Objectives & Theoretical Background

This meta-analysis aimed to summarize studies of the last decade that have investigated the effects of teaching on student learning (Seidel & Shavelson, revised). One reason for conducting this meta-analysis in this time period was the change in models of teaching and learning that might have influenced the findings of empirical studies. Consequently, prior meta-analyses needed to be updated. The second and equally important reason was to use meta-analysis to address potentially conflicting findings among studies.

Accordingly, we based the meta-analysis on recent cognitive models of teaching and learning and distinguished among research designs. Thus, by being explicit about current and past models and evaluating evidence methodologically we sought to provide in-depth information about teaching effects on student learning. By taking this tack, we also sought to enhance future teaching effectiveness research both conceptually and methodologically.

Studies of the effects of teaching on student learning are diverse and a meta-analysis in this area of research has to summarize many types of instructional approaches. Decisions about how to categorize diverse types of teaching acts had to be made; an analysis of each individual technique was not possible. The goal of the meta-analysis, however, was not to endorse any particular category of teaching approach, but to summarize the state of research after a certain period of time in a manner useful to researchers and policy makers.

Recent models of teaching and learning characterize learning as a self-regulated and constructive process. Moreover this characterization has stimulated a substantial number of empirical studies on the effects of teaching on student learning using a variety of methods. By making explicit the common components in these models, we seek to focus researchers’ attention on components of learning and their attention on teaching as a process of creating and fostering learning environments in which students are supported in activities which have a good chance of improving learning.

We examined the research in two ways. The first way recognizes that the effects of teaching on student learning can be diverse. Some teaching components might have an effect on students’ cognitive growth, others on students’ motivational development; and other learning components might affect learning processes. Thus, the meta-analysis investigated the effects of teaching on three types of outcome measures: learning process outcomes, cognitive outcomes, and motivational-affective outcomes.

The second way we examined current research is by categorizing studies into one of two models of teaching and learning and investigating the effects of model components on student outcomes. The first model, the process-product model, has served as the basis of previous meta-analyses. However, this model is limited in light of research conducted in the last decade. Models of teaching and learning have changed to emphasize cognitive components and have been refined. Thus, the second model, a cognitive learning process model, is based on current conceptualizations of teaching and learning (Bolhuis, 2003).

Methods

The literature on teaching effectiveness was searched broadly, canvassing the Web of Science, ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) and ERA (Educational Research Abstracts) databases, ranging from the years 1995-2004. The searches employed the following keywords: effective instruction, instructional effectiveness, direct instruction, teacher effectiveness, mastery learning, constructivist teaching, mathematics instruction, reading instruction, science instruction, classrooms, mathematics teaching, reading teaching, science teaching. Each teaching keyword was crossed with each of the following output keywords: achievement, competencies, interest, motivation, engagement, attainment. The publications were filtered using a set of criteria (e.g. empirical findings; control with covariates). Application of these criteria resulted in the final number of 112 publications. The meta-analysis was carried out by computing Fisher’s Z as an index of effect size (Rosenthal, 1994).

Results

The main findings were as follows: First, our teaching and learning model based on recent cognitive models of teaching and learning proved useful in analyzing studies and effect sizes. We were better able to account for variations in effect sizes than were past studies employing a process-product model. Second, we found that the effects of teaching on student learning were diverse and complex, but fairly systematic. Third, and more specifically, we found the largest teaching effects for domain-specific components of teaching - teaching components most proximal to executive learning processes (e.g. mathematical modeling compared to classroom management). Fourth, by taking into account research design, we disentangled meta-analytic findings. For example, we found that domain-specific teaching components, those components associated with the largest effect sizes, were mainly studied with quasi-experimental or experimental designs. Fifth, teaching effectiveness studies in the last decade were numerically predominated by correlational survey studies. These studies resulted in overall low effect sizes.

Theoretical and educational significance of the research

With our meta-analysis we sought to address researchers following both correlational and (quasi) experimental approaches: For the first group our findings indicate that the choice and the measurement of teaching components in survey studies need to be reconsidered. For future survey studies, we suggest refining underlying theoretical models, adding teaching components proximal to executive learning activities, and applying a mix of data sources in order to measure teaching components. In addition, predominant statistical approaches in analyzing teaching effects on student learning should be reconsidered.

With regard to quasi-experimental and experimental research we found that the set of teaching components investigated was restricted and that researchers should be aware of the teaching components necessary for a complete cycle of learning. In addition, these researchers should expand their purview and systematically measure and investigate effects of teaching on learning processes, motivational-affective and cognitive outcomes rather than on just narrowly defined cognitive outcomes.

Reference: