Juanjuan Chen and colleagues recently performed a meta-analysis on the effects of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL).
Using 425 empirical studies (all of which used a controlled experimental or quasi-experimental design) published between 2000 and 2016, researchers found several main characteristics to examine: the effects of the collaboration itself; the effects of computer use during collaboration; the effects of extra technology-related learning tools used in CSCL, such as videoconferencing and sharing visuals with team partners; and strategies such as role assignment and peer feedback.
Collaborative learning itself positively affected:
- Knowledge gain (+0.42)
- Skill acquisition (+0.62)
- Pupil perceptions of the experience (+0.38)
The use of computers, when combined with collaborative learning, positively affected:
- Knowledge gain (+0.45)
- Skill acquisition (+0.53)
- Pupil perceptions (+0.51)
- Group task performance (+0.89)
- Social interaction (+0.57)
Lastly, extra technology-related learning tools during CSCL positively affected knowledge gain (+0.55), as did the use of strategies (+0.38).
Source: The role of collaboration, computer use, learning environments, and supporting strategies in CSCL: A meta-analysis (December 2018), Review of Educational Research, 88(6).
A new study published in American Psychologist looks at evidence of bias against women and girls for jobs or activities requiring intellectual ability.
Andrei Cimpian conducted a series of three experiments to test for evidence of gender bias and its developmental roots. In the two initial experiments, more than 1,150 participants (mean age 35 years) were asked to refer individuals for a job. The results showed that participants were less likely to refer a woman when the job description mentioned intellectual ability (43.5% female referrals) than when it did not (50.8%).
In the third experiment, the researchers looked at whether young children favour boys over girls for intellectually challenging activities. Children ages five to seven (n= 192) were recruited from a small mid-western city in the US, and taught how to play a team game. Half of the children were told that the game was for “really, really smart” children, the other half were not. Children were then asked to select three teammates from among six children (three boys and three girls) they did not know.
Initially, the children selected teammates of the same gender as themselves (so, girls chose the other girls, and boys chose the other boys), but by the third selection round they became less likely to select girls as teammates for the “smart” game (37.6% girls selected) than for the control game (53.4%). Girls were less likely to select other girls as teammates across selection rounds, particularly for the “smart” game.
Source: Evidence of bias against girls and women in contexts that emphasize intellectual ability (December 2018), American Psychologist 73(9)
Helping pupils to understand the logical principles underlying maths may improve their mathematical achievement, according to the findings of a randomised controlled trial published by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF).
Mathematical Reasoning lessons focus on developing pupils’ understanding of the logic principles underlying maths, and cover principles such as place value and the inverse relation between addition and subtraction. One hundred and sixty English primary schools took part in the trial, and were randomly allocated to receive either Mathematical Reasoning or to be in the control group. The control group was given the opportunity to take part in the programme the following year. Teachers in the intervention schools delivered the programme to Year 2 pupils over 12 to 15 weeks as part of their usual maths lessons. Learning was supported by online games, which could be used by pupils at school and at home.
The independent evaluation by a team from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) found a small but statistically significant effect size of +0.08 on maths achievement for pupils who took part in the programme, compared to other pupils. It had the same impact for pupils eligible for free school meals. They also found some evidence that the programme had a positive impact on mathematical reasoning.
Source: Mathematical Reasoning: Evaluation report and executive summary (December 2018), Education Endowment Foundation.
A new research brief by Catherine Augustine and colleagues at the RAND Corporation examines findings from an evaluation of restorative practices as implemented in schools in Pennsylvania, USA. Restorative practices are described as inclusive and non-punitive ways to respond to conflict and build community, and these practices were implemented through the SaferSanerSchools Whole-School Change programme. Some key elements of the programme include:
- Affective statements: Personal expressions of feeling in response to specific positive or negative behaviours of others.
- Small impromptu conferences: Questioning exercises that quickly resolve lower-level incidents involving two or more people.
- Fair process: A set of transparent practices designed to create open lines of communication, assure people that their feelings and ideas have been taken into account, and foster a healthy community as a means of treating people respectfully throughout a decision-making process so that they perceive that process to be fair, regardless of the outcome.
The research team conducted a randomised controlled trial of restorative practices in 44 schools in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, between June 2015 and June 2017. Data included findings from observations, surveys, and interviews, and administrative.
Key findings of the study were as follows:
- Restorative practices were successful in reducing pupil suspensions.
- Restorative practices reduced suspension rates of elementary grade (primary school) pupils, African American pupils, pupils from low-income families, and female pupils more than for pupils not in these groups.
- Restorative practices did not improve academic outcomes, nor did they reduce suspensions for middle school pupils or suspensions for violent offences.
Overall, the research team concludes that restorative practices are promising, particularly for elementary schools seeking to reduce suspension rates.
Source: Restorative practices help reduce student suspensions. (December 2018), RAND Corporation RB-10051-DOJ
A study published in Frontiers in Education investigates whether there is an association between pupils’ self-reported preferred learning styles and teachers’ evaluation of each pupil’s learning style, and whether teachers’ assessments are informed by their pupils’ intellectual ability.
The term “learning styles” is used to account for differences in the way that individuals learn, and the idea that pupils learn better if teachers can tailor their teaching to a pupil’s preferred style of learning, often described as either visual, auditory or kinesthetic.
In the study conducted by Marietta Papadatou-Pastou and colleagues, 199 fifth and sixth grade pupils from five schools in Athens, Greece, chose which was their preferred learning style (visual, auditory or kinesthetic). They also completed a short IQ test (the Raven’s matrices). Their teachers were asked to identify each of their pupils’ preferred learning style. Each pupil’s learning style was judged by one teacher.
There was no significant correlation between the teachers’ judgements of their pupils’ preferred learning styles and the pupils’ own assessment. There was also no association between the teachers’ judgments of their pupils’ learning style and the students’ intellectual ability, suggesting that the teachers were not using intellectual ability as a proxy for learning style.
In Best Evidence in Brief, we have previously reported research showing that there is no practical utility in knowing pupils’ learning styles. This latest research reinforces this conclusion.
Source: The learning styles educational neuromyth: Lack of agreement between teachers’ judgments, self-assessment, and students’ intelligence (November 2018), Frontiers in Education
A study published in Economics of Education Review looks at the evidence from the extended school day (ESD) programme in Florida to determine whether pupils benefit from longer school days.
In 2012, Florida introduced the ESD programme, increasing the length of the school day by an hour in the lowest-performing elementary (primary) schools in order to provide additional reading lessons. The lessons had to be based on research, adapted for pupil ability, and include phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension. Schools were selected using school-level reading accountability measures. For this study, David Figlio and colleagues looked at reading scores for all pupils in Florida between grades 3 and 10 (Years 4 and 11) using school administrative data from 2005–06 and 2012–13, and employed a regression discontinuity design to estimate the effect of lengthening the school day, looking at the different performance of schools either side of the cut-off point.
Results indicated that the additional one hour of reading lessons had a positive effect on pupils’ reading achievement. ESD schools showed an improvement of +0.05 standard deviations on reading test scores in the first year. The annual cost of the ESD programme was $300,000-$400,000 per school, or $800 per pupil.
Source: Do students benefit from longer school days? Regression discontinuity evidence from Florida’s additional hour of literacy instruction (December 2018), Economics of Education Review, Volume 67