Claims

AR effect sizes do not differ significantly between Natural Sciences and Social Sciences, though the descriptive Natural Sciences effect is higher (0.562 vs 0.409)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · 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 i? The difference in AR effect sizes between Natural Sciences (0.562) and Social Sciences (0.409) was not statistically significant (QB = 0.195, p = 0.659). → Ozdemir M. 2018

Evidence

Ozdemir M. 2018

Ozdemir M., Sahin C., Arcagok S., & Demir M. K. (2018). The effect of augmented reality applications in learning process: A meta-analysis study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 74, 165-186. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2018.74.9

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Subgroup moderator analysis within the meta-analysis comparing effect sizes across educational areas under a random-effects model. The pooled ES was 0.562 for Natural Sciences (12 studies) and 0.409 for Social Sciences (4 studies); "there is not a significant difference among the groups" (QB = 0.195, p = 0.659).

"In this respect, it can be stated that there is not a significant difference among the groups with regard to the effect sizes (QB = 0.195, p = 0.659). Therefore, it can be stated that the educational area does not affect AR applications."

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.