Educational technology is ubiquitous, and educational technology interventions often target literacy. However, there is insufficient information about the effects of these interventions on literacy outcomes in elementary school. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of quasi-experimental and experimental studies published between 2010 and 2023 that evaluated the effects of educational technology interventions on the literacy outcomes of K–5 students. The meta-analysis across 119 studies from 105 manuscripts revealed positive effects for decoding (0.33), language comprehension (0.30), reading comprehension (0.23), and writing proficiency (0.81). However, when isolating effects for standardized measures, effects for decoding (0.23), language comprehension (0.12), reading comprehension (0.14), and writing proficiency (0.34) were reduced. Moderator analyses suggested that effects can depend on outcome, intervention, and participant characteristics. In the discussion, we describe and contextualize findings and call for more research to further unpack moderator effects. We also discuss possible implications for practice and policy.
AbramiP. C.WadeC. A.LysenkoL.MarshJ.GiokoA. (2016). Using educational technology to develop early literacy skills in Sub-Saharan Africa. Education and Information Technologies, 21(4), 945–964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9362-4
2.
AktaşN.AkyolH. (2020). Effect of digital writing workshop activities on writing motivation and development of story writing skills. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(3), 270–287. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.248.20
3.
AlexanderP. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352
4.
Al OtaibaS.AllorJ. H.BakerK.ConnerC.StewartJ.de la CruzV. M. (2019). Teaching phonemic awareness and word reading skills focusing on explicit and systematic approaches. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 45(3), 11–16. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED604475.pdf
5.
Alvarez-MarinelliH.BlancoM.Lara-AlecioR.IrbyB. J.TongF.StanleyK.FanY. (2014). Computer assisted English language learning in Costa Rican elementary schools: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(1), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.903977
6.
ArcherK.SavageR.Sanghera-SidhuS.WoodE.GottardoA.ChenV. (2014). Examining the effectiveness of technology use in classrooms: A tertiary meta-analysis. Computers and Education, 78, 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.001
BahariA. (2021). Computer-mediated feedback for L2 learners: Challenges versus affordances. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(1), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12481
9.
BaileyD. H.DuncanG. J.CunhaF.FoormanB. R.YeagerD. S. (2020). Persistence and fade-out of educational-intervention effects: Mechanisms and potential solutions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 21(2), 55–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620915848
Ben-ShacharM. S.LüdeckeD.MakowskiD. (2020). effectsize: Estimation of effect size indices and standardized parameters. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(56), 2815. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02815
12.
BernackiM. L.GreeneM. J.LobczowskiN. G. (2021). A systematic review of research on personalized learning: Personalized by whom, to what, how, and for what purpose(s)?Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1675–1715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09615-8
13.
BerningerV.AbbottR.CookC. R.NagyW. (2017). Relationships of attention and executive functions to oral language, reading, and writing skills and systems in middle childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(4), 434–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415617167
14.
BoggioC.ZaherA.BosseM.-L. (2023). ECRIMO, an app to train first graders’ spelling: Effectiveness and comparison between different designs. British Journal of Educational Technology: Journal of the Council for Educational Technology, 54(5), 1332–1350. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13354
15.
BorensteinM. (2009). Effect sizes for continuous data. In CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 221–235). Russell Publishing Sage Foundation.
16.
BosL. T.De KoningB. B.WassenburgS. I.van der SchootM. (2016). Training inference making skills using a situation model approach improves reading comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 116. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00116
17.
BoykinA.EvmenovaA. S.ReganK.MastropieriM. (2019). The impact of a computer-based graphic organizer with embedded self-regulated learning strategies on the argumentative writing of students in inclusive cross-curricula settings. Computers and Education, 137, 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.008
18.
CattsH. W.HoganT. P.AdlofS. M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In CattsH. W.KamhiA. G. (Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities; The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 25–40). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
19.
ChandlerP.SwellerJ. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2
20.
CheungA. C. K.SlavinR. E. (2012). How features of educational technology applications affect student reading outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 7(3), 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.05.002
21.
ClarkD. B.Tanner-SmithE. E.KillingsworthS. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065
22.
ClarkR. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299088
ConnorC. M. D.DayS. L.ZargarE.WoodT. S.TaylorK. S.JonesM. R.HwangJ. K. (2019). Building word knowledge, learning strategies, and metacognition with the word-knowledge e-book. Computers and Education, 128, 284–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.016
25.
ConnorC. M.MorrisonF. J.SchatschneiderC.TosteJ. R.LundblomE.CroweE. C.FishmanB. (2011). Effective classroom instruction: Implications of child characteristics by reading instruction interactions on first graders’ word reading achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(3), 173–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2010.510179
26.
CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. Russell Publishing Sage Foundation.
