In adjusted meta-regressions, peer-assisted and small-group instruction outperform computer-assisted instruction, coaching, incentives, and progress monitoring¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · 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? In meta-regressions adjusting for methods, content domains, and other study characteristics, peer-assisted and small-group instruction had significantly larger effect sizes than computer-assisted instruction, coaching of personnel, incentives, and progress monitoring; peer-assisted instruction also beat medium-group instruction. → Dietrichson 2021
Evidence¶
Dietrichson 2021¶
Dietrichson, J., Filges, T., Seerup, J. K., Klokker, R. H., Viinholt, B. C. A., Bøg, M., & Eiberg, M. (2021). Targeted school‐based interventions for improving reading and mathematics for students with or at risk of academic difficulties in Grades K‐6: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1152
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3
Meta-regression analyses from the review comparing instructional methods while adjusting for content domains and study characteristics; the named contrasts were reported as statistically significant, with no effect size printed for these contrasts.
"In meta‐regressions that adjusted for methods, content domains, and other study characteristics, they had significantly larger effect sizes than computer‐assisted instruction, coaching of personnel, incentives, and progress monitoring. Peer‐assisted instruction also had significantly larger effect sizes than medium‐group instruction."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
-
Media comparison studies produce uninterpretable "no significant difference" findings. — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
-
Cooperative Learning Improves Achievement — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- Content domain shows little association with effect sizes, except fractions in mathematics — related
- Small group instruction is associated with significantly larger effect sizes than CAI and incentive components in targeted secondary interventions — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Effect sizes based on mathematics tests are significantly larger than effect sizes based on reading tests in targeted secondary interventions — related
- Peer-assisted instruction and small-group instruction by adults have statistically significant, robust short-term effects (ES about 0.35–0.45) for K-6 struggling students — 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
- Peer-assisted learning interventions improve achievement for elementary students — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
peer-small-group-outperform-other-methods |
title |
In adjusted meta-regressions, peer-assisted and small-group instruction outperform computer-assisted instruction, coaching, incentives, and progress monitoring |
description |
In adjusted meta-regressions, peer-assisted and small-group instruction outperform computer-assisted instruction, coaching, incentives, and progress monitoring |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2021 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — dietrichson-2021 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.