Earlier meta-analyses report small positive effects for computer-assisted literacy instruction (0.19; 0.16)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r? · q2 · i0–i1
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i1 Blok et al. (2002) reported an overall positive effect size of 0.19 for computer-assisted reading instruction across 42 experimental programs. → Verhoeven 2022 q2 i0 Cheung and Slavin (2011) found a positive but small effect size of 0.16 for educational technology enhancing reading achievement across 85 studies. → Verhoeven 2022 (2)

Evidence¶

Verhoeven 2022¶

Verhoeven, L.T.W.; Voeten, M.J.M.; Segers, P.C.J. (2022). Computer-assisted word reading intervention effects throughout the primary grades: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 37, article 100486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100486

q2 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r?

The review reports, citing Blok et al. (2002), an overall positive effect size of "0.19 over 42 different experimental programs" for computer-assisted reading instruction in primary education; higher effects when English was the instruction language.

"Blok, Oostdam, Otter, and Overmaat (2002) were the first to analyze the effects of computer-assisted reading instruction in primary education. They reported an overall positive effect size of 0.19 over 42 different experimental programs."

Verhoeven 2022 (2)¶

Verhoeven, L.T.W.; Voeten, M.J.M.; Segers, P.C.J. (2022). Computer-assisted word reading intervention effects throughout the primary grades: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 37, article 100486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100486

q2 · i0 · quant-synthesis · r?

The review reports, citing Cheung and Slavin (2011), that across 85 rigor-screened studies educational technology showed "a positive but small effect size (0.16) in comparison to traditional methods", with 0.28 for comprehensive reading interventions.

"Finally, Cheung and Slavin (2011) reported the results of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of educational technology for enhancing reading achievement while taking into account methodological rigor of the studies. For a total of 85 studies, they found a positive but small effect size (0.16) in comparison to traditional methods."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Parent Involvement Improves Early Reading — related
• Systematic phonics outperforms unsystematic or no-phonics instruction on children's reading overall, but its advantage over whole-word teaching on novel words is untested in children and contested — related
• The WWC Adolescent Literacy review rates PALS as having potentially positive effects on reading comprehension from one trial of students averaging 9.8 years old, with an effect size of 0.48 that is not statistically significant when adjusted for clustering — related