The effect of constructivist learning models on student outcomes varies significantly by location, with Turkey (ES=.87) and Indonesia (ES=1.07) showing high-level effects and China (ES=.58) and mixed-country samples (ES=.67) medium-level effects¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r3 · q1–q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Location moderates the effect of constructivist learning models (Qb(3)=15.55, p<.01), with meta-analyses of Turkey and Indonesia samples producing high-level effects and China and mixed-country samples medium-level effects. → Demir 2022 q3 i? The authors suggest the location differences may arise because constructivist models are more flexible and student-centered than the traditional methods dominant in some school systems, and they caution that location bias is a problem in meta-analysis research. → Demir 2022 (2)

Evidence¶

Demir 2022¶

Demir, M., & Kaya, M. (2022). Analysis of constructivist learning model's effects on student outcomes: A second order meta-analysis. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 15(4), 938-957. http://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.1122136

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Q-between moderator analysis by location of the meta-analyses (mixed k=5, Turkey k=10, China k=3, Indonesia k=3) under a random effect model. The article reports "Qb(3)=15.55 p<.01" with per-location effect sizes ES=.67, ES=.58, ES=.87 and ES=1.07.

"Similarly, CLM's impact on student outcomes according to the location included in the meta -analysis research statistically varies (Qb(3)=15.55 p<.01). A mixed-type meta-analysis, including research from different countries, had a lower or medium-level effect (ES=.67). Similarly, meta-analysis research, including China sampling , produced medium -level impact size (ES=.58). On the other hand, meta-analysis research, including Turkey and Indonesia sampling, produced high-level impact (ES=.87; ES=1.07, respectively)."

Demir 2022 (2)¶

Demir, M., & Kaya, M. (2022). Analysis of constructivist learning model's effects on student outcomes: A second order meta-analysis. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 15(4), 938-957. http://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.1122136

q1 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Authors' interpretation (type e) offered in the Discussion to explain the location moderator, citing prior work that Turkey's education system is dominated by traditional methods; it is a hypothesized explanation, not a tested result.

"School systems that produce high impact size might be the countries in which t raditional education methods are dominant. Turkey's education system is dominated by traditional methods (Kayabaşı, 2012; Terzi, 2011). Constructivist learning models are more flexible and put students at the center when compared to traditional learning models. This flexibility might be the reason some countries produced higher impact sizes."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• RME is more effective in Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, and Thailand than in Greece and the United States — related
• The effect of cooperative learning differs by the location of the meta-analysis studies, with single-country studies showing higher effects than mixed-country studies — related
• Constructivist learning models have a medium-level overall effect (ES=.78) on K-12 student outcomes across 19 meta-analyses — a broader claim this one bears on
• Constructivist learning models show high-level effects on thinking skills (ES=.88) and academic success (ES=.81) but a medium-level effect on attitudes (ES=.51) — related
• Effect sizes do not differ significantly by sample size, practice time, or constructivist method used. — related
• The meta-analysis corpus comprised 55 datasets drawn predominantly from Turkish studies and middle-school settings — related