The systematically designed learning environment did not produce a significantly greater pretest–posttest improvement in domain-general CT than regular instruction¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? There was no significant interaction between intervention type and testing time on HCTA scores. → Tiruneh 2016

Evidence¶

Tiruneh 2016¶

Tiruneh, D. T., Weldeslassie, A. G., Kassa, A., Tefera, Z., De Cock, M., & Elen, J. (2016). Systematic design of a learning environment for domain-specific and domain-general critical thinking skills. Education Tech Research Dev, 64, 481–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9417-2

q3 · i? · causal · r1

A 2 (group) × 2 (testing time) mixed-design ANOVA on HCTA scores found "no significant interaction between the intervention type (experimental-control) and the testing time". Equivalence was not tested.

"However, there was no significant interaction between the intervention type (experimental-control) and the testing time (pretest–posttest), F(1, 87) = .14, p = .71."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Domain-specific CT performance (CTEM) significantly predicted domain-general CT performance (posttest HCTA) — related
• Systematically designed E&M instruction based on the First Principles of Instruction model produced significantly higher domain-specific CT scores than regular instruction — related
• AI-supported PBL students reported higher computational thinking on a self-report scale than traditional-lecture students, controlling for pretest scores — related
• The type of CT measure employed (standardized vs. non-standardized; item format) influences evaluation of intervention effectiveness — related