The three groups did not differ significantly in prior knowledge, working memory capacity, spatial ability, learning motivation, or baseline eye-movement measures¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Control-variable UNIANOVAs found no significant group differences (e.g., prior knowledge F(2, 82) = 0.54, p = 0.585, η2 = 0.013). → Babette Park · Andreas Korbach · Paul Ginns · Roland Brünken 2023

Evidence¶

Babette Park · Andreas Korbach · Paul Ginns · Roland Brünken 2023¶

Babette Park · Andreas Korbach · Paul Ginns · Roland Brünken. (2023). How Learners Use Their Hands for Learning: an Eye-Tracking Study. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09833-2

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Secondary null analyses in the Results section: "The three groups did not differ significantly in prior knowledge", working memory capacity, spatial ability, the three motivation subscales, baseline fixation duration, or eye-tracking quality and validity, supporting random assignment of the N = 83 analyzed sample.

"The three groups did not differ significantly in prior knowledge, F(2, 82) = 0.54, p = 0.585, η2 = 0.013; working memory capacity, F(2, 82) = 2.48, p = 0.090, η2 = 0.058; and spatial ability, F(2, 82) = 0.01, p = 0.991, η2 = 0.000"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Primary school children improved execution of movement features but showed no improvement in javelin throwing distance across all conditions — related
• In primary school children learning javelin throwing, PS-I did not outperform I-PS on throwing distance or movement-feature execution — related
• Adding a practice phase after instruction (PS-I + P) did not improve javelin throwing performance over PS-I alone — related