FIFTH GRADE STUDENTS ENGAGED IN A COOPERATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT: EVALUATING THEIR ABILITY TO DETERMINE THE STATUS OF THEIR OWN CONCEPTIONS ABOUT MATTER
Open accessAbstract
This study integrated cooperative learning methods in classroom instruction to investigate the effects on achievement and conceptual change in matter concepts involving 70 fifth grade students after 10 weeks of instruction. Data obtained from the administration of two achievement tests indicated that there were significant differences between the pre-test and post-test mean scores on the Matter Unit Test as well as on the Matter Diagnostic Test. Since the notion of status is fundamental to the Conceptual Change Model (Posner, Hewson, Strike & Gertzog, 1982) this study also investigated the students' ability to determine the status of their own conceptions. Analysis of the students' use of written descriptors provided varied evidence of their ability to use technical language (intelligible, plausible, or fruitful) and effectively determine the status of their own conceptions.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This study integrated cooperative learning into a 10-week fifth-grade matter unit and found significant pretest-to-posttest gains on two cognitive assessments, with large effect sizes. It also examined whether students could use conceptual-change descriptors to judge the status of their own conceptions, finding varied but generally positive evidence of intelligibility, plausibility, and fruitfulness.
Key findings
- Among 70 fifth graders, mean Matter Unit Test scores rose from 6.66 (SD 3.27) to 17.51 (SD 4.39), t = 16.59, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 2.80; mean Matter Diagnostic Instrument scores rose from 3.69 (SD 2.22) to 7.10 (SD 2.63), t = 8.32, p < 0.01, d = 1.40. Average increases were 41% on the MUT and 28% on the MDI.
- On the CCM task, 82% of 66 responding students selected the correct response B (force from air); 3% selected A and 15% selected D. Of the 54 who selected B, 87% gave correct explanations, 11% incorrect, and 2% none.
- For intelligibility, among 54 correct-B students, 100% indicated they “know what the concept means,” 90% could describe it in their own words, 4% provided written examples, and 20% represented or clarified it.
- For plausibility, 93% believed the concept was true, 33% said it fit their picture of the world, 13% said it fit other ideas/concepts, 30% said it matched how they see things, and 7% found it not plausible. For fruitfulness, 85% said the concept was useful, 30% said it helped solve problems, 15% said it helped explain ideas, 6% could apply it to new ideas, 7% said it gave new ways of looking at things, and 15% did not perceive it as fruitful.
Methods
- Design: case study plus quasi-experiments, triangulating case-study information with two cognitive assessments, the two-tier multiple-choice Matter Diagnostic Instrument (MDI) and the Matter Unit Test (MUT).
- Sample and setting: 70 fifth-grade students ages 10–11 in three heterogeneous classes (30, 29, and 11 students) taught by two teachers at a coeducational elementary school in Miami-Dade County, Miami, Florida, USA. Cooperative groups of four worked together for 10 weeks; instruction included one hour per week of laboratory science plus two and a half hours per week of homeroom science, totaling 35 hours.
- Instruments and analysis: MDI had 12 two-tier multiple-choice items scored 0/1 for both tiers correct, maximum 12; MUT had 12 multiple-choice items plus 2 short-response questions, total 20 points. Both were administered as pretests and posttests. Analyses included Cronbach’s alpha, paired-samples t-tests, Cohen’s d effect sizes, and descriptive percentages of students’ written CCM-task responses using Hewson and Hennessey’s descriptors.
Limitations
- The paper states that the small sample size (70) may have contributed to lower alpha reliability values; pretest Cronbach’s alpha was 0.28 for the MUT and 0.51 for the MDI, and posttest alpha was 0.73 for the MUT and 0.63 for the MDI. It also states the relatively low reliability values were most likely due to the relatively high difficulty of the tests.
- The paper notes that many students did not explain how a concept was useful or how it helped solve problems, and suggests this may be because the question did not specifically require them to do so.
- Evident from the text: the study lacks a described control or comparison group, was conducted in one elementary school with three classes and two teachers, and the CCM task was completed by 66 students rather than all 70.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 22 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
15% of students conveyed that the concept helped to explain ideas in a new way.
“More specific descriptors were used to support the status of fruitful with 85% relaying that it was useful, 30% stating that it helped them solve problems, 15% conveyed that it helped to explain ideas in a new way, and 7% thought that it provided a new way of looking at things as indicated in Table 12.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written use of CCM descriptors accurately reflects their ability to determine the status of their own conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The CCM task validly measures students' status of conceptions about matter.
- Findingown data
The effect size for the MDI was 1.40.
