Self-reported learning yields descriptively greater service-learning effects than exam scores, but the difference is not statistically significant¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q3·i1small
Currency · newest study 2012 · 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 i1 When concrete measures were subdivided, self-reported learning (d = .365) yielded greater effects than exam scores (d = .259), yet t-tests revealed no statistically significant difference between the self-report and concrete measures. → Jami L. Warren 2012
Evidence¶
Jami L. Warren 2012¶
Jami L. Warren. (2012). Does Service-Learning Increase Student Learning?: A Meta-Analysis. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mjcsl
q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2
Subcategory moderator analysis in the same meta-analysis, dividing concrete measures into exam scores, other assignment scores, and post-test cognition measures. The article reports self-report d = .365 versus exams and student assignments d = .259, both p = .000, with the quoted t-tests showing no significant difference.
"However, again, t-tests revealed there were no statistically significant differ- ences between the self-report and concrete measures."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Both self-reported and concrete measures of learning show significant positive effects of service-learning, with no significant difference between measure types — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.