Cited by 110Writing and Handwriting EducationReading and Literacy DevelopmentAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

Computer instruction in handwriting, spelling, and composing for students with specific learning disabilities in grades 4–9

Open access
Berninger, Virginia W., Nagy, William, Tanimoto, Steve, Thompson, Rob, Abbott, Robert D.·2015·Computers & Education

Abstract

Effectiveness of iPad computerized writing instruction was evaluated for 4 th to 9 th graders (n=35) with diagnosed specific learning disabilities (SLDs) affecting writing: dysgraphia (impaired handwriting), dyslexia (impaired spelling), and oral and written language learning disability (OWL LD) (impaired syntax composing). Each of the 18 two-hour lessons had multiple learning activities aimed at improving subword- (handwriting), word- (spelling), and syntax- (sentence composing) level language skills by engaging all four language systems (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) to create a functional writing system. To evaluate treatment effectiveness, normed measures of handwriting, spelling, and composing were used with the exception of one non-normed alphabet writing task. Results showed that the sample as a whole improved significantly from pretest to posttest in three handwriting measures, four spelling measures, and both written and oral syntax construction measures. All but oral syntax was evaluated with pen and paper tasks, showing that the computer writing instruction transferred to better writing with pen and paper. Performance on learning activities during instruction correlated with writing outcomes; and individual students tended to improve in the impaired skill associated with their diagnosis. Thus, although computers are often used in upper elementary school and middle school in the United States (US) for accommodations (alternatives to pen and paper) for students with persisting SLDs affecting writing, this study shows computers can also be used for Tier 3 instruction to improve the writing skills of students in grades 4 to 9 with history of persisting writing disabilities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.005

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 2 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Finding

    The students improved in both written and oral syntax construction, and those syntax effects were of medium size.

    “The participating students improved in both written and oral syntax construction.”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified
  • Finding

    Mean mode effects were not statistically significant for handwriting, spelling, or composing lessons.

    “Because mean mode effect was not statistically significant for handwriting, spelling, or composing lessons, the average scores for RTI during specific learning activities were summed across combined modes in the correlation analyses that follow.”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified
  • Finding

    The paper characterized the study as proof of concept that computer instruction can provide evidence-based and individualized writing instruction for students with writing-related SLDs.

    “The current study provides proof of concept that computer instruction in the upper elementary and middle school grades can be used to provide evidence-based writing instruction for students with SLDs affecting writing in general and also individualized instruction aimed at the instructional needs in writing for those with dysgraphia, dyslexia, or OWL LD.”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified
  • Finding

    The study concluded that a common set of computerized writing lessons may be effective for students with dysgraphia, dyslexia, or OWL LD in classrooms.

    “it may be possible to use a common set of computerized writing lessons containing learning activities tailored to instructional needs of students with dysgraphia (impaired handwriting), dyslexia (impaired spelling), or OWL LD/SLI (impaired syntax comprehension and composing) to provide effective writing instruction for all students in a classroom with SLDs affecting written language regardless of the specific diagnosis.”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified
  • Finding

    For TOC Letter Choice, several phonological, orthographic, morpho-syntactic, and semantic learning activities were significantly correlated with the spelling outcome.

    “For TOC Letter Choice, phonological, orthographic, morpho/syntactic, and semantic Learning Activities were significantly correlated with the posttest learning outcome”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Spelling-responder percentage conflicts with the reported count

    Minor

    If only 4 of 17 students with dyslexia did not respond on spelling measures, 13 of 17 responded-about 76%, not nearly 60%. The latter percentage matches the separately reported count of 10 who improved in both spelling and handwriting.

  • Ethnicity counts exceed the sample size

    Minor

    The reported ethnicity counts sum to 37 children, but the study reports 35 participants.

    Reported 35 · recomputed 37

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 70 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Pearson, 2005
  2. Richards, 2009, fMRI sequential-finger movement activation differentiating good and poor writers, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 29, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berninger, V. W., Nagy, W., Tanimoto, S., Thompson, R., & Abbott, R. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Seattle Pacific University (US)
Corresponding author
Berninger, Virginia W.
Venue
Computers & Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-02
Volume
81
Pages
154-168
ISSN
0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2090696716
Cited by
110
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6
FWCI
46.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers & Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (P50HD071764)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
specific learning disabilities, dysgraphia, dyslexia, computer-assisted writing instruction, iPad, handwriting, spelling, syntax, primary and secondary school students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read (extract-v2) on 2026-09-25.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review