Claims

The neurocognitive-based model (5P) produced significantly better attention accuracy than the conventional model (5E) in Grade 9 students

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2017 · 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 i3 Instructional model significantly influenced attention accuracy, explaining 48.6 percent of variance, with the 5P experimental group outperforming the 5E control group. → Srikoon et al. 2017

Evidence

Srikoon et al. 2017

Srikoon, S., Bunterm, T., Nethanomsak, T., & Ngang, T. K. (2017). A comparative study of the effects of the neurocognitive-based model and the conventional model on learner attention, working memory and mood. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 83-110. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1150726

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

MANOVA multivariate test in a true experimental pre-test/post-test control group design with 76 randomly assigned Grade 9 students (5P n = 38, 5E n = 38). The article reports the model effect was significant, "could explain the variance of 48.6 percent of attention accuracy" (partial eta-squared = 0.486).

"the instruction models had significantly influenced attention accuracy at a 0.05 significance level (F(14,61)=4.124, p=0.000) and could explain the variance of 48.6 percent of attention accuracy"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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