Claims

The subject-taught control group showed no significant knowledge increase while the interdisciplinary test group did

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Design limits · Katharina Spintzyk 2016: groups were assigned but students were analysed as independent (read from the study by two models, 2026-11-01)

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? After the intervention, students in the test group attained a significant increase in knowledge growth whereas the control group did not. → Katharina Spintzyk 2016

Evidence

Katharina Spintzyk 2016

Katharina Spintzyk, Friederike Strehlke, Stephanie Ohlberger, Bernd Gröben, and Claas Wegner. (2016). An Empirical Study Investigating Interdisciplinary Teaching of Biology and Physical Education. Science Educator, Vol. 25, No. 1. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1110252

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Conclusion section of the quasi-experimental study: after the intervention the sampling displayed significant heterogeneity in performance characteristics, with the test group gaining and the control group not; no effect size is printed for the control group's null change.

"Students in the test group attained a sig- nifi cant increase in knowledge growth whereas the control group did not."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.