Diagnostic system and method for phonological awareness, phonological processing, and reading skill testing
A diagnostic system and method for evaluating one or more phonological awareness, phonological processing and reading skills of an individual to detect phonological awareness, phonological processing and reading skill deficiencies in the individual so that the risk of developing a reading deficiency is reduced and existing reading deficiencies are remediated. The system may use graphical games to test the individual's ability in a plurality of different phonological awareness, phonological processing and reading skills. The system may use speech recognition technology to interact with the games. The system may include a module for providing motivation to a user of the system being tested.
Latest Patents:
- PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS OF AMORPHOUS SOLID DISPERSIONS AND METHODS OF PREPARATION THEREOF
- AEROPONICS CONTAINER AND AEROPONICS SYSTEM
- DISPLAY SUBSTRATE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
- DISPLAY APPARATUS, DISPLAY MODULE, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING DISPLAY APPARATUS
- DISPLAY PANEL, MANUFACTURING METHOD, AND MOBILE TERMINAL
This application is a continuation-in-part application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/350,791, filed Jul. 9, 1999, entitled “Diagnostic System and Method for Phonological Awareness, Phonological Processing, and Reading Skill Testing” and owned by the same assignee as the present invention.
APPENDIXThis disclosure includes and incorporates Appendix A which is attached. Appendix A is 24 pages and discloses details of the data graphing and reporting functionality of the diagnostic system and method for phonological awareness, phonological processing and reading skill testing.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTIONThis invention relates generally to a diagnostic system and method for testing one or more different areas of phonological awareness, phonological processing, verbal short term memory, rapid access naming, phonemic decoding and reading fluency in order to determine if the individual being tested is at risk to having reading problems and the areas in which the individual may need further training.
It is well known that a relationship exists between phonological processing abilities of an individual and the normal acquisition of beginning reading skills. For inefficient and disabled readers, the reading impasse exists in the perceptual and conceptual elusiveness of phonemes. Phonemes are the smallest units of speech that correspond to the sounds of our spoken language. Our phonologically based language requires that students have a sensitivity to and an explicit understanding of the phonological structure of words. This explicit understanding of the phonological structure of words is known as phonological awareness. Phonological awareness skills are displayed by an individual when the individual is able to isolate and identify individual sounds within words and to manipulate those identified sounds. Phonological processing refers to the use of information about the sound structure of oral language to process oral and written information. These include verbal short term memory and rapid access naming.
The English language has words that are comprised of sounds in some predetermined order. From the vast number of possible sequences of sounds, words in the English language actually use a relatively small number of sequences and the majority of these sequences are common to many words. A child who becomes aware of these common sound sequences is typically more adept at mastering these sequences when the words are presented in their printed form (i.e., when the child is reading the words) than a child who lacks this awareness of sounds. For example, the word “mat” has three distinct phonemes /m/, /ae/ and /t/. The words “sat” and “bat” have different initial phonemes, /s/ and /b/ respectively, but share the middle and final phonemes (/ae/ and /t/, respectively) that form the common spelling pattern “at”. To a child with normal phonological awareness, our alphabetic orthography appears to be a sensible system for representing speech in writing. Thus, a child may employ the strategy of sounding out unknown words or letter sequences by analogy to known words with identical letter sequences. For example, the child may pronounce the unknown word “bat” by rhyming it with the known word “cat”.
Phonological awareness skills are grouped into two categories including synthesis and analysis. Phonological synthesis refers to the awareness that separate sound units may be blended together to form whole words. Phonological analysis refers to the awareness that whole words may be segmented into a set of sound units, including syllables, onset-rimes and phonemes. Both analysis and synthesis skills have been identified as important prerequisites for achieving the goal of early reading skill proficiency and deficits of either and/or both of these skills are typically present in children with reading disabilities.
In addition to these phonological awareness skills, there are two other phonological skills that have been linked to efficient reading ability. These skills are phonetic coding in verbal short term memory and rapid, automatic access to phonological information. Phonetic coding refers to the child's ability to use a speech-sound representation system for efficient storage of verbal information in working memory. The ability to efficiently use phonetic codes to represent verbal information in working memory may be measured by performance on memory span tasks for items with verbal labels. Children with reading problems have been found to perform poorly on memory span tasks for items with verbal labels. Thus, phonetic coding is an important skill for a reader, such as a beginning reader. For a beginning reader, he/she must 1) first decode each sound in the pattern by voicing the appropriate sound for the appropriate symbol; 2) store the appropriate sounds in short term memory while the remainder of the symbols are being sounded out; and 3) blend all of the sounds from memory together to form a word. The efficient phonetic representation in verbal short term memory permits beginning readers to devote less cognitive energy to the storage of sound symbol correspondence thus leaving adequate cognitive resources to blend the sounds together to form the word.
The strong performance of a child on rapid naming skills that requires rapid and automatic access to phonological information that is stored in long term memory is highly predictive on how well a child will learn fluent word identification skills. A reading-disabled child may normally perform much more slowly on these rapid naming tasks than a child with a normal reading skill. The rapid access of phonological information in memory may make the task of assembling word parts together much easier so that reading is easier.
In addition to assessing phonological processing skills that do not require knowledge of print, three other measures of pre-reading and reading skills prove helpful in monitoring a child's growth once reading instruction begins. In particular, the child's knowledge about letters, the child's phonemic decoding skill and the child's fluency of reading should be monitored during the first three grades in order to identify the need for early intervention that will prevent reading problems later on. It is desirable to be able to test these pre-reading and reading skills in order to further determine if a child is at risk.
