mCSCL effects do not differ significantly by group size, though tetrads show the largest subgroup effect and dyads alone are not significant¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · checked against its sources 2026-10-21 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Tetrad groups produced the largest ES (g = 0.819), followed by groups of more than four people (g = 0.635); dyad effects were not significant (g = 0.216, k = 2). The between-group test was not significant (QB = 3.885, df = 5), so these subgroup differences are descriptive and do not show that group size moderates the effect. → Sung Yao-Ting 2017
Evidence¶
Sung Yao-Ting 2017¶
Sung Yao-Ting, Yang Je-Ming, Lee Han-Yueh. (2017). The Effects of Mobile-Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Meta-Analysis and Critical Synthesis. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317704307
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Random-effects moderator analysis of group size. Table 4 reports tetrad g = 0.819 (k = 6), more than four people g = 0.635 (k = 7), mixed g = 0.494 (k = 14), triad g = 0.492 (k = 10), dyad g = 0.216 (k = 2, not significant); 9 studies did not report group size (g = 0.368). The between-group test QB = 3.885 (df = 5) was not significant, so the differences between sizes are descriptive estimates, not a demonstrated moderation; with only two dyad studies the dyad estimate is especially uncertain. Combined dyad/triad showed a medium ES. The authors' discussion says group size "deserves additional scrutiny" and that more studies are needed to establish an optimal group size.
"the mCSCL studies in which group size was a tetrad produced the largest ES, followed by groups with more than four people, learners with mixed group sizes, and triad. In addition, the ES for studies with the dyad group size was not significant."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- mCSCL effects are larger in mathematics and science than in social studies and specific abilities — related
- mCSCL outperforms individual learning and non-mobile collaborative learning, but shows no significant advantage over desktop CSCL — related
- Structured and ill-structured mCSCL teaching methods show similar effects; competitive methods (TGT, STAD) were not significant — related
- Individual rewards yield significant mCSCL effects while group reward methods do not — related
- mCSCL effects vary significantly by intervention duration, peaking at 1–4 weeks — related
- mCSCL benefits learning achievement, learning attitude, and peer interaction, with the largest effect on achievement — related
- mCSCL produces a medium overall effect on learning performance (Hedges's g = 0.516) — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
mcscl-group-size-moderator |
title |
mCSCL effects do not differ significantly by group size, though tetrads show the largest subgroup effect and dyads alone are not significant |
description |
mCSCL effects do not differ significantly by group size, though tetrads show the largest subgroup effect and dyads alone are not significant |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2017 |
source_checked |
2026-10-21 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-21 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — sung-yao-ting-2017 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.