The three touch-based-action groups did not differ significantly on the identification test¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 The univariate group effect on the identification test was not significant, F(2, 82) = 1.46, p = 0.239, η2 = 0.035. → Babette Park · Andreas Korbach · Paul Ginns · Roland Brünken 2023

Evidence¶

Babette Park · Andreas Korbach · Paul Ginns · Roland Brünken 2023¶

Babette Park · Andreas Korbach · Paul Ginns · Roland Brünken. (2023). How Learners Use Their Hands for Learning: an Eye-Tracking Study. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09833-2

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Univariate testing within the learning-performance MANOVA of the three-group experiment (analyzed N = 83) found no significant group difference on the identification test, "F(2, 82) = 1.46, p = 0.239, η2 = 0.035"; equivalence was not tested.

"but not for the identification test, F(2, 82) = 1.46, p = 0.239, η2 = 0.035"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In a three-group eye-tracking experiment, the pointing group significantly outperformed both the tracing group and the no-touch group on comprehension performance — related
• Pointing outperformed tracing on the terminology test, while neither touch-based group differed significantly from the no-touch group on terminology — related
• Learning from a single static picture is significantly more successful than learning from an animation or four pictures when identifying spatial arrangements of joined links — related
• Learning from an animation is significantly more successful than learning from static pictures when identifying the specific motions of a gear mechanism's links — related