Oral presentation performance improved significantly over time, but only control-group students showed statistically significant growth between the two presentations¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r? · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Design limits · Rob J. Nadolski 2021: groups were assigned but students were analysed as independent · Rob J. Nadolski 2021 (2): groups were assigned but students were analysed as independent (read from the study by two models, 2026-10-29)

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Oral presentation performance improved significantly over the two measurements overall. → Rob J. Nadolski 2021 q3 i? Significant differences in growth over time existed between conditions, with only the control group showing significant progress. → Rob J. Nadolski 2021 (2)

Evidence¶

Rob J. Nadolski 2021¶

Rob J. Nadolski, Hans G. K. Hummel, Ellen Rusman, Kevin Ackermans. (2021). Rubric formats for the formative assessment of oral presentation skills acquisition in secondary education. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10030-7

q3 · i3 · causal · r?

The mixed ANOVA (two oral presentation scores as within-subjects factor, three rubric-format conditions as between-subjects factor) revealed an "overall and significant improvement of oral presentation performance over time", F(1, 157) = 58.13, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.27.

"A mixed ANOVA, with oral presentation performance as within-subjects factor (two scores) and rubric format as between-subjects factor (three conditions), revealed an overall and significant improvement of oral presentation performance over time, with F(1, 157) = 58.13, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.27."

Rob J. Nadolski 2021 (2)¶

Rob J. Nadolski, Hans G. K. Hummel, Ellen Rusman, Kevin Ackermans. (2021). Rubric formats for the formative assessment of oral presentation skills acquisition in secondary education. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10030-7

q3 · i? · causal · r?

Within the same mixed ANOVA, significant differences over time were found between conditions, F(2, 156) = 17.38, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.18; however, "only control group students showed signifi- cantly progress on performance scores over time (at the 0.01 level)". Experimental-group growth was not statistically significant.

"However, only control group students showed signifi- cantly progress on performance scores over time (at the 0.01 level)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Formative assessment with validated analytic rubrics in the Viewbrics tool produced higher oral presentation performance than conventional rating-scale rubrics in Dutch secondary education — related
• Video-enhanced analytic rubrics did not significantly outperform text-based analytic rubrics on oral presentation performance, though a marginal trend favored video-enhanced rubrics — related
• Presentation condition does not differentially affect microstructure comprehension over five weeks, though VNT and NT groups improved while the text-only group did not — related
• Practice frequency, not cumulative usage time, was strongly associated with posttest presentation performance after controlling for baseline and demographics — related