The two intervention groups were equivalent at baseline except in practical reasoning, where group 1 scored higher¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2019: local conditions change quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Pre-test comparison found a significant difference only in practical reasoning (t(164)=2.125, p=.035), with group 1 higher; gender and age did not differ significantly between groups. → Carlos Saiz 2016

Evidence¶

Carlos Saiz 2016¶

Carlos Saiz, Silvia F. Rivas. (2016). New Teaching Techniques to Improve Critical Thinking. The Diaprove Methodology. Educational Research Quarterly, Vol. 40.1. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1166695

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Student's t tests on pre-treatment PENCRISAL scores for the 166-student sample (87 in group 1, 79 in group 2). Gender (chi-squared) and age comparisons were also reported as non-significant; no effect size is printed, so impact is null.

"The results show that at the start intervention groups 1 and 2 only showed significant diffe rences in the practical reasoning factor ( t(164)= 2.125, p =.035). In the rest of the variables and in the total of the scale no statistically significant differences were seen."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The three groups were equivalent on EPT pre-test scores before the intervention — a broader claim this one bears on
• The experimental and control groups did not differ significantly on the pre test — a broader claim this one bears on
• Before intervention, treatment and control kindergartners did not differ on age, demographics, vocabulary, phoneme segmentation, letter knowledge, or reading — a broader claim this one bears on
• Both instruction groups improved significantly in deductive, inductive and practical reasoning and in decision-making after the ARDESOS-based intervention — related
• Experimental and control groups were equivalent at pre-test on all motivation dimensions except test anxiety — related
• The mock-test and conventional-instruction groups did not differ significantly on the pretest before the intervention — related
• The experimental and control groups were not equivalent at pre-test, with more positive results in the experimental group — reports the opposite