Clarity and concept structure interact for defining and applying concepts, each accounting for about 40-44% of variance¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 1991 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because 2 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 The ANOVA for defining concepts showed a significant clarity-by-structure interaction, with clarity and the interaction each accounting for 44% of score variance. → Snyder 1991 q3 i2 The application section showed a significant interaction accounting for 41% of variance, with significant main effects for both clarity and structure. → Snyder 1991 (2)

Evidence¶

Snyder 1991¶

Snyder, Stephen; Bushur, Lori; Hoeksema, Pam; Olson, Mark; Clark, Shawn; Snyder, Jill. (1991). The Effect of Instructional Clarity and Concept Structure on Student Achievement and Perception. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED331809

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Omnibus ANOVA on the definition measure in the Results section. The article reports the interaction F(2,53)=8.38, p<.001, and that clarity and the interaction each accounted for 44% of score variance.

"There was an interaction between instructional clarity and concept structuring ((2153)=8.38,p.001).There was also a significant difference for instructional clarity ((l153)17.08,p<.001) but not for concett structure (f--(2,53)=.501p>.1).Instruccional clarity accounted for 44% of the controlledscore variance.The interaction accounted for another 44% of thescore variance."

Snyder 1991 (2)¶

Snyder, Stephen; Bushur, Lori; Hoeksema, Pam; Olson, Mark; Clark, Shawn; Snyder, Jill. (1991). The Effect of Instructional Clarity and Concept Structure on Student Achievement and Perception. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED331809

q3 · i2 · causal · r1

Omnibus ANOVA on the application measure. The article reports the interaction accounted for 41% of score variance, clarity 52%, and concept structure 47%.

"The main effects for theapplication section of the student achievementtest showed a significant interaction between instructionalclarity and concept structure ((2,53)=13.26,p.001).There were signifit.:ant main effects forinstructional clarity ((1,53)=41.77,p<.001) and also forconcept structure (E(2,53)=17.39,p.001).The interaction accountedfor 41% of the score variance"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Instructional clarity is a significant main effect on concept achievement, accounting for roughly half of score variance across measures — related
• Each positive clarity move (keys, links, framing, focusing, examples) correlates positively with every concept achievement measure — related
• Students accurately perceive differences between clear and unclear lessons regardless of concept structure — related
• Clarity matters less as concept structure becomes simpler: no significant clear-vs-unclear difference for constant successive lessons — related
• Clarity, task orientation, time on task, criterion-material learning, and structuring correlate positively with learning — related
• Under unclear presentation, a more complex concept structure lessens students' ability to identify concepts — related
• A clear variable coordinate lesson produced higher achievement than an unclear lesson with the same concept structure on all five measures — related