1 / 15

Meta-findings from the Best Evidence Encyclopaedia

Meta-findings from the Best Evidence Encyclopaedia. Robert E Slavin University of York and Johns Hopkins University. Best Evidence encyclopaedia (BEE). Intended to provide easily accessible, scientifically valid summaries of the evidence base for educational programmes

nydia
Download Presentation

Meta-findings from the Best Evidence Encyclopaedia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Meta-findings from the Best Evidence Encyclopaedia Robert E Slavin University of York and Johns Hopkins University

  2. Best Evidence encyclopaedia (BEE) • Intended to provide easily accessible, scientifically valid summaries of the evidence base for educational programmes • Educator’s summary – like Consumer’s Reports • Full reports written for publication in academic journals

  3. BEE Inclusion Standards • Programmes compared to control group • Random or matched • Control group within + .5 SD of experimental group at pretest • Posttests adjusted for pretests • Measures are not inherent to treatment • Duration at least 12 weeks

  4. Main BEE Reviews • Primary Maths – RER, 2008 • Secondary Maths – RER, 2009 • Primary Reading – RER, 2009 • Secondary Reading – RRQ, 2008 • Struggling Readers – Educational Research Review, in press

  5. Meta-findings: Substantive • Textbooks: ES = +0.06 IN 77 studies • Technology, CAI: ES = +0.11 in 130 studies • Instructional process approaches: • Strongest effects in every review. ES = +0.27 in 100 studies • Co-operative learning, PALS • Classroom management, motivation • Metacognitive skills • Combined Curriculum/CAI with Instructional Process: ES= +0.26 in 39 studies -Read 180 -Success for All

  6. Table 1: Weighted Mean Effect Sizes by Programme Category CurriculaCAIInstructionalCurr/CAI + ProcessIP Maths - Primary +0.10 (13) +0.19 (38) +0.33 (36) - Maths - Secondary +0.03 (40) +0.08 (40) +0.18 (22) - Reading - Beginning +0.13 (8) +0.11 (10) +0.31 (18) +0.28 (22) Reading - Upper Primary +0.07 (16) +0.06 (34) +0.23 (10) +0.29 (6) Reading - Secondary - +0.10 (8) +0.21 (14) +0.22 (11) Weighted Mean +0.06 (77) +0.11 (130) +0.27 (100) +0.26 (39)

  7. Meta-findings Specific to Reading • Programmes that emphasize structured, systematic phonics get better outcomes • But, outcomes of phonetic approaches depend on quality of teaching • Simple adoption of phonetic books ineffective • Effective programmes use extensive training in co-operative learning and other motivation and management methods

  8. Meta-findings - Methodological • Randomised and matched studies find nearly identical outcomes • Small studies overstate outcomes (so the BEE weights by sample size) • Measures inherent to treatments greatly overstate outcomes (so the BEE excludes them) • Very brief studies overstate outcomes (so the BEE excludes them)

  9. Importance of Phonics • Almost all successful programmes emphasize structured, systematic phonics • One-to-one tutoring by teachers • Programmes focused on phonics: ES=+0.69 (10) • Programmes less focused on phonics: ES=+0.23 (9) • Within-study comparisons favour phonics in 1-1 • Difference: ES=+0.18 (5) • But, adopting phonetic texts, software, or professional development is not sufficient

  10. Teachers vs. Teaching Assistants • Children tutored with phonetic programmes by qualified teachers gain somewhat more than those tutored by teaching assistants and volunteers. • Teacher tutors: ES=+0.69 (10) • TA/volunteer tutors: ES=+0.24 (18)

  11. One-to-One vs. Small Group • Children taught phonetic programmes one-to-one gain much more • Teacher tutors: ES=+0.69 (10) • TA/volunteer tutors: ES=+0.24 (18) • Small groups: ES=+0.31 (18)

  12. Classroom Approaches vs. Pullout • Classroom instructional process programmes work as well as 1-1 tutoring • Classroom instructional process: ES=+0.56 (16) • Phonetic tutoring by teachers: ES=+0.69 (10) • Combination of initial tutoring plus classroom process works best • Success for All: ES=+0.55 (9)

  13. Conclusion • Education policies should identify and help disseminate proven programmes of all kinds. • Well- specified programmes with extensive professional development to help teachers engage and motivate children are most likely to produce positive outcomes. • Practical, consistent, scientific reviews of research can help educators make good choices for pupils.

  14. For more information visit: www.bestevidence.org.uk

More Related