Total scores were highly significant in favour of the concept map method group (64.4% vs 49.4%)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Across all evaluation tests, total mean scores were 64.4% for the concept map method versus 49.4% for the traditional method, a highly significant difference. → 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

Total students' scores across the first, second and final exams, shown in Figure 2 for the two methods (traditional vs. concept map); the article reports the difference as highly significant, with no effect size printed.

"It can be seen that the difference between the two groups was highly sign ificant; and the mean value of all the students’ scores for traditional and concept map methods was 49.4% and 64.4% respectively."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Concept map method group scored significantly higher than traditional method group on the final exam — related
• Concept map method and traditional method groups did not differ significantly on the first exam after training — related
• Concept map method group scored significantly higher than traditional method group on the second exam — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• SSII students taught trigonometry with concept mapping or cooperative learning achieved significantly higher post-test scores than students taught with conventional methods — related
• Descriptive post-test means numerically favoured the spider concept mapping group, though not significantly — related