Empty-PC dyads built significantly better domain models than full-PC dyads, an effect concentrated among lower-achieving dyads¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2007 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 Model quality scores of PC− dyads were significantly higher than those of PC+ dyads (d=1.26). → Sarah Manlove 2007 q2 i? The condition × achievement interaction was statistically significant (F(1,31)=6.76, p<0.05), with lower-achieving PC− dyads averaging a 10-point higher model quality score than PC+ counterparts while the difference was 1.1 point for higher-achieving dyads. → Sarah Manlove 2007 (2)

Evidence¶

Sarah Manlove 2007¶

Sarah Manlove, Ard W. Lazonder & Ton de Jong. (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9012-y

q2 · i3 · causal · r2

Final system dynamics models scored for correctly specified variables and relations (maximum 26; inter-rater κ 0.95 and 0.91); two-way ANOVA comparing 20 PC+ with 15 PC− dyads yielded d=1.26 favoring PC−.

"The model quality scores of PC − dyads were significantly higher than those of the PC+ dyads ( F(1,31)=9.98, p<0.01, d=1.26)."

Sarah Manlove 2007 (2)¶

Sarah Manlove, Ard W. Lazonder & Ton de Jong. (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9012-y

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Two-way ANOVA with teacher-assigned achievement level of the highest-achieving member; only the F statistic is printed for the interaction, so no effect size; Figure 2 shows lower-achieving PC− dyads on average obtained a 10-point higher model quality score, versus 1.1 point for higher-achieving dyads.

"the condition × achievement interaction proved statistically significant ( F(1,31)=6.76, p<0.05). Figure 2 illustrates how the effect of condition was moderated by achievement level."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Full-PC dyads wrote lab reports with significantly better structure and more complete content than empty-PC dyads — related
• Dyads given the full Process Coordinator used the regulative tool about three times as long and twice as often as dyads with the empty version — related
• Higher model quality was associated with less goal viewing and note taking, while lab report scores correlated positively with regulative tool use and negatively with helpfile viewing — related