Jessica Olliff

Applications of Instruction Technology

Spring 2011
Article 1

Citation

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Herron, J., & Lindamood, P.
(2010). Computer-assisted instruction to prevent early reading difficulties in
students at risk for dyslexia: Outcomes from two instructional approaches.
Annals of Dyslexia, 60(1), 40-56. doi:10.1007/s11881-009-0032-y

Identification - Research

Summary

This article outlined a two year research program implemented in three

first grade classrooms at three different schools. At the beginning of both school
years the incoming first graders were screened for letter-sound knowledge,
phoneme elision, serial naming of numbers, and vocabulary. Once screened, the
bottom 35%, who were identified as “at risk” for developing dyslexia, were
chosen to participate in the study. These students were used to test the
effectiveness of two computer programs meant to supplement reading
instruction. The two programs tested in the study were Read, Write, and Type
(RWT), and The Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program for Reading,
Spelling, and Speech (LIPS). Both programs provide support for the development
of phonemic awareness, phonemic decoding, and text reading accuracy.

The researchers developed three questions to outline their study on these

programs. First, Are there reliable differences in instructional impact between
these two approaches to early intervention? Second, Do students receiving
supplemental instruction using the RWT and LIPS programs show more rapid
growth in early reading skills than students who do not receive the instruction?
And finally, What proportion of students receiving the computer-based instruction
remained significantly impaired in reading skills following the intervention?

The RWT program was developed in 1995 and uses colorful animation,
digitized speech, and an engaging story line that leads children through activities
to practice phonetic spelling and writing. In this program students spend much of
their time processing meaningful written material and being encouraged to
acquire phonics knowledge to enable written communication. The LIPS program,
which was developed in 1998, provides explicit instruction in phonemic
awareness. It leads children to discover and label phonemes, and follows that
step with activities to build skills in tracking the phonemes. The program uses
mouth-form pictures, colored blocks, and letters to represent phonemes in words.

The results were very impressive, and surprisingly similar. Reading

outcomes for the students who received the LIPS program was slightly stronger
than the students who received the RWT program. Both of the experimental
groups showed much greater gains in reading than the control group. When
tested a year later, at the end of second grade, the two experimental groups still
scored higher than the control group from the previous year.

Critique

I really enjoyed learning about these two reading instruction programs.

Before this article I had never heard of either, and would be very interested to
explore each in my own classroom. It was mentioned in the study that the
teachers who implemented both programs underwent extensive training before
doing so. I feel that this is where “actual education” (not for research studies)
lacks. When new educational programs have been introduced in schools since I
have been in the teaching field, there is more of a “here it is, take it and run with
it” approach than actual training. Who is to say that I do not currently have a
program that would be comparable to these if I knew how to effectively share it
with my students? Maybe not, but it did cross my mind as I read this section of
the article. Either way, the numbers in the study were strong enough to convince
anyone that the two programs used were more than worthwhile, and that
computer based instruction, when used correctly, is an invaluable educational
tool.

Article 2

Citation

Lovell, M., & Phillips, L. (2009). Commercial Software Programs Approved

for Teaching Reading and Writing in the Primary Grades: Another
Sobering Reality. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2),
197-216. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Identification – Research

Summary

In this research study 13 popular children’s educational technology

programs that are used in schools were evaluated for performance and
effectiveness. Each of these programs is used to teach reading and writing in
primary grades. Actual students were never a part of the study, rather the
researchers themselves used each of the programs from two different
perspectives; that of the student, and that of the teacher. Each of the programs
were scored in three different areas; interface design, content, and instructional
design. The authors used the Bishop and Santoro (2005, 2006) Early Reading
Software Evaluation Form to perform this scoring. After scoring these areas there
were two overlying questions discussed; whether the program supported the
manufacturer’s claims, and the level of appropriateness to supplement reading
and writing instruction.

The findings of the study were as follows; the highest scores were in the
interface design category, with two programs exceeding expectations, and the
rest meeting. Most of the programs scored adequately in content, with two
programs exceeding expectations. Overall the instructional design scores were
the lowest of the three areas scored; again only two programs exceeded
expectations, while only five met expectations, and the remaining six programs
did not meet expectations in this category. Most of these programs scored poorly
in this area because they did not adapt to offer remediation when required, track
student progress, or generate reports on growth, making it impossible for
teachers to use the programs to make informed educational decisions.
Surprisingly, the instructional design ratings had nothing to do with date
published.

