CPS students proposed better problem-solving solutions and allocated more time to solutions, evidence-based reasoning, and simulation/data recording than IPS students¶

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The CPS group significantly outperformed the IPS group in PS solution performance across the 11 online topics, regardless of achievement level. → Jiun-Wei Guo · Hsiao-Ching She · Meng-Jun Chen · Pei-Yi Tsai 2023 q3 i? The CPS group allocated significantly more time to PS solutions, EB reasoning, and simulation/data recording than the IPS group. → 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

A two-factor MANOVA on online performance across 11 topics (Wilk's Λ = 0.82, F = 7.58, p < 0.001 for problem-solving type) found "the CPS group significantly outperformed the IPS group in the performance of their PS solution performance"; in the discussion the authors report CPS outperformed IPS in 10 of the 11 topics, significant in four.

"the CPS group significantly outperformed the IPS group in the performance of their PS solution performance (F = 14.42, p < 0.001), regardless of whether they were high or low-achievers"

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

A two-factor MANOVA on time allocation (Wilk's Λ = 0.50, F = 53.13, p < 0.001 for type) found "the CPS group allocated significantly more time to PS solutions, EB reasoning, and simulation and data recording than the IPS group" across all three stages, with printed means of 181.82 vs 123.21 (PS solution time) for CPS and IPS.

"the CPS group allocated significantly more time to PS solutions, EB reasoning, and simulation and data recording than the IPS group (F = 65.05, p < 0.001; F = 119.66, p < 0.001; F = 32.12, p < 0.001)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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
• Eighth graders in a CPS group outperformed those in an IPS group on physics problem solving, with CPS narrowing high–low achievement gaps — related
• Collaborative problem-solving students significantly outperformed individual problem-solving students on the electromagnetism problem-solving posttest — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• CPS and IPS raised electromagnetism concept-test performance equally, so CPS's advantage was specific to problem-solving performance — related
• Online problem-solving solution performance predicted students' posttest performance on both the concept test and problem-solving test — related
• Practice-problem performance favored PS-I overall, but the advantage was concentrated on the first two worksheets (d = 0.52) — related
• DI-PS significantly outperformed PS-DI on the two supplier-reasoning problem-solving criteria (d = .60 and d = .64) — related