Report on use of Reading Pen - Helene Mickle - 19 August 2008..pdf

Measuring the effectiveness andaccuracy of the Wizcom ReadingPenwhen used by middle primary childrenand its effect on reading comprehensionHelene Damave MickleConsultant for Students with DisABILITIESCatholic Education Office of Western AustraliaThis article examines the impact of the Wizcom ReadingPen in its effectiveness to be accurately used asa self-correcting tool by students with literacy difficulties in middle primary years.The use of optical character recognition (OCR) systems combined with speech synthesis(computer-generated speech) has become increasingly accepted as a means to compensate forreading disabilities. These systems, or “reading machines,” convert printed text to spoken languageso the user can hear as well as see written words. As they continue to gain prominence as anassistive tool for children with reading difficulties, it is important for educators to know whetherscientific studies support their use and to be conscious that selecting specific technologies for theirchildren is dependent on the individual child, the task to be performed, and the setting in which it isto be used.Marshall H. Raskind, Ph.D. is a learning disability researcher. He is a frequent presenter atinternational learning disability conferences and is the author of numerous professional publicationson learning disabilities. Results of a study indicated that students with reading disabilities aged 10to18 performed significantly better in reading comprehension tasks when using the reading pendevice as compared to reading without it. Similarly, Higgins & Raskind, in a study of post-secondarystudents with LD, found that severely disabled readers improved reading comprehension scoreswhen using OCR. In addition, they found an “inverse correlation” between silent reading withoutassistance and reading with an OCR system, such that, the greater the severity of the readingdisability, the more the technology elevated reading comprehension scoresThe researchers speculated that the reading of every word aloud by means of the speechsynthesizer might actually have interfered with comprehension by overly taxing working memory inthose readers whose deficits were not as severe. A similar finding was reported by Elkind, Cohen &Murray. This is a very important finding as it emphasizes that a technology that may be very helpfulto one person may be of little benefit or, in fact, impedes performance in another. Furthermore,unlike previous studies, this research did not indicate an “interference effect” for the readers withless severe deficits. This result is probably because the reading pen user only scanned difficultwords on an “as needed” basis.After establishing the reading pen as a comprehensive tool, I wanted to measure the accuracy ofthe reading pen to convert words to speech when used by primary school children. I conducted atrial with three children ages 11, 12, 14 years. The children had a diagnosis of dyslexia, borderlineintellectual disability, and one unspecified learning difficulty of an indigenous background withlimited schooling attendance. All children had a reading age of approximately 9 years.Each student was instructed on how to use the reading pen for ten minutes. They were then left withthe pen for twenty minutes to explore the device. Initial reactions by the students of the use of thereading pen were sceptical as it did not accurately read. Accuracy ranged from 60-68%. Thestudents did not enjoy using the pen and felt it would not be of assistance to them.A second session held one week later providing reading material that was within the reading abilityof the student i.e. the student could read eighty percent of the reading material. My intention was tomotivate the student to use the pen for those words they could not read, enhancing fluency andcomprehension and in turn motivate the student to use the pen. After the second 20-minute session

the student’s skill in using the pen had improved with reading pen accuracy increasing 70-80percent. Comprehension of the text increased to 98 percent.The third session produced very similar responses from the three students. All students were verykeen to use the pen and began exploring various options that the reading pen encompasses. Allthree students’ reading accuracy using the pen increased to 90-92 percent with students being ableto use the menu to look at a range of options that the reading pen offers. Students gainedincreasing confidence to use the pen on a different range of texts including those that were beyondthe reading age of the student.In summary, my findings concluded that students require short training sessions of 20 minutesmaximum to gain confidence in using the pen with texts that are consistent to their reading ageinitially. The reading pen accuracy of use increased within three 20 minute training sessions overthree weeks. Reading comprehension and confidence improved once 90 percent accuracy could beachieved by the user. All but one student felt they would use it on a regular basis, with the exceptionof one who felt that the device would highlight and stigmatise his reading disability (13-year-oldstudent) in front of his peers. I believe this could be overcome by encouraging all students to usethe pen and promote an acceptance of diversity within the classroom. In conclusion I found thereading pen a valuable assistive tool to promote reading comprehension, independence andconfidence.__________________________________________________