Gains from the 7E model were significant for low- and average-intelligence students but not for high-intelligence students, with gain magnitude decreasing across intelligence levels¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Mean difference in gain score was 4.86 for low-intelligence students, 3.42 for average, and 1.9 for high-intelligence students. → Samaresh Adak 2017

Evidence¶

Samaresh Adak 2017¶

Samaresh Adak. (2017). Effectiveness of constructivist approach on academic achievement in science at secondary level. Educational Research and Reviews. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2017.3298

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Intelligence-level subgroup analysis of gain scores in the quasi-experiment: low-intelligence students gained most (4.86), average next (3.42), high least (1.9). The author explains that high-intelligence students scored higher at pre-test, so post-intervention scores became more similar across levels.

"Mean difference gain score between experimental and control groups by low intelligent students (4.86) is higher than the gain by average intelligence students (3.42), which is also higher than gain by high intelligent students (1.9)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• General Cognitive Ability — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• Within the 7E experimental group, post-test achievement scores did not differ significantly among high, average, and low intelligence students — related
• The effect of the 7E learning cycle does not differ significantly by school level, publication type, or intervention duration — related
• Class IX physical science students taught with the constructivist 7E model achieved significantly higher post-test and gain scores than students taught with traditional methods — related