The focus-on-students effect was not robust: significant in the ANOVA but not in non-parametric tests¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 The ANOVA showed a small significant group difference in focus on students favoring the control group, but Kruskal-Wallis tests did not confirm it. → Jasmin Lilian Bauersfeld 2025

Evidence¶

Jasmin Lilian Bauersfeld 2025¶

Jasmin Lilian Bauersfeld, Bernadette Gold. (2025). Complete or faded double-content examples of video-based analyses: How do they impact student teachers' professional vision of classroom management? Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-025-09738-3

q3 · i? · causal · r2

In the pre-post study, the ANOVA for focus on students was significant, F(2,406) = 5.60, p = .004, η² = .025, but the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test conducted due to unequal variances showed no significant differences, χ²(5) = 7.66, p = .176.

"However, Kruskal-Wallis tests, which were conducted because of violations of homogeneity, did not show significant differences between the groups for the variable focus on students, χ² (5) = 7.66, p =.176"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Studying double-content examples before video-based analyses hindered student teachers' noticing and reasoning compared to studying without them — related
• Complete and faded double-content examples did not differentially affect student teachers' professional vision — related
• Chatbot preference groups differed in total EBAPS and Axis 4/5 scores at the nominal level, with small effect sizes, but not after Bonferroni adjustment — related