Effect of design‐based learning on achievement in K‐12 education: A meta‐analysis

Design‐based learning (DBL) offers opportunities to support students' content understanding. Previous DBL studies reported different effect sizes by using the data from one participant group. The goal of this study was to conduct a meta‐analysis that would give a comprehensive picture of how DB...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of research in science teaching 2023-02, Vol.60 (2), p.330-356
Main Authors: Delen, Ibrahim, Sen, Sedat
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic Achievement
Achievement
Comparative Analysis
Control Groups
Correlation
Design
design‐based learning
Effect Size
Elementary Secondary Education
Evidence
Kindergarten
Learning
Learning Activities
Mathematics
Mathematics Achievement
Measurement
Meta Analysis
Moderators
Research Design
science
Science Achievement
Science and technology
Science education
Science Instruction
STEM Education
Students
Teaching Methods
Transfer of Training
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 356
container_issue 2
container_start_page 330
container_title Journal of research in science teaching
container_volume 60
creator Delen, Ibrahim
Sen, Sedat
description Design‐based learning (DBL) offers opportunities to support students' content understanding. Previous DBL studies reported different effect sizes by using the data from one participant group. The goal of this study was to conduct a meta‐analysis that would give a comprehensive picture of how DBL is connected to student achievement in different disciplines. In addition, we explored the moderators influencing achievement in DBL for K‐12 education. After investigating content‐related gains in our meta‐analysis on 37 individual articles with 52 effect sizes, we found that DBL had a positive and large effect (g¯ = 0.602) on achievement in K‐12 education, and the effect size for science (g¯ = 0.703) was higher than mathematics (g¯ = 0.418) education. When considering the strong emphasis on science education in different DBL related frameworks and STEM (science, engineering, technology, and mathematics) education studies, this cumulative understanding could play an important role in the difference between science and mathematics. Studies that had control groups in the same school (g¯ = 0.703) had statistically significantly higher effect sizes compared to studies that included control groups from different schools (g¯ = 0.447). Studies with random assignment (g¯ = 0.258) had statistically significantly smaller effect sizes compared to studies with non‐random assignment (g¯ = 0.623). In addition, the effect of DBL on achievement showed statistically significant differences among different countries. The remaining moderators (school level, content support, measurement type, and experimental design) did not show statistically significant differences in terms of the effect of DBL on student achievement. Our review presents evidence that participating in DBL activities supports student achievement after the intervention, but how students transfer their content gains in other situations needs convincing evidence. To overcome this challenge, future studies can prioritize how to support achievement in state mandated tests to understand DBL's effect on students' content gains in different learning situations.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/tea.21800
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_eric_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2767086710</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1362864</ericid><sourcerecordid>2767086710</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-e2450-53938cb4185d40ee49e472b38c5a48aed1eed2e2538dac210c9b909532ecab7b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kMtOwzAQRS0EEqWw4AOQLLFOO34ksdlVqDwrsSliaTnOpLhKkxKnoO74BL6RL8G0iNWM7jkajS4h5wxGDICPe7QjzhTAARkw0CrhucgOySAynkgB6pichLAEAKGZHpCXaVWh62lb0RKDXzTfn1-FDVjSGm3X-GZB24Za9-rxHVfY9NQ39DFKjFMsN872vm2u6ISusLcxto2tt8GHU3JU2Trg2d8ckueb6fz6Lpk93d5fT2YJcplCkgotlCskU2kpAVFqlDkvYpZaqSyWDLHkyFOhSus4A6cLDToVHJ0t8kIMyeX-7rpr3zYYerNsN118IhieZzmoLGcQrYu9hZ13Zt35le22ZvrARMZVJiMf7_mHr3H7LzAwv6WaWKrZlWrm08luET8pGWxf</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2767086710</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effect of design‐based learning on achievement in K‐12 education: A meta‐analysis</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>ERIC</source><source>Wiley:Jisc Collections:Wiley Jisc Read and Publish Open Access Agreement 2020-2023 (reading list)</source><creator>Delen, Ibrahim ; Sen, Sedat</creator><creatorcontrib>Delen, Ibrahim ; Sen, Sedat</creatorcontrib><description>Design‐based learning (DBL) offers opportunities to support students' content understanding. Previous DBL studies reported different effect sizes by using the data from one participant group. The goal of this study was to conduct a meta‐analysis that would give a comprehensive picture of how DBL is connected to student achievement in different disciplines. In addition, we explored the moderators influencing achievement in DBL for K‐12 education. After investigating content‐related gains in our meta‐analysis on 37 individual articles with 52 effect sizes, we found that DBL had a positive and large effect (g¯ = 0.602) on achievement in K‐12 education, and the effect size for science (g¯ = 0.703) was higher than mathematics (g¯ = 0.418) education. When considering the strong emphasis on science education in different DBL related frameworks and STEM (science, engineering, technology, and mathematics) education studies, this cumulative understanding could play an important role in the difference between science and mathematics. Studies that had control groups in the same school (g¯ = 0.703) had statistically significantly higher effect sizes compared to studies that included control groups from different schools (g¯ = 0.447). Studies with random assignment (g¯ = 0.258) had statistically significantly smaller effect sizes compared to studies with non‐random assignment (g¯ = 0.623). In addition, the effect of DBL on achievement showed statistically significant differences among different countries. The remaining moderators (school