Evaluating the evidence base for evidence-based instructional practices in chemistry through meta-analysis
Evaluating the evidence base for evidence-based instructional practices in chemistry through meta-analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/tea.21610
复制
发表时间：
2019-12-04
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Lewis, Scott E.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rahman, Tawabur;Lewis, Scott E.
调查教学实践的有效性为指导教学决策提供了证据基础。综合研究教学效果的研究提供了一个跨设置的效果的普遍性的估计，沿着的因素，可能会缓和的影响，这是无法实现在个别研究的探索。本研究试图通过元分析提供一个综合的循证教学实践（EBIP），特别是化学。分析了99项研究，包括比过去荟萃分析更广泛的化学特定研究。结果表明，EBIP功能的学生在化学的学业成绩有明显的积极影响，虽然评估的主题覆盖面和设置大小出现了相关的影响主持人，并防止作出明确的结论，每个EBIP的相对影响。在检查发表偏倚时，发现基于标准误（SE）和效应量的研究分布不对称，表明存在潜在的发表偏倚。为了探索偏倚的潜在影响，采用了修整和填充法，得出总体加权效应量的范围为0.29至0.62。该研究的结论是，即使考虑到潜在的出版偏见，循证教学实践也证明了有效性，因为效应量的范围仍然是积极的，但强调了继续需要在研究文献中发表无效结果。
Investigating the effectiveness of instructional practices provides an evidence base to inform instructional decisions. Synthesizing research studies on instructional effectiveness provides an estimate of the generalizability of effectiveness across settings, along with an exploration of factors that may moderate the impact, which cannot be achieved within individual studies. This study sought to provide a synthesis of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) particular to chemistry through meta-analysis. Ninety-nine studies were analyzed comprising a broader view of chemistry specific studies than past meta-analyses. The results showed that EBIPs feature a demonstrably positive impact on students' academic performance in chemistry, although assessment topic coverage and setting size emerged as relevant moderators of impact and prevented making definitive conclusions of the relative impact of each EBIP. In examining publication bias, an asymmetric distribution of studies based on standard error (SE) and effect size was found, indicative of potential publication bias. To explore the potential impact of bias, the trim and fill method was employed resulting in a range for the overall weighted effect size from 0.29 to 0.62. The study concludes that evidence-based instructional practices have demonstrated effectiveness even in consideration of potential publication bias, as the range of effect sizes remains positive, but highlights the continued need to publish null findings in the research literature.