Computers & Education 63 (2013) 131–140

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/compedu

Effects of computer-assisted comprehension training in less skilledcomprehenders in second grade: A one-year follow-up study

Anna Potocki a,*, Jean Ecalle a, Annie Magnan a,b

a EMC Laboratory, Lyon 2 University, FrancebUniversity Institute of France, France

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 24 July 2012Received in revised form29 November 2012Accepted 8 December 2012

Keywords:Evaluation of CAI systemsElementary educationImproving classroom teachingPedagogical issues

* Corresponding author. Laboratoire EMC, UniversitE-mail addresses: anna.potocki@univ-lyon2.fr (A. P

0360-1315/$ – see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.011

a b s t r a c t

This study examines the effects of a new CAI program designed to remediate text comprehensiondifficulties in less skilled comprehenders at the beginning of learning to read. In a randomized controltrial design, two groups of second grade children experiencing comprehension difficulties were selectedand trained using two CAI programs. One of these was designed to assist comprehension processes(experimental group) whereas the other encouraged word decoding (control group). Four tasks wereadministered using a classical pre-test/training/post-test design: listening comprehension, readingcomprehension, vocabulary and comprehension monitoring. In addition, two post-test sessions wereconducted: one just after the training and one 11 months later. The experimental group exhibiteda greater level of progress in both listening and reading comprehension, with notable lasting effects. Incontrast, the results relating to the vocabulary and comprehension monitoring tasks were more mixed.The results are discussed in the light of the possible use of CAI when training higher-level skills such astext comprehension.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) has been very popular during the last two decades, and there are extensive arguments in favor of theuse of multimedia-based software in educational programs. On many occasions, CAI has proven its effectiveness, notably in readinginstruction (e.g., Barker & Torgesen, 1995; MacArthur, Ferretti, Okolo, & Cavalier, 2001; Saine, Lerkkanen, Ahonen, Tolvanen, & Lyytinen,2010; Troia & Whitney, 2003). Nonetheless, whereas a range of CAI programs have been developed with a view to promoting one aspectof reading skills, namely word decoding, there are, on the contrary, very few CAI programs designed to encourage a second aspect of readingskills, namely language comprehension. For instance, the National Reading Panel (2000) noted that among the 205 comprehension trainingstudies reviewed in their report, only 21 used a CAI program although the majority of these latter studies indicated positive effects oncomprehension performance. The Reading Panel therefore criticized the limited use of such programs for delivering comprehensioninstruction.

The goal of reading is to extract meaning from text. Unfortunately, many children cannot fully achieve this goal. According to the SimpleView of Reading proposed by Gough and Tunmer (1986), reading can be thought of as the product of word decoding, which is specific toreading and is responsible for translating print into language, and language comprehension skills that make sense of this linguistic infor-mation and are not medium-specific, i.e., that transfer across different information presentation media (e.g., written, oral, or pictorialpresentations; see for example, Kendeou, van den Broek, White, & Lynch, 2007). The multiplicative relation between themmeans that if thevalue of either of the components is zero (i.e., if the child cannot recognize any words, or cannot understand anything), reading ability willalso be zero (Oakhill, Cain, & Bryant, 2003). In the framework of Gough’s model, reading comprehension can therefore be limited by eitherpoor word reading and/or by poor oral language comprehension. On the one hand, according to the verbal efficiency hypothesis (Perfetti,1985, 1994), the main source of reading comprehension failures is the low efficiency of word reading processes. Indeed, slow or inaccurateword reading may leave the reader with insufficient processing capacity to compute the relations between successive words, phrases, and

é Lumière Lyon 2, 5 Avenue Pierre Mendès-France, 69676 Bron Cedex, France. Tel.: þ33 (0) 4 78 77 43 49.otocki), ecalle.jean@wanadoo.fr (J. Ecalle).

ll rights reserved.

A. Potocki et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 131–140132

sentences necessary to construct a coherent and meaningful representation of the text. On the other, a second approach, developedprimarily by Oakhill and colleagues (e.g., Cain & Oakhill, 2004, 2006, 2007; Oakhill, 1982) has investigated children who exhibit compre-hension difficulties despite possessing normal decoding skills. These children represent from between 3% to as much as 10% of thepopulation (e.g., Aaron, Joshi, & Williams, 1999; Catts, Hogan, & Fey, 2003; Leach, Scarborough, & Rescorla, 2003; Torppa et al., 2007). Thecomprehension difficulties experienced by these children extend beyond the written word and their comprehension of spoken texts (e.g.,texts read aloud by the experimenter or an adult) is also poor (Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2000; Megherbi & Ehrlich, 2004, 2005; Nation, Adams,Bowyer-Crane, & Snowling, 1999; Oakhill, 1982; Stothard & Hulme, 1992). Research on children with specific reading comprehensiondifficulties has shown that such children commonly display a range of language impairments, including problems relating to vocabulary(e.g., Cain, Oakhill, & Lemmon, 2004; Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000; Oakhill & Cain, 2011; Oakhill et al., 2003), comprehensionmonitoring (i.e., ability to control and evaluate one’s own ongoing comprehension process; e.g., Cain, 1999; Ehrlich, Rémond, & Tardieu,1999; Oakhill & Cain, 2007; Oakhill, Hartt, & Samols, 2005) and grammar (e.g., Muter, Hulme, Snowling, & Stevenson, 2004; Nation &Snowling, 2000), as well as deficits in memory capacities (e.g., Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004; Carretti, Cornoldi, De Beni, & Romanò,2005; Seigneuric & Ehrlich, 2005).

1.1. Text comprehension skills

Comprehension of language, whether written or spoken, is a complex task that involves many different cognitive skills and processes.Indeed, text comprehension involves the construction of a coherent mental representation which requires the reader or listener tounderstand the contents of the text and integrate these with his or her pre-existing world knowledge (for a review, see Kintsch, 1998). Asa result, authors generally distinguish between literal comprehension abilities and inferential comprehension abilities (Oakhill & Cain, 2007;Potocki, Ecalle, & Magnan, 2013). Cain et al. (2004) have suggested that inference-making is a crucial ability in text comprehension. Indeed,inferences are necessary to link up ideas and fill in details that are not explicitly mentioned in a text. Cain and Oakhill (1999) wereconsequently able to demonstrate that poor comprehenders exhibit a specific deficit in inferencing capabilities. Conversely, inferencegeneration is constrained by the capacity to understand explicit textual information. Indeed, if we assume that text comprehension isa bottom–up process, then a lower-level impairment (i.e., difficulty to elaborate a coherent textbase) will lead to a higher-level impairment(i.e., difficulty to produce inferences). Literal comprehension is therefore a necessary prerequisite before inference production can take place.

