Normalized conceptual-understanding gains favoured the ISIA group at every achievement level¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Using Hake's normalized gain , differences between experimental and control groups remained large at low, middle and high achievement levels, while differences within groups across levels remained relatively small. → Fan et al. 2018

Evidence¶

Fan et al. 2018¶

Xinxin Fan, David Geelan and Robyn Gillies. (2018). Evaluating a Novel Instructional Sequence for Conceptual Change in Physics Using Interactive Simulations. Education Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8010029

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Descriptive comparison of normalized gain scores (ratio of actual to maximum possible average gain on the FCI-based test) by achievement level, reported in Table 4; no inferential test was recomputed on these scores, so no effect size is available.

"It was not possible to re-calculate the ANCOVA for these scores however the differences between the experimental and control groups remain large while the differences within those groups between the gain scores at low, middle, and high levels of academic achievement remain relatively small."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• ISIA supported students at all academic achievement levels, with a significant treatment-by-level interaction only for conceptual understanding — related
• Hake's survey found interactive-engagement courses achieved average normalized gains about two standard deviations greater than traditional courses, with overall gain–pretest correlation of +0.02 — related