Home⇛Universal Journal of Educational Research⇛vol. 4 no. 2 (2025)

Lesson Time and Accuracy in a Computer-Delivered Reading Intervention

Jordan T. Dille | Alice S. Cahill | Elena A. Dille

 

Abstract:

Despite extensive national efforts to improve literacy outcomes, the United States continues to face a significant reading crisis, particularly among upper elementary and middle school students. While early interventions often focus on word reading difficulties in young children, older struggling readers face more complex challenges, such as deficits in fluency and comprehension, yet receive limited targeted support. In recent years, educational technology has emerged as a promising tool to deliver targeted, individualized reading interventions that promote student engagement and alleviate instructional demands on teachers. This study explores the relationship between time-on-task—a proxy for student engagement—and comprehension accuracy within a computer-delivered reading intervention for struggling middle school readers. Specifically, the study examines whether lesson completion time predicts accuracy in inference-making tasks and investigates how students' response patterns (e.g., fast and accurate, slow and inaccurate) align with their performance. Grounded in the speed-accuracy trade-off framework, which posits a balance between speed and precision in task performance, the study seeks to expand the understanding of how older students interact with digital reading tools. By analyzing both completion times and accuracy across lessons, this research aims to inform the design of more effective computer-based interventions tailored to the diverse needs of struggling adolescent readers. Results revealed no significant correlation between lesson speed and accuracy (t = .041, p = .784, r = -.019) suggesting that time-on-task did not significantly influence reading comprehension outcomes in this sample. Student response pattern types highlight variability in engagement and performance within computer-delivered reading intervention.



References:

