A study of the availability and use of assistive technology with dyslexic pupils in English schools.
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like992 views
The document outlines a survey of the current use and needs for assistive software in educational settings, highlighting tools for reading and writing, such as text-to-speech and speech recognition software. It discusses the positive feedback from students using text-to-speech technology during exams, noting increased confidence and independence despite mixed academic results. Challenges include software availability, technical support quality, and the need for better implementation and recognition of learning disabilities within educational institutions.
A study of the availability and use of assistive technology with dyslexic pupils in English schools.
- 2. 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.
- 3. Assistance with reading: ◦ Text-to-speech everywhere Assistance with writing: ◦ Speaking word processor and spellchecker ◦ Predictive typing support ◦ Word banks ◦ Speech recognition software
- 4. Text-to-speech available on network: Yes: 22% No: 78% Speaking word processor and spellchecker Yes: 36% Wordprocessor only 16% No: 48% Predictive typing support Yes: 20% No: 80% Word banks Yes: 43% No: 57% Speech recognition Yes: 14% No: 86%
- 5. 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.
- 6. 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
- 7. 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
- 8. 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/10.1 002/dys.1450/full
- 9. 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.”
- 10. 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.
- 11. 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.
- 12. 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.”
- 13. 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.
- 14. 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.
- 15. 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.
- 16. 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?
- 17. 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?
- 18. 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.
- 19. „Assistive Technology and Mild Disabilities‟ – Dave L Edyburn (2006) Special Education Technology Practice, 8(4) pp 18-28. https://googledrive.com/host/0BxFAYVOZ453RTEQyX1 hqX2xmV1k/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.