Claims

ADI-based laboratory instruction improves science process skills more than traditional laboratory instruction

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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 i1 After controlling for SPST pretest scores, the ADI group's post-test science process skills scores were significantly higher than the control group's, with a moderate effect size. → Tuba Demircioglu 2015

Evidence

Tuba Demircioglu 2015

Tuba Demircioglu, Sedat Ucar. (2015). Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.1.2324

q2 · i1 · causal · r2

ANCOVA of Science Process Skills Test post-test scores with pretest as covariate in the same quasi-experimental study found a significant difference favoring the ADI group, "ŋ 2 = .07", which the article interprets as a moderate effect explaining 7% of the variance.

"after the SPST pretest scores were controlled, there was a significant difference on the SPST post-test scores in favor of the experimental group (F(1-76) = 5.4, p = .023). An effect size of .06 or higher is interpreted as a moderate effect (Perce et al., 2004). When the effect size is analyzed, a moderate effect for the method is seen (ŋ 2 = .07)"

Discussion

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.