“In this case, the large effect sizes for the MUT and MDI (2.80 and 1.40, respectively) shown in Table 2 further attest to a significant improvement in understanding of matter concepts by the fifth grade students as a result of the cooperative learning”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
There were significant differences between the pretest and posttest mean scores on the Matter Diagnostic Test.
“Data obtained from the administration of two achievement tests indicated that there were significant differences between the pretest and posttest mean scores on the Matter Unit Test as well as on the Matter Diagnostic Test.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Posttest scores for the MDI showed an average increase of 28%.
“The posttest scores for the MUT showed an average increase of 41%, while posttest scores for the two-tier diagnostic test (MDI) showed an average increase of 28% (Table 3).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Of the 54 students who selected correct response B, 94% responded positively that their answer seemed intelligible.
“In response to the question asking students to decide whether or not their answer seemed intelligible, of the 54 students who selected the correct response B, 94% responded positively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written use of CCM descriptors accurately reflects their ability to determine the status of their own conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The CCM task validly measures students' status of conceptions about matter.
- Findingown data
15% of students selected answer D on the CCM task.
“Response D was selected by 15% of the students who suggested that the water exerted an upward force that prevented it from filling the jar.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Approximately 7% of students acknowledged that the concept was not plausible to them.
“Approximately, 7% of the students acknowledged that the concept was not plausible to them for various reasons.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written use of CCM descriptors accurately reflects their ability to determine the status of their own conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The CCM task validly measures students' status of conceptions about matter.
- Findingown data
85% of students used the descriptors 'true' or 'believe' in their statements about fruitfulness.
“A review of the 54 students' written statements indicated that 85% suggested that the concept was fruitful (useful) and used the descriptors 'true' or 'believe' in their statements.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written use of CCM descriptors accurately reflects their ability to determine the status of their own conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The CCM task validly measures students' status of conceptions about matter.
- Findingown data
15% of students did not perceive the concept as being fruitful to them.
“Notably, 15% of the students did not perceive the concept as being fruitful to them.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written use of CCM descriptors accurately reflects their ability to determine the status of their own conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The CCM task validly measures students' status of conceptions about matter.
- Findingown data
Posttest scores for the MUT showed an average increase of 41%.
“The posttest scores for the MUT showed an average increase of 41%, while posttest scores for the two-tier diagnostic test (MDI) showed an average increase of 28% (Table 3).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
4% of students actually provided written examples of the concept.
“Even though most of the students stated that they could give examples or represent their ideas only 4% actually provided written examples and 20% either represented their intelligibility of the concept using illustrations or further clarified the concept.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written use of CCM descriptors accurately reflects their ability to determine the status of their own conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The CCM task validly measures students' status of conceptions about matter.
- Findingown data
85% of students suggested that the concept was fruitful (useful).
“A review of the 54 students' written statements indicated that 85% suggested that the concept was fruitful (useful) and used the descriptors 'true' or 'believe' in their statements.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written use of CCM descriptors accurately reflects their ability to determine the status of their own conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The CCM task validly measures students' status of conceptions about matter.
- Findingown data
The effect size for the MUT was 2.80.
“In this case, the large effect sizes for the MUT and MDI (2.80 and 1.40, respectively) shown in Table 2 further attest to a significant improvement in understanding of matter concepts by the fifth grade students as a result of the cooperative learning”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
7% of students thought that the concept provided a new way of looking at things.
“More specific descriptors were used to support the status of fruitful with 85% relaying that it was useful, 30% stating that it helped them solve problems, 15% conveyed that it helped to explain ideas in a new way, and 7% thought that it provided a new way of looking at things as indicated in Table 12.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written use of CCM descriptors accurately reflects their ability to determine the status of their own conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The CCM task validly measures students' status of conceptions about matter.
- Findingown data
T-test analyses confirmed that the pretest-posttest differences were significant at the p = 0.01 level.
“T-test analyses confirmed that these differences were significant at the p = 0.01 level suggesting that the cooperative learning strategy was successful in facilitating students' understanding of matter concepts in response to Research question 1”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
82% of students selected the correct response B on the CCM task.
“The data in Table 4 indicate that 82% of the students selected the correct response B, suggesting that the tissue did not get wet because the air in the beaker takes up space and pushes down on the surface of the water thus preventing it from filling the beaker and wetting the tissue.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Class D05 had a lower gain score on the MDI than the other two classes.
“Comparison of class performances on the MDI indicated that class D05 had a lower gain score than the other two classes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
A small percentage of students identified the correct response but gave an incorrect reason for their selection.
“However, a small percentage of students identified the correct response but the reason for their selection was incorrect.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
There were significant differences between the pretest and posttest mean scores on the Matter Unit Test.
“Data obtained from the administration of two achievement tests indicated that there were significant differences between the pretest and posttest mean scores on the Matter Unit Test as well as on the Matter Diagnostic Test.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
30% of students stated that the concept helped them solve problems.