Authors have generally distinguished between various types of inferences and there is no clear consensus in the current literature as tohow these inferences should be classified. In this study, we chose to adopt a distinction proposed by Cain and Oakhill (1999); (see also Florit,Roch, & Levorato, 2011) between two main types of inference. These two types of inferences are important and necessary for the under-standing of a text. The first of these integrates separate textual propositions in order to maintain local coherence. These inferences aretherefore usually called coherence inferences or text-connecting inferences. These inferences can generally be generated from informationprovided in the text alone. For example, in the sentences “Debbie changed and wrapped her swimming costume in her towel. She put the bundlein her rucksack” (Cain & Oakhill, 1999), coherence inferences are necessary to understand that “the bundle” in the second sentence refers tothe same object as “the swimming costume and the towel” in the first. The second type, known as knowledge-based inferences or gap-fillinginferences (Cromley & Azevedo, 2007), is concerned with the integration of textual informationwith the individual’s prior world knowledgein order to construct a coherent mental representation of the text as a whole. For example, to understand what Perrine touched in thesentences “Perrine touched the plants that grew up along the road. She began to cry loudly. Her hand was burning her terribly”, readers need touse both information provided in the text itself such as “plant, along the road, burning her terribly” and personal knowledge about plants toknow that Perrine has probably touched nettles. Early studies in this field demonstrated that less skilled comprehenders experiencedifficulties in connectionwith both types of inference. Such comprehenders find it difficult to integrate the information presented in the textin order to establish cohesion between different sentences and also have problems incorporating information from outside the text (i.e.,general world knowledge) with information in the text in order to fill in missing details (Cain & Oakhill, 1999; Oakhill, 1982, 1984; Oakhill &Yuill, 1986; Yuill & Oakhill, 1988).

1.2. Teaching comprehension: impact of CAI

During the past decades, many studies have demonstrated that higher-level comprehension skills can be developed through explicitteaching. Positive effects of such instruction on comprehension performance have been found in a number of experimental and quasi-experimental studies (Duke & Pearson, 2002; National Reading Panel, 2000; Trabasso & Bouchard, 2002). Different kinds of comprehensioninstruction have been regularly used, such as anaphoric resolution training (e.g., Bauman, 1986), knowledge-based inference training (Yuill& Joscelyne,1988; Yuill & Oakhill, 1988), or training in reading comprehension strategies (e.g., Chan & Cole, 1986; Clarke, Snowling, Truelove,& Hulme, 2010; De Corte, Verschaffel, & van de Ven, 2001). The majority of these studies have found positive effects on children’scomprehension performance (see the meta-analyses of Berkeley, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2009; Edmonds et al., 2009; Gersten, Fuchs,Williams, & Baker, 2001). Comprehension skills or strategies have generally been taught in combination with other instructional compo-nents, most notably with cooperative learning activities and group discussions. The rationale for the inclusion of social components inreading comprehension instruction is largely derived from socio-cultural theory, such as the work of Vygotsky (1978) which suggested thatthe interpretation of text and knowledge emerges most effectively from peer interactions and from the negotiation of meaning betweendifferent children’s interpretations of texts (Almasi, 1996; Pressley et al., 1992).

In the field of remediation, greater gains have generally been observed when CAI has been used. There are several advantages ofincorporating computers in reading instruction (Lynch, Fawcett, & Nicolson, 2000; Mathes, Torgesen, & Allor, 2001). Firstly, computers canprovide immediate individual feedback based on a given student’s learning condition (Hall, Hughes, & Filbert, 2000; Lewis, 2000;MacArthur& Haynes, 1995; Woodward et al., 1986). Secondly, learning with computers allows students to control the pace of learning by themselves(Case & Truscott, 1999). Thirdly, properly organized computerized courses can be run independently of one another, thus relieving teachersof some of the burden and giving students more opportunity to learn independently. Finally, the use of presentations involving differentmedia may strengthen students’ motivation to read (Barker & Torgesen, 1995; Lungberg, 1995; Saine et al., 2010).

A. Potocki et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 131–140 133

As we mentioned in the introduction of this paper, there are currently few CAI programs that specifically focus on comprehension.Indeed, most of the CAI programs in the field of literacy instruction address more fundamental levels of reading such as word decoding (e.g.,van Daal & Reitsma, 2000; Ecalle, Magnan, & Calmus, 2009; Frederiksen, Warren, & Rosebery, 1985; Wise, 1992) or phonological awareness(e.g., van Aarle & van den Bercken,1999; Farmer, Klein, & Bryson,1992;Mathes et al., 2001). In contrast, relatively few studies have examinedthe question of how to assist higher-level skills such as text comprehension by means of computer technology. In their meta-analysis,MacArthur et al. (2001) noted, for example, that none of the studies examined at that time were designed to teach comprehension orcomprehension strategies with CAI. In a more recent meta-analysis, MacArthur (2012) reviewed only three studies of instruction based onCA comprehension strategies, including the CACSR (Computer-Assisted Collaborative Strategic Reading; Kim et al., 2006), the ThinkingReader� (Dalton, Pisha, Eagleton, Coyne, & Deysher, 2002) and the well-known American READ180 (Lang et al., 2009). However, thesestudies (except for the CACSR) struggled to reveal any significant superiority of the computer-assisted training programs compared to moreclassical control conditions. By contrast, other CAI programs targeting comprehension have achieved much more promising results. Forinstance, this seems to be the case for 3D-Readers (Johnson-Glenberg, 2005), CASTLE (Computer Assisted Strategy Teaching and LearningEnvironment; Sung, Chang, & Huang, 2008) and iSTART (Interactive Strategy Training for Active Reading and Thinking; McNamara,Levinstein, & Boonthum, 2004). Each of these programs aims at teaching multiple comprehension strategies and is designed for collegeor high-school students. Experimental studies have shown that the use of these programs leads to significant improvements both instudents’ comprehension performance and their use of strategies (e.g., Johnson-Glenberg, 2000; Magliano et al., 2005; O’Reilly, Sinclair, &McNamara, 2004; Sung et al., 2008). In France, only one software program offers this type of comprehension training (LIRALEC; Rouet &Goumi, 2010). Under certain conditions (e.g., long period of training, presence of the experimenter during the training sessions), theLIRALEC software appears to have positive results in less skilled comprehenders in Grade 6.

