Pointing outperformed tracing on the terminology test, while neither touch-based group differed significantly from the no-touch group on terminology¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 The pointing group scored significantly higher than the tracing group on terminology performance (ΔM = −2.593, p = 0.010); the corresponding univariate effect was η2 = 0.081. → Babette Park · Andreas Korbach · Paul Ginns · Roland Brünken 2023 q3 i? The contrast between the tracing and no-touch groups on terminology was not significant (ΔM = −1.186, p = 0.591), and the pointing–no-touch terminology contrast was also not significant (ΔM = −1.406, p = 0.278). → Babette Park · Andreas Korbach · Paul Ginns · Roland Brünken 2023 (2)

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 · i2 · causal · r2

Contrast testing in the three-group experiment (analyzed N = 83) found significantly higher terminology performance for the pointing group than the tracing group, "ΔM = − 2.593, p = 0.010"; the corresponding univariate group effect on terminology was F(2, 82) = 3.53, p = 0.034, η2 = 0.081.

"a significant difference between the pointing and the tracing groups for terminology performance, ΔM = − 2.593, p = 0.010, LLCI = − 4.356, and ULCI = − 0.650"

Babette Park · Andreas Korbach · Paul Ginns · Roland Brünken 2023 (2)¶

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 · i? · causal · r2

In the same experiment, the tracing–no-touch terminology contrast was not significant, "ΔM = − 1.186, p = 0.591"; the pointing–no-touch terminology contrast was likewise not significant (ΔM = − 1.406, p = 0.278). Equivalence was not tested.

"a comparison by contrast testing was not showing any significant differences between the tracing and the no-touch group in terminology, ΔM = − 1.186, p = 0.591, LLCI = − 3.746, and ULCI = 1.374"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The three touch-based-action groups did not differ significantly on the identification test — related
• The learning-performance MANOVA showed an overall effect of learning instruction across identification, terminology, and comprehension — related
• 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 during multimedia learning leads to superior comprehension and increased attentional focus compared with tracing or no hand movements — related