FTF and blended groups were equivalent in prior music knowledge and attitudes before instruction¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · 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.
q2 i? Pre-test achievement scores showed no significant difference between groups (p = .319), and pre-test attitude scores showed no significant difference (p = .813). → Adileh 2012
Evidence¶
Adileh 2012¶
Adileh, M. (2012). Teaching music as a university elective course through e-learning. Australian Journal of Music Education, 2012(1), 71-79. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1000246
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Pre-test comparison using the same achievement test (reliability 0.87) with FTF M = 26.173 (SD = 13.587) and blended M = 24.071 (SD = 14.331), t(177) = .999, p = .319. A parallel attitude pre-test comparison yielded p = .813 (Table 3).
"According to the test results, there was no significant difference in prior knowledge about the course between the FTF and blended groups (p=.319)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Blended instruction produced more positive attitudes toward music learning than face-to-face instruction — related
- Blended instruction produced higher course achievement than face-to-face instruction in a university elective music course — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.