ANCOVA on posttest scores yielded a significant F-value favoring RCL, though the article also reports a non-significant ANCOVA F-value¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? An analysis of covariance yielded F=3.69, p<0.001, significant at the stated level, while another ANCOVA procedure yielded F=1.91, p>0.05, not statistically significant. → Mosley 2016

Evidence¶

Mosley 2016¶

Mosley, P., Ardito, G., & Scollins, L. (2016). Robotic Cooperative Learning Promotes Student STEM Interest. American Journal of Engineering Education, 7(2). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1131333

q2 · i? · causal · r1

ANCOVA using the pretest as a single covariate to reduce error variance in the two-group posttest comparison. The article also prints a second ANCOVA result: "An analysis of covariance yielded a F-value that was significant at the same significance level (F=3.69, p<0.001)".

"An analysis of covariance procedure yielded a F -value that was not statistically significant (F=1.91, p>0.05)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Sixth-grade students taught with robotic cooperative learning scored significantly higher on critical-thinking posttest items than students taught with problem-based learning — related
• RCL and PBL groups did not differ significantly on drill-and-practice posttest items — related