A study of the availability and use of assistive technology with
dyslexic pupils in English schools.Malcolm Litten
Visit 50 schools/colleges.
Full range of institutions:◦ Primary, middle/preparatory, secondary, FE.◦ State (range of LEAs) and private.◦ Mainstream, special, specialist.
Survey current use of assistive software.
Explore what is needed to achieve change.
Research design
Assistance with reading:◦ Text-to-speech everywhere
Assistance with writing:◦ Speaking word processor and spellchecker◦ Predictive typing support◦ Word banks◦ Speech recognition software
Focus on assistive technology as tools
Text-to-speech available on network:Yes: 22% No: 78%
Speaking word processor and spellcheckerYes: 36% Wordprocessor only 16% No: 48%
Predictive typing supportYes: 20% No: 80%
Word banksYes: 43% No: 57%
Speech recognitionYes: 14% No: 86%
Research findings
Access◦ Much (most?) information still delivered in print.◦ Most (almost all?) assessment conducted through
reading and writing.
Tools◦ We cannot expect engagement while not
providing the means.◦ Too often we are teaching dependence to those
with special needs – the last thing they need.◦ ‘I can’ with the right tools.
Why it should be available
Textbooks for all E.A Draffen’s account of a government
funded project providing laptops with assistive technology and e-documents to a group of 11-14 year-old dyslexics.
www.inclusive.co.uk/Lib/Doc/pubs/dolphin-project-final-report.pdf
Research evidence
The Voice of Text-to-Speech Technology. One Possible Solution for Struggling
Readers? Dr. Michelann Parr (2012) http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumer
acy/inspire/research/ww_ttst.pdf
Research evidence
Computer-assisted Interventions Targeting Reading Skills of Children with Reading Disabilities – A Longitudinal Study
Linda Fälth et al (2013) http
://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dys.1450/full
Research evidence
Change to Examination Access Arrangements (JCQ) introduced in September 2012.
• A candidate entitled to a reader could use text-to-speech software in questions assessing their reading: “A computer reader will be allowed in papers (or sections of papers) testing reading. A computer reader is an acceptable arrangement since it allows the candidate to independently meet the requirement of the reading standards.”
Use of AT in GCSE English
50,000 candidates were allowed to use a reader.
There were about 1000 requests to use text-to-speech.
I estimate about a quarter of these resulted in a candidate using text-to-speech in the exam. i.e. half of one per cent of those eligible.
Outcome in June 2013
No-one reported any technical problems. Candidate 1: TTS “made it easier.” “I didn’t need it much.” Candidate 2: “It worked really well.” Candidate 3: “I wasn’t going to use it, but I tried it and the voice was
really good.” “It was better than me reading it.” Candidate 4: “It worked well.” It was “annoying to have to close one
document to open the other.” (Candidates were working on Classbooks that had 10” screens. The questions were in a separate document to the reading passages. Perhaps because of the size of the screen, this candidate was regularly opening and closing the two documents, rather than simply switching between them.)
Candidate 5: “It was okay.” “I used it to read right through then reread it for myself, getting help with difficult words.”
Candidate 6: “I didn’t use it.” – from choice, not because of any problem.
Value to candidates
Candidate 7: “It was okay.” “Yes, it helped.” Candidate 8: “I used it to listen through once then it was in
my head and I remembered it.” Candidate 9: “It worked okay.” “A bit annoying switching
between the two documents.” “I could understand the voice.” Candidate 10: “It was good. I listened a bit.” Candidate 11: “Perfect! I used it more than I expected. It
was helpful.” Candidate 12: “It was a help.” “It worked okay.” Candidate 13: “I didn’t use it much.” “It helped to have it
read out.” Candidate 14: “I used it to listen through the passages. I
listened to the questions a couple of times, then read them myself.”
Value to candidates
Although performance generally on the relevant section was improved from that on the 'mock' exam (on which most pupils had a scribe, but had to read the passages for themselves), that is actually usually the case, as pupils tend to 'up their game' on the big day anyway.
However, the most striking feature of its use was the huge benefit felt by those pupils whose reading skills were characteristically the major limiting factor in their performance in the subject. These divide into two categories: those whose assimilation of concepts and materials would be very good without their disability and those whose wouldn't, because of more 'global' learning difficulties; all of them performed at the very peak of what we could realistically expect of them on this section and all exceeded their target grade overall.
Value to candidates
Feedback is very positive with regard to students being able to work independently. We find a lot of the students that opt for the computer reader are those that are self-conscious using a live reader.
Pupils found it really helpful to use the software. I'd say it gave them much more confidence to 'have a go' at the answers, even though I'm not sure they understood more than if they tried to read for themselves.
I don't have a definitive idea of whether using a computer reader made any difference to my pupils. No one got an unexpected C, for example. All pupils got just about the grade I'd expect. What I do know is that the anecdotal evidence is that the computer reader gave them much more confidence in tackling the exam.
Value to candidates
Of the 2012 pupils, 3 pupils did not do as well as expected in English language, based on residual data. The other 2 exceeded expectations based on residual data.
Of the 2013 pupils, all 6 of the pupils exceeded expectations in English language, based on residual data.
That would seem to suggest that it has a positive impact for pupils – however, our results in English have improved in general this year anyway, by a little bit. Without trying to be too statistical on such small numbers, the increase in English results overall, versus the average increase in the group of readers residuals, would still suggest better than expected results for that group.
Value to candidates
Lack of software Quality of IT support Provision of a digital version of the exam
paper Fear of the consequences of failure Scepticism over the justification for this
access arrangement?
Reasons for failure of schools to deliver
Failure to tackle an obligation that has existed since the Equality Act of 2010.
Who recognises the need? Who implements the solution? Who is responsible overall?
The larger issue of assistive technology provision
Failure to tackle an obligation that has existed since the Equality Act of 2010.
Who recognises the need? Who implements the solution? Who is responsible overall?
So - a triumvirate of SENCo, IT support and Senior Management.
The larger issue of assistive technology provision
‘Assistive Technology and Mild Disabilities’ – Dave L Edyburn (2006)
Special Education Technology Practice, 8(4) pp 18-28. https://googledrive.com/host/0BxFAYVOZ453RTEQyX1hqX2xmV1k/Day%2006%20%28weekend%20reading!%29/ATMildDisabilities.pdf
While we are quick to respond to physical disadvantage with assistance, there appears to be very substantial delay before similar help is considered for learning disadvantage. It appears to be seen as admitting defeat in helping the individual to learn. In my experience, the opposite is the case.
Attitudes to Assistive Technology