In sum, there are in general only a few CAI programs that focus on stimulating comprehension skills or comprehension strategies and,more particularly, the number of programs intended for beginning readers is even smaller (if indeed there are any at all). As understandingwhat we read is essential to academic success and for adequate functioning in society, it therefore appears necessary for researchers todevelop and validate programs that can efficiently remediate comprehension difficulties in children. Because individual computer-basedprograms may provide promising opportunities for the training of reading skills, the aim of the current study is to present and testa new software product (LoCoTex) which stimulates different types of skills involved in text comprehension. The efficiency and validity of theprogram were examined in a randomized controlled trial in second grade less skilled comprehenders.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Thirty poor comprehenders in second grade were selected from a large population of 258 children attending seven primary schoolslocated in the east of France. All the children had French as their first language. They varied in SES and had no specific problems. They hadnormal or corrected-to-normal vision and no neurological deficits or overt physical handicaps. In order to select the children, a listeningcomprehension test (see below for a description) was administered. The selected children were those who obtained the lowest scores (�7)on this comprehension test (general mean for the 258 children ¼ 9.06; sd ¼ 1.9). The children were then divided into two groups, i.e., anexperimental group and a control group, by means of a randomized control trial. The experimental group was trained using a softwareprogram designed to promote comprehension skills, while the control group received grapho-syllabic training using software designed tofoster decoding skills (see below for a description of the two different software programs). At the pre-test, these two groups were strictlymatched on a range of measures, including word reading (lexical age), non-verbal intelligence, working memory and short-term memorytasks (see Table 1). Indeed, previous works have demonstrated that the above factors could explain text comprehension difficulties inchildren and represent relevant factors for differentiating between skilled and less skilled comprehenders (e.g., Perfetti, 1985; Rost, 1989;Seigneuric & Ehrlich, 2005). It therefore appeared necessary to ensure that the two groups presented similar patterns of results in thesedifferent tasks at the pre-test so that any difference observed between the groups after the training could not be due to initial differences onthese abilities. The two groups were also matched on the measures for which the effect of the training was directly examined, i.e., listeningcomprehension, reading comprehension, vocabulary and comprehension monitoring tasks. Finally, to control for any effect of age, the twogroups were also matched on chronological age (see Table 1).

2.2. Material

In the present study, a substantial number of tasks were used either to match the experimental and the control groups or, to examine theeffect of the training for skills directly involved in language comprehension (listening and reading comprehension tasks), or only strongly

Table 1Characteristics of the children in the experimental and control groups: means (SD).

Time of administration Maximum Experimental group N ¼ 15 Control group N ¼ 15

Chronological age t0 – 7.7 7.6Lexical age t0 – 7.7 7.6Non-verbal intelligence t0 15 6 (3.09) 5.51 (2.36)Short-term memory t0 – 3.2 (.56) 3.07 (.73)Working memory t0 5 1.87 (.74) 1.73 (.76)Listening comprehension t0–t1–t2 12 6.33 (.82) 6.4 (1.12)Reading comprehension t0–t1–t2 12 5.9 (1.8) 6.5 (2.38)Vocabulary t0–t1–t2 20 16.07 (2.22) 15.79 (2.33)Comprehension monitoring t0–t1–t2 11 4.73 (2.22) 6.07 (3.5)

Note. All p > .20.

A. Potocki et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 131–140134

related to language comprehension (vocabulary and comprehension monitoring tasks). As a result, the tasks are presented in two differentsub-sections. The first sub-section presents the matching measures, i.e., the criteria that were taken into account in order to pair childrenfrom the two trained groups at the pre-test. These measures included word reading, non-verbal intelligence, short-term memory andworking memory tasks. It is indeed worth considering these skills in the matching procedure as they generally explain comprehensiondifficulties in children and/or make it possible to distinguish between skilled and less skilled comprehenders (see above). The second sub-section presents tasks that were specifically used to assess the overall effects of the training. These tasks measured children’s listeningcomprehension skills, reading comprehension skills, vocabulary knowledge and comprehension monitoring abilities. They were admin-istered in both the pre- and the post-tests. Finally, the two software programs used in this study to train each group are described.

2.2.1. Matching measures2.2.1.1. Word reading. We used a standardized test of word reading (Timé2; Ecalle, 2003). This test comprised 3 forced-choice tasks. In each,the children had to identify written target words corresponding to 1) a word presented orally by the experimenter, 2) a picture and 3)a semantically associated written word. They had to choose the correct response from a list of 5 items consisting of the orthographicallycorrect word and 4 pseudowords. A lexical age was calculated on the basis of the number of correctly identified items.

2.2.1.2. Non-verbal intelligence. Non-verbal intelligence was assessed using a task taken from the ECS (Evaluation des CompétencesScolaires [Assesment of school skills]; Khomsi, 1997). This test is similar to the well-known Raven ProgressiveMatrix. Children had to identifythe missing part of a drawing by applying logical reasoning to non-verbal material. The dependent variable was the number of correctresponses (max ¼ 15).

2.2.1.3. Short-term memory. We used a word span task to assess the children’s short-term memory capacities. All the words were frequentwords based on the Manulex database (Lété, Sprenger-Charolles, & Colé, 2004). The children had to repeat, in the same order, lists of wordsof increasing length read aloud by the experimenter. The longest list of words the childrenwere able to repeat in the correct order was takenas the dependent variable.

2.2.1.4. Working memory. An updating task was used to assess the children’s working memory capacities (Potocki et al., 2013). The childrenhad to observe a series of pictures presented on a computer screen and to recall the second to last (n � 2) picture seen. The frequency of thewords depicted by the pictures was controlled for (Lété et al., 2004). The childrenwere informed that the trials would be of varying lengths,with the result that they needed to use updating processes in which the item maintained in memory changed continuously. This taskcomprised 5 trials. The total raw score was 5.

