By the end of the course the experimental group's final grade distribution was markedly skewed toward higher grades and poor project presenters fell from 22% to 5%, versus 28% in the control group¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2010 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The experimental group's final grade distribution was markedly skewed toward higher grades, with poor project presenters reduced to 5% from 22% at midterm, while the control group had 28% poor presenters. → Tuan 2010

Evidence¶

Tuan 2010¶

Luu Trong Tuan. (2010). Infusing Cooperative Learning into An EFL Classroom. English Language Teaching. https://www.ccsenet.org/elt

q2 · i? · causal · r1

End-of-course results for Class E (EG) reported against Table 7, where Class D (CG) shows 28% poor presenters and an average score of 6.45 versus EG's 7.19. The author reports the grade distribution was "markedly skewed toward higher grades"; no significance test is printed.

"In the final group project, designing a travel guide to Vietnam predicated on the reading Getting China cracked, students made a remarkable progress with the number of poor project presenters reduced to 5%."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• AI-supported PBL offerings showed higher A-rates and fewer low grades than pre-integration control offerings when including the COVID-19 year — related
• Final-test score distributions concentrated differently by group: the ChatGPT class peaked at interval 79-83 (32.26% of students) while the control class peaked at 56-61 (25.81%) — related
• The experimental group's distribution across motivational levels shifted toward higher levels from pre-test to post-test while the control group's did not — related