Effects of Educational Technology Applications on Reading Outcomes for Struggling Readers: A Best Evidence Synthesis.

This review examines the effectiveness of educational technology applications in improving the reading achievement of struggling readers in elementary schools. The review applies consistent inclusion standards to focus on studies that met high methodological standards. A total of 20 studies based on about 7,000 students in grades 1–6 were included in the final analysis. Findings indicate that educational technology applications produced a positive but small effect on the reading skills of struggling readers (ES = .14) in comparison with “business as usual” methods. Among four types of educational technology applications, small-group integrated applications such as Read, Write & Type and the Lindamood Phoneme Sequence Program produced the largest effect sizes (ES = .32). These are tutorial educational technology applications that use small-group interaction tightly integrated with reading curriculum. Supplementary models, such as Jostens and Lexia, had a larger number of studies (N = 12) and a more modest effect size (ES = .18). Comprehensive models, such as READ 180 and ReadAbout (ES = .04) and Fast ForWord (ES = .06), did not produce meaningful positive effect sizes. However, the results of these two categories of programs should be interpreted with extreme caution due to the small number of studies involved. More studies are required to validate the effectiveness of all technology applications. Policy implications are discussed.

[1]  P. David Pearson.  Handbook of reading research. , 1990 .

[2]  M. Pressley.  Psychology of Literacy and Literacy Instruction , 2003 .

[3]  Alan B. Krueger,et al.  Putting Computerized Instruction to the Test: A Randomized Evaluation of a "Scientifically-Based" Reading Program , 2004 .

[4]  Heidi Silver-Pacuilla,et al.  Technology to Help Struggling Students , 2006 .

[5]  2 Million children: Success for all (2nd ed.). , 2009 .

[6]  Philip C. Abrami,et al.  Research on Distance Education: In defense of field experiments , 2006 .

[7]  Mark W. Lipsey,et al.  Practical Meta-Analysis , 2000 .

[8]  Tom Loveless,et al.  The Arithmetic Gap. , 2004 .

[9]  Leigh A. Hall,et al.  Comprehending expository text: Promising strategies for struggling readers and students with reading disabilities? , 2004 .

[10]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Confounding in Educational Computing Research , 1985 .

[11]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  Best-Evidence Synthesis: An Alternative to Meta-Analytic and Traditional Reviews , 1986 .

[12]  Sharon Vaughn,et al.  How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research , 2000 .

[13]  Emily C. Bouck,et al.  Research about Assistive Technology: 2000–2006. What Have We Learned? , 2007 .

[14]  Michael L. Kamil,et al.  The Effects of Other Technologies on Literacy and Literacy Learning , 2000 .

[15]  Amy E Barth,et al.  Response to Intervention with Older Students with Reading Difficulties. , 2008, Learning and individual differences.

[16]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  Effective Programs in Middle and High School Mathematics: A Best-Evidence Synthesis , 2008 .

[17]  Richard E. Ferdig,et al.  The Effects of Technology on Reading Performance in the Middle-School Grades: A Meta-Analysis With Recommendations for Policy. , 2005 .

[18]  Julia A. Gwynne,et al.  Reading on Grade Level in Third Grade: How Is It Related to High School Performance and College Enrollment? A Longitudinal Analysis of Third-Grade Students in Chicago in 1996-97 and Their Educational Outcomes. A Report to the Annie E. Casey Foundation. , 2010 .

[19]  Pamela E. Hook,et al.  The Efficacy of Computer-Based Supplementary Phonics Programs for Advancing Reading Skills in At-Risk Elementary Students* , 2006 .

[20]  Nancy A. Madden,et al.  Effective Programs for Struggling Readers: A Best-Evidence Synthesis. , 2009 .

[21]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  How features of educational technology applications affect student reading outcomes: A meta-analysis , 2012 .

[22]  Richard K Wagner,et al.  Computer-assisted instruction to prevent early reading difficulties in students at risk for dyslexia: Outcomes from two instructional approaches , 2010, Annals of dyslexia.

[23]  R. Clark.  Evidence for confounding in computer-based instruction studies: Analyzing the meta-analyses , 1985 .

[24]  R. Clark.  Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media , 1983 .

[25]  Susanne James-Burdumy,et al.  Effectiveness of Selected Supplemental Reading Comprehension Interventions: Impacts on a First Cohort of Fifth-Grade Students (Conference Paper) , 2009 .

[26]  Roberto Agodini,et al.  Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from Two Student Cohorts. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education , 2009 .

[27]  John R. Kirby,et al.  The Effects of Morphological Instruction on Literacy Skills , 2010 .

[28]  R. MacCoun.  Experimental and Quasi‐Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference, by William R. Shadish, Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001, 623 pp., $65.56. , 2003 .

[29]  Henry Jay Becker,et al.  Mindless or mindful use of integrated learning systems , 1994 .

[30]  Sharon Vaughn,et al.  Reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: a synthesis of 20 years of research , 2010, Reading and writing.

[31]  The Impact of Thinking Reader Software Program on Grade 6 Reading Vocabulary , Comprehension , Strategies , and Motivation , 2010 .

[32]  Philip C. Abrami,et al.  Small-Group, Computer-Assisted Tutoring to Improve Reading Outcomes for Struggling First and Second Graders , 2011, The Elementary School Journal.

[33]  R. Slavin,et al.  Effective Reading Programs for Middle and High Schools: A Best‐Evidence Synthesis , 2008 .