2.2.2. Pre- and post-tests measuresThe measures belowwere used at each time point. In the pre-test, they served as matching criteria to ensure that the two groups did not

differ on corresponding abilities. Indeed, in a training paradigm, it is essential that both groups present similar patterns of results before theintervention in order to ensure that any differences observed between groups at the post-tests is genuinely due to the training program. Asa result, the same tasks were used again during the two post-test sessions in order to examine the effects of the training.

2.2.2.1. Listening comprehension. Listening comprehension was assessed using a short narrative (169 words). The frequency of the wordswas controlled for (Lété et al., 2004): all the words were items frequently encountered by French primary school children. This task waspretested in a large population (N ¼ 120) of children from first to fifth grades. The experimenter read the text aloud and then asked 12multiple-choice questions: four questions referred to the explicit information in the text, four questions required the generation ofcoherence inferences and four questions required the production of knowledge-based inferences. The order of presentation of the questionswas randomized. For each question, three possible responses were presented. The children were informed that only one response wascorrect. The dependent variable represented the total number of correct responses (max ¼ 12).

2.2.2.2. Reading comprehension. The same task as in the listening comprehension condition was used here. In the reading condition, thechildren had to read the text silently and then answered the 12 questions by circling the correct answer. They were able to consult the textwhen responding. The time taken to complete the task was not controlled for. The dependent variable was the total number of correctresponses (max ¼ 12).

2.2.2.3. Vocabulary. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised, which evaluates receptive vocabulary and has been adapted for use withFrench-speaking children (Dunn, Theriault-Whalen, & Dunn, 1993), was used. The children had to correctly identify a named picture fromfour possible black-and-white drawings. The total number of correct answers constituted the total raw score (max ¼ 20).

2.2.2.4. Comprehension monitoring. We used a task designed by Cain and Oakhill (2006) and adapted it for use with French-speakingchildren. In this task, the children had to detect inconsistencies in seven short narratives read aloud by the experimenter. Two scoreswere calculated: one to assess children’s ability to correctly identify consistent and inconsistent stories (max¼ 7), while an additional pointwas awarded if the childrenwere able to identify the inconsistent statements in the text (max¼ 4). The sum of these two scores constitutedthe dependent variable (max ¼ 11).

2.2.3. Training software2.2.3.1. LoCoTex: a text comprehension training software program. This software distinguishes between two aspects of text comprehension,namely literal comprehension and inferential skills. These latter included two types of inferences: coherence inferences and knowledge-based inferences. Each of these skills was trained in a specific module of the software (see Fig. 1). The children first worked with theliteral comprehension module before changing over to one of the inferential modules, i.e., either the coherence inference module or the

Fig. 1. Screenshots from the three modules of the LoCoTex software.

A. Potocki et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 131–140 135

knowledge-based inference module. The main objective of the first module was to foster literal comprehension skills. To do this, 36 textswerewritten. Theywere of different lengths and could involve one, two or three characters. These characterswere nonfictional and depictedmostly young boys and girls. The frequency of thewords in the texts was controlled for using theManulex database (Lété et al., 2004). Half ofthe texts had pictures to present the responses while the other half used non-pictorial material (response written in a tag; see Appendix A).The presentation of the text (both visual and auditory) was followed by a series of five questions relating to information that had beenexplicitly mentioned in the text. For half of the texts, the last question required the children to reorganize the events in the story inchronological order or to retrace the path of the main character to a specific place described in the text. The text remained on the screenwhile the children were answering the questions. After each response, the children received feedback (positive in the case of a correct andnegative in the case of an incorrect answer). The negative feedback encouraged the children to reread the text passage containing theresponse by highlighting this passage. The aim of the second software module was to improve the children’s ability to generate coherenceinferences. To achieve this, an anaphoric resolution exercise was used. In this exercise, the children had to match each anaphoric substituteof the text (e.g., “she”, “the little girl”, “it”) with its correct referent (e.g., “Laura”, “the zoo”, “the bread”). After each response, the childrenreceived feedback together with a brief explanation. Finally, the third module was designed to promote knowledge-based inferenceproduction. This module was inspired by work conducted by Yuill and Joscelyne (1988). In this module, the children first had to answera question that required both textual information and general knowledge. If they answered this question correctly, they then had to click onthe “clue” words in the text that helped them answer the question. If they answered the initial question incorrectly, the software displayedthe clue words and then asked the question again. All the statements in LoCoTexwere presented both visually and auditively, thus making itsuitable for use with beginning readers.

2.2.3.2. Chassymo: a grapho-syllabic training software program. This software program (Ecalle, Magnan, & Jabouley, 2010) was used asa control. It encourages grapho-syllabic word processing and is designed to promote word decoding skills (Ecalle et al., 2009). The childrenfirst heard a syllable, then saw the syllable 500 ms later and, finally, heard a word after a further 500 ms. They had to use the mouse to clickon the number corresponding to the seen and heard syllables in the word (initial, median, final).

2.3. Procedure

A classical pre-test/training/post-tests design was used. The experimental group was trained using the LoCoTex (comprehension)software whereas the control group was trained with the Chassymo (decoding) software.

2.3.1. Pre-testThe reading comprehension task was administered collectively in the classroom. Children read the text silently and then replied to the

questions by circling their answer. The time taken to complete this task was not controlled for. All the 258 children also completed thelistening comprehension task individually in a short session lasting approximately 5 min. The other tasks (non-verbal intelligence, vocab-ulary, comprehension monitoring, short-term memory and working memory) were only administered to the children identified as poorcomprehenders during individual sessions (since oral instructionswere required and oral responses expected) lasting approximately 20min.

A. Potocki et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 131–140136

2.3.2. TrainingAll the 30 childrenwere trained daily for 30 min, 4 days aweek over a period of 5 weeks (March–April of the school year). They therefore

received a total of 10 h of training. Trainings took place on the computer room of the schools. Each child seated in front of a computer andhad headphones on the ears. The experimenter supervised the sessions but intervened on rare occasions, only when children demonstratedreduced attention or had problems with the software. Otherwise, children worked independently, at their own space, within the differentmodules and exercises of the program.

