Blind-scored essays from seminar students were more accurate, better structured, and showed better understanding than control students' essays (d = 0.87)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 On an aggregated three-item blind rubric, seminar essays outscored control essays, t(57) = 2.9, p = 0.005, d = 0.87, with 81% of seminar essays above the mean-scoring control essay. → Simon Cullen 2018

Evidence¶

Simon Cullen 2018¶

Simon Cullen, Judith Fan, Eva van der Brugge and Adam Elga (2018). Improving analytical reasoning and argument understanding: a quasi-experimental field study of argument visualization. npj Science of Learning 3:21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0038-5

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Secondary study using essays on the same readings and topics from 15 seminar students and 44 control students from a parallel lecture course, scored by a grader blind to author identity and hypothesis; three-item scale α = 0.95; overall difference d = 0.87.

"we found that seminar students (a) structured their essays more effectively, (b) presented the arguments more accurately, and (c) better understood the relevant arguments (Table 1) than did control students, t(57) = 2.9, p = 0.005, d = 0.87, 95% CI: [0.26, 1.48]"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Each essay rubric dimension separately favored seminar students: structure d = 0.76, accuracy d = 0.74, understanding d = 0.97 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Students rated the seminar highly and many reported transferring argument visualization to other coursework — related