[34]  Jerome V. D'Agostino,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Reading Recovery in United States Schools , 2004 .

[35]  George Bass,et al.  Teaching Basic Skills through Microcomputer Assisted Instruction , 1986 .

[36]  Mark A. Horney,et al.  Supported eText: Assistive technology through text transformations , 2007 .

[37]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  Perspectives on Evidence-Based Research in Education—What Works? Issues in Synthesizing Educational Program Evaluations , 2008 .

[38]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  The Relationship Between Sample Sizes and Effect Sizes in Systematic Reviews in Education , 2009 .

[39]  D. Leu,et al.  Literacy and Technology: Deictic Consequences for Literacy Education in an Information Age , 2000 .

[40]  L. Hedges,et al.  Introduction to Meta‐Analysis , 2009, International Coaching Psychology Review.

[41]  Steven L. Miller,et al.  Language Comprehension in Language-Learning Impaired Children Improved with Acoustically Modified Speech , 1996, Science.

[42]  H. Lee Swanson,et al.  Improvement in Reading Rate under Independent and Difficult Text Levels: Influences on Word and Comprehension Skills. , 2010 .

[43]  G. Greg Marion,et al.  An Examination of the Relationship between Students' Use of the Fast ForWord Reading Program and Their Performance on Standardized Assessments in Elementary Schools. , 2004 .

[44]  The Effects of Computer Assisted Instruction on the Development of Reading and Language Skills , 1985 .

[45]  S. Vaughn,et al.  Interventions for Adolescent Struggling Readers: A Meta-Analysis with Implications for Practice. , 2007 .

[46]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  Effective Reading Programs for the Elementary Grades: A Best-Evidence Synthesis , 2009 .

[47]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Guided, Cooperative Learning and Individual Knowledge Acquisition , 2018, Knowing, Learning, and Instruction.

[48]  Randall Boone,et al.  The role of instructional design in assistive technology research and development , 2007 .

[49]  Marilyn Jager Adams,et al.  Beginning To Read: Thinking and Learning about Print. , 1991 .

[50]  Deborah Mary Sinkis.  A comparison of Chapter One student achievement with and without computer-assisted instruction , 1993 .

[51]  Tracey E. Hall,et al.  Computer Assisted Instruction in Reading for Students with Learning Disabilities: A Research Synthesis. , 2000 .

[52]  Donald L. Compton,et al.  The Impact of Vocabulary Instruction on Passage-Level Comprehension of School-Age Children: A Meta-Analysis , 2009 .

[53]  Russell Gersten,et al.  Effectiveness of Selected Supplemental Reading Comprehension Interventions: Impacts on a First Cohort of Fifth-Grade Students. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research , 2009 .

[54]  S. Vaughn,et al.  A Synthesis of Reading Interventions and Effects on Reading Comprehension Outcomes for Older Struggling Readers , 2009, Review of educational research.

[55]  Robert Fitzgerald,et al.  Can a Mixed-Method Literacy Intervention Improve the Reading Achievement of Low-Performing Elementary School Students in an After-School Program? , 2011 .

[56]  Laura A. Castner,et al.  National Assessment of Title I Final Report Volume II: Closing the Reading Gap: Findings from a Randomized Trial of Four Reading Interventions for Striving Readers (Appendices) , 2007 .

[57]  Y. Liao.  Effects of hypermedia on students' achievement: a meta-analysis , 1999 .

[58]  Charles A. MacArthur,et al.  Technology Applications for Students with Literacy Problems: A Critical Review , 2001, The Elementary School Journal.

[59]  Norma McCormack.  Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in the elderly. , 2003, Perspectives (Gerontological Nursing Association (Canada)).

[60]  William R. Penuel,et al.  Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First Student Cohort , 2007 .

[61]  Judy Lever-Duffy and Jean B. McDonald.  Teaching and Learning with Technology , 2002 .

[62]  Roberto Agodini,et al.  Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings From Two Student Cohorts. NCEE 2009-4041. , 2009 .

[63]  Heikki Lyytinen,et al.  Predicting Word-Level Reading Fluency Outcomes in Three Contrastive Groups: Remedial and Computer-Assisted Remedial Reading Intervention, and Mainstream Instruction , 2010 .

[64]  Maria Earman Stetter,et al.  Computer-Assisted Instruction to Enhance the Reading Comprehension of Struggling Readers: A Review of the Literature , 2010 .

[65]  Catherine E. Snow,et al.  Preventing reading difficulties in young children , 1998 .

[66]  P. Malone,et al.  A Randomized Trial of Two Promising Computer-Based Interventions for Students with Attention Difficulties , 2010, Journal of abnormal child psychology.

[67]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  One Million Children: Success for All , 2000 .

[68]  Christy S. Murray,et al.  Effective Instruction for Adolescent Struggling Readers: A Practice Brief. , 2008 .

[69]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Do studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies , 1989 .

[70]  Aaron Doering,et al.  Integrating Educational Technology Into Teaching , 1996 .

[71]  Robert Fitzgerald,et al.  A randomized experiment of a mixed-methods literacy intervention for struggling readers in grades 4–6: effects on word reading efficiency, reading comprehension and vocabulary, and oral reading fluency , 2010 .

[72]  Asha K. Jitendra,et al.  What Research Says about Vocabulary Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities , 2004 .