The training's effect on inference drawing was not limited to collaborative inferences but generally enhanced inference drawing of all types¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2011 · checked against its sources 2026-10-22 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? At testing, the kind-of-training by inference-type interaction was not significant, indicating the training's effectiveness was not limited to collaborative inferences. → Deiglmayr 2011

Evidence¶

Deiglmayr 2011¶

Deiglmayr, A., & Spada, H. (2011). Training for fostering knowledge co-construction from collaborative inference-drawing. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 441-451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.06.004

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Omnibus interaction from the testing-phase two-way mixed model ANOVA of the 36-dyad experiment: "the interaction between kind of training and inference type was not significant" (F(6, 64) = .79, ns). The authors interpret that training "generally enhanced the frequency with which students drew inferences". Hypothesis 2c was not supported.

"the interaction between kind of training and inference type was not significant , F(6, 64) = .79 , ns, indicating that the training's effectiveness was not limited to collaborative inferences"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Inferencing — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Training in collaboration strategies increases the frequency with which student dyads draw inferences during subsequent unscaffolded collaborative problem solving — a broader claim this one bears on
• Training improved inference drawing by increasing the efficiency of transforming pooled information into inferences rather than by increasing how often information was pooled — related
• Collaborative and individual inferences are less likely to be drawn than shared inferences during collaborative problem solving — related