Claims

Reflective students outperform impulsive students in science learning achievement

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

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 i? There is a significant difference in science learning achievement between students with reflective cognitive style and students with impulsive cognitive style (F = 17.45, p<0.05). → Margunayasa 2019

Evidence

Margunayasa 2019

Margunayasa, I G., Dantes, N., Marhaeni, A.A.I.N., & Suastra, I W. (2019). The Effect of Guided Inquiry Learning and Cognitive Style on Science Learning Achievement. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 737-750. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1201135

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Two-way ANOVA main effect of cognitive style, measured with the MFFT (reliability = 0.72) in the same 2×2 quasi-experiment; reflective students' total mean was 24.03 vs impulsive 22.23. The article reports "F = 17.45 and p<0.05".

"there was a significant difference in science learning achievement between the students with reflective cognitive style and students with impulsive cognitive style (F = 17.45 and p<0.05)"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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