| |
Effect of Reading Upgrade Program with Adolescent
Struggling Readers
with Specific Language Impairment
Reading failure not only constitutes an urgent challenge
for our schools, but it has been deemed a public health
problem according to the National Institutes of Child Health
and Human Development (Lyon, 1995). Today 1 in 5 Americans
is functionally illiterate, and these numbers continue
to rise by approximately 2.3 million per year (Adams, 1990).
Once students fall behind in reading, they usually do not
catch up to their peers. For example, 74% of students
who are reading disabled in the third grade will remain
disabled in the ninth grade (Lyon, 1994).
Reading serves as the major foundational skill for all
school-based learning. Without it, the chances for academic
and occupational success are limited. When children do
not learn to read, their general knowledge, spelling, writing
abilities, and vocabulary development suffers. This is
especially true for students who have language-learning
disabilities or Specific Language Impairment (SLI). Students
who have low reading skills suffer increased frustration
and higher rates of school dropout than their peers. Sadly
these students often leave high school functionally illiterate.
Teachers, researchers, and theorists have stressed the
importance of reading as a way to improve reading. There
are few ideas more widely accepted than the statement that “reading
is learned through reading” (U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, 2000, p. 3-21). However, for
struggling readers, this may be a very difficult task.
The problem of how to encourage students to read when the
task of reading is so difficult for them is overwhelming.
One promising method may with the introduction of technology
into the reading curriculum. Today computer programs have
the capabilities of using animation, music, and speech
in order to make learning to read fun. Students may become
more motivated to learn to read when technology is introduced
into the reading program. Thus, students may be motivated
to want to read more.
However, the National Reading Panel concluded that credible
and experimental qualitative research on the uses of technology
in teaching reading is lacking (U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, 2000). The current study was undertaken
to help meet this challenge by evaluating the effectiveness
of a computerized reading program, known as Reading Upgrade.
Specifically this study investigated the effectiveness
of the Reading Upgrade Program on improving adolescents’ decoding
ability, comprehension, reading fluency, phonics, phonemic
awareness, and spelling skills. The research question asked
was: “In what way does the Reading Upgrade web-based
computer program impact adolescents’ reading skills
who have SLI?”
METHOD
Participants
Eighteen adolescents (9 males, 9 females) who were between
the ages of 13.9 and 17.1 years (X = 15.3) and attended
a vocational high school completed the entire study. The
Speech-Language Pathologist assigned to the students’ high
school reviewed students’ Special Education files
to determine who met the selection criteria. All participants
had an active Individualized Education Plan (IEP), average
intelligence, reading scores below a third-grade level,
and had a label of Specific Language Impairment (SLI).
Twenty-three students qualified for the study. One moved,
2 transferred to another high school, 1 was suspended,
and 1 did not complete testing, thus leaving a total of
18 participants. Sixteen of these participants spoke Spanish
as their native language. Two participants spoke English
only.
Procedure
All participants were enrolled in a computer class for
20 minutes daily. When pre-testing was completed, each
began the self-paced reading program. Participants worked
on the program during their computer class time until all
50 levels were completed. Most participants completed the
program in 7 weeks (range 4 to 12 weeks). Following completion,
participants were post-tested.
Three assessments were used to measure participants’ reading
and spelling skills pre- and post-training. All instruments
were standardized and contained two versions. Form A was
given during pre-testing. Form B was administered during
post-testing. The Gray Oral Reading Tests, Diagnostic
(GORT-D) assessed reading level, fluency, comprehension,
knowledge of phonics, phonemic awareness, word associations,
inflections, contractions, compound words, contextual analysis,
and word order. The Test of Written Spelling (TWS-4) measured
participants written spelling skills. Participants understanding
of sound-symbol relationships was measured with The Test
of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE).
Reading Upgrade Computer Program -- The program
is a web-based course containing 50 levels in five critical
areas of reading. The curriculum is based on the National
Reading Panel’s April 2000 recommendations regarding
how reading should be taught and includes the following
areas of instruction (Learning Upgrade, 2002):
Phonemic awareness – the ability to manipulate
the sounds that make up spoken language. Participants are
required to identify and manipulate sounds in words and
rhyming words.
Phonics – the understanding that there are
relationships between letters and sounds. Participants
receive phonics instruction involving consonants, vowel
(long and short sounds), and consonant blends. Activities
incorporate songs, videos, and games.
Word skills – the understanding that words
are made up of syllables, prefixes, suffixes, compound
words, contractions, and word families. High frequency
sight words such as days of the week, months of the year,
and numbers are also included in instructional activities.
Fluency – the ability to read fluently with
accuracy, speed and expression. Fluency is taught through
a game metaphor to motivate participants to read and comprehend
words, sentences, and passage quickly. For example, participants
receive written directions to a surprise party. They must
quickly read each direction sentence and select choices
on maps and views of a town to get there in time.
Comprehension – a necessary skill in order
to enhance understand and enjoyment of what was read. Activities
include cause and effect, fact vs. opinion, conclusions
and inferences, and details. Comprehension is taught through
key strategies wherein participants must actively read
passages and answer questions involving “who, what,
when, where, and why.”
Motivation – the National Reading Panel
strongly recommends the use of engaging and entertaining
techniques to motivate participants. The Reading Upgrade
Program uses pop music, animated videos, and engaging games
to “grab” users’ attention.
