Claims

Class capacity does not significantly moderate the effect of RME on mathematical literacy

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · 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.

q3 i? The Q Cochrane heterogeneity test found no significant difference in RME effect sizes between large classes (≥ 30, g = 1.011) and small classes (< 30, g = 1.102). → Amelia Defrianti Putri 2024

Evidence

Amelia Defrianti Putri 2024

Amelia Defrianti Putri, Dadang Juandi, Turmudi. (2024). Realistic mathematics education and mathematical literacy: a meta-analysis conducted on studies in Indonesia. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), Vol. 18, No. 4. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v18i4.21650

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Moderator analysis of nine large-class and eight small-class studies using the Q Cochrane test. The printed Q value was 0.121 with p = 0.728, so the article concludes "no significant difference" between the two class-capacity categories; no effect size for the moderator difference is printed.

"The Q value obtained from the heterogeneity test was 0.121, and the p-value was 0.728, more than 0.05. This means there is no significant difference in the effect size of the RME approach on students' mathematical ability regarding sample size."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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