关于小学课堂上使用移动设备及其对学生识字和算术成绩影响的系统性综述:系统回顾

IF 4 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Campbell Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2024-06-20 DOI:10.1002/cl2.1417
Claire Dorris, Karen Winter, Liam O'Hare, Edda Tandi Lwoga
{"title":"关于小学课堂上使用移动设备及其对学生识字和算术成绩影响的系统性综述:系统回顾","authors":"Claire Dorris,&nbsp;Karen Winter,&nbsp;Liam O'Hare,&nbsp;Edda Tandi Lwoga","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Investment in mobile devices to support primary or elementary education is increasing and must be informed by robust evidence to demonstrate impact. This systematic review of randomised controlled trials sought to identify the overall impact of mobile devices to support literacy and numeracy outcomes in mainstream primary classrooms.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>The aim of this systematic review was to understand how mobile devices are used in primary/elementary education around the world, and in particular, determine how activities undertaken using mobile devices in the primary classroom might impact literacy and numeracy attainment for the pupils involved. Within this context, mobile devices are defined as tablets (including iPads and other branded devices), smartphones (usually those with a touchscreen interface and internet connectivity) and handheld games consoles (again usually with touchscreen and internet-enabled). The interventions of interest were those aimed at improving literacy and/or numeracy for children aged 4–12 within the primary/elementary school (or equivalent) classroom.</p>\n \n <div>Specifically, the review aimed to answer the following research questions:\n\n <ul>\n \n <li><span>- </span>\n \n <p>What is the effect of mobile device integration in the primary school classroom on children's literacy and numeracy outcomes?</p>\n </li>\n \n <li><span>- </span>\n \n <p>Are there specific devices which are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Tablets, smartphones, or handheld games consoles)</p>\n </li>\n \n <li><span>- </span>\n \n <p>Are there specific classroom integration activities which moderate effectiveness in supporting literacy and numeracy?</p>\n </li>\n \n <li><span>- </span>\n \n <p>Are there specific groups of children for whom mobile devices are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Across age group and gender).</p>\n </li>\n \n <li><span>- </span>\n \n <p>Do the benefits of mobile devices for learning last for any time beyond the study?</p>\n </li>\n \n <li><span>- </span>\n \n <p>What is the quality of available evidence on the use of mobile devices in primary/elementary education, and where is further research needed in this regard?</p>\n </li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n \n <p>An Expert Advisory Group supported the review process at key stages to ensure relevance to current practice.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Search Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The search strategy was designed to retrieve both published and unpublished literature, and incorporated relevant journal and other databases with a focus on education and social sciences. Robust electronic database searches were undertaken (12 databases, including APA PsychInfo, Web of Science, ERIC, British Education Index and others, and relevant government and other websites), as well as a hand-search of relevant journals and conference proceedings. Contact was also made with prominent authors in the field to identify any ongoing or unpublished research. All searches and author contact took place between October and November 2020. The review team acknowledges that new studies will likely have emerged since and are not captured at this time. A further update to the review in the future is important and would build on the evidence reflected here.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\n \n <p>The review included children within mainstream primary/elementary/kindergarten education settings in any country (aged 4–12), and interventions or activities initiated within the primary school classroom (or global equivalent) that used mobile devices (including tablets, smartphones, or hand-held gaming devices) to intentionally support literacy or numeracy learning. In terms of study design, only Randomised Controlled Trials were included in the review.