Returning to the relationship between phonological processing and reading, an individual with good phonological processing skills and good phonological awareness tends to be better able to learn to read. In addition, phonological processing deficits have been identified by researchers as the most probable cause of reading-related learning disabilities. Due to this link, many states have started to mandate phonological awareness training as part of regular classroom reading curricula. At the same time, school personnel are being required to be accountable and take responsibility for the classroom curriculum and the remedial reading services they provide. The problem is that there is no diagnostic tool currently available to help professionals and the school personnel to identify children who are at-risk due to phonological awareness deficit and to help plan, evaluate and document the effectiveness of intervention and instructional methods.
A number of assessment tools are presently available to professionals to measure phonological processing and related skills. These include the Test of Phonological Awareness (TOPA), the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test (LAC), The Phonological Awareness Test (PAT), the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Testing (CTOPP) and a screening measure published in an educational textbook, Phonemic Awareness in Young Children: A Classroom Curriculum. None of these conventional assessment tools are software based and therefore have limitations. For example, these conventional assessment tools must be manually administered so that the testing is not necessarily standardized since each test giver may give the test in a slightly different manner that reduces the reliability of the resulting assessment. These manually administered assessment tools also make the scoring, charting and comparison of the test results more difficult. These conventional assessment tests require that a skilled person administrate the assessment test. In addition, the number of children who may be tested at any one time is limited to one child for each test administrator. These conventional assessment tests may also cause test anxiety that may cause the test results to inaccurately reflect the child's abilities. Thus, it is desirable to provide a diagnostic system and method for phonological awareness testing that overcomes the above problems and limitations of conventional assessment tests and it is to this end that the present invention is directed.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTIONThe diagnostic system and method for evaluating phonological awareness and processing skills and related pre-reading and reading skills in accordance with the invention provides a system for identifying individuals, such as children in kindergarten through second grade, who are likely to experience academic failure due to phonological processing deficits and a lack of phonological awareness. The system may also determine the relative weaknesses and strengths of the individual or group of individuals in different phonological awareness and processing areas or related reading skills in order to help develop appropriate intervention and curriculum activities to improve the weak skills and areas. The system may also track, over time, an individual's development or a group's development of various phonological awareness and processing skills and relating reading skills and establish a baseline so that the effectiveness of instructional methods may be evaluated. The system may identify individual with weak phonological awareness and processing skills and correct those skills before the individual develops a reading problem. In a preferred embodiment, the diagnostic tool may be one or more software applications being executed on a Web server so that the diagnostic tool may be an Internet or World Wide Web (the Web) based tool that provides an easily accessible and affordable screening tool to help parents determine, in the comfort of their own home, if their child is at-risk for academic failure due to phonological awareness and processing deficits. The system may also suggest solutions (training modules that train a particular phonological awareness, phonological processing skill or a related reading or pre-reading skill) for a parent to consider in correcting the phonological awareness and processing deficits.
In more detail, the diagnostic system in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention may include one or more software applications that may be stored on a portable media, such as a CD or a zip disk or may be stored on a server. The diagnostic system provides various advantages over conventional diagnostic tools. The system permits more standardized administration of the tests that leads to more reliable assessments. The system also permits more efficient, accurate and reliable scoring and tracking of an individual's phonological awareness and processing abilities so that the individual's progress may be determined by comparing the various test results to one another and comparing the results of tests given at different time to each other. The system may be administered by people who do not necessarily understand the intricacies of phonological awareness and processing skills. In addition, the system may be administered simultaneously to a large number of individuals since each children may use a separate computer to complete the tests. Finally, the engaging graphical game format of the tests within the diagnostic system may reduce an individual's test anxiety so that a more accurate test may be conducted.
The diagnostic system may include one or more interactive computer activities that permit the diagnostic system to measure one or more different types of phonological awareness and processing skills, knowledge of sound-symbol correspondences and fluency of decoding and reading. The system in accordance with the invention may also collect risk factor and other relevant data about each individual, assess performance on activities that measure phonological awareness and processing skill, analyze risk factor data and performance data for individuals or groups of individuals, and report those results. In a preferred embodiment, the system may be used for diagnosing phonological awareness and processing skill deficits in a young child.
Thus, in accordance with the invention, a system and method for testing one or more skills associated with the reading skills of an individual is provided. The method comprises presenting one or more stimuli to the individual, each stimulus associated with a test for testing a particular reading or pre-reading skill of the individual, the skills indicating the risk that the individual develops a language-based learning disability. The method further comprises receiving a response from the individual to each stimulus, scoring the user's responses to each test, and recommending, based on the scores of the one or more tests, one or more training modules for improving a reading or pre-reading skill of the individual as indicated by the score of the tests.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
The invention is particularly applicable to a World Wide Web (Web) based diagnostic system for determining a child's phonological awareness and processing skills and reading skills and it is in this context that the invention will be described. It will be appreciated, however, that the system and method in accordance with the invention has greater utility since it may be implemented on other types of computer systems, such as the Internet, a local area network, a wide area network or any other type of computer network. The system may also be used to test a variety of other individuals, such as illiterate and mentally disabled people, individuals whose native language is not English who are learning to read, and adolescents and adults who read poorly and wish to improve their reading skills.
