Structured and ill-structured mCSCL teaching methods show similar effects; competitive methods (TGT, STAD) were not significant¶

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? Jigsaw (g = 0.589) and GI (g = 0.562) produced the largest method effects, while TGT (g = 0.442) and STAD (g = 0.162) were not significant; structured and ill-structured categories did not differ significantly. → 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 teaching methods. Table 4 reports LT g = 0.527 (k = 29), jigsaw g = 0.589 (k = 6), GI g = 0.562 (k = 7), TGT g = 0.442 (k = 4), STAD g = 0.162 (k = 2); QB = 1.232 was not significant. Combined structured versus ill-structured mCSCL also did not differ significantly.

"The mCSCL studies with the teaching methods of jigsaw produced the largest ES, followed by GI. The studies with teaching methods of TGT and STAD did not yield significant ESs."

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
• mCSCL produces a medium overall effect on learning performance (Hedges's g = 0.516) — related
• In secondary-school research, cooperative learning beat frontal teaching in 68% of comparisons, with STAD most and Jigsaw least successful — related
• mCSCL outperforms individual learning and non-mobile collaborative learning, but shows no significant advantage over desktop CSCL — related