Experimental and control groups did not differ significantly in pre-test science achievement before the intervention¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Pre-test means were 7.1 (experimental) and 6.1 (control), t = 1.042, significance value 0.306, not significant at the 0.05 level. → 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

Pre-test comparison in the quasi-experiment before intervention: experimental mean 7.1 slightly higher than control mean 6.1, but t = 1.042 with significance value 0.306, so the groups were statistically comparable at baseline. Equivalence was not formally tested beyond this t-test.

"There was no significant difference between experimental and control group in pre-test [M1=7.1, M2=6.1, ‘t’-value is 1.042, significance value is 0.306"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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
• Experimental and control groups did not differ significantly on pre-test NOS or SK scores — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• The three groups were equivalent on EPT pre-test scores before the intervention — related
• Experimental and control groups were statistically equivalent on religious-concepts pretest before the intervention — related
• The 5E and traditional groups were statistically equivalent in achievement and interest before treatment — related
• Groups were equivalent in mathematics achievement before the application — related
• U-learning and E-learning groups were statistically equivalent at pretest before the intervention — related