Online learning has drastically expanded in recent years. While some people believe there are certain advantages of online learning over traditional learning, others are concerned online learning will widen the inequality. Certainly, the online learning tsunami has created what is described as the “Digital divide”, which refers to the differences in access to, use of, and skills in information and communication technology (ICT) among different social groups. A study by Guo and Wan examined equity issues in online learning in China during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Stratified sampling was conducted to draw sample data from the Online Learning Survey of High School Students. A total of 27,710 (49.7% boys) students’ responses from 164 high schools in 10 provinces was included in the study. Three levels of digital divide were assessed regarding students’ online learning during the pandemic:

First-level digital divide refers to equipment and network conditions. Though 95% of students had at least one piece of equipment that could be used for online learning, 18.4% claimed that learning was negatively affected by inadequate equipment. Looking further into the details, equipment and network condition problems were more likely to negatively affect students with low SES than those with high SES, students from rural areas than those from urban areas, and students from non-single-child families than from single-child families.

Second-level digital divide refers to the difference in internet usage and skills. A self-evaluated scale was used to assess students’ adaptability to online learning which reflected, to a certain extent, the general digital literacy. The findings indicated students with low SES (ES = -0.46), those from rural areas (ES = -0.31), and those from non-single-child families (ES = -0.32), had lower adaptability to online learning scores.

Third-level digital divide refers to the difference in offline benefits drawn from internet use. Students’ reports of whether their overall test scores decreased during the pandemic were used (0 = no decrease, 1 = decreased) to access the benefit gained or lost. Results of logistic regressions showed similar results to the first two levels digital divide. Students who encountered network problems or had difficultly adapting to online learning would be more likely to have deteriorated learning outcomes.

It was considered that the traditionally disadvantaged group could reduce their outcome deterioration if their adaptability to online learning could be improved given that equipment and network conditions were the same. The authors stated that establishing online learning alone cannot reduce education inequality, so further efforts are required from various stakeholders.

Source (Open Access): Guo, C., & Wan, B. (2022). The digital divide in online learning in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technology in Society, 71, 102122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102122… Read the rest

Because of the lack of health care for children in eye care, school-based vision programs (SBVP) have been implemented in 20 states across the US. These programs involve bringing mobile clinics into schools and providing comprehensive eye exams to detect the uncorrected refractive error needs of students who have not passed vision screening, and at the end of the exam, parents receive a letter of feedback on the student’s results. The purpose of this article is to summarize the clinical outcomes of an SBVP program in the Baltimore City Public Schools and the implications, and challenges faced.

First, the screening results found that SBVP worked for children who failed screening questions in the first year of the Vision for Baltimore (V4B) program. By collecting refractive error profiles, it was found that those students who did not wear glasses had a more severe refractive error, and those who wore glasses and received prescription guidelines had improved vision.

In addition, the program demonstrated impact on student achievement. Two tests, i-Ready and Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), were used to measure the impact on students’ academics. The results showed that those students who wore their glasses according to the prescription guidelines performed better.

While both parents and teachers found the program to be beneficial, a few problems were discussed, such as the lag in picking up glasses, missed teaching times for screenings and eye exams, and the uncertainty of test results when parents were not present. Authors discuss the role of teachers in supporting student use of regular eyewear, and the development and refinement of eye exam programs.

Source (Open Access): Collins, M. E., Guo, X., Repka, M. X., Neitzel, A. J., & Friedman, D. S. (2022). Lessons learned from School-Based Delivery of Vision Care in Baltimore, Maryland. The Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology, 11(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1097/APO.0000000000000488… Read the rest

A recent study by Wolf and Harbatkin examined the difference in terms of effect sizes between types of measures. To be considered in this review, the studies had to be carried out on reading, STEM, or behavior topics using randomized or quasi-experimental designs and be part of the What Works Clearinghouse repository. A total of 373 studies with 1553 effect sizes were included in the review.

The measures used in each study were then classified in four categories:

1. Independent broad: when the measure was not created by the same researchers/developers who conducted the study or designed the program and was intended to evaluate student achievement in a subject.
2. Independent narrow: similar to the previous one but included measures intended to evaluate specific elements of a subject area.
3. Non-independent developer: when the measure was created by the developer of the program under evaluation.
4. Non-independent researcher: when the measure was created by the authors of the study.

