Meta-analysis to estimate the relative effectiveness of TBLT programs: Are we there yet?

Abstract

Bryfonski and McKay published a meta-analytic review of reports on the effectiveness of task-based programs relative to other types of programs. The aggregated effect in support of task-based programs was substantial. However, Boers et al. re-examined the 27 comparative studies from which this effect size was calculated and argued that, with one exception, they did not serve the intended purpose of the meta-analysis well. However, in a recent publication, Xuan et al. argue that a good number of the primary studies used by Bryfonski and McKay are in fact suitable for a meta-analysis if the programs they assess are re-defined as task-supported rather than task-based programs. Xuan et al. then conducted a meta-analysis of 16 of the 27 comparative studies that were originally included in Bryfonski and McKay’s analysis, confirming the benefits of programs that use tasks, albeit with a smaller aggregated effect size. The present article revisits these 16 studies and, in addition, examines a handful more recent ones published since Bryfonski and McKay’s original meta-analysis. The conclusion remains that the field is not ripe yet for a meaningful meta-analysis of the relative effectiveness of either task-based or task-supported programs. Interpreting the outcomes of the meta-analytic endeavours reported so far is especially difficult because of a lack of clarity in both the primary study reports and the meta-analyses of what constitutes a task-supported program and of what is understood by ‘task’.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.