Claims

The effect of the 7E learning cycle on achievement differs significantly by subject matter, with the largest average for chemistry and the smallest for science

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2016 · 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 i2 Between-group comparison of effect sizes by subject matter was significant, QB(3) = 11.885, p < .05, with chemistry showing the maximum group average (2.066) and science the minimum (1.002). → 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 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2

Sub-group analysis of the meta-analysis grouping effect sizes by subject: biology (4), chemistry (2), physics (16), and science (13). The printed group-average effect sizes were chemistry ES = 2.066 and science ES = 1.002, with a significant between-group QB(3) = 11.885, p < .05.

"The between -group comparison was significant for this grouping, ( QB (3) = 11.885, p < .05) indicating t hat the effect sizes differed significantly among the subjects. Where chemistry subject had the maximum (2.066) and science subject had the minimum (1.002) group averages."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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