Individual rewards yield significant mCSCL effects while group reward methods do not¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Studies using individual rewards had the largest ES (g = 0.580); group rewards for individual learning (g = 0.476) and group rewards for group outcomes (g = −0.069) were not significant. → 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 reward methods. Table 4 reports individual rewards g = 0.580 (k = 39), group rewards for individual learning g = 0.476 (k = 4), group rewards for group outcomes g = −0.069 (k = 4); QB = 6.179 was not significant. Bundled group rewards were again not significant.

"the studies using individual reward methods had the largest ES. No significant ESs were found for categories of group rewards for individual learning and group rewards for group outcomes."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• mCSCL effects are larger in mathematics and science than in social studies and specific abilities — related
• mCSCL effects do not differ significantly by group size, though tetrads show the largest subgroup effect and dyads alone are not significant — related
• In school studies, cooperative and peer-learning methods that reward groups on every member's individual learning raised achievement more than methods without such rewards — related
• mCSCL produces a medium overall effect on learning performance (Hedges's g = 0.516) — related
• mCSCL outperforms individual learning and non-mobile collaborative learning, but shows no significant advantage over desktop CSCL — related