Descriptive means moved in opposite directions: the treatment group's critical thinking disposition mean rose while the control group's fell¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The control group's mean declined from 51.66 to 50.80 while the treatment group's mean rose from 51.77 to 52.36 across the intervention. → Norazlinda Mohd Darby & Abdullah Mat Rashid 2017

Evidence¶

Norazlinda Mohd Darby & Abdullah Mat Rashid 2017¶

Norazlinda Mohd Darby & Abdullah Mat Rashid. (2017). Critical Thinking Disposition: The Effects of Infusion Approach in Engineering Drawing. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n3p305

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Descriptive statistics from the quasi-experiment (Table 3): control group M 51.66 (SD 3.05) to 50.80 (SD 2.61); treatment group M 51.77 (SD 2.65) to 52.36 (SD 1.94). These are descriptive means; no test is attached to this contrast in the article.

"Table 3 shows a decrease in the mean value (51.66 to 50.80) for the control group. The mean score for the treatment group increased in the post-test to 52.36 from 51.77 in the pre-test."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Critical Thinking — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• CCTDI subscale improvements favour non-traditional methods on six of seven dispositions, with maturity not reaching significance — related
• HOTS-oriented teaching improves disposition towards critical thinking subscales including truth-seeking, open-mindedness, self-confidence, and maturity — related
• Infusing higher-order thinking skills into Engineering Drawing instruction produced significantly higher critical thinking disposition than conventional drill-based teaching after 8 weeks — related