10.30.06
Rohrbeck, C.A., Ginsburg-Block, M.D., Fantuzzo, J.W., and Miller, T.R. (2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), p. 250-257.
Rohrbeck, C.A., Ginsburg-Block, M.D., Fantuzzo, J.W., and Miller, T.R. (2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), p. 250-257.
This study is a meta-meta-analysis that looks at the effectiveness of peer assisted learning (PAL) methods in elementary schools. The authors state that it’s important to look at PAL in this age range because this is when children are forming their ideas about school and assimilating into the school culture. They then go on to criticize the PAL literature. They point out that many pieces are atheortical, that old meta-analyses are not as good as newer ones, and that there is often little ecological validity. Articles were found using searches on PsycINFO and ERIC. Results were then categorized and analyzed. The authors addressed publication bias by calculating the number of studies with no effect to negate the effects that the authors were finding, the results were nearly 200. Their results both summarized the literature and discussed it’s results. Most studies did not report the age, gender, or ethnicity of the subjects. Math, science, and social studies were the most popular content areas (this study only looked at PAL used to teach academic subjects). Generally PAL had an effect on student achievement outcomes. It was more effective for younger students, students in urban areas, and low income families.
Interesting overview of the literature. I don’t think I’ve read a meta-analysis that talks about other meta-analyses before. Though this study does analyze non-meta studies, it does discuss them a lot. It discusses the method and limitations of meta-analyses. This is certainly a study full of citations and data analysis. I’m somewhat impressed by the size of the data. I found their end caps of theory (they only mentioned it at the beginning and the end without going into any depth) a little sparse and not as useful or intriguing as they could have been.
