EDTEC 770 Presentation

You may view my presentation (I hope) at the following link: Speech Synthesis and Word Processing. Good Luck!

EDTEC 770 Final Paper

Effect of Speech Synthesis and Word Processing on Reading Achievement

Abstract

The use of technology with at-risk or low achieving students is having a positive impact on learning and student achievement. Studies indicate that speech synthesis software and the use of the word processor during writing increase motivation for the writing process for students with reading and writing disabilities. Hearing the story while composing helps students foster reading with meaning; however researchers found that student writers using word processors and speech synthesis software revise more, write more, and spend more time writing, produce neater, more error-free texts an important part of writing. More studies are advised to correlate the use of speech synthesis and reading for meaning with increased student achievement.

Introduction

Educational reform worldwide is increasingly concerned and preoccupied with school failure. School failure has a double meaning – the failure of some students to secure educational achievements and opportunities on a par with their peers; and the failure of schools to provide all of their students, especially those from poor or minority backgrounds, with those achievements and opportunities (Haegreaves, 2004)

Many low-income children enter school already behind their more affluent peers. Teachers must embrace their responsibility to help students acquire a solid foundation for school success (Musti-Raa and Carteledge, 2007). There is accumulating evidence that teachers’ instructional interactions with children have the greatest value for students’ performance when they are focused, direct, intentional, and characterized by feedback loops involving student performance. Explicit teaching experiences and practice (i.e. phonemic skills, vocabulary), productive classroom teaching, learning, intensive scaffolding and feedback to students about their progress can lead to higher academic achievement.

The value of intentional, focused interaction and feedback is not limited to reading, but appears to be a key component in other skill domains such as writing that may extend to cognition and higher order thinking (Hamre & Pianta, 2005). The use of technology with at-risk or low achieving students is having a positive impact on learning and achievement. The Apple Classrooms for Tomorrow (ACOT) Project has reported positive impacts on student attitudes, motivation, and learning (Puma, 2000). When students work with computer technologies, instead of being controlled by them, they enhance the capabilities of the computer. When this occurs the computer enhances students thinking and learning skills (Jonassen, Carr and Yueh, 1998). Other studies indicate that it is not simply access to technology that is important, but rather, how teachers use it as a tool to enhance learning (Puma, 2000).

Literature Review

At-Risk Students

Home issues that place students at risk of school failure are low maternal education (Hamre & Pianta, 2005); parent and sibling substance abuse, family violence, lack of parental supervision, lack of parental educational support and involvement, parents who speak English as a second language, criminal parental behavior (Johnson, 1997. Educators often see these issues as a major influence on whether or not an at-risk student will succeed in school. Some teachers are perceived as having the attitude that low-achieving students do not have the same ability as their low-risk peers. Actions and behaviors directed toward students indicate a lack of belief in their academic abilities. Students reported teachers telling them that they were destined to work at Burger King or McDonald’s (Lee, 1999). Lack of teacher expectation and teacher-centered classrooms is one factor in students not achieving in the classroom. In these teacher-centered classrooms lectures are the common way of teaching along with minimal communication resulting in limited learning (Lee, 1999).

Students’ perception of school was a place where they can feel safe, comfortable and cared about (Lee, 1999). Child-centered classrooms nurture positive relationships between teacher and student. These classrooms provided explicit teaching and practice, intensive scaffolding and feedback to students about their progress (Hamre & Pianta, 2005). Direct instruction is required for those students having limited language competencies and minimal background experiences (Johnson, 1997). Teachers need to take the time to present concepts and ideas in multiple ways (lectures, group work, visual aides, manipulatives, varying text, music) to ensure comprehension (Lee, 1999). Greater achievement for Title I students was associated with the use of task oriented teaching that avoided classroom disruptions, the use of academically challenging materials and asking more “opinion” rather than simple factual questions (Puma, 2000).

