The 5P model produced significantly faster attention reaction times than the 5E model, with a large model-by-time interaction¶

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¶

q3 i3 Instruction models significantly interacted with time on attention reaction time, explaining 73.6 percent of variance. → 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

Omnibus model-by-time interaction from the same MANOVA on attention measures; the article reports it explained "the variance of 73.6 percent of attention accuracy" (partial eta-squared = 0.736).

"the instruction models had significantly interacted with reaction time at a 0.05 significance level (F(14,61)=12.171, p=0.000) and could explain the variance of 73.6 percent of attention accuracy"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Processing Speed — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• The neurocognitive-based model (5P) produced significantly better attention accuracy than the conventional model (5E) in Grade 9 students — related
• The 5P model produced significantly faster working memory reaction times than the 5E model — related
• The 5P model produced significantly better working memory accuracy than the 5E model, with a large model-by-time interaction — related
• The 5P model produced better mood (alertness, calmness, contentedness) than the 5E model, but with the smallest effect of the three outcomes — related