level, content support, measurement type, and experimental design) did not show statistically significant differences in terms of the effect of DBL on student achievement. Our review presents evidence that participating in DBL activities supports student achievement after the intervention, but how students transfer their content gains in other situations needs convincing evidence. To overcome this challenge, future studies can prioritize how to support achievement in state mandated tests to understand DBL's effect on students' content gains in different learning situations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-4308</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1098-2736</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/tea.21800</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Academic Achievement ; Achievement ; Comparative Analysis ; Control Groups ; Correlation ; Design ; design‐based learning ; Effect Size ; Elementary Secondary Education ; Evidence ; Kindergarten ; Learning ; Learning Activities ; Mathematics ; Mathematics Achievement ; Measurement ; Meta Analysis ; Moderators ; Research Design ; science ; Science Achievement ; Science and technology ; Science education ; Science Instruction ; STEM Education ; Students ; Teaching Methods ; Transfer of Training</subject><ispartof>Journal of research in science teaching, 2023-02, Vol.60 (2), p.330-356</ispartof><rights>2022 National Association for Research in Science Teaching.</rights><rights>2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0001-6962-4960 ; 0000-0003-2816-777X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Ftea.21800$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Ftea.21800$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,786,790,27957,27958,31034,50923,51032</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1362864$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Delen, Ibrahim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sen, Sedat</creatorcontrib><title>Effect of design‐based learning on achievement in K‐12 education: A meta‐analysis</title><title>Journal of research in science teaching</title><description>Design‐based learning (DBL) offers opportunities to support students' content understanding. Previous DBL studies reported different effect sizes by using the data from one participant group. The goal of this study was to conduct a meta‐analysis that would give a comprehensive picture of how DBL is connected to student achievement in different disciplines. In addition, we explored the moderators influencing achievement in DBL for K‐12 education. After investigating content‐related gains in our meta‐analysis on 37 individual articles with 52 effect sizes, we found that DBL had a positive and large effect (g¯ = 0.602) on achievement in K‐12 education, and the effect size for science (g¯ = 0.703) was higher than mathematics (g¯ = 0.418) education. When considering the strong emphasis on science education in different DBL related frameworks and STEM (science, engineering, technology, and mathematics) education studies, this cumulative understanding could play an important role in the difference between science and mathematics. Studies that had control groups in the same school (g¯ = 0.703) had statistically significantly higher effect sizes compared to studies that included control groups from different schools (g¯ = 0.447). Studies with random assignment (g¯ = 0.258) had statistically significantly smaller effect sizes compared to studies with non‐random assignment (g¯ = 0.623). In addition, the effect of DBL on achievement showed statistically significant differences among different countries. The remaining moderators (school level, content support, measurement type, and experimental design) did not show statistically significant differences in terms of the effect of DBL on student achievement. Our review presents evidence that participating in DBL activities supports student achievement after the intervention, but how students transfer their content gains in other situations needs convincing evidence. To overcome this challenge, future studies can prioritize how to support achievement in state mandated tests to understand DBL's effect on students' content gains in different learning situations.</description><subject>Academic Achievement</subject><subject>Achievement</subject><subject>Comparative Analysis</subject><subject>Control Groups</subject><subject>Correlation</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>design‐based learning</subject><subject>Effect Size</subject><subject>Elementary Secondary Education</subject><subject>Evidence</subject><subject>Kindergarten</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Learning Activities</subject><subject>Mathematics</subject><subject>Mathematics Achievement</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Meta Analysis</subject><subject>Moderators</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>science</subject><subject>Science Achievement</subject><subject>Science and technology</subject><subject>Science education</subject><subject>Science Instruction</subject><subject>STEM Education</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><subject>Transfer of Training</subject><issn>0022-4308</issn><issn>1098-2736</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7SW</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kMtOwzAQRS0EEqWw4AOQLLFOO34ksdlVqDwrsSliaTnOpLhKkxKnoO74BL6RL8G0iNWM7jkajS4h5wxGDICPe7QjzhTAARkw0CrhucgOySAynkgB6pichLAEAKGZHpCXaVWh62lb0RKDXzTfn1-FDVjSGm3X-GZB24Za9-rxHVfY9NQ39DFKjFMsN872vm2u6ISusLcxto2tt8GHU3JU2Trg2d8ckueb6fz6Lpk93d5fT2YJcplCkgotlCskU2kpAVFqlDkvYpZaqSyWDLHkyFOhSus4A6cLDToVHJ0t8kIMyeX-7rpr3zYYerNsN118IhieZzmoLGcQrYu9hZ13Zt35le22ZvrARMZVJiMf7_mHr3H7LzAwv6WaWKrZlWrm08luET8pGWxf</recordid><startdate>202302</startdate><enddate>202302</enddate><creator>Delen, Ibrahim</creator><creator>Sen, Sedat</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6962-4960</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2816-777X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202302</creationdate><title>Effect of design‐based learning on achievement in K‐12 education: A meta‐analysis</title><author>Delen, Ibrahim ; Sen, Sedat</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-e2450-53938cb4185d40ee49e472b38c5a48aed1eed2e2538dac210c9b909532ecab7b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Academic Achievement</topic><topic>Achievement</topic><topic>Comparative Analysis</topic><topic>Control Groups</topic><topic>Correlation</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>design‐based learning</topic><topic>Effect Size</topic><topic>Elementary Secondary Education</topic><topic>Evidence</topic><topic>Kindergarten</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Learning Activities</topic><topic>Mathematics</topic><topic>Mathematics Achievement</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Meta Analysis</topic><topic>Moderators</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>science</topic><topic>Science Achievement</topic><topic>Science and technology</topic><topic>Science education</topic><topic>Science Instruction</topic><topic>STEM Education</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><topic>Transfer of Training</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Delen, Ibrahim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sen, Sedat</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><jtitle>Journal of research in science teaching</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Delen, Ibrahim</au><au>Sen, Sedat</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1362864</ericid><atitle>Effect of design‐based learning on achievement in K‐12 education: A meta‐analysis</atitle><jtitle>Journal of research in science teaching</jtitle><date>2023-02</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>60</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>330</spage><epage>356</epage><pages>330-356</pages><issn>0022-4308</issn><eissn>1098-2736</eissn><notes>Funding information</notes><notes>European Commission; Progression and Pedagogy of Design (P2D): Contextualizing Design‐based Pedagogy in Teacher Education Programs, Grant/Award Number: 2020‐1‐TR01‐KA203‐094180</notes><abstract>Design‐based learning (DBL) offers opportunities to support students' content understanding. Previous DBL studies reported different effect sizes by using the data from one participant group. The goal of this study was to conduct a meta‐analysis that would give a comprehensive picture of how DBL is connected to student achievement in different disciplines. In addition, we explored the moderators influencing achievement in DBL for K‐12 education. After investigating content‐related gains in our meta‐analysis on 37 individual articles with 52 effect sizes, we found that DBL had a positive and large effect (g¯ = 0.602) on achievement in K‐12 education, and the effect size for science (g¯ = 0.703) was higher than mathematics (g¯ = 0.418) education. When considering the strong emphasis on science education in different DBL related frameworks and STEM (science, engineering, technology, and mathematics) education studies, this cumulative understanding could play an important role in the difference between science and mathematics. Studies that had control groups in the same school (g¯ = 0.703) had statistically significantly higher effect sizes compared to studies that included control groups from different schools (g¯ = 0.447). Studies with random assignment (g¯ = 0.258) had statistically significantly smaller effect sizes compared to studies with non‐random assignment (g¯ = 0.623). In addition, the effect of DBL on achievement showed statistically significant differences among different countries. The remaining moderators (school level, content support, measurement type, and experimental design) did not show statistically significant differences in terms of the effect of DBL on student achievement. Our review presents evidence that participating in DBL activities supports student achievement after the intervention, but how students transfer their content gains in other situations needs convincing evidence. To overcome this challenge, future studies can prioritize how to support achievement in state mandated tests to understand DBL's effect on students' content gains in different learning situations.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/tea.21800</doi><tpages>27</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6962-4960</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2816-777X</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-4308
ispartof Journal of research in science teaching, 2023-02, Vol.60 (2), p.330-356
issn 0022-4308
1098-2736
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2767086710
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); ERIC; Wiley:Jisc Collections:Wiley Jisc Read and Publish Open Access Agreement 2020-2023 (reading list)
subjects Academic Achievement
Achievement
Comparative Analysis
Control Groups
Correlation
Design
design‐based learning
Effect Size
Elementary Secondary Education
Evidence
Kindergarten
Learning
Learning Activities
Mathematics
Mathematics Achievement
Measurement
Meta Analysis
Moderators
Research Design
science
Science Achievement
Science and technology
Science education
Science Instruction
STEM Education
Students
Teaching Methods
Transfer of Training
title Effect of design‐based learning on achievement in K‐12 education: A meta‐analysis
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-09-21T14%3A15%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_eric_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effect%20of%20design%E2%80%90based%20learning%20on%20achievement%20in%20K%E2%80%9012%20education:%20A%20meta%E2%80%90analysis&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20research%20in%20science%20teaching&rft.au=Delen,%20Ibrahim&rft.date=2023-02&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=330&rft.epage=356&rft.pages=330-356&rft.issn=0022-4308&rft.eissn=1098-2736&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/tea.21800&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_eric_%3E2767086710%3C/proquest_eric_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-e2450-53938cb4185d40ee49e472b38c5a48aed1eed2e2538dac210c9b909532ecab7b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2767086710&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1362864&rfr_iscdi=true