Reading

The importance of being able to read is critical to student achievement. The U.S. Department of Education clearly defines the five essential components of reading instruction as described in Reading First, part of the ESEA Act.

1. Phonemic Awareness: the ability to hear, identify, and manipulate the individual sounds – phonemes – in spoken words. Phonemic awareness is the understanding that the sounds of spoken language work together to make words.

2. Phonics: the understanding that there is a predictable relationship between phonemes – the sounds of spoken language – and graphemes – the letters and spellings that represent those sounds in written language. Readers use these relationships to recognize familiar words accurately and automatically and to decode unfamiliar words.

3. Vocabulary Development: the development of stored information about the meanings and pronunciation of words necessary for communications.

4. Fluency: the ability to read text accurately and quickly. It provides a bridge between word recognition and comprehension. Fluent readers recognize words and comprehend at the same time.”

5. Comprehension: strategies for understanding, remembering, and communicating with others about what has been read. Comprehension strategies are sets of steps that purposeful active readers use to make sense of text (Reading Recovery, 2003).

Teaching students to read should be educators’ number one priority but how that happens depends on the reader’s background knowledge and educational experiences. Some children grasp the process no matter what way they are taught; others require different approaches (Scherer, 2007). The National Reading Panel find that teachers should adopt a “balanced” reading approach with instruction in phonemic awareness, alphabetic understanding, and automaticity with the code forming the framework of beginning reading instruction. Good reading instruction is explicit, intensive and systematic (Musti-Rao and Carteledge, 2007).

Reading involves the use of various cue systems or knowledge structures that interact during the act of reading. These cues provide information to the reader in order that meaning can be constructed from the text. The skilled reader can comprehend quickly by using only minimal cues from each of the systems. These cues are described as phonetic, semantic, orthographic, syntactic, lexical or sources of information outside the reader. The reader will backtrack for more cues if those already picked out are not sufficient for the text to make sense (Lafreamboise, 1989).

Students with reading disabilities have a particularly difficult time with word recognition, especially phonological decoding skills (Higgins, Raskind and The Frostig Center, 2005). The poor reader may not have sufficient information provided by sight vocabulary and syntactic, phonic, and orthographic cues to bring meaning to the text. The reader may be hindered from being able to construct meaning from text (Laframboise, 1989).

Technology can be a powerful compensatory tool – it can augment sensory input or reduce distractions; it can provide support for cognitive processing or enhance memory and recall; it can serve as a personal “on demand” tutor and as an enabling device that supports independent functioning (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1996). Efforts should be made to ensure access to appropriate technology for children with special needs, for whom assistive technologies may be essential for successful inclusion (NAEYC, 1996).

Optical Character Recognition

The use of optical character recognition (OCR) systems combined with speech synthesis has become increasingly accepted as a means to compensate for reading difficulties (Higgins, Raskind and The Frostig Center, 2005). OCR systems convert printed text to the spoken word. Students with reading disabilities can bypass their phonological difficulties by hearing the printed word, which may be a more efficient way of comprehending text (Higgins, et al., 2005).

OCR systems are generally desktop computers combined with flatbed full-page scanners. Users scan printed documents; the printed text is converted to electronic text that is read aloud by a speech synthesizer. The text is displayed on the screen while the text is read aloud by the speech synthesizer. The Quicktionary Reading Pen is handheld unit approximately 1” X ¾” X 6.” The unit allows the user to scan printed text either a word or line at a time. Scanned words appear on the screen within 1-3 seconds and are read aloud by a built-in speech synthesizer (Higgins, et al., 2005).

Statistical analysis revealed significant increases in correct responses to reading comprehension. Other studies have shown that speech synthesis, in combination with optical character recognition, improved comprehension of collect students with severe reading deficits (Higgins, et al., 2005). Over time, the constant exposure to new vocabulary that stimulates the exploratory, analytic behavior could conceivably result in significant improvements in reading vocabulary and affect comprehension positively (Higgins, et al.).