Results
A pre-post test analysis was conducted using
Paired Samples t Tests to determine whether participants
made improvement following instruction using the Reading
Upgrade Program. Significant improvement was made on the Gray
Oral Reading Test, Diagnostic (GORT-D) for mean
raw score differences (t 17 = 3.05, p < .01). In
addition to total test improvement, significant improvement
was made on 3 subtests: Decoding, Morphemic Analysis, and
Word Identification (p < .01). No significant
improvement was found on Paragraph Reading, Word Attack,
Word Ordering, or Contextual Analysis (p >.05).
The figure below reflects pre-posttest grade-level differences
on the 7 subtests of the GORT-D.
Significant improvement was made on
the Test of Word Spelling (TWS-4), (t 17 = 2.4,
p < .01). However, no significant improvement
was made on the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE),
(p >.05). Additionally, no significant difference was
found between the Spanish and English-only speakers on
any of the test measures. The table below reflects
pre-post-test grade-level differences on the TWS-4 Total
Test and the two subtests of the TOWRE (Sight Word Efficiency
and Phonemic Decoding).
DISCUSSION
Participants made significant improvement in three areas
of reading and language knowledge: Decoding Words, Analysis
of Morphemes (including knowledge of contractions, word
endings, and compound words), and Word Identification (knowledge
of associated words). Knowledge of word associations and
morphemes involves language comprehension. All participants
in this study had language impairments. Results indicate
the Reading Upgrade Program may also improve language skills
that are critical for reading. Many of the activities included
to improve reading comprehension involve language, such
as understanding cause and effect, conclusions, inferences,
comparing and contrasting, sequencing, following directions,
and answering “WH” questions (e.g., who, what,
when, where, and why).
It should also be noted that contractions are not in
the Spanish language. Participants in this investigation
made significant improvement in their understanding of
contractions, although more lessons were needed for mastery.
Overall, no significant differences between Spanish and
English speakers were noted on any test measures. In other
words, the Reading Upgrade Program appears to be beneficial
for all users, regardless of native language.
Participants also made significant improvement in spelling.
They made an average of approximately one-half grade-level
improvement (average mean difference = .6). This amount
of gain is surprising and is in contrast to research with
students who have reading disabilities. According to the
National Reading Panel Report (2000), phonics and phonemic
awareness activities have little to no effect on improving
spelling skills of poor readers. However, the Reading Upgrade
Program incorporates word skills, such as word families,
prefixes, suffixes, compound words, and high-frequency
sight words along with phonics and phonemic awareness activities.
Perhaps the combination the three areas of instruction
contributed to participants’ significant gains. In
addition, phonics and phonemic awareness activities have
been found to be beneficial for students who are learning
English (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
2000). As you will recall, 16 of the participants spoke
Spanish as their first language. (They received instruction
in English at school).
No significant improvement was made on the TOWRE. This
test measures the ability to decode isolated “real” and “pseudo” words
(pronounceable words that have no meaning). Participants
may recognize many of the “real” words, but
must use phonics skills to sound-out “pseudo” words.
Since the Reading Upgrade Program incorporates phonics
skills, it was hypothesized participants would make significant
progress on this portion of the assessment. However, they
did not. Only slight progress was made on the TOWRE.
In contrast, participants made significant improvement
on the Decoding subtest of the GORT-D, which measures
the ability to blend phonemes into “pseudo” words.
The two tests appear to be similar in nature. It is currently
unknown why participants did not make significant gains
on the TOWRE, unless they were not motivated to “try
their best” on this third test.
In conclusion, the Reading Upgrade computer program shows
promise for improving reading, spelling, and language skills
of adolescents with SLI. Due to the pop music, videos,
and game format, participants were motivated to complete
the program. However, many participants were not motivated
to be post-tested, and several performed significantly
poorer than they had during pre-testing. Limited motivation
may therefore be a factor in determining the overall effectiveness
of the program. Participants may have made gains that were
not shown on the standardized posttests. Overall, participants
commented that they enjoyed the Reading Upgrade Program
and indicated they wanted more lessons.
Acknowledgements -- The author wishes to
thank the Las Cruces Public Schools Special Education Department
for the cooperation and assistance provided to conduct
the current study, including Ms. Toni Trujillo, Field Coordinator.
I am also grateful to my Graduate Assistant, Ms. Brenda
Lankford for her invaluable help. Lastly, I wish to thank
the Learning Upgrade Company for furnishing the computer
codes for students’ use.
1Patricia Lohman-Hawk, Ph.D. is a licensed
Speech-Language Pathologist and Assistant Professor in
the Special Education and Communication Disorders Department
at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, NM.
REFERENCES
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning
about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Learning Upgrade (2002). Reading Upgrade Teacher’s
Guide. San Diego, CA: Learning Upgrade LLC.
Lyon, G. R. (1995). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals
of Dyslexia, 45, 3-27.
Lyon, G.
R. (1994). Research in Learning Disabilities at
the NICHD. Technical document. Bethesda, MD:
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development,
National Institutes of Health.
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000).
Report of the National ReadingPanel: Teaching children
to read. National Institute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment.
(NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, D.C.
© March 5, 2003. Patricia Lohman-Hawk, Ph.D.
|