Claims

Both the VM-enriched ePBL group and the traditional PBL group showed statistically significant achievement gains from pre-test to post-test

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · 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? Paired-samples t-tests showed significant pre-to-post gains in both groups (EG: t(29)=-9.54, p=.000; CG: t(29)=-4.89, p=.000). → Çakıroğlu 2014

Evidence

Çakıroğlu 2014

Çakıroğlu, Ü. (2014). Enriching project-based learning environments with virtual manipulatives: A comparative study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 55, 201-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2014.55.12

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Paired-samples t-tests within each group of the quasi-experimental study (n=30 per group) showed significant gains: EG from M=40.4 to M=60.2 (t(29)=-9.54, p=.000) and CG from M=42.73 to M=50.6 (t(29)=-4.89, p=.000). The author writes that "both ePBL and traditional PBL treatments provided a positive effect on achievements".

"There was a significant difference in the mean scores in the EG for the pre -test (M= 40.4; SD= 10.41) and for the post -test (M: 60.2; SD= 13.88), and a significant difference exits in the means scores in the CG for the pre -test (M: 42. 73; SD=11.37) and post-test (M= 50.6; SD= 11.78)."

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.