Science-related subject areas (mathematics, science, medical science) show larger effects than programming technology and other fields¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Mathematics had the greatest overall impact (ES = 1.68, P < 0.01), followed by science (ES = 1.25) and medical science (ES = 0.87); programming technology was least effective (ES = 0.39). → Xu 2023

Evidence¶

Xu 2023¶

Xu, E., Wang, W., & Wang, Q. (2023). The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students' critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1

q3 · i3 · quant-synthesis · r3

Subgroup analysis by subject area (Table 4): mathematics (4 effect quantities, ES = 1.68), science (11, ES = 1.25), medical science (32, ES = 0.87), education (10, ES = 0.72), others (17, ES = 0.66), programming technology (5, ES = 0.39); intergroup difference significant (chi2 = 13.36, P < 0.05).

"Mathematics had the greatest overall impact, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 1.68, P < 0.01), followed by science (ES = 1.25, P < 0.01) and medical science (ES = 0.87, P < 0.01)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Teaching type, intervention duration, subject area, group size, and learning scaffold significantly moderate the effect of collaborative problem-solving on critical thinking — a broader claim this one bears on
• Teacher-supported learning scaffolds show the largest effect (ES = 0.92), and longer intervention durations yield larger effects — related
• Discipline significantly moderates the effects of educational robotics on STEM learning, with larger effects in technology and cross-disciplinary contexts than in science and mathematics — related
• Collaborative problem-solving significantly improves students' critical thinking overall (ES = 0.82) — related
• Mathematics and technology show the highest pre–post scaffolding effect sizes among STEM disciplines (ḡ = 1.29 and ḡ = 1.06) — related
• STEM field benchmarks differ markedly: science shows the largest quartiles and mathematics the smallest — reports the opposite
• A five-level moderator-theme classification improves model fit and explains systematic variation in moderator effect sizes, with disciplinary focus yielding the largest and design/quality the smallest expected effects — related
• Concept-mapping effect sizes vary by science subject (physics/earth science g = 1.040, biology g = 0.671, chemistry g = 0.590) but not significantly — related