Collaborative problem-solving students significantly outperformed individual problem-solving students on the electromagnetism problem-solving posttest¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2023 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? CPS students scored significantly higher than IPS students on the EPST posttest after five online problem-solving sessions. → Jiun-Wei Guo · Hsiao-Ching She · Meng-Jun Chen · Pei-Yi Tsai 2023

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 ANCOVA on posttest EPST scores of 109 8th graders (CPS N=56, IPS N=53), with pretest as covariate, showed "students’ EPST posttest performance was significantly affected by the type of problem-solving"; the CPS group outperformed the IPS group. The prose prints partial η² = 0.51, but Table 1 gives 0.051 (F = 5.55, p = .020), which matches the article's label of a small effect.

"students’ EPST posttest performance was significantly affected by the type of problem-solving (F = 5.55, p < 0.05, partial η2 = 0.51, effect size = small)"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Problem Solving — outcome: instruction changes it

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
• CPS students proposed better problem-solving solutions and allocated more time to solutions, evidence-based reasoning, and simulation/data recording than IPS students — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• 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)
• Structured GenAI scaffolding training raises sophomore STEM students' posttest CSEM electromagnetism scores over problem-solving training (d = 0.81) — related
• Online problem-solving solution performance predicted students' posttest performance on both the concept test and problem-solving test — related
• CPS and IPS raised electromagnetism concept-test performance equally, so CPS's advantage was specific to problem-solving performance — related