Humanities-oriented students reported significantly higher anxiety than sciences-oriented students, but the gap diminished over the session and both groups' anxiety correlated strongly with errors made¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r1 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? H-students' anxiety scores were significantly superior to S-students' (MANOVA, p = .0056), with a strong between-group correlation (r = 0.86) and diminishing differences. → Katai 2020 q2 i? Anxiety statements during the doing phases correlated strongly with the number of errors made (group-Ha r = 0.99; group-Sa r = 0.98). → Katai 2020 (2)

Evidence¶

Katai 2020¶

Katai, Z. (2020). Promoting computational thinking of both sciences- and humanities-oriented students: an instructional and motivational design perspective. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09766-5

q2 · i? · associational · r1

MANOVA on anxiety statements (q2/10, q5/15, q6/15, q7/12; q3/4, q4/3) shown in Fig. 9. Both groups reported relatively low-level feelings of anxiety with strong correlation ("r = 0.86 > 0.70").

"Although H-students' scores were significantly superior to those of their S-colleagues' (MANOVA, p = .0056), the size of the differences diminished as the two groups advanced during the learning process."

Katai 2020 (2)¶

Katai, Z. (2020). Promoting computational thinking of both sciences- and humanities-oriented students: an instructional and motivational design perspective. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09766-5

q2 · i3 · associational · r1

Correlational analysis linking anxiety statements to software-registered errors during the doing phases; the article prints correlations of "r = 0.99" (group-Ha) and "r = 0.98" (group-Sa).

"We also observed strong correlations between students responses to statements (q5/15, q6/15, q7/12) and the number of errors they made during the "doing phases" (group-Ha, r = 0.99 > 0.87; group-Sa, r = 0.98 > 0.87)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Sciences-oriented students appreciated the CT-promoter e-learning experience more overall, but humanities-oriented students' appreciation rose significantly during the doing phases, narrowing the group gap — related
• The two groups differed significantly in forecasted involvement in following learning units, with humanities-oriented students the only group scoring higher than their counterparts — related
• Sciences-oriented students reported significantly higher estimated understanding of the sorting strategy, while humanities-oriented students overestimated their understanding after the seeing phases until doing phases corrected it — related
• Multivariate analysis confirmed a significant overall group effect, and all outcome variables correlated positively in both groups — a broader claim this one bears on