The authors (Higgins, et al.) caution that the use of OCR technology with more able readers can disrupt the comprehension process because of the auditory input that was not necessary for them. They also caution about generalizing the efficacy values in their study to other chronological ages and grade levels, or to other populations of disabled and non-disabled readers (p. 35).

Writing

Special education students often have difficulties in written expression such as accurately conveying their ideas in written language or generating stories (Kelly, Kratcoski and McClain, 2006). Children who are experiencing difficulties with writing receive little regular, additional or remedial instruction. Students have a limited conception of the nature of revision, concentrating mainly on mechanical errors in punctuation and spelling, rather than on text-meaning alterations (Wilkinson and Anderson, 1992).

Writing is, by its nature, a process in addition to being a product (Laframboise, 1989). The Balanced Literacy Model (2003) defines the essential components of the writing process.

1. Prewriting – the opportunity to generate ideas and discover what is known and what to say about a topic

2. Writing – translating ideas into sentences and paragraphs and writing for a particular audience, voice and purpose in mind.

3. Revising – adding new details, making sentences clearer, reading the writing as readers not writers, reorganizing and focusing ideas.

4. Editing – applying state standard information, making the writing ready for publication or presentation – correcting the spelling, sentences, punctuation and usage.

5. Sharing – reading, seeing and/or hearing others’ writing (pp. 50).

Word Processor

Intervention is a normal part of life in a lifetime of learning (Scherer, 2007). Neuman (2007) defines intervention as “systematic and intentional efforts to provide supplemental health, education and social services to at-risk children and their families” (p. 17). Writing with a word processor could be viewed as an intervention, rather than a long-term writing method in the classroom (Kelly, et. al., 2006). The lack of specific remedial instruction in writing for these students is suggested by several researchers (e.g. Christenson, Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & McVicar, 1989) as a factor in their failure to improve. This is supported by reports of positive effects on productivity, cohesiveness and accuracy when specific instruction in aspects of writing has been used in intervention. Mann (1999) found that consistent student access to the technology, positive attitudes towards technology and teacher training in the technology leads to greater student achievement gains (p. 7).

Computers can be tools for enhancing written language, yet using the computer requires literacy (Dalute, 2000). Literacy development depends in large part on having extensive, engaging exposure to print and involvement with communication technologies that is print intensive. Students who do not have access to these technologies may be at a disadvantage (Dalute, 2000). Children communicating via computers face social and ethical challenges, requiring that they understand and control the contexts, purposes and processes of written language. They are involved in critical literacy as they continue to master the mechanics of writing (Dalute, 2000). Teachers should look for ways to use computers to support the development and learning that occur in other parts of the classroom and development and learning that happen with computers in complement with activities off the computer (NAEYC, 1996).

Student writers using word processors revise more, write more, and spend more time writing, produce neater, more error-free texts than they do with paper and pencil (Wilkinson and Anderson, 1992). The word processor presents the text in a form the reader can view immediately on the computer monitor or later on a printout. Word processors reduce short-term memory burdens, especially for younger writers who find it easier to type and correct mistakes than to form letters, words, and sentences, and easier to give commands than to recopy entire texts (Dalute, 2000). Students who use computers when writing are more engaged and motivated, and also produce written work that is longer and of a higher quality than students who do not use computers to write (Kelly, et.al., 2006). High motivation aside, word processing may actually enhance learning by influencing the cognitive processes of language production (Laframboise, 1989).

Speech synthesis features may hold particular promise for students in special education, because hearing text aloud may provide additional prompts to help them revise their work (Kelly, et.al., 2006). Speech synthesis converts the text to speech while word prediction software predicts the intended word based on the beginning of the word that the user types. The addition of speech to word processors to enable text to be read back to the writer may, within the appropriate instructional context, enhance aspects of the writing process (Wilkinson and Anderson, 1992).

