Control-group students receiving conventional instruction showed significant gains only in media reading and total literacy, not in media writing¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The control group's paired-samples t-test was significant for Media Reading (p = .029) and Total Media Literacy (p = .014) but not for Media Writing (p = .508). → Demir 2025

Evidence¶

Demir 2025¶

Demir, R., & Akar, C. (2025). Transforming Clicks into Critical Thinking: An AI-Based Media Literacy Program for Children. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6786882/v1

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Within-group paired-samples t-test analysis (Table 3) of the control group (n = 18) taught the conventional MoNE curriculum; the article reports that "reading scores showed a statistically signi cant improvement (p < .05)" while media writing gains were not significant, with no standardized effect size printed.

"Although reading scores showed a statistically signi cant improvement (p < .05), the absence of signi cant gains in media writing underscores the limited effectiveness of traditional instruction in fostering multidimensional literacy growth."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Academic and Critical Literacy — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Fourth-graders receiving AI-enhanced media literacy instruction outperformed control-group peers on post-test critical media reading, writing, and total literacy with large effect sizes — related
• Within the experimental group, AI-supported instruction produced statistically significant pre-to-post gains on media reading, media writing, and total media literacy — related
• Both instructional groups improved significantly from pre-test to post-test, with larger gains in the generative AI-supported group — related