Abstract
We examined how effectively multimedia applications (computer-assisted instruction, e-books, and TV/Video) benefit the literacy development of at-risk and not-at-risk children. Blok et al. (Rev Educ Res 72:101–130, 2002) analysed computer-assisted instruction studies undertaken in the 1990–2000 period and found an effect size of 0.254. Due to improvements in software and hardware over the 2000–2010 period, it was expected that the efficacy of multimedia applications had increased. Thirty-seven studies covering altogether 42 different treatments/experimental groups, in which in total 2525 children participated, were analysed. Eligibility criteria included quantitative research with participants up to 8 years old, which was published in English. An average effect size across all outcomes of.645 was found. Effects were larger when more time was spent on the task, and for preschoolers and kindergartners in comparison to first and second graders. Implications for the future development of smart phone and tablet applications are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Unique environment refers to the situation in which twins experience difference things, like attending different classes, one twin having an accident, etc. The unique environment term also comprises of measurement error, and is therefore hard to interpret.
- 2.
Our searches produced only one reference to a study on the Fast ForWord intervention programme. As this programme has extensively been evaluated by others without finding any effects, we decided not to include this study (which didn’t find any effects either). See What Works Clearinghouse (2006, 2007) and Strong et al. (2010).
- 3.
There exist many more limitations. Statistical issues are discussed by Bergeron and Rivard (2017).
- 4.
As of June 2015, over 80,000 educational apps were found on the Apple App Store.
- 5.
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
Adèr, H. J., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Hand, D. J. (2008). Advising on research methods: A consultant’s companion. Huizen: Johannes van Kessel Publishing.
Archer, K., Savage, R., Sanghera-Sidhu, S., Wood, E., Gottardo, A., & Chen, V. (2014). Examining the effectiveness of technology use in classrooms: A tertiary meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 78, 140–149.
Baddeley, A., & Gathercole, S. (1992). Learning to read: The role of the phonological loop. In J. Alegria, D. Holender, J. J. Morais, & M. Radeau (Eds.), Analytic approaches to human cognition (pp. 153–167). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bast, J., & Reitsma, P. (1998). Analyzing the development of individual differences in terms of Matthew effects in reading: Results from a Dutch longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1373–1399.
Bergeron, P.-J., & Rivard, L. (2017). How to engage in pseudoscience with real data: A criticism of John Hattie’s arguments in VISIBLE LEARNING from the perspective of a statistician. McGill Journal of Education, 52, 237–246.
Blok, H., Oostdam, R., Otter, M. E., & Overmaat, M. (2002). Computer-assisted instruction in support of beginning reading instruction: A review. Review of Educational Research, 72, 101–130.
Bowey, J. A. (1995). Socioeconomic status differences in preschool phonological sensitivity and first-grade reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 476–487.
Bowey, J. A. (2005). Predicting individual differences in learning to read. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 155–172). Malden: Blackwell.
∗Brabham, E. G., Murray, B. A., & Bowden, S. H. (2006). Reading alphabet books in kindergarten: Effects of instructional emphasis and media practice. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20, 219–234.
Buckingham, D. (2000). After the death of childhood: Growing up in the age of electronic media. Oxford: Polity Press.
Burnett, C. (2009). Research into literacy and technology in primary classrooms: An exploration of understandings generated by recent studies. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 22–37.
Bus, A. G., Takacs, Z. K., & Kegel, C. A. T. (2015). Affordances and limitations of electronic storybooks for young children’s emergent literacy. Developmental Review, 35, 79–97.
Bus, A. G., Sari, B., & Takacs, Z. K. (this volume). The promise of multimedia enhancement in children’s storybooks. In J. Kim & B. Hassinger-Das (Eds.), Reading in the digital age: Young children’s experiences with e-books. Cham: Springer.
Byrne, B., Coventry, W. L., Olson, R. K., Samuelsson, S., Corley, R., Willcutt, E. G., Wadsworth, S., & DeFries, J. C. (2009). Genetic and environmental influences on aspects of literacy and language in early childhood: Continuity and change from preschool to Grade 2. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22, 219–236.
