This meta-analysis examined the effects of practice tests versus non-testing learning conditions on student performance. Research demonstrates that students who take practice tests often outperform students in non-testing learning conditions such as restudying, practice, filler activities, or no presentation of the material. Results reveal that practice tests are more beneficial for learning than restudying and all other comparison conditions.
Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the Use of Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Practice Testing. Review of Educational Research, 0034654316689306.
Active responding (in the form of response cards) was employed during a math lecture in a third-grade classroom to evaluate its effect on disruptive behavior.
Armendariz, F., & Umbreit, J. (1999). Using active responding to reduce disruptive behavior in a general education classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1(3), 152–158.
This document explores ways in which time can be used as an education resource. It opens with an overview of studies that indicate that American students trail their counterparts in other leading industrialized nations in academic achievement. It discusses research on the relationship between time and learning.
Aronson, J., Zimmerman, J., & Carlos, L. (1999). Improving Student Achievement by Extending School: Is It Just a Matter of Time?.
A new report from the Center for American Progress suggests American students would be better served by allowing teachers more time to collaborate with colleagues, planning lessons, and reviewing the effects of instruction.
Benner, M. & Partelow, L. (2017). Reimagining the School Day: Innovative Schedules for Teaching and Learning. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress.
This meta-analysis examined the impact of lecturing as compared to active methods of instruction on learning and course performance. The effect sizes indicate that on average, student performance on examinations and concept inventories increased by 0.47 SDs under active learning (n = 158 studies), and that the odds ratio for failing was 1.95 under traditional lecturing (n = 67 studies).
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
This book provides research as well as case studies of successful professional development strategies and practices for educators.
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. ASCD.
This paper analyzed the results of research on the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on students' academic achievement. Nineteen meta-analyses were met criteria for inclusion for the review. Results were found for improved academic achievement within-class grouping, cross-grade grouping by subject, and grouping for the gifted. No positive effects were identified for between-class grouping. The results were consistent regardless of whether students were high, medium, or low achievers. The study found acceleration appeared to have a positive, moderate, and statistically significant impact on students’ academic achievement.
Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What One Hundred Years of Research Says About the Effects of Ability Grouping and Acceleration on K–12 Students’ Academic Achievement: Findings of Two Second-Order Meta-Analyses. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 849-899.
This literature review examines the impact of various instructional methods
Walberg H. J. (1999). Productive teaching. In H. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.) New directions for teaching, practice, and research (pp. 75-104). Berkeley, CA: McCutchen Publishing.