While educational technology can offer exciting tools, it’s essential to recognize its limitations when used inappropriately — especially for children with reading disabilities. Here’s why computer-based reading often doesn’t work unless carefully designed and supported.
1. Passive screen reading is ineffective
For children with reading disabilities, passive screen reading — simply viewing text on a digital device without built-in support — offers little benefit and may even hinder progress.
Why it doesn’t work:
Reading is a cognitively demanding task for children with reading-based learning disorders. When they’re presented with text on a screen (an e-book, PDF, or webpage), they must:
- Decipher unfamiliar words,
- Sustain attention over time,
- Mentally track visual input,
- Hold word sequences in working memory,
- And comprehend meaning — all at once.
This already heavy cognitive load is amplified by the digital format, which can introduce visual clutter, eye strain, navigation issues, and reduced tactile feedback. Unlike printed books, screens often lack clear visual anchors like page layout or finger tracking, making it harder to stay focused and oriented.
Cognitive overload in action:
Imagine a child with poor visual memory and slow processing speed trying to read a short story on a tablet. The words scroll or shift as they swipe, they lose their place easily, and there’s no auditory cue to reinforce decoding. Instead of focusing on comprehension, they’re fighting just to stay on the line. The end result? Mental fatigue, discouragement, and reduced retention.
What passive digital reading lacks:
- No text-to-speech
- No decoding support (like highlighting or phonics cues)
- No interactivity or feedback
- No adjustments for pacing or difficulty
- No scaffolds for working memory or visual tracking
What research says:
Studies have shown that struggling readers benefit more from interactive and multimodal reading than from static digital text. For example:
- Meyer & Rose (2005) emphasize the importance of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which highlights the need for multiple means of representation — including audio, visual, and kinesthetic supports.
- Proctor et al. (2007) found that struggling readers performed significantly better with digital texts that included embedded supports like definitions, read-aloud features, and summaries.
Without these scaffolds, passive digital reading does little more than replicate the print experience — and in some ways, makes it harder.
A better alternative:
Effective programs don’t just present text — they enhance it:
- Words are highlighted as they’re read aloud,
- Definitions or illustrations pop up with a click,
- Sentences can be repeated at slower speeds,
- Visual distractions are minimized, and
- Children can interact with the story through games, quizzes, or decision points.
These tools don’t replace reading instruction but support it in a way that passive screen reading never can.
2. Overreliance without teacher support
One of the most common pitfalls in computer-based reading interventions is the assumption that technology alone is enough. It’s not. While digital programs can offer valuable practice, they are not a substitute for structured, evidence-based teaching—especially for students with reading disabilities.
The illusion of “independent learning”:
Many platforms advertise “self-paced” or “independent learning,” suggesting that children can simply log in, engage with the material, and improve their reading over time. But for students with reading disorders, this is a dangerous oversimplification. These learners need explicit, guided instruction, not just exposure to more words on a screen.
Reading disabilities don’t resolve through practice alone. Children often require:
- Phonological awareness training,
- Systematic decoding instruction,
- Guided oral reading with corrective feedback,
- Strategies for vocabulary and comprehension.
A computer can model some of these skills but can’t watch a child’s lips to notice decoding errors. It can’t re-explain a concept based on the child’s body language. It can’t scaffold instruction in the moment based on frustration or misunderstanding. That’s the role of a skilled teacher.
What goes wrong without teacher involvement?
- Children may skip through activities or guess answers without understanding.
- Misconceptions go uncorrected and can become ingrained.
- Emotional disengagement sets in — they feel alone, confused, or overwhelmed.
- The program might be too hard, too easy, or simply not aligned with their specific learning profile.
Even adaptive programs (those that adjust difficulty levels) often lack the nuanced decision-making a teacher brings to an intervention session.
What research says:
- Slavin et al. (2011) found that tech-based reading programs were significantly more effective when paired with teacher-led instruction than when used in isolation.
- Fletcher & Vaughn (2009) stress that children with learning disabilities benefit most from explicit, teacher-led instruction that includes modeling, guided practice, and corrective feedback — features computers can only partially replicate.
What works better?
Blended learning models.
The most effective programs combine:
- Digital practice (for reinforcement and engagement),
- Face-to-face instruction (for modeling, error correction, and emotional support),
- Individualized goal-setting and monitoring.
This hybrid approach ensures that the child isn’t left to “sink or swim” inside a program that might not truly understand what they need.
Final thought:
Technology is a support, not a solution. Without a trained educator steering the process — adapting methods, re-teaching tricky skills, and connecting learning to real-life context — computer-based programs are like GPS without a destination: all signals, no direction.
3. Not addressing underlying cognitive deficits
Most computer-based reading programs focus on what appears on the surface — words, sentences, and stories. However, for many children with reading disabilities, the real struggle lies underneath the surface, in the cognitive systems that make reading possible in the first place.
Reading isn’t just decoding letters — it’s a cognitive workout.
Children with reading disabilities often experience deficits in areas like:
- Working memory (e.g., holding sounds or sentence parts in mind),
- Processing speed (e.g., how quickly they identify letters, sounds, or words),
- Visual memory and sequencing (e.g., tracking letter order, recognizing word forms),
- Auditory discrimination (e.g., distinguishing similar phonemes like /b/ and /d/).
If a program doesn’t target these foundational skills, it’s like trying to build a house on sand. You can practice reading all day, but gains will be shallow and short-lived if memory, sequencing, and speed don’t improve.