The server may further comprise a central processing unit (CPU) 58, a memory 60, a database (DB) 62, a persistent storage device 64 and a diagnostic tool 66. In a preferred embodiment, the diagnostic tool may be one or more software applications (testing different phonological awareness and processing skills or reading skills) stored in the persistent storage of the server that may be downloaded into the memory 60 (as shown in
Each client computer 54 (Client #N will be described herein, but it should be realized that each client computer is substantially similar) may be used by an individual user, such as a parent of a child or a test administrator, to access the diagnostic tool stored on the server. Each client computer 54 may include a central processing unit (CPU) 70, a memory 72, a persistent storage device 74 such as a hard disk drive, a tape drive, an optical drive or the like, an input device 76 such as a keyboard, a mouse, a joystick, a speech recognition microphone or the like, and an output device 78 such as a typical cathode ray tube, a flat panel display, a printer for generating a printed report or the like. Each client computer may also include a browser application 80 that may be stored in the persistent storage device and downloaded to the memory 72 as shown in the figure. The browser application may be executed by the CPU 70 and may permit the user of the client computer to interact with the Web pages being downloaded from the server 52. In this system, multiple client computers may establish simultaneous communications sessions with the server and each client computer may be downloading Web pages from the server. The system 50 thus permits multiple client computers to access the diagnostic tool 66 stored on the server so that the user of each client computer may take advantage of the benefits of the diagnostic tool.
As described below in more detail, the diagnostic tool may include one or more different tools that test various phonological awareness or processing skills as well as reading skills so that a child's proficiency at phonological awareness and processing skills and reading skills may be determined. The diagnostic tool 66 may also use a child's scores on the one or more tools in order to recommend to the user of the client computer (e.g., the parent of the child) which training tools the parent may consider downloading to help the child with any deficiencies. These training tools may also be stored in the persistent storage device 64 connected to the server so that the user may then download the training tool from the server as well. The training tools are described in more detail in co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. Nos. 09/039,194 and 60/103,354, filed Mar. 13, 1998 and Oct. 7, 1998, respectively, that are incorporated herein by reference and owned by the same assignee as the present application. The incorporated applications also describe the different sounds units types, syllable types and phoneme types that may be tested using the diagnostic system since these types of sound units, syllables and phonemes are similar to the types of sound units, syllables and phonemes used in the training tools.
In another embodiment of the invention, an assessment tool software application, such as a Windows .exe file for example, may be downloaded from the server to the client computer. The assessment tool software application may then be executed by the CPU 70 of the client computer. The assessment tool may then generate the graphical screens that test the different user's skills and may store the information/scores about the tests locally in the client computer. Then, during the assessment testing or after the assessment tool execution has been completed, the scores for the user may be uploaded back to the server computer. Now, a second embodiment of the computer-based phonological skills diagnostic system in accordance with the invention will be described.
In this embodiment, the diagnostic tool may be downloaded to the teacher station 84 from the server 52 when the particular school or school district purchases a license to the diagnostic tool. The teacher station may execute the diagnostic tool and control the operation of the student computers 87 to implement the diagnostic testing. This embodiment of the invention may be used, for example, to permit the teacher station (a LAN server) to monitor and control the diagnostic testing when the diagnostic tool is being used by multiple users in a school or other setting. More details of this embodiment of the invention will now be described.
On the teacher station 84, the classroom teachers/ test administrator may register each student who will take the test and generate a classroom layout to assign students to particular student computers 87. The teacher station may also permit the classroom teacher/ test administrator to generate a layout for multiple different classes. As shown in
In addition, an interface may be displayed that shows 1) how many tests are currently available and what type of tests can be assigned to each student (since the school may purchase a license to a particular number of tests at any one time); and 2) how many tests are currently in process and what kind of tests have already been assigned. In a preferred embodiment, a student can be assigned to more than one test.
The teacher station user interface may further include an activated student information area 89 wherein the information for a particular student is shown that has been selected by the administrator/teacher by clicking on the student's icon as described above. This area 89 may further include one or more buttons 90 that permit the administrator to control the testing of the individual selected student. The user interface may further include a second area 91 wherein the testing status is shown. For example, the area may indicate a failed connection with the student computer or server 52, a completed test and data being sent (or data is sent) to the server 52. This area 91 may also include one or more buttons 92 that permit the administrator/teacher to control the testing of all of the student's computer at the same time. Now, the process of registration and access using this embodiment of the invention will be described.
To use the above embodiment of the system with a group of students, such as in a school or school district, it is necessary to register. In particular, there may be two kinds of registration including individual registration and institutional registration. A preferred embodiment of each type of registration will now be described.
Individual Registration
An “Individual” is defined as an online client wanting to purchase one or a number of Single Test packages for immediate use. First, an individual registers by completing an Individual Registration form wherein the individual assigns to herself a username and password (as well as a hint, should she forget her password). Upon submission of a valid Individual Registration form, a record is created in the Account table on the server 52 and the individual is assigned a unique account_id. The individual who creates the account is known as the Account Manager, and has responsibilities and access for the account. Next, a record is created in the Pswd table on the server 52 and stamped with the account_id and assigned the default access level of “Individual”.
The individual may now purchase one or more test packages. Next, the individual selects a Single Test package appropriate for a child (e.g., Package “1A”) and a record is created in the Order table and assigned a unique order_id and stamped with the account_id. A record is also created in the Order_Item table. The order item record is assigned a unique order_item_id and stamped with the account_id, order_id and package_id. Each order item is assigned a unique order_item_id and stamped with the account_id and order_id. Now, the individual must complete and submit a Student Registration form for each child, which assigns the test to the particular child. Then, a record is created in the Student table on the server 52 and the child is assigned a unique student_id. The child's record is stamped with the account_id and order_item_id. The individual may now repeat the process, selecting additional Single Test packages and assigning one child to each package. The ordering process has now been completed.