  1. Amendum, S. J., Conradi, K., & Hiebert, E. (2018). Does text complexity matter in the Aaron, P. G., Joshi, M., & Williams, K. A. (1999). Not all reading disabilities are alike. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(2), 120–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949903200203
  2. Amendum, S. J., Conradi, K., & Hiebert, E. (2018). Does text complexity matter in the elementary grades? A research synthesis of text difficulty and elementary students’ reading fluency and comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 121-151.
  3. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1990)
  4. Anderson, L. W. (2018). Instruction and time-on-task: A review. In C. W. Fisher & D. C. Berliner (Eds.), Time and school learning (pp. 143–164). IAP.
  5. Barnes, M. A., Clemens, N. H., Simmons, D., Hall, C., Fogarty, M., Martinez-Lincoln, A., … Roberts, G. (2024). A randomized controlled trial of Tutor- and Computer-Delivered Inferential Comprehension interventions for middle school students with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 28(4), 411–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2024.2331517
  6. Bartgis, J., Thomas, D. G., Lefler, E. K., & Hartung, C. M. (2008). The development of attention and response inhibition in early childhood. Infant and Child Development, 17(5), 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.563
  7. Becker, N., Schmitz, F., Göritz, A. S., & Spinath, F. M. (2016). Sometimes more is better, and sometimes less is better: Task complexity moderates the response time accuracy correlation. Journal of Intelligence, 4(3), 11.
  8. Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Vermeulen, K., Ogier, S., Brooksher, R., Zook, D., & Lemos, Z. (2002). Comparison of faster and slower responders to early intervention in reading: Differentiating features of their language profiles. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511191
  9. Boekaerts, M. (2016). Engagement as an inherent aspect of the learning process. Learning and instruction, 43, 76-83.
  10. Breadmore, H. L., Vardy, E. J., Cunningham, A. J., Kwok, R. K. W., & Carroll, J. M. (2019). Literacy development: Evidence review. Education Endowment Foundation
  11. Buchanan Hill, J. (2016). Questioning techniques: A study of instructional practice. Peabody Journal of Education, 91(5), 660-671.
  12. Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9(9), 88–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.001
  13. Cirino, P. T., Romain, M. A., Barth, A. E., Tolar, T. D., Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2013). Reading skill components and impairments in middle school struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 26(7), 1059–1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9406-3
  14. Cukurova, M., Khan-Galaria, M., Millán, E., & Luckin, R. (2022). A learning analytics approach to monitoring the quality of online one-to-one tutoring. Journal of Learning Analytics, 9(2), 105-120. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2022.7411
  15. Denton, C. A., Tolar, T. D., Fletcher, J. M., Barth, A. E., Vaughn, S., & Francis, D. J. (2013). Effects of tier 3 intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties and characteristics of inadequate responders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 633–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032581
  16. Dille, J. (2022). The importance of lesson completion time on student accuracy in a computer-delivered inference making intervention for middle school struggling readers. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing
  17. Doleman, B., Williams, J. P., & Lund, J. (2019). Why most published meta-analysis findings are false. Techniques in Coloproctology, 23(9). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-02020-y
  18. Domingue, B. W., Kanopka, K., Stenhaug, B., Sulik, M. J., Beverly, T., Brinkhuis, M., Circi, R., Faul, J., Liao, D., McCandliss, B., Obradović, J., Piech, C., Porter, T., Project iLEAD Consortium, Soland, J., Weeks, J., Wise, S. L., & Yeatman, J. (2022). Speed–accuracy trade-off? Not so fast: Marginal changes in speed have inconsistent relationships with accuracy in real-world settings. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 47(5), 576–602. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986221099260
  19. Donegan, R. E., & Wanzek, J. (2021). Correction to: Effects of reading interventions implemented for upper elementary struggling readers: A look at recent research. Reading and Writing, 34(8). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10170-5
  20. Dyson, M., & Haselgrove, M. (2001). The effects of reading speed and reading patterns on the understanding of text read from screen. Journal of Research in Reading, 23(2), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00115
  21. Ebel, R. L. (1953). The use of item response time measurements in the construction of educational achievement tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 13(3), 391–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316445301300303
  22. Everaert, P., Opdecam, E., & Maussen, S. (2017). The relationship between motivation, learning approaches, academic performance and time spent. Accounting Education, 26(1), 78-107.
  23. Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177
  24. Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(7), 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1598/jaal.53.7.6
  25. Filges, T., Sonne‐Schmidt, C. S., & Jørgensen, A. M. K. (2015). PROTOCOL: Small class sizes for improving student achievement in primary and secondary schools: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 11(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.148
  26. Fletcher, J. M., Morris, R. D., & Lyon, G. R. (2003). Classification and definition of learning disabilities: An integrative perspective. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 30-56). The Guilford Press.
  27. Garrett, H. E. (1922) A study of the relation of accuracy to speed. Journal of Educational Psychology. 14(1), 56. https://doi.org.10.1037/h0064831.
  28. Gest, S. D., & Gest, J. M. (2005). Reading tutoring for students at academic and behavioral risk: Effects on time-on-task in the classroom. Education and Treatment of Children, 25-47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42899826
  29. Godwin, K. E., Seltman, H., Almeda, M., Davis Skerbetz, M., Kai, S., Baker, R. S., & Fisher, A. V. (2021). The elusive relationship between time on-task and learning: Not simply an issue of measurement. Educational Psychology, 41(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2021.1894324
  30. Golan, D. D., Barzillai, M., & Katzir, T. (2018). The effect of presentation mode on children's reading preferences, performance, and self-evaluations. Computers & Education, 126, 346-358.
  31. Goldhammer, F., & Entink, R. H. K. (2011). Speed of reasoning and its relation to reasoning ability. Intelligence, 39(2-3), 108-119. https://doi.org/10/1016/j.intell.2011.02.001
  32. Goldhammer, F., Naumann, J., Stelter, A., Tólke, H., & Klieme, E. (2014). The time on task effect in reading and problem solving is moderated by task difficult and skill: Insights from a computer-based large-scale assessment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 608. https://doi.org/10/1037/a0034716
  33. Hall, V. C., & Russell, W. J. (1974) Multitrait-multimethod analysis of conceptual tempo. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(6), 932. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021538
  34. Heitz, R. P. (2014). The speed-accuracy tradeoff: history, physiology, methodology, and behavior. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2014.00150
  35. Henmon, V. A. C. (1911). The relation of the time of a judgement to its accuracy. Psychological review, 18(3) 186. https://doi.org/10.1037/h00745794
  36. Howard, S. K., Ma, J., & Yang, J. (2016). Student rules: Exploring patterns of students’ computer-efficacy and engagement with digital technologies in learning. Computers & Education, 101, 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.008
  37. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-17 (1997), https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-105publ17 [GovInfo (.gov)]
  38. Irwin, V., De La Rosa, J., Wang, K., Hein, S., Zhang, J., Burr, R., ... & Parker, S. (2022). Report on the Condition of Education 2022. NCES 2022-144. National Center for Education Statistics.
  39. Kagen, J. (1966). Reflection-impulsivity: The generality and dynamics of conceptual temp. Journal tempo. Journal of abnormal psychology, 71(1), 17. https://doi.org.10.1037/h0022886
