Most individual 7E effect sizes were positive, but three were negative, with effect sizes ranging from -.473 to 3.953¶

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? Among all 35 effect sizes, 32 had a positive effect and 3 were negative (Balım 2008-2; Naluan 2012; Polyiem 2011); the lowest was -.473 (Polyiem, 2011) and the largest 3.953 (Gürbüz, 2012). → 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

Forest-plot synthesis of the 35 individual effect sizes in the meta-analysis. The quote reports the lowest effect size (-.473, Polyiem 2011), the largest (3.953, Gürbüz 2012), and the three negative effect sizes; no standardized effect size is printed for the distribution as a whole.

"Among the effect sizes presented in Figure 1 Polyiem’s (2011) study had the lowest ( -.473) effect size and that of (Gürbüz, 2012) had the largest effect size (3.953). Meanwhile, among all effect sizes only three of them were negative (Balım, 2008 -2; Naluan, 2012; Polyiem, 2011)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The 7E learning cycle has a very large positive overall effect on students' achievement in science teaching (random-effects Hedges's g = 1.245) — related
• Publication bias does not explain the significant positive outcomes of the 7E learning cycle in this meta-analysis — related
• 50 of the 53 studies in the meta-analysis show positive effect sizes favoring the constructivist approach; 3 show negative effects favoring traditional teaching. — related
• Individual study effect sizes range from negative to very strong, with one study showing no effect — related