Shift-class stratification shows a larger effect (SMD = 0.99) than in-class stratification (SMD = 0.51), though the between-group difference is not statistically significant¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 2 studies · 2 quant-synthesis r2–r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Both modes improved performance (combined Z = 13.770, P = 0.000), but the between-group difference was not significant (P = 0.147); descriptively shift-class (0.99) exceeded in-class (0.51). → Shi 2020 q3 i? Among in-class modes, dominant, recessive, and combined dominant-recessive stratification did not differ significantly (P = 0.431); combined dominant-recessive had the largest single effect size (0.65, 1 dataset). → Shi 2020 (2)

Evidence¶

Shi 2020¶

Shi, H., Cheung, E.S.T., & Cheung, A.C.K. (2020) The impact of stratified teaching on the academic performance of Chinese middle school students: A meta-analysis. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 7(1):735-760. https://doi.org/10.15354/sief.20.re012

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Stratification-mode moderator analysis (Table 6) of the included studies: 24 in-class and 2 shift-class datasets. The article reports both modes effective, a non-significant between-group difference (P = 0.147), and the descriptive contrast "shift-class stratification (SMD = 0.99) > in-class stratification (SMD = 0.51)".

"But in the specific effect size, shift-class stratification (SMD = 0.99) > in-class stratification (SMD = 0.51), indicating that shift-class stratification had a greater impact on students' academic performance."

Shi 2020 (2)¶

Shi, H., Cheung, E.S.T., & Cheung, A.C.K. (2020) The impact of stratified teaching on the academic performance of Chinese middle school students: A meta-analysis. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 7(1):735-760. https://doi.org/10.15354/sief.20.re012

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Comparison of in-class dominant, in-class recessive, and combined dominant-recessive stratification (Table 7), based on 2, 12, and 1 datasets respectively; combined test Z = 7.666, P = 0.000, between-group P = 0.431 indicating no significant difference among the three in-class modes.

"The between-group effect size P = 0.431, indicating that the three in-class stratified teaching models had the same effect on students' academic performance."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Blended instruction effects are above moderate in all class sizes, largest for 51-100 students (SMD = 0.752), with no significant between-group difference — related
• Stratified teaching has a larger effect in medium-size classes (SMD = 0.64) than in large classes (SMD = 0.44) — related
• Stratified teaching's effect does not differ significantly between middle school and high school students — related
• Stratified teaching has a moderate positive effect on Chinese middle and high school students' academic performance (SMD = 0.53) — related
• Stratified teaching improves performance across short, medium, and long experiment periods, with the largest single-period effect in short experiments (SMD = 0.82) — related