The findings seemed to support what manufacturer’s claimed about their

products to an extent. Many of the programs claimed to improve letter and word
recognition skills. These skills were practiced in the programs, not taught, so
therefore a prior knowledge of these skills is necessary for students to effectively
use the program. A few of the programs offered concept-mapping, which proved
to be non-instructional based on the criteria of Bishop and Santoro. Of all 13
programs analyzed, none of them were judged directly instructional according to
the testing criteria. Only a few of them demonstrated reading and writing skills,
and most of them neither monitor student progress or provide corrective
feedback.

Critique

This was quite the interesting research article, especially after reading the
first article about the two beneficial computer programs. What was said in this
article makes sense; basically that no computer program can replace actual
classroom reading instruction. The results of this study showed that there are
some programs out there that would be beneficial as an instructional supplement,
but that teachers should not rely on a program to do what they are not doing
themselves. Instruction needs to come first from the teacher, and then be
supported by any additional programs.

Article 3

Citation

Macaruso, P., & Rodman, A. (2009). Benefits of computer-assisted

instruction for struggling readers in middle school. European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 24(1), 103-113.
doi:10.1080/08856250802596774

Identification - Theory-into-practice

Summary

This article was based on the already-researched theory that young

readers benefit greatly from reading instruction that incorporates phonic word-
attack strategies (Bus and van Ijzendoorn 1999; Ehri 2004; Hatcher, Hulme, and
Snowling 2004) and that older readers may benefit from instructional programs
that address core phonics-based skills (for example, Lovett et al. 2000; Torgesen
2004). The authors of this study used those theories to test the benefits of
computer-assisted instruction (CAI) for middle-school students attending
remedial reading classes.
 In the study there were two groups of students; a group who received
supplemental CAI, and a group who did not. These groups were chosen from 47
sixth and seventh grade students who were enrolled in a remedial reading
course. The course was taught in three different sessions, all taught by the same
teacher. Both groups received Read Right instruction from this teacher, and the
experimental group also received Lexia S.O.S. computer program instruction
during their sessions. At the end of the course, the students were tested in seven
different areas. The results of the test show that the treatment group had
significantly greater gains in Word Attack than the control group. The treatment
group had slightly greater gains in Letter-Word Identification. Also, the treatment
group showed much more improvement in Reading Fluency and Reading
Vocabulary. The two groups scored about the same in Passage Comprehension
and Oral Comprehension. The control group scored better than the treatment
group in Spelling.

Critique

This was my favorite article on supplemental computer-based reading

instruction yet. The testing of it seemed to be most closely related to something I
could do in my own classroom, and the results were presented in a very straight-
forward manner. The theories and findings of this article were very easily
relatable to the average classroom. I liked reading an article that tested only one
specific computer program while used with only one specific teaching program.
Lexia S.O.S. is actually a program I have heard of, that is common among
schools in the area. What I did not like about the test is that they did not identify
different levels of learners before forming their groups. This made me wonder
whether the treatment group may have had stronger readers in it to begin with.
The results of this test make me interested to look into using it with my students,
or at least finding out more about it.

Article 4

Shelley-Tremblay, J., & Eyer, J. (2009). EFFECT OF THE READING

PLUS PROGRAM ON READING SKILLS IN SECOND GRADERS.
Journal of Behavioral Optometry, 20(3), 59-66. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
Identification – Research

Summary

Much like article 3, this research article tests the effectiveness of one
particular computerized reading program, in this case the Reading Plus program.
The Reading Plus program is a thirty year old program of exercises that is meant
to develop silent reading fluency.

Critique

I was excited when I found this article, as it is written around the Reading
Plus program which I have had some experience with. The test was not at all
what I expected it to be though, and I ended up reading and re-reading the article
looking for the information that I had expected to be there. It was difficult to figure
out how they actually conducted the study. It seemed that in this particular
research study the authors were more concerned with seeing how long students
spent looking at each word or passage, hence the extensive explanation of the
Visagraph, which tracks eye movements. I am not really concerned with the test
results in this area. Also, the article spent too much time explaining how the
actual RP program works. It began to feel like I was reading a RP program
manual. I was fine just being given the general idea of the program. Although
their findings did seem interesting, none of this research was really applicable to
what I would base instruction around in my own classroom.