Literacy

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.

The debate over the science of reading has focused primarily on decoding (i.e., connecting letters and sounds to read words) and whether to use phonics to teach it. However, research on reading has included much more than decoding. Language comprehension, which allows readers to derive meaning from text, is an equally critical component of reading. Research has suggested that explicit instruction on the components of language comprehension—vocabulary and semantics, morphology, and syntax—can support language and reading comprehension. To inform the field on the science of reading as it pertains to language comprehension, in this meta-analysis of recent language comprehension interventions (n = 43) in U.S. elementary schools, the authors examined whether effects vary depending on participant and intervention characteristics. Findings suggest positive effects on custom measures of vocabulary, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension but not on standardized measures of these outcomes. Results also indicate positive effects for English learners and promise for multicomponent interventions and those that include technology. Much more research is needed on how best to support language comprehension for underserved populations (e.g., students from low-income backgrounds) and how interventions can be optimized to support generalizable language and literacy outcomes. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.