Experimental research into teaching innovations: responding to methodological and ethical challenges

IF 4.7 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Studies in Science Education Pub Date : 2019-01-02 DOI:10.1080/03057267.2019.1658058
K. Taber
{"title":"Experimental research into teaching innovations: responding to methodological and ethical challenges","authors":"K. Taber","doi":"10.1080/03057267.2019.1658058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Experimental studies are often employed to test the effectiveness of teaching innovations such as new pedagogy, curriculum, or learning resources. This article offers guidance on good practice in developing research designs, and in drawing conclusions from published reports. Random control trials potentially support the use of statistical inference, but face a number of potential threats to validity. Research in educational contexts often employs quasi-experiments or natural experiments rather than true experiments, and these types of designs raise additional questions about the equivalence between experimental and control groups and the potential influence of confounding variables. Where it is impractical for experimental studies to employ samples that fully reflect diverse populations, generalisation is limited. Series of small-scale replication studies may be useful here, especially if these are conceptualised as being akin to multiple case studies, and complemented by qualitative studies. Control conditions for experimental studies need to be carefully selected to provide the most appropriate test for a particular intervention, and considering the interests of all participants. Control groups in studies that replicate innovations that have been widely shown to be effective in other settings should experience teaching conditions that reflect good practice and meet expected teaching standards in the research context.","PeriodicalId":49262,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Science Education","volume":"55 1","pages":"119 - 69"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/03057267.2019.1658058","citationCount":"28","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2019.1658058","RegionNum":2,"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: 28

Abstract

ABSTRACT Experimental studies are often employed to test the effectiveness of teaching innovations such as new pedagogy, curriculum, or learning resources. This article offers guidance on good practice in developing research designs, and in drawing conclusions from published reports. Random control trials potentially support the use of statistical inference, but face a number of potential threats to validity. Research in educational contexts often employs quasi-experiments or natural experiments rather than true experiments, and these types of designs raise additional questions about the equivalence between experimental and control groups and the potential influence of confounding variables. Where it is impractical for experimental studies to employ samples that fully reflect diverse populations, generalisation is limited. Series of small-scale replication studies may be useful here, especially if these are conceptualised as being akin to multiple case studies, and complemented by qualitative studies. Control conditions for experimental studies need to be carefully selected to provide the most appropriate test for a particular intervention, and considering the interests of all participants. Control groups in studies that replicate innovations that have been widely shown to be effective in other settings should experience teaching conditions that reflect good practice and meet expected teaching standards in the research context.
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
教学创新的实验研究:应对方法论和伦理挑战
实验研究通常用于测试教学创新的有效性,如新的教学法、课程或学习资源。本文为开发研究设计以及从已发表的报告中得出结论的良好实践提供了指导。随机对照试验可能支持使用统计推断,但其有效性面临许多潜在威胁。教育背景下的研究通常采用准实验或自然实验,而不是真正的实验,这些类型的设计提出了关于实验组和对照组之间的等效性以及混杂变量的潜在影响的额外问题。在实验研究无法充分反映不同人群的样本的情况下,推广是有限的。一系列小规模的复制研究在这里可能很有用,特别是如果这些研究被概念化为类似于多个案例研究,并辅以定性研究。实验研究的对照条件需要仔细选择,为特定干预提供最合适的测试,并考虑到所有参与者的利益。在复制已被广泛证明在其他环境中有效的创新的研究中,对照组应体验反映良好实践并符合研究背景下预期教学标准的教学条件。
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
Studies in Science Education
Studies in Science Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
15.30
自引率
2.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The central aim of Studies in Science Education is to publish review articles of the highest quality which provide analytical syntheses of research into key topics and issues in science education. In addressing this aim, the Editor and Editorial Advisory Board, are guided by a commitment to: maintaining and developing the highest standards of scholarship associated with the journal; publishing articles from as wide a range of authors as possible, in relation both to professional background and country of origin; publishing articles which serve both to consolidate and reflect upon existing fields of study and to promote new areas for research activity. Studies in Science Education will be of interest to all those involved in science education including: science education researchers, doctoral and masters students; science teachers at elementary, high school and university levels; science education policy makers; science education curriculum developers and text book writers. Articles featured in Studies in Science Education have been made available either following invitation from the Editor or through potential contributors offering pieces. Given the substantial nature of the review articles, the Editor is willing to give informal feedback on the suitability of proposals though all contributions, whether invited or not, are subject to full peer review. A limited number of books of special interest and concern to those involved in science education are normally reviewed in each volume.
期刊最新文献
Students’ ideas about the scientific underpinnings of climate change: a systematic review of the literature Queer individuals’ experiences in STEM learning and working environments Inquiry-based chemistry education: a systematic review Metacognitively ALERT in science: literature synthesis of a hierarchical framework for metacognition and preliminary evidence of its viability Inquiry-based science education in science teacher education: a systematic review
×
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