Instructional clarity is a significant main effect on concept achievement, accounting for roughly half of score variance across measures¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 1991 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because 2 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Instructional clarity significantly affected students' ability to identify examples of concepts, accounting for 50% of score variance. → Snyder 1991 q3 i2 Instructional clarity significantly affected identifying key words in examples, accounting for 57% of score variance. → Snyder 1991 (2)

Evidence¶

Snyder 1991¶

Snyder, Stephen; Bushur, Lori; Hoeksema, Pam; Olson, Mark; Clark, Shawn; Snyder, Jill. (1991). The Effect of Instructional Clarity and Concept Structure on Student Achievement and Perception. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED331809

q3 · i2 · causal · r1

ANOVA in the Results section of a 2x3 factorial experiment with 59 undergraduates randomly assigned to six videotaped-lesson groups. The article reports instructional clarity "accounted for 50% of the score variance" for identifying examples.

"The main effects of the ANOVA conductedon instructional clarity and concept structure for students' ability to identify examples of conceptswas significant for instructional clarity (f(1,53)=20.47/p<.001) but not for concept structure"

Snyder 1991 (2)¶

Snyder, Stephen; Bushur, Lori; Hoeksema, Pam; Olson, Mark; Clark, Shawn; Snyder, Jill. (1991). The Effect of Instructional Clarity and Concept Structure on Student Achievement and Perception. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED331809

q3 · i2 · causal · r1

ANOVA on identifying key words in examples, same experiment. The article reports "Instructional clarity alone accounted for 57$ of the scorevariance" while concept structure and interaction were not significant.

"There was a significant difference for instructionalclarity ((1,53)=26.97,p<.001) butneither the concept structure (E(2,53)=.19,p.1) nor aninteraction between the two variables wassignificant"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Clarity and concept structure interact for defining and applying concepts, each accounting for about 40-44% of variance — related
• Clarity matters less as concept structure becomes simpler: no significant clear-vs-unclear difference for constant successive lessons — reports the opposite
• A clear variable coordinate lesson produced higher achievement than an unclear lesson with the same concept structure on all five measures — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Under unclear presentation, a more complex concept structure lessens students' ability to identify concepts — related
• Students accurately perceive differences between clear and unclear lessons regardless of concept structure — related
• Each positive clarity move (keys, links, framing, focusing, examples) correlates positively with every concept achievement measure — related
• Clarity, task orientation, time on task, criterion-material learning, and structuring correlate positively with learning — a broader claim this one bears on
• In the joint final model, instructional clarity shows an unexpected negative and significant relation with mathematics achievement at the student level — related