The 5E and related models significantly improve student motivation outcomes (g = 0.24)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · 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.
q3 i? The motivation domain average effect was g = 0.24 (95% CI [0.14, 0.34]), with little heterogeneity (τ = .21). → Polanin 2024
Evidence¶
Polanin 2024¶
Polanin, J. R., Austin, M., Taylor, J. A., Steingut, R. R., Rodgers, M. A., & Williams, R. (2024). Effects of the 5E Instructional Model: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584241269866
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3
Unconditional random-effects meta-analysis of the motivation outcome domain (45 effect sizes, 29% of the total), framed by situated expectancy value theory constructs. The printed average was "g = 0.24, SE = 0.05, 95% CI[0.14, 0.34]".
"motivation (g = 0.24, SE = 0.05, 95% CI[0.14, 0.34])"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Effects of the 5E model on science outcomes are highly heterogeneous, with a 95% prediction interval spanning −0.38 to 1.92 — related
- The 5E and related instructional models significantly improve pre-K–12 science achievement (g = 0.82) — related
- The 5E and related models significantly improve mathematics achievement (g = 0.70), though sensitivity analyses suggest the estimate may be smaller in practice — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.