The group-by-time interaction was significant only for inductive reasoning, where the DIAPROVE group improved more than the ARDESOS-only group¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr?·q2·i1small
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 i1 The interaction was significant only for inductive reasoning (F=5.294, p=.023, Eta2 partial .031); group 2 moved from below group 1 at pre-test to above it at post-test. → Carlos Saiz 2016
Evidence¶
Carlos Saiz 2016¶
Carlos Saiz, Silvia F. Rivas. (2016). New Teaching Techniques to Improve Critical Thinking. The Diaprove Methodology. Educational Research Quarterly, Vol. 40.1. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1166695
q2 · i1 · causal · r?
Group-by-application interaction row from Table 4 of the repeated-measures ANOVA, for inductive reasoning. The quote gives both groups' pre and post means and the printed effect size Eta2 partial = .031, a small effect. In other factors both groups varied similarly.
"G.1. pre. 4.75 (s.d. 1.41) G.1. post. 5.26 (s.d. 1.39) Group/Applic. 1,164 11.212 5.294 .023* .628 .031 G.2. pre. 4.37 (s.d. 1.36) G.2 post. 5.62 (s.d. 1.87)"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Both instruction groups improved significantly in deductive, inductive and practical reasoning and in decision-making after the ARDESOS-based intervention — related
- Students taught with the DIAPROVE methodology outperformed the ARDESOS-only group in deductive reasoning — related
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.