2.3.3. Post-testsTwo post-tests were conducted: the first during the week that followed the end of the intervention (Time 1), and the second after an

interval of approximately 11 months after the end of the intervention (Time 2). During these two post-test sessions, the readingcomprehension tasks were administered collectively within each training group in each school (approximately 7 children per group). Theother tasks in the post-test (listening comprehension, vocabulary and comprehension monitoring) were presented to the children inindividual sessions lasting approximately 15 min. The above tasks were strictly similar to those presented in the pre-test session.

3. Results

To determine the effect of the treatment, we conducted repeated measures ANOVAs for each variable of interest (listening compre-hension, reading comprehension, vocabulary and comprehension monitoring) with Group (experimental versus control) as the betweensubjects variable and Session (pre-test_t0; post-test one_t1; post-test two_t2) as the within subjects variable. We expected the Group*-Session interaction to provide evidence of a training effect given that we expected the experimental group to progressmore than the controlgroup between the pre- and post-tests. The overall results were then explored further using Least Significant Difference (LSD) Fisher tests.Effect sizes between sessions for each group are presented using Cohen’s d for repeated measures.

For the listening comprehension task, we observed a significant Grade*Session interaction, F(2, 54) ¼ 4.45, p ¼ .01. No significantdifference was observed between the groups in the pre-test (t0). Post-hoc analyses (LSD) revealed that the difference between the twogroups was not significant in the post-test 1 (t1) whereas we observed a significant difference (p < .001) between the groups in post-test 2(t2), with the experimental group outperforming the control group (see Fig. 2). Moreover, the overall effect size between t0 and t2 for theexperimental group was much larger (d ¼ 2.74) than for the control group (d ¼ 1.54).

In reading comprehension, we observed a significant Group effect (F(1, 27) ¼ 6.12, p ¼ .02) as well as a significant Session effect(F(2, 54) ¼ 15,37, p < .001). In contrast, the Group*Session interaction was not significant (p ¼ .11). To examine our specific hypothesesregarding the progress of each group during the sessions, we conducted post-hoc analyses (LSD) that revealed that the experimental groupimproved significantly both between t0 and t1 (p ¼ .003; d ¼ 2.35) and between t1 and t2 (p ¼ .02; d ¼ .53), whereas the control group didnot progress significantly during the same period. No significant difference was found between the two groups at t0. At t1 and t2, however,the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group (p ¼ .04 and p ¼ .01 respectively; see Fig. 2).

As far as vocabulary is concerned, we observed a significant Session effect (F(2, 54) ¼ 7.13, p ¼ .001) but no significant Group effect norany significant Group*Session interaction. Post-hoc analyses (LSD) revealed that there was only a significant difference between the twogroups at t1 and that this favored the experimental group. Other differences between the groups (at t0 or t2) were not significant. We alsoobserved that the experimental group progressed significantly between t0 and t1 (p ¼ .02; d ¼ .81) whereas the control group did not (seeFig. 3). The latter, on the contrary, progressed significantly between t1 and t2 (p ¼ .01; d ¼ .94).

Finally, regarding the monitoring comprehension task, we observed a significant effect of Session (F(2, 54) ¼ 14.28, p < .001) but nosignificant effect of Group and no interaction effects. Post-hoc analyses showed significant progress in the experimental group between t0and t1 (p ¼ .008; d ¼ 1.04). However, the progress of this group between t1 and t2 was only marginal (p ¼ .09). In this task, there were nogroup differences at t0, t1, or t2 (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 2. Mean responses (and standard deviations) for the control and experimental groups in the listening and the reading comprehension tasks in three test sessions (t0, t1, t2).

Fig. 3. Mean responses (and standard deviations) for the control and experimental groups in the vocabulary and comprehension monitoring tasks in three test sessions (t0, t1, t2).

A. Potocki et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 131–140 137

4. Discussion

The main objective of the current study was to analyze the effects of a new CAI program designed to remediate text comprehensiondifficulties in French less skilled comprehenders at the beginning of learning to read. The present study addresses a shortcoming in theliterature as there is obviously a lack of such programs for beginning readers. This newly developed software stimulated different aspects oftext comprehension such as literal comprehension, coherence inferencing and knowledge-based inferencing skills. In a classical pre-test/training/post-tests design with a randomized control trial, two groups of children experiencing comprehension difficulties were selectedin second grade and trained using two CAI programs. One of these assisted comprehension processes (experimental group) whereas theother encouraged word decoding (control group). Moreover, in this longitudinal study, the possible long-term effects of the programs weretested since performance was measured 11 months after the training phase. Finally, because overall progress was expected in processesrelated to language comprehension, several skills were examined: listening comprehension, reading comprehension, vocabulary andcomprehension monitoring.

The findings seem to provide evidence of the effectiveness of the developed CAI program for tasks that specifically assess children’s textcomprehension skills (i.e., listening and reading comprehension tasks). In contrast, mixed results were obtained for tasks that do not directlyinvolve comprehension skills but that are known to be related to comprehension performance such as vocabulary and comprehensionmonitoring. First, regarding the listening comprehension task, the results are clear-cut sincewe observed a significant interaction effect. Theexperimental group did indeed progress more between the pre-test and the two post-tests sessions and the difference between the groupswas significant at the second post-test, i.e., 11 months after the training phase. Somewhat surprisingly, group differences did not appear tobe significant in the first post-test, i.e., directly after the training phase. We could therefore hypothesize that the training of higher-levelskills, such as the comprehension CAI provided, takes some time to become fully effective. As far as the reading comprehension task isconcerned, the group effect was significant and the difference between the two groups increased to the experimental group’s advantagebetween the pre- and the post-tests. The vocabulary and the monitoring comprehension tasks yielded far more mixed results. For instance,as far as the vocabulary task is concerned, we only observed a significant difference between the experimental group and the control groupat the first post-test (directly after the training phase) and this effect seemed to disappear one year after the end of the intervention. As far asthe comprehension monitoring task is concerned (text inconsistencies detection task), we did not find any clear results in favor of theLoCoTex software since the only significant result observed in this task was that the experimental group improved significantly between thepre-test and the first post-test, whereas the control group did not. Nevertheless, taken together, these results indicate that the CAI programwe proposed seems to be suitable for the remediation of listening and/or reading comprehension difficulties in children, even during thefirst years of learning to read. These positive effects persisted up to 11months after the end of the intervention. The effects of the program onskills known to be related to text comprehension, such as vocabulary or monitoring comprehension, are more controversial. There is goodreason to believe that since these variables are highly predictive of comprehension skills (and given that training in these skills sometimesimproves comprehension; e.g., Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown, 1982; see also Snowling & Hulme, 2011), training that specifically targetscomprehension might, in turn, lead to improvements in vocabulary or comprehension monitoring skills. Further experiments are needed toexplore this hypothesis.

