All three instruction groups (DGS, manipulatives, traditional) significantly increased their transformational geometry achievement from pre-test to post-test¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Paired-sample t-tests showed significant pre-to-post gains for every group on the total test and on each of the recognition, features, and construction sections (p < .001). → Gül Kaleli Yılmaz 2015

Evidence¶

Gül Kaleli Yılmaz 2015¶

Gül Kaleli Yılmaz. (2015). The Effect of Dynamic Geometry Software and Physical Manipulatives on Candidate Teachers’ Transformational Geometry Success. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.5.2610

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Paired-sample t-test analysis of pre- and post-test TGAT scores within each of the three groups; the article reports p < .001 for the Computer, Manipulatives, and Traditional Groups on the whole test and each section, with no effect size printed.

"This evaluation suggests that as a result of the treatments, there was a significant difference in the students’ transformational geometry achievement for all groups."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• DGS (Cabri II Plus) instruction produced the highest overall transformational geometry achievement, followed by manipulatives, with traditional instruction last — related
• In the construction section, DGS and manipulatives instruction were equally effective and both significantly outperformed traditional instruction — related
• DGS instruction was most effective for recognizing transformations and stating their features, where it beat both manipulatives and traditional instruction — related
• The three groups were statistically equivalent in transformational geometry achievement before instruction — related