Innovative Approaches in Statistics Education: The Role of Technology Explored through Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This meta-analysis examines the impact of technology in statistics learning, comparing experimental and control groups across 34 studies, resulting in 55 effect sizes. The random effects model revealed a significant standardized mean difference (gRE = 0.50, 95% CI [0.35, 0.64], p < 0.01), indicating a positive effect of using technology in statistics courses. Heterogeneity was high (I² = 94.3%), and publication bias was initially detected; however, it was addressed by removing 21 outlier studies. The analysis revealed no significant differences based on country; however, technology type had a significant effect. These findings suggest improved student outcomes, warranting further investigation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.067 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.053 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".