Each essay rubric dimension separately favored seminar students: structure d = 0.76, accuracy d = 0.74, understanding d = 0.97¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i2–i3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Essay structure: seminar students scored higher, t = 2.5, p = .014, d = 0.76. → Simon Cullen 2018 q3 i2 Argument accuracy: seminar students scored higher, t = 2.5, p = .017, d = 0.74. → Simon Cullen 2018 (2) q3 i3 Understanding of relevant arguments: seminar students scored higher, t = 3.2, p = .002, d = 0.97. → Simon Cullen 2018 (3)

Evidence¶

Simon Cullen 2018¶

Simon Cullen, Judith Fan, Eva van der Brugge and Adam Elga (2018). Improving analytical reasoning and argument understanding: a quasi-experimental field study of argument visualization. npj Science of Learning 3:21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0038-5

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Table 2 reports t-tests and Cohen's d for blind-scored seminar vs. control essays; structure favored seminar students (d = 0.76, 95% CI [0.16, 1.36]). Table 1 means: seminar 6.7 vs control 5.3.

"(a) Structure 2.5 .014 0.76 0.16 1.36"

Simon Cullen 2018 (2)¶

Simon Cullen, Judith Fan, Eva van der Brugge and Adam Elga (2018). Improving analytical reasoning and argument understanding: a quasi-experimental field study of argument visualization. npj Science of Learning 3:21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0038-5

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Table 2 row for accuracy of presented arguments; d = 0.74, 95% CI [0.13, 1.33], favoring seminar students. Table 1 means: seminar 6.9 vs control 5.5.

"(b) Accuracy 2.5 .017 0.74 0.13 1.33"

Simon Cullen 2018 (3)¶

Simon Cullen, Judith Fan, Eva van der Brugge and Adam Elga (2018). Improving analytical reasoning and argument understanding: a quasi-experimental field study of argument visualization. npj Science of Learning 3:21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0038-5

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Table 2 row for understanding of relevant arguments; d = 0.97, 95% CI [0.35, 1.57], favoring seminar students. Table 1 means: seminar 7.5 vs control 5.8.

"(c) Understanding 3.2 .002 0.97 0.35 1.57"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Blind-scored essays from seminar students were more accurate, better structured, and showed better understanding than control students' essays (d = 0.87) — a broader claim this one bears on
• Students rated the seminar highly and many reported transferring argument visualization to other coursework — related