以統合研究建立相互教學有效性的在地證據：研究方法特徵影響評估

Local Evidence-based Research Synthesis: How Methodological Features Moderate the Effects of Reciprocal Instruction

謝進昌(Jin-Chang Hsieh)；陳敏瑜(Min-Yu Chen)

後設分析 ； 研究方法特徵 ； 研究品質評估 ； 量化研究統合 ； meta-analysis ； methodological features ； research quality assessment ； research synthesis

嘉大教育研究學刊

44期（2020 / 06 / 30）

37 - 68

繁體中文

檢視過去統合研究，發現學者多關注文獻出版類型可能導致偏誤，鮮少針對研究方法 特徵於統合結果影響進行評估與討論。據此，本文目的在探究研究方法特徵（實驗研究設計、 評量工具與教學者來源）對於相互教學在促進不同學習階段學生，中文閱讀理解統合成效的 影響。研究結果顯示，相互教學對於學生中文閱讀理解平均效果量為近中等程度教學成效， 此外，進一步評估研究方法特徵影響時，發現當納入實驗研究設計因子，相互教學對參與者 為國小高年級（β=-0.2736, p_β=0.0048）、或國中以上學生（β=-0.2427, p_β=0.0481）之教學 效果皆顯著低於參與者為國小中年級學生。然而，評量工具來源、教學者是否為研究者則未 產生顯著影響。最後，本文針對分析結果，提出未來實務與研究建議。

Systematic review and meta-analysis, one of the effective and widespread techniques in forming research-based and holistic evidences, was widely accepted by researchers. With the evolution of this technique, the approach in assessing quality of primary research has become an important topic in this area. However, except publication bias, research has seldom been conducted to investigate biases deriving from methodological features under the context of research synthesis. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the moderating effects concerning experimental design, measurement tools, and instructor-as-researcher, while investigation the effects of reciprocal instruction on Chinese reading comprehension across students’ grades. Systematic literature review processes were implemented to search, identify, and collect relevant studies. After few keywords were made in searching Taiwan literature database, a total of 2,437 articles were first retrieved, and followed a two-step literature screening process according to inclusion and exclusion rules, 43 articles were formally adopted. Random effect model was adopted while meta-analyzing findings of the included studies, an overall average effect size of +0.4756 and +0.3969 were obtained separately for immediate and follow-up effect. As to the analysis of moderator effects, the findings showed a significant lower average effect size separately for students in fifth-to-sixth grade, and above middle school ages in comparison to students in third-to-fourth grade while using multiple meta-regression with controlling the impact of experimental design. However, no significant moderating effects were found in measurement tools, and instructor-as-researcher. Finally, suggestions and implications were raised for further research.