One effect of speech synthesis was the positive impact on revision during the writing process. Kelly, et. al. (2006) referenced a teacher’s observation of the reduction of spelling errors during the use of the speech synthesis program Write Out Loud. This program speaks while students are writing making it easier for them to edit their work.

“When we went to Write Out Loud, they were very aware of the spelling errors, because they could hear the way the word was being pronounced. So they tended more to the screen and the configuration of the words and whether or not all of the sounds were there and right now I see that when they are typing an e-mail or something they will go back, even though they are not hearing the word, they’re going back and they are able to recognize letters that are missing or sounds that are missing in words because I think they have had that experience of hearing the typed word” (p. 6).

Soundproof is a speech synthesis program students can activate whenever required in their word processing program. They are able to specify whether to read words, lines, sentences or paragraphs and could also navigate around the text and choose to read different text segments. As each word is read it is highlighted on the screen. Students could listen to the speech synthesizer through speakers or, more preferably, headphones (Wilkinson and Anderson, 1992).

Soundproof was extensively and successfully used by the students at the language convention level. Students often changed spelling and attended to capital letters as a result of listening to their stories (Wilkinson and Anderson, 1992).

One aspect of the study that did not materialize the way the researchers planned was the increase in analyzing the writing through meaning. Wilkinson and Anderson (1992) noted students occasionally made alterations to story endings, but there was no evidence to indicate that they were using speech feedback to rephrase or re-sequence their stories (p. 12). The students used the speech synthesizing software to attend to mechanical errors rather than meaning.

A positive aspect of the use of word processors and/or speech synthesizers in the writing process was the increase in motivation on the part of students. There were numerous studies (Wilkinson & Anderson, 1992; Kelly, et.a., 2006; Schactez, 1999; Higgins, Raskind and The Frostig Center, 2005; Dalute, 2000) that cited the motivation for writing while using technology was a factor in increased achievement in reading and writing. More studies need to be completed on how to motivate our at-risk students in order to raise their achievement level.

References

Balanced Literacy Model (1^st ed). (2003). Fort Wayne, IN.

Dalute, Colette. (in press). Writing and Communication Technologies. In Roselmina Indrisano & James R. Squire (Eds) Perspectives on Writing: Research, Theory and Practice: International Reading Association, April 2000.

ESEA fact sheets describing Reading Recovery in relation to the federal definition of scientifically based reading research and the five essential elements of reading instruction. http://www.readingrecovery.org/sections/home/adv_esea_factsheets.asp.

Hamre, Bridget K. & Pianta, Robert. (2005). Can Instructional and Emotional Support in the First-Grade Classroom Make a Difference for Children at Risk of School Failure. Child Development, v76, n5, September/October 2005, pp. 949-967.

Higgins, Eleanor, Raskind, Marshall & The Frostig Center. (2005). The Compensatory Effectiveness of the Quicktionary Reading Pen II on the Reading Comprehension of Students with Disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 20(1), Winter 2005, pp. 31-40.

Jonassen, David, Carr, Chad & Yueh, Hsiu-Ping. (1998). Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking. TechTrends, v 43 n2 pp. 24-32 March 1998.

Kelly, Jennifer, Kratcoski, Annette & McClain, Karen. (2006). The Effects of Word Processing Software on the Writing of Students with Special Needs. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, Winter 2006, pp. 1-16.

Laframboise, Kathryn. (1989). The Effects of Sentence-Combining Using Word Processing Technology on the Reading Comprehension and Writing Fluency of Low-Achieving Fourth Grade Students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Savannah, GA.

Lee, Patrick W. (1999). An Ethnographic Study of Low-Achieving Students within the Context of School Reform. Urban Education, v34, n2, May 1999, pp. 214-244.

Musti-Rao and Cartledge, Gwendolyn. (2007). Delivering What Urban Readers Need. Educational Leadership, v54, n2, October 2007, pp. 56-61.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (1996). Technology and Young Children – Ages 3 through 8. Washington DC.

