Diana Elbourne

Systematic research synthesis to inform policy, practice and democratic debate

Issues surrounding the role and provision of evidence to inform policy and practice have become topical and problematic. The context of these controversies is discussed, with particular emphasis on systematic approaches to synthesising research evidence. We contrast the ‘positivist’ emphasis with interpretative qualitative synthesis, and suggest that many of the viewpoints have become unnecessarily and unhelpfully polarised. The methods for systematic research syntheses will vary as they depend on the question being asked. The process is transparent, allowing readers to see how conclusions have been reached, and forms the basis of reviews which can be updated to help provide sustainable and relevant evidence.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of information and communication technology (ICT) on the teaching of spelling

Recent Government policy in England and Wales on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in schools is heavily influenced by a series of non-randomised controlled studies. The evidence from these evaluations is equivocal with respect to the effect of ICT on literacy. In order to ascertain whether there is any effect of ICT on one small area of literacy, spelling, a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken. Relevant electronic databases (including BEI, ERIC, Web of Science, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library) were searched. Seven relevant RCTs were identified and included in the review. When six of the seven studies were pooled in a meta-analysis there was an effect, not statistically significant, in favour of computer interventions (Effect size = 0.37, 95% confidence interval =–0.02 to 0.77, p = 0.06). Sensitivity and sub-group analyses of the results did not materially alter findings. This review suggests that the teaching of spelling by using computer software may be as effective as conventional teaching of spelling, although the possibility of computer-taught spelling being inferior or superior cannot be confidently excluded due to the relatively small sample sizes of the identified studies. Ideally, large pragmatic randomised controlled trials need to be undertaken.