Knowledge gains from e‐learning are not significantly moderated by study design, student level, delivery synchronicity, intervention duration, or repeat testing¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Subgroup and meta‐regression analyses found no significant moderator effects on normalized knowledge gain for any of the tested moderators. → Mughal Z 2026

Evidence¶

Mughal Z 2026¶

Mughal Z, Gupta KK, di Traglia R, Fruhstorfer B. (2026). Effectiveness of E‐Learning in Undergraduate ENT Education: A Mixed‐Methods Systematic Review. The Laryngoscope. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.70164

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Meta‐regression and subgroup analyses across the included studies found no significant moderator effects: synchronicity (QM = 0.10, df = 1, p = 0.8), repeat testing (QM = 0.8, df = 1, p = 0.4), study design (QM = 0.01, df = 1, p = 0.9), student level (QM = 0.1, df = 1, p = 0.8), and allocated e‐learning time (QM = 0.005, df = 1, p = 0.9).

"Moderator analysis indicated that knowledge gain was not significantly influenced by student characteristics (learner level), intervention characteristics (synchronicity, duration, and presence of repeat testing), or study characteristics (study design)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Too few studies exist to draw robust conclusions on moderating factors (age, gender, screen size, dosage, SAMR-based activities) or on whether benefits persist beyond the post-test — related
• GenAI function, intervention duration, publication year, and gender were not significant moderators of GenAI's motivational effect — related
• Writing intervention effects for US ELL students do not vary significantly by study quality indicators, participant characteristics, or intervention characteristics — related
• Moderator analyses for manipulative effects are inconclusive, with no discernable heterogeneity across participant and intervention characteristics — related
• Sample characteristics (immigrant/minority status, L2 status, age) show no significant moderator effects, and several program and delivery features are also nonsignificant — related
• None of five moderators (pilot study, retention test, word-selection method, vocabulary outcome, number of words taught) significantly explained heterogeneity in effect sizes — related
• Publication type, course type, educational level, and experimental duration did not significantly moderate the effect of context-based learning on academic achievement — related