The Timeline condition's advantage was concentrated in time-related test items and disappeared in the long run¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2008 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? On the 11 time-related questions, only the Text–Timeline contrast was significant at post-test (mean difference 1.45, p = .01); non-time-related questions showed no significant differences between conditions. → Maaike E. Prangsma 2008

Evidence¶

Maaike E. Prangsma 2008¶

Maaike E. Prangsma, Carla A. M. Van Boxtel, Gellof Kanselaar. (2008). Developing a 'big picture': Effects of collaborative construction of multimodal representations in history. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9026-5

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Exploratory analysis of the 11 chronology items in the same classroom experiment; the difference disappeared at retention (F(2, 78) = .26, p = .77), and non-time-related questions showed no significant differences (post-test F(2, 82) = 1.89, p = .16).

"The ANOVA results for the time-related questions in the post-test – taken both from subtest B and subtest C – again showed a significant difference between conditions ( F(2, 82) = 4.71, p = .01), and again, the post-hoc tests (Bonferroni) showed a significant difference only between the Text and Timeline groups ( p = .01) with a mean difference of 1.45."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• No significant differences between conditions on the retention test, and scores of the Visual and Timeline conditions decreased significantly from post-test to retention — related
• Co-constructing visual-textual representations without timeline integration did not significantly raise post-test scores over textual representations — related
• Pupils in all three conditions gained significantly from pre-test to post-test and retention test, with no prior-knowledge differences between conditions — related