Case Studies

The Compensatory Effectiveness of the Reading Pen ® on the Reading Comprehension of Students with Learning Disabilities by Eleanor L. Higgins,Ph.D. and Marshall H. Raskind, Ph.D.

The study investigated the compensatory effectiveness of the Quicktionary Reading Pen II® (theReading Pen), a portable device with miniaturized optical character recognition and speechsynthesis capabilities. Thirty participants with reading disabilities aged 10-18 were trained onthe operation of the technology and given two weeks to practice decoding single words and using various dictionary functions during independent silent reading in the classroom and other settings.

Assistive Technology for Adults with Reading Challenges: The Reading Pen Option by Paul J. Gerber, Ph.D.

Assistive technology has provided tools for adults with learning difficulties to improve theirquality of life, especially in the areas of reading, mathematics and writing. The QuicktionaryReading Pen was used by a group of adult students and their tutors to discover its utility inincreasing reading decoding and comprehension. Subjects who participated in the study were all enrolled in a metropolitan adult literacy program. Results were mixed. The Quicktionary Reading Pen was found to be very useful for some adult students while others did not find it tobe helpful at all. These results were also corroborated by tutors.

To Pen or Not to Pen: That is the Question by Karen J. Ash

The results of this study indicate that across grade levels, in both science (P < 0.001), and socialstudies (P = 0.014), the Readingpen significantly improved comprehension levels as shown by anincrease in number of correct answers on given tests. On average, the Readingpen increasedscience scores by 18 percentage points and social studies by 10 percentage points.

Comparison of Increases in Reading Accuracy by Lisa Quandahl

Three students with reading difficulties learned to use the Quicktionary Reading Pen during theinitial reading of passages. Their accuracy and fluency of the subsequent reading of the passageswas compared to subsequent readings of passages with which the Reading Pen had not beenused. The results indicated a consistently greater increase in reading accuracy after the initial use of the Reading Pen, than with repeated reading without the use of the pen.

Final Results of Readingpen II Research Study by Kim Miller

I included 4th, 5th, and 6th graders in my study. There were 6 students selected from each grade,3 students with reading difficulties and 3 students reading at grade level according to theclassroom teacher. The students were all trained on how to use the Reading Pen II. Then theyhad one week to use the Pen during their reading period.

Increasing Vocabulary and Comprehension with the use of a Reading Pen by Andrés Henríquez

Six reading disabled students were given an assistive technology to see the impact it would haveon their reading comprehension. The Reading Pen, a small hand held device, scans and readswords students have difficulty with. Students were given two reading passages to read. The firstwas read without the apparatus and the second passage was read with assistance of the ReadingPen. Miscues, reading rate, comprehension and word recall were measured. Students' time andcomprehension of stories decreased with the use of the pen. However, students were able torecall and pronounce many of the words they had scanned with the Reading Pen, words whichthey previously could not pronounce. Students showed great enthusiasm for the tool and the Pen holds promise for schools wanting to integrate technology and comprehension instruction.

Does the Oxford Reading Pen enhance reading accuracy and comprehensionfor students with reading difficulties in a classroom environment by Ian Johnson

This implementation trial sets out to identify if the Oxford Reading Pen (ORP) is an appropriate and effective compensatory ICT to assist students with reading difficulties in their classrooms.

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH REFERENCES

Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (in press). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study.Journal of Learning Disabilities.

Blevins, Wiley  Phonics from A to Z. New York: Scholastic Professional Books, 1998.

Center for Applied Special Technology, "Summary of Universal Design for Learning Concepts. "Available at http://www.cast.org/. INTERNET.

Coles, G. (1987). The learning mystique: A critical look at learning disabilities. New York: Pantheon.

Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects; Common Core State Standards Initiative Preparing America's Students For College and Career, http://www.corestandards.org/. INTERNET.

Drucker, Mary J. (2003). What reading teachers should know about ESL learners. The Reading Teacher: Vol. 57, No. 1, September 2003.

Fletcher, J.M. (1995). Diagnostic utility of intelligence testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities: Historical perspectives and current research. Paper presented at the IQ Testing and Educational Decision Making Workshop, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shankweiler, D.P., Katz, L., Liberman, I.Y., Stuebing, K.K., Francis, D.J., et al. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 6-23.

Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., & Fletcher, J.M. (1995). Growth of phonological processing skill in beginning reading: The lag versus deficit model revisited.Paper presented at the Society for Research on Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. (2004). Identifying reading disability by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216-227.

Fuchs, Douglas and Lynn S. New Directions in Research Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, Why and How is it? Reading Research Quarterly, Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN

Lyon, G.R. (1995). Research initiatives in learning disabilities: Contributions from scientists supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Journal of Child Neurology, 10(suppl.1), S120-S126.

Moats, Louisa C. "When Older Kids Can't Read. Educational Leadership, vol. 58, no.6 (2001):36.

Morris, R.D., Stuebing, K.K., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Lyon, R.G., Shankweiler, D.R. Katz, L., et al. (1998). Subtypes of reading disability: Variability around a phonological core. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 347-373.

National Reading Panel, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for Reading Instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110

Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read. Washington DC: The National Institute for Literacy, 2001.

Snow, C.E., M.S. Burns, and P. Griffin, eds. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1998

Stanovich, K.E. "Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Differences in Acquisition of Literacy," Reading Research Quarterly, 21 (1986)

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities.Exceptional Children, 69, 391-409.

Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Sipay, E.R., Small, S., Chen, R., Pratt, A., & Denckla, M.B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601-638.

JJ Social Slider