Most of the measures used were independent narrow (42%), followed by non-independent researcher (30%), independent broad (22%), and the rest (5%) non-independent developer. The results showed a large difference between effect sizes of independent and non-independent measures. Broad measures had a mean effect size of +0.10, narrow measures of +0.17, researcher measures of +0.38, and developer measures of +0.41. The differences in effect sizes were similar also when only studies with at least one independent and one non-independent measures were considered.

A possible explanation from the authors is that non-independent measures capture different constructs compared to independent measures with minimum overlap. A researcher who creates a measure to evaluate the efficacy of a program could create it completely aligned with the program, while standardized tests are completely independent from the intervention. The authors concluded that effectiveness studies to inform practitioners and policy makers should use independent measures.

Source: Wolf, B., & Harbatkin, E. (2022). Making sense of effect sizes: Systematic differences in intervention effect sizes by outcome measure type. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 0(0), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2022.2071364… Read the rest

While thousands of educational apps are available to students, teachers, and parents, relevant research studies on their effectiveness are still limited. A meta-analysis by Kim and colleagues reviewed findings of 6 intervention studies and 285 effect sizes to figure out the effectiveness of educational apps for children in preschool to Grade 3. Results yielded a mean effect size of +0.31 in both math and literacy. Although outcomes varied across studies, results from this meta-analysis summarized the overall impact of educational apps and examined potential moderator effects.

Source (Open Access): Kim, J., Gilbert, J., Yu, Q., & Gale, C. (2021). Measures matter: A meta-analysis of the effects of educational apps on preschool to grade 3 children’s literacy and math skills. AERA Open, 7, 23328584211004184. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211004183… Read the rest

Given the already complex nature of the responsibilities of teachers, the anti-COVID-19 pandemic measures placed on teaching and learning activities raised further challenges and difficulties in the lives of teachers in Hong Kong. Evidence shows that the COVID-19 crisis negatively impacted teachers’ mental health resulting in outcomes such as stress and depression. Datu and colleagues conducted a randomized control trial to examine the impact of a PROSPER-based intervention on psychological outcomes among preschool teachers in Hong Kong.

As an organizing tool for the implementation of Positive Education, the PROSPER framework nominates seven key elements which contribute to psychological well-being: positivity, relationships, outcomes (accomplishments), strengths, purpose, engagement, and resilience. The PROSPER-based intervention in this study was considered relevant to preventing maladaptive psychological states among teachers who are experiencing intense levels of stress during the pandemic crisis.

A total of 76 participants was randomly assigned to an intervention group (n=36) and a wait-list control group (n=40). Treatment group (a) participated in four intervention online workshops for 2.5 hours each over a month; (b) participated in an online activity after two workshops; and (c) received four educational videos after workshops were completed. The online intervention workshops covered all seven PROSPER components, for instance, introduction of growth mindset, reflective listening, identification of core values, breathing techniques for stress management, a gratitude diary. A self-reported questionnaire was employed to measure those seven components. After controlling baseline scores, compared to the control group, the results of MANCOVA showed that:

• Intervention had positive effects on positivity (ES = +0.41), strength (ES = +0.62), purpose (ES = +0.61), and resilience (ES = +0.57).
• No significant effect was found on relationships (ES = +0.04), outcomes (ES = +0.15), and engagement (ES = +0.18).

Possible reasons why no effect was found on those three components could be the limited frequency of the intervention or the duration of the intervention. There were also potential threats to the validity of the study, for example, only a small percentage of preschool teachers voluntarily participated ln the program so the results cannot be generalized. Further, by the use of self-reported measures of well-being dimensions, it is possible that social desirability and self-serving bias might distort the effects of the intervention. Nevertheless, the study provided some evidence for the importance of crafting wellbeing programs for preschool teachers.

Source (Open Access): Datu, J. A. D., Lee, A. S. Y., Fung, W. K., Cheung, R. Y. M., & Chung, K. K. H. (2022). Prospering in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic: The effects of PROSPER-based intervention on psychological outcomes among preschool teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 94, 66–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2022.08.003… Read the rest