Claims

Gains in scientifically appropriate classifications were maintained over 17 months, with no significant difference between posttest and delayed posttest scores

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? Pre-to-delayed-posttest total score differences were significant (z=2.79, p=0.005), while post-to-delayed-posttest differences were not significant for any part or the total. → Yakmaci-Guzel 2013

Evidence

Yakmaci-Guzel 2013

Yakmaci-Guzel, B., & Adadan, E. (2013). Use of multiple representations in developing preservice chemistry teachers' understanding of the structure of matter. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 8(1), 109-130. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1008597

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Wilcoxon signed-ranks comparisons in the same one-group study: pre to delayed posttest total was significant (z=2.79, p=0.005), but "no statistically significant difference was found between post and delayed posttest scores" (part a z=-0.71; part b z=-0.58; part c z=-0.80; total z=-1.20, all p>0.05).

"no statistically significant difference was found between post and delayed posttest scores, which implies a long-lasting positive impact of the specific instruction"

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.