Movement conditions outperform non-movement controls during the practice phase on both position and instruction scores¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 On the position score, movement-trained children (M=9.04, SD=1.30) outperformed non-moving controls (M=7.54, SD=2.43), η2=0.13. → Margina Ruiter & Sofie Loyens & Fred Paas 2015 q3 i2 On the instruction score, movement-trained children (M=7.97, SD=2.30) outperformed non-moving controls (M=6.93, SD=2.40), η2=0.04. → Margina Ruiter & Sofie Loyens & Fred Paas 2015 (2)

Evidence¶

Margina Ruiter & Sofie Loyens & Fred Paas 2015¶

Margina Ruiter & Sofie Loyens & Fred Paas. (2015). Watch Your Step Children! Learning Two-Digit Numbers Through Mirror-Based Observation of Self-Initiated Body Movements. Educ Psychol Rev (2015) 27:457–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9324-4

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Practice-phase analysis in the same randomized experiment: one-way ANOVA on position score showed a significant condition effect, F(3, 110)=6.25, p<0.001, "η2 =0.13", with the planned contrast favoring movement conditions.

"The planned contrast testing the prediction that children who received the math training with movements ( M=9.04, SD= 1.30) would outperform children in the non-moving control groups ( M=7.54, SD=2.43) was significant, t(110)=4.09, p<0.001 (one-tailed), η2 =0.13"

Margina Ruiter & Sofie Loyens & Fred Paas 2015 (2)¶

Margina Ruiter & Sofie Loyens & Fred Paas. (2015). Watch Your Step Children! Learning Two-Digit Numbers Through Mirror-Based Observation of Self-Initiated Body Movements. Educ Psychol Rev (2015) 27:457–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9324-4

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Practice-phase instruction score (whether children built numbers in as few steps as possible from large to small units): ANOVA F(3, 110)=4.19, p=0.01, "η2=0.10"; the planned contrast favoring movement training was significant with "η2=0.04".

"The planned contrast testing the prediction that children who received the math training with movements (M=7.97, SD=2.30) would outperform children in the non-moving control groups ( M =6.93, SD=2.40) was significant, t(110)=2.35, p<0.001(one-tailed), η2=0.04"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Full-body movement training during number building exercises significantly increases first-graders' final math test performance compared to non-movement control training — related
• Mirror-based self-observation of self-initiated body movements does not differentially affect number building performance during training or on the final math test — related
• The sit control condition outperformed the write control condition on practice-phase instruction score — related