{"title":"合作教学及相关合作教学模式对学生成绩的影响:系统回顾与元分析","authors":"M. H. Vembye, Felix Weiss, Bethany Hamilton Bhat","doi":"10.3102/00346543231186588","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Co-teaching and related collaborative models of instruction are widely used in primary and secondary schools in many school systems. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effects of such models on students’ academic achievement and how these effects are moderated by factors of theoretical and practical relevance. Although previous research and reviews have asserted that the evidence base is scarce, we found 128 treatment and control group studies from 1984 to 2020. We excluded 52 studies due to critical risk of bias via Cochrane’s risk of bias assessment tools and conducted a meta-analysis of 76 studies. This yielded 280 short-term effect sizes, of which 82% were pretest-adjusted. We found a moderate, positive, and statistically significant mean effect of [Formula: see text] = .11, 95% confidence interval [.035, .184] of collaborative instruction compared to single-taught controls, using the correlated-hierarchical effects (CHE-RVE) model. From moderator analyses, we found that collaborative instruction yields effects of mostly the same size, whether the interventions involved trained teachers or assistants with no teaching qualifications. This implies a potential for the expansion of such interventions at lower costs than otherwise expected. Moreover, factors that are highlighted in the co-teaching literature as preconditions for the effectiveness of collaborative instruction did not explain variations in effect sizes. Finally, we found no clear evidence for publication bias or small study effects. Notably, a large number of the studies that we drew upon were nonrandomized studies; and therefore, more rigorous experimental research is needed, especially on relevant co-teaching interventions.","PeriodicalId":21145,"journal":{"name":"Review of Educational Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effects of Co-Teaching and Related Collaborative Models of Instruction on Student Achievement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"M. H. Vembye, Felix Weiss, Bethany Hamilton Bhat\",\"doi\":\"10.3102/00346543231186588\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Co-teaching and related collaborative models of instruction are widely used in primary and secondary schools in many school systems. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effects of such models on students’ academic achievement and how these effects are moderated by factors of theoretical and practical relevance. Although previous research and reviews have asserted that the evidence base is scarce, we found 128 treatment and control group studies from 1984 to 2020. We excluded 52 studies due to critical risk of bias via Cochrane’s risk of bias assessment tools and conducted a meta-analysis of 76 studies. This yielded 280 short-term effect sizes, of which 82% were pretest-adjusted. We found a moderate, positive, and statistically significant mean effect of [Formula: see text] = .11, 95% confidence interval [.035, .184] of collaborative instruction compared to single-taught controls, using the correlated-hierarchical effects (CHE-RVE) model. From moderator analyses, we found that collaborative instruction yields effects of mostly the same size, whether the interventions involved trained teachers or assistants with no teaching qualifications. This implies a potential for the expansion of such interventions at lower costs than otherwise expected. Moreover, factors that are highlighted in the co-teaching literature as preconditions for the effectiveness of collaborative instruction did not explain variations in effect sizes. Finally, we found no clear evidence for publication bias or small study effects. Notably, a large number of the studies that we drew upon were nonrandomized studies; and therefore, more rigorous experimental research is needed, especially on relevant co-teaching interventions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21145,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Educational Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Educational Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231186588\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Educational Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231186588","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}
The Effects of Co-Teaching and Related Collaborative Models of Instruction on Student Achievement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Co-teaching and related collaborative models of instruction are widely used in primary and secondary schools in many school systems. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effects of such models on students’ academic achievement and how these effects are moderated by factors of theoretical and practical relevance. Although previous research and reviews have asserted that the evidence base is scarce, we found 128 treatment and control group studies from 1984 to 2020. We excluded 52 studies due to critical risk of bias via Cochrane’s risk of bias assessment tools and conducted a meta-analysis of 76 studies. This yielded 280 short-term effect sizes, of which 82% were pretest-adjusted. We found a moderate, positive, and statistically significant mean effect of [Formula: see text] = .11, 95% confidence interval [.035, .184] of collaborative instruction compared to single-taught controls, using the correlated-hierarchical effects (CHE-RVE) model. From moderator analyses, we found that collaborative instruction yields effects of mostly the same size, whether the interventions involved trained teachers or assistants with no teaching qualifications. This implies a potential for the expansion of such interventions at lower costs than otherwise expected. Moreover, factors that are highlighted in the co-teaching literature as preconditions for the effectiveness of collaborative instruction did not explain variations in effect sizes. Finally, we found no clear evidence for publication bias or small study effects. Notably, a large number of the studies that we drew upon were nonrandomized studies; and therefore, more rigorous experimental research is needed, especially on relevant co-teaching interventions.
期刊介绍:
The Review of Educational Research (RER), a quarterly publication initiated in 1931 with approximately 640 pages per volume year, is dedicated to presenting critical, integrative reviews of research literature relevant to education. These reviews encompass conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of scholarly work across fields broadly pertinent to education and educational research. Welcoming submissions from any discipline, RER encourages research reviews in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided the review addresses educational issues. While original empirical research is not published independently, RER incorporates it within broader integrative reviews. The journal may occasionally feature solicited, rigorously refereed analytic reviews of special topics, especially from disciplines underrepresented in educational research.