The results of a meta-analysis of 20 research articles containing 89 effect sizes related to the use of digital tools and learning environments to enhance literacy acquisition for middle school students demonstrate that technology can have a positive effect on reading comprehension (weighted effect size of 0.489). Very little research has focused on the effect of technology on other important aspects of reading, such as metacognitive, affective, and dispositional outcomes. The evidence permits the conclusion that there is reason to be optimistic about using technology in middle-school literacy programs, but there is even greater reason to encourage the research community to redouble its efforts to investigate and understand the impact of digital learning environments on students in this age range and to broaden the scope of the interventions and outcomes studied.
References
1.
AlfassiM. (2000). The use of technology (ICT) as a medium for fostering literacy and facilitating discourse within the classroom. Educational Media International,37, 137–148.
2.
AlvermannD. E. (2001). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Paper commissioned by the National Reading Conference. Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
3.
Bannan-RitlandB. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher,32, 21–24.
4.
BeachR.BruceB. (2002). Using digital tools to foster critical inquiry. In AlvermannD. E. (Ed.), Adolescents and literacies in a digital world (pp. 147–163). New York: Peter Lang.
5.
BeachR.LundellD. (1998). Early adolescents' use of computer-mediated communication in writing and reading. In ReinkingD.MckennaM.LabboL.KiefferR. (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 323–341). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
BruceB. (1997). Critical lissues: Literacy technologies: What stance should we take?Journal of Literacy Research,29, 289–309.
7.
CavanaughC.GillianK. J.KromreyJ.HessM.BlomeyerR. (2004). The effects of distance education on K–12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis.Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved February 10, 2005, from http://www.LPA.org/tech/distance/k12distance.pdf.
8.
CazetD. (1998). Multi-subject CDs: A first-grade sampler. Technology and Learning,18, 18–22.
9.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
DaltonB.PishaB.EagletonM.CoyneP.DeysherS. (2002). Engaging the text: Reciprocal teaching and questioning strategies in a scaffolded learning environment. Final report to the U.S. Department of Education. Peabody, MA: CAST.
11.
DejongM. T.BusA. G. (2002). Quality of book-reading matters for emergent readers: An experiment with the same book in a regular or electronic format. Journal of Educational Psychology,94, 145–155.
12.
DotyD. E.PopplewellS. R.ByersG. O. (2001). Interactive CD-ROM storybooks and young readers' reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,33, 374–384.
13.
DunlopW. P.CortinaJ. M.VaslowJ. B.BurkeM. J. (1996). Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychological Methods,1, 170–177.
14.
DynarskiM.AgodiniR.HeavisideS.NovakT.CareyN.CampuzanoL.MeansB.MurphyR.PenuelW.JavitzH.EmeryD.SussexW. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort. National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved January 8, 2007, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20074005.pdf.
15.
FastingR. B.LysterS. H. (2005). The effects of computer technology in assisting the development of literacy in young struggling readers and spellers. European Journal of Special Needs Education,20, 21–40.
16.
FerdigR. E.TrammellK. D. (2004). Content delivery in the blogosphere. T.H.E. Journal,31(7), 12–20.
17.
FerdigR. E.RoehlerL. R.PearsonP. D. (in press). Video- and database-driven web environments for pre-service literacy teaching and learning. To appear in ReinkingD. R.MckennaM. C.LabboL. D.KiefferR. D. (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Volume 2.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
GeeJ. P. (2003). What do video games have to teach us about literacy and learning?New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
19.
GentryM. M.ChinnK. M.MoultonR. D. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia reading materials when used with children who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf,149, 394–403.
20.
GoldbergA.RussellM.CookA. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment,2(1). Retrieved January 7, 2008 from http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol2/1/.
21.
HardyR. J.ThompsonS. G. (1998). Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine,17(8), 841–856.
22.
HasselbringT. S.GoinL. I. (2004). Literacy instruction for older struggling readers: What is the role of technology?Reading and Writing Quarterly,20, 123–144.
23.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128.
24.
HenaoO. (2002). The ability of competent and poor readers to remember information from hypermedia and printed texts. Infancia y Aprendizaje,25, 315–328.
25.
HigginsE. L.RaskindM. H. (2005). The compensatory effectiveness of the Quicktionary Reading Pen II® on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology,20, 31–40.
HorneyM. A.Anderson-InmanL. (1994). The electrotext project: Hypertext reading patterns of middle school students. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,3, 71–91.
28.
International Reading Association. (2001). Integrating literacy and technology in the curriculum: A position statement of the International Reading Association.Newark, DE: Author.
29.
JonesJ. D.StaatsW. D.BowlingN.BickelR. D.CunninghamM.L.CadleC. (2004). An evaluation of the Merit reading software program in the Calhoun County (WV) middle/high school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,37, 177–195.
30.
KamilM. L.LaneD. (1998). Researching the relationship between technology and literacy: An agenda for the 21st century. In ReinkingD.MckennaM.LabboL.KiefferR. (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 323–341). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
KramarskiB.FeldmanY. (2000). Internet in the classroom: Effects on reading comprehension, motivation and metacognitive awareness. Educational Media International,37, 149–155.
32.
KulikC.KulikJ. (1986). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction in colleges. AEDS Journal,19, 81–108.
33.
KulikC.KulikJ. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction in colleges: An updated analysis. Computers and Human Behavior,7, 75–94.
