语言敏感性学科教学的有效性:证据的异质性和质量以及对未来研究的影响

IF 2.7 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Review of Education Pub Date : 2024-09-12 DOI:10.1002/rev3.70000
Tetyana Vasylyeva, Till Woerfel, Leonie Twente, Martha Höfler
{"title":"语言敏感性学科教学的有效性:证据的异质性和质量以及对未来研究的影响","authors":"Tetyana Vasylyeva, Till Woerfel, Leonie Twente, Martha Höfler","doi":"10.1002/rev3.70000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We report and appraise the heterogeneity and quality of 53 primary studies included in a systematic review project on the effectiveness of language‐sensitive subject teaching in primary and secondary education to provide a comprehensive overview of the research field and to give detailed recommendations for future research. We followed a systematic review process adhering to existing guidelines and procedures to define inclusion and quality criteria for experimental, quasi‐experimental and observational studies published since 1990 in English and German. We performed an extensive search, screened on titles, abstracts and full texts, and found 55 studies to meet the inclusion criteria. Out of these studies, 53 studies fulfilled the quality criteria (assessment of internal validity) and were included in the review. Most of the studies show that students taught with language‐sensitive approaches achieve the same or better results than students taught using non‐language‐sensitive approaches for at least one content or language learning outcome (for the results of the narrative synthesis, see Höfler et al., <jats:italic>Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft</jats:italic>, 2023, 27, 449). Here, we examine in detail the characteristics of the included studies in terms of the heterogeneity of populations, interventions, outcomes, and study designs and provide arguments for a careful interpretation of the review results. We argue that limited methodological and reporting quality introduce risk of bias to varying degrees. We address methodological issues and gaps in research and present our detailed recommendations for future work informed by our findings.<jats:boxed-text content-type=\"box\" position=\"anchor\"><jats:caption>Context and implications</jats:caption>Rationale for this study: This paper systematises the heterogeneity, quality and scope of the studies on the effectiveness of language‐sensitive teaching and gives detailed recommendations for future research.Why the new findings matter: Our findings help shape the trajectory of research on language‐sensitive subject teaching.Implications for researchers and policy makers: This article describes the state of knowledge concerning the effectiveness of language‐sensitive subject teaching. Our results provide educators and educational researchers with a systematised overview of the tested approaches and their effect on different learning outcomes. Based on our assessment of the study quality and the transferability of the results, we point out research gaps and offer detailed recommendations to help researchers design new research projects. Our results will also aid policy makers in deciding what evidence to consider in the context of evidence‐based practice as well as in the formulation of future funding directives.</jats:boxed-text>","PeriodicalId":45076,"journal":{"name":"Review of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of language‐sensitive subject teaching: Heterogeneity and quality of the evidence and implications for future research\",\"authors\":\"Tetyana Vasylyeva, Till Woerfel, Leonie Twente, Martha Höfler\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/rev3.70000\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We report and appraise the heterogeneity and quality of 53 primary studies included in a systematic review project on the effectiveness of language‐sensitive subject teaching in primary and secondary education to provide a comprehensive overview of the research field and to give detailed recommendations for future research. We followed a systematic review process adhering to existing guidelines and procedures to define inclusion and quality criteria for experimental, quasi‐experimental and observational studies published since 1990 in English and German. We performed an extensive search, screened on titles, abstracts and full texts, and found 55 studies to meet the inclusion criteria. Out of these studies, 53 studies fulfilled the quality criteria (assessment of internal validity) and were included in the review. Most of the studies show that students taught with language‐sensitive approaches achieve the same or better results than students taught using non‐language‐sensitive approaches for at least one content or language learning outcome (for the results of the narrative synthesis, see Höfler et al., <jats:italic>Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft</jats:italic>, 2023, 27, 449). Here, we examine in detail the characteristics of the included studies in terms of the heterogeneity of populations, interventions, outcomes, and study designs and provide arguments for a careful interpretation of the review results. We argue that limited methodological and reporting quality introduce risk of bias to varying degrees. We address methodological issues and gaps in research and present our detailed recommendations for future work informed by our findings.