  40. Katsimpokis, D., Hawkins, G. E., & van Maanen, L. (2020). Not all speed-accuracy trade-off manipulations have the same psychological effect. Computational Brain & Behavior, 3(3), 252–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-020-00074-y
  41. Keith, C. S. (2018). Achievement gap in reading: A study of school practices and effectual results revelations and recommendations. Forum on Public Policy Online, 2018(1). Oxford Round Table. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1180834.pdf
  42. Kim, S. H., Mims, C., & Holmes, K. P. (2006). An introduction to current trends and benefits of mobile wireless technology use in higher education. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 14(1), 77-100. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/6158
  43. Landers, R. N., & Landers, A. K. (2014). An empirical test of the theory of gamified learning. Simulation & Gaming, 45(6), 769–785. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878114563662
  44. Lee, C. D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the Disciplines: The Challenges of Adolescent Literacy. Final Report from Carnegie Corporation of New York's Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. Carnegie Corporation of New York.
  45. Lepper, M. R., & Malone, T. W. (2021). Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-based education. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction (pp. 255–286). Routledge
  46. Li, H., Wang, X., Hamalainen, T., & Meng, Z. (2024). Effects of different speed-accuracy instructions on perception in psychology experiments: Evidence from event-related potential and oscillation. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2024.1354051
  47. Liesefeld, H. R., & Janczyk, M. (2019). Combining speed and accuracy to control for speed-accuracy trade-offs (?). Behavior Research Methods, 51, 40-60.
  48. Lovett, B. J. (2010). Extended time testing accommodations for students with disabilities: Answers to five fundamental questions. Review of Educational Research, 80(4), 611-638.
  49. Lovett, B. J., & Nelson, J. M. (2021). Systematic review: Educational accommodations for children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 60(4), 448-457.
  50. ‌ Meredith, R. A. (1976). The Effect Of Free- And Imposed-latency Conditions On The Performance Of "impulsive," "reflective," "fast-accurate" And "slow-inaccurate" High School Students With A Test Of Oral Proficiency In Spanish (Order No. 7710570). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (302798594).
  51. Morris, D., Meyer, C., Trathen, W., McGee, J., Vines, N., Stewart, T., Gill, T., & Schlagal, R. (2017). The simple view, instructional level, and the plight of struggling fifth-/sixth-grade readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(3), 278–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1203272
  52. Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (1997). Assessing reading difficulties: The validity and utility of current measures of reading skill. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(3), 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01250.x
  53. National Assessment of Educational Progress (Project). (2024). An Overview of NAEP. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
  54. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 101, Stat. 1425 (2002)
  55. Parkman, S., Litz, D., & Gromik, N. (2018). Examining pre-service teachers’ acceptance of technology-rich learning environments: A UAE case study. Education and Information Technologies, 23(3), 1253–1275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9665-3
  56. Pavlov, A., Duhon, G., & Dawes, J. (2021). Examining the impact of task difficulty on student engagement and learning rates. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1-16.
  57. Peternel, L., Sigaud, O., & Babič, J. (2017). Unifying speed-accuracy trade-off and cost-benefit trade-off in human reaching movements. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 11, 615.
  58. Reschly, A. L., Busch, T. W., Betts, J., Deno, S. L., & Long, J. D. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement oral reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of school psychology, 47(6), 427-469. https://doi.10.1016/j.jsp.2009.07.001
  59. Risberg, A. K., Widlund, A., Hellstrand, H., Vataja, P., & Salmi, P. (2023). Profiles of reading fluency and spelling skills: Stability and change across the early school years. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 68(6), 1231–1246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413504995
  60. Rosenshine, B., Berliner, D. (1978). Academic engaged time. British Journal of Teacher Education, 4, 3-16.
  61. Ruesch, J. M., & Sarvary, M. A. (2024). Structure and flexibility: Systemic and explicit assignment extensions foster an inclusive learning environment. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1324506.
  62. Rumrill, P. D., Jr., Cook, B. G., & Stevenson, N. A. (2020). Research in special education: Designs, methods, and applications (3rd ed.). Ringgold, Inc. ProtoView, 2020(10).
  63. Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., & Stuebing, K. K. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(4), 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413504995
  64. Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C. (2017). Computer-based technology and student engagement: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0063-0
  65. Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A. (2011). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.002
  66. Spencer, M., & Wagner, R. K. (2018). The comprehension problems of children with poor reading comprehension despite adequate decoding: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(3), 366-400. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317749187
  67. Steacy, L. M., Kearns, D. M., Gilbert, J. K., Compton, D. L., Cho, E., Lindstrom, E. R., & Collins, A. A. (2017). Exploring individual differences in irregular word recognition among children with early-emerging and late-emerging word reading difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 51.
  68. Sulak, S. E., & Günes, F. (2017). The effects of teaching informative text through processual model on reading comprehension skills. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(2), 265-271. https://doi.10.26822/iejee.2017236121
  69. United States. (1973). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 29 U.S.C. § 794
  70. Uysal, P. K., & Bilge, H. (2018). An investigation on the relationship between reading fluency and level of reading comprehension according to the type of texts. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 11(2), 161-172.
  71. van der Linden, W. J. (2009). Conceptual issues in response-time modeling. Journal of Educational Measurement, 46(3), 247–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2009.00080.x
  72. Vandierendonck, A. (2017). A comparison of methods to combine speed and accuracy measures of performance: A rejoinder on the binning procedure. Behavior research methods, 49(2), 653-673.
  73. Vaughn, S., Solís, M., Miciak, J., Taylor, W. P., & Fletcher, J. M. (2016). Effects from a randomized control trial comparing researcher and school-implemented treatments with fourth graders with significant reading difficulties. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(sup1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1126386
  74. Wallace, S., Dobres, J., & Sawyer, B. D. (2021). Considering the speed and comprehension trade-off in reading mediated by typography. Journal of Vision, 21(9), 2249. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.21.9.2249
  75. Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N. K., Metz, K., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G., & Danielson, L. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83(2), 163–195. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313477212
  76. Yeari, M., Schlesinger, L. M., & Moshka, E. (2022). The role of time constraints and domain knowledge in reading comprehension tests: The case of text‐first versus questions‐first strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(3), 913-936.
  77. Zhang, M., & Li, X. (2021). Design of smart classroom system based on internet of things technology and smart classroom. Mobile Information Systems, 2021, Article 5438878. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5438878

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic