Evaluating the evidence base for evidence‐based instructional practices in chemistry through meta‐analysis

Abstract

Investigating the effectiveness of instructional practices provides an evidence base to inform instructional decisions. Synthesizing research studies on instructional effectiveness provides an estimate of the generalizability of effectiveness across settings, along with an exploration of factors that may moderate the impact, which cannot be achieved within individual studies. This study sought to provide a synthesis of evidence‐based instructional practices (EBIPs) particular to chemistry through meta‐analysis. Ninety‐nine studies were analyzed comprising a broader view of chemistry specific studies than past meta‐analyses. The results showed that EBIPs feature a demonstrably positive impact on students' academic performance in chemistry, although assessment topic coverage and setting size emerged as relevant moderators of impact and prevented making definitive conclusions of the relative impact of each EBIP. In examining publication bias, an asymmetric distribution of studies based on standard error (SE) and effect size was found, indicative of potential publication bias. To explore the potential impact of bias, the trim and fill method was employed resulting in a range for the overall weighted effect size from 0.29 to 0.62. The study concludes that evidence‐based instructional practices have demonstrated effectiveness even in consideration of potential publication bias, as the range of effect sizes remains positive, but highlights the continued need to publish null findings in the research literature.

Meta-analysis of Gender Performance Gaps in Undergraduate Natural Science Courses

“…, 2013 ), group discussions ( Miller and Tanner, 2015 ), case studies ( Allen and Tanner, 2005 ; Miller and Tanner, 2015 ), and flipped classrooms ( Tucker, 2012 ; van Vliet et al. , 2015 ; Rahman and Lewis, 2020 ), among others, our results add urgency to the need to move beyond coarse categorizations of active learning to more fine-grained work, as it clearly matters to marginalized groups ( Thompson et al. , 2020 ).…”

“…It is used to describe a wide variety of different instructional practices that are infrequently detailed in scholarly publications (Driessen et al, 2020). Although some studies have assessed the effect of specific strategies, such as audience response questions (Caldwell, 2007;Smith et al, 2009;Knight et al, 2013), group discussions (Miller and Tanner, 2015), case studies (Allen and Tanner, 2005;Miller and Tanner, 2015), and flipped classrooms (Tucker, 2012;van Vliet et al, 2015;Rahman and Lewis, 2020), among others, our results add urgency to the need to move beyond coarse categorizations of active learning to more fine-grained work, as it clearly matters to marginalized groups (Thompson et al, 2020). Our research was limited by the publication or instructor descriptions of each course.…”

Beyond instructional practices: Characterizing learning environments that support students in explaining chemical phenomena

“…Furthermore, evidence suggests nonlecture teaching methods are more equitable to minoritized and marginalized student groups (Lewis, 2011; Ralph & Lewis, 2020; Shields et al, 2012). These findings have resonated throughout the college STEM community, to the extent that nonlecture teaching methods are often referred to as “evidence‐based instructional practices” or “research‐based instructional strategies” in the literature (Borrego & Henderson, 2014; Gibbons et al, 2018; Landrum et al, 2017; Rahman & Lewis, 2020; Stains & Vickrey, 2017; Van Dusen & Nissen, 2019). Indeed, it is claimed that lecture is “the pedagogical equivalent of bloodletting” because “more effective teaching methods have been overwhelmingly demonstrated” (Wieman, 2014, p. 8320).…”

Modifying the ASPECT Survey to Support the Validity of Student Perception Data from Different Active Learning Environments

“…Many studies have found that including active learning strategies in the classroom positively impacts student outcomes (e.g., higher exam grades, lower withdrawal rate, etc.) ( 3 , 4 ). However, while including these strategies may increase student performance outcomes, the extent of these benefits may vary in different student populations ( 5 ), and it cannot be assumed that every student in the classroom engages in or benefits from an active learning environment to the same extent ( 6 ).…”