Claims

Students excelled in perceptual analysis, reaction and personal interpretation but performed weakest in synthesis across the five Anderson dimensions

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Students scored highest in perceptual analysis (mean 77.8) and lowest in synthesis (mean 64.5); contextual examination and synthesis were the dimensions where students did not progress well. → Subramaniam et al. 2016

Evidence

Subramaniam et al. 2016

Maithreyi Subramaniam, Ruzaika Omar Basaree, Jaffri Hanafi, Abu Talib Putih. (2016). Combining Anderson's Model in the Teaching of Art Appreciation for Undergraduate Students. li-manager's Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 3(13), October - December 2016. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1133234

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Descriptive bar-graph analysis (Figure 6) of studio art production scores mapped to the five Anderson dimensions for the 33 students; other printed means were reaction 75.01, personal interpretation 70.1, contextual examination 68.14. No inferential test is printed.

"the students demonstrated the highest ability in perceptual analysis with a mean score of 77.8. Fairly predictably, the students found to have the poorest showing in making synthesis with a mean score of 64.5."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-03
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.