PBLCCS produces better N_Gain than EDI on each critical thinking indicator¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Per-indicator analysis showed better N_Gain and N_Gain category for the PBLCCS class than the EDI class across the critical thinking indicators measured. → Zetriuslita 2017

Evidence¶

Zetriuslita 2017¶

Zetriuslita, Wahyudin & Jarnawi. (2017). Mathematical Critical Thinking and Curiosity Attitude in Problem Based Learning and Cognitive Conflict Strategy: A Study in Number Theory course. International Education Studies, 10(7). https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n7p65

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Per-indicator descriptive analysis (Table 4) covering identification, connection, evaluation and problem solving skills; e.g. identification skill N_Gain 0.62 (PBLCCS) versus 0.71 pretest-posttest values reported for EDI. Overall SMI category was High for PBLCCS and Middle for EDI. No effect size printed.

"Based on Table 4, it is concluded that, in general, PB LCCS has been able to improve students’ Mathematical Critical Thinking (MCT) skill than EDI as shown by a better N_Gain and N_Gain category for each indicator."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• PBLCCS yields greater gains in mathematical critical thinking skill than Explicit Direct Instruction in a Number Theory course — related
• Direct CT instruction combined with modeling, coaching, and discussion yields more consistent CT improvement than implicit teaching strategies — related
• PBLCCS shows no significant advantage over EDI for mathematical curiosity attitude gains — related