The vast majority of this paper discusses the methodology.
The actual part that you would use in teaching is miniscule.
It's education research, of course there are no randomized trials... you could never believe them anyway.
Honestly, this preprint is not worth reading. If you want the takeaways, jump to section 5 on page 11. You will find things like "intentional problem selection" and "problems with a variety of solutions".
Possibly of note "introducing visualizations provides no statistically significant learning outcomes".
Papers are quoted but there is no digest version of the results (as far as I could see).
You would be better off just reading an evidence-based book on teaching, like "How People Learn" [1] or the related "How Students Learn" [2]. At least those books go somewhere and present results. Updated references would be welcome.
The actual part that you would use in teaching is miniscule.
It's education research, of course there are no randomized trials... you could never believe them anyway.
Honestly, this preprint is not worth reading. If you want the takeaways, jump to section 5 on page 11. You will find things like "intentional problem selection" and "problems with a variety of solutions".
Possibly of note "introducing visualizations provides no statistically significant learning outcomes".
Papers are quoted but there is no digest version of the results (as far as I could see).
You would be better off just reading an evidence-based book on teaching, like "How People Learn" [1] or the related "How Students Learn" [2]. At least those books go somewhere and present results. Updated references would be welcome.
[1] https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/9853/how-people-le... [2] https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/11102/how-students...