Low prior knowledge learners given detailed research questions without the EDT showed very little learning gain, with descriptive gains lower than in the main-questions-only condition¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Descriptive statistics showed higher learning gains for low prior knowledge learners in the CM condition than in the CS condition, which the authors attribute to added task demands. → Siswa van Riesen 2018

Evidence¶

Siswa van Riesen 2018¶

Siswa van Riesen, Hannie Gijlers, Anjo Anjewierden, Ton de Jong. (2018). Supporting learners' experiment design. Education Tech Research Dev (2018) 66:475–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9568-4

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Descriptive comparison in the low prior knowledge subgroup (Table 2: CS difference score M = 2.04, CM M = 3.14, EDT M = 4.44); the authors report this descriptively, not as a tested difference.

"descriptive statistics showed higher learning gains for learners in the CM condition than for learners in the CS condition, who in fact had very little learning gain."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Low prior knowledge learners gained significantly more conceptual knowledge with the Experiment Design Tool than with the specific research questions alone — related
• Inquiry learning in a virtual laboratory on Archimedes' principle produces significant conceptual knowledge gains in all three guidance conditions — reports the opposite
• Providing the Experiment Design Tool did not improve conceptual knowledge gains overall compared to control conditions — related