Claims

Revised-section students scored significantly higher on the rock and mineral portion of the midterm exam despite identifying half as many samples

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · 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? An independent t-test showed revised laboratory students scored significantly higher on the 51-point rock and mineral midterm portion than traditional students. → Grissom 2015

Evidence

Grissom 2015

Grissom, A. N., Czajka, C. D., and McConnell, D. A. (2015). Revisions of Physical Geology Laboratory Courses to Increase the Level of Inquiry: Implications for Teaching and Learning. Journal of Geoscience Education 63, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.5408/14-050.1

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Midterm exam analysis from the fall 2013 quasi-experiment; revised students had identified 30 versus 60 samples, yet the article reports they "scored significantly higher on the rock and mineral portion of the exam".

"An independent t-test of total mean scores out of the 51 possible points related to rocks and minerals indicated that the revised laboratory course students scored significantly higher on the rock and mineral portion of the exam than the students in the traditional laboratory course (Table VI)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.