Claims

Both groups improved significantly from pre-test to post-test, but the blended learning group's average gain (16.11) was roughly twice the control group's gain (9.62)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · 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? Paired samples t-tests showed significant pre-to-post gains in both groups (experimental gain 16.11, control gain 9.62; both p = .000), with the experimental gain described as twice as much as the control group's. → Edward et al. 2019

Evidence

Edward et al. 2019

Chamila Nishanthi Edward, David Asirvatham & Md Gapar Md Johar. (2019). The Impact of Teaching Oriental Music Using Blended Learning Approach. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 16(1), 81-103. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1219911

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Paired samples t-test on gain for each group: experimental t(119) = 17.852, control t(239) = 12.825, both Sig. (2-tailed) .000; 95% CIs [14.364, 18.289] and [8.139, 12.825] exclude zero. The article states "there was a considerable improvement in the control group as well".

"Experimental group average gain difference is 16.11 and the control group average gain difference is 9.62. Thus, the result shows that there is a substantial gain difference between experimental groups who studied under BL than those who studied under traditional method."

Discussion

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.