“More specific descriptors were used to support the status of fruitful with 85% relaying that it was useful, 30% stating that it helped them solve problems, 15% conveyed that it helped to explain ideas in a new way, and 7% thought that it provided a new way of looking at things as indicated in Table 12.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written use of CCM descriptors accurately reflects their ability to determine the status of their own conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The CCM task validly measures students' status of conceptions about matter.
- Findingown data
Only 2% of students did not provide an explanation supporting their choice of answer B.
“Only 2% of the students did not provide an explanation supporting the reason for their choice of answer (B).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The effect sizes for the MUT and MDI were large.
“In this case, the large effect sizes for the MUT and MDI (2.80 and 1.40, respectively) shown in Table 2 further attest to a significant improvement in understanding of matter concepts by the fifth grade students as a result of the cooperative learning”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Cohen (1988)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Findingown data
20% of students either represented their intelligibility using illustrations or further clarified the concept.
“Even though most of the students stated that they could give examples or represent their ideas only 4% actually provided written examples and 20% either represented their intelligibility of the concept using illustrations or further clarified the concept.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written use of CCM descriptors accurately reflects their ability to determine the status of their own conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The CCM task validly measures students' status of conceptions about matter.
- Findingown data
3% of students selected answer A on the CCM task.
“Answer A was selected by 3% of the students who suggested that the tissue did not get wet because the tissue paper exerted a downward force that prevented water form entering the jar.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
4% of the students were able to give an example.
“all of the students stated that the concept was intelligible and rationalised that they could describe it (90%), were able to give an example, (4%), and were able to represent it (20%) (see Table 8).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The technical terms intelligible, plausible, and fruitful are understood by students in the intended conceptual change sense.
- Findingown data
Often when students referred to a concept as being useful or stated that it helped them solve problems, they did not explain how it was useful or how it helped them solve problems.
“It was noted, however, that often when students referred to a concept as being useful or stated that it helped them solve problems they did not however explain how it was useful or how it helped them solve problems.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- Findingown data
15% of the students said that the concept could be used to explain ideas.
“Students' use of conceptual change descriptors revealed that 85% said that the concept was useful, 30% thought that it could be used to solve problems, 15% said that it could be used to explain ideas, 6% could apply it to new ideas, and 7% communicated that it gave new ways of looking a things.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The technical terms intelligible, plausible, and fruitful are understood by students in the intended conceptual change sense.
- Findingown data
20% of the students were able to represent the concept.
“all of the students stated that the concept was intelligible and rationalised that they could describe it (90%), were able to give an example, (4%), and were able to represent it (20%) (see Table 8).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The technical terms intelligible, plausible, and fruitful are understood by students in the intended conceptual change sense.
- Findingown data
85% of the students thought that the concept presented in the task was fruitful.
“indicated that 85% of the students thought that the concept presented in task was fruitful.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The technical terms intelligible, plausible, and fruitful are understood by students in the intended conceptual change sense.
- Findingown data
6% of the students could apply the concept to new ideas.
“Students' use of conceptual change descriptors revealed that 85% said that the concept was useful, 30% thought that it could be used to solve problems, 15% said that it could be used to explain ideas, 6% could apply it to new ideas, and 7% communicated that it gave new ways of looking a things.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The technical terms intelligible, plausible, and fruitful are understood by students in the intended conceptual change sense.
- Findingown data
All of the students stated that the concept was intelligible.
“all of the students stated that the concept was intelligible and rationalised that they could describe it (90%), were able to give an example, (4%), and were able to represent it (20%) (see Table 8).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The technical terms intelligible, plausible, and fruitful are understood by students in the intended conceptual change sense.
- Findingown data
90% of the students rationalised that they could describe the concept.
“all of the students stated that the concept was intelligible and rationalised that they could describe it (90%), were able to give an example, (4%), and were able to represent it (20%) (see Table 8).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The technical terms intelligible, plausible, and fruitful are understood by students in the intended conceptual change sense.
- Findingown data
As students articulated the status of their conceptions, if the concept was not plausible, it was also not fruitful.
“Second, as students articulated the status of their conceptions, it was noted that if the concept was not plausible, it was also not fruitful.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- Findingown data
7% of the students acknowledged that the concept was not plausible.
“For the task, 93% of the students stated that the concept was plausible, while only 7% acknowledging that it was not plausible.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The technical terms intelligible, plausible, and fruitful are understood by students in the intended conceptual change sense.
- Findingown data
On the matter conceptual change task, 82% of the students selected the correct response.
“The results for the task showed that 82% of the students selected the correct response (Table 4).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The matter conceptual change task validly assesses students' ability to determine the status of their own conceptions about matter.
