Claims

The authors interpret the null between-group result as reflecting the program's short duration and students' lack of experience with critical thinking tasks

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q1
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.

q1 i? The authors propose that the 16-hour program was not long enough for students to improve their critical thinking skills, helping explain why the targeted skill was not developed relative to controls. → Bati 2015

Evidence

Bati 2015

Bati, K. & Kaptan, F. (2015). The Effect of Modeling Based Science Education on Critical Thinking. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 10(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1127622

q1 · i? · causal · r1

Authors' interpretive discussion of the null ANCOVA result, offered without new data. They also note that participating teachers agreed critical thinking is not easily attainable and that students are not sufficiently present at settings where they can improve such skills.

"In addition to these, considering that the program developed for the study was not long enough for the students to enable them to improve their critical thinking skills, it can be understood why this targeted skill was not developed."

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.