The cross-section question showed the highest gain for both groups, with the simulation group's gain (60%) double the paper group's (30%)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? The largest per-question gain for both groups was on the cross-section question: 60% growth in the simulation group versus 30% in the paper group. → Luo 2016
Evidence¶
Luo 2016¶
Luo, W., Pelletier, J., Duffin, K., Ormand, C., Hung, W., Shernoff, D., Zhai, X., Iverson, E., Whalley, K., Gallaher, C., and Furness, W. (2016). Advantages of Computer Simulation in Enhancing Students' Learning About Landform Evolution: A Case Study Using the Grand Canyon. Journal of Geoscience Education 64, 60-73. https://doi.org/10.5408/15-080.1
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Per-question growth analysis in the quasiexperiment. The paper group manually constructed a cross section from a contour map while the simulation group saw a transparent cutting plane; the authors interpret the model's "visual effect" as more effective at conveying the concept.
"The highest gain for both groups was the question about cross section (paper group, 30%; simulation group, 60%). The students in the paper group were required to construct a cross-section manually from a contour map, whereas the simulation group students were shown a transparent plane cutting through the valley"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- CPS-ALM gains exceed EL gains on most statistical literacy indicators, but analyze-interpretation ability stays in the low category for both groups — related
- Test questions reinforced by Warm Up questions or Cooperative Learning activities showed higher average normalized gains (~52%, ~60%) than questions discussed in class only (~15%) — related
- On higher-level application questions, percentage-correct growth was 15.0% in the simulation group versus 2.6% in the paper group — related
- In a quasiexperiment, the interactive simulation produced a large pretest-to-posttest improvement (Cohen's d = 1.06) while the paper-based exercise produced a small-to-moderate one (d = 0.40) — a broader claim this one bears on
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.