Claims

A spirometry-based active learning lab improved community college students' performance on respiratory volumes questions relative to control sections

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? Test sections scored significantly higher than control sections on midterm questions about measurement and identification of respiratory volumes (77.9% vs 69.5%, p<0.05). → 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

Quasi-experimental comparison of four test sections (n=73) and four control sections (n=76) in a second-semester Anatomy & Physiology course over six semesters, measured on midterm exam questions. Test sections scored "77.9±9.2%" versus "69.5±9.7%" on respiratory volumes questions, p<0.05; no effect size was printed.

"However, on questions relating to the measurement and identification of respiratory volumes (Test: 77.9±9.2%, Control: 69.5±9.7%, p<0.05) and on the hallmarks of restrictive and obstructive diseases (Test: 77.5±12.7%, Control: 57.2±12.2%, p<0.005), the test sections performed significantly better than the control sections."

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.