Coaching-method instruction roughly doubles the average number of artists students can name in History of Visual Arts (15.5 vs 7.8 per student)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Students taught History of Visual Arts with the coaching method mentioned 15.5 artists on average per student, versus 7.8 in the conventionally taught control group, with equal lecture and seminar hours in both groups. → Faizrakhmanova 2018

Evidence¶

Faizrakhmanova 2018¶

Faizrakhmanova, A., Averianova, T., Aitov, V., Gibatova, G., & Lebedeva, I. (2018). Coaching Method in Teaching History of Visual Arts to Students. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 9(2), 80-88. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1181965

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Quasi-experiment at the Engineering and Technology Faculty of Elabuga Institute of Kazan Federal University: an experimental group of 135 students used the coaching method while a control group of 230 used conventional methods, with the same 18 hours of lectures and 18 of seminars. The survey found the experimental group's average was "twice as high". No standardized effect size or significance test is printed.

"In the experimental group, the number of artists mentioned by one student is 15.5 on average, whereas in the control group it is 7.8 artists per student. I. e. the value in the experimental group is twice as high"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Coaching-method students mentioned more artists at least once and mentioned artists more repeatedly than control students — related
• The distribution of artists named per student shifts upward under coaching-method instruction (highest 22 vs 15; lowest 9-10 vs 4-5) — related