Claims

The conventionally taught pre-tested group and the e-learning-taught unpre-tested group did not differ significantly in post-test attitudes

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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? Post-test attitude means of C1 (conventional, pre-tested) and C2 (e-learning, unpre-tested) did not differ significantly (mean difference 6.374, Sig. 0.168). → Daniel M. Getuno 2015

Evidence

Daniel M. Getuno 2015

Daniel M. Getuno, Joel K. Kiboss, Johnson M. Changeiywo, & Leo B. Ogola. (2015). Effects of an E-Learning Module on Students' Attitudes in an Electronics Class. Journal of Education and Practice, Vol.6, No.36. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1086475

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Null pairwise comparison between conventionally taught C1 and e-learning-taught C2. The article reports the post-test means "did not differ significantly" and concludes that, for improving attitudes toward Transistors, it did not matter whether the e-learning module or the conventional method was used; no effect size is printed.

"On the other hand, the mean scores at post-test bet ween groups C 1 and C 2 did not differ significantly. It would have been reasonable to expect significant dif ferences in post-test mean scores for these groups beca use students in group C 2 were exposed to the treatment while those in group C 1 were not."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.