Both groups gained in thinking ability pre-to-post, but CoBl and traditional instruction did not differ in thinking ability (p = .501)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The experimental group's thinking ability posttest (31.60, SD 5.44) was significantly higher than its pretest (26.90, SD 6.04), t = -14.43, p = .000. → Kingpum et al. 2015 q2 i? The ANCOVA found no statistically significant difference in thinking ability between the CoBl and control groups (F = 12.431 reported, p = .501). → Kingpum et al. 2015 (2)

Evidence¶

Kingpum et al. 2015¶

Peerasak Kingpum, Chaiyot Ruangsuwan and Sumalee Chaicharoen. (2015). A development of a collaborative blended learning model to enhance learning achievement and thinking ability of undergraduate students at the Institute of Physical Education. Educational Research and Reviews. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2350

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Table 3 reports thinking ability pre-post comparison for the 30 experimental students: pretest 26.90 (SD 6.04), posttest 31.60 (SD 5.44), t = -14.43, p = .000. The control group also gained (27.13 to 30.47, t = -5.23, p = .000).

"Experiment 30 26.90 6.04 31.60 5.44 -14.43** .000**"

Kingpum et al. 2015 (2)¶

Peerasak Kingpum, Chaiyot Ruangsuwan and Sumalee Chaicharoen. (2015). A development of a collaborative blended learning model to enhance learning achievement and thinking ability of undergraduate students at the Institute of Physical Education. Educational Research and Reviews. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2350

q2 · i? · causal · r2

ANCOVA on thinking ability between groups (Table 5): Methods F = 12.431, p = .501, error df = 57. The article concludes "the two groups of these students did not statistically indicate different thinking abilities (p = .501)"; equivalence was not tested.

"Pretest 18.882 1.00 18.882 .693 .458 .409 .501 Methods 12.431 1.00 12.431"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• CoBl students showed greater learning achievement than traditional-instruction control students (p = .001) — related
• Both the GenAI-permitted and control groups improved significantly in instructional design performance and AI readiness over the course, but not in SRL or critical thinking — related
• Posttest critical thinking scores averaged 11.64 in the e-book class versus 9.41 in the control class, with pretest means of 4.42 and 4.31 — related