The order is then validated by a third party, such as CyberCash or RediCash. If validation succeeds, the validated field in the Order table on the server 52 is marked TRUE and records are created in the Usage table with one record for each test. In particular, each Usage record is assigned a unique usage_id and stamped with the account_id, order_id and order_item_id. If validation fails, the individual is notified and all records bearing both the account_id and order_id in the Order, Order_item and Student tables are deleted. Now, the institutional registration process will be described.
Institutional Registration
An “Institution” is defined as a public or private school or other educational or child care institution wanting to purchase Single Test or 35-Test packages for use by a school district or school. A “School” is defined as any school within a school district, or any single institutional element such as a parochial or private school, a day care center, a commercial learning center. A public “School District” is any school district listed by the National Center for Education Statistics. A public school is any school listed by the National Center for Education Statistics and associated with a school district. An “Account Manager” is any individual who registers the account, orders and accepts responsibility for payment. The account manager has access to school-district level data if he/she purchases packages for a school district. The account manager is responsible for assigning test packages to schools and lead teachers within the school district. The account manager may assign himself as a lead teacher and the institution of record as the School (as is the case of a single school). A “Lead Teacher” is responsible for school packages and assigns packages to classroom teachers. A classroom teacher is a test administrator and monitors the actual testing. The classroom teacher is given access by the lead teacher to register students so that they may take the test. The lead teacher has access to school level data and the classroom teacher has access to class level data. The system may impose certain restraints on the diagnostic tool, such as 1) test packages purchased by a school district may only be distributed within the district; and 2) one test package must be assigned to only one school; i.e., Students at different schools may not share one test package.
To better understand the differences between the account manager, the lead teacher and the classroom teacher, an example of the diagnostic tool registration and testing process that involves all three different people will now be described. The account manager, the person who purchases the packages for the school district, is responsible for assigning packages to schools and a lead teacher for each school. The lead teacher assigned to a school is responsible for assigning packages to classroom teachers. The classroom teachers are responsible for registering students and administering the test. Later, after the test, the classroom teacher has access only to view his/her own classes' students' test results although it is possible for two teachers share one package. For example, for a package for 35 students, Mr. L (class 1 teacher) was assigned 20 and Ms. D (class 2 teacher) was assigned 15. They can each test students at the same time using this same package, but Mr. L can only assign his own 20 students and view his own 20 students' test results; and Ms. D can only assign her own 15 students and view her own 15 students' test results. The lead teacher who was assigned to a school has access to school level to view his/her own school students' test results; and the account manager, who represents the school district, has an access to school district level to view his/her own school district students' test results. Now, the registration process will be described in more detail.
To start the registration process, an institution registers by completing an Institution Registration form. Upon submission of a valid Institution Registration form, a record is created in the Account table in the server 52 and the account manager is assigned a unique account_id. The account manager has responsibilities and access for the account. The Institutional Registration form requires that an institution specify a public school district if it wishes to distribute its packages among schools within the district. Or, conversely, the institution may register as a single school, in which case all the packages it purchases must be used within that school. The account manager who submits the registration assigns to herself a username and password (as well as a hint, should she forget her password). A record is then created in the Pswd table on the server 52 and stamped with the account_id and assigned the default access level “Institution”. The “Institution” level allows access to data as described above.
School District Registration
If the form identifies the account as a “School District” account, a record is created in the School_District table in the server 52 with a unique school_district_id and the record is stamped with the account_id. Optionally, the account manager may create records in the Region table, with unique region_ids. These records are stamped with the account_id and school district_id.
Single School Registration
If the form identifies the account as a “School” (i.e., a single institution), a record is created in the School table with a unique school_id and the record is stamped with the account_id. Optionally, the account manager may create a record in the School_District table to which the school belongs, with a unique school district_id and the record is stamped with the account_id. Optionally, the account manager may create a record in the Region table, with unique region_ids. These records are stamped with the account_id and school_district_id.
Once the above registration is completed, the institution may purchase the tests. In particular, the account manager may now purchase test packages. In particular, the account manager selects a test package, enters the package quantity and adds the selection to her “shopping cart”. The account manager may select additional items, specify the quantity and add them to the “shopping cart.” The account manager may then submit the order.
The order is then validated by a third party, such as CyberCash or RediCash. If validation succeeds, the validated field in the Order table is marked TRUE and records are created in the Usage table with one record for each test. In more detail, each Usage record is assigned a unique usage_id and stamped with the account_id, order_id and order_item_id. A record is also created in the Order_Item table. The order item record is assigned a unique order_item_id and stamped with the account_id, order_id and package_id. Each order item is assigned a unique order_item_id and stamped with the account_id and order_id. If validation fails, the individual is notified. All records bearing both the account_id and order_id in the School, School_District and Region tables are deleted if validation fails.
After validation, the account manager must now assign packages to schools and lead teachers. In particular, if the account is identified as type “School District”, the account manager completes and submits School Registration form for each school. (The system may have NCES databases on the server for the account manager to select school districts and/or schools). A record is created in the School table and assigned a unique school_id. The record is stamped with the account_id and school district_id. Optionally, the school may further be identified as part of a “Region”. The account manager may now assign packages to a school or schools. An interface will inform the account manager of packages that are available to assign, which packages have been assigned and to what school. When a package is assigned, records are created in the Usage table, the number of records corresponding with the number of tests in the package. Each record is given a unique usage_id and stamped with the account_id, order_id, order_item_id, school_district_id and school_id.
The account manager may now assign lead teachers to school level access. The account manager may assign access to more than one lead teacher at each school, or assign access to one lead teacher at more than one school. The lead teacher has school level access to test data. The account manager is responsible for communicating Username and Password to assigned lead teachers. The lead teacher may assign classroom teachers to class level access. The lead teacher is responsible for communicating Username and Password to assigned classroom teachers. Now, the process for testing student in accordance with the invention will be described in more detail.
