Before treatment, the CBI and FII groups showed no significant difference in mathematics achievement¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Pretesting found no significant difference between the experiment group (mean = 4.99, SD = 0.76) and the control group (mean = 5.01, SD = 0.73). → Gunarhadi 2016

Evidence¶

Gunarhadi 2016¶

Gunarhadi, Sunardi, Mohammad Anwar, Tri Rejeki Andayani, Abdull Sukor Shaari. (2016). +THE EFFECT OF CLUSTER-BASED INSTRUCTION ON MATHEMATIC ACHIEVEMENT IN INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS. International Journal of Special Education, 31(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1099973

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Pre-test comparison of the two intact groups prior to the CBI treatment, analyzed with a T-test reported in Table 1 with significance p > 0.05. Only the t statistic was printed; equivalence was not formally tested.

"the two groups were pretested in mathem atics, the result indicated that there was no significant difference between the experiment group (mean = 4.99, SD = 0.76) and the control group (mean 5.01, SD=0.73), t = 0.15."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The article reports the achievement change was statistically significant and contingently influenced by cognition, with Fo (41.92) bigger than Ft (3.99) — related
• Students taught mathematics with Cluster-Based Instruction achieved significantly higher post-test scores than students taught with Full Inclusive Instruction in Indonesian inclusive primary schools — related
• Year 4 pupils taught two-dimensional shape properties with Logo outperformed a traditionally taught control group on the post-test — related
• Before treatment, the Logo and control groups showed no statistically significant difference in achievement on two-dimensional shapes — related