Search

E-readers are fast rivaling print as a dominant method for reading. Because they offer accessibility options that are impossible in print, they are potentially beneficial for those with impairments, such as dyslexia. Yet, little is known about how the use of these devices influences reading in those who struggle. Here, we observe reading comprehension and speed in 103 high school students with dyslexia. Reading on paper was compared with reading on a small handheld e-reader device, formatted to display few words per line. We found that use of the device significantly improved speed and comprehension, when compared with traditional presentations on paper for specific subsets of these individuals: Those who struggled most with phoneme decoding or efficient sight word reading read more rapidly using the device, and those with limited VA Spans gained in comprehension. Prior eye tracking studies demonstrated that short lines facilitate reading in dyslexia, suggesting that it is the use of short lines (and not the device per se) that leads to the observed benefits. We propose that these findings may be understood as a consequence of visual attention deficits, in some with dyslexia, that make it difficult to allocate attention to uncrowded text near fixation, as the gaze advances during reading. Short lines ameliorate this by guiding attention to the uncrowded span.

People with dyslexia, who ordinarily struggle to read, sometimes remark that reading is easier when e-readers are used. Here, we used eye tracking to observe high school students with dyslexia as they read using these devices. Among the factors investigated, we found that reading using a small device resulted in substantial benefits, improving reading speeds by 27%, reducing the number of fixations by 11%, and importantly, reducing the number of regressive saccades by more than a factor of 2, with no cost to comprehension. Given that an expected trade-off between horizontal and vertical regression was not observed when line lengths were altered, we speculate that these effects occur because sluggish attention spreads perception to the left as the gaze shifts during reading. Short lines eliminate crowded text to the left, reducing regression. The effects of attention modulation by the hand, and of increased letter spacing to reduce crowding, were also found to modulate the oculomotor dynamics in reading, but whether these factors resulted in benefits or costs depended on characteristics, such as visual attention span, that varied within our sample.

Children learning English as an additional language (EAL) are a growing population of learners in English primary schools. These children begin school with differing levels of English language proficiency and tend to underperform in relation to their non‐EAL peers on measures of English oral language and reading. However, little work has examined the developmental trajectories of these skills in EAL learners in England. EAL learners and 33 non‐EAL peers in Year 4 (age 8–9 years) were assessed at three time points over 18 months on measures of oral language (vocabulary, grammar and listening comprehension), phonological processing (spoonerisms and rapid automatised naming) and reading skills (single‐word decoding and passage reading). At t1, EAL learners scored significantly lower than non‐EAL peers in receptive and expressive vocabulary (breadth but not depth), spoonerisms and passage reading accuracy. Contrary to previous research, no significant group differences were found in listening or reading comprehension skills. With the exception of passage reading accuracy, there was no evidence for convergence or divergence between the groups in rate of progress over time. After three years of English‐medium classroom instruction, EAL learners continue to underperform relative to their non‐EAL peers in breadth of English vocabulary knowledge. This discrepancy in vocabulary knowledge does not appear to narrow as a result of regular classroom instruction in the run up to the final stages of primary school, pinpointing vocabulary as a key target for intervention. Highlights: What is already known about this topicChildren learning EAL in England tend to underperform in relation to their non‐EAL peers in vocabulary knowledge, grammar and reading comprehension but not single‐word reading or passage reading accuracy.Attainment gaps between EAL learners and monolingual peers close gradually over the course of compulsory education, although reading attainment gaps remain by age 16. What this paper addsEAL learners exhibit significantly lower levels of English vocabulary breadth and passage reading accuracy but not vocabulary depth, listening comprehension or reading comprehension.In this study, the magnitude of group differences was reduced relative to previous work, potentially as a result of socio‐economic status and EAL learners' exposure to English.Where EAL learners underperform, there is no evidence that they make a significantly faster rate of progress over time than their non‐EAL peers. Similar developmental trajectories may serve to sustain group differences in primary education. Implications for theory, policy or practiceMere exposure to classroom teaching may not be a sufficient means of ensuring the English language proficiency (particularly vocabulary) of EAL learners, potentially impeding access to more challenging aspects of the National Curriculum.Breath of vocabulary knowledge may represent one particularly pertinent target for explicit classroom instruction for EAL learners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]