The flat-screen visualization group matched the planetarium group's immediate gains but lost almost all of them by the delayed post-test¶

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¶

q2 i? GII and GIII had similar contemporaneous gains, but the classroom cohort's gains dropped to nearly zero relative to pre-instruction while the planetarium cohort kept a net positive gain. → Yu 2016

Evidence¶

Yu 2016¶

Yu, K. C., Sahami, K., Denn, G., Sahami, V., & Sessions, L. C. (2016). Immersive Planetarium Visualizations for Teaching Solar System Moon Concepts to Undergraduates. Journal of Astronomy & Earth Sciences Education, 3(2). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1123383

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Comparison of the two visualization treatment groups (GII flat-screen classroom, GIII fulldome planetarium) in the quasi-experimental study; the article reports the divergence appears only at the delayed post-instruction assessment, with no inferential test statistic printed for this contrast.

"Although these two groups had similar gains immediately after instruction, the classroom cohort lost almost all of their gains relative to their pre-instruction state."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Undergraduates taught Solar System moon content in an immersive fulldome planetarium retained a moderate gain (ES = 0.371) at delayed post-test, while non-immersive and no-visualization groups retained almost none — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Undergraduates taught seasons with immersive planetarium visualizations show larger quiz gains (ES=0.696 Cont-Pre; ES=0.741 Post-Pre) than peers taught with the same visualizations on a flat classroom screen or with no visualizations — related
• All treatment groups showed positive gains immediately after instruction, followed by losses between the contemporaneous and post-instruction assessments — related