Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 1043–1068 | Cite as

Effective instruction for persisting dyslexia in upper grades: Adding hope stories and computer coding to explicit literacy instruction

  • Robert Thompson
  • Steve Tanimoto
  • Ruby Dawn Lyman
  • Kira Geselowitz
  • Kristin Kawena Begay
  • Kathleen Nielsen
  • William Nagy
  • Robert Abbott
  • Marshall Raskind
  • Virginia BerningerEmail author


Children in grades 4 to 6 (N = 14) who despite early intervention had persisting dyslexia (impaired word reading and spelling) were assessed before and after computerized reading and writing instruction aimed at subword, word, and syntax skills shown in four prior studies to be effective for treating dyslexia. During the 12 two-hour sessions once a week after school they first completed HAWK Letters in Motion© for manuscript and cursive handwriting, HAWK Words in Motion© for phonological, orthographic, and morphological coding for word reading and spelling, and HAWK Minds in Motion© for sentence reading comprehension and written sentence composing. A reading comprehension activity in which sentences were presented one word at a time or one added word at a time was introduced. Next, to instill hope they could overcome their struggles with reading and spelling, they read and discussed stories about struggles of Buckminister Fuller who overcame early disabilities to make important contributions to society. Finally, they engaged in the new Kokopelli’s World (KW)©, blocks-based online lessons, to learn computer coding in introductory programming by creating stories in sentence blocks (Thompson and Tanimoto 2016). Participants improved significantly in hallmark word decoding and spelling deficits of dyslexia, three syntax skills (oral construction, listening comprehension, and written composing), reading comprehension (with decoding as covariate), handwriting, orthographic and morphological coding, orthographic loop, and inhibition (focused attention). They answered more reading comprehension questions correctly when they had read sentences presented one word at a time (eliminating both regressions out and regressions in during saccades) than when presented one added word at a time (eliminating only regressions out during saccades). Indicators of improved self-efficacy that they could learn to read and write were observed. Reminders to pay attention and stay on task needed before adding computer coding were not needed after computer coding was added.


Dyslexia Computerized writing instruction Hope themes Mode of sentence presentation during reading comprehension Computer coding instruction 



This research was supported by HD P50HD071764 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and involved an interdisciplinary team. The first two authors developed the computer platform for HAWK™ and Kokopelli’s World™. The third, fourth, and fifth authors were the teachers who worked with students using the computerized learning activities in the afterschool program. The sixth author administered and scored the pretest and posttest assessments. The seventh author and tenth author developed the contents of the comprehension checks for the one word at a time and one added word at a time and modified the content of prior versions to create the version of HAWK™ used in the current study. The eighth author analyzed all the results. The ninth author advised on research on hope and motivation and user-computer interface, and obtained a distribution agreement with the UW for disseminating HAWK™, and the tenth author wrote the Hope Stories and supervised the acquisition of sample and afterschool program.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The last author is author of PAL II used for the oral sentence working memory task and the expressive coding (orthographic) task.