- Findingown data
85% of the students said that the concept was useful.
“Students' use of conceptual change descriptors revealed that 85% said that the concept was useful, 30% thought that it could be used to solve problems, 15% said that it could be used to explain ideas, 6% could apply it to new ideas, and 7% communicated that it gave new ways of looking a things.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The technical terms intelligible, plausible, and fruitful are understood by students in the intended conceptual change sense.
- Findingown data
The large effect size for the Matter Diagnostic Instrument was 1.40.
“The large effect sizes for the MUT and the MDI were 2.80 and 1.40, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The Matter Diagnostic Instrument (MDI) and Matter Unit Test (MUT) validly measure fifth grade students' achievement in matter concepts.
- Findingown data
7% of the students communicated that the concept gave new ways of looking at things.
“Students' use of conceptual change descriptors revealed that 85% said that the concept was useful, 30% thought that it could be used to solve problems, 15% said that it could be used to explain ideas, 6% could apply it to new ideas, and 7% communicated that it gave new ways of looking a things.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The technical terms intelligible, plausible, and fruitful are understood by students in the intended conceptual change sense.
- Findingown data
15% of the students identified the concept as not being fruitful.
“A small proportion of students (15%) identified the concepts as not being fruitful.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The technical terms intelligible, plausible, and fruitful are understood by students in the intended conceptual change sense.
- Findingown data
93% of the students stated that the concept was plausible.
“For the task, 93% of the students stated that the concept was plausible, while only 7% acknowledging that it was not plausible.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The technical terms intelligible, plausible, and fruitful are understood by students in the intended conceptual change sense.
- Findingown data
The large effect size for the Matter Unit Test was 2.80.
“The large effect sizes for the MUT and the MDI were 2.80 and 1.40, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The Matter Diagnostic Instrument (MDI) and Matter Unit Test (MUT) validly measure fifth grade students' achievement in matter concepts.
- Findingown data
30% of the students thought that the concept could be used to solve problems.
“Students' use of conceptual change descriptors revealed that 85% said that the concept was useful, 30% thought that it could be used to solve problems, 15% said that it could be used to explain ideas, 6% could apply it to new ideas, and 7% communicated that it gave new ways of looking a things.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The technical terms intelligible, plausible, and fruitful are understood by students in the intended conceptual change sense.
- Interpretationown data
The cooperative learning strategy was successful in facilitating students' understanding of matter concepts.
“T-test analyses confirmed that these differences were significant at the p = 0.01 level suggesting that the cooperative learning strategy was successful in facilitating students' understanding of matter concepts in response to Research question 1”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The pretest-posttest improvement in matter concepts was caused by the cooperative learning environment rather than other factors.
- Study design and conductcitation
The internal consistency for the pretest and posttest administration of the two instruments was established by computing Cronbach's alpha.
“The internal consistency for the pretest and the posttest administration of the two instruments were established by computing the Cronbach's alpha coefficient (Cronbach, 1951).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Cronbach, 1951 source
- Interpretationcitation
The relatively low reliability values were most likely due to the relatively high difficulty of the tests.
“The relatively low reliability values were most likely due to the relatively high difficulty of the tests (Mehrens & Lehman, 1991;Sattler, 2001).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Mehrens & Lehman, 1991
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Sattler, 2001
- Interpretationown data
The tissue did not get wet because the air in the beaker takes up space and pushes down on the water surface, preventing water from filling the beaker and wetting the tissue.
“The data in Table 4 indicate that 82% of the students selected the correct response B, suggesting that the tissue did not get wet because the air in the beaker takes up space and pushes down on the surface of the water thus preventing it from filling the beaker and wetting the tissue.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductcitation
The study triangulated information from the case study with data from the MDI and MUT to enhance the credibility, dependability, and confirmability of the findings.
“This study utilized the case study method and quasiexperiments, triangulating information from the case study with data from the two-tier multiplechoice Matter Diagnostic Instrument (MDI) and the Matter Unit Test (MUT) to make imperative contributions (Punch, 1998), and enhance the credibility, dependability, and confirmability of the findings (Guba & Lincoln, 1989).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Punch, 1998
- cites Guba & Lincoln, 1989
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationown data
The students' statements seem to indicate that they experienced conceptual exchange.
“Third, the students' statements seem to indicate that they experienced conceptual exchange.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- Interpretationcitation
The observation that if a concept was not plausible it was also not fruitful is consistent with the conceptual change model.
“This observation is consistent with the conceptual change model (Posner et al., 1982).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Posner et al., 1982 source
- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- Premisecitation
The Posner et al. conceptual change model emphasises status as fundamental to the learning process.
