Search

Background: Investment in mobile devices to support primary or elementary education is increasing and must be informed by robust evidence to demonstrate impact. This systematic review of randomised controlled trials sought to identify the overall impact of mobile devices to support literacy and numeracy outcomes in mainstream primary classrooms. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to understand how mobile devices are used in primary/elementary education around the world, and in particular, determine how activities undertaken using mobile devices in the primary classroom might impact literacy and numeracy attainment for the pupils involved. Within this context, mobile devices are defined as tablets (including iPads and other branded devices), smartphones (usually those with a touchscreen interface and internet connectivity) and handheld games consoles (again usually with touchscreen and internet‐enabled). The interventions of interest were those aimed at improving literacy and/or numeracy for children aged 4–12 within the primary/elementary school (or equivalent) classroom. Specifically, the review aimed to answer the following research questions: ‐What is the effect of mobile device integration in the primary school classroom on children's literacy and numeracy outcomes?‐Are there specific devices which are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Tablets, smartphones, or handheld games consoles)‐Are there specific classroom integration activities which moderate effectiveness in supporting literacy and numeracy?‐Are there specific groups of children for whom mobile devices are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Across age group and gender).‐Do the benefits of mobile devices for learning last for any time beyond the study?‐What is the quality of available evidence on the use of mobile devices in primary/elementary education, and where is further research needed in this regard? An Expert Advisory Group supported the review process at key stages to ensure relevance to current practice. Search Methods: The search strategy was designed to retrieve both published and unpublished literature, and incorporated relevant journal and other databases with a focus on education and social sciences. Robust electronic database searches were undertaken (12 databases, including APA PsychInfo, Web of Science, ERIC, British Education Index and others, and relevant government and other websites), as well as a hand‐search of relevant journals and conference proceedings. Contact was also made with prominent authors in the field to identify any ongoing or unpublished research. All searches and author contact took place between October and November 2020. The review team acknowledges that new studies will likely have emerged since and are not captured at this time. A further update to the review in the future is important and would build on the evidence reflected here. Selection Criteria: The review included children within mainstream primary/elementary/kindergarten education settings in any country (aged 4–12), and interventions or activities initiated within the primary school classroom (or global equivalent) that used mobile devices (including tablets, smartphones, or hand‐held gaming devices) to intentionally support literacy or numeracy learning. In terms of study design, only Randomised Controlled Trials were included in the review. Data Collection and Analysis: A total of 668 references were identified through a robust search strategy including published and unpublished literature. Following duplicate screening, 18 relevant studies, including 11,126 participants, 14 unique interventions, and 46 relevant outcome measures were synthesised using Robust Variance Estimation and a random effects meta‐analysis model. Risk of Bias assessment was undertaken by three reviewers using the ROB2 tool to assess the quality of studies, with 13 studies rated as having some concerns, and 5 as having high risk of bias. Qualitative data was also extracted and analysed in relation to the types of interventions included to allow a comparison of the key elements of each. Main Results: A positive, statistically significant combined effect was found (Cohen's d = 0.24, CI 0.0707 to 0.409, p < 0.01), demonstrating that in the studies and interventions included, children undertaking maths or literacy interventions using mobile devices achieved higher numeracy or literacy outcomes than those using an alternative device (e.g. a laptop or desktop computer) or no device (class activities as usual). However these results should be interpreted with caution given the risk of bias assessment noted above (5 studies rated high risk of bias and 13 rated as having some concerns). As the interventions and classroom circumstances differed quite widely, further research is needed to understand any potential impact more fully. Sensitivity analysis aimed to identify moderating factors including age or gender, screen size, frequency/dosage of intervention exposure, and programme implementation features/activities (based on Puentedura's [2009] SAMR model of technology integration). There were too few studies identified to support quantitative analysis of sufficient power to draw robust conclusions on moderating factors, and insufficient data to determine impact beyond immediate post‐test period. Sensitivty analysis was also undertaken to exclude the five studies identified as having a high risk of bias, to identify any impact they may have on overall findings. Authors' Conclusions: Overall, this review demonstrates that for the specific interventions and studies included, mobile device use in the classroom led to a significant, positive effect on literacy and numeracy outcomes for the children involved, bringing positive implications for their continued use in primary education. However given the concerns on risk of bias assessment reported above, the differing circumstances, interventions and treatment conditions and intensities, the findings must be interpreted with caution. The review also supports the need for further robust research to better understand what works, under what circumstances, and for whom, in the use of mobile devices to support learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. This review aims to investigate the effectiveness of all types of teacher‐delivered classroom‐based strategy instruction aimed at students in the general population (all students) including struggling students (with or at‐risk of academic difficulties) in ages 12–19 for increasing writing performance. The majority of previous reviews scoped all outcomes presented in the primary studies. This review will solely focus on covering three most common outcomes: story quality, story elements and word count/length. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research acknowledges Sports‐Related Concussion (SRC) is acutely deleterious to academic ability, but no tool has been validated to measure the effect of SRC on academic ability. The sutdy aimed to establish if the Revised Perceived Academic Impact Tool (PAIT2) is reliable and valid for assessing academic impairment following an SRC. Non‐concussed, healthy student‐athletes in higher education were recruited to the control group and completed the PAIT2 at day 0, 2, 4, 8, 14 and 19. The concussed group consisted of higher education student‐athletes participating in rugby union. The concussed group completed the PAIT2 at baseline screening during pre‐season, day 2, 4, 8 and 14 following an SRC and at return‐to‐play. The PAIT2 asks participants to rate their perceived ability on 23 academic tasks on a statement scored on a 0–6 Likert scale. Repeated measurements from the healthy group (n = 25) demonstrated PAIT2 has good internal validity (χ2(25) = 2.128 and p = 0.712) and reliability (0.880 [95% CI: 0.785–0.941]). A change of 4.631 (80% CI) can be used to indicate if academic impairment is present following an SRC. PAIT2 identified 96% of concussed student‐athletes with academic impairment at day 2, 92% at day 4, 85.71% at day 8 and 92% at day 14 and 19. PAIT2 has good reliability and internal validity for detecting those with academic impairment following SRC. The use of this tool may be of assistance to clinicians when managing student‐athletes return to learn. Highlights: No previous studies have used an assessment tool to measure perceived academic ability during the acute phase of a Sports‐Related Concussion (SRC). The Revised Perceived Academic Impairment Tool (PAIT2) may fill this void but has not been validated or its reliability established.The concussed group had significantly worse self‐perceived academic performance at day 2, but not by day 4, indicating perceived academic ability recovers by 4 days following an SRC.The PAIT2 had good validity and reliability and was able to detect 96.00%, 92.00% and 85.71% of concussed student‐athletes with academic impairment at day 2, 4, 8 and 14 days post‐SRC.Other measures, such as academic time loss or the Immediate Post Concussion Test, were not superior for detecting academic impairment, but the use of this with PAIT2 was superior for ruling out academic impairment rather than just the PAIT2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To investigate the relationship among emotional intelligence (EI), resilience and academic procrastination (AP), and provide suggestions for the development of targeted intervention strategies and lowering of AP level of nursing undergraduates. Design: A cross‐sectional study. Methods: Three provincial universities offering nursing courses in China were investigated in this study. A convenience sample of 256 nursing undergraduates from May 2021 to September 2021 were recruited, with a response rate of 91.4%. Data were collected using face‐to‐face interviews. The survey tools included the General Information Questionnaire, Academic Procrastination Scale, Emotional Intelligence Scale and Resilience Scale. IBM SPSS v19.0 and Amos 22.0 were used for data analysis. Results: The AP of sampled nursing undergraduates was at the middle level (54.4 ± 21.5). The AP of nursing undergraduates was negatively correlated with EI and resilience. Moreover, the analysis on the mediating role of resilience via structural equation model showed a good fit, with χ2/df = 2.34, RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = 0.99, GFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.98. Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To explore the strategies used by nursing students in passing the nursing licensure examination. Design: This study uses a classic grounded theory design to explore the social processes influencing a nursing license examination. Methods: Eight graduate students participated in this research study and were interviewed in‐depth twice. The Classic Grounded Theory method of Glaser was applied to collect and analyse the data until saturation was reached. Results: The findings revealed that students who passed the nursing licensure examination described the strategies as a preliminary model comprising a core category, Reviewing (Phase 1), which consisted of two sub‐categories: Entering Time and Reviewing Styles. Additionally, two other main categories emerged: the Tutoring category (Phase 2) and the Testing Practice category (Phase 3). It was observed that each course (subject) does not necessarily follow a specific order in traversing these phases; they may move back and forth between them until the conclusion of the examination. Furthermore, it was found that the time allocated to Entering Time and completing the three phases significantly influences the successful passing of the nursing licensure examination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthy after‐school activities such as participation in organised sport have been shown to serve as important resources for reducing school failure and other problem/high‐risk behaviour. It remains to be established to what extent organised sport participation has positive impacts on young people in unstable life circumstances. Objectives: What are the effects of organised sport on risk behaviour, personal, emotional and social skills of young people, who either have experienced or are at‐risk of experiencing an adverse outcome? Search Methods: The database searches were carried out in March 2023 and other sources were searched in May 2023. We searched to identify both published and unpublished literature. Selection Criteria: The intervention was participation in leisure time organised sport. Young people between 6 and 18 years of age, who either have experienced or are at‐risk of experiencing an adverse outcome were eligible. Primary outcomes were problem/high‐risk behaviour and a secondary outcomes social and emotional outcomes. Studies that used a control group were eligible for. Studies that utilised qualitative approaches were not. Data Collection and Analysis: The number of potentially relevant studies was 43,716. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Only seven studies could be used in the data synthesis. Five studies were judged to have a critical risk of bias and were excluded from the meta‐analysis. One study did not report data that enabled the calculation of effect sizes and standard errors. Meta‐analyses were conducted on each conceptual outcome separately. All analyses were inverse variance weighted using random effects statistical models. Main Results: Two studies were from Canada, one from Australia, and the remaining from the USA. The timespan of the interventions was 23 years, from 1995 to 2018. The median number of participants analysed was 316, and the median number of controls was 452. A number of primary outcomes were reported but each in a single study only. Concerning secondary outcomes, two studies reported the effect on overall psychosocial adjustment at post‐intervention. The standardised mean difference was 0.70 (95% CI 0.28–1.11). There was a small amount of heterogeneity. Three studies reported on depressive symptoms at 0–3 years follow‐up. The standardised mean difference was 0.02 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.06). There was no heterogeneity between the three studies. In addition, a number of other secondary outcomes were reported each in a single study only. Authors' Conclusions: There were too few studies included in the meta‐analyses in order for us to draw any conclusion. The dominance of Northern America clearly limiting the generalisability of the findings. The majority of the studies were not considered to be of overall high quality and the process of excluding studies with critical risk of bias from the meta‐analysis applied in this review left us with only 7 of a total of 13 possible studies to synthesise. Further, because too few studies reported results on the same type of outcome, at most three studies could be combined in a particular meta‐analysis and no meta‐analysis could be performed on any of the primary outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]