4.3 Article

A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Professional Development on Teachers' Knowledge, Skill, and Self-Efficacy in Data-Based Decision-Making

期刊

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
卷 54, 期 4, 页码 269-283

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0022219420970196

关键词

curriculum-based measurement; CBM; data-based individualization; DBI; data-based decision-making; DBDM; K– 12 teachers; meta-analysis

资金

  1. Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education [H325H140001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this review was to analyze the impact of professional development on teachers' knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy. The study found that the mean effect of DBDM PD on teacher outcomes was 0.57. However, significant heterogeneity across studies and the ideal conditions under which the experimental studies were conducted may impact the generalizability of the results.
The purpose of this review was to synthesize research on the effect of professional development (PD) targeting data-based decision-making processes on teachers' knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy related to curriculum-based measurement (CBM) and data-based decision-making (DBDM). To be eligible for this review, studies had to (a) be published in English, (b) include in-service or pre-service K-12 teachers as participants, (c) use an empirical group design, and (d) include sufficient data to calculate an effect size for teacher outcome variables. The mean effect of DBDM PD on teacher outcomes was g = 0.57 (p < .001). This effect was not moderated by study quality. These results must be viewed through the lens of significant heterogeneity in effects across included studies, which could not be explained by follow-up sensitivity analyses. In addition, the experimental studies included in this review occurred under ideal, researcher-supported conditions, which impacts the generalizability of the effects of DBDM PD in practice. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据