“The Posner et al. (1982) conceptual change model emphasises the view of status as being fundamental to the learning process, arguing that in order for a new conception to be incorporated into a student's schema, the status of the conception must fulfill a number of conditions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Posner et al. (1982) source
- Interpretationown data
The fifth grade students provided written evidence of their ability to use technical language to identify the status of their conception.
“First, the fifth grade students have provided written evidence of their ability to use technical language to identify the status of their conception.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The technical terms intelligible, plausible, and fruitful are understood by students in the intended conceptual change sense.
- Interpretationcitation
These findings support the view that the nature of laboratories encourages and permits students to cooperate at higher levels than other instructional methods.
“These findings support the view the nature of laboratories encourages and permits students to cooperate at higher levels than other instructional methods (Chang & Lederman, 1994).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Chang & Lederman, 1994 source
- Premisecitation
There is significant evidence that a cooperative goal structure can have the most powerful impact in promoting achievement and productivity.
“There is significant evidence to indicate that a cooperative goal structure can have the most powerful impact in promoting achievement and productivity (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 2007;Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Premisecitation
Many past researchers have only looked at the outcome of cooperative learning on achievement.
“Many past researchers have only looked at the outcome of cooperative learning on achievement (Slavin, 1995;Slavin, Hurley & Chamberlain, 2003), but undoubtedly changes in students' conceptions are strong indicators of the effectiveness of cooperative learning strategies on students' understanding of concepts in addition to achievement.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Slavin, 1995
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Slavin, Hurley & Chamberlain, 2003 source
- Premisecitation
Research indicates significant conceptual differences between intuitive science and scientists' science.
“Research indicates significant conceptual differences between intuitive science (alternative conceptions) and scientists' science (Driver, Squires, Rushworth & Wood-Robinson, 1994;Taber, 2001).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Driver, Squires, Rushworth & Wood-Robinson, 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Taber, 2001 source
- Interpretationown data
The results attest to a significant improvement in understanding of matter concepts by the fifth grade students as a result of the cooperative learning environment facilitated during instruction.
“all these results attest to a significant improvement in understanding of matter concepts by the fifth grade students as a result of the cooperative learning environment that was facilitated during instruction.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The pretest-posttest improvement in matter concepts is not due to factors other than the cooperative learning environment.
- Rests on an assumption: The cooperative learning environment was implemented as intended during instruction.
- Interpretationown data
The students gave reasons for their answers that indicate that they understood the concept.
“The students gave reasons for the answers that indicate that they understood the concept.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- May combine two claims. 10
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 11
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe mean posttest scores for both the MUT and MDI were higher than the mean pretest scores.
“The mean posttest scores for both tests were higher than the mean pretest scores (see Table 2).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe descriptors students used to support fruitfulness indicated that while most suggested the concept was useful, many did not state or give examples as to how the concept was practical.
“The descriptors that students used to support the notion that the concept was fruitful to them indicated that while most suggested that the concept was useful, many did not state or give examples as to how the concept was practical (Table 12).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written use of CCM descriptors accurately reflects their ability to determine the status of their own conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The CCM task validly measures students' status of conceptions about matter.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe paired samples t-test for differences between pretest and posttest mean scores was significant for both the Matter Unit Test and the Matter Diagnostic Instrument (p < 0.01).
“The paired samples t-test for differences between the pretest and posttest mean scores were significant for both tests (p < 0.01).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The Matter Diagnostic Instrument (MDI) and Matter Unit Test (MUT) validly measure fifth grade students' achievement in matter concepts.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe Cronbach's alpha coefficient on the pretest was 0.28 for the Matter Unit Test and 0.51 for the Matter Diagnostic Instrument.
“The Cronbach's alpha coefficient which is a measure of the internal consistency of the instrument was 0.28 and 0.51 on the pretest for the MUT and MDI respectively, and 0.73 and 0.63 for the MUT and MDI posttest.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The Matter Diagnostic Instrument (MDI) and Matter Unit Test (MUT) validly measure fifth grade students' achievement in matter concepts.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe Cronbach's alpha coefficient on the posttest was 0.73 for the Matter Unit Test and 0.63 for the Matter Diagnostic Instrument.
“The Cronbach's alpha coefficient which is a measure of the internal consistency of the instrument was 0.28 and 0.51 on the pretest for the MUT and MDI respectively, and 0.73 and 0.63 for the MUT and MDI posttest.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The Matter Diagnostic Instrument (MDI) and Matter Unit Test (MUT) validly measure fifth grade students' achievement in matter concepts.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataThe CCM task was responded to by 66 students.
“This task (responded to by 66 students) investigated student's understanding of the definition and physical properties of matter, and of the states of matter.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductcitationThe MDI was developed using the procedure proposed by Treagust.
