Assigning K–2 nonresponders to gamification plus parent text messages, rather than gamification alone, raised one fall reading-comprehension subscore; the overall MAP gain was marginal¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2019 · checked against its sources 2026-11-02 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 In the intent-to-treat comparison (all 273 students, including responders who never received the added supports), students assigned to Gamification + Texting scored marginally higher on the fall MAP (ES = 0.10, p = 0.09) and significantly higher on the MAP informational-text craft-and-structure subscore (ES = 0.27, p = 0.02) than Gamification Only students; DIBELS, TRC and the key-ideas subscore did not differ significantly. → Kim et al. 2019 q3 i0 App use did not differ significantly between the Gamification + Texting and Gamification Only conditions (ES 0.12–0.19 on the five usage measures, all p ≥ 0.14). → Kim et al. 2019

Evidence¶

Kim et al. 2019¶

James S. Kim, Catherine A. Asher, Mary Burkhauser, Laura Mesite, & Diana Leyva. (2019). Using a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) to Develop an Adaptive K–2 Literacy Intervention With Personalized Print Texts and App-Based Digital Activities. AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419872701

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Stage 2 of a SMART: before implementation, students were randomly assigned to the follow-up support they would receive if they did not respond to the summer app (gamification alone, or gamification plus text messages to parents). The analysis is intent-to-treat over all 273 K–2 students, so it includes responders, who were never eligible for the supports, and families with no valid phone number; the authors call it a conservative estimate of the supports' effect. Gamification + Texting students scored marginally higher on the fall MAP (ES = 0.10, p = 0.09, n = 217) and significantly higher on the informational-text craft-and-structure subscore (ES = 0.27, p = 0.02, n = 137, Grades 1–2 only); the key-ideas-and-details subscore (ES = 0.20, p = 0.12), DIBELS (ES = 0.00) and TRC (ES = −0.03) did not differ significantly. App use was not significantly higher either (probability of accessing the app 0.28 vs 0.22, p = 0.33; activities completed 13.6 vs 9.4, p = 0.26).

"In the fall, Gamification + Texting students scored marginally significantly higher on the MAP (ES = 0.10, p = 0.09) and significantly higher on the MAP subscore related to the craft and structure of informational text (ES = 0.27, p = 0.02) compared with students in the Gamification Only condition."

"Students assigned to the Gamification + Texting support condition were not significantly more likely to use the MORE@Home app by any of the outcomes presented."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Parent-delivered READY4K! text messages improve preschool children's early literacy performance — related
• Text-message alerts to parents about incomplete middle-school homework raise student performance — related
• The Tips by Text intervention did not produce significant improvements in children's early reading-related skills (YARC) relative to control — related
• Texting parents about tests, homework and lesson content produced a small positive effect on maths attainment (ES 0.067) in a cluster RCT — related
• Implementation of assigned communication was incomplete but high for weekly messages — related