Exam-score advantage of active learning held on exams one and two but not on exam three¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · 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 i? Treatment-group grades were significantly higher on exams one and two (p<0.05 each) but showed no significant difference on exam three (p=0.15). → Maria Entezari & Mohammad Javdan 2016
Evidence¶
Maria Entezari & Mohammad Javdan 2016¶
Maria Entezari & Mohammad Javdan. (2016). Active Learning and Flipped Classroom, Hand in Hand Approach to Improve Students Learning in Human Anatomy and Physiology. International Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 5, No. 4. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v5n4p222
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Per-exam comparison from the same quasi-experiment (Figure 1A): treatment vs control means of "79. 13± 3.05 vs 69.06± 3.6 p<0.05" on exam one, significant on exam two, and "74.25± 3.63 vs 67.27± 3.22 p=0.15" on exam three, which was not significant.
"The mean grade for exams one, two, and three in the treatment group vs the control group were [Mean ± SE; (79. 13± 3.05 vs 69.06± 3.6 p<0.05; 77± 3.17 vs 67.06± 3.05 p<0.05; 74.25± 3.63 vs 67.27± 3.22 p=0.15)] respectively."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Flipped classroom combined with active-learning activities yields higher pooled exam scores than flipped classroom with minimal discussion in introductory A&P — a broader claim this one bears on
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.