Latent transition analysis extracted four ability-profiles of hypothesis-based reasoning across affirmative, refuting, and irrelevant evidence¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The best-fitting latent transition analysis extracted four profiles — low, relevant, intermediate, and full — differing in solution rates across the three evidence types. → Hanna Grimm · Peter A. Edelsbrunner · Kornelia Möller 2023 q2 i? At pretest the relevant profile was largest (38% of students, 19% at posttest), while the intermediate and full profiles grew to 39% each at posttest. → Hanna Grimm · Peter A. Edelsbrunner · Kornelia Möller 2023 (2)

Evidence¶

Hanna Grimm · Peter A. Edelsbrunner · Kornelia Möller 2023¶

Hanna Grimm · Peter A. Edelsbrunner · Kornelia Möller. (2023). Accommodating heterogeneity: the interaction of instructional scaffolding with student preconditions in the learning of hypothesis-based reasoning. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09601-9

q2 · i? · causal · r?

Model fitting for the latent transition analysis; the four-profile model had the lowest BIC among converging solutions, and profiles capture patterns across the affirmative, refuting, and irrelevant-evidence scores while handling ceiling effects.

"In the latent transition analysis, the best model fit (Table 3) was achieved by extracting four different ability-profiles based on the data of students in both intervention conditions."

Hanna Grimm · Peter A. Edelsbrunner · Kornelia Möller 2023 (2)¶

Hanna Grimm · Peter A. Edelsbrunner · Kornelia Möller. (2023). Accommodating heterogeneity: the interaction of instructional scaffolding with student preconditions in the learning of hypothesis-based reasoning. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09601-9

q2 · i? · causal · r?

Description of the extracted profiles: the relevant profile (38% pretest, 19% posttest) solved relevant-evidence items but not irrelevant ones; the low profile described 34% (11% posttest), the intermediate 17% (39% posttest), and the full profile 11% (39% posttest).

"The biggest profile at pretest described 38% of students (19% at posttest), who could successfully solve all items involving evidence from events relevant to the hypothesis; that is, these students had high ability levels on the affirmative and refuting items, but low ability levels on the irrelevant items."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Latent profile analysis of combined SR and OB factors identifies six distinct teacher profiles spanning overestimation, underestimation, and alignment — related
• Latent profile analysis of baseline teacher ratings identifies four classes of children's behavioral and social-emotional risk — related
• Three latent profiles of psychological adaptation to AI-assisted Japanese learning (maladaptive, moderate, positive) are identified at each of three waves — related
• Scaffolded third-graders outperformed control students on reasoning based on irrelevant evidence after instruction — related
• External empirical evidence can refute a computational model of particle interactions when the model's own simulation cannot — related
• A two-dimensional profiling method based on initial artifact quality and criterion-aligned revision categorizes student groups into four analytic profiles in an AI-supported RQ/hypothesis revision activity — related
• Scaffolding mitigated the limiting effect of low prior knowledge: prior knowledge predicted posttest irrelevant-evidence reasoning only under the control condition — related