Claims

Manual graphing practice based on experimental data outperformed provision of computer-constructed graphs in one comparison study

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · 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.

q2 i? In Branisa and Jenisova's study as reported by the review, students who practiced manual graph construction based on experimental data performed better than students who were provided with computer-constructed graphs. → Verena Rufai 2024

Evidence

Verena Rufai 2024

Verena Rufai, Dominik Thüsbj, Sarah Malonecj, Stefan Küchemanndi, Sebastian Becker-Genschowe, Markus Vogelf, Roland Brünkengj, Jochen Kuhnhi. (2024). A Systematic Review of Empirical Research on Graphing Numerical Data in K-12 STEM Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review reports, citing Branisa and Jenisova (2015), a mixed-methods comparison in which "students practiced manual graph construction based on experimental data performed better than students who were provided with computer-constructed graphs." No effect size is printed.

"Branisa and Jenisova (2015) compared manual graphing with automatically generated graphs and found that students practiced manual graph construction based on experimental data performed better than students who were provided with computer-constructed graphs."

Discussion

Learner Variables

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.