MULTIFUNK:
Bringing computer-supported reading one
step further

983
Gjertrud W. Kamstrup
Eva Mjøvik
Anne-Lise Rygvold
Bjørn Gunnar Saltnes
April 2002

Rapport/Report
Tittel/Title:
MULTIFUNK:
Bringing computer-supported reading one step further

Dato/Date:
År/Year:ISBN:
Publikasjonsnr.:
Publication no.:

April
2002
82-539-0491-6
983

Forfatter/Author:
Gjertrud W. Kamstrup, Eva Mjøvik, Anne-Lise Rygvold og Bjørn Gunnar Saltnes

Sammendrag/Abstract:
This is a paper presenting the Multifunk project. It also gives an extensive review of related research.
Multifunk is a collaboration between three partners:- Aschehoug Education- Department of Special Needs Education, University of Oslo
- Norwegian Computing Center
The research focus in Multifunk is how to use computers to support and improve dyslexic students’reading and writing performance. More than 10% of the population is estimated to experience
substantial difficulties. The results from the project and subsequent software development will
hopefully contribute to improved reading skills and sense of mastery. We propose to offer
personalised text formatting according to individual profiles when reading screen texts. A
prototype has been developed that illustrates this functionality, and preliminary studies using theprototype indicate improved reading performance among poor readers. We also propose to use
speech synthesis in order to give auditive support to the reading process. Improved reading will be ofimportance both to the students’ motivation and the overall learning outcome. It is vital that thedigitalisation of the primary schools is done in a way that is helpful to students with learning difficulties
and does not bring just another arena for shortcoming.

Emneord/Keywords:

Computer assisted learning, reading on screen, reading
disabilities, screen design, speech synthesis, dyslexia

Tilgjengelighet/Availability:

Open

Prosjektnr./Project no.:840003

Satsningsfelt/Research field:

E-læring, multimedia

Antall sider/No. of pages:

11

Norsk Regnesentral / Norwegian Computing Center
Gaustadalléen 23, Postboks 114 Blindern, 0314 Oslo, Norway
Telefon 22 85 25 00, telefax 22 69 76 60© Copyright Norsk Regnesentral

Rapport/Report

Norsk Regnesentral / Norwegian Computing Center
Gaustadalléen 23, Postboks 114 Blindern, 0314 Oslo, Norway
Telefon 22 85 25 00, telefax 22 69 76 60

2

Rapport/Report
1

Introduction

Reading consists of two components; decoding and comprehension. Decoding refers to thetechnical skill that enables the reader to transform printed letters into recognised words as
the basis for activation of meaning. Comprehension is a cognitive process that allows thereader to interpret the text, which includes thinking processes on higher levels. This basic
concept of reading must be completed with an additional component; motivation. Motivationis crucial in all learning tasks. Literacy development depends on the students’ interest in andunderstanding of what is to be learned. Students with reading difficulties often experience a
rapid decline in motivation during the first few years at school.
Research shows that 15--20 % of the students in primary and secondary schools haveproblems in meeting the required level of literacy in today’s society (Shaywitz and Shaywitz
1996, Snow et al. 1998, Catts and Kahmi 1999, Solheim and Tønnesen 1999). Other
studies, however, show a substantially lower prevalence of reading problems. The estimatesvary depending on the means of measure and criteria for defining a reading disability. The
highest prevalence includes both students with specific reading impairment (dyslexia –unexpected difficulty learning to read despite intelligence, motivation and education) andmore general reading problems (garden-variety-poor readers which is due to poor
instruction, low intelligence etc.) even if the clear-cut distinction between the categories is nolonger widely accepted.
At the onset of the 21th century the computer is increasingly being adopted as a relevant tool
(and medium) for reading and writing. Both in Norway and internationally, the number ofcomputers per student has increased over the last few years as well as the time spentworking with them (Quale 2000). It is of great importance, however, to realise that the
introduction of computer technology in schools implies both a risk and a possibility. If thespecial needs of students with literacy problems are not recognised and taken into account,the use of computers in classroom based project groups may well represent an additional
hurdle instead of a compensatory asset.
The project has developed a prototype to support reading on screen for persons withreading disabilities. The basic functionalities offered in the first version are:- personalised text formatting;- auditive support using speech synthesis (single words, sentences and paragraphs).
The target group is students (primary and secondary school), but the software may be usefulto adults with reading difficulties as well. In a future version functionality supporting writing
and project work will be added. Our study has a twofold focus:
a. utilisation of the computer to help students with reading and writing difficulties to decodeand comprehend, andNorsk Regnesentral / Norwegian Computing Center
Gaustadalléen 23, Postboks 114 Blindern, 0314 Oslo, Norway
Telefon 22 85 25 00, telefax 22 69 76 60

