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

Effects of youth mentoring programmes

Mentoring programmes that pair young people with non-parental adults are a popular strategy for early intervention with at-risk youth. To examine the extent to which these types of interventions improve outcomes for young people, Elizabeth B Raposa and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of outcome studies of one-to-one youth mentoring programmes written in English between 1975 and 2017.

Their analysis included 70 studies with a sample size of 25,286 children and young people (average age = 12 years), and considered five broad outcome categories: school, social, health, cognitive and psychological outcomes.

The findings from their meta-analysis suggest no significant difference in effect sizes across these five types of outcomes. Overall, they found an average effect size of +0.21 across all studies and outcomes, which is consistent with past meta-analyses that have shown overall effect sizes ranging from +0.18 to +0.21.

Programmes that had a larger proportion of young males who were being mentored in the sample, a greater percentage of male mentors, or mentors who worked within the helping profession showed larger effect sizes, as did evaluations that relied on questionnaires and youth self-report.

Source: The effects of youth mentoring programs: A meta-analysis of outcome studies (January 2019), Journal of Youth and Adolescence

Impact of shared book reading on children’s language development

A meta-analysis conducted by Claire Noble and colleagues explores the impact of shared reading interventions (where an adult reads with a child) on children’s language skills, and whether they are equally effective across a range of different outcome variables, for children from different socioeconomic backgrounds, and across a range of study designs.

The analysis included 54 studies conducted between 1989 and 2017. These studies included 316 effect sizes and 5,569 participants. Nine of the studies reported follow-up effects. Children in the studies were typically age 7 years or younger.

Their findings suggest that, while there is an effect of shared reading on language development, the effect size is smaller than suggested in previous meta-analyses (+0.23). They also found that the effect size is moderated by the type of control groups, and when compared to active control groups, is closer to zero (+0.04). In addition, the meta-analysis indicates only modest differences between types of language outcome, no effect for socioeconomic background, and a near-zero effect at follow-up.

However, given the low dosage of many of the studies included in the meta-analysis, the authors caution against the conclusion that shared reading interventions have no real effect on children’s language development.

Source: The impact of shared book reading on children’s language skills: A meta-analysis (October 2018), PsyArXiv

Does personality matter for effective teaching and burnout?

Lisa Kim and colleagues recently conducted a meta-analysis to try to identify whether personality characteristics are associated with effective teaching. The analysis, which was published in Educational Psychology Review, looked at 25 studies (total number of participants = 6,294) that reported on relationships between five teacher personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and emotional stability) and two teacher job-related outcomes (teacher effectiveness and burnout).

Overall, the results showed that teacher personality may be associated with teacher effectiveness and job burnout. For teacher effectiveness, extraversion was found to have the largest effect size (+0.17), and agreeableness the lowest (+0.03). The characteristic most associated with less teacher burnout was emotional stability (effect size =+0.21), and openness had the smallest effect size (+0.04). However, as the effect sizes for burnout were very small, the authors suggest that the results should be approached with caution.

The researchers also looked at whether the source of the teacher personality report (ie, self-report vs. other-report) and educational level had any moderating effects on the relationship between personality and job-related outcomes. The findings indicated that other-reports of teacher personality were more strongly associated with effectiveness and burnout than self-reports. There were no differences in the strength of the associations between educational levels.

Source: A meta-analysis of the effects of teacher personality on teacher effectiveness and burnout (January 20019), Educational Psychology Review

Computer-supported collaborative learning

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).

Self-explanation may be more effective than presenting pupils with an explanation

Researchers at Simon Fraser University in Canada conducted a meta-analysis on research that investigated learning outcomes for pupils who received self-explanation prompts while studying or solving problems. Self-explanation is a process by which pupils use prior knowledge to make inferences in order to fill in missing information or monitor understanding.

Their study, published in Educational Psychological Review, examined 69 independent effect sizes from 64 studies (5,917 participants). Studies had to include a treatment condition in which learners were directed or prompted to self-explain during a learning task, with a comparison treatment where learners were directed not to self-explain. The measure was a cognitive outcome such as problem solving or comprehension. Learning activities were mostly of short duration (less than an hour) and carried out mostly with undergraduate students.

The analysis found an overall weighted mean effect size of +0.55 on learning outcomes for pupils who were prompted to self-explain compared to those who were not. However, most of the studies were very brief and artificial, so the outcomes cannot be assumed to apply to actual classroom practice. Moderating variables were also examined in order to investigate how learning outcomes varied under a range of conditions, but were found to have no significant difference on effect sizes. The study concludes that having pupils come up with an explanation themselves is often more effective than presenting them with an explanation.

Source: Inducing self-explanation: a meta-analysis (September 2018), Educational Psychological Review, Volume 30, Issue 3