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 668 references were identified through a robust search strategy including published and unpublished literature. Following duplicate screening, 18 relevant studies, including 11,126 participants, 14 unique interventions, and 46 relevant outcome measures were synthesised using Robust Variance Estimation and a random effects meta-analysis model. Risk of Bias assessment was undertaken by three reviewers using the ROB2 tool to assess the quality of studies, with 13 studies rated as having some concerns, and 5 as having high risk of bias. Qualitative data was also extracted and analysed in relation to the types of interventions included to allow a comparison of the key elements of each.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Results</h3>\n \n <p>A positive, statistically significant combined effect was found (Cohen's <i>d</i> = 0.24, CI 0.0707 to 0.409, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01), demonstrating that in the studies and interventions included, children undertaking maths or literacy interventions using mobile devices achieved higher numeracy or literacy outcomes than those using an alternative device (e.g., a laptop or desktop computer) or no device (class activities as usual). However these results should be interpreted with caution given the risk of bias assessment noted above (5 studies rated high risk of bias and 13 rated as having some concerns). As the interventions and classroom circumstances differed quite widely, further research is needed to understand any potential impact more fully.</p>\n \n <p>Sensitivity analysis aimed to identify moderating factors including age or gender, screen size, frequency/dosage of intervention exposure, and programme implementation features/activities (based on Puentedura's [2009] SAMR model of technology integration). There were too few studies identified to support quantitative analysis of sufficient power to draw robust conclusions on moderating factors, and insufficient data to determine impact beyond immediate post-test period. Sensitivty analysis was also undertaken to exclude the five studies identified as having a high risk of bias, to identify any impact they may have on overall findings.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Authors' Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Overall, this review demonstrates that for the specific interventions and studies included, mobile device use in the classroom led to a significant, positive effect on literacy and numeracy outcomes for the children involved, bringing positive implications for their continued use in primary education. However given the concerns on risk of bias assessment reported above, the differing circumstances, interventions and treatment conditions and intensities, the findings must be interpreted with caution. The review also supports the need for further robust research to better understand what works, under what circumstances, and for whom, in the use of mobile devices to support learning.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1417","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review of mobile device use in the primary school classroom and impact on pupil literacy and numeracy attainment: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Claire Dorris,&nbsp;Karen Winter,&nbsp;Liam O'Hare,&nbsp;Edda Tandi Lwoga\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cl2.1417\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Investment in mobile devices to support primary or elementary education is increasing and must be informed by robust evidence to demonstrate impact. This systematic review of randomised controlled trials sought to identify the overall impact of mobile devices to support literacy and numeracy outcomes in mainstream primary classrooms.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>The aim of this systematic review was to understand how mobile devices are used in primary/elementary education around the world, and in particular, determine how activities undertaken using mobile devices in the primary classroom might impact literacy and numeracy attainment for the pupils involved. Within this context, mobile devices are defined as tablets (including iPads and other branded devices), smartphones (usually those with a touchscreen interface and internet connectivity) and handheld games consoles (again usually with touchscreen and internet-enabled). The interventions of interest were those aimed at improving literacy and/or numeracy for children aged 4–12 within the primary/elementary school (or equivalent) classroom.</p>\\n \\n <div>Specifically, the review aimed to answer the following research questions:\\n\\n <ul>\\n \\n <li><span>- </span>\\n \\n <p>What is the effect of mobile device integration in the primary school classroom on children's literacy and numeracy outcomes?</p>\\n </li>\\n \\n <li><span>- </span>\\n \\n <p>Are there specific devices which are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Tablets, smartphones, or handheld games consoles)</p>\\n </li>\\n \\n <li><span>- </span>\\n \\n <p>Are there specific classroom integration activities which moderate effectiveness in supporting literacy and numeracy?</p>\\n </li>\\n \\n <li><span>- </span>\\n \\n <p>Are there specific groups of children for whom mobile devices are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Across age group and gender).</p>\\n </li>\\n \\n <li><span>- </span>\\n \\n <p>Do the benefits of mobile devices for learning last for any time beyond the study?</p>\\n </li>\\n \\n <li><span>- </span>\\n \\n <p>What is the quality of available evidence on the use of mobile devices in primary/elementary education, and where is further research needed in this regard?</p>\\n </li>\\n </ul>\\n </div>\\n \\n <p>An Expert Advisory Group supported the review process at key stages to ensure relevance to current practice.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Search Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>The search strategy was designed to retrieve both published and unpublished literature, and incorporated relevant journal and other databases with a focus on education and social sciences. Robust electronic database searches were undertaken (12 databases, including APA PsychInfo, Web of Science, ERIC, British Education Index and others, and relevant government and other websites), as well as a hand-search of relevant journals and conference proceedings. Contact was also made with prominent authors in the field to identify any ongoing or unpublished research. All searches and author contact took place between October and November 2020. The review team acknowledges that new studies will likely have emerged since and are not captured at this time. A further update to the review in the future is important and would build on the evidence reflected here.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\\n \\n <p>The review included children within mainstream primary/elementary/kindergarten education settings in any country (aged 4–12), and interventions or activities initiated within the primary school classroom (or global equivalent) that used mobile devices (including tablets, smartphones, or hand-held gaming devices) to intentionally support literacy or numeracy learning. In terms of study design, only Randomised Controlled Trials were included in the review.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 668 references were identified through a robust search strategy including published and unpublished literature. Following duplicate screening, 18 relevant studies, including 11,126 participants, 14 unique interventions, and 46 relevant outcome measures were synthesised using Robust Variance Estimation and a random effects meta-analysis model. Risk of Bias assessment was undertaken by three reviewers using the ROB2 tool to assess the quality of studies, with 13 studies rated as having some concerns, and 5 as having high risk of bias. Qualitative data was also extracted and analysed in relation to the types of interventions included to allow a comparison of the key elements of each.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>A positive, statistically significant combined effect was found (Cohen's <i>d</i> = 0.24, CI 0.0707 to 0.409, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01), demonstrating that in the studies and interventions included, children undertaking maths or literacy interventions using mobile devices achieved higher numeracy or literacy outcomes than those using an alternative device (e.g., a laptop or desktop computer) or no device (class activities as usual). However these results should be interpreted with caution given the risk of bias assessment noted above (5 studies rated high risk of bias and 13 rated as having some concerns). As the interventions and classroom circumstances differed quite widely, further research is needed to understand any potential impact more fully.</p>\\n \\n <p>Sensitivity analysis aimed to identify moderating factors including age or gender, screen size, frequency/dosage of intervention exposure, and programme implementation features/activities (based on Puentedura's [2009] SAMR model of technology integration). There were too few studies identified to support quantitative analysis of sufficient power to draw robust conclusions on moderating factors, and insufficient data to determine impact beyond immediate post-test period. Sensitivty analysis was also undertaken to exclude the five studies identified as having a high risk of bias, to identify any impact they may have on overall findings.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Authors' Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Overall, this review demonstrates that for the specific interventions and studies included, mobile device use in the classroom led to a significant, positive effect on literacy and numeracy outcomes for the children involved, bringing positive implications for their continued use in primary education. However given the concerns on risk of bias assessment reported above, the differing circumstances, interventions and treatment conditions and intensities, the findings must be interpreted with caution. The review also supports the need for further robust research to better understand what works, under what circumstances, and for whom, in the use of mobile devices to support learning.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Campbell Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"20 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1417\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Campbell Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1417\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1417","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 为支持小学或初级教育而对移动设备的投资正在不断增加,而且必须有可靠的证据来证明其影响。本随机对照试验系统综述旨在确定移动设备对主流小学课堂识字和算术成果的总体影响。 目标 本系统性综述旨在了解移动设备在全球小学教育中的使用情况,尤其是确定在小学课堂中使用移动设备开展的活动会如何影响相关学生的识字和算术成绩。在此背景下,移动设备被定义为平板电脑(包括 iPad 和其他品牌设备)、智能手机(通常是具有触摸屏界面和互联网连接的设备)和手持游戏机(通常也是具有触摸屏和互联网连接的设备)。所关注的干预措施旨在提高小学/初级学校(或同等学校)课堂内 4-12 岁儿童的识字和/或算术能力。 具体来说,本综述旨在回答以下研究问题: - 在小学课堂上使用移动设备对儿童的识字和算术能力有什么影响? - 是否有特定的设备能更有效地支持识字和算术?(平板电脑、智能手机或掌上游戏机) - 是否有特定的课堂整合活动能缓和支持识字和算术的效果? - 是否有特定的儿童群体,移动设备对他们的识字和算术能力更有效?(跨年龄组和性别)。 - 研究结束后,移动设备对学习的益处是否还会持续? - 关于在小学/初等教育中使用移动设备的现有证据质量如何? 专家顾问小组在关键阶段为审查过程提供支持,以确保与当前实践相关。 检索方法 检索策略旨在检索已发表和未发表的文献,并纳入相关期刊和其他数据库,重点关注教育和社会科学。进行了大量的电子数据库检索(12 个数据库,包括 APA PsychInfo、Web of Science、ERIC、British Education Index 等,以及相关的政府网站和其他网站),并对相关期刊和会议论文集进行了手工检索。我们还与该领域的知名作者进行了联系,以确定任何正在进行或尚未发表的研究。所有搜索和作者联系均在 2020 年 10 月至 11 月期间进行。综述小组承认,此后可能会有新的研究出现,但目前尚未捕捉到。未来对本综述的进一步更新非常重要,并将以本综述所反映的证据为基础。 选择标准 本次综述包括任何国家主流小学/小学/幼儿园教育环境中的儿童(4-12 岁),以及在小学课堂(或全球同等环境)中发起的使用移动设备(包括平板电脑、智能手机或手持游戏设备)有意支持识字或算术学习的干预措施或活动。在研究设计方面,只有随机对照试验被纳入审查范围。 数据收集与分析 通过稳健的搜索策略,包括已发表和未发表的文献,共确定了 668 篇参考文献。经过重复筛选,采用稳健方差估计法和随机效应荟萃分析模型对 18 项相关研究(包括 11,126 名参与者、14 种独特的干预措施和 46 种相关结果测量指标)进行了综合分析。 三位评审员使用 ROB2 工具对研究质量进行了偏倚风险评估,其中 13 项研究被评为存在一些问题,5 项研究被评为存在较高的偏倚风险。此外,还提取并分析了与所纳入的干预类型相关的定性数据,以便对每种干预的关键要素进行比较。 主要结果 发现了具有统计学意义的积极综合效应(Cohen's d = 0.24, CI 0.0707 to 0.409, p &lt; 0.01),表明在纳入的研究和干预中,使用移动设备进行数学或识字干预的儿童比使用其他设备(如笔记本电脑或台式电脑)或不使用任何设备(照常进行课堂活动)的儿童取得了更高的算术或识字成果。然而,鉴于上述偏倚风险评估(5 项研究被评为偏倚风险较高,13 项研究被评为存在一些问题),在解释这些结果时应谨慎。由于干预措施和课堂环境差异很大,因此需要进一步研究,以更全面地了解任何潜在的影响。 敏感性分析旨在确定调节因素,包括年龄或性别、屏幕尺寸、干预接触的频率/剂量以及计划实施的特点/活动(基于 Puentedura [2009] 的技术整合 SAMR 模型)。已确定的研究太少,不足以支持对调节因素进行有足够说服力的定量分析,也没有足够的数据来确定测试后的直接影响。我们还进行了敏感性分析,排除了五项被认定为具有高偏倚风险的研究,以确定它们对总体研究结果可能产生的影响。 作者的结论 总体而言,本综述表明,就所纳入的具体干预措施和研究而言,在课堂上使用移动设备对相关儿童的识字和算术成果产生了显著、积极的影响,为在小学教育中继续使用移动设备带来了积极意义。然而,考虑到上述偏差风险评估、不同的环境、干预措施、治疗条件和强度,必须谨慎解读研究结果。本综述还支持有必要进一步开展强有力的研究,以更好地了解在什么情况下、对谁使用移动设备来支持学习是有效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
A systematic review of mobile device use in the primary school classroom and impact on pupil literacy and numeracy attainment: A systematic review

