The four schemes of work showed replicable significant heterogeneity in effectiveness, with the predicted-least-effective teacher-centred/non-human scheme among the most effective¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Kruskal–Wallis tests on LOESS residuals revealed significant heterogeneity among the four SoW in both tranches, so the schemes do not have the same effectiveness. → Buchan 2020 q3 i? The predicted rank order (2 < 1 = 4 < 3) was not observed: SoW 3, predicted least effective, was most or next most effective, and SoW 1 was significantly least effective in both tranches. → Buchan 2020 (2)

Evidence¶

Buchan 2020¶

Buchan, L., Hejmadi, M., Abrahams, L. & Hurst, L. D. (2020). A RCT for assessment of active human-centred learning finds teacher-centric non-human teaching of evolution optimal. npj Science of Learning 5:19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-00078-0

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Kruskal–Wallis rank-sum tests on LOESS residual scores with Dunn post-hoc and Bonferroni correction across the four schemes in both tranches. The significant heterogeneity shows "the four SoW do not have the same effectiveness".

"There is significant heterogeneity in the relative effectiveness of the four SoW, seen in both tranches of data (tranche 1: χ2 = 37.53, P = 3.56 × 10−8; tranche 2: χ2 = 40.91, P = 6.84 × 10−9, Kruskal–Wallis rank-sum test on residuals with Dunn post-hoc and Bonferroni correction) (Table 6; Fig. 4)."

Buchan 2020 (2)¶

Buchan, L., Hejmadi, M., Abrahams, L. & Hurst, L. D. (2020). A RCT for assessment of active human-centred learning finds teacher-centric non-human teaching of evolution optimal. npj Science of Learning 5:19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-00078-0

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Dunn post-hoc pairwise comparisons (Table 6) revealed the observed rank orders. SoW 3 (teacher-centred PowerPoint, trilobites) outperformed expectations, while SoW 1 (student-centred, non-human) was significantly least effective relative to other schemes in both tranches.

"In tranche 1, the order of relative effectiveness of the schemes is 1 < 4 < 2 < 3 and in tranche 2, the order was 1 < 4 < 3 < 2 (Table 6). The most striking insight here is that the scheme we expected to be the least effective (SoW 3) was either the most effective or the next most effective."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Teacher-judged science ability repeatedly predicts gain in understanding, while age does not and gender effects are weak and non-replicable — related
• Comparing lesson 2 (student- vs teacher-centred) and lesson 4 (human- vs non-human-centred) activities in isolation yields weak, inconsistent or negligible effects — related
• Each of the four schemes of work individually produced significant pre-post improvement, with all effect sizes above the 0.4 threshold except SoW 1 in tranche 2 — related
• The evolution teaching interventions significantly improved student understanding with effect sizes above the 0.40 implementation threshold in both tranches — related
• Serially taught lesson combinations produce replicable positive interaction effects, with the two most effective schemes showing positive interaction terms — related