Neuman, Susan B. (2007). Changing the Odds. Educational Leadership, v65, n2, October 2007, pp. 17-21.

Puma, Michael. (2000). Exploring New Directions. Title I in the Year 2000. The National School Boards Association, 2000.

Schactez, John. (1999). The Impact of Education Technology on Student Achievement: What the Most Current Research Has to Say. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.

Scherer, Marge. Interventions That Work. Educational Leadership, v65 n2 October 2007 p7.

Wilkinson, Lois & Anderson, Bill. (1992). Talking back and writing: Using a speech synthesizer and strategy instruction with students who have difficulty writing. Paper presented at the Joint AARE/NZARE Conference, Deakin University, Geelong, pp. 22-26, November 1992.

EDTEC 655 Final Presentation Link

My presentation can be viewed at the following link: The Internet as a Mindtool.

EDTEC 655 - Final Project

OVERVIEW

The purpose of my project is to find ways to bring the internet into the elementary school as in inquiry or mindtool. I was going to compere two different web sites, but as I went further with the project I decided to focus on only one web site becasue I wanted to tie it to our School Improvement Plan.

RATIONALE

My motivation for this particular project is to find a way to use sites such as http://www.quia.com/ in an elementary classroom. Web sites are used in middle and high schools to a greater extent than the elementary schools. The elementary level is lagging behind in using the technology available to them, especially the internet.

My school is in the process of setting up its first computer lab. The school currently has 2-4 computers per classroom that are used mainly for educational games. Very few classrooms are using the internet to enhance the district curriculum even though they have internet access in the classroom. Computer labs, in my mind, are crucial in elementary schools. Web sites, such as www.quia.com, in my opinion, are very suitable for an elementary computer lab. These web sites are appropriate not only for educators but for students.

READINGS

During this class we read different articles about Problem-Based Learning and Inquiry. The article that I found most helpful to me during this project was "Qualitative Assessment Activites for Pew Grant on Problem-Based Learning (PBL)" and can be found here. The article had two questions it wanted to answer: "How do students experience the PBL context?" and "What kinds of learning occur in the PBL setting."

There were several key findings from this study. They were: participation, compromise, respect, acceptance of different approaches and working styles, interpersonal, small group and communication skills, awareness of learning preference.

The students that participated in the focus groups liked the PBL style because they participated to a greater extent because they got to know the other students in the class and they were able to interact with them on a regular basis. A number of the students "credit the group aspect with helping them become more accountable and responsible. Because others depend on their contributions, the students are motivated to attend class regularly, to stay on top of their assignments and to come to class prepared with their work completed.

The students also found that the PBL experience is directly linked to how motivated the students are and how committed they are to the work. The group dynamic needs to be maintained at all times. Each member can help to monitor this. One finding under the collaboration heading was "opportunity for questions and feedback helps comprehension of the content."

Barbara Duch is a great resource for PBL and references for her can be found at the University of Delaware.

A book I have read in previous classes in Integrating Technology for Meaningful Learning by Mark and Cindy Grabe. This is a great book for anyone who is just beginning to explore technology and a WONDERFUL resource for connecting curriculum to technology. The book is designed with an emphasis on meaningful teacher and student learning with technology. One piece I found exceptionally useful to me is Chapter 6: The Internet as a Tool for Inquiry. This was the chapter that listed the Big Six, which are interrelated set of skills. They are:

*Task definition
*Information-seeking strategies
*Location and access
*Use of information
*Synthesis
*Evaluation

I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is considering an educational path into curriculum and technology.

Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking by Jonanssen is an article that emphasizes mindtools, which is where I got my title for my article.
As I think about the definition of mindtools that was given in the article, I noticed Jonassen focused on spreadsheets as a great mindtool to use. I have used spreadsheets in my professional studies and in my job as an educator, but have not used them with my students. When I think about different types of spreadsheets I can think of the paper/pencil kind used by elementary school students: addition problems, number grids, graphing, etc. I have not thought to use the computer spreadsheets with the younger children, but this article certainly had differnt suggestions for use.

