Effectiveness of conceptual change strategies in science education: A meta-analysis

IF 3.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Cagatay Pacaci, Ulas Ustun, Omer Faruk Ozdemir
{"title":"Effectiveness of conceptual change strategies in science education: A meta-analysis","authors":"Cagatay Pacaci,&nbsp;Ulas Ustun,&nbsp;Omer Faruk Ozdemir","doi":"10.1002/tea.21887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is extensive literature focusing on students' misconceptions in various subject domains. Several conceptual change approaches have been trying to understand how conceptual change occurs to help learners handle these misconceptions. This meta-analysis aims to integrate studies investigating the effectiveness of three types of conceptual change strategy: cognitive conflict, cognitive bridging, and ontological category shift in science learning. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate an overall effect size in Hedges' <i>g</i> with a sample of 218 primary studies, including 18,051 students. Our analyses resulted in a large overall effect size (<i>g =</i> 1.10, 95% CI [1.01, 1.19], <i>k</i> = 218, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). We also performed a robust Bayesian meta-analysis to calculate an adjusted effect size, which specified a large effect (adjusted <i>g</i> = 0.93, 95% CI [0.68, 1.07], <i>k</i> = 218). Results are also consistent across the conceptual change strategies of cognitive conflict (<i>g =</i> 1.10, 95% CI [0.99, 1.21], <i>k</i> = 150, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), cognitive bridging (<i>g =</i> 1.06, 95% CI [0.84, 1.28], <i>k</i> = 30, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), and ontological category shift (<i>g =</i> 0.88, 95% CI [0.50, 1.26], <i>k</i> = 9, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). However, a wide-ranging prediction interval [0.19, 2.38] points out a high level of heterogeneity in the distribution of effect sizes. Thus, we investigated the moderating effects of several variables using simple and multiple meta-regression. The final meta-regression model we created explained 35% of overall heterogeneity. This meta-analysis provides robust evidence that conceptual change strategies significantly enhance students' learning in science.</p>","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/tea.21887","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.21887","RegionNum":1,"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

There is extensive literature focusing on students' misconceptions in various subject domains. Several conceptual change approaches have been trying to understand how conceptual change occurs to help learners handle these misconceptions. This meta-analysis aims to integrate studies investigating the effectiveness of three types of conceptual change strategy: cognitive conflict, cognitive bridging, and ontological category shift in science learning. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate an overall effect size in Hedges' g with a sample of 218 primary studies, including 18,051 students. Our analyses resulted in a large overall effect size (g = 1.10, 95% CI [1.01, 1.19], k = 218, p < 0.001). We also performed a robust Bayesian meta-analysis to calculate an adjusted effect size, which specified a large effect (adjusted g = 0.93, 95% CI [0.68, 1.07], k = 218). Results are also consistent across the conceptual change strategies of cognitive conflict (g = 1.10, 95% CI [0.99, 1.21], k = 150, p < 0.001), cognitive bridging (g = 1.06, 95% CI [0.84, 1.28], k = 30, p < 0.001), and ontological category shift (g = 0.88, 95% CI [0.50, 1.26], k = 9, p < 0.001). However, a wide-ranging prediction interval [0.19, 2.38] points out a high level of heterogeneity in the distribution of effect sizes. Thus, we investigated the moderating effects of several variables using simple and multiple meta-regression. The final meta-regression model we created explained 35% of overall heterogeneity. This meta-analysis provides robust evidence that conceptual change strategies significantly enhance students' learning in science.

Abstract Image

科学教育中观念改变策略的有效性:一项元分析
有大量文献关注学生在不同学科领域的错误认知。有几种概念改变方法一直试图了解概念改变是如何发生的,以帮助学习者处理这些误解。本荟萃分析旨在整合有关科学学习中认知冲突、认知桥接和本体论范畴转换这三种概念改变策略有效性的研究。我们采用随机效应荟萃分析法计算了赫奇斯 g 的总体效应大小,样本为 218 项主要研究,包括 18 051 名学生。我们的分析得出了较大的总体效应大小(g = 1.10,95% CI [1.01, 1.19],k = 218,p < 0.001)。我们还进行了稳健贝叶斯荟萃分析来计算调整后的效应大小,结果显示效应很大(调整后 g = 0.93,95% CI [0.68,1.07],k = 218)。认知冲突(g = 1.10,95% CI [0.99,1.21],k = 150,p <0.001)、认知桥接(g = 1.06,95% CI [0.84,1.28],k = 30,p <0.001)和本体论类别转换(g = 0.88,95% CI [0.50,1.26],k = 9,p <0.001)等概念改变策略的结果也是一致的。然而,预测区间[0.19, 2.38]的范围较大,表明效应大小的分布存在高度异质性。因此,我们利用简单和多重元回归研究了几个变量的调节作用。我们最终建立的元回归模型解释了 35% 的总体异质性。这项元分析提供了有力的证据,证明概念改变策略能显著提高学生的科学学习成绩。
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
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Journal of Research in Science Teaching EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
19.60%
发文量
96
期刊介绍: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, the official journal of NARST: A Worldwide Organization for Improving Science Teaching and Learning Through Research, publishes reports for science education researchers and practitioners on issues of science teaching and learning and science education policy. Scholarly manuscripts within the domain of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching include, but are not limited to, investigations employing qualitative, ethnographic, historical, survey, philosophical, case study research, quantitative, experimental, quasi-experimental, data mining, and data analytics approaches; position papers; policy perspectives; critical reviews of the literature; and comments and criticism.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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