The study conducted here is of considerable interest with regard to the use of CAI when training comprehension. Indeed, traditionally,comprehension training studies have tended to use instructional approaches that place the emphasis on paired reading, group work anddiscussion. For example, Palincsar and colleagues pioneered the use of reciprocal teaching (e.g., Palincsar & Brown,1984), and a fundamentalpart of this is the conversations children have with each other about texts. When it comes to fostering high-level skills such as compre-hension and inference generation, it is well accepted that the observed benefits of training are associated with these peer interactions. Thisprinciple is based on the premise that higher psychological processes originate in relations between individuals and, in particular, incollaboration with more knowledgeable others (Vygotsky, 1978). In contrast, the training provided by a CAI program is individualized and

A. Potocki et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 131–140138

children perform tasks alone, often completely isolated with their headphones. Although this study did not include a comparison witha non-CAI condition, the finding of a significant improvement in the children’s comprehension performance after the LoCoTex softwaretraining seems to demonstrate that CAI is able to provide efficient reading instruction evenwhen the task is to promote high-level skills suchas text comprehension (see also the conclusive results of Johnson-Glenberg, 2000; McNamara et al., 2004; Sung et al., 2008). Nonetheless,a direct comparison between a CAI and a non-CAI condition based exactly on the same activities could be useful to explore this question andto examine the effective added value of the LoCoTex computerized program (i.e., immediate feedbacks, bimodality of information presen-tation and individual training).

Based on these considerations, recent studies have tried to combine the benefits of peer interactions and CAI. This is, for example, the aimof the SCoSS interface (Separate Control of Shared Space; Yuill, Pearce, Kerawalla, Harris, & Luckin, 2009) that supports discussion andcollaboration between children in order to promote the joint construction of textual meaning. Using this approach, children work in pairsusing the SCoSS interface. Each child has a single task to solve but can see both his own task state and his partner’s task state on the screen.Each child also has his own mouse and has independent control of his own task space and no control over the other child’s space. The keyfeature of the program is that children have to agree in order to move on or to get to the next part of the task. This need for agreementpromotes discussion, in particular about areas of disagreement. Yuill et al. (2009) observed positive effects of the use of the SCoSS interfacein 7 to 9-year-old children, especially when they were required to respond to inferential questions. The children also used far moredeductive reasoning statements in their explanations of the text.

In conclusion, two points need to be emphasized in connection with the introduction of CAI when training comprehension skills. First,the fact that the CAI program proposed here (in both the visual and auditory modalities) led to positive effects on children’s performance inboth reading and listening comprehension implies that comprehension skills can be trained even at the beginning of learning to read. Thereis therefore no need for researchers or educational practitioners to wait for word-reading fluency before introducing comprehension-basedwork in remediation contexts or in the curriculum itself (Cain & Oakhill, 2007; see for example Bowyer-Crane et al., 2008). In line with thefindings of the National Reading Panel (2000), the results of the present study also suggest that CAI can be beneficial when traininghigh-level skills such as comprehension and inference generation. Nonetheless, several enhancements of the LoCoTex program is consideredsuch as the use of an adaptive interface controlling the difficulty of the activities proposed to the children as a function of their performancesin the previous exercises.

Furthermore, one important characteristic of the program used in the present study is the brief period of training (only 10 h). This aspectof the training is very important from an applied perspective. Secondly, recent research suggests that the benefits of CAI programs could beincreased through the use of interfaces that promote children’s interactions, children’s discussions about texts and the joint construction ofmeaning. Such interfaces therefore represent an interesting perspective that deserves to be further investigated in future research in thisarea.

Acknowledgments

Authors are very grateful to the company ADEPRIO for designing the software program used in this study; to N. Kleinsz and A. Prost whoparticipated in the training sessions and data collection; and to all pupils and schools that agreed to participate to this study.

Appendix A. Characteristics of texts used in the LoCoTex software

Length Pictorial responses Non-pictorial responses

1 character 50–100 words 2 texts 2 texts100–150 words 2 texts 2 texts150–200 words 2 texts 2 texts

2 characters 50–100 words 2 texts 2 texts100–150 words 2 texts 2 texts150–200 words 2 texts 2 texts

3 characters 50–100 words 2 texts 2 texts100–150 words 2 texts 2 texts150–200 words 2 texts 2 texts

References

van Aarle, E. J.., & van den Bercken, J. H. (1999). The development of a knowledge-based system supporting the diagnosis of reading and spelling problems (II). Computers inHuman Behavior, 15(6), 693–712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(99)00041-2.

Aaron, P. G., Joshi, M., & Williams, K. A. (1999). Not all reading disabilities are alike. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(2), 120–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221949903200203.

Almasi, J. F. (1996). The nature of fourth graders’ sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussion of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 314–351.Barker, T. A., & Torgesen, J. K. (1995). An evaluation of computer-assisted instruction in phonological awareness with below average readers. Journal of Educational Computing

Research, 13(1), 89–103.Bauman, J. F. (1986). Teaching third-grade students to comprehend anaphoric relationships: the application of a direct instruction model. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(1),

70–90.Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology,

74(4), 506–521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.506.Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2009). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities, 1995–2006: a meta-analysis. Remedial and

Special Education, 31(6), 423–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741932509355988.Bowyer-Crane, C., Snowling, M. J., Duff, F. J., Fieldsend, E., Carroll, J. M., Miles, J., et al. (2008). Improving early language and literacy skills: differential effects of an oral

language versus a phonology with reading intervention. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 422–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01849.x.Cain, K. (1999). Ways of reading: how knowledge and use of strategies are related to reading comprehension. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17(2), 295–312.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/026151099165285.

