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¶

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

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Across the whole learning process, sciences-oriented students' appreciation scores were significantly higher than humanities-oriented students' (MANOVA p = .0009). → Katai 2020 q2 i? Humanities-oriented students' appreciation increased significantly from the hearing/seeing phases (5.63 points) to the doing phases (6.55 points), significantly diminishing the group differences. → 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 questionnaire scores (statements q2–9/1) with students' orientation as grouping variable, in the Results section. The article reports the group difference significant at "p = .0009"; no effect size is printed.

"Test results confirmed our expectation that S-students mostly appreciate this kind of learning experience (p = .0009)."

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 · i? · design · r2

Paired samples t-test comparing H-students' means for q2–4/1 ("hearing and seeing phases": 5.63 points, 77.17%) with q5–7/1 ("doing phases": 6.55 points, 92.5%). The increase occurred despite many errors during the reconstruction task.

"we detected a significant increase (p = .0000) in their appreciation level. This increase significantly diminished the size of the differences between groups."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 — 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
• 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