Providing the Experiment Design Tool did not improve conceptual knowledge gains overall compared to control conditions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Design limits · Siswa van Riesen 2018: the intervention came bundled with another change (read from the study by two models, 2026-10-29)

Subclaims¶

q3 i? A Kruskal–Wallis test found no significant differences in conceptual knowledge gains between the EDT, CS, and CM conditions. → 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

Between-condition comparison in the randomized experiment (n = 86 analyzed): the Kruskal–Wallis test on knowledge gains found "No significant differences were found between the conditions" (H(2) = 2.96, p = .228). Equivalence was not tested.

"To determine whether learners who worked with the EDT gained more conceptual knowledge than learners in the control conditions, an independent samples Kruskal–Wallis test was performed. No significant differences were found between the conditions, H(2) = 2.96, p = .228."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 — related
• 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 — related