The 5P model produced significantly faster working memory reaction times than the 5E model¶

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 Instructional model significantly influenced working memory reaction time, explaining 78.7 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

MANOVA multivariate test of working memory reaction time in the randomized Grade 9 study. The article reports the effect explained "the variance of 78.7 percent of the reaction time of working memory" (partial eta-squared = 0.787).

"the instruction models have significantly influenced the reaction time of working memory at a 0.05 significance level (F(13,17)= 4.845, p=0.002) and can explain the variance of 78.7 percent of the reaction time of working memory"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Processing Speed — outcome: instruction changes it
• Working Memory — 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 attention reaction times 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
• The 5P model produced significantly better working memory accuracy than the 5E model, with a large model-by-time interaction — related
• Verbal and spatial working memory, and verbal attention span, explain unique variance in Coding beyond motor speed, symptom severity, and IQ — related
• Grade level, nonverbal intelligence, and working memory predicted mathematics achievement, explaining 88% of intercept variance but only 16-22% of slope variance — related