No instruction characteristic (dosage, program availability, literacy domain) significantly moderated effects, though phonics and spelling instruction approached significance descriptively favoring treatments that included them¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r? · q4
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q4 i? There were no statistically significant differences based on dosage, program availability, or literacy domain; phonics/decoding/word reading and encoding/spelling approached significance (p = .10 for both). → Dahl-Leonard 2024

Evidence¶

Dahl-Leonard 2024¶

Dahl-Leonard, K., Hall, C., & Peacott, D. (2024). A meta-analysis of technology-delivered literacy instruction for elementary students. Education Tech Research Dev (2024) 72:1507–1538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10354-0

q4 · i? · quant-synthesis · r?

Instruction-characteristic moderator analyses (Table 6) across the 53 studies. The article reports no significant moderators; the phonics and encoding/spelling tests approached significance at "p = .10 for both". No effect size is printed for the null tests.

"There were no statistically significant differences based on dosage (i.e., total number of hours of instruction), program availability, or literacy domain (i.e., phonological awareness, phonics/decoding/word reading, encoding/spelling, vocabulary, text reading/fluency, comprehension, or writing). Two literacy domains, phonics/decoding/word reading and encoding/spelling, approached statistical significance (p = .10 for both)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Time and Continuity — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• No significant differences emerged between word-reading intervention approaches, though whole word recognition showed trends toward null effects — related
• 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
• Effects of technology-delivered literacy instruction did not significantly differ by outcome domain, though comprehension effects appeared particularly small (g = 0.12) — related
• No study or participant characteristic (publication type, research design, sample size, grade level, reading difficulties) significantly moderated effects of technology-delivered literacy instruction — related