3

Rapport/Reportb. application of technology in such a way that these children are integrated in thecomputer-based activities in the classroom.
This paper has an emphasis on how to use the computer to support central tasks
involved in the three components of reading; decoding, comprehension andmotivation.

2

Decoding

2.1

Reading on screen

From research conducted over the past 20 years, we know that many factors influence
reading texts on the computer screen. Reading long texts on screen is more tiring than inbooks, and one often turns to the printer to solve this problem. Another factor influencing
the perceived difficulty of screen reading is computer workplace ergonomics and monitor
placement (Ankrum 1999, Fostervold 1997).
A third factor is screen technology. Dillon (1992) gives a review of studies on reading on
paper versus screen and concludes that the main difference in outcome between the two
media is speed. With early screen technology, reading was actually found to be substantiallyslower than on paper, but research by Muter et al. (1991) indicates that improved computer
screen technology has made reading efficiency on screen comparable with paper. Not all
studies show the same results, and a study conducted at Ohio State University even suggeststhat reading a text on the computer screen may present an additional hurdle for lesscompetent readers (Murphy 2000).
A fourth and well-known factor influencing text legibility on paper is typography. As forscreen texts, typography still matters, but there are reasons to believe that screen
typography must be seen as a separate issue. Early experiments did not show any
improvements in reading performance related to textual formatting (Muter 1991). Muter’s
study did not isolate the single text formatting characteristics.
This has been done by Dyson et al. (1998, 2001), whose research suggest that line length
influences reading speed and comprehension. Several researchers present overviews offactors that affect legibility of texts on computer screens (Walker 2000, Harrell 1999).
Often mentioned factors are colour, font type and size, line length, line spacing, text structure
and text justification. Harrell (1999 p. 453) claims that “the reader should be able to“adjust” screen design to his or her needs and desires in any number of ways…not only tosatisfy idiosyncratic quirks but to “correct” screen design weakness”.

Norsk Regnesentral / Norwegian Computing Center
Gaustadalléen 23, Postboks 114 Blindern, 0314 Oslo, Norway
Telefon 22 85 25 00, telefax 22 69 76 60

4

Rapport/Report
2.2

Personalising text formatting

Computer texts may be formatted according to individual reading levels and personal
preferences, a possibility the printed book does not offer.
Our prototype supports adaptation of font type, font size, line length, line spacing, word
spacing, type colour and background colour. The choice of the typographical variables isbased on the typographical tradition for print (Hallberg 1992) and on the works of Muter(1996), Harrell (1999), Walker (2000), and Dyson (2001) related to computer screen
typography.
Six different font sizes are available in the prototype, and the reader may choose between
the font types Arial (sans serif) and Times New Roman (serif). We have chosen two of themost common font types as there is evidence that both normal and poor readers seem toprefer fonts they are most exposed to (Hallberg 1994).
Line length is reported to be important by many researchers (Walker 2000, Dyson 2001),
but there is only unsystematic knowledge on how line length affects disabled readers. In
general, long lines tend to make the return sweep to the next line more difficult, while shortlines make reading slower (Dyson 2001). The user of the prototype may choose between
four different line lengths depending on reading level as well as actual window and screensize.
As for text justification, we have chosen to make all text left justified with a ragged righthand margin. Hyphenation at the end of lines is not used as it makes reading more difficultand scrolling is used for navigation, even if paging has been proved by several researchers to
be more efficient (Dyson 2001).
Since line spacing has been seen as an important factor for legibility (Walker 2000), theprototype has three optional levels of line spacing. Four levels of word spacing has been
added (even though no research known to us mention this factor) to support students thatneed additional assistance in identifying word limits. Colour and contrast is considered
important for dyslectic readers. We have chosen some of the colours that are suggested byassociations for dyslexia (Dyslexia).
Each student can create her own individual profile, and subsequently all texts that the student
chooses to read will be formatted according to her established profile, whether they are
Web texts, scanned from ordinary text books or electronic text books. The profile can bechanged at any time, e.g. when reading skills have improved.
A first tentative study focused on the effects of adapting the screen text to the readers’
individual profile. The study was carried out in a Norwegian primary school with 8 nine
year-old students, all below average readers. Reading performance was measured by speed
and number of errors reading texts on screen and in books. The results indicate improved
reading performance in both speed and accuracy for screen reading (Haugen 2001). The
reasons could be increased motivation, improved legibility of the formatted text etc. Further
Norsk Regnesentral / Norwegian Computing Center
Gaustadalléen 23, Postboks 114 Blindern, 0314 Oslo, Norway
Telefon 22 85 25 00, telefax 22 69 76 60