“They were the two-tier multiple-choice Matter Diagnostic Instrument (MDI) (Appendix A) that was developed using the procedure proposed by Treagust (1988Treagust ( , 2006) ) along with the Matter Unit Test (MUT) (Appendix B).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Treagust (1988 source
- cites [2006]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationown dataThe students clearly articulated their ideas to support the notion that the concept was either plausible or not plausible to them.
“The students clearly articulated their ideas to support the notion that the concept was either plausible or not plausible to them as shown in Table 11.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written use of CCM descriptors accurately reflects their ability to determine the status of their own conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The CCM task validly measures students' status of conceptions about matter.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe majority of students understood the concept and provided precise scientific explanations for their responses.
“These results show that the majority of students understood the concept and provided precise scientific explanations for their responses.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenA list of 22 propositional knowledge statements was compiled to guide classroom instruction and the construction of the MDI and MUT items.
“A list of 22 propositional knowledge statements was compiled (see Figure 1) to guide classroom instruction and in the construction of the items in the MDI and MUT to assess understanding of the associated concepts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationnone givenThe small sample size of 70 may have contributed to the lower alpha reliability values.
“The small sample size (70) may have contributed to the lower alpha reliability values.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationown dataOne student's response 'No, because fruits aren't involved' seems to imply that the student did not understand the terms intelligible, plausible, and fruitful as they relate to the conceptual change process.
“This response seems to imply that the student did not understand the terms intelligible, plausible, and fruitful as they relate to the conceptual change process.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationAccording to Posner et al. (1982), the conditions necessary for conceptual change are dissatisfaction with existing ideas, intelligibility, plausibility, and fruitfulness of the new competing conception, often referred to as conceptual status.
“According to Posner et al. (1982), the conditions necessary for conceptual change are dissatisfaction with existing ideas, intelligibility, plausibility, and fruitfulness of the new competing conception often referred to as conceptual status.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Posner et al. (1982) source
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe arrangement ensured that the teachers were competent in implementing the cooperative instructional approach and the students were comfortable working in cooperative groups.
“This arrangement ensured that the teachers were competent in the successful implementation of the cooperative instructional approach and the students were comfortable working in cooperative groups.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The teachers implemented the cooperative learning strategy as intended.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataAssessment of students' use of descriptors provides varied evidence of their ability to use the technical language and effectively determine the status of their own conceptions.
“assessment of student's use of descriptors provides varied evidence of their ability to use the technical language and effectively determine the status of their own conceptions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
- Rests on an assumption: The technical terms intelligible, plausible, and fruitful are understood by students in the intended conceptual change sense.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenThe teachers were trained in cooperative learning strategies and guided in the implementation of the desired instructional approaches of the laboratory activities.
“The teachers were trained in cooperative learning strategies and guided in the implementation of the desired instructional approaches of the laboratory activities.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisereasoningThe quality of data obtained is correlated to the quality of the experimental design.
“Since conceptual change research involves probing student's cognitive models by observing what they do, listening to oral communications, and reading written responses, the quality of the data obtained is correlated to the quality of the experimental design.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Harrison & Treagust, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationCase study research as explained by Merriam concentrates on one phenomenon, is descriptive, and heuristic.
“Case study research as explained by Merriam (1998) is fastidious in that it concentrates on one phenomenon, is descriptive, providing rich illustrations, and heuristic, further investigating the phenomenon.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Merriam (1998)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationTeachers have to unteach the intuitive conceptions that students develop outside the classroom.
“In addition to the problem of teaching the facts and processes of science, teachers also have to unteach the intuitive conceptions that students develop outside the classroom (Guzzetti, 2000;Harrison & Treagust, 1996).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Guzzetti, 2000 source
- cites Harrison & Treagust, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
The paper relies on this without support.
The pretest-posttest improvement in matter concepts was caused by the cooperative learning environment rather than other factors.
“as a result of the cooperative learning environment that was facilitated during instruction.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Changes in students' conceptions are strong indicators of the effectiveness of cooperative learning strategies on students' understanding of concepts in addition to achievement.
“but undoubtedly changes in students' conceptions are strong indicators of the effectiveness of cooperative learning strategies on students' understanding of concepts in addition to achievement.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Students' written use of CCM descriptors accurately reflects their ability to determine the status of their own conceptions.
“Analysis of student's use of written descriptors provided varied evidence of their ability to use technical language (intelligible, plausible, or fruitful) and effectively determine the status of their own conceptions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The CCM task validly measures students' status of conceptions about matter.
“The task investigated students' understanding of the definition and physical properties of matter, as well as of the states of matter.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The MDI and MUT validly measure understanding of relevant concepts about matter.
“Two instruments that were developed by the first author were used in this research to assess understanding of relevant concepts about matter.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The teachers implemented the cooperative learning strategy as intended.
