Claims

Task-oriented clusters achieved higher final marks than non-task-oriented clusters.

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2016 · 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.

q2 i3 Students in Task Oriented clusters obtained significantly higher final marks than students in Non Task Oriented clusters (e.g., group 2 vs. group 4: d = 1.48). → Cerezo 2016

Evidence

Cerezo 2016

Cerezo, R., Sanchez-Santillan, M., Paule-Ruiz, M. P., & Núñez, J. C. (2016). Students' LMS interaction patterns and their relationship with achievement: A case study in higher education. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.006

q2 · i3 · associational · r2

Post-hoc t-tests between clusters on final marks; the article reports "group 2 vs. group 4 (MG2 = 7.23; MG4 = 4.81; t(75) = 6.371; p < .001; d = 1.48, very large effect)".

"group 2 vs. group 4 (MG2 = 7.23; MG4 = 4.81; t(75) = 6.371; p < .001; d = 1.48, very large effect)"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-30
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.