Technology effects on TEFL outcomes trend upward across educational levels (primary g = 0.29, secondary g = 0.35, tertiary g = 0.44), though between-level differences are not statistically significant¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Subgroup analysis showed effect sizes trending toward increasing effectiveness at higher educational levels: primary (k = 5; g = 0.29), secondary (k = 11; g = 0.35), tertiary (k = 17; g = 0.44), with overlapping confidence intervals indicating the between-level differences did not reach statistical significance. → Mengjia Liu 2026

Evidence¶

Mengjia Liu 2026¶

Mengjia Liu, Harwati Hashim, Nur Ainil Sulaiman. (2026). A systematic review of emerging technology applications for teaching English as a foreign language across different educational levels. Educational Research Review 52 (2026) 100795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2026.100795

q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r3

Subgroup analysis by educational level within the random-effects meta-analysis (Table 4). The review states "The overlapping confidence intervals indicate these between-level differences did not reach statistical significance" and attributes the larger tertiary effect to greater learner autonomy, more complex tasks, and stronger infrastructure.

"Effect sizes showed a trend toward increasing effectiveness at higher levels: primary (k = 5; g = 0.29, 95% CI [0.05, 0.53]; I2 = 72.3%), secondary (k = 11; g = 0.35, 95% CI [0.17, 0.53]; I2 = 85.6%), and tertiary (k = 17; g = 0.44, 95% CI [0.26, 0.62]; I 2 = 92.7%)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Media comparison studies produce uninterpretable "no significant difference" findings. — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Emerging technologies show a small-to-moderate positive overall effect on TEFL outcomes (g = 0.38, corrected to 0.28 for publication bias) — a broader claim this one bears on
• Educational level does not significantly moderate Gen-AI's effect on HOT, though K-12 subgroups show a larger effect (ES = 0.857) than post-secondary (ES = 0.539) — related
• Gen-AI has a moderate positive overall effect on students' higher-order thinking (g = 0.609) across 29 experimental and quasi-experimental studies — related
• GenAI-supported writing instruction yields a statistically significant positive pooled effect on L2/EFL writing performance (g = 0.80) with very high heterogeneity — related
• Technology-supported educational interventions are associated with higher metacognitive outcomes on average (g = 0.653), with substantial between-study heterogeneity — related
• Pedagogical agents significantly improve learners' self-efficacy expectations (g = 0.29), with effects moderated by grade level, facial expressions, and reliability reporting — related
• Instructional method does not significantly moderate Gen-AI's effect on HOT, though project-based learning shows the largest subgroup effect (ES = 0.717) and lecture-based instruction a small non-significant effect (ES = 0.396) — related