Each of the four schemes of work individually produced significant pre-post improvement, with all effect sizes above the 0.4 threshold except SoW 1 in tranche 2¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Paired pre-post comparisons showed significant improvement for each of the four SoW in both tranches, with moderate-to-large effect sizes (Table 3), SoW 1 in tranche 2 being the exception at d = 0.38. → Buchan 2020

Evidence¶

Buchan 2020¶

Buchan, L., Hejmadi, M., Abrahams, L. & Hurst, L. D. (2020). A RCT for assessment of active human-centred learning finds teacher-centric non-human teaching of evolution optimal. npj Science of Learning 5:19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-00078-0

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests on matched pre/post scores stratified by scheme of work (Fig. 3). All four schemes improved significantly in both tranches; Table 3 reports Cliff's d values of 0.38–0.66, with only SoW 1 in tranche 2 below the 0.4 threshold.

"Comparison of the paired post and pre-test scores for individual students, showed significant improvement for each of the 4 SoW in both tranches ( P < 2.2 × 10−16, Wilcoxon signed-rank test in each case, Fig. 3). Additionally, each SoW improved performance with moderate to large effect sizes (Table 3), values being above the 0.4 effectiveness threshold, except for SoW1 in Tranche 2 (Cliff's d = 0.38)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The evolution teaching interventions significantly improved student understanding with effect sizes above the 0.40 implementation threshold in both tranches — related
• The four schemes of work showed replicable significant heterogeneity in effectiveness, with the predicted-least-effective teacher-centred/non-human scheme among the most effective — related
• Comparing lesson 2 (student- vs teacher-centred) and lesson 4 (human- vs non-human-centred) activities in isolation yields weak, inconsistent or negligible effects — related