arts instruction for students with disabilities: Engagement and perspectives. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28, 43–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devault, R., & Joseph, L. M. (2004). Repeated readings combined with word boxes phonics technique increases fluency levels of high school students with severe reading delays. Preventing School Failure, 49, 22–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkonin, D. B. (1973). U.S.S.R. In J. Downing (Ed.), Comparative reading (pp. 551–579). New York: Macmillan.

  • Fälth, L., Gustafson, S., Tjus, T., Heimann, M., & Svensson, I. (2013). Computer-assisted interventions targeting reading skills of children with reading disabilities: A longitudinal study. Dyslexia, 19, 37–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, T. A. (2009). Mobile device reading interventions in the kindergarten classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New Castle, DE: Wilmington University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71, 7–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Getting, S., & Swainey, K. (2012). First graders with iPads? Learning and Leading with Technology, 40, 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Good, R. H., Baker, S. K., & Peyton, J. A. (2008). Making sense of nonsense word fluency: Determining adequate progress in early first grade reading. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25, 33–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Nonsense word fluency. In R. H. Good & R. A. Kaminski (Eds.), Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed., pp. 23–29). Eugene, OR: Institute for Development of Educational Achievement.

  • Greaves, T., Hayes, J., Wilson, L., Gielniak, M., & Peterson, R. (2010). The technology factor: Nine keys to student achievement and cost-effectiveness. Chicago, IL: Market Data Retrieval.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grindle, C. F., Carl Hughes, J., Saville, M., Huxley, K., & Hastings, R. P. (2013). Teaching early reading skills to children with autism using MimioSprout Early Reading. Behavioral Interventions, 28, 203–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Grounded tech integration: An effective approach based on content, pedagogy, and teacher planning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 37, 22–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPad for literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 66, 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 312–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Haywood, K. (2011). The NMC horizon report: 2011 K-12 Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, L. M. (1998). Word boxes help children with learning disabilities identify and spell words. The Reading Teacher, 52, 348–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, L. M. (2000). Using word boxes as a large group phonics approach in a first grade classroom. Reading Horizons, 41, 117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, L. M. (2002). Facilitating word recognition and spelling using word boxes and word sort phonic procedures. School Psychology Review, 31, 122–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., Van den Broek, P., White, M. J., & Lynch, J. S. (2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of oral language and decoding skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 765–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, L., Torgesen, J. K., Vogel, W., Chanter, C., Lefsky, E., & Petscher, Y. (2009). Exploring the relative effectiveness of reading interventions for high school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 149–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez, O. S. (2010). The digital learning classroom: Improving English language learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 54, 901–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClanahan, B., Williams, K., Kennedy, E., & Tate, S. (2012). A breakthrough for Josh: How use of an iPad facilitated reading improvement. TechTrends, 56, 20–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication no. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • Northrop, L., & Killeen, E. (2013). A framework for using iPads to build early literacy skills. The Reading Teacher, 66, 531–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Path to Reading Excellence in School Sites Research Group. (2013). Intervention manual. Minneapolis, MN: Author. http://www.cehd.umn.edu/reading/PRESS/resources/interventions.html.

  • Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, B. S., Behrmann, M., Mastropieri, M., Bausch, M. E., Ault, M. J., & Chung, Y. (2009). Who is using assistive technology in schools? Journal of Special Education Technology, 24, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidgall, M., & Joseph, L. M. (2007). Comparison of phonic analysis and whole word-reading on first graders’ cumulative words read and cumulative reading rate: An extension in examining instructional effectiveness and efficiency. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 319–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, E. S. (2004). Academic skills problems: direct assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuler, C. (2009). Pockets of potential: Using mobile technologies to promote children’s learning. New York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuler, C. (2012). iLearn II: An analysis of the education category of the iTunes App Store. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. J., & Okolo, C. (2010). Response to Intervention and evidence-based practices: Where does technology fit? Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 257–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H. L., Trainin, G., Necoechea, D. M., & Hammill, D. D. (2003). Rapid naming, phonological awareness, and reading: A meta-analysis of the correlation evidence. Review of Educational Research, 73, 407–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, J. (2009). Learning in a mobile age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderwood, M. L., Linklater, D., & Healy, K. (2008). Predictive accuracy of nonsense word fluency for English language learners. School Psychology Review, 37, 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volpe, R. J., Burns, M. K., DuBois, M., & Zaslofsky, A. F. (2011). Computer-assisted tutoring: Teaching letter sounds to kindergarten students using incremental rehearsal. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 332–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, USA

    Kaitlyn M. Larabee & Jennifer J. McComas

  2. University of Missouri, 109 Hill Hall, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Matthew K. Burns

Authors
  1. Kaitlyn M. Larabee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew K. Burns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer J. McComas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew K. Burns.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Larabee, K.M., Burns, M.K. & McComas, J.J. Effects of an iPad-Supported Phonics Intervention on Decoding Performance and Time On-Task. J Behav Educ 23, 449–469 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-014-9214-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-014-9214-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation