Tree-thinking gains from the experimental curriculum were retained on an unannounced closed-book posttest given 5–6 weeks after primary instruction¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The benefit of experimental instruction over business-as-usual was observed on an unannounced, closed-book posttest administered 7 weeks after the pretest and 5–6 weeks after the main instruction. → Laura R. Novick and Kefyn M. Catley 2016

Evidence¶

Laura R. Novick and Kefyn M. Catley 2016¶

Laura R. Novick and Kefyn M. Catley. (2016). Fostering 21st-Century Evolutionary Reasoning: Teaching Tree Thinking to Introductory Biology Students. CBE—Life Sciences Education 15:ar66. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-06-0127

q2 · i? · causal · r1

In the same classroom pretest/posttest study, the posttest was unannounced and delayed; the authors argue this stringent condition shows students integrated some tree-thinking skills into their permanent skill set. No effect size is attached to the retention finding itself.

"they are based on performance on an unannounced, closed-book posttest given 7 weeks after the pretest and 5–6 weeks after the main part of the instruction"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Business-as-usual students who completed the phylogenetics laboratory gained only on some tree-thinking skills, with no increase on polytomy, inference, or subsets of the ToL — related
• A research-based tree-thinking curriculum produced significantly larger pretest-to-posttest gains than business-as-usual instruction in introductory biology — related
• SBI effects on proportional problem solving are maintained on a delayed posttest administered 9 weeks after intervention — a broader claim this one bears on