Claims

9th-grade students taught electrical circuits with a 4C/ID-based digital learning environment performed better on a learning transfer test than students taught by conventional teacher-centred instruction

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? The experimental group scored higher than the control group on the transfer test, with percentage differences of 21.4% at first application and 22.6% at follow-up. → Melo 2018

Evidence

Melo 2018

Melo, M. (2018). The 4C/ID-Model in Physics Education: Instructional Design of a Digital Learning Environment to Teach Electrical Circuits. International Journal of Instruction, 11(1), 103-122. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.1118a

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Quasi-experiment with 125 9th-graders in five natural classes randomly assigned to experimental (nE = 76) and control (nC = 49) groups; percentage differences were computed from mean scores, with "21.4% for the transfer test" at first application and 22.6% at follow-up.

"for the 1 st application 6.6% for the reproduction test and 21.4% for the transfer test; for the follow-up application 11 .4% for the reproduction test and 22 .6% for the transfer test. Then, it turns out that students from the experimental group performed better in the application of knowledge about electrical circuits in new problem situations."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-03
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.