Educational level, instructor support, instructional strategy, interactive type, intervention duration, robotic type, and control group condition were not significant moderators of robotics effects¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q3
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.
q3 i? Seven of the eight coded moderator variables showed no significant association with robotics effects on STEM learning (all p > 0.05). → Fan Ouyang and Weiqi Xu 2024
Evidence¶
Fan Ouyang and Weiqi Xu 2024¶
Fan Ouyang and Weiqi Xu. (2024). The effects of educational robotics in STEM education: a multilevel meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00469-4
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Omnibus moderator tests in the multilevel model for the seven remaining categorical moderators. None reached significance; e.g., educational level F(3, 25) = 2.5690 and instructor support F(1, 28) = 0.1951, both p > 0.05. Kindergarten and engineering categories were excluded for too few effect sizes.
"However, educational level, instructor support, instructional strategy, interactive type, intervention duration, robotic type and control group condition were insignificantly associated to the students' learning effects (p > 0.05)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Discipline significantly moderates the effects of educational robotics on STEM learning, with larger effects in technology and cross-disciplinary contexts than in science and mathematics — related
- Interventions longer than one month showed the largest effect size for robot-assisted STEM learning, though duration was not a significant moderator overall — related
- Educational robotics has a moderate-to-large effect on students' STEM learning performance — related
- Educational robotics has a moderate positive overall effect on K-16 students' STEM learning compared to non-robotics instruction — related
- Interventions lasting one to two months show the largest effect, and effects do not increase consistently with longer duration — related
- Scaffold effects peak at 2–4 weeks of treatment and decrease dramatically for treatments lasting 9–24 weeks — related
- Spatial ability interventions have increased STEM performance and retention, but a causal effect remains categorically unestablished — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
non-significant-moderators-robotics-stem |
title |
Educational level, instructor support, instructional strategy, interactive type, intervention duration, robotic type, and control group condition were not significant moderators of robotics effects |
description |
Educational level, instructor support, instructional strategy, interactive type, intervention duration, robotic type, and control group condition were not significant moderators of robotics effects |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2024 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-15 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — fan-ouyang-and-weiqi-xu-2024 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.