A. Potocki et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 131–140 139

Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing, 11(5–6), 489–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008084120205.

Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (2004). Reading comprehension difficulties. In T. Nunes, & P. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of children’s literacy (pp. 313–338). Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicPress.

Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (2006). Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 683–696. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709905X67610.

Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (2007). Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language. London, UK: Guilford Press.Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., & Bryant, P. E. (2000). Investigating the causes of reading comprehension failure: the comprehension-age match design. Reading and Writing, 12, 31–40.Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31.Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., & Lemmon, K. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: the influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary

knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 671–681. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.671.Carretti, B., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., & Romanò, M. (2005). Updating in working memory: a comparison of good and poor comprehenders. Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 91(1), 45–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.01.005.Case, C., & Truscott, D. M. (1999). The lure of bells and whistles: choosing the best software to support reading instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 361–369.Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P., & Fey, M. E. (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of individual differences in reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2),

151–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221940303600208.Chan, L. K. S., & Cole, P. G. (1986). The effects of comprehension monitoring training on the reading competence of learning disabled and regular class students. Remedial and

Special Education, 7(4), 33–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700407.Clarke, P. J., Snowling, M. J., Truelove, E., & Hulme, C. (2010). Ameliorating children’s reading-comprehension difficulties: a randomized controlled trial. Psychological Science,

21(8), 1106–1116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610375449.Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediationmodel of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311–325.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311.van Daal, V., & Reitsma, P. (2000). Computer-assisted learning to read and spell: results from two pilot studies. Journal of Research in Reading, 23(2), 181–193. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1111/1467-9817.00113.Dalton, B., Pisha, B., Eagleton, M., Coyne, P., & Deysher, S. (2002). Engaging the text: Reciprocal teaching and questioning strategies in a scaffolded learning environment. Peabody,

MA: CAST.De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & van de Ven, A. (2001). Improving text comprehension strategies in upper primary school children: a design experiment. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 71, 531–559.Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. Farstrup, & J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading

instruction (pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Dunn, L. M., Theriault-Whalen, C. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1993). Echelle de vocabulaire en images peabody. French adaptation of the peabody picture vocabulary test-revised. Toronto:

Editions Psycan.Ecalle, J. (2003). Timé-2: Test d’identification de mots écrits pour enfants de 6 à 8 ans [Timé-2: A written word recognition test for children from 6 to 8 year-old]. Paris: ECPA.Ecalle, J., Magnan, A., & Calmus, C. (2009). Lasting effects on literacy skills with a computer-assisted learning using syllabic units in low-progress readers. Computers &

Education, 52(3), 554–561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.010.Ecalle, J., Magnan, A., & Jabouley, D. (2010). Chassymo: un logiciel d’aide au traitement syllabique. Châteauroux: Adeprio Diffusion.Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K. K., et al. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension

outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325998.Ehrlich, M.-F., Rémond, M., & Tardieu, H. (1999). Processing of anaphoric devices in young skilled and less skilled comprehenders: differences in metacognitive monitoring.

Reading and Writing, 11(1), 29–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007996502372.Farmer, M., Klein, R., & Bryson, S. (1992). Computer-assisted reading: effects of whole word feedback on fluency and comprehension in readers with severe disabilities.

Remedial and Special Education, 13, 50–60.Florit, E., Roch, M., & Levorato, M. C. (2011). Listening text comprehension of explicit and implicit information in preschoolers: the role of verbal and inferential skills.

Discourse Processes, 48(2), 119–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2010.494244.Frederiksen, J. R., Warren, B. M., & Rosebery, A. S. (1985). A componential approach to training reading skills: part 1. Perceptual units training. Cognition and Instruction, 2(2),

91–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0202_1.Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: a review of research. Review of

Educational Research, 71(2), 279–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002279.Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104.Hall, T. E., Hughes, C. A., & Filbert, M. (2000). Computer assisted instruction in reading for students with learning disabilities: a research synthesis. Education & Treatment of

Children, 23(2), 173–193.Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. (2000). Training reading comprehension in adequate decoders/poor comprehenders: verbal versus visual strategies. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 92(4), 772–782. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.92.4.772.Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. (2005). Web-based training ofmetacognitive strategies for text comprehension: focus on poor comprehenders. Reading andWriting, 18(7–9), 755–786.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-0956-5.Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M. J., & Lynch, J. (2007). Comprehension in preschool and early elementary children: skill development and strategy interventions. In

D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 27–45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Khomsi, A. (1997). Batterie d’évaluation des compétences scolaires en cycle 2 (ECS2) [Assesment of school skills]. Paris: ECPA.Kim, A.-H., Vaughn, S., Klingner, J. K., Woodruff, A. L., Klein Reutebuch, C., & Kouzekanani, K. (2006). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school students with

disabilities through computer-assisted collaborative strategic reading. Remedial and Special Education, 27(4), 235–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270040401.Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Lang, L., Torgesen, J. K., Vogel, W., Chanter, C., Lefsky, E., & Petscher, Y. (2009). Exploring the relative effectiveness of reading interventions for high school students. Journal of

Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(2), 149–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19345740802641535.Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 211–224.Lété, B., Sprenger-Charolles, L., & Colé, P. (2004). MANULEX: a grade-level lexical database from French elementary school readers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &

Computers, 36(1), 156–166.Lewis, C. (2000). Limits of identification: the personal, pleasurable, and critical in reader response. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(2), 253–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/

10862960009548076.Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Anthony, J. L. (2000). Development of emergent literacy and early reading skills in preschool children: evidence from a latent-variable

longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 36(5), 596–613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//OOI2-1649.36.5.596.Lungberg, I. (1995). The computer as a tool of remediation in the education of students with reading disabilities: a theory-based approach. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 18,

89–100.Lynch, L., Fawcett, A. J., & Nicolson, R. I. (2000). Computer-assisted reading intervention in a secondary school: an evaluation study. British Journal of Educational Technology,

31(4), 333–348.MacArthur, C. A. (2012). Technology applications for improving literacy: a review of research. In H. L. Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities.