DedeC. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information technology in teaching and learning. In VoogtJ.KnezekG. (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 43–62). Springer.
29.
De La PazS.ButlerC. (2018). Promoting motivated writers: Suggestions for teaching and conducting research with students with learning disabilities and struggling learners. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(2), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2018-V23-I2-9064
DukeN. K.CartwrightK. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25–S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411
32.
EcalleJ.KleinszN.MagnanA. (2013). Computer-assisted learning in young poor readers: The effect of grapho-syllabic training on the development of word reading and reading comprehension. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1368–1376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.041
33.
EscuetaM.NickowA. J.OreopoulosP.QuanV. (2020). Upgrading education with technology: Insights from experimental research. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(4), 897–996. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191507
FloritE.CainK. (2011). The simple view of reading: Is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies?Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6
38.
FloritE.RochM.DicataldoR.LevoratoM. C. (2022). The Simple View of Reading in Italian beginner readers: Converging evidence and open debates on the role of the main components. Learning and Individual Differences, 93, 101961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101961
39.
FogartyM.CoyneM. D.SimmonsL. E.SimmonsD. C.HenriM.KwokO. M.WareS. M.DaltonK.WilliamsK. A.WangH. (2020). Effects of technology-mediated vocabulary intervention for third-grade students with reading difficulties. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(2), 271–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1698086
40.
FoormanB. R.PetscherY.HerreraS. (2018). Unique and common effects of decoding and language factors in predicting reading comprehension in grades 1–10. Learning and Individual Differences, 63, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.02.011
41.
GablerS.HäderS.LahiriP. (1999). A model based justification of Kish’s formula for design effects for weighting and clustering. Survey Methodology, 25(1), 105–106. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/12-001-x/1999001/article/4718-eng.pdf?st=Q5j_vJLB
GerstenR.HaymondK.Newman-GoncharR.DiminoJ.JayanthiM. (2020). Meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions for students in the primary grades. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(2), 401–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1689591
44.
GörgenR.HuemerS.Schulte-KörneG.MollK. (2020). Evaluation of a digital game-based reading training for German children with reading disorder. Computers and Education, 150, 103834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103834
GrahamS.KiuharaS. A.MacKayM. (2020). The effects of writing on learning in science, social studies, and mathematics: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 179–226. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320914744
47.
GrahamS.McKeownD.KiuharaS.HarrisK. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029185
GrayL.LewisL. (2021). Use of educational technology for instruction in public schools: 2019–20 (NCES 2021–017). United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2021017
50.
HallC.Dahl-LeonardK.ChoE.SolariE. J.CapinP.ConnerC. L.HenryA. R.CookL.HayesL.VargasI.RichmondC. L.KehoeK. F. (2023). Forty years of reading intervention research for elementary students with or at risk for dyslexia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 58(2), 285–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.477
51.
HarrerM.CuijpersP.FurukawaT.EbertD. D. (2019). Dmetar: Companion R Package for the guide “Doing meta-analysis in R”. R package version 0.1.0. http://dmetar.protectlab.org/.
52.
HebbeckerK.FörsterN.SouvignierE. (2019). Reciprocal effects between reading achievement and intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(5), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1598413
53.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164588
54.
HedgesL. V. (1982). Estimation of effect size from a series of independent experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 92(2), 490–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.2.490
55.
HedgesL. V.HedbergE. C. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group-randomized trials in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(1), 60–87. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373707299706
56.
HeoM.KimY.XueX.KimM. Y. (2010). Sample size requirement to detect an intervention effect at the end of follow-up in a longitudinal cluster randomized trial. Statistics in Medicine, 29(3), 382–390. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3806
JuelC.GriffithP. L.GoughP. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.78.4.243
62.
KimY. G. (2020). Toward integrative reading science: The direct and indirect effects model of reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(6), 469–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420908239
63.
KimY. G. (2023). Learning to read and write. In TierneyR. J.RizviF.ErcikanK. (Eds), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 6, 4th ed., pp. 335–343). Elsevier.
64.
KimY. G.GrahamS. (2022). Expanding the direct and indirect effects model of writing (DIEW): Reading-writing relations, and dynamic relations as a function of measurement/dimensions of written composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(2), 215–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000564
65.
KimY. G.ParkS. H. (2019). Unpacking pathways using the direct and indirect effects model of writing (DIEW) and the contributions of higher order cognitive skills to writing. Reading and Writing, 32, 1319–1343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9913-y
66.
KishL. (1965). Survey sampling. John Wiley and Sons Inc.
67.
KlingbeilD. A.McComasJ. J.BurnsM. K.HelmanL. (2015). Comparison of predictive validity and diagnostic accuracy of screening measures of reading skills. Psychology in the Schools, 52(5), 500–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21839
68.
