Studies comparing digital tools to other instruction without hypothesizing instructional features cannot explain why effects occur¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? A study showing a positive effect of a digital tool (virtual frog dissection) could not evaluate the effect within its theoretical framework because no hypotheses about implemented instructional features and their relation to learning activities were stated. → Frank Reinhold 2024

Evidence¶

Frank Reinhold 2024¶

Frank Reinhold, Timo Leuders, Katharina Loibl, Matthias Nückles, Maik Beege, Jan M. Boelmann (2024). Learning Mechanisms Explaining Learning With Digital Tools in Educational Settings: a Cognitive Process Framework. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09845-6

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

The review reports, citing Lalley et al. (2010), a comparison of virtual vs. real frog dissection in biology classrooms that found a positive effect of the digital tool, but lacked a theoretical mediator explaining why the virtual approach was more effective.

"While the authors could show a positive effect of the digital learning tool provided compared to real dissection, this effect cannot be further evaluated within the theoretical framework of the study, as no hypotheses about the digitally enriched instructional features implemented in the software and their relation to learning activities dur- ing the virtual dissection (compared to the real dissection) are stated"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In one reviewed study, Anatomage virtual dissection increased medical student engagement by 34% over cadaver-based practice, constrained by equipment costs exceeding $72,000 per station — related
• The authors hypothesize that differences in curriculum design could explain the achievement results of the experimental study — related