Publication bias does not explain the significant positive outcomes of the 7E learning cycle in this meta-analysis¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? A classic fail-safe N analysis indicated 6327 additional null-effect studies would be needed to bring the significant finding to p = .05, and the funnel plot showed no potential bias. → Balta 2016

Evidence¶

Balta 2016¶

Balta, N., & Sarac, H. (2016). The Effect of 7E Learning Cycle on Learning in Science Teaching: A meta-Analysis Study. European Journal of Educational Research, 5(2), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.5.2.61

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Publication bias evaluation within the meta-analysis using a funnel plot and the classic fail-safe N test (35 observed studies, Z = 26.42). The quote reports the fail-safe N of 6327 and the authors' conclusion about bias.

"an additional 6327 lost studies with an average zero effect size would be required in order to nullify the effect size. Overall, these results indicated that publication bias could not explain the significant positive outcomes detected across all studies."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Most individual 7E effect sizes were positive, but three were negative, with effect sizes ranging from -.473 to 3.953 — related
• The 7E model showed larger science effects than the 3E model, but evidence for 7E superiority is limited by few and geographically concentrated studies — related
• The 7E learning cycle has a very large positive overall effect on students' achievement in science teaching (random-effects Hedges's g = 1.245) — related
• The meta-analysis shows no publication bias (Begg-Mazumdar p = .196) and is resistant to it (fail-safe N = 463) — related
• The meta-analysis shows signs of publication bias, with smaller studies tending to give more positive results than larger studies — related
• Fail-safe analyses indicate the meta-analysis findings are not attributable to publication bias — related
• Publication bias checks (funnel plot and Orwin's Fail-Safe N = 3182) found no evidence of bias in the meta-analysis — related
• No evidence of publication bias was found for the overall effect of gamification on intrinsic motivation — related
• Publication bias is present and may inflate the overall hands-on effect size estimate — related
• The meta-analytic result is robust to publication bias, with a fail-safe number of 33,896.6 null studies needed to nullify the observed effect — related
• Publication bias in the meta-analysis is low, as indicated by a fail-safe N of 4860 and funnel plot inspection. — related