Research & evidence
The research behind Dizzy Doom Kids.
Dizzy Doom Kids is a supplemental literacy program built on the Digital Lizards of Doom graphic novel series. Here’s the thinking behind it, what an independent Johns Hopkins evaluation found, and what we’re measuring next.
Independently evaluated by the Johns Hopkins Center for Research and Reform in Education.
16
lessons of 45 to 60 minutes
3–4
weeks, taught daily
389
students in the independent evaluation
6
design decisions tied to published research
The program
A story kids choose. A structure teachers can use.
Dizzy Doom Kids turns kids who avoid reading into kids who choose to read, then gives teachers the structure to use it in class.
Students banded by reading level, not grade. Built for neurodivergent and reluctant readers, and used with all readers in grades 3 to 9 (and some grade 12 special education classes).
As a supplement, not a core program. Districts swap one text in their core curriculum for Dizzy Doom Kids. San Diego Unified swapped one text in its Benchmark curriculum.
16 lessons of 45 to 60 minutes, taught daily over 3 to 4 weeks.
Read, discuss, create. Each lesson pairs a section of the book with discussion questions and a writing or drawing prompt.
The Level 1 graphic novel (print and digital), a 68-page lesson plan guide, a lesson map, a 21-track orchestral soundtrack, 16 short character videos, coloring pages, comic templates and a completion certificate (the “Doomploma”).
Dialogue is written as text-message bubbles, with character emoticons that shift with mood. Students read the text, the faces and the art together to infer meaning.
The problem
Many kids can read but don’t.
Kids who don’t read fall further behind every year. Skill instruction alone doesn’t fix a kid who avoids books.
01
Reading volume drives reading growth.
Kids who read more by choice build vocabulary, fluency and comprehension faster. Kids who avoid reading get less practice and widen the gap.
02
Motivation drops as kids get older.
Interest in reading tends to fall through the upper elementary and middle school years, right when reading shifts from learning to read to reading to learn.
03
Reluctant and neurodivergent readers are hit hardest.
Dense text with no visual support is a wall for many of them. Standard class texts often don’t reflect their interests or culture.
04
Teachers lack material that pulls kids in and still meets standards.
Popular graphic novels engage kids but come with no lesson structure. Structured curricula often don’t engage.
Logic model
The story drives reading volume, and volume drives growth.
Read the top row left to right, then the bottom row.
The program
1
Inputs
DLOD graphic novels
16-lesson teacher guide
Soundtrack, videos, art
Teacher portal, onboarding
Standards alignment
2
Activities
Daily reading of the book
Talk using text, art, faces
Writing and drawing prompts
Readers theater and comics
Progress map and Doomploma
3
Outputs
16 lessons, 45 to 60 min
Students finish Book 1
A written response per lesson
Daily class discussion
Student-made comics
The outcomes
4
Short-term: during unit
More time spent reading
Kids read ahead by choice
More text-evidence talk
Reluctant readers join in
Higher class participation
Backed by the JHU evaluation
5
Mid-term: end of year
Higher reading motivation
More reading outside class
Stronger inference skills
Better character analysis
SEL growth in CASEL areas
Tested in the 2026–27 pilots
6
Long-term: over years
Higher reading achievement
Larger Lexile gains
Fewer absences
Kids who read by choice
Confident, capable readers
JHU points to it; pilots test it
The JHU evaluation backs the short-term links and points to the long-term ones. The 2026–27 pilots test the mid- and long-term outcomes.
Research base
Six design decisions, each tied to published research.
Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.23.3.2
Cohn, N. (2013). The visual language of comics: Introduction to the structure and cognition of sequential images. Bloomsbury.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, 22(1–2), 8–15.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
Gambrell, L. B. (1996). Creating classroom cultures that foster reading motivation. The Reading Teacher, 50(1), 14–25.
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act report. Alliance for Excellent Education.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403–422). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740–764. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015576
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press.
Young, C., & Rasinski, T. (2009). Implementing readers theatre as an approach to classroom fluency instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.63.1.1
Independent evaluation
What Johns Hopkins found
The Johns Hopkins Center for Research and Reform in Education (CRRE) evaluated Level 1 in 2024–25. It found strong support for the program’s design, with no significant effect on test scores yet.
389
students in grades 3–5
11
treatment teachers
5
schools
1
district: San Diego Unified
Mixed methods: a quasi-experimental comparison plus classroom observations and teacher interviews.
What it did not show
No significant effect on test scores yet.
The main effect on FastBridge aReading was small and not significant (ES = +0.009, p = .948). JHU called the score analysis exploratory, since a 3–4 week supplement rarely moves a standardized test. The comparison group was small (90 students) and differed by grade.
What JHU recommended
What teachers asked for, and what changed.
Teachers asked for streamlined slides, more guidance on the audio and video, and explicit links to reading standards and SEL competencies.
What’s next
How we’ll keep studying it
Now: ESSA Tier 4 (submission in progress)
Next: Tier 3 study, starting in the 2026–27 pilots
After that: Tier 2 study across multiple districts
ESSA Tier 4 comes with a commitment to keep studying the program. Our commitment: measure reading appetite in every 2026–27 pilot and start a Tier 3 study on US pilot data this school year.
Study design
Compare DDK classes to similar non-DDK classes in the same schools. Collect a baseline week of tallies on a normal class book before DDK starts. Report class-level counts only, with no student names.
After that: a Tier 2 study
Build on JHU’s own advice: a larger comparison group matched on grade or reading level, two or more districts, grades 4 and up, and a longer dose across Levels 1 to 3.
