Claims

Students taught with concept attainment model report higher liking of instruction than traditional-method students

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · 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? Students taught with CAM had significantly higher scores on a students liking scale than students taught with traditional method (t = 18.74, p < .01). → Kumar 2013

Evidence

Kumar 2013

Kumar, A., & Mathur, M. (2013). Effect of Concept Attainment Model on Acquisition of Physics Concepts. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 1(3), 165-169. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2013.010304

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Independent t-test on the 30-item students liking scale (Malhotra and Passi) with CAM mean 139.67 (SD 8.28, N 115) versus TM mean 116.51 (SD 10.28, N 113); the article reports "the t-value is 18.74, which is significant at 0.01 level".

"the t-value is 18.74, which is significant at 0.01 level. It indicates that mean scores of student liking of CAM and TM groups differ significantly"

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.