Is there a gender gap in IT?

Previous studies have revealed gender differences in attitudes towards information technology (IT) literacy, with boys generally considering their IT literacy to be higher than that of girls. A new meta-analysis, published in Educational Research Review, tests whether the same gender differences can be seen in pupils’ actual performance on IT literacy tasks as measured by performance-based assessments.

In total, 46 effect sizes were extracted from 23 studies using a random-effects model. The main findings suggest that:

  • Girls perform better than boys on performance-based IT literacy assessments (ES= +0.13).
  • Gender differences in favour of girls are larger in primary schools (ES= +0.20) than in secondary schools (ES= +0.11).
  • The overall effect size is robust across several analysis conditions.
  • Overall, the gender differences in IT literacy are significant but small.

As these findings seem to contrast those obtained from previous meta-analyses that were based on self-reported IT literacy, researchers Fazilat Siddiq and Ronny Scherer conclude that the IT gender gap may not be as severe as it had been claimed to be.

Source: Is there a gender gap? A meta-analysis of the gender differences in students’ ICT literacy (June 2019), Educational Research Review, Volume 27

The role of the teacher during collaborative learning

A systematic review of the role of the teacher during collaborative learning in primary and secondary education suggests that several types of teacher guidance can be positive. However, the challenge for the teacher is to support interaction between pupils without taking control of the moments in which opportunities to learn arise for pupils.

The review, carried out by Anouschka van Leeuwen and Jeroen Janssen, included both qualitative and quantitative studies (n=66) conducted in primary and secondary schools, and looked at the relationship between the teacher’s role and the processes and outcomes of collaboration among pupils.

The authors found that feedback, prompting, questioning and transferring control of the learning process to pupils were all effective strategies for collaborative learning. The review concludes that when guiding collaborative learning, teachers should try to not only focus on the content of the task, but also on how pupils approach the task and the strategies they use for collaboration, and should let pupils know that help is available without imposing this help.

Source: A systematic review of teacher guidance during collaborative learning in primary and secondary education (February 2019), Educational Research Review, volume 27

The effects of self-assessment

An article published in Educational Research Review examines the effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning (SRL) and self-efficacy in four meta-analyses.

To understand the impact of pupils’ assessment of their own work, Ernesto Panadero and colleagues from Spain analysed 19 studies comprised of 2,305 pupils from primary schools to higher education. The meta-analyses only included studies published in English that contained empirical results of self-assessment interventions in relation to SRL and/or self-efficacy, had at least one control group, and had been peer-reviewed.

The findings indicated that:

  • Self-assessment had a positive effect on SRL strategies serving a positive self-regulatory function for pupils’ learning, such as meta-cognitive strategies (effect size= +0.23).
  • Self-assessment had a negative effect on “Negative SRL”, which is associated with negative emotions and stress and is thought to be adverse to pupils’ learning (effect size=-0.65).
  • Self-assessment was also positively associated with SRL even when SRL was measured qualitatively (effect size = +0.43).
  • Self-assessment had a positive effect on self-efficacy (effect size= +0.73), the effect being larger for girls.

The authors suggest that self-assessment is necessary for productive learning but note that the results have yet to identify the most effective self-assessment components (eg, monitoring, feedback, and revision) in fostering SRL strategies or self-efficacy.

Source: Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses (November 2017), Educational Research Review, Volume 22.

The advantages of print vs. digital reading: A meta-analysis

A recent meta-analysis showed that paper-based reading yields better outcomes in reading comprehension than digital reading. In an article appearing in Educational Research Review, Pablo Delgato and colleagues from Spain and Israel analysed 54 studies from 2000–2017 comparing the reading comprehension outcomes of comparable paper and digital texts. They examined if one medium has an advantage over the other for reading outcomes, and what factors contribute to any differences found.

Results showed that paper text has an advantage over digital text (effect size=+0.21). Influencing factors favouring paper text include reading under time limitations, text type (informational or informational plus narrative), and publication year—later publications showed increased advantages for paper reading than earlier publications.

While the authors do not advocate getting rid of digital texts given their convenience, cost advantages and pervasiveness, they reflect that these study findings should be considered when pupils are required to perform digitally-related tasks under time constraints.

Source: Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension (November 29018), Educational Research Review, Volume 25

Examining the effects of parental involvement

A paper by Lisa Boonk and colleagues, published in Educational Research Review, reviews the research literature on the relationship between parental involvement and students’ academic achievement.

To be eligible for the paper, studies had to (a) investigate parental involvement and its relation with academic achievement of learners aged 0 to 18; (b) provide clear descriptions of the parental involvement construct and measurements and type of academic outcome; and (c) be published in the period 2003 to 2017 in a peer-reviewed journal. A total of 75 studies were included.

After reviewing the literature, the authors found that parental involvement variables that show promise according to their correlations with academic achievement are:

  • reading at home
  • parents who hold high expectations/aspirations for their children’s academic achievement and schooling
  • communication between parents and children regarding school
  • parental encouragement and support for learning.

Source: A review of the relationship between parental involvement indicators and academic achievement (June 2018) Educational Research Review.

A thirty-year look at studies on computer-assisted maths

During the past 30 years, thousands of articles have been written about technology’s effects on pupil achievement. In order to quantify technology’s effects on maths achievement, Jamaal Young at the University of Texas conducted a meta-analysis of all of the meta-analyses on the topic during the last three decades. His second-order meta-analysis was comprised of 19 meta-analyses representing 663 primary studies, more than 141,000 pupils and 1,263 effect sizes. Each meta-analysis that was included had to address the use of technology as a supplement to instruction, use pupil maths achievement as an outcome measure, report an effect size or enough data to calculate one, have been published after 1985 and be accessible to the public.

The author found that all technology enhancements positively affected pupil achievement, regardless of the technology’s purpose. However, technology that helped pupils perform computational functions had the greatest effects on pupil achievement, while combinations of enhancements demonstrated the least effects on pupil achievement. The author found that study quality and the type of technology used in the classroom were the main influencers on effect sizes. The highest-quality studies had the lowest effect sizes, which he attributes to their more rigorous analysis procedures. The high-quality reviews gave an overall effect size for the use of technology of +0.16 (compared with +0.38 for low- and +0.46 for medium-quality reviews).

Source: Technology-enhanced mathematics instruction: A second-order meta-analysis of 30 years of research (November 2017), Educational Research Review, Volume 22