Most programs don’t touch these areas.
Even highly polished reading apps typically focus on the following:
- Vocabulary and fluency drills,
- Phonics rules and spelling patterns,
- Reading comprehension quizzes.
But few, if any, include exercises to train working memory, improve rapid naming, or develop visual-spatial awareness — all of which are often impaired in children with reading disabilities.
Result: plateau or frustration
Children may progress slightly at first, especially if the content is highly structured or gamified. But sooner or later, they hit a wall. That’s when parents or teachers may notice:
- Words still being reversed or skipped,
- Slow, effortful reading despite months of practice,
- Difficulty remembering what was just read,
- Poor transfer of skills to new texts or environments.
The issue isn’t lack of effort — it’s that the program is addressing the symptom (reading difficulty), not the cause (cognitive deficit).
What research says:
- Swanson & Sachse-Lee (2001) found that direct training in working memory and processing speed significantly improved reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities.
- Kibby and Cohen (2008) showed that children with dyslexia frequently exhibit deficits in verbal short-term memory and recommend that interventions target this area.
Programs that fail to integrate cognitive skill development risk missing the root cause of the reading struggle entirely.
A better approach:
Programs that incorporate cognitive exercises — such as memory sequencing, symbol tracking, auditory attention, or rapid automatic naming tasks — can rewire the brain’s processing systems. These are often delivered through:
- Brain-based interventions,
- Therapist-led cognitive training sessions,
- Or hybrid programs that link reading to memory, attention, and visual tracking.
Final takeaway:
If a child’s brain is still struggling to process, store, and retrieve information, simply piling on more reading practice is like trying to upgrade the software without fixing the hard drive. Lasting progress comes from building a brain that’s ready to read — not just more practice at reading.
4. One-size-fits-all content
One of the most overlooked weaknesses of many computer-based reading programs is their tendency to treat all struggling readers the same. But children with reading disabilities are anything but uniform. They vary widely in their strengths, weaknesses, and processing profiles. Unfortunately, many digital programs ignore this reality — offering a standardized experience to a deeply non-standard group.
Why this matters:
There isn’t one type of reading disability. A child may struggle with:
- Phonological processing (e.g., difficulty manipulating sounds),
- Rapid naming (e.g., slow retrieval of letters or words),
- Visual-spatial organization (e.g., letter reversals, skipping lines),
- Working memory (e.g., trouble remembering what was just read).
Or all of the above.
Yet many platforms present a linear learning path that assumes every child moves through the same steps at the same pace — usually modeled after the needs of typical readers or those with only mild deficits. For children with more complex profiles (like double-deficit dyslexia), this approach quickly becomes mismatched and ineffective.
What standardized programs typically offer:
- Pre-set levels based on age or grade,
- Rigid pacing with limited skip/review options,
- Uniform phonics or comprehension drills,
- No cognitive or perceptual customization.
These features may be efficient for program developers, but they leave little room for the nuanced needs of real kids.
The outcome?
- Under-challenged students get bored and disengage.
- Overwhelmed students give up or guess through tasks.
- Gaps remain unaddressed, progress slows, and frustration builds.
Instead of supporting the learner, the program starts working against them.
What research says:
- Berninger & Wolf (2009) emphasize the diversity of reading disabilities and caution against uniform approaches to remediation.
- Shaywitz et al. (1994) show that dyslexia often co-occurs with other processing difficulties, and interventions must reflect that complexity to be effective.
Reading is not a ladder — it’s a web of interconnected skills, and intervention must flex accordingly.
What works better?
Programs should:
- Offer dynamic, individualized paths based on frequent skill checks,
- Let students review mastered skills or slow down when needed,
- Include diagnostic assessments that guide instruction at the cognitive level,
- Adjust not only the what (content) but the how (method of delivery).
In short, the best systems adapt to the child — not the other way around.
Final thought:
You wouldn’t give every child the same pair of glasses and expect perfect vision. So why give every struggling reader the same digital program and expect real growth? Children with reading disabilities deserve interventions that see them — really see them — as individuals with unique learning profiles. Standardized content may be scalable, but it’s rarely transformational.
Edublox offers cognitive training and live online tutoring to students with dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, and other learning disabilities. Our students are in the United States, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere. Book a free consultation to discuss your child’s learning needs.
References:
Berninger, V. W., & Wolf, B. J. (2009). Teaching students with dyslexia and dysgraphia: Lessons from teaching and science. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2007). Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(1), 71–93.
Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30–37.
Kibby, M. Y., & Cohen, M. J. (2008). Memory functioning in children with reading disabilities and/or attention‑deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A clinical investigation of their working memory and long‑term memory functioning. Child Neuropsychology, 14(6), 525–546.
Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2005). The future is in the margins: The role of technology and disability in educational reform. In D. H. Rose, A. Meyer & C. Hitchcock (Eds.), The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies (pp. 13-35). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Shaywitz, S. E., Fletcher, J. M., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1994). Issues in the definition and classification of attention deficit disorder. Topics in Language Disorders, 14(4), 1-25.
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.
Swanson, H. L., & Sachse-Lee, C. (2001). A subgroup analysis of working memory in children with reading disabilities: Domain-specific versus general processing resources. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(3), 249–263.
Why Computer-Based Reading Often Falls Short for Struggling Readers was authored by Sue du Plessis (B.A. Hons Psychology; B.D.), an educational specialist with 30+ years of experience in the learning disabilities field.