For this project I focused on the internet web sites as a mindtool, but I am definitely going to continue to explore the use of computer spreadsheets with elementary students. I also want to continue to explore the use of blogs at the elementary level. The article did talk about the use of conversational tools when talking about mindtools and gave a few examples. This was a great article!

DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY

I am using the internet as my technology and mindtool to create this project. The web site http://www.quia.com/ was fairly easy to navigate. The instructions were easy to follow and the help links were excellent. I am attempting to post my presentation on my blog, but my first few attempts were not successful. In fact when I first tried to post it I lost everything that I had typed (bummer!!). I may attempt to post the presentation in a separate post.

NETS STANDARDS

National Educational Technology Standards for Students. This link will take you to these standards. I fell the following NETS standards are the main ones I see as being relevant to my project.

*Basic operations and concepts
-Students are proficient in the use of technology.

*Technology productivity tools
-Students use technology tools to enhance learning, increase productivity, and promote creativity.
-Students use productivity tools to collaborate in constructing technology-enhanced models, prepare publications, and produce other creative works.

CHALLENGES

The biggest challenge I had with this project is trying to post my presentation to the blog. I have not yet mastered this yet, but I will not go down in defeat. As far as challenges to the project I am working on, the biggest one is not having a computer lab at schol to provide more of a PBL atmostphere to this project. It is nice to have the computers in the classsroom, but there are just not enough to do this project justice. If the goal is to make elementary students comfortable and confident with the technology associated with the internet, it is imperative that the students are taught in the most beneficial way possible. I would like to put this into practice when our computer lab is up and running.

PROJECT PERFORMANCE/OBSERVATIONS

As I state above, it will be interesting to see this project come to fruition when our computer lab is in place. When I was doing the simulation in http://www.quia.com/ I became very excited about the possibilities to be explored at the elementary level. Our School Improvement Plan is required to have a technology strand included. Since our focus is Reading Comprehension I would like to see one part of our action plan include this resource as a tool for teachers to use with students. Right now only teachers are making use of the web site and are finding it very useful.

Any feedback is welcome.

EDTEC 655 Mini Review #4

For this review I explored the website http://lgl.gameslearningsociety.org/games/php

To help frame my review I have answered the following questions:

1. Could you see yourself integrating AR games into your own curriculum? If so, would it be one of the eight games from the site above (as is or modified) or would you have to create something more specific to your subject area?

I really liked the Arboretum Game. It is a game designed for 1st through 5th grade students. "Created as a quick design exercise, the game leads players through the Arboretum as they explore different sections if it, look for plants and animals, and learn about the ecological attributes of its infrastructure." This is a great way to make science and social studies relevant to students in the elementary grades. The other games looked great, but the were geared more toward middle and high school students. In these settings, I can see a great benefit of the AR games in the curriculum. I like the way "Hip Hop Tycoon" integrate reading comprehension and math skills into the unit plan and game. Very nice site.

2. What do you feel are the benefits and/or detriments when looking at of integrating augmented reality games into your curriculum?

One of the benefits of using augmented reality games in the district curriculum is the ability to make the curriculum come alive for the students. This is one site that is very well done and could be beneficial to a district if used in the correct way.

3. Take one of the modeling ideas/reviews from the other group and apply it to your curriculum.

"The cycle of plant growth – photosynthesis – is difficult for most people I think, including students. That is one that no mater how many times one hears it, a physical model would likely aid in understanding. Also, the water cycle – evaporation, humidity, rain, etc." This is an example submitted by by Diana that could be a perfect lesson for the Arboretum Game. The AR model fo plant growth could be played out during the game.

Overall this was ag reat site. I would recommend this for educators.