Dataset Information

Differentiated Instruction in Secondary Education: A Systematic Review of Research Evidence.

ABSTRACT: Differentiated instruction is a pedagogical-didactical approach that provides teachers with a starting point for meeting students' diverse learning needs. Although differentiated instruction has gained a lot of attention in practice and research, not much is known about the status of the empirical evidence and its benefits for enhancing student achievement in secondary education. The current review sets out to provide an overview of the theoretical conceptualizations of differentiated instruction as well as prior findings on its effectiveness. Then, by means of a systematic review of the literature from 2006 to 2016, empirical evidence on the effects of within-class differentiated instruction for secondary school students' academic achievement is evaluated and summarized. After a rigorous search and selection process, only 14 papers about 12 unique empirical studies on the topic were selected for review. A narrative description of the selected papers shows that differentiated instruction has been operationalized in many different ways. The selection includes studies on generic teacher trainings for differentiated instruction, ability grouping and tiering, individualization, mastery learning, heterogeneous grouping, and remediation in flipped classroom lessons. The majority of the studies show small to moderate positive effects of differentiated instruction on student achievement. Summarized effect sizes across studies range from d = +0.741 to +0.509 (omitting an outlier). These empirical findings give some indication of the possible benefits of differentiated instruction. However, they also point out that there are still severe knowledge gaps. More research is needed before drawing convincing conclusions regarding the effectiveness and value of different approaches to differentiated instruction for secondary school classes.

SUBMITTER: Smale-Jacobse AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6883934 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Well-designed research trials are critical for determining the efficacy and effectiveness of nutrition education interventions. To determine whether behavioral and/or cognition changes can be attributed to an intervention, the experimental design must include a control or comparison condition against which outcomes from the experimental group can be compared. Despite the impact different types of control groups can have on study outcomes, the treatment provided to participants in the control condition has received limited attention in the literature.A systematic review of control groups in nutrition education interventions was conducted to better understand how control conditions are described in peer-reviewed journal articles compared with experimental conditions. To be included in the systematic review, articles had to be indexed in CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, WoS, and/or ERIC and report primary research findings of controlled nutrition education intervention trials conducted in the United States with free-living consumer populations and published in English between January 2005 and December 2015. Key elements extracted during data collection included treatment provided to the experimental and control groups (e.g., overall intervention content, tailoring methods, delivery mode, format, duration, setting, and session descriptions, and procedures for standardizing, fidelity of implementation, and blinding); rationale for control group type selected; sample size and attrition; and theoretical foundation.The search yielded 43 publications; about one-third of these had an inactive control condition, which is considered a weak study design. Nearly two-thirds of reviewed studies had an active control condition considered a stronger research design; however, many failed to report one or more key elements of the intervention, especially for the control condition. None of the experimental and control group treatments were sufficiently detailed to permit replication of the nutrition education interventions studied.Findings advocate for improved intervention study design and more complete reporting of nutrition education interventions.

Project description:BackgroundTraining in Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) has been widely implemented throughout medical school and residency curricula. The aim of this study is to systematically review studies that assessed the effectiveness of EBP teaching to improve knowledge, skills, attitudes and behavior of postgraduate healthcare workers, and to describe instruments available to evaluate EBP teaching.MethodsThe design is a systematic review of randomized, non-randomized, and before-after studies. The data sources were MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL and ERIC between 1966 and 2006. Main outcomes were knowledge, skills, attitudes and behavior towards EBP. Standardized effect sizes (E-S) were calculated. The E-S was categorized as small (E-S < 0.2), small to moderate (E-S between 0.2 and 0.5), moderate to large (E-S between 0.51 and 0.79), large (E-S > 0.79). Reliability and validity of instruments for evaluating education were assessed. Studies excluded were those that were not original, performed in medical students, focused on prescribing practices, specific health problems, theoretical reviews of different components of EBP, continuing medical education, and testing the effectiveness of implementing guidelines.ResultsTwenty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. There were 15 outcomes within the 10 studies for which E-S could be calculated. The E-S ranged from 0.27 (95%CI: -0.05 to 0.59) to 1.32 (95%CI: 1.11 to 1.53). Studies assessing skills, behavior and/or attitudes had a "small to moderate" E-S. Only 1 of the 2 studies assessing knowledge had E-S of 0.57 (95 CI: 0.32 to 0.82) and 2 of the 4 studies that assessed total test score outcomes had "large" E-S. There were 22 instruments used, but only 10 had 2 or more types of validity or reliability evidence.ConclusionSmall improvements in knowledge, skills, attitudes or behavior are noted when measured alone. A large improvement in skills and knowledge in EBP is noted when measured together in a total test score. Very few studies used validated measures tests.

Project description:BackgroundDespite advances in both prevention and treatment, traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains one of the most burdensome diseases; 2% of the US population currently lives with disabilities resulting from TBI. Recent advances in the understanding of inflammation and its impact on the pathophysiology of trauma have increased the interest in inflammation as a possible mediator in TBI outcome.ObjectivesThe goal of this systematic review is to address the question: "What is the evidence in humans that inflammation is linked to secondary brain injury?" As the experimental evidence has been well described elsewhere, this review will focus on the clinical evidence for inflammation as a mechanism of secondary brain injury.Data sourcesMedline database (1996-Week 1 June 2014), Pubmed and Google Scholar databases were queried for relevant studies.Study eligibility criteriaStudies were eligible if participants were adults and/or children who sustained moderate or severe TBI in the acute phase of injury, published in English. Studies published in the last decade (since 2004) were preferentially included. Trials could be observational or interventional in nature.Appraisal and synthesis methodsTo address the quality of the studies retrieved, we applied the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to assess the limitations of the included studies.ResultsTrauma initiates local central nervous system as well as systemic immune activation. Numerous observational studies describe elevation of pro-inflammatory cytokines that are associated with important clinical variables including neurologic outcome and mortality. A small number of clinical trials have included immunomodulating strategies, but no intervention to date has proven effective in improving outcomes after TBI.LimitationsInclusion of studies not initially retrieved by the search terms may have biased our results. Additionally, some reports may have been inadvertently excluded due to use of non-search term key words. Conclusions and Implications of Key Findings Clinical evidence of inflammation causing secondary brain injury in humans is gaining momentum. While inflammation is certainly present, it is not clear from the literature at what juncture inflammation becomes maladaptive, promoting secondary injury rather than facilitating repairand identifying patients with maladaptive inflammation (neuro-inflammation, systemic, or both) after TBI remains elusive. Direct agonism/antagonism represents an exciting target for future study.Level of evidenceSystematic review, level III.

Dataset Information

Differentiated Instruction in Secondary Education: A Systematic Review of Research Evidence.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets