生物学概念变化研究三十年——干预研究综述和荟萃分析

IF 9.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Vesta Aleknavičiūtė , Erno Lehtinen , Ilona Södervik
{"title":"生物学概念变化研究三十年——干预研究综述和荟萃分析","authors":"Vesta Aleknavičiūtė ,&nbsp;Erno Lehtinen ,&nbsp;Ilona Södervik","doi":"10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>As students learn biology at different levels of education, their tenacious and inaccurate prior conceptions pose a challenge to conceptual change. Educators and researchers have developed a variety of interventions to address these misinterpretations and promote the achievement of current scientific understanding. Despite an ever-growing body of literature, no study has been conducted to date that examines the quality of interventions or their effectiveness in terms of conceptual change. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies conducted in the field of biology in order to gain insight into this phenomenon. According to the results, evolution and photosynthesis are the most common topics investigated. Overall, the results of the meta-analysis indicate that conceptual change interventions result in large effects on conceptual understanding of biological topics when compared with traditional teaching, with refutational text being the most effective single type of intervention. However, the most effective interventions dealt with more simplified phenomena, such as the cardiovascular system of the human body. It was found that the effect sizes were strongly influenced by the number of participants in the samples, as well as publication bias. A striking number of the studies reported only superficial learning outcomes, such as knowledge enrichment rather than knowledge restructuring. It is possible to use the results of this study to inform instructional choices and to carry out further research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48125,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research Review","volume":"41 ","pages":"Article 100556"},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Thirty years of conceptual change research in biology – A review and meta-analysis of intervention studies\",\"authors\":\"Vesta Aleknavičiūtė ,&nbsp;Erno Lehtinen ,&nbsp;Ilona Södervik\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100556\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>As students learn biology at different levels of education, their tenacious and inaccurate prior conceptions pose a challenge to conceptual change. Educators and researchers have developed a variety of interventions to address these misinterpretations and promote the achievement of current scientific understanding. Despite an ever-growing body of literature, no study has been conducted to date that examines the quality of interventions or their effectiveness in terms of conceptual change. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies conducted in the field of biology in order to gain insight into this phenomenon. According to the results, evolution and photosynthesis are the most common topics investigated. Overall, the results of the meta-analysis indicate that conceptual change interventions result in large effects on conceptual understanding of biological topics when compared with traditional teaching, with refutational text being the most effective single type of intervention. However, the most effective interventions dealt with more simplified phenomena, such as the cardiovascular system of the human body. It was found that the effect sizes were strongly influenced by the number of participants in the samples, as well as publication bias. A striking number of the studies reported only superficial learning outcomes, such as knowledge enrichment rather than knowledge restructuring. It is possible to use the results of this study to inform instructional choices and to carry out further research.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48125,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Research Review\",\"volume\":\"41 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100556\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Research Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X23000490\",\"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":"Educational Research Review","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X23000490","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: 1

摘要

当学生在不同的教育水平上学习生物学时,他们顽强而不准确的先验观念对观念的转变构成了挑战。教育工作者和研究人员已经制定了各种干预措施来解决这些误解,并促进实现当前的科学理解。尽管文献数量不断增加,但迄今为止,还没有进行任何研究来检验干预措施的质量或其在概念变化方面的有效性。为了深入了解这一现象,我们对生物学领域的干预研究进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。根据研究结果,进化和光合作用是最常见的研究主题。总体而言,荟萃分析的结果表明,与传统教学相比,概念改变干预对生物主题的概念理解产生了很大影响,反驳性文本是最有效的单一干预类型。然而,最有效的干预措施涉及更简单的现象,例如人体的心血管系统。研究发现,样本中参与者的数量以及发表偏倚对效应大小有很大影响。大量研究只报告了表面的学习结果,比如知识丰富而不是知识重组。利用这项研究的结果可以为教学选择提供信息,并进行进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Thirty years of conceptual change research in biology – A review and meta-analysis of intervention studies

As students learn biology at different levels of education, their tenacious and inaccurate prior conceptions pose a challenge to conceptual change. Educators and researchers have developed a variety of interventions to address these misinterpretations and promote the achievement of current scientific understanding. Despite an ever-growing body of literature, no study has been conducted to date that examines the quality of interventions or their effectiveness in terms of conceptual change. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies conducted in the field of biology in order to gain insight into this phenomenon. According to the results, evolution and photosynthesis are the most common topics investigated. Overall, the results of the meta-analysis indicate that conceptual change interventions result in large effects on conceptual understanding of biological topics when compared with traditional teaching, with refutational text being the most effective single type of intervention. However, the most effective interventions dealt with more simplified phenomena, such as the cardiovascular system of the human body. It was found that the effect sizes were strongly influenced by the number of participants in the samples, as well as publication bias. A striking number of the studies reported only superficial learning outcomes, such as knowledge enrichment rather than knowledge restructuring. It is possible to use the results of this study to inform instructional choices and to carry out further 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
Educational Research Review
Educational Research Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
19.40
自引率
0.90%
发文量
53
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: Educational Research Review is an international journal catering to researchers and diverse agencies keen on reviewing studies and theoretical papers in education at any level. The journal welcomes high-quality articles that address educational research problems through a review approach, encompassing thematic or methodological reviews and meta-analyses. With an inclusive scope, the journal does not limit itself to any specific age range and invites articles across various settings where learning and education take place, such as schools, corporate training, and both formal and informal educational environments.
×
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