∗Cassady, J. C., & Smith, L. L. (2003). The impact of a reading-focused integrated learning system on phonological awareness in kindergarten. Journal of Literacy Research, 35, 947–964.
∗Chambers, B., Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Abrami, P. C., Tucker, B. J., Cheung, A., & Gifford, R. (2008). Technology infusion in success for all: Reading outcomes for first graders. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 1–15.
∗Chera, P., & Wood, C. (2003). Animated multimedia ‘talking books’ can promote phonological awareness in children beginning to read. Learning and Instruction, 13, 33–52.
Cheung, A. A. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). How features of educational technology applications affect student reading outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 7, 198–215.
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149–210.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (2008). Handbook of research on new literacies. New York: Routledge.
Coltheart, M. (1984). Writing systems and reading disorders. In L. Henderson (Ed.), Orthographies and reading (pp. 67–79). Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.
∗Comaskey, E. M., Savage, R. S., & Abrami, P. (2009). A randomized efficacy study of web-based synthetic and analytic programmes among disadvantaged urban Kindergarten children. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 92–108.
Cornell, J., & Mulrow, C. (1999). Meta-analysis. In H. J. Adèr & G. J. Mellenbergh (Eds.), Research methodology in the life, behavioural and social sciences (pp. 285–323). London: SAGE.
Courage, M. L. (this volume). From print to digital: The medium is only part of the message. In J. Kim & B. Hassinger-Das (Eds.), Reading in the digital age: Young children’s experiences with e-books. Cham: Springer.
De Jong, M. T., & Bus, A. 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.
∗De Jong, M. T., & Bus, A. G. (2004). The efficacy of electronic books in fostering kindergarten children’s emergent story understanding. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 378–393.
De Jong, P. F., & Van der Leij, A. (1999). Specific contributions of phonological abilities to early reading acquisition: Results from a Dutch latent variable longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 450–476.
Diamond, A. (2012). Activities and programs that improve children’s executive functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 335–341.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168.
∗Doty, D. E., Popplewell, S. R., & Byers, G. O. (2001). Interactive CD-ROM storybooks and young readers’ reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33, 374–384.
Dufau, S., Dunabeitia, J. A., Moret-Tatay, C., McGonigal, A., Peeters, D., et al. (2011). Smart phone, smart science: How the use of smartphones can revolutionize research in cognitive science. PLoS One, 6(9), e24974. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024974.
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428–1446.
∗Ecalle, J., Magnan, A., & Calmus, C. (2009). Lasting effects on literacy skills with a computer-assisted learning using syllabic units in low-progress readers. Computers & Education, 52, 554–561.
Elbro, C., Borstrøm, I., & Petersen, D. K. (1998). Predicting dyslexia from kindergarten: The importance of distinctness of phonological representations of lexical items. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 36–60.
Etta, R. A. (this volume). Parent preferences: E-books versus print books. In J. Kim & B. Hassinger-Das (Eds.), Reading in the digital age: Young children’s experiences with e-books. Cham: Springer.
Fletcher, J. D., & Atkinson, R. C. (1972). Evaluation of the Stanford CAI program in initial reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 597–602.
Harm, M. W., McCandliss, B. D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2003). Modeling the successes and failures of interventions for disabled readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 155–182.
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A Synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London/New York: Routledge.
∗Hecht, S. A., & Close, L. (2002). Emergent literacy skills and training time uniquely predict variability in responses to phonemic awareness training in disadvantaged children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82, 93–115.
Hisrich, K., & Blanchard, J. (2009). Digital media and emergent literacy. Computers in the Schools, 26, 240–255.
∗Howell, R. D., Erickson, K., Stanger, C., & Wheaton, J. E. (2000). Evaluation of a computer-based program on the reading performance of first grade students with potential for reading failure. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15, 5–14.
Hulleman, C. S., & Cordray, D. S. (2009). Moving from the lab to the field: The role of fidelity and achieved relative intervention strength. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 88–110.
Kaderavek, J. N., & Justice, L. M. (2010). Fidelity: An essential component of evidence-based practice in speech-language pathology. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19, 369–379.
Kamil, M., Intractor, S., & Kim, H. (2000). The effects of other technologies on literacy and literacy learning. In M. Kamil, P. Mesenthal, D. Reason, & R. Bar (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research: Volume 3 (pp. 771–788). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
∗Karemaker, A. M., Pitchford, N. J., & O’Malley, C. (2010a). Enhanced recognition of written words and enjoyment of reading in struggling beginner readers through whole-word multimedia software. Computers & Education, 54, 199–208.
∗Karemaker, A. M., Pitchford, N. J., & O’Malley, C. (2010b). Does whole-word multimedia software support literacy acquisition? Reading and Writing, 23, 31–51.
Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., Wadsworth, S. J., DeFries, J. C., & Olson, R. K. (2006). Genetic and environmental influences on reading and listening comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 75–91.
∗Kegel, C. A. T., Van der Kooy-Hofland, V. A. C., & Bus, A. G. (2009). Improving early phoneme skills with a computer program: Differential effects of regulatory skills. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 549–554.
Kintsch, W., & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Comprehension. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209–226). Oxford: Blackwell.
Kirschner, P. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 1–10.
Klinkenberg, S., Straatemeier, M., & Van der Maas, H. L. J. (2011). Computer adaptive practice of math ability using a new item response model for on the fly and difficulty estimation. Computers & Education, 57, 1813–1824.
∗Korat, O. (2010). Reading electronic books as a support for vocabulary, story comprehension and word reading in kindergarten and first grade. Computers & Education, 55, 24–31.
∗Korat, O., & Shamir, A. (2007). Electronic books versus adult readers: Effects on children’s emergent literacy as a function of social class. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 248–259.
∗Korat, O., & Shamir, A. (2008). The educational electronic book as a tool for supporting children’s emergent literacy in low versus middle SES groups. Computers & Education, 50, 110–124.
Krendl, K. A., & Williams, R. B. (1990). The importance of being rigorous: Research on writing to read. Journal of Computer-based Instruction, 17, 81–86.
Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75–94.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New technologies in early childhood literacy research: A review of research. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 3, 59–82.
∗Linebarger, D., Piotrowski, J. T., & Greenwood, C. R. (2010). On-screen print: The role of captions as a supplementary literacy tool. Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 148–167.
Longabaugh, R., Donovan, D. M., Karno, M. P., McCrady, B. S., Morgenstern, J., & Tonigan, J. S. (2005). Active ingredients: How and why evidence-based alcohol behavioural treatment interventions work. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 29, 235–247.
∗Lonigan, C. J., Driscoll, K., Phillips, B. M., Cantor, B. G., Anthony, J. L., & Goldstein, H. (2003). A computer-assisted instruction phonological sensitivity program for preschool children at risk for reading problems. Journal of Early Intervention, 25, 248–262.
∗Macaruso, P., & Walker, A. (2008). The efficacy of computer-assisted instruction for advancing literacy skills in kindergarten children. Reading Psychology, 29, 266–287.
∗Macaruso, P., Hook, P. E., & McCabe, R. (2006). The efficacy of computer-based supplementary phonics programs for advancing reading skills in at-risk elementary students. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 162–172.
Mann, V. A., & Liberman, I. Y. (1984). Phonological awareness and verbal short-term memory. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 592–599.
Marsh, J. (2005). The techno-literacy practices of young children. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2, 51–66.
∗Mathes, P. G., Torgesen, J. K., & Allor, J. H. (2001). The effects of peer-assisted literacy strategies for first-grade readers with and without additional computer-assisted instruction in phonological awareness. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 371–410.
McCandliss, B. D., Beck, I., Sandak, R., & Perfetti, C. (2003). Focusing attention on decoding for children with poor reading skills: Design and preliminary tests of the word building intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 75–104.
