Prior work suggests that receiving feedback that one's response was correct or incorrect (right/wrong feedback) does not help learners, as compared to not receiving any feedback at all (Pashler, Cepeda, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2005). In three experiments, we examined the generality of this conclusion. Right/wrong feedback did not aid error correction, regardless of whether subjects learned facts embedded in prose (Exp. 1) or translations of foreign vocabulary (Exp. 2). While right/wrong feedback did not improve the overall retention of correct answers (Exps. 1 and 2), it facilitated retention of low-confidence correct answers (Exp. 3). Reviewing the original materials was very useful to learners, but this benefit was similar after receiving either right/wrong feedback or no feedback (Exp. 1 and 2). Overall, right/wrong feedback conveys some information to the learner, but is not nearly as useful as being told the correct answer or having the chance to review the to-be-learned materials.

Smartphones and tablets incorporate built-in accessibility features, but little is known about their impact within the visually impaired population. This study explored the use of smartphones and tablets, the degree to which they replace traditional visual aids, and factors influencing these decisions. Data were collected through an anonymous online survey targeted toward visually impaired participants above the age of 18, whom had been using a smartphone or tablet for at least three months. Among participants (n = 466), 87.4% felt that mainstream devices are replacing traditional solutions. This is especially true for object identification, navigation, requesting sighted help, listening to audiobooks, reading eBooks and optical character recognition. In these cases, at least two-thirds of respondents indicated that mainstream devices were replacing traditional tools most or all of the time. Users across all ages with higher selfreported proficiency were more likely to select a mainstream device over a traditional solution. Our results suggest that mainstream devices are frequently used amongst visually impaired adults in place of or in combination with traditional assistive aids for specific tasks; however, traditional devices are still preferable for certain tasks, including those requiring extensive typing or editing. This provides important context to designers and rehabilitation personnel in understanding the factors influencing device usage.

No abstract

Validation of the International Reading Speed Texts in a Canadian Sample Elliott MorriceThe English language IReST is a measure of continuous reading, developed and Validation of the International Reading Speed Texts in a Canadian SampleThe International Reading Speed Texts (IReST) have been developed as a standardized measure used to assess continuous reading in normally sighted individuals, and those with visual impairments (Trauzettel-Klosinski & Dietz, 2012). Within the IReST, each text contains a measure of mean reading rate (in words per minute) and variance (standard deviation), allowing for comparisons between an individual and the published reading rates. This assessment was developed in Europe, and has been translated and validated in 17 different languages, including English. The English language IReST texts were developed and normalized using a sample in the United Kingdom (UK), and as such, the texts use terms and phrases that are commonly used in the UK. Although the IReST were developed and normalized in the UK, it is sold internationally, and is used throughout the United States and Canada as a measure to assess reading speed. This raises the problem that because the normative values developed for the IReST are based on a UK English speaking sample, then these normative values may not be valid in a North American (NA) English speaking population. Therefore, the aim of the current thesis is to validate the IReST in an English-speaking NA sample.