Full-PC dyads wrote lab reports with significantly better structure and more complete content than empty-PC dyads¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2007 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 Report structure scores were significantly higher in the PC+ condition (d=1.49). → Sarah Manlove 2007 q2 i3 Report content scores were also significantly higher for PC+ dyads (d=1.74). → Sarah Manlove 2007 (2)

Evidence¶

Sarah Manlove 2007¶

Sarah Manlove, Ard W. Lazonder & Ton de Jong. (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9012-y

q2 · i3 · causal · r2

Two-way ANOVA on completed lab reports of mixed-ability dyads; structure scored by presence of template sections (maximum 5), d=1.49. Achievement level had no effect (F(1,22)=0.29, p=0.60) and the interaction was not significant (F(1,22)=1.47, p=.24).

"report structure scores were significantly higher in the PC+ condition ( F(1,22)=9.57, p<0.01, d=1.49), indicating that PC+ dyads produced better structured reports."

Sarah Manlove 2007 (2)¶

Sarah Manlove, Ard W. Lazonder & Ton de Jong. (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9012-y

q2 · i3 · causal · r2

Report content scored by number of the template's 11 evaluation topics addressed (maximum 11); two-way ANOVA found d=1.74, with no significant achievement main effect (F(1,22)=.05, p=.83) or interaction (F(1,22)=.01, p=.92).

"PC+ dyads also gave a more complete account of their inquiry activities and outcomes, as evidenced by higher report content scores. This difference too was statistically significant ( F(1,24)=22.66, p<.01, d=1.74)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Empty-PC dyads built significantly better domain models than full-PC dyads, an effect concentrated among lower-achieving dyads — related
• Dyads given the full Process Coordinator used the regulative tool about three times as long and twice as often as dyads with the empty version — related
• Higher model quality was associated with less goal viewing and note taking, while lab report scores correlated positively with regulative tool use and negatively with helpfile viewing — related