@article{tamim_what_2011, title = {What {Forty} {Years} of {Research} {Says} {About} the {Impact} of {Technology} on {Learning} {A} {Second}-{Order} {Meta}-{Analysis} and {Validation} {Study}}, volume = {81}, doi = {10.3102/0034654310393361}, abstract = {This research study employs a second-order meta-analysis procedure to summarize 40 years of research activity addressing the question, does computer technology use affect student achievement in formal face-to-face classrooms as compared to classrooms that do not use technology? A study-level meta-analytic validation was also conducted for purposes of comparison. An extensive literature search and a systematic review process resulted in the inclusion of 25 meta-analyses with minimal overlap in primary literature, encompassing 1,055 primary studies. The random effects mean effect size of 0.35 was significantly different from zero. The distribution was heterogeneous under the fixed effects model. To validate the second-order meta-analysis, 574 individual independent effect sizes were extracted from 13 out of the 25 meta-analyses. The mean effect size was 0.33 under the random effects model, and the distribution was heterogeneous. Insights about the state of the field, implications for technology use, and prospects for future research are discussed.}, journal = {Review of Educational Research}, author = {Tamim, Rana and Bernard, Robert and Borokhovski, Eugene and Abrami, Philip and Schmid, Richard}, month = mar, year = {2011}, note = {shortDOI: 10/cg7r89 KerkoCite.ItemAlsoKnownAs: 10.3102/0034654310393361 10/cg7r89 2405685:VFERDKE8}, pages = {4--28}, } @article{bernard_meta-analysis_2014, title = {A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: from the general to the applied}, volume = {26}, issn = {1867-1233}, shorttitle = {A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3}, doi = {10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3}, abstract = {This paper serves several purposes. First and foremost, it is devoted to developing a better understanding of the effectiveness of blended learning (BL) in higher education. This is achieved through a meta-analysis of a sub-collection of comparative studies of BL and classroom instruction (CI) from a larger systematic review of technology integration (Schmid et al. in Comput Educ 72:271–291, 2014). In addition, the methodology of meta-analysis is described and illustrated by examples from the current study. The paper begins with a summary of the experimental research on distance education (DE) and online learning (OL), encapsulated in meta-analyses that have been conducted since 1990. Then it introduces the Bernard et al. (Rev Educ Res 74(3):379–439, 2009) meta-analysis, which attempted to alter the DE research culture of always comparing DE/OL with CI by examining three forms of interaction treatments (i.e., student–student, student–teacher, student–content) within DE, using the theoretical framework of Moore (Am J Distance Educ 3(2):1–6, 1989) and Anderson (Rev Res Open Distance Learn 4(2):9–14, 2003). The rest of the paper revolves around the general steps and procedures (Cooper in Research synthesis and meta-analysis: a step-by-step approach, 4th edn, SAGE, Los Angeles, CA, 2010) involved in conducting a meta-analysis. This section is included to provide researchers with an overview of precisely how meta-analyses can be used to respond to more nuanced questions that speak to underlying theory and inform practice—in other words, not just answers to the “big questions.” In this instance, we know that technology has an overall positive impact on learning (g+ = +0.35, p {\textless} .01, Tamim et al. in Rev Educ Res 81(3):4–28, 2011), but the sub-questions addressed here concern BL interacting with technology in higher education. The results indicate that, in terms of achievement outcomes, BL conditions exceed CI conditions by about one-third of a standard deviation (g+ = 0.334, k = 117, p {\textless} .001) and that the kind of computer support used (i.e., cognitive support vs. content/presentational support) and the presence of one or more interaction treatments (e.g., student–student/–teacher/–content interaction) serve to enhance student achievement. We examine the empirical studies that yielded these outcomes, work through the methodology that enables evidence-based decision-making, and explore how this line of research can improve pedagogy and student achievement.}, language = {en}, number = {1}, urldate = {2020-07-18}, journal = {Journal of Computing in Higher Education}, author = {Bernard, Robert M. and Borokhovski, Eugene and Schmid, Richard F. and Tamim, Rana M. and Abrami, Philip C.}, month = apr, year = {2014}, note = {shortDOI: 10/gcsf95 KerkoCite.ItemAlsoKnownAs: 10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3 10/gcsf95 2405685:PTIFABKG}, pages = {87--122}, } @article{borokhovski_extended_2011, title = {An extended systematic review of {Canadian} policy documents on e-learning: what we’re doing and not doing}, volume = {37}, copyright = {Copyright (c) 2011 Eugene Borokhovski, Robert Bernard, Erin Mills, Philip C Abrami, C Anne Wade, Rana Tamim, Edward Bethel, Gretchen Lowerison, David Pickup, Michael A Surkes}, issn = {1499-6685}, shorttitle = {An extended systematic review of canadian policy documents on e-learning}, url = {https://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26353}, doi = {10.21432/t22p41}, language = {en}, number = {3}, urldate = {2021-08-05}, journal = {Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology}, author = {Borokhovski, Eugene and Bernard, Robert and Mills, Erin and Abrami, Philip C. and Wade, C. Anne and Tamim, Rana and Bethel, Edward and Lowerison, Gretchen and Pickup, David and Surkes, Michael A.}, month = oct, year = {2011}, note = {Number: 3 KerkoCite.ItemAlsoKnownAs: 10.21432/t22p41 10/gmfk2v 2339240:CHEZSB5X 2405685:6HB7ZEXG}, }