教育研究中元分析的挑战与机遇

Nathaniel Hansford, Rachel E Schechter
{"title":"教育研究中元分析的挑战与机遇","authors":"Nathaniel Hansford, Rachel E Schechter","doi":"10.51383/ijonmes.2023.313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Meta-analyses are systematic summaries of research that use quantitative methods to find the mean effect size (standardized mean difference) for interventions. Critics of meta-analysis point out that such analyses can conflate the results of low- and high-quality studies, make improper comparisons and result in statistical noise. All these criticisms are valid for low-quality meta-analyses. However, high-quality meta-analyses correct all these problems. Critics of meta-analysis often suggest that selecting high-quality RCTs is a more valid methodology. However, education RCTs do not show consistent findings, even when all factors are controlled. Education is a social science, and variability is inevitable. Scholars who try to select the best RCTs will likely select RCTs that confirm their bias. High-quality meta-analyses offer a more transparent and rigorous model for determining best practices in education. While meta-analyses are not without limitations, they are the best tool for evaluating educational pedagogies and programs.","PeriodicalId":495251,"journal":{"name":"International journal of modern education studies","volume":"239 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Challenges and Opportunities of Meta-Analysis in Education Research\",\"authors\":\"Nathaniel Hansford, Rachel E Schechter\",\"doi\":\"10.51383/ijonmes.2023.313\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Meta-analyses are systematic summaries of research that use quantitative methods to find the mean effect size (standardized mean difference) for interventions. Critics of meta-analysis point out that such analyses can conflate the results of low- and high-quality studies, make improper comparisons and result in statistical noise. All these criticisms are valid for low-quality meta-analyses. However, high-quality meta-analyses correct all these problems. Critics of meta-analysis often suggest that selecting high-quality RCTs is a more valid methodology. However, education RCTs do not show consistent findings, even when all factors are controlled. Education is a social science, and variability is inevitable. Scholars who try to select the best RCTs will likely select RCTs that confirm their bias. High-quality meta-analyses offer a more transparent and rigorous model for determining best practices in education. While meta-analyses are not without limitations, they are the best tool for evaluating educational pedagogies and programs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":495251,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of modern education studies\",\"volume\":\"239 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of modern education studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.51383/ijonmes.2023.313\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of modern education studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51383/ijonmes.2023.313","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

荟萃分析是使用定量方法找到干预措施的平均效应大小(标准化平均差异)的研究的系统总结。批评荟萃分析的人指出,这种分析可能会混淆低质量研究和高质量研究的结果,进行不适当的比较,并导致统计噪声。所有这些批评都适用于低质量的荟萃分析。然而,高质量的荟萃分析纠正了所有这些问题。荟萃分析的批评者经常建议选择高质量的随机对照试验是一种更有效的方法。然而,即使在控制了所有因素的情况下,教育随机对照试验也没有显示出一致的结果。教育是一门社会科学,变化是不可避免的。试图选择最佳随机对照试验的学者可能会选择证实其偏见的随机对照试验。高质量的荟萃分析为确定教育中的最佳实践提供了一个更加透明和严格的模型。虽然元分析并非没有局限性,但它们是评估教育教学法和项目的最佳工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Challenges and Opportunities of Meta-Analysis in Education Research
Meta-analyses are systematic summaries of research that use quantitative methods to find the mean effect size (standardized mean difference) for interventions. Critics of meta-analysis point out that such analyses can conflate the results of low- and high-quality studies, make improper comparisons and result in statistical noise. All these criticisms are valid for low-quality meta-analyses. However, high-quality meta-analyses correct all these problems. Critics of meta-analysis often suggest that selecting high-quality RCTs is a more valid methodology. However, education RCTs do not show consistent findings, even when all factors are controlled. Education is a social science, and variability is inevitable. Scholars who try to select the best RCTs will likely select RCTs that confirm their bias. High-quality meta-analyses offer a more transparent and rigorous model for determining best practices in education. While meta-analyses are not without limitations, they are the best tool for evaluating educational pedagogies and programs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Facing Forward: Obstacles and Implications for Kindergarten Teachers' Professional Development Attitudes and Beliefs of 4th Grade Primary School Students towards Social Studies Course Educational Challenges that Syrian Refugee Students with Disabilities Experience Bibliometric and content analysis of meta-analysis studies in the field of STEM education Adaptation of the The Questionnaire on Attitudes towards Disability in Higher Education into Turkish: Validity and Reliability Study
×
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