Multimedia meta eetc2012

290 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
290
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
41
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Multimedia meta eetc2012

  1. 1. The Effects of Multimedia on Early Literacy Development of Children at Risk: A Meta-Analysis Victor van Daal and Jenny Miglis Sandvik
  2. 2. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Synthesis of Multimedia Effects on Literacy Achievements in Children at Risk Victor H.P. van Daal* & Jenny Miglis Sandvik Reading Centre, University of Stavanger, Norway Presented at EETC 2012 *In 2010-2011 Fellow-in-Residence at Netherlands Institute of Advanced Study victor.v.daal@uis.no & jenny@sandviks.com 1
  3. 3. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Introduction: Redefinition of literacy • In the old days: ability to read and write. • Now we have multimedia: integration of text, images and sound, presented electronically/digitally. • Examples: TV, DVDs, computer software, electronic books, talking books, internet, video games, smart phone apps, interactive toys, and more. • Literacy is now: ability to communicate through multimedia. • Multimedia more efficient than verbal/written delivery of instruction: – NAEYC (National Association for the Education of Young People), 1996: • ‘used appropriately, technology can enhance children’s cognitive and social abilities’ • ‘computers should be integrated into early childhood practice physically, functionally, and philosophically’ 2
  4. 4. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Introduction: Theory on multimedia • Pro – Dual coding (visual and auditory) results in enhanced comprehension (Sadoski & Paivio, 2007). – Supports ‘children of the digital age’ (Marsh, 2005). • Con – Use of technology is developmentally inappropriate, cognitive overload (Kirschner, 2002). – Teacher resistance to incorporating technology into lessons (Turbill, 2001). – It costs a lot, but produces little (Yelland, 2005). – Use of technology undermines the very nature of childhood, ‘death of childhood’ (Buckingham, 2000). • Overviews: Buckingham, 2000; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; Stephen & Plowman, 2003. 3
  5. 5. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Introduction: The practice • Rideout & Hamel, 2006: – 1,000 American households with children under age 6 surveyed. – in a typical day, 83% use some type of screen media. – 27% reports that their children use a computer several times a week or more. – 69% felt computers helped their children’s learning. • Therefore, in-depth research on the topic is long overdue. 4
  6. 6. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Review of research (I) • Kamil, Intractor & Kim (2000) reviewed 350 articles on the effects of multimedia on literacy: – only few related to early literacy. – multimedia facilitate comprehension through ‘mental model building’. – children who come from language and cultural minority backgrounds can benefit from multimedia. • Lankshear & Knobel (2003) found only 22 articles focusing on young children: – majority of these 22 studies dealt with decoding. – effects of technology on early literacy development were ‘radically under-researched’. 5
  7. 7. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Review of research (II) • Burnett (2009) reviewed 22 quantitative and 16 qualitative studies on technology and literacy: – technology was used in the same way as traditional print teaching methods. – strengths of multimedia were not exploited at all. – therefore, effects difficult to ascertain. • Zucker, Moody & McKenna (2009) looked at effects of E- books in 7 randomised trial studies and 20 narrative: – small to medium effect sizes for comprehension. – effect on decoding could not be assessed (only 2 studies). – mixed results in narrative studies: overall positive, but sometimes more time was spent on games than educational content (De Jong & Bus, 2002). 6
  8. 8. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Review of research (III - CAI) • Mainframe computers were too expensive and too slow (Fletcher & Atkinson, 1972; Krendl & Williams, 1990; Slavin, 1991). • Meta-analytic studies found effect sizes of 0.25 (SE = 0.07), Kulik & Kulik (1991) and 0.16 (SE = 0.08), Ouyang (1993). • Qualitative studies: – Torgesen & Horen (1992): computer should be integrated with teacher-driven curriculum. – Van der Leij (1994): concentrating on a specific subskill is more effective. – Wise & Olson (1998): talking computers should be combined with PA training. – National Reading Panel (2000): talking computers promising (20 studies reviewed). 7
  9. 9. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Review of research (IV - CAI continued) • Blok, Oostdam, Otter & Overmaat (2002): – 45 studies with 75 experimental conditions. – overall effect size: 0.254 (SE = 0.056). – variance of effect size could be explained by: • effect size of pretest: 34%. • language of instruction: 27%, English-medium studies 0.319 SD more effective than non-English (Dutch and Danish). – overall disappointing, especially as in all studies children at risk of literacy underachievement took part. • Has CAI become more effective over the last decade? 8
  10. 10. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Questions of the current study • 1. Can multimedia facilitate the early literacy development of young children (0-8 years old) at risk of literacy underachievement (low progress in reading, low- SES background, or Second Language learners)? • 2. Which literacy-related learning outcomes are most influenced by the use of multimedia? • 3. Which multimedia are more effective? • 4. Are there any multimedia X literacy outcome interactions? • 5. What works in multimedia? How do parameters of multimedia affect effect sizes? 9
