![]() In contrast, compensation studies seek to provide students with an assistive tool to help them with their reading. Intervention studies seek to improve students’ reading skills independent of the technology. Mastery of lower-level decoding skills is essential for being able to use higher-level language skills to understand text ( Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004).Intervention Versus Compensation This reading deficit is believed to have a neurobiological basis and is also characterized by a failure to respond to appropriate instruction and intervention ( Fletcher, 2009 Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003 Wagner, Schatschneider, & Phythian-Sence, 2009).Ĭommon problems for individuals with reading disabilities include inaccurate and slow word reading and reading of connected text, making comprehension challenging ( LaBerge & Samuels, 1974 Perfetti, 1985). Individuals with reading disabilities have unexpected significant deficits in reading and its component skills (e.g., decoding, fluency), despite potential educational opportunities. The goal of this meta-analysis is to synthesize the research literature on the effects of text-to-speech and related tools for oral presentation of material on reading comprehension for students with reading disabilities. Due to these mixed findings, we wanted to conduct a current review of the literature. ![]() The research literature is characterized by contradictory results, with some studies reporting improved reading whereas others have not ( Dalton & Strangman, 2006 Stetter & Hughes, 2010 Strangman & Hall, 2003). Unfortunately, its implementation has outpaced the lagging research base on the effects of using text-to-speech to support comprehension. ![]() More recently, text-to-speech technology has been used widely in educational settings from elementary school through college. Previously text was available orally through books-on-tape and human readers. There are several different technologies for presenting oral materials (e.g., text-to-speech, reading pens, audiobooks). Presenting reading material orally in addition to a traditional paper presentation format removes the need to decode reading material, and therefore, has the potential to help students with reading disabilities better comprehend written texts. Inefficient decoding may also tax cognitive resources, leaving fewer resources available for comprehension ( Smythe, 2005). This has a direct negative effect on reading comprehension by decreasing word reading accuracy and speed. Most current theories argue that one of the primary causes of reading disabilities is a struggle to decode written text. For students with reading disabilities, reading comprehension is often difficult ( Kim, Linan Thompson, & Misquitta, 2012). Reading comprehension, which is defined as the ability to construct meaning from interacting with a text, is critical for students to succeed in today’s educational settings ( Snow, 2002). Implications and recommendations for future research are discussed. ![]() ![]() However, more studies are needed to further explore the moderating variables of text-to-speech and read aloud tools’ effectiveness for improving reading comprehension. Taken together, this suggests that text-to-speech technologies may assist students with reading comprehension. Moderator effects of study design were found to explain some of the variance. 35, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of. Random effects models yielded an average weighted effect size of ( d ̄ =. This study addresses this gap in the research by conducting a meta-analysis on the effects of text-to-speech technology and related read aloud tools on reading comprehension for students with reading difficulties. It is not clear how effective text-to-speech is at improving reading comprehension. Read aloud software, including text-to-speech, is used to translate written text into spoken text, enabling one to listen to written text while reading along. Text-to-speech and related read aloud tools are being widely implemented in an attempt to assist students’ reading comprehension skills. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |