The two groups differed significantly in forecasted involvement in following learning units, with humanities-oriented students the only group scoring higher than their counterparts¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Differences in forecasted-involvement scores were significant (MANOVA, p = .0008), with H-students' scores higher and indicating a continuous increase across the session. → Katai 2020

Evidence¶

Katai 2020¶

Katai, Z. (2020). Promoting computational thinking of both sciences- and humanities-oriented students: an instructional and motivational design perspective. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09766-5

q2 · i? · design · r2

MANOVA on involvement statements (Fig. 11; q2/11, q4/9, q5/13, q6/13) about forecasted involvement in following learning units. The article notes H-students' scores indicate a continuous increase over the whole process; no effect size is printed.

"Differences are significant (MANOVA, p = .0008). After the "seeing phases" both groups were more motivated to be involved in the learning process than at the beginning of the session (group-Sa reported maximal score at this point)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Humanities-oriented students reported significantly higher anxiety than sciences-oriented students, but the gap diminished over the session and both groups' anxiety correlated strongly with errors made — related
• Sciences-oriented students appreciated the CT-promoter e-learning experience more overall, but humanities-oriented students' appreciation rose significantly during the doing phases, narrowing the group gap — related
• Sciences-oriented students reported significantly higher estimated understanding of the sorting strategy, while humanities-oriented students overestimated their understanding after the seeing phases until doing phases corrected it — related