1. 劉永慈,陳明珠(2017)。以圖畫故事書為教材運用交互教學法提升幼兒的閱讀理解能力。清華教育學報，34(2)，1-44。
   連結：
2. 謝進昌(2012)。不同實驗設計之標準化平均數差異效果量整合探討。屏東教育大學學報，38，57-92。
   連結：
3. 謝進昌(2015)。有效的中文閱讀理解策略：國內最佳教學實徵研究整合。教育科學研究期刊，60(2)，33-77。
   連結：
4. 謝進昌,陳敏瑜(2011)。國內教育、心理後設分析研究出版偏誤檢定之實徵分析。測驗學刊，58(2)，391-422。
   連結：
5. Allen, M.(2015).The experimenter expectancy effect: An inevitable component of school science?.Research in Education,94(1),13-29.
6. Best Evidence Encyclopedia[BEE] (n.d.). Best Evidence Encyclopedia : Empowering educators with evidences. Retrieved 23April, 2020 from the world wide web: http://www.bestevidence.org/
7. Borenstein, M.(2009).Effect sizes for continuous data.The handbook of research synthesis and meta analysis,New York:
8. Borenstein, M.,Hedges, L. V.,Higgins, J. P. T.,Rothstein, H. R.(2009).Introduction to Meta-Analysis.Chichester, UK:John Wiley & Sons.
9. Chall, J. S.(1967).Learning to read: The great debate.New York:McGraw-Hill.
10. Cohen, J.(1992).Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer.Psychological Bulletin,112(1),155-159.
11. Cooper, H.(2016).Research synthesis and meta-analysis.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc.
12. Cooper, H.,Hedges, L.V.,Valentine, J. C.(2009).The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis.New York:Russel Sage Foundation.
13. Davis, D. S.(2010).Nashville, Tennessee,Graduate School of Vanderbilt University.
14. Davis, D.S.(2013).Multiple comprehension strategies instruction in the intermediate grades: Three remarks about content and pedagogy in the intervention literature.Review of Education,1(2),194-224.
15. Duval, S. J.,Tweedie, R. L.(2000).A nonparametric trim and fill method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis.Journal of the American Statistical Association,95,89-98.
16. Egger, M.,Davey, S. G.,Schneider, M.,Minder, C.(1997).Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.British Medical Journal,315,629-634.
17. Galloway, A. M.(2003).Lincoln, Nebraska,The University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
18. Gersten, R.,Fuchs, L. S.,Compton, D.,Coyne, M.,Greenwood, C.,Innocenti, M. S.(2005).Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education.Exceptional Children,71,149-164.
19. Glass, G. V.,McGaw, B.,Smith, M. L.(1981).Meta-analysis in social research.Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
20. Goldman, S. R.(2012).Adolescent literacy: Learning and understanding content.The Future of Children,22(2),89-116.
21. Hedges, L. V.(1981).Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators.Journal of Educational Statistics,6,107-128.
22. Herbert, M.,Bohaty, J. J.,Nelson, J. R.,Brown, J.(2016).The effects of text structure instruction on expository reading comprehension: A meta-analysis.Journal of Educational Psychology,108(5),609-629.
23. Higgins, J. P. T.(ed.),Thomas, J.(ed.),Chandler, J.(ed.),Cumpston, M.(ed.),Li, T.(ed.),Page, M. J.(ed.),Welch, V. A.(ed.)(2019).Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.Chichester (UK):John Wiley & Sons.
24. Higgins, J. P. T.,Thompson, S. G.(2002).Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.Statistics in Medicine,21,1539-1558.
25. Light, R.,Pillemer, D.(1984).Summing up: The science of reviewing research.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
26. Lipsey, M. W.,Wilson, D. B.(1993).The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis.American Psychologist,48,1181-1209.
27. Lipsey, M. W.,Wilson, D. B.(2001).Practical meta-analysis.Thousand Oaks, London:Sage Publications.
28. Marín-Martínez, F.,Sánchez-Meca, J.(2010).Weighting by inverse variance or by sample size in random-effects meta-analysis.Educational and Psychological Measurement,70,56-73.
29. Morris, S. B.,DeShon, R. P.(2002).Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-group designs.Psychological Methods,7(1),105-125.
30. Myers, M.,Paris, S. G.(1978).Children’s metacognitive knowledge about reading.Journal of Educational Psychology,70,680-690.
31. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development=NICHD(2000).,Washington, DC:National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
32. Palincsar, A. N.(1987).Collaborating for collaborative learning of text comprehension.annual conference of the American Educational Research Association,Washington, D.C.:
33. Palincsar, A. S.,Brown, A. L.(1984).Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction,2,117-175.
34. Paris, S. G.,Wasik, B. A.,Turner, J. C.(1991).The development of strategic readers.Handbook of reading research,Mahwah, NJ:
35. RAND Reading Study Group(2002).Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading comprehension.Santa Monica, CA:RAND Corporation.
36. Raudenbush, S. W.(2009).Analyzing effect sizes: Random effects models.The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis,New York:
37. Rosenshine, B.,Meister, C.(1994).Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research.Review of Educational Research,64(4),479-530.
38. Rosenthal, R.(1979).The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.Psychological Bulletin,86,638-641.
39. Shadish, W. R.,Cook, T. D.,Campbell, D. T.(2002).Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference.Belmont:Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
40. Slavin, R. E.(2017).Evidence-based reform in education.Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,22(3),178-184.
41. Slavin, R. E.(1986).Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytical and traditional reviews.Educational Researcher,9(15),5-11.
42. Slavin, R. E.(2008).Perspectives on evidence-based research in education: What works? Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations.Educational Researcher,37(1),5-14.
43. Slavin, R. E.,Lake, C.,Chambers, B.,Cheung, A.,Davis, S.(2009).Effective reading programs for the elementary grades: A best-evidence synthesis.Review of Educational Research,79(4),1391-1466.
44. Slavin, R.,Madden, N. A.(2011).Measures inherent to treatments in program effectiveness reviews.Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness,4,370-380.
45. Suggate, S. P.(2010).Why “what” we teach depends on “when”: Grade and reading intervention modality moderate effect size.Developmental Psychology,46,1556-1579.
46. The Campbell Collaboration[C2](n.d.). The Campbell Collaboration website. Retrieved April 23, 2020 from the world wide web: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/
47. Thompson, S. G.,Higgins, J. P. T.(2002).How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?.Statistics in Medicine,21(11),1559-1573.
48. Thompson, S. G.,Sharp, S. J.(1999).Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods.Statistics in Medicine,18,2693-2708.
49. Valentine, J. C.,Cooper, H.(2008).A systematic and transparent approach for assessing the methodological quality of intervention effectiveness research: The Study Design and Implementation Assessment Device (Study DIAD).Psychological Methods,13(2),130-149.
50. Valentine, J. C.,McHugh, C.(2007).The effects of attrition on baseline comparability in randomized experiments in education: A meta-analysis.Psychological Methods,12(3),268-282.
51. Viechtbauer, W.(2010).Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package.Journal of Statistical Software,36(3),1-48.
52. Viechtbauer, W. (2020). metafor: Meta-analysis package for R. Retrieved April 23, 2020 from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/metafor/metafor.pdf
53. Viechtbauer, W.,Cheung, M. W. L.(2010).Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis.Research Synthesis Methods,1,112-125.
54. What Works Clearinghouse=WWC(2010).,Princeton, NJ:US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
55. What Works Clearinghouse[WWC] (n.d.). What Works Clearinghouse website. Retrieved April 23, 2020 from the world wide web: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
56. What Works Clearinghouse[WWC] (2017a). What Works Clearinghouse: Standards handbook(version 4.0). Retrieved April 23, 2020 from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_standards_handbook_v4.pdf
57. What Works Clearinghouse[WWC] (2017b). What Works Clearinghouse: Procedures handbook (Version 4). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education. Retrieved April 23, 2020 from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_procedures_handbook_v4.pdf
58. 吳佩勳(2015)。嘉義縣，國立中正大學。
59. 吳潔蓉(2010)。臺北市，國立臺北教育大學。
60. 林容妃(2005)。臺北市，國立臺北師範學院。
61. 連啟舜(2002)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學。
62. 鈕文英(2010)。特殊教育證據本位實務之建立、鑑識與運用。南屏特殊教育，1，1-24。