  11. 11. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Method: We looked for... • Quantitative research published in peer-reviewed journals between 2000 and 2010, with children 0-8 years as participants. • Children at risk of literacy failure. • Also mainstream children. • Studies with at least one of the following outcomes: Alphabetic Knowledge, PA, RAN, Writing, Phonological Memory, Reading Readiness, Oral Language, Visual Processing and Concepts of Print (NELP, National Institute for Literacy, 2008). • Published in English. 10
  12. 12. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Method: How we looked for studies... • Multimedia and early literacy search terms devised by: – Cross-checking reference lists found in most recent meta studies and in results of pilot searches. – Consulting reference books: • Handbook of Early Literacy Research • Handbook of Research on New Literacies • International Handbook of Literacy and Technology, Vol. II • Data bases searched: – PsychINFO – ERIC 11
  13. 13. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Results: Searches (I) • References for several hundred (!) potential studies were located. • Abstracts were examined and subsequently 92 studies were downloaded for further inspection. • Again abstracts reviewed and, if needed, full texts were evaluated: 51 studies complied with the search criteria. • 15 had to be excluded, because at least one relevant statistic was missing. • Of the 36 remaining, 24 reported on children at risk: – 10 studies on second language learners – 5 studies on low-SES children – 9 studies with underachieving readers • Applications dealt with: – VIDEO (8 outcomes, 2 studies) – TV (16 outcomes, 1 study) – E-books (48 outcomes, 13 studies) – Computer Assisted Instruction (127 outcomes, 24 studies) 12
  14. 14. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Results: Searches (II) • Altogether we found 220 literacy outcomes/experimental conditions (most popular journals: Computers & Education, Journal of Educational Psychology, Journal of Research in Reading), 50% of which was published 2008 and 2010 • 195 out of 220 with kindergarten and first grade participants • Final categorisation of literacy outcomes: Letter learning, Phonological Awareness, Concepts of print, Vocabulary, Comprehension, Reading, Spelling, Syntax • Majority of studies in English-speaking countries: – USA (14), UK (5), Canada (2) – Israel (6, Hebrew), Netherlands (8, Dutch), France 1 13
  15. 15. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Results: Analysis method • Designs: – posttest only control group – pretest-posttest, no control group – pretest-posttest control group – 1 or 2 studies with a control task • Meta-analysis: – Cohen’s d: difference between experimental and control group (at pretest and at posttest), divided by pooled variance. – Small samples: corrections by means of Hedges’ g. – For grouped outcomes: 95% confidence interval for mean effect. – See: Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins & Rothstein (2009). 14
  16. 16. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Results: Effect sizes (I) • Posttest control group design – ES = 0.229 (95% confidence interval: 0.094 - 0.367) – 46 outcomes, 11 studies, all CAI • Pretest posttest control group – ES = 0.311 (95% confidence interval: 0.243 - 0.395) – 60 outcomes, 10 studies, CAI • Pretest posttest control group – ES = 0.360 (95% confidence interval: 0.224 - 0.514) – 40 outcomes, 10 studies, E-books 15
  17. 17. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Results: Effect sizes for risk groups (II) • No risk – ES = 0.228 (0.075 - 0.380) • Reading failure – ES = 0.512 (0.099 - 0.926) • Low SES – ES = 0.663 (0.415 - 0.910) • SL – ES = 0.749 (0.594 - 0.904) 16
  18. 18. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Results: Effect sizes for media (III) • Computer – ES = 0.510 (0.395 - 0.625) • E-book – ES = 0.430 (0.001 - 0.859) • TV* – ES = 0.835 (0.190 - 1.479) • VIDEO** – ES = 0.245 (0.105 - 0.383) 17
  19. 19. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Results: Effect sizes for outcomes (IV) • Letter learning: ES = 0.654 (0.272 - 1.036) • Comprehension: ES = 0.619 (0.150 - 1.080) • PA: ES = 0.565 (0.407 - 0.718) • Vocabulary: ES = 0.565 (0.339 - 0.790) • Spelling: ES = 0.561 (0.209 - 1.334) • Reading: ES = 0.379 (0.009 - 0.748) • Concepts of print: ES = 0.351 (-0.048 - 0.750) • Compare with baseline: – RAN: ES = 0.195 (-0.148 - 0.537) 18
  20. 20. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Results: Some (very low) correlations of ES and... • Year of publication: .06 • Number of sessions: .06 • Duration (in weeks): .08 19
  21. 21. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Summary • First study to indicate that literacy-related multimedia applications have a small to moderate effect on literacy learning outcomes of children at risk. • CAI slightly more effective than E-books. • Second language learners profited most, then SES, then children at risk of reading failure. • Multimedia applications do have effects on Letter learning, Comprehension, Vocabulary, Spelling and PA. Less so on Reading and Concepts of print. 20
  22. 22. The Reading Centre www.lesesenteret.no Discussion • Results depend on sort of control group – In all studies a ‘proper’ control group was used – ‘Added value’ – Baseline: RAN – Net added value effect: .40 - .15 • What worries me (a bit): – no effect of duration/sessions on ES • The way forward: – Given a further increase of Apps: It’s time for a thorough systematic review of how efficient they are based on randomised controlled trials 21

×