Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 474

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A meta‐analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States

Schroeder, Carolyn M., Scott, Timothy P., Tolson, Homer, Huang, Tse‐Yang, Lee, Yi‐Hsuan·2007·Journal of Research in Science Teaching
DOI 10.1002/tea.20212
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This project consisted of a meta‐analysis of U.S. research published from 1980 to 2004 on the effect of specific science teaching strategies on student achievement. The six phases of the project included study acquisition, study coding, determination of intercoder objectivity, establishing criteria for inclusion of studies, computation of effect sizes for statistical analysis, and conducting the analyses. Studies were required to have been carried out in the United States, been experimental or quasi‐experimental, and must have included effect size or the statistics necessary to calculate effect size. Sixty‐one studies met the criteria for inclusion in the meta‐analysis. The following eight categories of teaching strategies were revealed during analysis of the studies (effect sizes in parentheses): Questioning Strategies (0.74); Manipulation Strategies (0.57); Enhanced Material Strategies (0.29); Assessment Strategies (0.51); Inquiry Strategies (0.65); Enhanced Context Strategies (1.48); Instructional Technology (IT) Strategies (0.48); and Collaborative Learning Strategies (0.95). All these effect sizes were judged to be significant. Regression analysis revealed that internal validity was influenced by Publication Type, Type of Study, and Test Type. External validity was not influenced by Publication Year, Grade Level, Test Content, or Treatment Categories. The major implication of this research is that we have generated empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of alternative teaching strategies in science. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 44: 1436–1460, 2007

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/tea.20212

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 474

Metadata

Authors
Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T., & Lee, Y.
Venue
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-10-30
Volume
44
Issue
10
Pages
1436-1460
ISSN
  • 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2736
DOI
10.1002/tea.20212
OpenAlex
W2160446473
Cited by
474
References
45
FWCI
59.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.