∗McKenna, M. C., Labbo, L. D., Kieffer, R. D., & Reinking, D. (2006). International handbook of literacy and technology, volume II. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2009). Designing technology for emergent literacy: The PictoPal initiative. Computers & Education, 52, 719–729.
∗Mioduser, D., Tur-Kaspa, H., & Leitner, I. (2000). The learning value of computer-based instruction of early reading skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 54–63.
∗Mitchell, M. J., & Fox, B. J. (2001). The effects of computer software for developing phonological awareness in low-progress readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 40, 315–332.
NAEYC. (1996). Technology and young children – Ages 3 through 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Naslund, J. C., & Schneider, W. (1996). Kindergarten letter knowledge, phonological skills, and memory processes: Relative effects on early literacy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 62, 30–59.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read. An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Rockville: NICHD Clearinghouse.
National Institute for Literacy. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Jessup: National Institute for Literacy.
Neuman, S. B., & Dickinson, D. K. (2001). Handbook of early literacy research, volume I. New York: Guilford Press.
Nicolson, R. I. (2016). Developmental dyslexia: The bigger picture. In A. Davis (Ed.), Dyslexia: Developing the debate. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Oliver, B. R., Dale, P. S., & Plomin, R. (2005). Predicting literacy at age 7 from preliteracy at age 4: A longitudinal genetic analysis. Psychological Science, 16, 861–865.
Ouyang, R. (1993). A meta-analysis: Effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction at the level of elementary education (K-6). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Oxford: Blackwell.
Plowman, L., & Stephen, C. (2003). A ‘benign addition’? Research on ICT and pre-school children. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 149–164.
Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W., & Prosser, B. (2005). A user’s guide to MlwiN, Version 2.0. Bristol: Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol.
∗Regtvoort, A. G. F. M., & Van der Leij, A. (2007). Early intervention with children of dyslexic parents: Effects of computer-based reading instruction at home on literacy acquisition. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 35–53.
Rideout, V. (2014). Learning at home: Families educational media use in America. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED555586
Rideout, V., & Hamel, E. (2006). The media family: Electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and their parents. Menlo Park: Kaiser Family Foundation.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2007). Toward a unified theory of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 337–365.
Samuelsson, S., Olson, R. K., Wadsworth, S., Corley, R., DeFries, J. C., Willcutt, E., Hulslander, J., & Byrne, B. (2007). Genetic and environmental influences on prereading skills and early reading and spelling development: A comparison among United States, Australia, and Scandinavia. Reading and Writing, 20, 51–75.
∗Savage, R. S., Abrami, P., Hipps, G., & Deault, L. (2009). A randomized controlled trial study of the ABRACADABRA reading intervention program in Grade 1. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 590–604.
Scarborough, H. S. (1990). Very early language deficits in dyslexic children. Child Development, 61, 1728–1743.
∗Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2002). Multimedia support of early literacy learning. Computers & Education, 39, 207–221.
∗Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Effects of vocabulary training by computer in kindergarten. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 557–566.
∗Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2005). Long-term effects of computer training of phonological awareness in kindergarten. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 17–27.
∗Segers, E., Takke, L., & Verhoeven, L. (2004). Teacher-mediated versus computer-mediated storybook reading to children in native and multicultural kindergarten classrooms. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 215–226.
Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.
∗Shamir, A., Korat, O., & Barbi, N. (2008). The effects of CD-ROM storybook reading on low SES kindergartners’ emergent literacy as a function of learning context. Computers & Education, 51, 354–367.
Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.
∗Silverman, R., & Hines, S. (2009). The effects of multimedia-enhanced instruction on the vocabulary of English-language learners and non-English-language learners in pre-kindergarten through second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 305–314.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Reading effects of IBM’s ‘Writing to Read’ program: A review of evaluations. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 1–11.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific Foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford Press.
Stephen, C., & Plowman, L. (2003). Information and communication technologies in per-school settings: A review of the literature. International Journal of Early Years Education, 11, 224–234.