5Rapport/Reportand more in depth studies are, however, necessary to show the real effect of reading
individually adapted texts on the computer screen as compared to traditional text reading.
Such studies will be carried out in the context of this research project over the next two
years.

3

Comprehension: reading support using speech synthesis

Several researchers have recommended the use of speech synthesis to support decoding
and comprehension in children with reading difficulties (Olofsson 1992, Wise 1997,
VanDaal 2000, Lewin 2000). Wise et al. (1997) found that speech synthesis substantially
improved the disabled reader's reading performance, and this has recently been confirmed
by Lewin (2000). McKenna et al. (1997) claims that books with speech support makereading less frustrating, aid the development of decoding skills, improve fluency and provide
considerable individual support, offering for instance repeated reading of whatever part of
the text the student might want. Van Daal (1993) reports that the effect of speech feedback
depends on how the system is used by the readers, for instance whether the reader chooses
to listen to hard-to-read words or unselectively chooses to listen to a lot of words. The
overall result is, however, positive. Olofsson (1992) states that the usefulness of speechsupport depends on factors like age and meta-cognitive ability. He found that the younger
children (grade 4-5) and disabled readers appear to need training in the use of speechsynthesis, while elder children (grade 6-7) acted in a more intuitive and independent way.
The mentioned research, except Olofsson’s, is based on English beginner readers. Linguistic
differences, as letter-sound correspondence, might present some differences to theusefulness of speech synthesis in different languages. Olofsson (1992) has studied speechsynthesis to assist Swedish children, and his conclusions were positive. Due to language
similarities, we believe that Olofsson’s results can be transferred to the Norwegian case.
The prototype offers a “read-it-loud-to-me” functionality through speech synthesis. The
student can choose to listen to words, sentences or paragraphs according to the individual
needs. Olofsson (1992) states that co-occurrence of spoken and highlighted words may
also have a direct positive effect on children’s understanding of the letter–soundcorrespondence and help them to apply this knowledge in their reading. For comprehension
purposes speech synthesis should be used at approximately normal speed, while speechsynthesis for decoding purposes should be used at a slower speed.
Some researchers (Zellweger 2000) have chosen to use digitised speech to assist emergent
readers, as they think speech synthesis technology is not of high enough quality (personalcommunication) for use with dyslexic children. When the main purpose of the speechsupport is to assist the decoding, i.e. the comprehension of the letter–soundcorrespondence, low quality of speech synthesis might clearly pose a problem. On the other
hand, speech synthesis is more robust to unknown text. In our opinion digitised speech can
Norsk Regnesentral / Norwegian Computing Center
Gaustadalléen 23, Postboks 114 Blindern, 0314 Oslo, Norway
Telefon 22 85 25 00, telefax 22 69 76 60

6

Rapport/Report
clearly be an alternative in some contexts since pronunciation of single sounds, which are
limited in number, can be digitised and reused several times. We will consider integrating
digitised speech with speech synthesis when it is more useful.
The speech synthesis functionality of the prototype has not been extensively tested. We havecarried out some brief tests with teachers and children, observing that students had a very
tolerant attitude towards the prototype’s somewhat artificial and mechanical voice. The
teachers, however, worried about the children “ending up speaking like that”.