  1. Abbott, R., Mickail, T., Richards, T., Renninger, A., Hidi, S., Beers, S., & Berninger, V. (2017). Understanding interest and self-efficacy in the reading and writing of students with persisting specific learning disabilities during middle childhood and early adolescence. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 3(1), 41–64.  10.12973/Ijem.3.1.41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett, A., Henderson, L., Scheib, B., & Schulz, C. (2007). Detailed assessment of speed of handwriting (DASH) copy best and fast. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, A., Henderson, S., Scheib, B., & Schulz, J. (2009). Development and standardization of a new handwriting speed test: The detailed assessment of speed of handwriting. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 6, 137–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batshaw, M., Roizen, N., & Lotrecchiano, G. (2013). Children with disabilities, 7th edition. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  5. Berninger, V. (2000). Dyslexia an invisible, treatable disorder: The story of Einstein’s ninja turtles. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berninger, V. (2007). Process assessment of the learner, 2nd edition. In Diagnostic for reading and writing (PAL-II RW). San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation. Now Pearson.Google Scholar
  7. Berninger, V. (2009). Highlights of programmatic, interdisciplinary research on writing. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24, 68–79 NIHMS 124304 PMC 2717633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berninger, V. W. (2015). Interdisciplinary frameworks for schools: Best professional practices for serving the needs of all students. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Companion websites with readings and resources and advisory panel. All royalties go to division 16 to support these websites and develop future editions.
  9. Berninger, V., & Richards, T. (2010). Inter-relationships among behavioral markers, genes, brain, and treatment in dyslexia and dysgraphia. Future Neurology, 5, 597–617. NIHMS 226931 PMC 2953808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berninger, V., Nielsen, K., Abbott, R., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (2008a). Writing problems in developmental dyslexia: Under-recognized and under-treated. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 1–21 NIHMS 37383 PMC 2344144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berninger, V., Winn, W., Stock, P., Abbott, R., Eschen, K., Lin, C., et al. (2008b). Tier 3 specialized writing instruction for students with dyslexia. Reading and Writing. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 95–129 Printed springer on line. May 15, 2007.Google Scholar
  12. Berninger, V., Nagy, W., Tanimoto, S., Thompson, R., & Abbott, R. (2015). Computer instruction in handwriting, spelling, and composing for students with specific learning disabilities in grades 4 to 9. Computers and Education, 81, 154–168. NIHMS636683. Scholar
  13. Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Cook, C., & Nagy, W. (2016). Relationships of attention and executive functions to oral language, reading, and writing skills and systems in middle childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1–16. NIHMS 721063.
  14. Berninger, V., Geselowitz, K., & Wallis, P. (2017). Multiple perspectives on the nature of writing: Typically developing writers in grades 1, 3, 5, and 7 and students with writing disabilities. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), The Lifespan Development of Writing. Chapter 5. Urbana: National Teachers of English (NCTE) Books Program (in press).Google Scholar
  15. Bruck, M. (1993). Component spelling skills of college students with childhood diagnoses of dyslexia. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 171–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and mind (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Connelly, V., Campbell, S., MacLean, M., & Barnes, J. (2006). Contribution of lower order skills to the written composition of college students with and without dyslexia. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Delis, D., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. (2001). Delis-Kaplan executive function system. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation/Pearson.Google Scholar
  19. Fuller, B. (1963). Operating manual for spaceship earth. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co. ISBN 0-525-47433-1.Google Scholar
  20. Fuller, B. (1972). Buckminster fuller to children of earth. Garden City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  21. Fuller, B., Agel, J., & Flore, Q. (1970). I seem to be a verb. New York: Bantam Paperbacks.Google Scholar
  22. Guzdial, M. (2016). Learner-centered design of computing education: Research on computing for everyone. San Rafael: Morgan & Claypool.Google Scholar
  23. Howland, K., & Good, J. (2015). Learning to communicate computationally with Flip: A bi-modal programming language for game creation. Computers & Education, 80, 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huffington Post (2016). Coding allows learning disabled students to shine. Online at
  25. Idan, O., & Margalit, M. (2014). Socioemotional self-perceptions, family climate, and hopeful thinking among students with learning disabilities and typically achieving students from the same classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(2), 136–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. InfoWorld. (1983). Software reviews: Spinnaker. InfoWorld, 6(33), 56–58.Google Scholar
  27. Katusic, S. K., Colligan, R. C., Weaver, A. L., & Barbaresi, W. J. (2009). The forgotten learning disability – Epidemiology of written language disorder in a population-based birth cohort (1976-1982), Rochester, Minnesota. Pediatrics, 123, 1306–1313 PMCID: PMC2923476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lackaye, T., & Margalit, M. (2008). Self-efficacy, loneliness, effort, and hope: Developmental differences in the experiences of students with learning disabilities and their non-learning disabled peers at two age groups. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 6(2), 1–20.Google Scholar
  29. Lefly, D., & Pennington, B. (1991). Spelling errors and reading fluency in dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maughan, B., Messer, J., Collishaw, S., Snowling, M. J., Yule, W., & Rutter, M. (2009). Persistence of literacy problems: Spelling in adolescence and at mid-life. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 50(8), 893–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morgado, M., Cruz, M., & Kahn, K. (2006). Radia Perlman—A pioneer of young children computer programming. Current Developments in Technology-Assisted Education, 1903–1908.Google Scholar
  33. Nagy, W., Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98,134–147.Google Scholar
  34. Nagy, W., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Vaughan, K., & Vermeulen, K. (2003). Relationship of morphology and other language skills to literacy skills in at-risk second graders and at-risk fourth grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 730–742.Google Scholar