KoratO. (2010). Reading electronic books as a support for vocabulary, story comprehension and word reading in kindergarten and first grade. Computers & Education, 55(1), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.014
69.
KoratO.Kozlov-PeretzO.Segal-DroriO. (2017). Repeated e-book reading and its contribution to learning new words among kindergartners. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(7), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i7.2498
70.
KozmaR. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299087
KulikJ. A.KulikC. C.Bangert-DrownsR. L. (1985). Effectiveness of computer-based education in elementary schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 1(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(85)90007-X
73.
LanganD.HigginsJ. P. T.JacksonD.BowdenJ.VeronikiA. A.KontopantelisE.ViechtbauerW.SimmondsM. (2019). A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random-effects meta-analyses. Research Synthesis Methods, 10(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1316
74.
LangeA. A. (2019). Technology, instructional methods, and the systemic messiness of innovation: Improving reading fluency for low socio-economic elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(5), 1333–1350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09675-2
75.
LeeS.KuoL.XuZ.HuX. (2020). The effects of technology-integrated classroom instruction on k-12 English language learners’ literacy development: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(5–6), 1106–1137. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1774612
76.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage.
LysenkoL.AbramiP. C.WadeC. A.MarshJ. P.WaGiokoM.KiforoE. (2019). Promoting young Kenyans’ growth in literacy with educational technology: A tale of two years of implementation. International Journal of Educational Research, 95, 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.02.013
79.
MajorL.FrancisG. A.TsapaliM. (2021). The effectiveness of technology-supported personalised learning in low- and middle-income countries: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(5), 1935–1964. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13116
80.
MarulisL. M.NeumanS. B. (2013). How vocabulary interventions affect young children at risk: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(3), 223–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2012.755591
81.
MayerR. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
82.
MorrisS. B. (2000). Distribution of the standardized mean change effect size for meta-analysis on repeated measures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 53(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711000159150
83.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA & CCSSO). (2010). Common core state standards. Authors.
84.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2010). Developing early literacy: Report of the national early literacy panel. US Government Printing Office. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/product/346
85.
NeitzelA. J.LakeC.PellegriniM.SlavinR. E. (2022). A synthesis of quantitative research on programs for struggling readers in elementary schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(1), 149–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.379
86.
Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD). (2022). Education at a glance 2022: OECD indicators. Author. https://doi.org/10.1787/3197152b-en
87.
Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD). (2023). OECD digital education outlook 2023: Towards an effective digital education ecosystem. Author. https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en.
88.
PaivioA. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. Oxford University Press.
89.
ParisS. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.40.2.3
90.
PengP.LeeK.LuoJ.LiS.JoshiR. M.TaoS. (2021). Simple view of reading in Chinese: A one-stage meta-analytic structural equation modeling. Review of Educational Research, 91(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320964198
91.
PetscherY.CabellS. Q.CattsH. W.ComptonD. L.FoormanB. R.HartS. A.LoniganC. J.PhillipsB. M.SchatschneiderC.SteacyL. M.TerryN. P.WagnerR. K. (2020). How the science of reading informs 21st-century education. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S267–S282. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.352
92.
PigottT. D.PolaninJ. R. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: High-quality meta-analysis in a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319877153
93.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. The R Foundation. https://www.r-project.org/
RitterfeldU.LükeT. (2021). Audio stories as incidental language teachers: A compensatory approach for migrant and low-SES children in Germany. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 33(2), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000281
96.
RobertsG. J.DumasD. G.McNeishD.CotéB. (2022). Understanding the dynamics of dosage response: A nonlinear meta-analysis of recent reading interventions. Review of Educational Research, 92(2), 209–248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211051423
97.
RStudio Team. (2023). RStudio: Integrated development for R. R. Studio. PBC, MA URL.
98.
SaineN. L.LerkkanenM. K.AhonenT.TolvanenA.LyytinenH. (2011). Computer-assisted remedial reading intervention for school beginners at risk for reading disability. Child Development, 82(3), 1013–1028. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01580.x
99.
SarıcaH. Ç.UsluelY. K. (2016). The effect of digital storytelling on visual memory and writing skills. Computers and Education, 94, 298–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.016
100.
SärndalC. E.SwenssonB.WretmanJ. (2003). Model assisted survey sampling. Springer Science & Business Media.
101.
SavvaM.HigginsS.BeckmannN. (2022). Meta-analysis examining the effects of electronic storybooks on language and literacy outcomes for children in grades Pre-K to grade 2. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(2), 526–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12623
102.
Segal-DroriO.KoratO.ShamirA.KleinP. S. (2010). Reading electronic and printed books with and without adult instruction: Effects on emergent reading. Reading and Writing, 23(8), 913–930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9182-x
103.
