Computing Education Research (CER) is critical to help the computing education community and policy makers support the increasing population of students who need to learn computing skills for future careers. For a community to systematically advance knowledge about a topic, the members must be able to understand published work thoroughly enough to perform replications, conduct meta-analyses, and build theories. There is a need to understand whether published research allows the CER community to systematically advance knowledge and build theories.
The goal of this study is
to characterize the reporting of empiricism in Computing Education Research literature by identifying whether publications include content necessary for researchers to perform replications, meta-analyses, and theory building.
We answer three research questions related to this goal: (RQ1) What percentage of papers in CER venues have some form of empirical evaluation? (RQ2) Of the papers that have empirical evaluation, what are the characteristics of the empirical evaluation? (RQ3) Of the papers that have empirical evaluation, do they follow norms (both for inclusion and for labeling of information needed for replication, meta-analysis, and, eventually, theory-building) for reporting empirical work?
We conducted a systematic literature review of the 2014 and 2015 proceedings or issues of five CER venues:
Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
International Symposium on Computing Education Research
Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education
ACM Transactions on Computing Education
Computer Science Education
(CSE). We developed and applied the
CER Empiricism Assessment Rubric
to the 427 papers accepted and published at these venues over 2014 and 2015. Two people evaluated each paper using the
for characterizing the paper. An individual person applied the other rubrics to characterize the norms of reporting, as appropriate for the paper type. Any discrepancies or questions were discussed between multiple reviewers to resolve.
We found that over 80% of papers accepted across all five venues had some form of empirical evaluation. Quantitative evaluation methods were the most frequently reported. Papers most frequently reported results on interventions around pedagogical techniques, curriculum, community, or tools. There was a split in papers that had some type of comparison between an intervention and some other dataset or baseline. Most papers reported related work, following the expectations for doing so in the SIGCSE and CER community. However, many papers were lacking properly reported research objectives, goals, research questions, or hypotheses; description of participants; study design; data collection; and threats to validity. These results align with prior surveys of the CER literature.
CER authors are contributing empirical results to the literature; however, not all norms for reporting are met. We encourage authors to provide clear, labeled details about their work so readers can use the study methodologies and results for replications and meta-analyses. As our community grows, our reporting of CER should mature to help establish computing education theory to support the next generation of computing learners.
Gamification has recently been discovered as an excellent user engagement strategy that has the potential to improve online education, online brand engagement, and information system engagement. Even though the number of studies on gamification has expanded, there is currently no systematic literature review approach for categorizing its online engagement strategies. Therefore, the main purpose of this systematic literature review is to find effective online engagement strategies based on gamification. The literature, as published in top management, information systems, and education journals, was reviewed using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and authors categorized the studies published during the period 2016 to 2021. This study can be considered as among the first to include a systematic literature review with a potential future research agenda on effective online engagement strategies through gamification. The findings indicate several effective online engagement strategies through gamification for three major aspects.
The theory of the mad genius, a popular cultural fixture for centuries, has received widespread attention in the behavioral sciences. Focusing on a longstanding debate over whether creativity and mental health are positively or negatively correlated, this study first summarized recent relevant studies and meta-analyses and then provided an updated evaluation of this correlation by describing a new and useful perspective for considering the relationship between creativity and mental health. Here, a modified version of the dual-pathway model of creativity was developed to explain the seemingly paradoxical relationship between creativity and mental health. This model can greatly enrich the scientific understanding of the so-called mad genius controversy and further promote the scientific exploration of the link between creativity and mental health or psychopathology.
Fear appeals are designed to inspire intended and actual actions to avert a danger. Although prior meta-analyses report that the average effect of fear appeals is moderately positive, the role of efficacy information is not completely understood. Prior work and fear appeal theories have argued that the presence of both response and self-efficacy information improves fear appeal success but the individual impacts of each have not been properly estimated. A meta-analysis (k = 158, N = 19,736) was conducted to examine the individual and combined effects of response and self-efficacy information contained in fear appeals on behavioral intentions and behaviors. Estimating the impact of fear appeals relative to low and no fear controls, the meta-analysis showed that fear appeals had a stronger influence on behavioral outcomes when they included positive response efficacy information but did not vary as a function of including self-efficacy information or negative response efficacy information.
Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) is widely used for induction of inflammation in various human tissues, including dental pulp. The purpose of this study was to summarize current medical literature focusing on (1) cell types used by researchers to simulate dental pulp inflammation, (2) LPS variants utilized in experimental settings and how these choices affect the findings. Our study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We searched for studies reporting outcomes of lipopolysaccharide application on dental pulp cells in vitro using electronic databases: MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus. Having gathered data from 115 papers, we aimed to present all known effects LPS has on different cell types present in dental pulp. We focused on specific receptors and particles that are involved in molecular pathways. Our review provides an essential foundation for further research using in vitro models of pulpitis.
