合作教学及相关合作教学模式对学生成绩的影响:系统回顾与元分析

IF 8.3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
M. H. Vembye, Felix Weiss, Bethany Hamilton Bhat
{"title":"合作教学及相关合作教学模式对学生成绩的影响:系统回顾与元分析","authors":"M. H. Vembye, Felix Weiss, Bethany Hamilton Bhat","doi":"10.3102/00346543231186588","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Co-teaching and related collaborative models of instruction are widely used in primary and secondary schools in many school systems. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effects of such models on students’ academic achievement and how these effects are moderated by factors of theoretical and practical relevance. Although previous research and reviews have asserted that the evidence base is scarce, we found 128 treatment and control group studies from 1984 to 2020. We excluded 52 studies due to critical risk of bias via Cochrane’s risk of bias assessment tools and conducted a meta-analysis of 76 studies. This yielded 280 short-term effect sizes, of which 82% were pretest-adjusted. We found a moderate, positive, and statistically significant mean effect of [Formula: see text] = .11, 95% confidence interval [.035, .184] of collaborative instruction compared to single-taught controls, using the correlated-hierarchical effects (CHE-RVE) model. From moderator analyses, we found that collaborative instruction yields effects of mostly the same size, whether the interventions involved trained teachers or assistants with no teaching qualifications. This implies a potential for the expansion of such interventions at lower costs than otherwise expected. Moreover, factors that are highlighted in the co-teaching literature as preconditions for the effectiveness of collaborative instruction did not explain variations in effect sizes. Finally, we found no clear evidence for publication bias or small study effects. Notably, a large number of the studies that we drew upon were nonrandomized studies; and therefore, more rigorous experimental research is needed, especially on relevant co-teaching interventions.","PeriodicalId":21145,"journal":{"name":"Review of Educational Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effects of Co-Teaching and Related Collaborative Models of Instruction on Student Achievement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"M. H. Vembye, Felix Weiss, Bethany Hamilton Bhat\",\"doi\":\"10.3102/00346543231186588\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Co-teaching and related collaborative models of instruction are widely used in primary and secondary schools in many school systems. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effects of such models on students’ academic achievement and how these effects are moderated by factors of theoretical and practical relevance. Although previous research and reviews have asserted that the evidence base is scarce, we found 128 treatment and control group studies from 1984 to 2020. We excluded 52 studies due to critical risk of bias via Cochrane’s risk of bias assessment tools and conducted a meta-analysis of 76 studies. This yielded 280 short-term effect sizes, of which 82% were pretest-adjusted. We found a moderate, positive, and statistically significant mean effect of [Formula: see text] = .11, 95% confidence interval [.035, .184] of collaborative instruction compared to single-taught controls, using the correlated-hierarchical effects (CHE-RVE) model. From moderator analyses, we found that collaborative instruction yields effects of mostly the same size, whether the interventions involved trained teachers or assistants with no teaching qualifications. This implies a potential for the expansion of such interventions at lower costs than otherwise expected. Moreover, factors that are highlighted in the co-teaching literature as preconditions for the effectiveness of collaborative instruction did not explain variations in effect sizes. Finally, we found no clear evidence for publication bias or small study effects. Notably, a large number of the studies that we drew upon were nonrandomized studies; and therefore, more rigorous experimental research is needed, especially on relevant co-teaching interventions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21145,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Educational Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Educational Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231186588\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Educational Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231186588","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

摘要

合作教学和相关的合作教学模式在许多学校系统的中小学中广泛使用。这项系统综述和荟萃分析调查了这些模型对学生学业成绩的影响,以及这些影响如何受到理论和实践相关性因素的调节。尽管之前的研究和综述断言证据基础不足,但我们发现,从1984年到2020年,共有128项治疗组和对照组研究。我们通过Cochrane的偏倚风险评估工具排除了52项因偏倚临界风险而进行的研究,并对76项研究进行了荟萃分析。这产生了280个短期效应大小,其中82%经过了预测试调整。使用相关分层效应(CHE-RVE)模型,我们发现,与单一教学对照相比,合作教学的[公式:见正文]=.11,95%置信区间[0.035,.184]的平均效应为中等、积极且具有统计学意义。从主持人分析中,我们发现,无论干预措施涉及受过培训的教师还是没有教学资格的助理,合作教学都会产生大致相同的效果。这意味着有可能以比预期更低的成本扩大这种干预措施。此外,合作教学文献中强调的作为合作教学有效性先决条件的因素并不能解释效果大小的变化。最后,我们没有发现发表偏倚或小型研究影响的明确证据。值得注意的是,我们引用的大量研究都是非随机研究;因此,需要更严格的实验研究,特别是在相关的共同教学干预方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Effects of Co-Teaching and Related Collaborative Models of Instruction on Student Achievement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Co-teaching and related collaborative models of instruction are widely used in primary and secondary schools in many school systems. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effects of such models on students’ academic achievement and how these effects are moderated by factors of theoretical and practical relevance. Although previous research and reviews have asserted that the evidence base is scarce, we found 128 treatment and control group studies from 1984 to 2020. We excluded 52 studies due to critical risk of bias via Cochrane’s risk of bias assessment tools and conducted a meta-analysis of 76 studies. This yielded 280 short-term effect sizes, of which 82% were pretest-adjusted. We found a moderate, positive, and statistically significant mean effect of [Formula: see text] = .11, 95% confidence interval [.035, .184] of collaborative instruction compared to single-taught controls, using the correlated-hierarchical effects (CHE-RVE) model. From moderator analyses, we found that collaborative instruction yields effects of mostly the same size, whether the interventions involved trained teachers or assistants with no teaching qualifications. This implies a potential for the expansion of such interventions at lower costs than otherwise expected. Moreover, factors that are highlighted in the co-teaching literature as preconditions for the effectiveness of collaborative instruction did not explain variations in effect sizes. Finally, we found no clear evidence for publication bias or small study effects. Notably, a large number of the studies that we drew upon were nonrandomized studies; and therefore, more rigorous experimental research is needed, especially on relevant co-teaching interventions.
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
Review of Educational Research
Review of Educational Research EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
24.10
自引率
2.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The Review of Educational Research (RER), a quarterly publication initiated in 1931 with approximately 640 pages per volume year, is dedicated to presenting critical, integrative reviews of research literature relevant to education. These reviews encompass conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of scholarly work across fields broadly pertinent to education and educational research. Welcoming submissions from any discipline, RER encourages research reviews in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided the review addresses educational issues. While original empirical research is not published independently, RER incorporates it within broader integrative reviews. The journal may occasionally feature solicited, rigorously refereed analytic reviews of special topics, especially from disciplines underrepresented in educational research.
×
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