Animation-with-text CAI did not significantly outperform lecture method on solid geometry achievement¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · checked against its sources 2026-11-03 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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 Scheffe post-hoc test found no significant difference between the AT group (mean 65.38) and the lecture group (mean 54.43). → Gambari 2014
Evidence¶
Gambari 2014¶
Gambari, I. A., Ezenwa, V. I., & Anyanwu, R. C. (2014). Comparative Effects of Two Modes of Computer-Assisted Instructional Package on Solid Geometry Achievement. Contemporary Educational Technology, 5(2), 110-120. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1105561
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Scheffe post-hoc analysis in the same experiment compared AT with lecture; printed means were 65.38 versus 54.43 and the difference was not significant at the 0.05 level. Equivalence was not tested.
"It also indicates no significant difference in the mean achievement scores of students exposed to AT (X = 65.38) and those exposed to lecture method (54.43)"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Animation-with-narration CAI produced significantly higher solid geometry achievement than lecture method among senior secondary students — related
- No significant difference in solid geometry achievement between animation-with-narration and animation-with-text CAI groups — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-03 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.