Class work completion rates were slightly lower for the clicker group when learning new content¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · 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? Completion rates of class work were consistently slightly higher in the contrast group than in the clicker trial group. → Wang et al. 2014
Evidence¶
Wang et al. 2014¶
Ye Wang, Chia-Jung Chung & Lihua Yang. (2014). Using Clickers to Enhance Student Learning in Mathematics. International Education Studies, 7(10). http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n10p1
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Class work completion rates were collected for both Geometry groups during the study; the article reports rates were "consistently slightly highe r in the contrast group". No effect size or significance test is printed.
"According to Figure 4, the completion rates were consistently slightly highe r in the contrast group."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Clicker-group students scored consistently higher on all three chapter objective tests in Geometry — related
- Clicker use improved high school Geometry students' scores on warm-up and homework quizzes reviewing previously learned content — related
- Clicker participation and homework completion each significantly predict performance on isomorphic exam questions, with no synergistic interaction — related
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.