Comparing Two Handbooks of Meta-Analysis: Review of Hunter & Schmidt, Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings, and Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, and Rothstein, Introduction to Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Meta-analysis is the quantitative accumulation of research findings. Due to heterogeneous results that characterise many fields of learning research, a synthesis of the available evidence can contribute to critically appraising what is known in a specific research arena. Looking at the cumulated body of evidence rather than looking at studies in isolation seems compelling, since it allows individual research findings to be synthesized, scrutinized, and systematically evaluated after correcting for study design artefacts. Such a procedure can contribute to a solid understanding of the boundary conditions of learning theory and instructional practice. Consequently, because of its important implications in theory-building and in the evaluation of practices and practice interventions, meta-analysis became increasingly applied in a range of settings, including training, vocational learning, and education in the professions. For example, Bubany and Hansen (2011) used meta-analysis to identify distinct influences of socio-cultural factors that help explain why the development of vocational interests differ for female and male students; the authors argue that their findings underscore the need to topicalise gender-specific stereotypes in vocational education. Dochy et al. (2003) tested the effectiveness of problembased curricula as a method of preparing students for a rapidly-changing labour market; their analysis tends to suggest a strong positive effect of problem-based learning on student skill. Cook and colleagues (2010) confirmed the non-superiority of reasoning skills of virtual patient simulations over traditional, non-computer instruction for nurses and related health profession trainees. While these are only a few amongst a growing number of examples of meta-analytic investigations in research on vocational and professional learning, several handbooks of Vocations and Learning (2011) 4:169–174 DOI 10.1007/s12186-011-9057-6