Concept map method group scored significantly higher than traditional method group on the final exam¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · 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? On the two-hour final exam, the concept map method group's mean score (31.5%) was significantly higher than the traditional method group's (25.3%). → Krishan 2017
Evidence¶
Krishan 2017¶
Tamara Mohd Altabieri Krishan. (2017). Concept Map Technique as a New Method for Whole Text Translation. English Language Teaching, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n4p62
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Two-hour post test comparing Group 1 (traditional) and Group 2 (concept map), 40 students each, by t-test (Table 4); the article reports the difference as significant with value < 0.05, no effect size printed.
"Students mean scores of concept map method (31.5%) was significantly higher than that of traditional method (25.3%)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Concept map method group scored significantly higher than traditional method group on the second exam — related
- Concept map method and traditional method groups did not differ significantly on the first exam after training — related
- Total scores were highly significant in favour of the concept map method group (64.4% vs 49.4%) — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.