Strong, G. K., Torgerson, C. J., Torgerson, D., & Hulme, C. (2010). A systematic meta-analytic review of evidence for the effectiveness of the “Fast ForWord” language intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 52, 224–235.
Takacs, Z. K., Swart, E. K., & Bus, A. G. (2015). Benefits and pitfalls of multimedia and interactive features in technology-enhanced storybooks: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85, 698–739.
Torgesen, J. K., & Horen, N. M. (1992). Using computers to assist in reading instruction for children with learning disabilities. In S. A. Vogel (Ed.), Educational alternatives for students with learning disabilities (pp. 159–181). New York: Springer.
Turbill, J. (2001). A researcher goes to school: Using technology in kindergarten literacy curriculum. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 1, 255–279.
∗Van Daal, V. H. P., & Reitsma, P. (2000). Computer-assisted learning to read and spell: Results from two pilot studies. Journal of Research in Reading, 23, 181–193.
Van Daal, V. H. P., & Sandvik, J. M. (2013). The effects of multimedia on early literacy development of children at risk: A meta-analysis. In A. Shamir & O. Korat (Eds.), Technology as a support for literacy achievements for children at risk (pp. 73–122). Dordrecht: Springer.
Van Daal, V. H. P., Reitsma, P., & Van der Leij, A. (1994). Processing units in word reading by disabled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 57, 180–210.
Van der Leij, A. (1994). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on word and pseudoword reading of reading-disabled students. In K. P. van den Bos, L. S. Siegel, & D. J. Bakker (Eds.), Current directions in dyslexia research (pp. 251–267). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
∗Verhallen, M. J. A. J., & Bus, A. G. (2010). Low-income immigrant pupils learning vocabulary through digital picture storybooks. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 54–61.
∗Verhallen, M. J. A. J., Bus, A. G., & de Jong, M. T. (2006). The promise of multimedia stories for kindergarten children at risk. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 410–419.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. A., & Burgess, S. R. (1997). Changing relations between phonological processing abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled readers: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33, 468–479.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2006). Fast ForWord language: English language learners. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2007). Fast ForWord: Beginning reading. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
∗Wild, M. (2009). Using computer-aided instruction to support the systematic practice of phonological skills in beginning readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 413–432.
Wimmer, H., Mayringer, H., & Landerl, K. (2000). The double-deficit hypothesis and difficulties in learning to read a regular orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 668–680.
Wise, B. W., & Olson, R. K. (1998). Studies of computer-aided remediation for reading disabilities. In C. Hulme & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and spelling: Development and disorders (pp. 473–487). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yelland, N. (2005). The future is now: A review of the literature on the use of computers in early childhood education (1994–2004). AACE Journal, 13, 201–232.
Zucker, T. A., Moody, A. K., & McKenna, M. 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, 47–87.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendices
1.1 Appendix 1: Principal Component Analysis of Literacy Outcomes in Two Primary Studies
1.2 Appendix 2: Effect Sizes for Separate Literacy Outcomes (Van Daal and Sandvik 2013)
Literacy outcomea | ES | 95% confidence interval | Number of studies |
|---|---|---|---|
Comprehension | .52 | .27–1.31 | 12 |
Letter learning | .89 | .66–1.13 | 6 |
Nonword reading | .53 | .39–.67 | 13 |
PA | .75 | .68–.83 | 51 |
Print concepts | .86 | .61–1.11 | 6 |
RAN | .21 | .05–.38 | 3 |
Spelling | 1.11 | .90–1.32 | 5 |
Vocabulary | .68 | .57–.80 | 28 |
Word reading | .60 | .52–.68 | 44 |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Daal, V.H.P., Sandvik, J.M., Adèr, H.J. (2019). A Meta-analysis of Multimedia Applications: How Effective Are Interventions with e-Books, Computer-Assisted Instruction and TV/Video on Literacy Learning?. In: Kim, J.E., Hassinger-Das, B. (eds) Reading in the Digital Age: Young Children’s Experiences with E-books. Literacy Studies, vol 18. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20077-0_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20077-0_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20076-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20077-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)