How Responsive Is a Teacher’s Classroom Practice to Intervention? A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Field Studies

IF 2.4 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Review of Research in Education Pub Date : 2019-03-01 DOI:10.3102/0091732X19830634
Rachel Garrett, Martyna Citkowicz, R. Williams
{"title":"How Responsive Is a Teacher’s Classroom Practice to Intervention? A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Field Studies","authors":"Rachel Garrett, Martyna Citkowicz, R. Williams","doi":"10.3102/0091732X19830634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While teacher effectiveness has been a particular focus of federal education policy, and districts allocate significant resources toward professional development for teachers, these efforts are guided by an unexplored assumption that classroom practice can be improved through intervention. Yet even assuming classroom practice is responsive, little information is available to inform stakeholder expectations about how much classroom practice may change through intervention, or whether particular aspects of classroom practice are more amenable to improvement. Moreover, a growing body of rigorous research evaluating programs with a focus on improving classroom practice provides a new opportunity to explore factors associated with changes in classroom practice, such as intervention, study sample, or contextual features. This study examines the question of responsiveness by conducting a meta-analysis of randomized experiments of interventions directed at classroom practice. Our empirical findings indicate that multiple dimensions of classroom practice improve meaningfully through classroom practice-directed intervention, on average, but also find substantial heterogeneity in the effects. Implications for practice and research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3102/0091732X19830634","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Research in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X19830634","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: 18

Abstract

While teacher effectiveness has been a particular focus of federal education policy, and districts allocate significant resources toward professional development for teachers, these efforts are guided by an unexplored assumption that classroom practice can be improved through intervention. Yet even assuming classroom practice is responsive, little information is available to inform stakeholder expectations about how much classroom practice may change through intervention, or whether particular aspects of classroom practice are more amenable to improvement. Moreover, a growing body of rigorous research evaluating programs with a focus on improving classroom practice provides a new opportunity to explore factors associated with changes in classroom practice, such as intervention, study sample, or contextual features. This study examines the question of responsiveness by conducting a meta-analysis of randomized experiments of interventions directed at classroom practice. Our empirical findings indicate that multiple dimensions of classroom practice improve meaningfully through classroom practice-directed intervention, on average, but also find substantial heterogeneity in the effects. Implications for practice and research are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
教师的课堂实践对干预的反应如何?随机田野调查的Meta分析
虽然教师的有效性一直是联邦教育政策的一个特别关注点,各地区为教师的专业发展分配了大量资源,但这些努力是基于一个未经探索的假设,即课堂实践可以通过干预来改善。然而,即使假设课堂实践是有反应的,也几乎没有信息可以告知利益相关者对课堂实践通过干预可能发生多大变化的期望,或者课堂实践的特定方面是否更适合改进。此外,越来越多以改进课堂实践为重点的严格的研究评估项目为探索与课堂实践变化相关的因素提供了新的机会,如干预、研究样本或情境特征。这项研究通过对针对课堂实践的干预措施的随机实验进行荟萃分析来检验反应性问题。我们的实证研究结果表明,通过课堂实践指导的干预,课堂实践的多个维度平均有意义地改善,但也发现效果存在显著的异质性。讨论了对实践和研究的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Review of Research in Education
Review of Research in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Review of Research in Education (RRE), published annually since 1973 (approximately 416 pp./volume year), provides an overview and descriptive analysis of selected topics of relevant research literature through critical and synthesizing essays. Articles are usually solicited for specific RRE issues. There may also be calls for papers. RRE promotes discussion and controversy about research problems in addition to pulling together and summarizing the work in a field.
期刊最新文献
Creative Methods for Creativity Research(ers)? Speculations Creativity as a Racializing and Ableizing Scientific Object: Disentangling the Democratic Impulse From Justice-Oriented Futures To Democratize, First Decolonize: Approaches Beyond Eurocentric and Colonial Epistemologies in Creativity Unapologetically Black Creative Educational Experiences in Higher Education: A Critical Review Exploring Conceptions of Creativity and Latinidad in Environmental Education Through the Lens of Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1