Comparing lesson 2 (student- vs teacher-centred) and lesson 4 (human- vs non-human-centred) activities in isolation yields weak, inconsistent or negligible effects¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 The lesson 2 student-centred vs teacher-centred contrast was inconsistent across tranches: student-centred was least effective in tranche 1 (small effect), reversed but non-significant in tranche 2. → Buchan 2020 q3 i0 The lesson 4 human- vs non-human-centred contrast was in the expected direction in both tranches but with negligible effect sizes. → Buchan 2020 (2)

Evidence¶

Buchan 2020¶

Buchan, L., Hejmadi, M., Abrahams, L. & Hurst, L. D. (2020). A RCT for assessment of active human-centred learning finds teacher-centric non-human teaching of evolution optimal. npj Science of Learning 5:19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-00078-0

q3 · i0 · causal · r2

Wilcoxon rank-sum tests on LOESS residual scores comparing schemes 1+2 (student-centred moth hunting) with schemes 3+4 (teacher-centred PowerPoint). Table 4 reports Cliff's d = −0.21 in tranche 1 (P = 1.80 × 10−5) and d = 0.06 (P = 0.15) in tranche 2.

"In tranche 1, the lesson expected to be more effective (student-centred pecking moths), was the least effective, albeit with small effect size (Table 4). Conversely, in tranche 2 the result was reversed but the effect size is weaker still and not significant."

Buchan 2020 (2)¶

Buchan, L., Hejmadi, M., Abrahams, L. & Hurst, L. D. (2020). A RCT for assessment of active human-centred learning finds teacher-centric non-human teaching of evolution optimal. npj Science of Learning 5:19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-00078-0

q3 · i0 · causal · r2

Wilcoxon rank-sum tests comparing schemes 1+3 (non-human trilobites) with schemes 2+4 (human pentadactyl limb) on LOESS residuals. Table 5 reports negligible Cliff's d values of 0.08 and 0.09 in tranches 1 and 2 respectively.

"Results are in the expected direction in both tranches but in both the effect size is "negligible" (not significant in tranche 1 and the weak significance in the replication ( P = 0.04) is sensitive to multi-test correction ( P > 0.05/2)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The four schemes of work showed replicable significant heterogeneity in effectiveness, with the predicted-least-effective teacher-centred/non-human scheme among the most effective — related
• Serially taught lesson combinations produce replicable positive interaction effects, with the two most effective schemes showing positive interaction terms — related
• The evolution teaching interventions significantly improved student understanding with effect sizes above the 0.40 implementation threshold in both tranches — a broader claim this one bears on
• Each of the four schemes of work individually produced significant pre-post improvement, with all effect sizes above the 0.4 threshold except SoW 1 in tranche 2 — related