Study performance moderated the training effect: high-achieving students benefited at posttest, low performers did not¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Study performance moderated the effect of training condition on posttest accuracy. → Sarah von der Mühlen 2019 q3 i? At a high level of study performance, the argument structure training group clearly outperformed the speed-reading group; at low performance the conditions did not differ. → Sarah von der Mühlen 2019 (2)

Evidence¶

Sarah von der Mühlen 2019¶

Sarah von der Mühlen, Tobias Richter, Sebastian Schmid, Kirsten Berthold. (2019). How to improve argumentation comprehension in university students: experimental test of a training approach. Instructional Science 47:215–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9471-3

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Nested regression Model 2 (N = 50) on posttest accuracy; the study performance × training condition interaction was significant, and the model explained R2 = .41 after adding study performance and its interaction.

"When study performance and its interaction with training condition were added to the model (Model 2), study performance moderated the effect of training condition in the posttest, (B = − 0.05, SE = 0.02, p < .05, ΔR2 = .06)."

Sarah von der Mühlen 2019 (2)¶

Sarah von der Mühlen, Tobias Richter, Sebastian Schmid, Kirsten Berthold. (2019). How to improve argumentation comprehension in university students: experimental test of a training approach. Instructional Science 47:215–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9471-3

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Simple-slopes analysis of the moderation. At 1 SD above-mean performance (better grades), the training group scored M = .86 versus M = .70 in the control; at low performance the conditions did not differ, t(43) = −0.50, p = .31.

"at a high level of study performance (i.e., a mean grade of 1 SD below the sample mean), participants in the argument structure training clearly outperformed those in the speed-reading training (argument structure training: M = .86, SE = .04; speed-reading training: M = .70, SE = .05), t (43) = 2.43, p < .01, one-tailed."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Pretest accuracy moderated the training effect for typical full-fledged arguments: students with high pretest scores benefited most — related
• DRL scaffolding significantly benefits high prior knowledge students while BKT does not, and condition-by-prior-knowledge interactions are not significant — reports the opposite
• All training policies narrowed the prior-knowledge achievement gap from pretest to posttest, with BKT achieving the largest reduction (77.1%) — related
• BKT scaffolding significantly benefits low prior knowledge students, who outperformed low prior knowledge controls — related
• Argument structure training improved identification of atypical full-fledged arguments at posttest, but not at the 4-week follow-up — related
• No significant differences in posttest rule accuracy across scaffolding conditions — related
• Atypical full-fledged arguments are harder to identify than typical full-fledged arguments, which are harder than three-component arguments — related
• Argument structure training did not generally improve component identification, but specifically improved identification of warrants at posttest — related