Technology use (read-aloud, response mode, or interactive instruction) does not significantly moderate shared text reading effects¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Studies using technology for the read aloud (t(3.7) = 0.03, p = .975), as a response mode (t(3.9) = 0.49, p = .648), or as interactive instructional support (t(4.2) = 0.19, p = .857) did not yield larger or smaller effect sizes than studies without such technology. → Rachel Sermier Dessemontet 2024

Evidence¶

Rachel Sermier Dessemontet 2024¶

Rachel Sermier Dessemontet, Megan Geyer, Anne-Laure Linder, Myrto Atzemian, Catherine Martinet, Natalina Meuli, Catherine Audrin, Anne-Françoise de Chambrier. (2024). Effects of shared text reading for students with intellectual disability: A meta-analytical review of instructional strategies. Educational Research Review, 44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100615

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Moderator analyses testing three uses of technology (presentation/read-aloud, response mode, interactive features) across the included studies; none was significant. The authors caution the read-aloud and response-mode tests had degrees of freedom slightly below 4 and may be unreliable.

"The result does not show a significant impact of the use of technology for the read aloud (t(3.7) = 0.03, p = .975), as a response mode (t(3.9) = 0.49, p = .648), or as a support for interactive instruction (t(4.2) = 0.19, p = .857)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Shared text reading benefits students with intellectual disability whether or not they need augmentative and alternative communication systems — related
• Dialogic Reading Improves Language Outcomes — related