Akran Öğreniminin Öğrenci Çıktıları Üzerindeki Etkileri: İkinci Dereceden Bir Meta Analiz

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı “peer learning”in (PL) öğrenci çıktılarına etkisini incelemektir. Bu doğrultuda 11 first order meta analiz (FOM) araştırması incelenmiştir. FOM’lara Web of Science, Scopus, Medline, Eric, Akademik Search Ultimate, PsycNet and Google Academic veri tabanlarından erişilmiştir. Aramalar 2000-2024 yılları arasını kapsamaktadır. FOM araştırmaları K12 ve yükseköğretim kademesini kapsamaktadır. FOM araştırmalarının beş çalışma Cohen's d etkisini (k=5), on bir çalışma ise Hedge's g etkisini (k=11) raporladı.FOM araştırmalarından elde edilen 16 etki büyüklüğü istatistiksek olarak analiz edilmiştir.Araştırma yöntemi olarak second order meta analiz yöntemi kullanılmıştır. İstatistiksel analizler random model altında yapılmıştır. Etki büyüklüklerinin yayın yanlılığı incelemiştir. Çalışma sonucunda PL’nin öğrenci çıktılarına etkisinin zayıf düzeyde olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır (ES=.40 [CI=.33-.47] p<.01). Akranla öğretimin, akademik başarı üzerindeki etkisinin, duyuşsal, mesleki beceri ve sosyal becerilere göre daha yüksek olduğu gözlenmiştir. PL ve öğrenci çıktıları arasındaki etki büyüklüklerinin düşük düzeyde yayın yanlılığı taşıdığı saptanmıştır. Etki büyüklüklerinin temel araştırmalarının dillerine göre ve FOM araştırmaların yayın yanlılığı statüsüne göre farklılaştığı bulgulanmıştır. Yayın yanlılığı gösteren FOM grubu, yüksek düzeyde etki büyüklüğüne sahip olduğu gözlenmiştir. (diğer gruplar düşük düzeyde etki büyüklükleri üretirken)

Keywords

• Akran Öğrenmesi
• Akademik Başarı
• Duyuşsal
• Mesleki Beceriler
• Sosyal Beceriler
• İkinci Derece Meta Analiz

Peer Learning Effects on Students Outcomes: A Second Order Meta Analyses

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of peer learning (PL) on student outcomes. To this end, 11 first-order meta-analysis (FOM) studies were reviewed. FOMs were accessed from the Web of Science, Scopus, Medline, Eric, Academic Search Ultimate, PsycNet, and Google Academic databases. The searches cover the years between 2000 and 2024. FOM (Factoring-Out Misconceptions) research encompasses both K-12 and higher education levels. While k=5 studies reported Cohen’s d effect size indexes (d), k=11 studies reported Hedge’s g effect size indexes (g).İn this analyses totals sixteen effect size (k=16) values obtained from FOM studies have been statistically analyzed. The research method used was second-order meta-analysis. Statistical analyses were conducted under the random model. Publication bias of effect sizes was examined. The study concluded that the impact of PL on student outcomes is weak (ES= .40 [CI= .33-0.47], p < .01). It was found that the effect sizes between PL and student outcomes have low levels of publication bias. It has been observed that PL has a higher impact on academic achievement compared to affective, professional skills, and social skills. It was also found that the effect sizes vary according to the languages of primary studies and the publication bias status of FOM studies. The group of FOMs exhibiting publication bias has a high-level effect size (while other groups have produced low-level effect sizes.

Keywords

• : Peer Learning
• Academic Achievement
• Affective
• Professional Skills
• Social Skills
• Second Order Meta Analyses

References

1. Alegre Ansuátegui, F. J., Moliner Miravet, L., Lorenzo-Valentin, G., & Maroto, A. (2018). Peer tutoring and academic achievement in mathematics: A meta-analysis. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 337-354. doi: 10.12973/ejmste/79805
2. Alegre Ansuátegui, F. J., Moliner Miravet, L., Maroto, A., & Lorenzo- Valentin, G. (2019). Peer tutoring in mathematics in primary education: A systematic review. Educational Review, 71(6), 767-791. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2018.1474176
3. Balta, N., Michinov, N., Balyimez, S., & Ayaz, M. F. (2017). A meta-analysis of the effect of Peer Instruction on learning gain: Identification of informational and cultural moderators. International Journal of Educational Research, 86, 66-77. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2017.08.009
4. Bandura, A. (1986). Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory (Paper Presedent at the xxıv International Congress of Psychology) Sydney, Australia, 1986.
5. Bapuji, R., Eagles, D., Ferreira, N., Hecht, N., Zhang, Y., Woo, M. Y., ... Pageau, P. (2024). Comparison of peer-assisted learning with expert- led learning in medical school ultrasound education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 26(3), 188-197. doi: 10.1007/s43678-024-00663-x
6. Bengesai, A. V., Amusa, L. B., & Dhunpath, R. (2023). A meta-analysis on the effect of formal peer learning approaches on course performance in higher education. Cogent Education, 10(1), 2203990. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2023.2203990
7. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
8. Boud, D. (2014). Introduction: making the move to peer learning. In D. Boud, & R. Cohen, (Eds.). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other (pp.1-17). London: Routledge.

