Different evidence types differ in how strongly they can support claims about effectiveness¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r? · q1
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The four evidence types differ in whether they can provide strong support for claims about effectiveness, which the guide explains type by type. → Gregory Chojnacki 2016

Evidence¶

Gregory Chojnacki 2016¶

Gregory Chojnacki, Alexandra Resch, Alma Vigil, Ignacio Martinez, Steve Bates. (2016). Understanding Types of Evidence: A Guide for Educators. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research. https://www.mathematica.org/publications/understanding-types-of-evidence-a-guide-for-educators

q1 · i? · theoretical · r?

The guide's stated purpose, an argumentative/descriptive statement: it explains "how to tell whether these types of evidence can provide strong support for claims about effectiveness." No empirical test of this differential support is reported in the text provided.

"This guide describes four key types of evidence you are likely to encounter and explains how to tell whether these types of evidence can provide strong support for claims about effectiveness."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Prompting learners to self-explain, one generative strategy, improves learning by a moderate average amount; other generative activities are not tested by the evidence recorded here — related
• Evidence types differ systematically in probative value: detection outputs cluster at weak inferential force while admissions, observed exam behaviour and fabricated references carry the strongest profiles — related