Effects of technology-delivered literacy instruction did not significantly differ by outcome domain, though comprehension effects appeared particularly small (g = 0.12)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r? · q4
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q4 i? Mean effects did not statistically significantly differ by outcome literacy domain (p = .13 for the omnibus test). → Dahl-Leonard 2024 q4 i? Descriptively, effects on phonological awareness (g = 0.31) and phonics/decoding/word reading (g = 0.29) appeared larger than other domains, with reading comprehension effects particularly small (g = 0.12). → Dahl-Leonard 2024 (2)

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?

Outcome-characteristic moderator analysis (Table 7) across 246 norm- or criterion-referenced outcome measures from the 53 studies. The omnibus test of outcome literacy domain was not statistically significant; no effect size is printed for the null test.

"The mean effects of instruction did not statistically significantly differ based on outcome domain (Table 7)."

Dahl-Leonard 2024 (2)¶

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?

Descriptive pattern from the same outcome-domain analysis (Table 7). The article hedges these as descriptive appearances; printed domain means include g = 0.31, g = 0.29, and g = 0.12 for reading comprehension.

"Descriptively speaking, effects on measures of phonological awareness (g = 0.31) and phonics/decoding/word reading/non-word reading (g = 0.29) appeared larger than those of other outcome domains, with the effects on measures of reading comprehension appearing particularly small (g = 0.12)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• No instruction characteristic (dosage, program availability, literacy domain) significantly moderated effects, though phonics and spelling instruction approached significance descriptively favoring treatments that included them — related
• Interventions targeting different reading and skill content domains show mostly small differences, with average effect sizes of 0.14–0.22 all statistically significant — related
• Technology-delivered literacy instruction produces a small, statistically significant positive effect on norm- or criterion-referenced literacy outcomes for K-5 students (g = 0.24) — related