Registering Students
Teachers or account managers acting as “Teachers” may assign classroom teachers and classroom teachers may register students at any time after an order is validated. A “Class” is any arbitrary group designation for students taking a test (e.g., “Mr. Busy's Kindergarten”). A teacher may first define a class wherein a “Class” is defined by a class name unique to the school and given a unique class_id. The class record is stamped with the teacher_id and school_id.
Classroom teachers must complete a Student Registration form for each student. An interface will show how many and of what kind of tests are available to assign, how many and of what kind of tests have been assigned. The form will allow more than one test to be assigned to a student. The student is assigned to a class. When the form is submitted, a record is created in the Student table and assigned a unique student_id. The record is stamped with the account_id, school district_id, school_id, package_id and class_id.
Administrating Tests
The testing environment presumes a networked environment with Internet access and the Xtranet Xtra installed. The Xtranet Xtra facilitates messaging between networked machines. The classroom teacher/test administrator would have an administrative version of the Testing Module. The classroom teacher must log in to access the module. When the classroom teacher accesses the Test administration area, he is presented with a Seating Chart of student computers that are in communication with the administrative computer via Xtranet. The classroom teacher is also presented with a list of registered students. The classroom teacher begins a testing session by assigning students to a computer. Each “Desk” on the seating chart, when clicked, displays the student's name, age, grade, type of test, and the process of the test in the student information area 89. The classroom teacher will have control over start, volume, pause, resume, and exit functions for all the students or at each Desk. The testing status information indicated in the area 91 includes whether 1) the diagnostic tool application is open; 2) a connection to the server 52 is tested and/or active; 3) the student diagnostic test on each student computer has started, paused, or completed; and 4) the test data for a particular diagnostic student test from a particular student computer is sent to the server 52.
The Test Application on the Student's machine messages the server 52 via the Teacher's machine, and the server 52 returns data to the Application via HTTP. (This happens transparently within the Application). The Application, before it reaches the Access screen, will test its connection to the Server 52. If the connection fails, the Application will not proceed. The classroom teacher is notified of the result of the connection test. When the student begins the test (e.g., the Student presses the “Yes” button on the test module access screen) the testing record of connection is marked as “completed”. The testing record is retrieved from the Usage table by student_id and order_item_id and “completed” is marked TRUE. This in effect, debits the test holdings of the respective account.
Taking the Test
When the test starts, the Student's Test Application will request a list of test stimuli and their resources and commence to download those resources from the server 52. After a student has taken a test, most resources will already be cached locally, and the test may proceed with minimal downloads. The test will proceed even in the event of student timeouts due to inactivity. As the student answers the test, data is collected. At the conclusion of the test, that data is written to a temporary HTML page, which is then sent as a form to the server 52. The Score table at the server 52 is updated with this form data. A test is concluded when the student answers the final test question OR when the classroom teacher clicks the EXIT button for the Student. In the preferred embodiment, no student or student score data will be held locally. The Teacher's machine will look for unsent files on student machines and attempt to resend them at a later time in the instance where a test is completed but the HTTP transmission fails.
Viewing Data
Test performance data (graphs and tables) will be displayed by an applet embedded within a Web page. The test performance data is username/password protected. An HTML page will send a find request in the form of a Transact-SQL statement to the test result database which returns a record set. The record set will be formatted for display by the embedded applet.
Individual Accounts
Individuals may view data by entering their username/password. Individuals will be able to view data for students who they have registered as set forth in more detail in Appendix A.
Institutional Accounts
Account managers may view data by using their username/password. Account managers may view and print data at the highest level of their access, typically at the School District Level. This entitles them to view individual and summary data by District, Region, School, Class and Student as set forth in more detail in Appendix A. Lead teachers may view data by using their username/password. Lead teachers may view and print data at the highest level of their access: the School Access Level. This entitles them to view individual and summary data by school, class and student. Classroom teachers may view and print data at a Class Access Level using their username/password. This entitles them to view individual and summary data by class and student. The details of the data reporting feature of the diagnostic system in accordance with the invention will be described in more detail below with reference to
The administrator 106 may perform various administrative actions such as monitoring the user of the diagnostic tool, billing the users (if appropriate) and the like. The recommender 108 may use the scores and statistical information generated by the scorer, if requested by the user of the client computer, to recommend one or more training tools that may be used by the child taking the tests on the particular client computer in order to improve the child's ability in any deficient areas. For example, the scores may indicate that the child has weak/below average rhyme recognizing skills and the recommender may recommend that the child play the rhyme recognizer training tool in order to boost the child's rhyme recognition abilities. The parent may then download the training tool from the system. The recommender permits a parent of the child, who has no experience or knowledge about reading disorders or phonological awareness and processing deficits, to have their child tested for these deficits at home and then have the system automatically recommend a training tool that may help the child improve in any deficient areas. In particular, the recommender may be one or more pieces of code in a preferred embodiment that analyze the incorrect responses to one or more different subtests in order to determine the skill areas of a particular user that are deficient so that a training module that trains that particular deficient skill area can be recommended to the user of the diagnostic system. The recommendation module in accordance with the invention will now be described in more detail with reference to
In step 818, the first incorrect response, IR11, for the first subtest, ST1, is compared to the first error measure, EM11, to determine if the incorrect response is consistent with the first error measure. Each error measure is intended to compare a particular incorrect answer with a particular type of error as described in more detail below with reference to
If an error is not identified, then the method determines if index l is a maximum (e.g., if all of the error measures have been analyzed) in step 826. If l is not at its maximum value (e.g., there are other error measures that need to be compared to the first incorrect answer for the first subtest), then l is incremented in step 828 (to compare the next error measure to the first incorrect answer to the first subtest) and the method loops back to step 818 to compare the next error measure to the first incorrect answer for the first subtest. Thus, using the loop containing steps 818, 820, 826 and 828, each error measure is compared to the first incorrect answer for the first subtest.
