Claims

Despite greater expense and improved access to reading materials, pupil e-readers produced smaller oral reading fluency gains than either tablet intervention

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? English oral reading fluency gains were 9.9 correct words per minute for the TAC tutor tablet group, 8.6 for the teacher tablet group, and 6.1 for the pupil e-reader group. → Piper 2015

Evidence

Piper 2015

Piper, B., Jepkemei, E., Kwayumba, D., & Kibukho, K. (2015). Kenya's ICT Policy in Practice: The Effectiveness of Tablets and E-readers in Improving Student Outcomes. FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education, 2(1). http://preserve.lehigh.edu/fire/vol2/iss1/2

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Descriptive gain comparison across the three treatment groups in the Kisumu County trial, reported in the Results section. The article notes that despite more reading materials provided to pupils and greater expense, "the gains in the e-reader treatment group were not larger than those in the other two groups"; these are descriptive gains with no printed effect size or test statistic.

"gains in English oral reading fluency scores were 9.9 correct words per minute, 8.6 correct words per minute, and 6.1 correct words per minute for the TAC tutor tablet, teacher tablet, and pupil e-reader groups, respectively"

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.