Evaluating technology enhanced learning by using single-case experimental design: A systematic review

被引:1
|
作者
Dayo, Nadira [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Metwaly, Sameh Said [1 ,2 ]
Van Den Noortgate, Wim [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Fac Psychol & Educ Sci, Leuven, Belgium
[2] Katholieke Univ Leuven, ITEC Imec Res Grp, Leuven, Belgium
[3] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Fac Psychol & Educ Sci, KU Leuven campus Kulak Kortrijk,E Sabbelaan 51, B-8500 Kortrijk, Belgium
[4] Katholieke Univ Leuven, ITEC Imec Res Grp, KU Leuven campus Kulak Kortrijk,E Sabbelaan 51, B-8500 Kortrijk, Belgium
关键词
systematic review; single-case experimental design; technology-enhanced learning; AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS; SUBJECT RESEARCH; CHILDREN; STUDENTS; INTERVENTIONS; TRENDS; TUTOR;
D O I
10.1111/bjet.13468
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) may offer a reliable and internally valid way to evaluate technology-enhanced learning (TEL). A systematic review was conducted to provide an overview of what, why and how SCEDs are used to evaluate TEL. Accordingly, 136 studies from nine databases fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included. The results showed that most of the studies were conducted in the field of special education focusing on evaluating the effectiveness of computer-assisted instructions, video prompts and mobile devices to improve language and communication, socio-emotional, skills and mental health. The research objective of most studies was to evaluate the effects of the intervention; often no specific justification for using SCED was provided. Additionally, multiple baseline and phase designs were the most common SCED types, with most measurements in the intervention phase. Frequent data collection methods were observation, tests, questionnaires and task analysis, whereas, visual and descriptive analysis were common methods for data analysis. Nearly half of the studies did not acknowledge any limitations, while a few mentioned generalization and small sample size as limitations. The review provides valuable insights into utilizing SCEDs to advance TEL evaluation methodology and concludes with a reflection on further opportunities that SCEDs can offer for evaluating TEL.Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicWhat this paper addsImplications for practice and/or policy SCEDs use multiple measurements to study a single participant over multiple conditions, in the absence and presence of an intervention SCEDs can be rigorous designs for evaluating behaviour change caused by any intervention, including for testing technology-based interventions. Reveals patterns, trends and gaps in the use of SCED for TEL. Identifies the study disciplines, EdTech tools and outcome variables studied using SCEDs. Provides a comprehensive understanding of how SCEDs are used to evaluate TEL by shedding light on methodological techniques. Enriches insights about justifications and limitations of using SCEDs for TEL. Informs about the use of the rigorous method, SCED, for evaluation of technology-driven interventions across various disciplines. Contributes therefore to the quality of an evidence base, which provides policymakers, and different stakeholders a consolidated resource to design, implement and decide about TEL.
引用
收藏
页码:2457 / 2477
页数:21
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Considerations in Writing About Single-Case Experimental Design Studies
    Skolasky, Richard L., Jr.
    COGNITIVE AND BEHAVIORAL NEUROLOGY, 2016, 29 (04) : 169 - 173
  • [32] Technology-enhanced cooperative language learning: A systematic review
    Liu, Ying
    Thurston, Allen
    Ye, Xincai
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 2024, 124
  • [33] Considerations for the Systematic Analysis and Use of Single-Case Research
    Horner, Robert H.
    Swaminathan, Hariharan
    Sugai, George
    Smolkowski, Keith
    EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN, 2012, 35 (02) : 269 - 290
  • [34] Quality of Single-Case Designs Targeting Adults' Exercise and Physical Activity: A Systematic Review
    Ferrara, Paula-Marie M.
    Beaumont, Cory T.
    Strohacker, Kelley
    TRANSLATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2019, 4 (23) : 257 - 265
  • [35] Evaluating the Evidence Bases of the Response Cards Strategy: A Meta-Analysis of Single-Case Experimental Design Studies
    Gulboy, Emrah
    EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN AUTISM AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, 2023, 58 (02) : 181 - 197
  • [36] Reading Comprehension and Autism Spectrum Disorder: a Systematic Review of Interventions Involving Single-Case Experimental Designs
    Singh, Binita D.
    Moore, Dennis W.
    Furlonger, Brett E.
    Anderson, Angelika
    Fall, Rebecca
    Howorth, Sarah
    REVIEW JOURNAL OF AUTISM AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS, 2021, 8 (01) : 3 - 21
  • [37] Technology-enhanced content and language integrated learning: A systematic review of empirical studies
    Hu, Dongpin
    Chen, Juanjuan
    Li, Yan
    Wang, Minhong
    EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH REVIEW, 2025, 47
  • [38] Publication trends for single-case methodology in school psychology: A systematic review
    Radley, Keith C.
    Dart, Evan H.
    Fischer, Aaron J.
    Collins, Tai A.
    PSYCHOLOGY IN THE SCHOOLS, 2020, 57 (05) : 683 - 698
  • [39] CBT with an Adolescent with Hoarding Disorder-a Single-Case Experimental Design
    Knight, Rose
    Davies, Rachel
    Salkovskis, Paul M.
    Gregory, James D.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE THERAPY, 2019, 12 (02): : 146 - 156
  • [40] Considering Generality in the Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Single-Case Research: A Response to Hitchcock et al.
    Maggin, Daniel M.
    JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL EDUCATION, 2015, 24 (04) : 470 - 482