Once each error measure is compared to the first incorrect response for the first subtest (e.g., l=max), the method determines if all of the incorrect responses (i=max) have been analyzed in step 830. If all of the incorrect responses have not been analyzed, then the method loops in step 832 to increment j (to analyze the next incorrect response) and loops back to step 816 to reset l=1 so that the next incorrect response is compared to all of the error measures. Again, the loop 816, 818, 820, 826, 828, 830, 832 compares each incorrect response for a particular subtest to each error measure and identifies any matching error measures. Once all of the incorrect responses (e.g., j=max) for a particular subtest have been analyzed, the method proceeds to step 834 in which the method determines if all of the subtests (e.g., i=k) have been analyzed. If all of the subtests have not been analyzed, then the index i is incremented in step 836 to analyze the next subtest and the method loops back to step 814 to then analyze each incorrect response for the particular subtest by comparing each incorrect response to each error measure. Again, the loop 814, 816, 818, 820, 826, 828, 830, 832, 834 and 836 compares each incorrect response for each subtest to each error measure.
In summary, the input (IR)11 (incorrect response 1 of subtest 1) is provided and compared to (EM)11 (error measure 1 of subtest 1, for example, open syllable rime). If the error is identified, label the error and store it in the database: Error Storage. If the error is not identified, continue comparing this incorrect response with the remaining error measures until the error is identified. Next, input (IR)12 (incorrect response 2 of subtest 1) and repeat the steps 2 and 3 to identify the error. When all the incorrect responses from subtest 1 are compared and errors are identified, labeled, and stored, input incorrect errors of subtest 2 one by one and compare them with error measures for subtest 2 as what was done for subtest 1. Continue doing this until all the incorrect responses from all the subtests are compared and labeled, and errors are stored in the database. Thus, the method in accordance with the invention compares each incorrect response for each subtest to each error measure to generate a database containing all of the errors that are identified for a particular user. Now, more details of the error measure and the comparison of the error measures to the incorrect responses will be described.
In accordance with the invention, there may be a plurality of error measures that are compared to each incorrect response by the user for each subtest to determine the type of user error that is indicated by the particular incorrect answer. For example, as shown in
Rule 1: If error measure 3.2 is true (e.g., an incorrect response in the Beginning and Ending Sounds subtest (subtest 3) that matches error measure 2 in
Rule 2: If error measures 3.2, 4.3, 5.4, 6.4, 7.3 and 10.2 are true, then the deficiency is the /f/ sound at the end of a word.
Rule 3: If error measures 4.3, 6.4, 7.3 and 10.2 are true, then the deficiency is the /f/ sound at the end of a word following an /e/ sound or another consonant.
In more detail, the first rule generally determines if the user has a problem understanding the /f/ sound in a word while the second and third rules determine if a particular location in a word of the /f/ sound is a problem. To analyze these rules, the database has stored the incorrect answers of the user along with the error measures that correspond to the incorrect responses. Then, each rule is compared to the error measures that are stored in the database which are true (indicating a particular incorrect response to a particular subtest) for the particular user to diagnose any skill deficiency areas. Thus, a deficiency in understanding the /f/ sound is diagnosed if the above identified error measures (indicated in
The motivator module 109 may generate motivation images and sounds to encourage the user/student to complete the tests associated with the assessment tool so that the user is less aware that he/she is being tested by the system. The motivation may also maintain the user/student's interest in the testing. In one embodiment, the diagnostic system may show one or more animals, such as monkeys, eating bananas as the user is completing the tests so that the user is rewarded and incentivized by the monkey's actions. In a preferred embodiment, there may be eleven different skills tests and the monkeys may be shown to the user after the first three tests are completed by the user, and then after the first six tests have been completed by the user, and finally after the first nine tests have been completed by the user. In this manner, the user is given a break between tests, given a chance to relax, and informed of the test portions completed and to be completed. For example, after the first three tests, the monkey may be eating three bananas representing the three completed test sections and may say “I want more bananas. Help me get some more bananas” to encourage the student to complete the other tests in the diagnostic tool which are represented by the eight bananas on the tree. Thus, the motivation module encourages the user to complete all of the tests in the diagnostic tool.
The diagnostic tool may also include speech recognition software that permits the various tests described below, to be used in conjunction with speech recognition technology (a microphone and speech recognition software) on the client computer to enhance the value of the diagnostic tests. For example, the child may see one or more items on the computer screen in rapid succession, speak the name of each item into a microphone that is interpreted by the speech recognition software in the client computer, transmitted to the server and compared to a correct response by the speech recognition software in the server so that the scorer may determine whether or not the child correctly identified each item. The tests that may benefit from the speech recognition technology will be described below. Now, a preferred embodiment of the diagnostic tool in accordance with the invention will be described in more detail.
