CPS and IPS raised electromagnetism concept-test performance equally, so CPS's advantage was specific to problem-solving performance¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The type of problem-solving (CPS vs. IPS) had no statistically significant effect on posttest ECT performance. → Jiun-Wei Guo · Hsiao-Ching She · Meng-Jun Chen · Pei-Yi Tsai 2023 q3 i3 Achievement level had a significant effect on ECT posttest performance, with high-achievers outperforming low-achievers in both groups. → Jiun-Wei Guo · Hsiao-Ching She · Meng-Jun Chen · Pei-Yi Tsai 2023 (2)

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

In the two-factor ANCOVA on posttest ECT scores with pretest covariate, "the type of problem-solving did not have a statistically significant effect on the students’ posttest performance in the ECT"; equivalence was not tested. Both treatment groups showed significant pretest-to-posttest ECT gains.

"the type of problem-solving did not have a statistically significant effect on the students’ posttest performance in the ECT (F = 0.10, p = 0.753)"

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 · i3 · causal · r2

The same ANCOVA found achievement level significant: "partial η2 = 0.157, effect size = large". High-achievers significantly outperformed low-achievers in both the IPS and CPS groups, so the achievement gap on concepts persisted under both conditions.

"the level of achievement did lead to a statistically significant effect on the students’ posttest performance in the ECT (F = 19.38, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.157, effect size = large)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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
• Online problem-solving solution performance predicted students' posttest performance on both the concept test and problem-solving test — related
• Structured GenAI scaffolding training raises sophomore STEM students' posttest CSEM electromagnetism scores over problem-solving training (d = 0.81) — related
• Collaborative problem-solving students significantly outperformed individual problem-solving students on the electromagnetism problem-solving posttest — related
• CPS benefited low-achievers significantly more than IPS on problem-solving, closing the gap with high-achievers, while high-achievers gained equally from both — related