4

Motivation

Due to poor performance reading disabled students develop a negative attitude towards
both reading and reading related tasks. Negative attitude/low motivation is related toattention, and attention provides the necessary focus needed for decoding andcomprehension processes to result in successful reading. A relevant hypothesis is that if the
prototype improves the reader’s overall reading experience, this will in itself affect the
motivation for further reading. Improved motivation may also come from being able tomanipulate and personalise the text formatting and thus being in control of the reading tasks(van Daal 2000).
Speech synthesis supports comprehension, and provides for the poor reader a necessary
distance to the laborious task of technical decoding and as such strengthens thecommunicative aspect of literacy. This may make the reading task more enjoyable, stimulate
further reading, enhance a sense of mastery, and trigger more motivation. Underwood(2000) claims that the use of talking-books is in itself highly motivating.

5

Future development of the software

In a commercialised version, the following functionality will be added:- reading support including speech synthesis of syllables, morphemes and word
constituents;- reading support through digital speech when more suitable than speech synthesis;- spelling support adapted to students with reading and writing difficulties;- word explanations adapted to the age of the target group.
The spelling support will not be a simple check that suggests (any) similar spellings. It will be
designed to meet the special needs of people with poor writing skills. The software will havea database of errors commonly made by dyslexic persons and suggest the most probablespelling alternatives. It will also provide semantic information as to help the student reflect onwhich word she tries to write. A feedback mechanism will also be included to provide
information on progress, reduction of errors etc.
Norsk Regnesentral / Norwegian Computing Center
Gaustadalléen 23, Postboks 114 Blindern, 0314 Oslo, Norway
Telefon 22 85 25 00, telefax 22 69 76 60

7

Rapport/Report
A primary goal for the project is to identify which parts of the reading and writing process
can be supported by technology and computer-based tools.
The second main question motivating our research is “how to apply the technology in such a
way that students with reading and writing difficulties are integrated in the computer-based
activities in the classroom?” The challenge is to design a tool that enhances reading, writing
skills and promotes collaborative work, e.g. a tool that has both a compensatory ability andintegrative power.

6

Conclusion

ICT can be used to improve the learning experience and performance of children withreading and writing difficulties. Today computers are an integral part of the daily life of many
children, and we must ensure that the process of digitising the classrooms will be an asset forpoor readers and writers.
Knowing that children with reading and writing difficulties are motivated by certain uses ofcomputer technology, this must be exploited for the best of struggling readers. Research alsosuggests that students find writing on computers to be highly motivating (Daiute 2000), andthat they produce texts of higher quality when using the computer in a real-life context.
We propose to use individual adaptation of text formatting when reading texts on thecomputer screen. Preliminary studies indicate improved reading performance for poor
readers when reformatting the text individually. We also propose to use speech synthesis tosupport reading. Several researchers have shown improved reading either by the means ofscreen design and typography or by speech synthesis. We have integrated these two options
to make an even better support for dyslexic children. In primary and secondary education in
Norway there are a total of 50.000 students with reading and writing difficulties that could
benefit from this tool.

7

References

Ankrum, D.(1999)Visual ergonomics in the Office. Guidelines for monitor placement
and lighting. Occupational Health and Safety. 68, 7, pp 64-74. URL:
http://www.office-ergo.com/setting.htm
Catts, H. and A. Kahmi (1999) Language and Reading Disabilities. Boston: Allyn andBacon.
Daiute, C. (2000) Writing and Communication technologies. In Indrisano, R. and J. R.
Squire (eds.): Perspectives on Writing: Research, Theory, and Practice.
International Reading Association, 2000.
Dillon, A. (2000) Reading from paper versus screen: a critical review of the empiricalliterature. Ergonomics, Vol 35, no 10, pp 1297-1326.
Dyslexia, the gift. URL: http://dyslexia.com/
Norsk Regnesentral / Norwegian Computing Center
Gaustadalléen 23, Postboks 114 Blindern, 0314 Oslo, Norway
Telefon 22 85 25 00, telefax 22 69 76 60