  35. Niedo, J., Lee, Y. L., Breznitz, Z., & Berninger, V. (2014/2013). Computerized silent reading rate and strategy instruction for fourth graders at risk in silent reading rate. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(2) 100-110. NIHMSID #526584.
  36. Niedo, J., Tanimoto, S., Thompson, R., Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. (2016). Computerized instruction in translation strategies for students in upper elementary and middle school grades with persisting learning disabilities in written language. Learning Disabilities. A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 62–78 NIHMS 836952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nielsen, K., Haberman, K., Todd, R., Abbott, R., Mickail, T., & Berninger, V. (in press). Emotional and behavioral correlates of persisting specific learning disabilities in written language (SLDs-WL) during middle childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. NIHMSID 852098.Google Scholar
  38. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  39. Papert, S., & Solomon, C. (1972). Twenty things to do with a computer. MIT. AI lab. LOGO Memo 3, July 1971. Also in Educational Technology, April 1972.Google Scholar
  40. Pearson. (2009). Wechsler individual achievement test (3rd ed.). San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  41. Pittman, R., Joshi, M., & Carreker, S. (2014). Improving the spelling ability among speakers of African American English through explicit instruction. Literacy Research and Instruction, 53(2), 107–133. Scholar
  42. Potter, M., Kroll, J., & Harris, C. (1980). Comprehension and memory in rapid sequential reading. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 395–418). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Powell, N., Moore, D., Gray, J., Finlay, J., & Reaney, J. (2004). Dyslexia and learning computer programming. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 3(2), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rayner, K., Murphy, L., Henderson, J., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). Selective attention dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 6, 357–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Resnick, M., Malonev, A., Monrov-Hernảndez, N., Rusk, E., Eastmond, K., Brennan, A., Millner, E., Rosenbaum, F., Silver, J., Silverman, B., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roeske, D., Ludwig, K., Neuhoff, N., Becker, J., Bartling, J., Bruder, J., et al. (2011). First genome-wide association scan on neurophysiological endophenotypes points to trans-regulation effects on SLC2A3 in dyslexic children. In Molecular Psychiatry, 1–11. Group: Nature Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. Sammet, J. (1978) The early history of COBOL. SIGPLAN not.13, 8, 121-161.
  48. Sanders, E., Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (2017). Sequential prediction of literacy achievement for specific learning disabilities contrasting in impaired levels of language in grades 4 to 9. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Article first published online: February 15, 2017. NIHMS 846089.
  49. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clinical evaluations of language fundamentals 4 th edition: Examiner’s Manual. San Antonio: Harcourt Assessment Inc..Google Scholar
  51. Serrano, F., & Defior, S. (2011). Spanish dyslexic spelling abilities: The case of consonant clusters. Journal of Research in Reading.
  52. Tanimoto, S., Thompson, R., Berninger, V., Nagy W., & Abbott, R. (2015). Computerized writing and reading instruction for students in grades 4 to 9 with specific learning disabilities affecting written language. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31, 671-689. NIHMS 721216. Released to PMC4743045.
  53. Thompson, R., & Tanimoto, S. (2016). Children’s Storytelling and coding: A literature review and future potential. PPIG, v 7 docX.Google Scholar
  54. Thompson, R., Tanimoto, S, Abbott, R., Nielsen, K., Geselowitz, K., Lyman, R. et al. (2016a). Relationships between language input and letter output modes in writing notes and summaries for students in grades 4 to 9 with persisting writing disabilities. Assistive Technology Journal. Link for on line published paper: http://www.Tandfonline.Com/doi/full/10.1080/10400435.2016.1199066 NIHMS 846387.
  55. Thompson, R., Tanimoto, S., Berninger, V., & Nagy, W. (2016b). Design studies for stylus and finger-based interactions in writing instruction on tablets. In T. Hammond, S. Valentine, A. Adler, & M. Payton (Eds.), Revolutionizing education with digital ink (pp. 51–69). Cham: Springer International Publishing AG. Human-Computer Interaction Series. Scholar
  56. Thompson, R., Tanimoto, S., Berninger, V., & Nagy, W. (2016c). Coding, reading, and writing: Integrated instruction in written language. UK: IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human Centric Computing.Google Scholar
  57. Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency. Austin: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  58. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). The comprehensive test of phonological processing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  59. Wanzek, K., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Swanson, E., Edmonds, M., & Kim, A. (2006). A synthesis of spelling and reading interventions and their effects on the spelling outcomes of students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(6), 528–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children, 4th edition (WISC-IV). San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  61. Wing, J.M. (2006) Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.Google Scholar
  62. Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2001a). Woodcock-Johnson III psychoeducational cognitive test battery. Itasca: Riverside.Google Scholar
  63. Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2001b). Woodcock-Johnson III achievement battery. Itasca: Riverside.Google Scholar
  64. Yagle, K., Richards, T., Askren, K., Mestre, Z., Beers, S., Abbott, R., et al. (2017). Relationships between eye movements during sentence reading comprehension, word spelling and reading, and DTI and fMRI connectivity in students with and without dysgraphia or dyslexia. Journal of Systems and Integrated Neuroscience, 3(1), 1–11.  10.15761/JSIN.1000150 NIHMS 846434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Thompson
    • 1
  • Steve Tanimoto
    • 1
  • Ruby Dawn Lyman
    • 2
  • Kira Geselowitz
    • 2
  • Kristin Kawena Begay
    • 2
  • Kathleen Nielsen
    • 2
  • William Nagy
    • 3
  • Robert Abbott
    • 4
  • Marshall Raskind
    • 5
  • Virginia Berninger
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of Washington (UW)SeattleUSA
  2. 2.Educational Psychology (Center for Oral and Written Language Learners OWLs)UWSeattleUSA
  3. 3.EducationSeattle Pacific UniversitySeattleUSA
  4. 4.Quantitative Studies, Measurement and StatisticsUWSeattleUSA
  5. 5.Opt-EdBainbridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations