RCL and PBL groups did not differ significantly on drill-and-practice posttest items¶

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? Both groups performed similarly on drill-and-practice items; the t-test was not significant (t=1.63, p=.08). → 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

Same quasi-experimental posttest comparison. Table 4 prints drill-and-practice means of 10.89 (PBL, SD 2.52) vs 12.56 (RCL, SD 1.98), t=1.63, p=.08; the article states "both groups did equally well on the drill-and-practice test". Equivalence was not formally tested.

"It was noted that both groups did equally well on the drill-and-practice test."

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