Reflecting with the 3D manipulable animation made Session #3 reflective discussions more student-centered than reflecting with video only¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2·i2medium
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i2 In Session #3, the experimental condition (reflection with 3D animation) showed significantly more student-centered reflection along the x-axis than the control condition (video only), d = 0.60. → Mochizuki 2022
Evidence¶
Mochizuki 2022¶
Mochizuki, T., Sasaki, H., Wakimoto, T., Kubota, Y., Eagan, B., Hirayama, R., Yamaguchi, Y., Yuki, N., Funaoi, H., Suzuki, H., & Kato, H. (2022). Mediating and perspective-taking manipulatives: Fostering dynamic perspective-taking by mediating dialogic thinking and bolstering empathy in role-play and reflection for microteaching. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-022-09382-w
q2 · i2 · causal · r2
Comparison of reflective-discussion ENA mean plots between the experimental (13 triads analyzed, N = 39 plotted units) and control (11 triads, N = 33) conditions in Session #3. The groups differed significantly ("p = 0.01, d = 0.60"), with the animation group more student-centered and the video group more teacher-centered as interpreted from the ENA axes.
"we conducted two sample t-tests (assuming unequal variances) between the two conditions in Session #3, showing that there was a significant difference along the x-axis (the experimental condition (N = 39): M = 0.12, SD = 0.48; the control condition (N = 33): M = −0.14, SD = 0.36; t(69.05) = 2.61, p = 0.01, d = 0.60)"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The student-centered shift in reflective discussion between Sessions #1 and #3 remained only in the experimental condition, with a medium effect size — related
- Combining tangible puppets as mediating manipulatives with 3D manipulable animations fostered immediate transfer of imaginary students' perspectives in microteaching role-plays — related
- Qualitative analysis of viewpoint-switching scenes indicated the 3D perspective-taking manipulatives bolstered perspective-taking via the nonverbal LED-status representations of students' states — related
- Tangible puppetry role-play shifted microteaching discourse from formal planned utterances toward informal student voices, and the shift persisted into a subsequent self-performed role-play — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
3d-animation-reflection-more-student-centered |
title |
Reflecting with the 3D manipulable animation made Session #3 reflective discussions more student-centered than reflecting with video only |
description |
Reflecting with the 3D manipulable animation made Session #3 reflective discussions more student-centered than reflecting with video only |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2022 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — mochizuki-2022 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.