The questionnaire 110 is a fill-in form that permits the system to look for particular risk factors that may lead to reading deficiencies as described below with reference to
The sound segmenter module 122 determines the child's ability to segment a word into one or more sounds as described below with reference to
In step 142, the questionnaire may display a first question to the user of the client computer, such as the parent of the child being tested. Next, the user may respond to the question using the user input devices and the user's response may be recorded by the questionnaire module in step 144. In step 146, the questionnaire module determines if all of the questions have been answered and goes to step 142 to present the next question to the user if there are additional questions. As long as there are remaining questions, the method will loop through steps 142-146. When the user has answered all of the questions, the questionnaire module may analyze the responses in step 148 to calculate a score and a risk factor value and then display the results of the analysis (including the responses and the recommendations of the system) to the user in step 150. The score may be calculated as the number of items checked as being applicable to the user. Although a single factor does not indicate a risk, the more factors that exist for an individual, the more likely it is that the individual may experience difficulties.
In analyzing the results of the questionnaire, the module may generate a category of the risk (high, medium or low) and then provide recommendations based on the category of risk. As an example, the questionnaire may ask if the child has a history of middle ear infections, if anyone in the family has reading or other learning disabilities and if the child mispronounces multi-syllabic words. The responses to these questions may be used to determine the category of risk of the person being tested. The category of risk determined based on the questionnaire may then be used during the recommendation of training tools. Now, the rhyme recognition module will be described in more detail.
At step 162, the rhyme recognizing module may display two words along with their pictures on the user's display screen as shown in
Returning to step 168, if the response given by the user is not correct, then the module may determine the number of consecutive errors of the particular rhyme type in step 178. In step number of consecutive errors is more than the predetermined number, the module go to step 170 to determine if there are other rhyme types to be tested (assuming that more tests for the current rhyme types are not productive since the user has already missed more than the predetermined number). If the number of consecutive errors is less than the predetermined number, then the module may display the next word pair for the same rhyme type in step 182 in order to continue testing the child's ability with that particular type of rhyme. In this manner, the rhyme recognizer module may test the child's abilities with respect to a variety of rhyme types to gain a better understanding of the child's deficiencies or abilities to recognize rhymes. For example, the module may determine that the child only has deficiencies with respect to certain types of rhymes. Now, an example of the user interface for the rhyme recognition module will be described.
In step 212, the module may generate a word sound on the speaker of the user's computer and may display an image of the word being spoken. The module may also display a series of other pictures of items in step 214 and the user must determine which item in the series rhymes with the spoken word. The module may then ask the user to select the rhyming item in step 216, the user may provide a response using one of the input devices (keyboard, mouse or microphone). Instead of a series of images being displayed to the user, the module may provide a verbal prompt asking the user to generate a rhyming word and the user may speak the rhyming word into the microphone of the speech recognition device. The module may then determine if the user's response is correct in step 218. If the user's response is not correct, then the module may determine the number of consecutive incorrect responses in step 220 and compare the calculated number to a predetermined number, n, in step 222. If the number of errors is less than the predetermined number (e.g., the user should be tested more on that rhyme type), the module may display the next image in step 224 and return to step 214. If the number of consecutive errors is greater than the predetermined number (e.g., it is no longer useful to continue testing this rhyme pair because the user does not understand it) or the user's response was correct, the module may determine if there are more rhyme types to test in step 226. If there are more rhyme types to test, then the module may display the items for the next rhyme type in step 228 and return to step 214 to elicit the user's response. If there are no other rhyme types (i.e., the user has completed the module), the module may calculate a score in step 230 (the score is equal to the percentage of items correctly identified as rhyming) and may display the results of the test and any recommendations from the recommender in step 232. The recommendations from the recommender are similar to those described above and therefore will not be described here. Now, an example of the rhyme generation test is described.
In step 262, the module may present a spoken word naming an item and display an image of the item to the user. In step 264, the module may query the user about which item in a sequence of items has the same beginning sound as the item. The module may then receive a user's response from the user entering the response into the input devices as described above in step 266. In step 268, the module determines if the response is correct. If the response is not correct, the module may determine the number of consecutive errors for the particular beginning sound in step 270 and compare the calculated value with a predetermined value, n, in step 272. If the calculated value is not less than the predetermined value (i.e., the user should be asked more questions about that particular type of beginning sound), then the module may present the user with another spoken word and picture in step 274 and return to step 264 to gather the user's response.
Returning to step 268, if the response of the user is correct, the module determines if all of the beginning sounds in the test are completed in step 276 and either presents the next beginning sound in step 278 and returns to step 264 if there are other beginning sounds to test or begins testing the ending sounds. In particular, the module may present a spoken word and a picture of the item in step 280 and query the user about which item in a sequence of items has a similar ending sound in step 282. In step 284, the module may gather the user's response and determine if the response is correct in step 286. If the response is incorrect, the module may determine the number of consecutive errors for the particular ending sound in step 288, compare the calculated number to a predetermined number in step 290 and display a next word in step 292 and returns to step 282 if the calculated number is less than the predetermined number. If the calculated number is not less than the predetermined number or the user's response is correct, the module may determines if the ending sounds has been completed in step 294. If the testing of the ending sounds has not been completed then the module may present the next word in step 296 and return to step 282. If the ending sounds are completed, the module may calculate a score based on the percentage of correct responses in step 298. In step 300, the module and the recommender, respectively, may generate a display of the score and any recommendations about training tools that the user may use to improve his recognition of the beginning and ending sounds of a word. Now, an example of the user interface for testing the ability to discern the beginning and endings of words will be described.
