Browsing by Author "Cooper, H"

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7

Open Access
A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students' academic learning
(Journal of Educational Psychology, 2014-01-01) Steenbergen-Hu, S; Cooper, H
© 2013 American Psychological Association.This meta-analysis synthesizes research on the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) for college students. Thirty-five reports were found containing 39 studies assessing the effectiveness of 22 types of ITS in higher education settings. Most frequently studied were AutoTutor, Assessment and Learning in Knowledge Spaces, eXtended Tutor-Expert System, and Web Interface for Statistics Education. Major findings include (a) Overall, ITS had a moderate positive effect on college students' academic learning (g = .32 to g = .37); (b) ITS were less effective than human tutoring, but they outperformed all other instruction methods and learning activities, including traditional classroom instruction, reading printed text or computerized materials, computer-assisted instruction, laboratory or homework assignments, and no-treatment control; (c) ITS's effectiveness did not significantly differ by different ITS, subject domain, or the manner or degree of their involvement in instruction and learning; and (d) effectiveness in earlier studies appeared to be significantly greater than that in more recent studies. In addition, there is some evidence suggesting the importance of teachers and pedagogy in ITS-assisted learning.
Open Access
Children and hospitalization: putting the new reviews in methodological context.
(J Dev Behav Pediatr, 1993-02) Cooper, H
Open Access
Finding the Missing Science: The Fate of Studies Submitted for Review by a Human Subjects Committee
(Psychological Methods, 1997-12-01) Cooper, H; Charlton, K; DeNeve, K
Publication bias, including prejudice against the null hypothesis, and other biasing filters may operate on researchers as well as journal editors and reviewers. A survey asked 33 psychology researchers to describe the fate of 159 studies approved by their departmental human subjects review committee. About two thirds of completed studies did not result in published summaries. About half of the unpublished studies fell out of the process for reasons other than methodological quality. Among these, lack of interest and aims that did not include publication were cited more often than nonsignificant results as the reasons why publication was not pursued. However, significant findings were more likely than nonsignificant findings to be submitted for meeting presentation or publication. These results indicate attention needs to be paid to improving how psychological scientists communicate, especially to the creation of prospective research registers.
Open Access
Narrative Versus Meta-Analytic Reviews: A Rejoinder to Graham’s Comment
(Review of Educational Research, 1995-01-01) Cooper, H; Dorr, N
We examine Graham’s (1995) concerns about meta-analysis regarding (a) the use of poor-quality studies and (b) an overemphasis on quantitative comparisons of substantively disparate literatures. First, many meta-analysts eschew making questionable global judgments of quality so as to exclude studies on an a priori basis. Instead, they demonstrate their concern for research quality by including methods variables in a search for influences on study outcomes. Further, our meta-analysis (Cooper & Dorr, 1995) demonstrated the independence of decisions about (a) what studies to include in a review and (b) whether to use quantitative synthesis techniques by using the same evidential base Graham used for her narrative review. Second, we agree with Graham that substantively disparate literatures ought not be compared. However, we argue that literatures that might be defined as disparate for one purpose could be comparable for another. Regardless, her concern is irrelevant to our comparison of the two reviewing methods. © 1995, Sage Publications. All rights reserved.
Open Access
Path analysis and structural equation modeling with latent variables
(2012) Hoyle, Rick
Open Access
Race Comparisons on Need for Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Alternative to Graham’s Narrative Review
(Review of Educational Research, 1995-01-01) Cooper, H; Dorr, N
A box score review conducted by Graham (1994) concluded that no difference existed between Blacks and Whites on measures of need for achievement. A meta-analysis reported in this article using the same research base revealed reliable and complex race differences. Overall, Whites scored higher than Blacks on measures of need for achievement, but the race difference all but disappeared in studies conducted after 1970. As a possible explanation, the meta-analysis revealed that since 1970 samples of participants from various socioeconomic levels have been preferred and that such samples showed differences between races of only half the size of those shown for samples of participants of strictly lower socioeconomic status. The method of assessment and the age and education of participants also influenced outcomes of race comparisons. Finally, Graham concluded that the research showed a consistent pattern of more positive self-concept of ability among Blacks than Whites. The meta-analysis also found this effect but revealed it to be smaller (though nonsignificantly so) than the difference in need for achievement rejected by the box score. Thus, the meta-analysis found that effects are no larger in an area where Graham concluded they existed than in an area where she concluded they did not. © 1995, Sage Publications. All rights reserved.
Open Access
The relation between self-beliefs and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review
(Educational Psychologist, 2004-03-01) Valentine, JC; DuBois, DL; Cooper, H
There has been extensive debate among scholars and practitioners concerning whether self-beliefs influence academic achievement. To address this question, findings of longitudinal studies investigating the relation between self-beliefs and achievement were synthesized using meta-analysis. Estimated effects are consistent with a small, favorable influence of positive self-beliefs on academic achievement, with an average standardized path or regression coefficient of .08 for self-beliefs as a predictor of later achievement, controlling for initial levels of achievement. Stronger effects of self-beliefs are evident when assessing self-beliefs specific to the academic domain and when measures of self-beliefs and achievement are matched by domain (e.g., same subject area). Under these conditions, the relation of self-beliefs to later achievement meets or exceeds Cohen's (1988) definition of a small effect size.