In the general population, 10.6% of people favor their left hand over the right for motor tasks. Previous research suggests higher prevalence of atypical (left-, mixed-, or non-right-) handedness in (i) twins compared to singletons, and in (ii) monozygotic compared to dizygotic twins. Moreover, (iii) studies have shown a higher rate of handedness concordance in monozygotic compared to dizygotic twins, in line with genetic factors playing a role for handedness.
By means of a systematic review, we identified 59 studies from previous literature and performed three sets of random effects meta-analyses on (i) twin-to-singleton Odds Ratios (21 studies, n = 189,422 individuals) and (ii) monozygotic-to-dizygotic twin Odds Ratios (48 studies, n = 63,295 individuals), both times for prevalence of left-, mixed-, and non-right-handedness. For monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs we compared (iii) handedness concordance Odds Ratios (44 studies, n = 36,217 twin pairs). We also tested for potential effects of moderating variables, such as sex, age, the method used to assess handedness, and the twins’ zygosity.
We found (i) evidence for higher prevalence of left- (Odds Ratio = 1.40, 95% Confidence Interval = [1.26, 1.57]) and non-right- (Odds Ratio = 1.36, 95% Confidence Interval = [1.22, 1.52]), but not mixed-handedness (Odds Ratio = 1.08, 95% Confidence Interval = [0.52, 2.27]) among twins compared to singletons. We further showed a decrease in Odds Ratios in more recent studies (post-1975: Odds Ratio = 1.30, 95% Confidence Interval = [1.17, 1.45]) compared to earlier studies (pre-1975: Odds Ratio = 1.90, 95% Confidence Interval = [1.59–2.27]). While there was (ii) no difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins regarding prevalence of left- (Odds Ratio = 0.98, 95% Confidence Interval = [0.89, 1.07]), mixed- (Odds Ratio = 0.96, 95% Confidence Interval = [0.46, 1.99]), or non-right-handedness (Odds Ratio = 1.01, 95% Confidence Interval = [0.91, 1.12]), we found that (iii) handedness concordance was elevated among monozygotic compared to dizygotic twin pairs (Odds Ratio = 1.11, 95% Confidence Interval = [1.06, 1.18]). By means of moderator analyses, we did not find evidence for effects of potentially confounding variables.
We provide the largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis on handedness in twins. Although a raw, unadjusted analysis found a higher prevalence of left- and non-right-, but not mixed-handedness among twins compared to singletons, left-handedness was substantially more prevalent in earlier than in more recent studies. The single large, recent study which included birth weight, Apgar score and gestational age as covariates found no twin-singleton difference in handedness rate, but these covariates could not be included in the present meta-analysis. Together, the secular shift and the influence of covariates probably make it unsafe to conclude that twinning has a genuine relationship to handedness.
<p style="text-align: justify;">Speaking skills had always been the most challenging skill among the pupils in language learning. The flipped learning approach is an innovative teaching and learning pedagogy that creates better learning experiences in order to improve pupils’ speaking skills. Therefore, this systematic literature review focuses on flipped learning approach in improving pupils’ speaking skills. This analysis is done based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) review methodology. A total of 39 articles related to flipped learning in improving speaking skills published between 2017 to 2020 were identified from Scopus, Google Scholar and ERIC databases. Based on the results, self-regulated learning, interaction, motivation and achievement were the key themes that promotes the benefit of flipped learning to improve pupils’ speaking skills. Hence, this paper is beneficial to policy makers, educators and students in utilizing flipped learning approach to improve pupils’ speaking skills from various levels of education.</p>
(1) Background: Ankle fracture results in pain, swelling, stiffness and strength reduction, leading to an altered biomechanical behavior of the joint during the gait cycle. Nevertheless, a common pattern of kinematic alterations has still not been defined. To this end, we analyzed the literature on instrumental gait assessment after ankle fracture, and its correlation with evaluator-based and patient-reported outcome measures. (2) Methods: We conducted a systematic search, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, of articles published from January 2000 to June 2021 in PubMed, Embase and PEDro on instrumental gait assessment after ankle fracture. (3) Results: Several changes in gait occur after ankle fracture, including a reduction in step length, swing time, single support time, stride length, cadence, speed and an earlier foot-off time in the affected side. Additionally, trunk movement symmetry (especially vertical) is significantly reduced after ankle fracture. The instrumental assessments correlate with different clinical outcome measures. (4) Conclusions: Instrumental gait assessment can provide an objective characterization of the gait alterations after ankle fracture. Such assessment is important not only in clinical practice to assess patients’ performance but also in clinical research as a reference point to evaluate existing or new rehabilitative interventions.