8Rapport/Report
Dyson, M.C. and M. Haselgrove (2001) The influence of reading speed and line length on
the effectiveness of reading from screen. International Journal of Human Computer
Studies Vol 54, no 4.
Dyson, M.C. and G. J. Kipping (1998) Exploring the effect of layout on reading fromscreen. In Hersch, R.D; J André and H Brown (eds), Electronic Documents, Artistic
Imaging and Digital Typography, Proceedings of EP'98 and RIDT'98 conferences.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 294-304.
Fostervold, K. I. and I. Lie (1997). The ecological viewpoint - a new ergonomic construct.
In the Proceedings of the Fifth International Scientific Conference on Work With
Display Units, Tokyo 1997. URL: http://www.human.waseda.ac.jp/~wwdu97/
Hallberg, Å. (1992). Typografin och läsprocessen. Spektras Handsboksserie.
Hallberg, Å. (1994). Vilken stil är mest lättläst? Aktuell Grafisk Information no. 236
Haugen, A. (2001). Fra bok til skjerm - Fortidens læremiddel inn i nåtiden? En studie
av lesesvake elevers lesing i bok og på dataskjerm. Master Thesis, Department ofSpecial Needs Education, University of Oslo.
Harrell, W. (1999). Effective Monitor Display Design. International Journal of
Instructional Media. Vol 26, no 4, pp 447-458
Lewin, C. (2000). Exploring the effects of talking book software in UK primary classrooms.
Journal of Research in Reading. Vol 23, no. 2, pp 149-157.
McKenna M.C., D. Reinking and L.D. Labbo. (1997) Using Talking Books with ReadingDisabled Students. Reading and Writing Quarterly. 13(2), pp 185-190.
Multifunk web-page (2001). URL: http://www.nr.no/imedia/multifunk/Murphy, P. K., J. Long, T. Holleran andE. Esterly (2000). Persuasion online or on paper:
A new take on an old issue. URL: http://www. coe.ohiostate.edu/pkmurphy/Research/Presentations/
Muter, P. and P. Maurutto (1991). Reading and skimming from computer screens andbooks: The paperless office revisited? Behaviour and Information Technology, 10,
pp 257-266.
Muter, P. (1996). Interface design and optimization of reading of continuous text. In: vanOostendorp, H. and S. de Mul, (eds.), Cognitive aspects of electronic text
processing, 161-180. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex..
Olofsson, Å. (1992) Synthetic speech and computer aided reading for reading disabledchildren. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, pp 165-178.
Quale, A. (2000) Second Information Technology in Education Study, SITES, Modul-1,
Nasjonal rapport, Norge. September 2000. URL:
http://www.ils.uio.no/forskning/sites/
Solheim, R.G. and F.E. Tønnesen (1999) Kartlegging av leseferdighet og lesevaner på
9. klassetrinn Stavanger : Høgskolen i Stavanger, Senter for leseforsking
Underwood, J. M. D. (2000) A comparison of two types of computersupport for reading
development. Journal of reading research in reading Vol. 23-2.
Van Daal, V.H.P. and P. Reitsma (1993) The use of speech feedback by normal anddisabled readers in computer-based reading practice. Reading and Writing, 5 (3), pp
243-259.
Norsk Regnesentral / Norwegian Computing Center
Gaustadalléen 23, Postboks 114 Blindern, 0314 Oslo, Norway
Telefon 22 85 25 00, telefax 22 69 76 60

9Rapport/Report
Van Daal, V.H.P. and P. Reitsma (2000) Computer-Assisted learning to read and spell:results from two pilot studies. Journal of Research in Reading. Vol 23, Issue 2, pp.
181-193.
Walker, S and L. Reynolds (2000) Screen design for children’s reading: some key issues.
Journal of Research in Reading. Vol 23, Issue 2, pp. 224-234.
Wise, B., R. Olson and J. Ring. (1997) Teaching phonological awareness with and without
the computer. In: Hulme, C. and M. Snowling (eds.), Dyslexia: Biology, Cognition,and Intervention. London: Whurr.
Zellweger, P. and J.D. Mackinlay. (2000) The Fluid Reading Primer: Animated Decoding
Support for Emergent Readers. In Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2001, Tampere,
Finland.

Norsk Regnesentral / Norwegian Computing Center
Gaustadalléen 23, Postboks 114 Blindern, 0314 Oslo, Norway
Telefon 22 85 25 00, telefax 22 69 76 60

10