Duration of 7E interventions was not significantly correlated with effect size; short interventions did not yield smaller effects than long ones¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? A negative but non-significant correlation was found between intervention duration and effect size (r = -.288, p = .158), and the long (≥20 hours, ES .992) versus short (<20 hours, ES 1.613) sub-group difference was not significant. → Balta 2016

Evidence¶

Balta 2016¶

Balta, N., & Sarac, H. (2016). The Effect of 7E Learning Cycle on Learning in Science Teaching: A meta-Analysis Study. European Journal of Educational Research, 5(2), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.5.2.61

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Correlational analysis within the meta-analysis of the relationship between intervention duration (9 to 36 hours, split at 20 hours) and effect size. The quote reports the printed correlation r = -.288, p = .158; the sub-group means (.992 long, 1.613 short) come from Table 4.

"According to Cohen’s (1998) classification a negative insignificant (r = -.288, p = .158) correlation was found."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The effect of the 7E learning cycle does not differ significantly by school level, publication type, or intervention duration — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Motivation effects were larger for 7E implementations, for enactments lasting at least one month, and smaller for perceived-cost outcomes — related