Scholarlink

<p>Systematic review and bibliometric analysis studies provide invaluable findings for researchers, teachers, and educational policymakers, but they do not use a standard criterion (e.g., Hedges’ <i>g</i>) to objectively interpret the experimental studies exploring the effect(s) of early childhood science activities on science learning. Therefore, this study aimed to meta-analytically examine the effectiveness of early childhood science activities in promoting children’s scientific literacy. Through the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the authors employed some keyword patterns (e.g., pattern 1: early childhood education, experimental and science education) to extract related studies from prominent and common educational databases (e.g., ERIC, Science Direct, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Scopus, Web of Science). After applying inclusion (e.g., kindergarten and preschool) and exclusion (e.g., pre-experimental design) criteria, the current meta-analysis handled 17 intervention studies (published between 2008 and 2023) (<i>k</i> = 19) to compute the effect sizes throughout Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2 (CMA V2) software. The findings appeared the <i>large</i> effect (Hedges’ <i>g</i> = 0.891) for the mean effect size. Also, the findings of moderator variables pointed to non-significant differences at the nature of group (<i>Q</i> value = 1.908, df = 1, <i>p</i> &gt; 0.05), implementation duration (<i>Q</i> value = 3.866, df = 2, <i>p</i> &gt; 0.05), and type of intervention (<i>Q</i> value = 5.687, df = 3; <i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). Given the mean effect size, it can be concluded that alternative pedagogical activities, which are well designed and differentiated from regular ones, are more efficient at helping children develop their scientific literacy than conventional ones. Based on the findings of moderator variables, the current meta-analysis suggests outdoor learning activities and medium-term intervention for regular group with the same aged children to achieve a better scientific literacy. Finally, given the crucial role of early childhood science activities in promoting children’s scientific literacy, policymakers, curriculum developers, and teacher educators should collaboratively design related curricula to enhance their applicability, effectiveness, and fruitfulness.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Effectiveness of Early Childhood Science Activities in Promoting Scientific Literacy: A Meta-Analysis Study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月23日

查看全文
  • Merve Gangal,
  • Muammer Çalık,
  • Yasin Ozturk

摘要

Systematic review and bibliometric analysis studies provide invaluable findings for researchers, teachers, and educational policymakers, but they do not use a standard criterion (e.g., Hedges’ g) to objectively interpret the experimental studies exploring the effect(s) of early childhood science activities on science learning. Therefore, this study aimed to meta-analytically examine the effectiveness of early childhood science activities in promoting children’s scientific literacy. Through the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the authors employed some keyword patterns (e.g., pattern 1: early childhood education, experimental and science education) to extract related studies from prominent and common educational databases (e.g., ERIC, Science Direct, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Scopus, Web of Science). After applying inclusion (e.g., kindergarten and preschool) and exclusion (e.g., pre-experimental design) criteria, the current meta-analysis handled 17 intervention studies (published between 2008 and 2023) (k = 19) to compute the effect sizes throughout Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2 (CMA V2) software. The findings appeared the large effect (Hedges’ g = 0.891) for the mean effect size. Also, the findings of moderator variables pointed to non-significant differences at the nature of group (Q value = 1.908, df = 1, p > 0.05), implementation duration (Q value = 3.866, df = 2, p > 0.05), and type of intervention (Q value = 5.687, df = 3; p > 0.05). Given the mean effect size, it can be concluded that alternative pedagogical activities, which are well designed and differentiated from regular ones, are more efficient at helping children develop their scientific literacy than conventional ones. Based on the findings of moderator variables, the current meta-analysis suggests outdoor learning activities and medium-term intervention for regular group with the same aged children to achieve a better scientific literacy. Finally, given the crucial role of early childhood science activities in promoting children’s scientific literacy, policymakers, curriculum developers, and teacher educators should collaboratively design related curricula to enhance their applicability, effectiveness, and fruitfulness.