<jats:boxed-text content-type=\\\"box\\\" position=\\\"anchor\\\"><jats:caption>Context and implications</jats:caption>Rationale for this study: This paper systematises the heterogeneity, quality and scope of the studies on the effectiveness of language‐sensitive teaching and gives detailed recommendations for future research.Why the new findings matter: Our findings help shape the trajectory of research on language‐sensitive subject teaching.Implications for researchers and policy makers: This article describes the state of knowledge concerning the effectiveness of language‐sensitive subject teaching. Our results provide educators and educational researchers with a systematised overview of the tested approaches and their effect on different learning outcomes. Based on our assessment of the study quality and the transferability of the results, we point out research gaps and offer detailed recommendations to help researchers design new research projects. Our results will also aid policy makers in deciding what evidence to consider in the context of evidence‐based practice as well as in the formulation of future funding directives.</jats:boxed-text>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70000\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70000","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们报告并评估了一项关于中小学语言敏感性学科教学有效性的系统性综述项目所包含的 53 项主要研究的异质性和质量,以提供对该研究领域的全面概述,并对未来研究提出详细建议。我们遵循现有的指导方针和程序,对 1990 年以来用英语和德语发表的实验性、准实验性和观察性研究进行了系统性审查,并确定了纳入标准和质量标准。我们进行了广泛的搜索,筛选了标题、摘要和全文,发现 55 项研究符合纳入标准。在这些研究中,有 53 项研究符合质量标准(内部有效性评估)并被纳入综述。大多数研究表明,在至少一项内容或语言学习成果方面,采用语言敏感方法教学的学生与采用非语言敏感方法教学的学生取得了相同或更好的成绩(叙述性综述结果见 Höfler 等人,Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft,2023,27,449)。在此,我们从人群、干预措施、结果和研究设计的异质性方面详细分析了所纳入研究的特点,并为仔细解读综述结果提供了论据。我们认为,有限的方法和报告质量会在不同程度上带来偏倚风险。我们探讨了研究方法上的问题和差距,并根据我们的研究结果对今后的工作提出了详细的建议。 背景和意义本研究的背景和意义:本文系统分析了有关语言敏感教学有效性研究的异质性、质量和范围,并对未来研究提出了详细建议:新发现的意义:我们的研究结果有助于塑造对语言敏感的学科教学研究的轨迹:这篇文章描述了有关语言敏感性学科教学有效性的知识现状。我们的研究结果为教育工作者和教育研究人员提供了一个系统化的概览,介绍了经过测试的教学方法及其对不同学习成果的影响。根据我们对研究质量和结果可移植性的评估,我们指出了研究空白,并提出了详细的建议,以帮助研究人员设计新的研究项目。我们的研究成果还将帮助政策制定者决定在循证实践中应考虑哪些证据,以及制定未来的资助指令。
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
Effectiveness of language‐sensitive subject teaching: Heterogeneity and quality of the evidence and implications for future research
We report and appraise the heterogeneity and quality of 53 primary studies included in a systematic review project on the effectiveness of language‐sensitive subject teaching in primary and secondary education to provide a comprehensive overview of the research field and to give detailed recommendations for future research. We followed a systematic review process adhering to existing guidelines and procedures to define inclusion and quality criteria for experimental, quasi‐experimental and observational studies published since 1990 in English and German. We performed an extensive search, screened on titles, abstracts and full texts, and found 55 studies to meet the inclusion criteria. Out of these studies, 53 studies fulfilled the quality criteria (assessment of internal validity) and were included in the review. Most of the studies show that students taught with language‐sensitive approaches achieve the same or better results than students taught using non‐language‐sensitive approaches for at least one content or language learning outcome (for the results of the narrative synthesis, see Höfler et al., Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 2023, 27, 449). Here, we examine in detail the characteristics of the included studies in terms of the heterogeneity of populations, interventions, outcomes, and study designs and provide arguments for a careful interpretation of the review results. We argue that limited methodological and reporting quality introduce risk of bias to varying degrees. We address methodological issues and gaps in research and present our detailed recommendations for future work informed by our findings.Context and implicationsRationale for this study: This paper systematises the heterogeneity, quality and scope of the studies on the effectiveness of language‐sensitive teaching and gives detailed recommendations for future research.Why the new findings matter: Our findings help shape the trajectory of research on language‐sensitive subject teaching.Implications for researchers and policy makers: This article describes the state of knowledge concerning the effectiveness of language‐sensitive subject teaching. Our results provide educators and educational researchers with a systematised overview of the tested approaches and their effect on different learning outcomes. Based on our assessment of the study quality and the transferability of the results, we point out research gaps and offer detailed recommendations to help researchers design new research projects. Our results will also aid policy makers in deciding what evidence to consider in the context of evidence‐based practice as well as in the formulation of future funding directives.
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
Review of Education
Review of Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
63
期刊最新文献
The status of culturally relevant teacher education in the European context: A systematic review of research Effectiveness of language‐sensitive subject teaching: Heterogeneity and quality of the evidence and implications for future research Evaluation of the effectiveness of critical thinking training on critical thinking skills and academic achievement by using mixed‐meta method Research on teachers of colour and minoritised teachers in majoritarian education systems: A scoping review of the literature in the last two decades Generative AI in education and research: A systematic mapping 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