Claims

CoBl students showed greater learning achievement than traditional-instruction control students (p = .001)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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? After ANCOVA adjustment, the CoBl experimental group scored significantly higher on learning achievement than the control group taught by traditional instruction (F = 208.72, p = .001). → Kingpum et al. 2015

Evidence

Kingpum et al. 2015

Peerasak Kingpum, Chaiyot Ruangsuwan and Sumalee Chaicharoen. (2015). A development of a collaborative blended learning model to enhance learning achievement and thinking ability of undergraduate students at the Institute of Physical Education. Educational Research and Reviews. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2350

q2 · i? · causal · r2

One-way ANCOVA comparing learning achievement between the traditional classroom and CoBl groups (n = 30 each), reported in Table 5: Methods F = 208.724, p = .001, error df = 57. The abstract states the experimental group "showed greater learning achievement than the control group of students (p = .001)".

"Pretest 12.441 1.00 12.441 .730 12.246 .396 .001** Methods 208.724 1.00 208.72"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-03
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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