ShamirA.KoratO. (2015). Educational electronic books for supporting emergent literacy of kindergarteners at-risk for reading difficulties—What do we know so far?Computers in the Schools, 32(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2015.1027868
104.
SilvermanR. D.JohnsonE.KeaneK.KhannaS. (2020). Beyond decoding: A meta-analysis of the effects of language comprehension interventions on K–5 students’ language and literacy outcomes. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S207–S233. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.346
105.
SimonsohnU.NelsonL. D.SimmonsJ. P. (2014). p-curve and effect size: Correcting for publication bias using only significant results. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 666–681. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614553988
106.
SolheimO. J.FrijtersJ. C.LundetræK.UppstadP. H. (2018). Effectiveness of an early reading intervention in a semi-transparent orthography: A group randomised controlled trial. Learning and Instruction, 58, 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.05.004
SparksR. L. (2021). Identification and characteristics of strong, average, and weak foreign language readers: The simple view of reading model. Modern Language Journal, 105(2), 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12711
110.
Spear-SwerlingL. (2019). Structured literacy and typical literacy practices: Understanding differences to create instructional opportunities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 51(3), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917750160
111.
StoreyC.McDowellC.LeslieJ. C. (2020). Headsprout early reading for specific literacy difficulty: A comparison study. Journal of Behavioral Education, 29(3), 619–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-019-09336-7
112.
SuggateS. P. (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(1), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414528540
113.
TakacsZ. K.SwartE. K.BusA. G. (2015). Benefits and pitfalls of multimedia and interactive features in technology-enhanced storybooks: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 698–739. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314566989
114.
ThomasD.DychesJ. (2019). The hidden curriculum of reading intervention: A critical content analysis of Fountas and Pinnell’s leveled literacy intervention. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(5), 601–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1616116
115.
ThomasT.AlexanderK.JacksonR.AbramiP. C. (2013). The differential effects of interactive versus didactic pedagogy using computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(4), 403–436. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.49.4.a
116.
ThompsonS. G.HigginsJ. P. (2002). How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1559–1573. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1187
117.
TobiasS.FletcherJ. D.BediouB.WindA. P.ChenF. (2014). Multimedia learning with computer games. In MayerR. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 762–784). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.037
118.
TylerE. J.HughesJ. C.BeverleyM.HastingsR. P. (2015). Improving early reading skills for beginning readers using an online programme as supplementary instruction. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30(3), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-014-0240-7
119.
VanbecelaereS.Said-MetwalyS.Van den NoortgateW.ReynvoetB.DepaepeF. (2023). The effectiveness of Tier 1 digital interventions for early reading: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(5), 1397–1432. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13351
120.
Van LissaC. J. (2017, September29). MetaForest: Exploring heterogeneity in meta-analysis using random forests. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/myg6s
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
123.
WampoldB. E.MondinG. W.MoodyM.StichF.BensonK.AhnH. N. (1997). A meta-analysis of outcome studies comparing bona fide psychotherapies: Empirically, “all must have prizes.”Psychological Bulletin, 122(3), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.122.3.203
124.
WengP.MaedaY.BouckE. C. (2014). Effectiveness of cognitive skills-based computer-assisted instruction for students with disabilities: A synthesis. Remedial and Special Education, 35(3), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513514858
125.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2022). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook (Version 5.0). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE).
126.
WijekumarK. K.MeyerB. J. F.LeiP. (2013). High-fidelity implementation of web-based intelligent tutoring system improves fourth and fifth graders content area reading comprehension. Computers and Education, 68, 366–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.021
127.
WijekumarK. K.MeyerB. J. F.LeiP.BeerwinkleA. L.JoshiM. (2019). Supplementing teacher knowledge using web-based intelligent tutoring system for the text structure strategy to improve content area reading comprehension with fourth- and fifth-grade struggling readers. Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 26(2), 120–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1634
128.
WijekumarK. K.MeyerB. J. F.LeiP.HernandezA. C.AugustD. L. (2018). Improving content area reading comprehension of Spanish speaking English learners in grades 4 and 5 using web-based text structure instruction. Reading and Writing, 31(9), 1969–1996. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9802-9
XieK.Di TostoG.ChenS.VongkulluksnV. W. (2018). A systematic review of design and technology components of educational digital resources. Computers and Education, 127, 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.011
131.
XuZ.WijekumarK.RamirezG.HuX.IreyR. (2019). The effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K-12 students’ reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3119–3137. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12758
ZuckerT.MoodyA. K.MckennaM. C. (2009). The effects of electronic books on pre-kindergarten-to-grade 5 students’ literacy and language outcomes: A research synthesis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(1), 47–87. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.40.1.c
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
