Evaluating 30 years of experimental education research in the post-Soviet space: A meta-analysis of studies on student achievement

IF 2.8 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Yuliya Kersha , Yulia Melnik , Maria Novikova , Sergey Kosaretsky , Roman Zviagintsev
{"title":"Evaluating 30 years of experimental education research in the post-Soviet space: A meta-analysis of studies on student achievement","authors":"Yuliya Kersha ,&nbsp;Yulia Melnik ,&nbsp;Maria Novikova ,&nbsp;Sergey Kosaretsky ,&nbsp;Roman Zviagintsev","doi":"10.1016/j.ijedudev.2025.103274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In recent years, the importance of using an evidence-based approach in education has significantly increased. Research results from all over the world are utilized to shape educational practices and inform reforms. In post-Soviet countries, however, the need for evidence is at odds with a limited understanding of the availability and quality of data suitable for such purposes. The current meta-analysis addresses this gap by systematizing the results of experimental research aimed at improving student achievement in the post-Soviet space. To achieve this, we searched four databases and screened 1022 publications, identifying 41 studies relevant for analysis. The evaluation of the studies using a multi-level meta-analysis model (MLMA) showed that interventions analyzed had a positive and extremely high effect on student achievement (ES = 0.78), which contradicts similar work from other countries. At the same time at least two of the five methods employed in the study to evaluate publication bias proved its presence. Overall, the results of the systematic review indicate that the research available to date can hardly serve as a basis for evidence-based educational reform. The quality of the majority of experimental studies in the region highlights the need for future research into institutional factors that hinder the development of this type of studies. Recommendations were provided for authors and journals to improve the quality of experimental research and advance evidence-based approach in the region.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48004,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Educational Development","volume":"115 ","pages":"Article 103274"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Educational Development","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738059325000720","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years, the importance of using an evidence-based approach in education has significantly increased. Research results from all over the world are utilized to shape educational practices and inform reforms. In post-Soviet countries, however, the need for evidence is at odds with a limited understanding of the availability and quality of data suitable for such purposes. The current meta-analysis addresses this gap by systematizing the results of experimental research aimed at improving student achievement in the post-Soviet space. To achieve this, we searched four databases and screened 1022 publications, identifying 41 studies relevant for analysis. The evaluation of the studies using a multi-level meta-analysis model (MLMA) showed that interventions analyzed had a positive and extremely high effect on student achievement (ES = 0.78), which contradicts similar work from other countries. At the same time at least two of the five methods employed in the study to evaluate publication bias proved its presence. Overall, the results of the systematic review indicate that the research available to date can hardly serve as a basis for evidence-based educational reform. The quality of the majority of experimental studies in the region highlights the need for future research into institutional factors that hinder the development of this type of studies. Recommendations were provided for authors and journals to improve the quality of experimental research and advance evidence-based approach in the region.
评价后苏联空间30年的实验教育研究:学生成就研究的荟萃分析
近年来,在教育中使用循证方法的重要性显著增加。来自世界各地的研究成果被用来塑造教育实践和为改革提供信息。然而,在后苏联国家,对证据的需要与对适用于这种目的的数据的可得性和质量的有限理解是不一致的。当前的荟萃分析通过将旨在提高后苏联地区学生成绩的实验研究结果系统化来解决这一差距。为了实现这一目标,我们检索了4个数据库,筛选了1022份出版物,确定了41项与分析相关的研究。使用多层次元分析模型(MLMA)对研究进行评估,结果显示所分析的干预措施对学生成绩有积极且极高的影响(ES = 0.78),这与其他国家的类似研究结果相矛盾。同时,研究中评估发表偏倚的五种方法中至少有两种证明了其存在。总体而言,系统评价的结果表明,迄今为止的研究很难作为循证教育改革的基础。该区域大多数实验研究的质量突出表明,未来需要对阻碍这类研究发展的体制因素进行研究。为作者和期刊提供了建议,以提高该地区实验研究的质量和推进循证方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Educational Development
International Journal of Educational Development EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
106
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: The purpose of the International Journal of Educational Development is to foster critical debate about the role that education plays in development. IJED seeks both to develop new theoretical insights into the education-development relationship and new understandings of the extent and nature of educational change in diverse settings. It stresses the importance of understanding the interplay of local, national, regional and global contexts and dynamics in shaping education and development. Orthodox notions of development as being about growth, industrialisation or poverty reduction are increasingly questioned. There are competing accounts that stress the human dimensions of development.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信