解读数据二分法:应用QuantCrit来理解种族意识交叉元分析研究

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
J. Young, Jemimah L. Young
{"title":"解读数据二分法:应用QuantCrit来理解种族意识交叉元分析研究","authors":"J. Young, Jemimah L. Young","doi":"10.1080/1743727X.2022.2093847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Our purpose is to proffer QuantCrit methodological approaches to interrogate notions of statistical practice by convention. We present two approaches to meta-analysis and mean effect size calculations for student achievement. The first approach is the conventional approach which applies between-group differences to calculate effect sizes representing achievement gaps. The second approach is commonly referred to as a single-group summary meta-analysis within the medical literature, which calculates within-group mean differences referred to here as student growth. In the conventional study, 39 independent effect sizes were combined to produce an overall mean difference effect size of −.85, which indicated that the average difference in performance between Black and White girl literacy was almost one standard deviation. The second approach summarized the mean differences from 33 effect sizes using the previous administration year as the comparison group. A statistically significant mean difference of .09 was observed for the QuantCrit approach. Our study contributes to the literature on racially just epistemologies by providing concurrent analyses of meta-analytic data to expose the unique features of QuantCrit that make it distinct from traditional approaches to Quantitative research.","PeriodicalId":51655,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Research & Method in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decoding the data dichotomy: applying QuantCrit to understand racially conscience intersectional meta-analytic research\",\"authors\":\"J. Young, Jemimah L. Young\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1743727X.2022.2093847\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Our purpose is to proffer QuantCrit methodological approaches to interrogate notions of statistical practice by convention. We present two approaches to meta-analysis and mean effect size calculations for student achievement. The first approach is the conventional approach which applies between-group differences to calculate effect sizes representing achievement gaps. The second approach is commonly referred to as a single-group summary meta-analysis within the medical literature, which calculates within-group mean differences referred to here as student growth. In the conventional study, 39 independent effect sizes were combined to produce an overall mean difference effect size of −.85, which indicated that the average difference in performance between Black and White girl literacy was almost one standard deviation. The second approach summarized the mean differences from 33 effect sizes using the previous administration year as the comparison group. A statistically significant mean difference of .09 was observed for the QuantCrit approach. Our study contributes to the literature on racially just epistemologies by providing concurrent analyses of meta-analytic data to expose the unique features of QuantCrit that make it distinct from traditional approaches to Quantitative research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51655,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Research & Method in Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Research & Method in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2022.2093847\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Research & Method in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2022.2093847","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

我们的目的是提供定量批判的方法方法,通过惯例来询问统计实践的概念。我们提出了两种方法对学生成绩进行meta分析和平均效应大小计算。第一种方法是传统的方法,它应用组间差异来计算代表成就差距的效应大小。第二种方法通常被称为医学文献中的单组汇总荟萃分析,它计算组内平均差异,这里称为学生成长。在常规研究中,39个独立效应量被合并,得到的总体平均差异效应量为−。85,这表明黑人和白人女孩读写能力的平均差异几乎是一个标准差。第二种方法总结了33个效应值的平均差异,使用前一个给药年度作为对照组。QuantCrit方法的平均差异有统计学意义,为0.09。我们的研究通过提供对元分析数据的并发分析来揭示QuantCrit与传统定量研究方法不同的独特特征,从而为种族公正认识论的文献做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Decoding the data dichotomy: applying QuantCrit to understand racially conscience intersectional meta-analytic research
ABSTRACT Our purpose is to proffer QuantCrit methodological approaches to interrogate notions of statistical practice by convention. We present two approaches to meta-analysis and mean effect size calculations for student achievement. The first approach is the conventional approach which applies between-group differences to calculate effect sizes representing achievement gaps. The second approach is commonly referred to as a single-group summary meta-analysis within the medical literature, which calculates within-group mean differences referred to here as student growth. In the conventional study, 39 independent effect sizes were combined to produce an overall mean difference effect size of −.85, which indicated that the average difference in performance between Black and White girl literacy was almost one standard deviation. The second approach summarized the mean differences from 33 effect sizes using the previous administration year as the comparison group. A statistically significant mean difference of .09 was observed for the QuantCrit approach. Our study contributes to the literature on racially just epistemologies by providing concurrent analyses of meta-analytic data to expose the unique features of QuantCrit that make it distinct from traditional approaches to Quantitative research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Research & Method in Education is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal that draws contributions from a wide community of international researchers. Contributions are expected to develop and further international discourse in educational research with a particular focus on method and methodological issues. The journal welcomes papers engaging with methods from within a qualitative or quantitative framework, or from frameworks which cut across and or challenge this duality. Papers should not solely focus on the practice of education; there must be a contribution to methodology. International Journal of Research & Method in Education is committed to publishing scholarly research that discusses conceptual, theoretical and methodological issues, provides evidence, support for or informed critique of unusual or new methodologies within educational research and provides innovative, new perspectives and examinations of key research findings. The journal’s enthusiasm to foster debate is also recognised in a keenness to include engaged, thought-provoking response papers to previously published articles. The journal is also interested in papers that discuss issues in the teaching of research methods for educational researchers. Contributors to International Journal of Research & Method in Education should take care to communicate their findings or arguments in a succinct, accessible manner to an international readership of researchers, policy-makers and practitioners from a range of disciplines including but not limited to philosophy, sociology, economics, psychology, and history of education. The Co-Editors welcome suggested topics for future Special Issues. Initial ideas should be discussed by email with the Co-Editors before a formal proposal is submitted for consideration.
×
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