Effectiveness of Evidence-based Instructional Practices on Students’
Mathematics Achievement: A Meta-Analysis
ABSTRACT: Examining trends in the literature regarding evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) enables mathematics educators to make well-informed decisions when selecting effective teaching strategies for their classrooms. The evidence-based pyramid suggests that systematic reviews, such as meta-analyses, are the highest level of evidence in a particular field. This study aimed to systematically analyze existing empirical studies on the impact of different evidence-based instructional approaches on students’ mathematical achievement. Using a meta-analysis research design, 28 studies were examined. The findings indicated that, overall, EBIPs are successful in improving students’ mathematical content knowledge and skills. Furthermore, the study revealed that among the EBIPs explored, teaching with cases was the most effective for elementary learners, while upside-down pedagogy yielded the best results for high school students. Additionally, the results showed that teaching with cases facilitates short-term comprehension of mathematical concepts, whereas upside-down pedagogy promotes long-term understanding. Keywords: meta-analysis, upside-down pedagogy, teaching with cases, POGIL, mathematics education, evidence-based practice Edrian Peter B. Villanueva Maricar S. Prudente, PhD Introduction In recent years, pedagogical research has been focused on finding ways on how students’ achievement may be enhanced. One of the trends in education research is the implementation of evidence-based teaching (EBT) (Borrego & Henderson, 2014). The evidence-based practice was originally implemented in the fields of clinical medicine and nursing wherein the available empirical evidence in the literature is integrated into clinical practice (Groccia & Buskist, 2011). In the field of education, one way to implement this evidence-based approach is by employing various evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs). EBIPs are approaches to teaching that have been empirically shown to be effective in promoting and developing students’ conceptual understanding (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009; Sturtevant & Wheeler, 2019). While there are a lot of teaching strategies available in the current literature that have been found to be effective in improving students’ achievement, to our knowledge, there is no existing list of EBIPs in mathematics. In the existing literature, the only available list of EBIPs is for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) in general (Sturtevant & Wheeler, 2019). Such a list of EBIPs in mathematics is deemed to be of importance for teachers since it can serve as a guide on how and why students’ mathematics proficiency is attained in a particular setting (Petty, 2009). The list is likewise important so teachers can easily choose and employ different teaching strategies that work. Furthermore, within the realm of mathematics education, there exists a wide array of instructional approaches that can be classified as EBIPs. Given this extensive array, the present study narrows its focus to just three specific subsets of EBIPs. These subsets were identified as being the least commonly employed methods among mathematics educators, as indicated by our prior investigation (Villanueva & Prudente, 2022). The three underutilized EBIPs are Teaching with Cases (TWC), Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL), and Upside-down Pedagogy (UP). The rationale behind concentrating on these less-utilized EBIPs is to offer mathematics instructors insight into alternative and effective instructional strategies for incorporation into their classrooms. In this paper, when we refer to EBIP, we are specifically alluding to these three least-used practices. Presented in Table 1 are the definitions of TWC, POGIL, and UP. Table 1 Definitions of the Least Used EBIPS by Mathematics Teachers EBIP Definition Teaching with Cases A teaching approach that uses a case from a book, article, story, simple question, or a real-life problem with sufficient details that allow the students to analyze and come up with a? Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning A student-centered pedagogical approach that emphasizes small group collaboration, guided inquiry, and active learning to promote deeper understanding and critical thinking in STEM education. Upside-down Pedagogy Also known as inverted or flipped learning, is an instructional approach where traditional classroom activities such as lectures are moved outside of class, and homework-like activities such as problem-solving and discussion occur inside the classroom, allowing for more active and interactive learning. As part of a much larger study, this systematic review aimed to collect substantial evidence which showcases the effectiveness of different pedagogical approaches in students’ mathematics performance. Regarding this, the conduct of meta-analysis, which is considered to be the highest and the most common form of establishing evidence in the evidence-based pyramid (Murad et al., 2016), was employed in this study. This current study will be the first to investigate the factors that influence the overall effect of the abovementioned EBIPs. This would be helpful to analyze the trend in the literature about each least-used evidence-based instructional practice. Accordingly, this study aimed to provide a systematic analysis of the existing empirical studies on the effect on students’ mathematical achievement of different evidence-based instructional approaches. Specifically, this sought to answer the following questions: Design and Methods Research Design This study employed the meta-analysis research design. Meta-analysis is a technique of combining the empirical findings of previous research to create a synthesis of evidence (Basu, 2017). In the current study, the numerical findings from the empirical studies in the literature are pooled to arrive at an estimated effect of the EBIPs on students’ mathematics performance. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria The following inclusion criteria needed to be met by each study to be considered for inclusion in this current meta-analysis. Study Search Procedure After setting the criteria for inclusion, the research started the article identification using Harzing’s Publish or Perish 7. This initial article identification includes the databases of Google Scholar and SCOPUS. Each database was searched using 11 keywords (Table 2) which were paired with the terms “Math” or “Mathematics.” Additionally, separate searches were conducted on EBSCO, ProQuest, and Taylor and Francis databases. These three databases were purposively chosen since the authors have legal access to these databases through De La Salle University. Furthermore, EBSCO and Taylor and Francis publish major journals in the Social Sciences, especially in the field of Education. Meanwhile, ProQuest publishes thesis and dissertations from various reputable institutions all over the world. The researchers used the Advanced Search options in identifying the records published on EBSCO, Taylor