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