Both treatment groups showed large pretest-to-posttest gains in scientific concept mastery, with the contextual group gaining 30.00 points and the comparison group 26.72 points¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The experimental group rose from a pretest mean of 56.25 to a posttest mean of 86.25 (gain 30.00), while the comparison group rose from 59.64 to 86.36 (gain 26.72). → Curry 2012

Evidence¶

Curry 2012¶

Curry, Wilson, Flowers, & Farin. (2012). Scientific Basis vs. Contextualized Teaching and Learning: The Effect on the Achievement of Postsecondary Students. Journal of Agricultural Education. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.01057

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Descriptive results from the quasi-experimental pre/posttest comparison reported in Table 2: experimental group pretest M=56.25, posttest M=86.25; comparison group pretest M=59.64, posttest M=86.36. These are descriptive means; no effect size was printed for the gains themselves.

"The experimental group finished with a mean score of 86.25 on the posttest, posting a gain of 30 points; while the comparison group finished with a mean score of 86.36, posting a gain of 26.72 points as seen in Table 2."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A contextual teaching and learning curriculum produced no statistically significant difference in pre/posttest gain versus a scientific-basis curriculum in a postsecondary agricultural biotechnology course — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• All three instructional groups improved from pretest to posttest, with the blended learning group showing the highest mean gain score — related