“This arrangement ensured that the teachers were competent in the successful implementation of the cooperative instructional approach and the students were comfortable working in cooperative groups.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Matter Diagnostic Instrument (MDI) and Matter Unit Test (MUT) validly measure fifth grade students' achievement in matter concepts.
“The effect of a cooperative laboratory class on fifth grade students' achievement in the topic relating to matter concepts was ascertained by analysing data obtained from the administration of the Matter Diagnostic Instrument (MDI) and the Matter Unit Test (MUT) as pretests and posttests to 70 fifth grade students (of ages 10-11 years), in three classes at an elementary school in Miami-Dade County”
The paper relies on this without support.
The matter conceptual change task validly assesses students' ability to determine the status of their own conceptions about matter.
“data were obtained from a matter conceptual change task (see Figure 3) completed by students working in cooperative groups, during the middle and end of the nine week unit.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The pretest-posttest improvement in matter concepts is not due to factors other than the cooperative learning environment.
“all these results attest to a significant improvement in understanding of matter concepts by the fifth grade students as a result of the cooperative learning environment that was facilitated during instruction.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The cooperative learning environment was implemented as intended during instruction.
“the cooperative learning environment that was facilitated during instruction.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Students' written responses accurately reflect their understanding and the status of their conceptions.
“The students gave reasons for the answers that indicate that they understood the concept.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The technical terms intelligible, plausible, and fruitful are understood by students in the intended conceptual change sense.
“This response seems to imply that the student did not understand the terms intelligible, plausible, and fruitful as they relate to the conceptual change process.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
CCM task class count exceeds the stated class size
MinorThe sample description assigns 11 students to SO5, the third class, whereas Table 4 records 30 S05 students responding to the task.
“The three classes consisted of 30, 29 and 11 students, respectively.”
“| Total no. of | 22 | 14 | 30 | 66 | 100 |”
Table 7 counts more correct H05 explanations than H05 students selecting B
MinorTable 4 reports that 15 H05 students selected B. Table 7 reports 21 correct explanations from H05 students who selected B, which exceeds that class's reported number of B selections.
“| Correct | 13 | 21 | 13 | 47 | 87 |”
“| B* | 15 | 14 | 25 | 54 | 82 |”
The MUT item count conflicts with its description
MinorTable 1 lists 12 MUT items, but the instrument description specifies 12 multiple-choice items plus two short-response items, for 14 items.
“| Matter Unit Test (MUT) | 12 | 0.28 | 0.73 |”
“The MUT consisted of 12 multiple-choice items, and 2 shortresponse (SR), questions with a total score of 20 points”
The unit is described as both nine and ten weeks long
MinorThe conclusions place the task in a nine-week unit, while the methods describe it as a 10-week unit.
“during the middle and end of the nine week unit.”
“During the middle and end of the 10-week unit data were obtained from a task performed by students working in cooperative groups.”
Intelligibility responses are reported as both 94% and all students
MinorThe results say 94% of the 54 students who selected B responded positively about intelligibility, but the conclusions say all of those students stated the concept was intelligible.
“of the 54 students who selected the correct response B, 94% responded positively.”
“all of the students stated that the concept was intelligible”
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,588 · see citing works
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931 · see citing works
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Lachenbruch, P. A., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290095 · Cited by 37,385 · see citing works
(1998) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 18,397 · see citing works
(2014) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781446294406.n148 · Cited by 7,272 · see citing works
Book Review: Designing Qualitative Research
McQuarrie, E. F., Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1990) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224379002700312 · Cited by 6,044 · see citing works
Neufeld, A., & Ryan, A. G. (1988) · Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation · doi:10.3138/cjpe.3.006 · Cited by 5,906 · see citing works
Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.3730660207 · Cited by 5,187 · see citing works
(1998) · UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) · Cited by 4,686 · see citing works
Handbook of Research on Science Education
Abell, S. K. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203824696 · Cited by 4,453 · see citing works
Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice
Slavin, R. E. (1983) · Cited by 3,790 · see citing works
Designing Qualitative Research
Bailey, K. M., Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1996) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/329453 · Cited by 1,923 · see citing works
Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.89.1.47 · Cited by 1,588 · see citing works
(2001) · Cited by 1,065 · see citing works
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1993) · doi:10.1037/031298 · Cited by 1,024
The State of Cooperative Learning in Postsecondary and Professional Settings
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9038-8 · Cited by 853 · see citing works
Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science
Treagust, D. F. (1988) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/0950069880100204 · Cited by 844 · see citing works
Self-citationMaking Sense of Secondary Science: Research into children's ideas
Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1993) · International Linear Collider · Cited by 770 · see citing works
Making Sense of Secondary Science
Driver, R. (1994) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203823583 · Cited by 688 · see citing works
Groups in Contact: The Psychology of Desegregation.
