对20年来分化研究的范围审查:调查概念,特征和使用的方法

IF 2 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Revista De Educacion Pub Date : 2020-11-30 DOI:10.1002/rev3.3238
Linda J. Graham, Karen de Bruin, Carly J. Lassig, Ilektra Spandagou
{"title":"对20年来分化研究的范围审查:调查概念,特征和使用的方法","authors":"Linda J. Graham, Karen de Bruin, Carly J. Lassig, Ilektra Spandagou","doi":"10.1002/rev3.3238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The use of a pedagogical practice known as ‘differentiation’ has become more common over time as educators have sought to respond to increases in the diversity of students enrolling in their local school. However, there are now so many misperceptions and definitional inconsistencies that it is difficult to know what is being enacted in the name of differentiation or indeed what is being researched internationally. The aim of this scoping review was to identify key characteristics of and conceptualisations within peer-reviewed empirical research on differentiation published between1999 and 2019, as well as to map the ways in which this body of research was produced. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to inform a systematic screening process and resulted in a final sample of 34 articles focusing on differentiation in regular schools. Half were conducted in the United States and most in the elementary school phase. Survey and case study designs were dominant, as was research of and influences on teacher practice. Only a small group of studies focused on differentiation’s impact on student outcomes and these typically only examined specific elements of differentiation or its use in specific academic domains. The diversity of focus and methodological approaches across the 34 studies prevents comparison of findings and weakens the evidential basis to make claims of either differentiation’s effectiveness or indeed its ineffectiveness. The review concludes with recommendations for future research and practice in this important area of practice.","PeriodicalId":21314,"journal":{"name":"Revista De Educacion","volume":"57 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A scoping review of 20 years of research on differentiation: investigating conceptualisation, characteristics, and methods used\",\"authors\":\"Linda J. Graham, Karen de Bruin, Carly J. Lassig, Ilektra Spandagou\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/rev3.3238\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The use of a pedagogical practice known as ‘differentiation’ has become more common over time as educators have sought to respond to increases in the diversity of students enrolling in their local school. However, there are now so many misperceptions and definitional inconsistencies that it is difficult to know what is being enacted in the name of differentiation or indeed what is being researched internationally. The aim of this scoping review was to identify key characteristics of and conceptualisations within peer-reviewed empirical research on differentiation published between1999 and 2019, as well as to map the ways in which this body of research was produced. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to inform a systematic screening process and resulted in a final sample of 34 articles focusing on differentiation in regular schools. Half were conducted in the United States and most in the elementary school phase. Survey and case study designs were dominant, as was research of and influences on teacher practice. Only a small group of studies focused on differentiation’s impact on student outcomes and these typically only examined specific elements of differentiation or its use in specific academic domains. The diversity of focus and methodological approaches across the 34 studies prevents comparison of findings and weakens the evidential basis to make claims of either differentiation’s effectiveness or indeed its ineffectiveness. The review concludes with recommendations for future research and practice in this important area of practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21314,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista De Educacion\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista De Educacion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3238\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista De Educacion","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3238","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

摘要

随着时间的推移,随着教育工作者试图应对当地学校入学学生多样性的增加,一种被称为“差异化”的教学实践的使用变得越来越普遍。然而,现在有如此多的误解和定义上的不一致,以至于很难知道在差异化的名义下正在实施什么,或者实际上在国际上正在研究什么。本次范围审查的目的是确定1999年至2019年间发表的同行评议的差异化实证研究的关键特征和概念,并绘制出这一研究体系的产生方式。系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南被用于告知系统筛选过程,并产生34篇文章的最终样本,重点关注普通学校的差异。其中一半是在美国进行的,大多数是在小学阶段。调查和案例研究设计占主导地位,对教师实践的研究和影响也占主导地位。只有一小部分研究关注差异化对学生成绩的影响,这些研究通常只研究差异化的特定因素或其在特定学术领域的应用。34项研究的焦点和方法方法的多样性阻碍了结果的比较,并削弱了证据基础,无法断言分化的有效性或实际上是无效的。文章最后对这一重要领域的未来研究和实践提出了建议。
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
A scoping review of 20 years of research on differentiation: investigating conceptualisation, characteristics, and methods used
The use of a pedagogical practice known as ‘differentiation’ has become more common over time as educators have sought to respond to increases in the diversity of students enrolling in their local school. However, there are now so many misperceptions and definitional inconsistencies that it is difficult to know what is being enacted in the name of differentiation or indeed what is being researched internationally. The aim of this scoping review was to identify key characteristics of and conceptualisations within peer-reviewed empirical research on differentiation published between1999 and 2019, as well as to map the ways in which this body of research was produced. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to inform a systematic screening process and resulted in a final sample of 34 articles focusing on differentiation in regular schools. Half were conducted in the United States and most in the elementary school phase. Survey and case study designs were dominant, as was research of and influences on teacher practice. Only a small group of studies focused on differentiation’s impact on student outcomes and these typically only examined specific elements of differentiation or its use in specific academic domains. The diversity of focus and methodological approaches across the 34 studies prevents comparison of findings and weakens the evidential basis to make claims of either differentiation’s effectiveness or indeed its ineffectiveness. The review concludes with recommendations for future research and practice in this important area of practice.
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
Revista De Educacion
Revista De Educacion EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: La Revista de Educación es una publicación científica del Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional español. Fundada en 1940, y manteniendo el título de Revista de Educación desde 1952, es un testigo privilegiado de la evolución de la educación en las últimas décadas, así como un reconocido medio de difusión de los avances en la investigación y la innovación en este campo, tanto desde una perspectiva nacional como internacional. La revista es editada por la Subdirección General de Atención al Ciudadano, Documentación y Publicaciones, y actualmente está adscrita al Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa de la Dirección General de Evaluación y Cooperación Territorial. Cada año se publican cuatro números con tres secciones: Investigaciones, Ensayos y Reseñas. Uno de los números anuales podrá contar con una sección Monográfica con convocatoria pública en esta web. Todos los artículos enviados a las diferentes secciones están sometidos a evaluación externa. En el primer número del año se incluye un índice bibliográfico, y en el segundo un editorial con la Memoria anual que recoge las principales estadísticas del proceso editor de ese período, los índices de calidad e impacto, así como el listado de revisores externos.
期刊最新文献
PISA 2018 in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales: Is the data really representative of all four corners of the UK? The structures and processes governing education research in the UK from 1990-2020: A systematic scoping review Modelo para las pruebas de admisión a los estudios de maestro a partir de un proceso de diseño participativo Context and Implications Document for: Teaching sciences and mathematics—A challenge for higher education institutions: A systematic review Teaching sciences and mathematics – A challenge for higher education institutions: 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