Claims

Within test sections, students performed significantly better on spirometry concepts than on other midterm concepts when data were pooled across semesters

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? Pooled across four semesters, test-section students scored higher on spirometry concepts than on other concepts (76.5% vs 70.9%, p<0.05), though per-semester differences were individually non-significant. → Wolf et al. 2015

Evidence

Wolf et al. 2015

Alex M. Wolf, Carlos Liachovitzky & Abass S. Abdullahi. (2015). Active Learning Improves Student Performance in a Respiratory Physiology Lab. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 4(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/jct.v4n1p19

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Within-section analysis comparing test-section performance on spirometry concepts versus all other concepts on the midterm. Pooled data showed "76.5±4.3% vs. 70.9±1.5%", p<0.05; individual semester comparisons were not significant (p values 0.09, 0.78, 0.33, 0.15); no effect size was printed.

"When data of all four semesters are combined, students performed better on the spirometry concepts than on other concepts assessed on the midterm. (76.5±4.3% vs. 70.9±1.5%, 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.