Group A scored higher than the other groups on Knowledge Quality of collaborative summary notes, with effect sizes of at least 0.7¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2009 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i2 Group A had a higher mean Knowledge Quality score than Groups B, C, and D on the collaborative summary notes, with Cohen's d of at least 0.7. → Jan van Aalst 2009

Evidence¶

Jan van Aalst 2009¶

Jan van Aalst. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9069-5

q2 · i2 · design · r2

Descriptive analysis of the 32 collaborative summary notes scored on the Knowledge Quality scale (inter-rater reliability .85). The article reports "a higher mean score than the other groups for Knowledge Quality" with "effect sizes ≥ 0.7, Cohen 's d"; only descriptive statistics were used because groups were not randomly assigned.

"Group A had a higher mean score than the other groups for Knowledge Quality (effect sizes ≥ 0.7, Cohen 's d)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The portfolio-principles class scored higher on weighted depth of inquiry than both other Knowledge Forum classes — related
• Training in text structure improves college students' summaries, but summarizing has not been shown here to improve recall or writing more than rereading or other active reading — related