The planetarium group's Post-Pre gain advantage is robust against the classroom group but not against the small-n control group, whose wide confidence interval encompasses the planetarium CI¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Group III versus Group II Post-Pre 95% CIs do not overlap, but the Group I CI is wide enough to encompass the Group III CI because of its smaller sample. → Yu et al. 2015

Evidence¶

Yu et al. 2015¶

Ka Chun Yu, Kamran Sahami, Victoria Sahami, Larry C. Sessions. (2015). Using A Digital Planetarium For Teaching Seasons To Undergraduates. Journal of Astronomy & Earth Sciences Education, 2(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1101071

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Figure 4 analysis of Post-Pre gains: with only n=39 Group I students present for both quizzes (CI of ±10.7%) versus n=260 Group III students (CI of ±4.6%), the Group III advantage over the control group is not statistically separable.

"The greater Group III gain is robust when compared with Group II since their 95% CIs do not overlap. However the Group I CI is wide enough to encompass the Group III CI because the number of Group I students was lower."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Undergraduates taught seasons with immersive planetarium visualizations show larger quiz gains (ES=0.696 Cont-Pre; ES=0.741 Post-Pre) than peers taught with the same visualizations on a flat classroom screen or with no visualizations — related
• Non-immersive classroom visualization shows no significant contemporaneous-gain advantage over no visualizations, and its Post-Pre advantage reverses relative to the control group — related