Rist, R. C., Miller, N. A., & Brewer, M. B. (1985) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2069567 · Cited by 550 · see citing works
An analysis of elementary teachers' beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science
Levitt, K. E. (2001) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.1042 · Cited by 383 · see citing works
The conditions of conceptual change in the classroom
Hewson, P. W., & Thorley, N. R. (1989) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/0950069890110506 · Cited by 312 · see citing works
Why most people disapprove of me: experience sampling in impression formation.
Denrell, J. (2005) · Psychology Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.112.4.951 · Cited by 296 · see citing works
Cooperative Learning and Achievement: Theory and Research
Slavin, R. E., Hurley, E. A., & Chamberlain, A. (2003) · Handbook of Psychology · doi:10.1002/0471264385.wei0709 · Cited by 279 · see citing works
The Student laboratory and the science curriculum
Hegarty‐Hazel, E. (1990) · Routledge eBooks · Cited by 260 · see citing works
Dickinson, T. (1993) · Middle School Journal · doi:10.1080/00940771.1993.11495886 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
LEARNING COUNTER-INTUITIVE SCIENCE CONCEPTS: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OVER A DECADE OF RESEARCH?
Guzzetti, B. J. (2000) · Reading & Writing Quarterly · doi:10.1080/105735600277971 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
Cooperative Learning in the Science Classroom
Lın, E. (2006) · The Science Teacher · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Using an analogical teaching approach to engender conceptual change
Treagust, D. F., Harrison, A. G., & Venville, G. J. (1996) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/0950069960180206 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
Self-citationTaber, K. S. (2001) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690010006572 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
General Instructional Methods and Strategies
Treagust, D. F., & Tsui, C. (2014) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203097267-26 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Self-citationDiagnostic assessment in science as a means to improving teaching, learning and retention
Treagust, D. F. (2012) · Proceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (formerly UniServe Science Conference) · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Self-citationConceptual Change: Still a Powerful Framework for Improving the Practice of Science Instruction
Duit, R. H., & Treagust, D. F. (2012) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-3980-2_4 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Self-citationChang, H., & Lederman, N. G. (1994) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.3660310207 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Cooperative Learning in the Science Curriculum
Lazarowitz, R., & Hertz‐Lazarowitz, R. (1998) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4940-2_26 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Burron, B., James, M. L., & Ambrosio, A. L. (1993) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.3660300708 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
The Social Psychology of Desegregation: An Introduction
Miller, N. A., & Brewer, M. B. (1984) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-497780-8.50007-3 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Personal and Class Forms of Classroom Environment Instruments
Campbell, J. E., Darrell, L., & Angela, F. (1998) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4940-2_33 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Cooperative Learning in the Science Classroom
Daniel, D., GlencoeMcGraw-Hill, & Glencoe (1995) · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Enhancing Science Education Through Laboratory Environments: More Than Walls, Benches and Widgets
Arzi, H. J. (1998) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4940-2_34 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Harrison, A. G. (1996) · eSpace (Curtin University) · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Lin E., 2006, Science Teacher, 73, 34
- C. J. McRobbie, D. L. Fisher and A. F. L. Wong, International Handbook of Science Education, eds. J. Fraser and K. Tobin (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1998) pp. 581–594.
- Mehrens W. A., 1991, Measurement and Evaluation in Education Psychology
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Preconceptions about the infection process among prenursing students
Dombrowsky, T. A., & Frye, L. (2016) · American Journal of Infection Control · doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2016.10.020 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
A multidimensional framework of conceptual change for developing chemical equilibrium learning
Chanyoo, W., Suwannoi, P., & Treagust, D. F. (2018) · AIP conference proceedings · doi:10.1063/1.5019502 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- LEWIS, D. M., TREAGUST, D. F., & CHANDRASEGARAN, A. L.
- Affiliations
- Curtin University (AU)
- ORCID
- TREAGUST, DAVID F.
- Venue
- COSMOS
- Publisher
- World Scientific Pub Co Pte Ltd
- Published
- 2013-06
- Volume
- 08
- Issue
- 02
- Pages
- 167-185
- ISSN
- 0219-6077 (ISSN-L)
- 1793-7051
- OpenAlex
- W2039722675
- Semantic Scholar
- 1ff18de5cedb1083d05c0cd544971b6bd65bd36b
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2018: 1 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 3.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- COSMOS (publishedVersion)
- eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Methods and Outcomes
- Keywords
- cooperative learning, conceptual change, fifth grade students, student conceptions, science achievement, technical language, elementary school science
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-11-05.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-11-05.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
