10.30.06
Posted in Achievement, Meta-Analysis, Tutoring, Cooperative Learning, Annotated References - RDP readings at 11:18 am by youngsah
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.
Permalink
10.23.06
Posted in competitive, Intergroup competition, Achievement, Meta-Analysis, motivation, Annotated References - RDP readings at 1:54 pm by youngsah
Tauer, J.M., and Harackiewicz, J.M. (2004). The effects of cooperation and competitions on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), p. 849-861.
This paper looks at four studies. Three are behavioral and the other is survey based. All studies look at how competition and cooperation affect motivation and performance. The authors favor a combination of the two approaches: intergroup competition. The authors assert that intergroup competition, found in such circumstances as sports, work, and school, is something that is under researched and relevant to understanding of cooperation and competition. One experiment focused on free throw shooting at a basketball camp. There was a competitive condition (make more baskets than another person), cooperative condition (there is a goal of how many baskets to make) and intergroup competition (make more baskets than another team). Subjects in the intergroup competition condition enjoyed the task more and made more free throws than subjects in other groups. Studies 2 and 4 were behavioral studies similar to the first one with tweaks to test the explanatory influence of other variables. Results were similar. Study 3 asked subjects what kind of circumstances they might like better.
This article covered two concepts that I’ve been meaning to find out more about. First, there’s some debate as to how to evaluate cooperative/collaborative learning. Individual grades can often make people competitive while cooperative evaluation is very complicated. Second, many of the studies I have been reading have been on student opinions and feelings about cooperative learning and this study measures that but it also measures achievement. Now basketball achievement may not be affected in the same way as scholastic achievement but I’ll have to see that from my future readings. I liked the way that the authors kept modifying the first study to try to see if there was anything else going on.
Permalink
10.08.06
Posted in Meta-Analysis, Collaborative Learning, motivation, Cooperative Learning, Annotated References - RDP readings at 11:08 pm by youngsah
Springer, L.,
Stanne, M.E., and Donovan, S.S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 69: 21–51.
This meta-analysis on 39 studies focuses on group learning in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET) undergraduate classrooms. Research suggests that collaborative learning reflects the reality of scientific and technological practice better than competitive learning. Also, most elementary and middle school teachers of SMET subjects use cooperative learning. The authors define the differences between cooperative and collaborative learning. Generally, cooperative learning is more structured than collaborative learning and has carpeted goals and problems whereas people in collaborative learning must define these for themselves. The authors also cover motivational, cognitive, and affective perspectives on small group learning. Overall, small group learning was found to have significant positive effects on student learning in SMET classrooms.
Generally a good overview of different types of small group learning, followed by a pretty thorough explanation of the procedure of meta-analysis, followed by their results. First off, I’m torn between collaborative and cooperative learning. So I’m likely to start off on a research tangent. Intuitively I’m for both in different situations or even mixed for some sorts of situations, but we’ll see. Secondly, I found it slightly amusing that the authors complained a bit about the vagueness of other studies. They even suggested that future research be more clear in it’s methods and measures because vagueness limited the meta-analysis and possibly further study and reproduction of past studies.
Permalink
