Pretest accuracy moderated the training effect for typical full-fledged arguments: students with high pretest scores benefited most¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? For typical, full-fledged arguments, pretest scores moderated the effect of training condition, with high-pretest students benefiting from the training. → Sarah von der Mühlen 2019

Evidence¶

Sarah von der Mühlen 2019¶

Sarah von der Mühlen, Tobias Richter, Sebastian Schmid, Kirsten Berthold. (2019). How to improve argumentation comprehension in university students: experimental test of a training approach. Instructional Science 47:215–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9471-3

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Follow-up simple-slopes analysis of the pretest × training condition interaction for typical full-fledged arguments (moderation B = 0.09, p < .05, ΔR2 = .06). At low pretest levels the conditions did not differ; no significant training effects appeared for three-component arguments.

"at a high level of pretest scores (i.e., a mean grade of 1 SD below the sample mean), participants in the argument structure training performed better than those in the speed-reading training (argument structure training: M = .69, SE = .09; speed-reading training: M = .48, SE = .09), t (43) = 1.75, p < .05, one-tailed."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Prior Knowledge — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• Atypical full-fledged arguments are harder to identify than typical full-fledged arguments, which are harder than three-component arguments — related
• Study performance moderated the training effect: high-achieving students benefited at posttest, low performers did not — related
• DRL scaffolding significantly benefits high prior knowledge students while BKT does not, and condition-by-prior-knowledge interactions are not significant — related
• Argument structure training improved identification of atypical full-fledged arguments at posttest, but not at the 4-week follow-up — related
• All training policies narrowed the prior-knowledge achievement gap from pretest to posttest, with BKT achieving the largest reduction (77.1%) — related
• Argument structure training did not generally improve component identification, but specifically improved identification of warrants at posttest — related