QBI conditions showed significantly higher learning engagement, perceived interaction, and course satisfaction than the control, with large effect sizes and no differences between platforms¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Design limits · Zamzami Zainuddin 2026 (2): groups were assigned but students were analysed as independent (read from the study by two models, 2026-10-29)

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i3 One-way ANOVA showed significant differences favouring QBI groups on engagement (F(2, 87) = 9.62), interaction (F(2, 87) = 13.854), and satisfaction (F(2, 87) = 9.22), with large effect sizes. → Zamzami Zainuddin 2026 q3 i? Tukey post hoc comparisons showed experimental groups differed from control on engagement, interaction, and satisfaction, but the two experimental groups did not differ from each other. → Zamzami Zainuddin 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Zamzami Zainuddin 2026¶

Zamzami Zainuddin, Michael Sailer, Shurui Bai, Madziatul Churiyah, Agung Winarno. (2026). Quiz-based inquiry: embedding incrementally sequenced questions to enhance engagement and learning in synchronous online lectures. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-026-10614-1

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

One-way ANOVA on questionnaire scales (5-point Likert) across the three conditions (N = 90); Table 9 reports η² of 0.18 (engagement), 0.24 (interaction), and 0.17 (satisfaction), all above the article's stated large-effect threshold of 0.14.

"The results of the one-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between all variables tested (p < .05), with large effect size, as shown in Table 9. The differences in learning engagement [F (2, 87) = 9.62, p < 0.05], student interaction [F (2, 87) = 13.854, p < 0.05], and learning satisfaction [F (2, 87) = 9.22, p < 0.05]."

Zamzami Zainuddin 2026 (2)¶

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Tukey's HSD post hoc comparisons: each experimental group differed from control on engagement, interaction, and satisfaction (ps < .05), while experimental group I vs II showed no difference (e.g., p = .999 for engagement, p = .984 for interaction and satisfaction).

"Perceived interaction also showed substantial differences between experimental group II and the control group (p < .05), but not between the experimental groups (p = .984). Learning satisfaction revealed a significant difference between experimental group II and the control group (p < .05), with the two experimental groups showing no statistical difference (p = .984)."

Discussion¶

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`qbi-engagement-interaction-satisfaction-gains`
`title`	`QBI conditions showed significantly higher learning engagement, perceived interaction, and course satisfaction than the control, with large effect sizes and no differences between platforms`
`description`	`QBI conditions showed significantly higher learning engagement, perceived interaction, and course satisfaction than the control, with large effect sizes and no differences between platforms`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`2026`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-29`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	2 — `zamzami-zainuddin-2026`, `zamzami-zainuddin-2026-2`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.