9. Brierley, C., Ellis, L., & Reid, E. R. (2022). Peer‐assisted learning in medical education: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Medical Education, 56(4), 365-373. doi: 10.1111/medu.14672
10. Cohen, L. G. (1992). Children with exceptional needs in regular classrooms. District of Columbia: National Education Association.
11. Choi, J. A., Kim, O., Park, S., Lim, H., & Kim, J.-H. (2021). The effectiveness of peer learning in undergraduate nursing students: A meta-analysis. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 50(C), 92-101. doi: 10.1016/j.ecns.2020.09.002.
12. Cooper, H., & Koenka, A. C. (2012). The overview of reviews: Unique challenges and opportunities when research syntheses are the principal elements of new integrative scholarship. American Psychologist, 67(6), 446-462. doi: 10.1037/a0027119
13. Crouch, C.H. & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249
14. Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (1998). Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ, 316(7124), 61-66. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7124.61
15. Falchikov, N. (2003). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. London: Routledge.
16. Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Rohrbeck, C. A., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2006). A meta- analytic review of social, self-concept, and behavioral outcomes of peer-assisted learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 732- 749. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.732
17. Guraya, S. Y., & Abdalla, M. E. (2020). Determining the effectiveness of peer-assisted learning in medical education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 15(3), 177-184. doi: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2020.05.002
18. Hedin, R. J., Umberham, B. A., Detweiler, B. N., Kollmorgen, L., & Vassar, M. (2016). Publication bias and nonreporting found in majority of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in anesthesiology journals. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 123(4), 1018-1025. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001452
19. Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
20. Hogan, D. M., & Tudge, J. R. (2014). Implications of Vygotsky's theory for peer learning. In A. M. O'Donnell, & A. King, (Eds.) Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 39-65). London: Routledge.
21. Jin, Z. C., Zhou, X. H., & He, J. (2015). Statistical methods for dealing with publication bias in meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 34(2), 343-360. doi: 10.1002/sim.6342
22. Keerthirathne, W. K. D. (2020). Peer learning: an overview. International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Science, 4(11), 1-6. ISSN (Online): 2456-7361.
23. Kung, J., Chiappelli, F., Cajulis, O. O., Avezova, R., Kossan, G., Chew, L., & Maida, C. A. (2010). From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: validation of revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance. The Open Dentistry Journal, 4, 84-91.
24. Leung, K. C. (2019). An updated meta-analysis on the effect of peer tutoring on tutors’ achievement. School Psychology International, 40(2), 200-214. doi: 10.2174/1874210601004020084
25. Lin, L. (2020). Hybrid test for publication bias in meta-analysis. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 29(10), 2881-2899. doi: 10.1177/0962280220910172
26. Loda, T., Erschens, R., Loenneker, H., Keifenheim, K. E., Nikendei, C., Junne, F., … Herrmann-Werner, A. (2019). Cognitive and social congruence in peer-assisted learning – A scoping review. PLoS ONE, 14(9), e0222224. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222224
27. Marfo, P., & Okyere, G. A. (2019). The accuracy of effect-size estimates under normals and contaminated normals in meta-analysis. Heliyon, 5(6), e01838. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01838.
28. Noroozi, O., & De Wever, B. (2023). The power of peer learning: fostering students' learning processes and outcomes. Amsterdam: Springer Nature.
29. Oh, I. S. (2020). Beyond meta-analysis: Secondary uses of meta- analytic data. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7, 125-153. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych- 012119-045006
30. Öz, E. (2023). Effects of peer instruction on academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 1-18. doi: 10.1080/1554480X.2023.2246447
31. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
32. Pai, H. H., Sears, D. A., & Maeda, Y. (2015). Effects of small-group learning on transfer: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 27(1), 79- 102. doi: 10.1007/s10648-014-9260-8
33. Rees, E. L., Quinn, P. J., Davies, B., & Fotheringham, V. (2016). How does peer teaching compare to faculty teaching? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Teacher, 38(8), 829-837. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2015.1112888
34. Rohrbeck, C. A., Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Miller, T. R. (2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of educational Psychology, 95(2), 240.
35. Tai, J., Molloy, E., Haines, T., & Canny, B. (2016). Same‐level peer‐assisted learning in medical clinical placements: a narrative systematic review. Medical Education, 50(4), 469-484. doi: 10.1111/medu.12898
36. Topping, K., Buchs, C., Duran, D., & Van Keer, H. (2017). Effective peer learning: From principles to practical implementation. London: Routledge.
37. Wessel, A. (2015). Peer learning strategies in the classroom. Journal on Best Teaching Practices, 2(1), 14-16.
38. Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J. & Parker, M. (2017). ‘It'd be useful, but I wouldn't use it’: barriers to university students’ feedback seeking and recipience. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 2026-2041. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032
39. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
40. Zeneli, M., Thurston, A., & Roseth, C. (2016). The influence of experimental design on the magnitude of the effect size-peer tutoring for elementary, middle and high school settings: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 76, 211-223. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2015.11.010
41. Zha, S., Estes, M. D., & Xu, L. (2019). A meta-analysis on the effect of duration, task, and training in peer-led learning. Journal of Peer Learning, 12(2), 5-28. https://ro.uow.edu.au/ajpl/vol12/iss1/2
42. Zhang, H., Liao, A. W. X., Goh, S. H., Wu, X. V., & Yoong, S. Q. (2022). Effectiveness of peer teaching in health professions education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Education Today, 118, 105499. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105499
43. Zhang, Y., & Maconochie, M. (2022). A meta-analysis of peer-assisted learning on examination performance in clinical knowledge and skills education. BMC Medical Education, 22(1), 147. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022- 03183-3