Background

Investment in mobile devices to support primary or elementary education is increasing and must be informed by robust evidence to demonstrate impact. This systematic review of randomised controlled trials sought to identify the overall impact of mobile devices to support literacy and numeracy outcomes in mainstream primary classrooms.

Objectives

The aim of this systematic review was to understand how mobile devices are used in primary/elementary education around the world, and in particular, determine how activities undertaken using mobile devices in the primary classroom might impact literacy and numeracy attainment for the pupils involved. Within this context, mobile devices are defined as tablets (including iPads and other branded devices), smartphones (usually those with a touchscreen interface and internet connectivity) and handheld games consoles (again usually with touchscreen and internet-enabled). The interventions of interest were those aimed at improving literacy and/or numeracy for children aged 4–12 within the primary/elementary school (or equivalent) classroom.

Specifically, the review aimed to answer the following research questions:
  • -

    What is the effect of mobile device integration in the primary school classroom on children's literacy and numeracy outcomes?

  • -

    Are there specific devices which are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Tablets, smartphones, or handheld games consoles)

  • -

    Are there specific classroom integration activities which moderate effectiveness in supporting literacy and numeracy?

  • -

    Are there specific groups of children for whom mobile devices are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Across age group and gender).

  • -

    Do the benefits of mobile devices for learning last for any time beyond the study?

  • -

    What is the quality of available evidence on the use of mobile devices in primary/elementary education, and where is further research needed in this regard?

An Expert Advisory Group supported the review process at key stages to ensure relevance to current practice.

Search Methods

The search strategy was designed to retrieve both published and unpublished literature, and incorporated relevant journal and other databases with a focus on education and social sciences. Robust electronic database searches were undertaken (12 databases, including APA PsychInfo, Web of Science, ERIC, British Education Index and others, and relevant government and other websites), as well as a hand-search of relevant journals and conference proceedings. Contact was also made with prominent authors in the field to identify any ongoing or unpublished research. All searches and author contact took place between October and November 2020. The review team acknowledges that new studies will likely have emerged since and are not captured at this time. A further update to the review in the future is important and would build on the evidence reflected here.

Selection Criteria

The review included children within mainstream primary/elementary/kindergarten education settings in any country (aged 4–12), and interventions or activities initiated within the primary school classroom (or global equivalent) that used mobile devices (including tablets, smartphones, or hand-held gaming devices) to intentionally support literacy or numeracy learning. In terms of study design, only Randomised Controlled Trials were included in the review.

Data Collection and Analysis

A total of 668 references were identified through a robust search strategy including published and unpublished literature. Following duplicate screening, 18 relevant studies, including 11,126 participants, 14 unique interventions, and 46 relevant outcome measures were synthesised using Robust Variance Estimation and a random effects meta-analysis model. Risk of Bias assessment was undertaken by three reviewers using the ROB2 tool to assess the quality of studies, with 13 studies rated as having some concerns, and 5 as having high risk of bias. Qualitative data was also extracted and analysed in relation to the types of interventions included to allow a comparison of the key elements of each.

Main Results

A positive, statistically significant combined effect was found (Cohen's d = 0.24, CI 0.0707 to 0.409, p < 0.01), demonstrating that in the studies and interventions included, children undertaking maths or literacy interventions using mobile devices achieved higher numeracy or literacy outcomes than those using an alternative device (e.g., a laptop or desktop computer) or no device (class activities as usual). However these results should be interpreted with caution given the risk of bias assessment noted above (5 studies rated high risk of bias and 13 rated as having some concerns). As the interventions and classroom circumstances differed quite widely, further research is needed to understand any potential impact more fully.

Sensitivity analysis aimed to identify moderating factors including age or gender, screen size, frequency/dosage of intervention exposure, and programme implementation features/activities (based on Puentedura's [2009] SAMR model of technology integration). There were too few studies identified to support quantitative analysis of sufficient power to draw robust conclusions on moderating factors, and insufficient data to determine impact beyond immediate post-test period. Sensitivty analysis was also undertaken to exclude the five studies identified as having a high risk of bias, to identify any impact they may have on overall findings.

Authors' Conclusions

Overall, this review demonstrates that for the specific interventions and studies included, mobile device use in the classroom led to a significant, positive effect on literacy and numeracy outcomes for the children involved, bringing positive implications for their continued use in primary education. However given the concerns on risk of bias assessment reported above, the differing circumstances, interventions and treatment conditions and intensities, the findings must be interpreted with caution. The review also supports the need for further robust research to better understand what works, under what circumstances, and for whom, in the use of mobile devices to support learning.

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
Campbell Systematic Reviews
Campbell Systematic Reviews Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
80
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Critical appraisal of methodological quality and completeness of reporting in Chinese social science systematic reviews with meta-analysis: A systematic review. The effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for reducing problematic substance use, mental ill health, and housing instability in people experiencing homelessness in high income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Exposure to hate in online and traditional media: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of this exposure on individuals and communities. PROTOCOL: Non-criminal justice interventions for countering cognitive and behavioural radicalisation amongst children and adolescents: A systematic review of effectiveness and implementation. Protocol: The impact of integrated thematic instruction model on primary and secondary school students compared to standard teaching: A protocol of 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