One-level and two-level external disequilibrium conditions did not differ significantly, and all Modal Level advances occurred to exactly one level above the subject's mode¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 1975 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because a design page cites it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The +1 versus +2 comparison on adjusted posttest Map Drawing Mean revealed no significant difference. → Snyder 1975 q2 i? All subjects who advanced in Modal Level did so to level four (+1), regardless of whether trained at +1 or +2. → Snyder 1975 (2)

Evidence¶

Snyder 1975¶

Snyder, S. S. & Feldman, D. H. (1975). An Experimental Test of the Effects of Internal and External Disequilibrium on Spatial Reasoning Development. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED118211

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Orthogonal 1-df contrasts on adjusted posttest Map Drawing Mean showed +1 and +2 together exceeded 0, but "the +1 versus +2 comparison revealed aninsignificant difference between these two treatments" (F1,53=.16, p>.50). The same null held at delayed posttest.

"the +1 versus +2 comparison revealed aninsignificant difference between these two treatments"

Snyder 1975 (2)¶

Snyder, S. S. & Feldman, D. H. (1975). An Experimental Test of the Effects of Internal and External Disequilibrium on Spatial Reasoning Development. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED118211

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Among the 63 subjects, "All subjects advancingin.Modal Level after treatmentdid so to level four, i.e. to +1." A binomial test rejected the null that movements to +1 or +2 were equally probable among +2 advancers (p=.007).

"All subjects advancingin.Modal Level after treatmentdid so to level four, i.e. to +1."

Studies bearing on this claim¶

How far beyond the learner's current level should the discrepancy be? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 2 narrower claims that bear on it: 1 distinct studies (1 causal), q2, 1 of 1 with an effect size coded. One row per study, codes as each entry records them; no effect is averaged and no verdict is drawn. Built by scripts/synthesize_claim.py from eval/synthesis/; a row that looks wrong is fixed on the claim it comes from.

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Training with maps one or two levels above the child's current level produces greater map drawing advance than training with maps at the child's own level — related
• External disequilibrium level systematically influences subsequent changes in internal disequilibrium: discrepant conditions increase mixture among low mix subjects and decrease it among high mix subjects — related
• Higher internal disequilibrium (Level Mixture) predicts Modal Level advance but not Map Drawing Mean improvement — related
• Discrepant training conditions (+1/+2) provided limited evidence of greater transfer to related spatial reasoning tasks than own-level training — related
• Map drawing after 30 min is more accurate for maps learned through covert-retrieval tests than for maps learned through equal conventional study time — related
• Higher internal disequilibrium is associated with more regressive (minus) changes as well as more progressive changes — related