Computerized writing and reading instruction for students in grades 4–9 with specific learning disabilities affecting written language

Abstract

Computer scientists and educational researchers evaluated effectiveness of computerized instruction tailored to evidence-based impairments in specific learning disabilities (SLDs) in students in grades 4 to 9 with persisting SLDs despite prior extra help. Following comprehensive, evidence-based differential diagnosis for dysgraphia (impaired handwriting), dyslexia (impaired word reading and spelling), and oral and written language learning disability (OWL LD), students completed 18 sessions of computerized instruction over about 3 months. The 11 students taught letter formation with sequential, numbered, colored arrow cues with full contours who wrote letters on lines added to iPAD screen showed more and stronger treatment effects than the 21 students taught using only visual motion cues for letter formation who wrote on an unlined computer monitor. Teaching to all levels of language in multiple functional language systems (by ear, eye, mouth, and hand) close in time resulted in significant gains in reading and writing skills for the group and in diagnosed SLD hallmark impairments for individuals; also, performance on computerized learning activities correlated with treatment gains. Results are discussed in reference to need for both accommodations and explicit instruction for persisting SLDs and the potential for computers to teach handwriting, morphophonemic orthographies, comprehension, and composition.

Idea units in notes and summaries for read texts by keyboard and pencil in middle childhood students with specific learning disabilities: Cognitive and brain findings

“…After the first imaging session, all children participated in an after school program in which HAWK ™ [58] delivered on iPads taught strategies for reading source material, strategies for taking notes, and strategies for writing summaries. University graduate research assistants served as lead teachers who helped log in children and monitored their compliance with procedures in sessions that generally lasted about one hour.…”

“…Next, they read expository source material of comparable length (number of words) and content (first six lessons on history of math in human civilization and last six lessons on world geography and cultures) across lessons, which were also used in all prior studies in this programmatic research, for example, see Tanimoto et al [58]; but the strategies for reading source material, taking notes, and writing summaries were not introduced until iteration 4. They could look at the source material and reread while taking notes; but during writing summaries they could refer only to their notes.…”

“…The first study showed that computerized handwriting, spelling, and composing instruction could improve writing skills on normed measures in both those with and without SLDs in written language [8]. The second study showed that computerized instruction could improve reading as well as writing skills on normed measures in both those with and without SLDs in written language [58]. The third study showed that for students with persisting SLDs despite earlier intervention computerized lessons using multiple modes of language input (reading or listening) and letter production (stylus or pencil, and keyboarding—hunting and pecking or touch typing) for written language output could improve letter production and related writing skills on normed measures for students with SLDs in written language (Thompson et al, in press [60]).…”

Relationships between language input and letter output modes in writing notes and summaries for students in grades 4 to 9 with persisting writing disabilities

“…The lack of research in this area is particularly unfortunate considering the advent and proliferation of mobile technologies (e.g., smart phones, tablets, smart watches, smart/digital pens), along with a variety of integrated input methods (finger-interaction, touch screens, stylus, voice recognition, miniaturized and virtual keyboards (Kennedy & Deshler, 2010). However, recent studies (e.g., Berninger,, Nagy, Tanimoto, Thompson, & Abbott, 2015; Higgins & Raskind, 2005; Tanimoto, Thompson, Berninger, Nagy, & Abbott, 2015), along with the current one, are evaluating the use of AT in writing instruction for students with SLDs.…”

“…Iteration 3 (cohort 3), which was retained in iteration 4 (cohort 4), introduced solid and dotted lines on screen to assist in proportionality and placements of written strokes. Comparison of iteration 3 and 4 showed those lines on the screen improved the writing outcomes (Tanimoto et al, 2015). In the current study, iteration 3 used with cohort 3 is compared to iteration 4 used with cohort 4 to assess effects of stylus (cohort 3) versus groovy pencil (cohort 4) and hunting and pecking (cohort 3) versus touch typing without looking at the keys (cohort 4).…”