Claims

Students in the revised geologic time laboratory scored significantly higher on the final exam Earth history question

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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? Independent t-tests of mean scores on the 9-point Earth history final exam question showed revised laboratory students scored significantly higher than original laboratory students. → Grissom 2015

Evidence

Grissom 2015

Grissom, A. N., Czajka, C. D., and McConnell, D. A. (2015). Revisions of Physical Geology Laboratory Courses to Increase the Level of Inquiry: Implications for Teaching and Learning. Journal of Geoscience Education 63, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.5408/14-050.1

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Comparison across spring and fall 2013 with 272 traditional and 252 revised geologic time students; the new final exam question asked students to plot key events on a 4.6 in. line representing Earth's 4.6 billion year history.

"However, independent t-tests of mean scores for the Earth history question (Fig. 3) on the final exam showed that students in the revised laboratory courses scored significantly higher than those in the original laboratory course (Table VI)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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