CPS benefited low-achievers significantly more than IPS on problem-solving, closing the gap with high-achievers, while high-achievers gained equally from both¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · causal r2 · q2–q3
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Low-achievers in the CPS group significantly outperformed low-achievers in the IPS group on the EPST posttest. → Jiun-Wei Guo · Hsiao-Ching She · Meng-Jun Chen · Pei-Yi Tsai 2023 q3 i? High-achievers in CPS and IPS performed the same on the EPST posttest. → Jiun-Wei Guo · Hsiao-Ching She · Meng-Jun Chen · Pei-Yi Tsai 2023 (2) q2 i? CPS reduced the discrepancy between high- and low-achievers' EPST scores more than IPS did, as shown in the scatter plot comparison. → Jiun-Wei Guo · Hsiao-Ching She · Meng-Jun Chen · Pei-Yi Tsai 2023 (3)

Evidence¶

Jiun-Wei Guo · Hsiao-Ching She · Meng-Jun Chen · Pei-Yi Tsai 2023¶

Jiun-Wei Guo · Hsiao-Ching She · Meng-Jun Chen · Pei-Yi Tsai. (2023). Can CPS better prepare 8th graders for problem-solving in electromagnetism and bridging the gap between high- and low-achievers than IPS? Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-023-09407-y

q3 · i? · causal · r2

A one-factor ANCOVA comparing conditions within achievement levels found "the low-achievers in the CPS group significantly outperformed the low-achievers in the IPS group" on the EPST, with printed posttest means of 9.04 (CPS) versus 6.80 (IPS).

"the results showed that the low-achievers in the CPS group significantly outperformed the low-achievers in the IPS group (F = 4.13, p < 0.05, partial η2 = 0.51, effect size = medium) on the EPST"

Jiun-Wei Guo · Hsiao-Ching She · Meng-Jun Chen · Pei-Yi Tsai 2023 (2)¶

Jiun-Wei Guo · Hsiao-Ching She · Meng-Jun Chen · Pei-Yi Tsai. (2023). Can CPS better prepare 8th graders for problem-solving in electromagnetism and bridging the gap between high- and low-achievers than IPS? Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-023-09407-y

q3 · i? · causal · r2

The same one-factor ANCOVA found high-achievers in CPS and IPS "performed the same" on the EPST (F = 1.48, p = 0.229), with printed posttest means of 9.88 (CPS) and 9.36 (IPS); equivalence was not formally tested.

"while high-achievers in the two groups performed the same (F = 1.48, p = 0.229)"

Jiun-Wei Guo · Hsiao-Ching She · Meng-Jun Chen · Pei-Yi Tsai 2023 (3)¶

Jiun-Wei Guo · Hsiao-Ching She · Meng-Jun Chen · Pei-Yi Tsai. (2023). Can CPS better prepare 8th graders for problem-solving in electromagnetism and bridging the gap between high- and low-achievers than IPS? Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-023-09407-y

q2 · i? · causal · r2

A scatter plot with marginal histograms (Fig. 4) comparing high- and low-achievers in both groups showed "CPS was more effective than IPS in reducing the discrepancy in EPST scores between high- and low-achievers"; CPS low vs. high posttest means were 9.04 vs. 9.88, while IPS remained 6.80 vs. 9.36.

"CPS was more effective than IPS in reducing the discrepancy in EPST scores between high- and low-achievers"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Collaborative problem-solving students significantly outperformed individual problem-solving students on the electromagnetism problem-solving posttest — related
• Eighth graders in a CPS group outperformed those in an IPS group on physics problem solving, with CPS narrowing high–low achievement gaps — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• CPS students proposed better problem-solving solutions and allocated more time to solutions, evidence-based reasoning, and simulation/data recording than IPS students — related
• CPS and IPS raised electromagnetism concept-test performance equally, so CPS's advantage was specific to problem-solving performance — related