34.
LabboL. D.KuhnM. (1998). Electronic symbol making: Young children's computer-related emerging concepts about literacy. In ReinkingD.MckennaM.LabboL. D.KiefferR. D. (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 79–92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
35.
LabboL. D.ReinkingD. (1999). Negotiating the multiple realities of technology in literacy research and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly,34, 478–492.
36.
LabboL. D.EakleA. J.MonteroM. K. (2002). Digital Language Experience Approach: Using digital photographs and software as a Language Experience Approach innovation. Reading Online,5(8). Retrieved January 7, 2008, from http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=labbo2/.
LeuD. J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information age. In KamilM. L.MosenthalP.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Volume 3 (pp. 743–770). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39.
LeuD. J. (2002). The new literacies: Research on reading instruction with the Internet. In FarstrupA. E.SamuelsS. J. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 310–336). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
40.
LeuD. J. (2006). New literacies, reading research, and the challenges of change: A Deictic perspective. (NRC Presidential Address). In HoffmanJ.SchallertD.FairbanksC. M.WorthyJ.MalochB. (Eds.), The 55th yearbook of the National Reading Conference. (pp. 1–20). Milwaukee, WI: National Reading Conference.
41.
LeuD. J.CastekJ.HartmanD. K.CoiroJ.HenryL. A.KulikowichJ. M.LyverS. (2005). Evaluating the development of scientific knowledge and new forms of reading comprehension during online learning. Final report submitted to the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory/Learning Point Associates. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from http://www.newliteracies.uconn.edu/ncrel_files/FinalNCRELReport.pdf.
42.
LeuD. J.KinzerC. K. (1999). Effective literacy instruction. K–8 (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
LigasM. (2002). Evaluation of Broward County Alliance of Quality Schools Project. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,7, 117–139.
45.
LipseyN. W.WilsonD. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist,48, 1181–1209.
46.
LiuM. (2004). Examining the performance and attitudes of sixth graders during their use of a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior,2, 357–379.
47.
MatthewK. (1997). A comparison of the influence of interactive CD-ROM storybooks and traditional print storybooks on reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29, 263–275.
48.
MooreD. W.BeanT. W.BirdyshawD.RycikJ. A. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position statement for the Commission on Adolescent Literacy of the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
49.
MorrisS. B.DeshonR. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods,7, 105–125.
50.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read.Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/upload/smallbook_pdf.pdf.
O'BrienD. G. (in press). Reading-to-learn: From print to new digital media and new literacies.Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
53.
PearsonP. D.FerdigR. E.BlomeyerR. L.Jr.MoranJ. (2005). The effects of technology on reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with recommendations for policy.Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Retrieved January 7, 2007, from http://www.ncrel.org/tech/reading/pearson.pdf.
54.
ReinkingD. (1988). Computer-mediated text and comprehension differences: The role of reading time, reader preference, and estimation of learning. Reading Research Quarterly,23, 484–498.
55.
ReinkingD. (2003). Multimedia and engaged reading in a digital world. In VerhoevenL.SnowC. (Eds.), Creating a world of engaged readers (pp. 195–221). Mawhah, NJ: Erlbaum.
56.
ReinkingD.RickmanS. S. (1990). The effects of computer-mediated text on the vocabulary learning and comprehension of intermediate-grade readers. Journal of Reading Behavior,22, 395–411.
57.
RouseC. E.KruegerA. B. (2004). Putting computerized instruction to the test: A randomized evaluation of a “scientifically based” reading program. Economics of Education Review,23, 323–338.
58.
SalomonG.GlobersonT.GutermanE. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a reading partner. Journal of Educational Psychology,81, 620–627.
59.
ShacharM.NeumannY. (2003). Differences between traditional and distance education academic performances: A meta-analytic approach. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/153/704.
60.
SolanH.Shelley-TremblayJ.FicarraA.SilvermanM.LarsonS. (2003). Effect of attention therapy on reading comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities,36, 556–563.
61.
TealeW. H.LeuD. J.LabboL. D.KinzerC. (2002). The CTELL project: New ways technology can help educate tomorrow's reading teachers. The Reading Teacher,55, 654–659.
62.
TorgersonC. J.ElbourneD. (2002). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of information and communication technology (ICT) on the teaching of spelling. Journal of Research in Reading,25, 129–143.
63.
TorgersonC. J.PorthouseJ.BrooksG. (2003). A systematic review of controlled trials evaluating interventions in adult literacy and numeracy. Journal of Research in Reading26, 234–255.
64.
UnderwoodJ. (2000). A comparison of two types of computer support for reading development. Journal of Research in Reading,23, 136–148.
65.
VaccaR.VaccaJ. (2007). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum.Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
66.
VollandsS. R.ToppingK. J.EvansR. M. (1999). Self-assessment of reading comprehension with the Accelerated Reader: Action research. Reading and Writing Quarterly,15, 197–211.
67.
WaxmanH. C.LinM.MichkoG. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes.Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from http://www.ncrel.org/tech/effects2/waxman.pdf.
XinJ. F.ReithH. (2001). Video-assisted vocabulary instruction for elementary school students with learning disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual,12, 87–103.
70.
ZhaoY.EnglertC. S.ChenJ.JonesS. C.FerdigR. E. (2000). The development of a web-based learning environment: A Dialogue between innovation and established practices. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32, 435–454.
