Аннотация
Although the overall research literature on the application of educational technologies to classroom instruction tends to favor their use over their non-use, these results vary considerably depending on what kind of technology is used, who it is used with and, more importantly, under what circumstances and for what instructional purposes it is used. Relatively recent, but well-developed and powerful methodology of systematic reviews, particularly quantitative syntheses (also known as meta-analyses) is especially suitable for addressing questions of that type by systematically summarizing research evidence in given areas of interest in social sciences.
This meta-analysis summarizes data from 674 independent primary studies that compared higher degrees of technology use in the experimental condition with less technology in the control condition, in terms of their effects on student learning outcomes in postsecondary education. The result was an overall average weighted effect size of = 0.27 (k = 879, p < .01), indicating low but significant positive effect of technology integration on learning. The follow-up analyses revealed the influence of educational technology used for cognitive support and blended learning instructional settings designed interaction treatments, and technology integration in teacher training, especially when student-centered pedagogical frameworks are used. These findings are of potentially high interest and applied value for educational practitioners, including teachers and school administrators, as well as for instructional designers and developers of educational software.
Библиографические ссылки
Azevedo R., & Bernard R. M. A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1996, 13 (2), pp. 109–125.
Bernard R. M., Borokhovski E., Schmid R. F., Tamim R. M. & Abrami P. C. A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 2014, 26 (1), pp. 87–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
Bernard R. M., Abrami P. C., Borokhovski E., Tamim R., Wade A., Surkes M., & Bethel E. A Meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 2009, 79 (3), pp. 1243–1289. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844
Borenstein M., Hedges L. V., Higgins J. P., & Rothstein H. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Version 2.2.048) [Computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat, 2008.
Borenstein M., Hedges L. V., Higgins J. P., & Rothstein H. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 2010, 1, pp. 97–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12
Borokhovski E., Tamim R. M., Bernard R. M., Schmid R. F., & Sokolovskaya A. Does educational technology work better when designed for collaborative learning? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (April). San Francisco, CA, 2013.
Borokhovski E., Tamim R. M., Bernard R. M., Abrami P. C., & Sokolovskaya A. Are contextual and design student-student interaction treatments equally effective in distance education? A follow-up meta-analysis of comparative empirical studies. Distance Education, 2012, 33 (3), pp. 311–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.723162
Bruffee K. Collaborative learning. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.
Carpenter C. R., & Greenhill L. P. An investigation of closed-circuit television for teaching university courses (Report 1). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, 1955.
Clark R. E. Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 1983, 53, pp. 445–459.
Cobb T. Cognitive efficiency: Toward a revised theory of media. Educational Technology Research & Development, 1997, 45 (4), pp. 21–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02299681
Cooper H., & Koenka A. C. The overview of reviews: Unique challenges and opportunities when research syntheses are the principal elements of new integrative scholarship. American Psychologist, 2012, 67, pp. 446–462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027119
Hattie J., & Timperley H. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 2007, 77 (1), pp. 81–112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487
Hedges L. V., & Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1985.
Johnson D. W., & Johnson R. T. Cooperation and the use of technology. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V. Merrienboer & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handook of Research on Educational Communication and Technology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008.
Jonassen D. H. Computers as cognitive tools: Learning with technology, not from technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 1995, 6 (2), pp. 40–73.
Jonassen D. H., Howland J., Moore J., & Marra R. M. Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall, 2003.
Kozma R. Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 1991, 61, pp. 179–221.
Laurillard D. Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge, 2002.
Means B., Toyama Y., Murphy R. F. & Baki M. The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 2013, 115 (3), pp. 1–47.
Moore M. G. Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 1989, 3 (2), pp. 1–7.
Ross S. M., Morrison G. R., & Lowther D. L. Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2010, 1, pp. 17–35. Retrieved from http://www.cedtech.net/articles/112.pdf
Schmid R. F., Bernard R. M., Borokhovski E., Tamim R. M., Abrami P. C., Surkes M. A., Wade C. A., & Woods J. The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis of classroom applications. Computers & Education, 2014, 72, pp. 271–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.11.002
Sitzmann T., Kraiger K., Stewart D., & Wisher R. The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 2006, 59 (3), pp. 623–644. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00049.x
Spanjers I. A. E., Könings K. D., Leppink J., Verstegen D. M. L., de Jong N., Czabanowska K., & van Merriënboer J. J. G. The promised land of blended learning: Quizzes as a moderator. Educational Research Review, 2015, 15, pp. 59–74. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2015.05.001
Tamim R. M., Bernard R. M., Borokhovski E., Abrami P. C., & Schmid R. F. What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 2011, 81 (3), pp. 4–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654310393361
Tamim R. M., Borokhovski E., Bernard R. M., Schmid R. F., Abrami P. C., & Sokolovskaya A. Technology use in teacher training programs: Lessons learned from a systematic review. A paper presented at the AERA 2014 annual meeting (April), Philadelphia, PA, 2014.