In step 362, the module may display one or more graphical representations of items and present a spoken word, with its sound units separated by equal intervals of time, to the user, such as “k-ey”. The module may then ask the user to identify the graphical item referred to by the spoken word in step 364 and receive the response from the user using one of the input devices, such as the keyboard, mouse or microphone of the speech recognizer. In step 366, the module may determine if the response received is correct. If the response was not correct, the module may determine the number of consecutive errors for the current sound unit in step 368. In step 370, the module may determine if the number of consecutive errors is less than a predetermined threshold and present the next word with similar sound unit types in step 372 and loop back to step 364 if the number of consecutive errors is not less than predetermined threshold. If the number of consecutive errors is not less than the predetermined threshold or if the prior response was correct, the module may determine if there are other sound unit types to test in step 374. If there are other sound unit types, the module may present a word with sound units of the new type in step 376 and loop back to step 364 to test the child using the new sound unit type. If there are no more sound unit types to test, the module may determine the user's score in step 378 based on the percentage of correctly answered items. In step 379, the module may display the score to the user and the recommender may recommend one or more training tools that may help the user improve the blending sound ability and that may be downloaded from the diagnostic system. An example of the user interface for testing the blending of sounds will now be described.
Returning to
If the response is not correct, then the number of consecutive errors is determined in step 458 and the number of consecutive errors is compared to a threshold in step 460. If the threshold is not exceeded, then the next sequence of words and/or digits is presented in step 462 and the method loops back to step 454. If the threshold is exceeded or if the last response was correct, it is determined if there are more types of sequence of words to test in step 464 and the method presents a new type of sequence in step 466 and loops back to step 454 if there are more types. If ail of the types of sequences have been completed, then the user's score is determined in step 468 (as a percentage of correct responses) and the scope and any recommendations for training modules is displayed in step 470. Now, a method for testing rapid naming ability will be described.
At step 532, the module may display a set of words 533 on the screen (an example of which is shown in
In step 598, the recommender may display the recommended training modules to the user. The user may then select the recommended training modules in step 600 and the training modules may be downloaded to the user's computer so that the user may use the training modules to improve the skill areas that require it. In this manner, the diagnostic system in accordance with the invention not only diagnoses reading problems using the various skill tests but also recommends training modules that may help improve a deficient skill. Thus, the diagnostic system makes it easy for a parent to have the child tested for deficiencies and then to receive the tools that help correct any deficiencies. Now, an example of a report that is generated by the diagnostic system in accordance with the invention will be described.
The data graph shown in
The user interface may include an “Other Test Section” button 704. If the user clicks on the “Other Test Section” button, a drop menu 740 (an example of which is shown in
The user interface may further include a back button 708 that permits other student scores to be displayed in the graph while retaining all of the data about each student. In other words, the graph defaults to showing a predetermined number of students, such as six, and the back button permits the teacher to browse through the detailed scores of the entire class by viewing a predetermined number of students at a time. For example, if the six students shown on the screen are the first six in the class, then this button will be inactive since there are no prior students. However, when the six students on the screen are not the first six, clicking on this button will show the previous six students' full test results. The user interface may also include a forward button 710 that permits the teacher to see the full scores for the next predetermined number of students. Thus, if the students shown on the screen are the last six in the class, then this button will be inactive. When the six students on the screen are not the last six, clicking on this button will show the next six students' test results. Using the back and forward buttons, the teacher is able to browse through the full test results for the entire class.
The user interface may further include a graph display button 712. When the teacher/administrator clicks on the button, a drop down menu 750 with small graphs will shown (as shown in
The user interface may further permit the user to select a data report print choice. In a preferred embodiment, there may be three different print choices. The first print choice is a “Print All” choice in which reports for all the students or subtests of the graph or table on the screen are printed. A second print choice is the “Print Current Student/Subtest” choice in which the report for the student/subtest currently on the screen is printed. The third print choice is a “Print . . . ” choice in which the user is allowed to select the reports for certain student or subtest that the user would like to print out of the graph or table on the screen.
While the foregoing has been with reference to a particular embodiment of the invention, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that changes in this embodiment may be made without departing from the principles and spirit of the invention, the scope of which is defined by the appended claims.
Claims
1-331. (canceled)
332. A system for recommending a training module based on one or more tests, comprising:
- means for determining the incorrect responses to one or more tests wherein the incorrect responses indicate a reading skill deficiency; and
- means for recommending a training module that improves a particular reading skill based on the incorrect responses.
333. The system of claim 332, wherein the recommender further comprises means for comparing each incorrect response to one or more error measures to generate an error measure associated with each incorrect response and means for generating a training module recommendation based on the error measures.
334. The system of claim 333, wherein the comparing means further comprises means for generating one or more error measures for each incorrect response.
335. The system of claim 333, wherein the recommender further comprises means for identifying a deficient skill by comparing the error measure to a deficient skill rule and means for generating a training module recommendation based on the identified deficient skill.
336. A method for recommending a training module based on one or more tests, comprising:
- determining the incorrect responses to one or more tests wherein the incorrect responses indicate a reading skill deficiency; and
- recommending a training module that improves a particular reading skill based on the incorrect responses.
337. The method of claim 336, wherein the recommender further comprises comparing each incorrect response to one or more error measures to generate an error measure associated with each incorrect response and generating a training module recommendation based on the error measures.
338. The method of claim 337, wherein the comparing further comprises generating one or more error measures for each incorrect response.
339. The system of claim 332, wherein each client computer further comprises means for motivating the user to complete the tests.
340-481. (canceled)
482. The method of claim 337, wherein the recommender further comprises identifying a deficient skill by comparing the error measure to a deficient skill rule and generating a training module recommendation based on the identified deficient skill.
Type: Application
Filed: Nov 14, 2003
Publication Date: May 19, 2005
Applicant:
Inventors: Janet Wasowicz (Evanston, IL), Feng-Qi Lai (Terre Haute, IN), Andrew Morrison (Deerfield, IL)
Application Number: 10/713,745