A Study of Meta-Analyses Reporting Quality in the Large and Expanding Literature of Educational Technology
As the empirical literature in educational technology continues to grow, meta-analyses are increasingly being used to synthesise research to inform practice. However, not all meta-analyses are equal. To examine their evolution over the past 30 years, this study systematically analysed the quality of...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2021-01, Vol.37 (4), p.100-115 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | As the empirical literature in educational technology continues to grow, meta-analyses are increasingly being used to synthesise research to inform practice. However, not all meta-analyses are equal. To examine their evolution over the past 30 years, this study systematically analysed the quality of 52 meta-analyses (1988-2017) on educational technology. Methodological and reporting quality is defined here as the completeness of the descriptive and methodological reporting features of meta-analyses. The study employed the Meta-Analysis Methodological Reporting Quality Guide (MMRQG), an instrument designed to assess 22 areas of reporting quality in meta-analyses. Overall, MMRQG scores were negatively related to average effect size (i.e., the higher the quality, the lower the effect size). Owing to the presence of poor-quality syntheses, the contribution of educational technologies to learning has been overestimated, potentially misleading researchers and practitioners. Nine MMRQG items discriminated between higher and lower average effect sizes. A publication date analysis revealed that older reviews (1988-2009) scored significantly lower on the MMRQG than more recent reviews (2010-2017). Although the increase in quality bodes well for the educational technology literature, many recent meta-analyses still show only moderate levels of quality. Identifying and using only best evidence-based research is thus imperative to avoid bias. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1449-5554 1449-3098 1449-5554 |
DOI: | 10.14742/ajet.6322 |