High- and low-performing students did not differ significantly on the midterm-exam ENA network dimensions despite detected network differences¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i1 Two-sample t-tests on the midterm ENA network dimensions found no statistically significant difference between high- and low-performing students (X: d = −0.388; Y: d = 0.412). → Raković 2023

Evidence¶

Raković 2023¶

Raković, M., Ahmad Uzir, N., Matcha, W., Eagan, B., Jovanović, J., Shaffer, D. W., Pardo, A., & Gašević, D. (2023). Network Analytics to Unveil Links of Learning Strategies, Time Management, and Academic Performance in a Flipped Classroom. Journal of Learning Analytics, 10(3), 64–86. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2023.7843

q2 · i1 · associational · r2

Two-sample t-tests with Bonferroni correction comparing ENA networks of students scoring above the 90th percentile (Nabove90th = 23) and below the 25th percentile (Nbelow25th = 63) on the midterm exam. The article reports "no significant difference was observed between these two mean networks" on either dimension, though the printed Cohen's d values are moderate in size.

"However, no significant difference was observed between these two mean networks on the network dimensions ( X and Y ) shown in Figure 8 (X dimension, t =−1.766, p = 0.083, Cohen's d =−0.388; Y dimension t = 1.577, p = 0.123, Cohen's d = 0.412)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• High- and low-performing students differed significantly on the final-exam ENA network X dimension but not the Y dimension — related
• On the final exam, high performers had more dominant strategy–time-management links than low performers, who showed dominant catching-up, ahead-with-errors, and video-revision links — related
• Low-performing students tended to procrastinate more on graded problem-solving exercises and on video watching with formative MCQs — related
• Weekly ENA mean comparisons showed significant high–low performer differences in Weeks 2, 3, 6, and 7 on mr1 and in Weeks 5, 6, and 10 on svd2 — related
• Within-user exercise accuracy does not differ significantly between high- and low-score sessions — related
• Cheat sheet type was not significantly associated with exam performance on either exam, though a moderate non-significant trend favoured self-created sheets on the final — related
• University students with high versus low GenAI literacy scores show significantly different ENA interaction structures during an AI-assisted abstract writing task — related
• No significant urban–rural difference in AI literacy scores, though the p-value approaches threshold — related
• ENA revealed high CT students had significantly more coherent SRL cognitive networks spanning planning, execution, and self-reflection than low CT students — related
• ENA contrasting-cases analysis shows high- and low-effectiveness studies differ significantly in their design-element and intention networks — related