New York: Guilford Press.MacArthur, C. A., Ferretti, R. P., Okolo, C. M., & Cavalier, A. R. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: a critical review. Elementary School Journal,

101(3), 273–301.MacArthur, C. A., & Haynes, J. B. (1995). Student assistance for learning from text (SALT): a hypermedia reading aid. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(3), 150–159. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221949502800304.Magliano, J. P., Todara, S., Keith, M., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Kim, H. J., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Changes in reading strategies as a function of reading training: a comparison of

live and computerized training. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 185–208.Mathes, P. G., Torgesen, J. K., & Allor, J. H. (2001). The effects of peer-assisted literacy strategies for first-grade readers with and without additional computer-assisted

instruction in phonological awareness. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 371–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312038002371.

A. Potocki et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 131–140140

McNamara, D. S., Levinstein, I. B., & Boonthum, C. (2004). iSTART: interactive strategy training for active reading and thinking. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &Computers, 36(2), 222–233.

Megherbi, H., & Ehrlich, M.-F. (2005). Language impairment in less skilled comprehenders: the on-line processing of anaphoric pronouns in a listening situation. Reading andWriting, 18, 715–753. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-8131-6.

Megherbi, H., & Ehrlich, M. (2004). Compréhension de l’oral chez de jeunes enfants bons et mauvais compreneurs de textes écrits [Listening comprehension in first-gradeskilled and less-skilled comprehenders for written texts]. L’année Psychologique, 104(3), 433–489. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/psy.2004.29675.

Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary, and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: evidence froma longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 665–681. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.665.

Nation, K., Adams, J. W., Bowyer-Crane, C. A., & Snowling, M. J. (1999). Working memory deficits in poor comprehenders reflect underlying language impairments. Journal ofExperimental Child Psychology, 73(2), 139–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1999.2498.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Washington, DC.Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (2000). Factors influencing syntactic awareness skills in normal readers and poor comprehenders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 229–241.Oakhill, J. V. (1982). Constructive processes in skilled and less skilled comprehenders’ memory for sentences. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 13–20.Oakhill, J. V. (1984). Inferential and memory skills in children’s comprehension of stories. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54(1), 31–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

j.2044-8279.1984.tb00842.x.Oakhill, J. V., & Cain, K. (2007). Introduction to comprehension development. In K. Cain, & J. V. Oakhill (Eds.), Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language

(pp. 3–40). London: Guilford Press.Oakhill, J. V., & Cain, K. (2011). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, . http://dx.doi.org/

10.1080/10888438.2010.529219.Oakhill, J. V., Cain, K., & Bryant, P. E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes,

18(4), 443–468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690960344000008.Oakhill, J. V., Hartt, J., & Samols, D. (2005). Levels of comprehensionmonitoring and working memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading andWriting, 18(7–9), 657–686.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-3355-z.Oakhill, J. V., & Yuill, N. (1986). Pronoun resolution in skilled and less-skilled comprehenders: effects of memory load and inferential complexity. Language and Speech, 29(1),

25–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002383098602900104.O’Reilly, T. P., Sinclair, G. P., & McNamara, D. S. (2004). iSTART: a web-based reading strategy intervention that improves students’ science comprehension. In D. Kinshuk,

G. Sampson, & P. Isaías (Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS international conference cognition and exploratory learning in digital age: CELDA 2004 (pp. 173–180). Lisbon, Portugal:IADIS Press.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Perfetti, C. A. (1994). Psycholinguistics and reading ability. In M. A. Gersbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 849–894). New York: Academic Press.Potocki, A., Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2013). Narrative comprehension skills in five-year-old children: correlational analysis and comprehender profiles. The Journal of

Educational Research, 106, 14–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667013.Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: attempting to construct explanatory answers

facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 91–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2701_7.Rost, D. H. (1989). Reading comprehension: skill or skills? Journal of Research in Reading, 12(2), 87–113.Rouet, J., & Goumi, A. (2010). L’entraînement des stratégies de compréhension en lecture: apports des technologies numériques [Training in content understanding using

reading strategies: contribution of digital technologies]. Approche Neuropsychologique des Apprentissages chez l’Enfant, 107–108, 191–198.Saine, N. L., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Ahonen, T., Tolvanen, A., & Lyytinen, H. (2010). Predicting word-level reading fluency outcomes in three contrastive groups: remedial and

computer-assisted remedial reading intervention, and mainstream instruction. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 402–414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.06.004.

Seigneuric, A., & Ehrlich,M.-F. (2005). Contribution ofworkingmemory capacity to children’s reading comprehension: a longitudinal investigation. Reading andWriting,18(7–9),617–656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-2038-0.

Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2011). Evidence-based interventions for reading and language difficulties: creating a virtuous circle. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2010.02014.x.

Stothard, S. E., & Hulme, C. (1992). Reading comprehension difficulties in children. Reading and Writing, 4(3), 245–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01027150.Sung, Y., Chang, K., & Huang, J. (2008). Improving children’s reading comprehension and use of strategies through computer-based strategy training. Computers in Human

Behavior, 24(4), 1552–1571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.009.Torppa, M., Tolvanen, A., Poikkeus, A.-M., Eklund, K., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Leskinen, E., et al. (2007). Reading development subtypes and their early characteristics. Annals of

Dyslexia, 57(1), 3–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11881-007-0003-0.Trabasso, T., & Bouchard, E. (2002). Teaching readers how to comprehend text strategically. In C. C. Block, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best

practices (pp. 176–200). New York: Guilford Press.Troia, G. A., & Whitney, S. D. (2003). A close look at the efficacy of Fast ForWord Language for childrenwith academic weaknesses. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(4),

465–494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00045-0.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Wise, B. (1992). Whole words and decoding for short-term learning: comparisons on a “talking computer” system. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54, 147–167.Woodward, J., Carnine, D., Gersten, R., Gleason, M., Johnson, G., & Collins, M. (1986). Applying instructional design principles to CAI for mildly handicapped students: four

recently conducted studies. Journal of Special Education Technology, 8(1), 13–26.Yuill, N., & Joscelyne, T. (1988). Effect of organizational cues and strategies on good and poor comprehenders’ story understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2),

152–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.2.152.Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. V. (1988). Effects of inference awareness training on poor reading comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2(1), 33–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/

acp.2350020105.Yuill, N., Pearce, D., Kerawalla, L., Harris, A., & Luckin, R. (2009). How technology for comprehension training can support conversation towards the joint construction of

meaning. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(1), 109–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.01384.x.