Groups using the Graphical Debate-tool constructed representations of significantly higher quality than groups using the Textual Debate-tool, for both debate positions.¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2008 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? GD-condition groups made representations of significantly higher quality than TD-condition groups, for both the Martyrs and Propaganda positions, with large effect sizes. → Jeroen Janssen 2008
Evidence¶
Jeroen Janssen 2008¶
Jeroen Janssen, Gijsbert Erkens, Paul A. Kirschner, Gellof Kanselaar. (2008). Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9078-1
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Between-groups comparison of representation quality in a study of 124 eleventh-graders in 39 groups, with classes assigned to conditions. Items were rated on a 0-4 scale with weighted Cohen's kappa of .73; the article reports the GD advantage was significant and that "The corresponding effect sizes (Cohen's d) were large."
"Groups in the GD condition however, made representations of significantly higher quality than groups in the TD condition. This applied to the Martyrs as well as the Propaganda position. The corresponding effect sizes (Cohen's d) were large."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The GD advantage in total grounds and total conceptual essay quality depended on topic length: it held for short to average topics and disappeared for longer topics. — related
- GD groups wrote essays significantly better in total grounds quality, total conceptual quality, and average conceptual quality, but did not cover more topics and were not better in average grounds quality. — related
- Students in the GD and TD conditions did not differ significantly in time online or in adding, editing, or deleting elements in the Debate-tool. — related
- Co-constructing visual-textual representations without timeline integration did not significantly raise post-test scores over textual representations — related
- The number of items groups placed in their representations was negatively correlated with the average quality of those items. — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
gd-tool-higher-quality-representations |
title |
Groups using the Graphical Debate-tool constructed representations of significantly higher quality than groups using the Textual Debate-tool, for both debate positions. |
description |
Groups using the Graphical Debate-tool constructed representations of significantly higher quality than groups using the Textual Debate-tool, for both debate positions. |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2008 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — jeroen-janssen-2008 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.