Your search
Results 8 resources
-
This research aims to investigate the effect of computer-based teaching (CBT) on students’ academic success. The research used a meta-analytic method to reach a general conclusion by statistically calculating the results of a number of independent studies. In total, 78 studies (62 master’s theses, 4 PhD theses, and 12 articles) concerning this issue were researched based on the literature review of the articles and theses which involved pre-test and post-test control groups and were...
-
In this meta-analysis, we investigated the effects of methods for providing item-based feedback in a computer-based environment on students’ learning outcomes. From 40 studies, 70 effect sizes were computed, which ranged from −0.78 to 2.29. A mixed model was used for the data analysis. The results show that elaborated feedback (EF; e.g., providing an explanation) produced larger effect sizes (0.49) than feedback regarding the correctness of the answer (KR; 0.05) or providing the correct...
-
Giving a student control over their learning has theoretical and intuitive appeal, but its effects are neither powerful nor consistent in the empirical literature base. This meta-analysis updated previous meta-analytic research by Niemiec, Sikorski, and Walberg by studying the overall effectiveness of providing learner control within educational technology, the characteristics of instruction along the continuum of learner control, and elements of the instructional environments that may play...
-
The present review examines research on the effects of educational technology applications on mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms. Unlike previous reviews, this review applies consistent inclusion standards to focus on studies that met high methodological standards. In addition, methodological and substantive features of the studies are investigated to examine the relationship between educational technology applications and study features. A total of 74 qualified studies were included...
-
The purpose of this review is to learn from rigorous evaluations of alternative technology applications how features of using technology programs and characteristics of their evaluations affect reading outcomes for students in grades K-12. The review applies consistent inclusion standards to focus on studies that met high methodological standards. A total of 84 qualifying studies based on over 60,000 K-12 participants were included in the final analysis. Consistent with previous reviews of...
Explore
Instructional domain (subject)
- Literacy (2)
- Mathematics (1)
- Multiple (5)
- Science (1)
- Social Studies (1)
Groups of students
- _No mention (3)
- EAL (2)
- Learning difficulties (1)
- Low socio-economic status (2)
- SEND (1)
Moderating variables
- Country / culture (1)
- Design-type/ testing instruments (3)
- Ethnicity (1)
- Gender (1)
- Grade/education level
- Length of time (8)
- Multiple exposures (1)
- Novelty Effect (1)
- SEND (1)
- Socio-economic status (1)
- Subject (3)
- Teacher involvement (4)
- Teacher pedagogy/implementation (1)
- Teacher professional development (1)
- Type of instruction methods (student/teacher centered) (3)
- Type of knowledge or task (exposing, procedural, active, etc (4)
Tech Hardware
- Computer (6)
- Interactive whiteboards (1)
- Internet (1)
- Mobile/Smartphone (1)
- Multimedia (1 or more) (1)
- Tablet (1)
Tech Software
- Audio books (1)
- Augmented Reality (1)
- Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) (5)
- Computer-Based Teaching (CBT) (3)
- Digital Media (audiovisuals) (1)
- E-book software (1)
- Game learning (1)
- General apps (2)
- Graphic organisers/Visualisations (3)
- LMS (3)
- Virtual manipulatives (2)
- Virtual Reality (1)
Tech mechanism
Learning Approach
- Blended learning (2)
- Classroom learning (8)
- Remote learning (1)
Teacher Pedagogy
- _No mention (1)
- Collaboration (1)
- Feedback (1)
- Group learning (1)
- PC mixed with real objects (1)
- Peer learning (2)
- Scaffolding (2)
- Self-paced (no teacher) (1)
Research methods
Effect size/ heterogeneity
HIC/LMIC
- HIC (high income) (4)
- Mixture or unknown (6)
Quality of research
- High: 6+ (6)
- Low: 3 or below (1)
- Medium: 4 or above (1)