SSII students taught trigonometry with concept mapping or cooperative learning achieved significantly higher post-test scores than students taught with conventional methods¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Both experimental groups (concept mapping and cooperative learning) gained more from pre-test to post-test than the control group taught traditionally. → T. D. Bot & John E. Eze 2016 q2 i? The main effect of teaching method on post-test achievement was statistically significant, F(2, 207) = 586.046, p = 0.000. → T. D. Bot & John E. Eze 2016 (2)

Evidence¶

T. D. Bot & John E. Eze 2016¶

T. D. Bot & John E. Eze. (2016). Effects of concept mapping and cooperative learning strategies on senior secondary school students' achievement in trigonometry in Kano state, Nigeria. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(1), 56-66. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1107765

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test non-equivalent control group study of 210 SSII students in three Kano secondary schools, taught in intact classes for four weeks. Descriptive results in Table 1 show concept mapping post-test mean of "29.75" versus control 22.71, and cooperative learning 29.98.

"the subjects in experimental group one gained from the use of the concept mapping with a post‐test mean score of 29.75 compared with their pretest mean score of 13.40 which is lower. Experimental group two also gained from the use of cooperative learning strategy with a post‐test mean score of 29.98"

T. D. Bot & John E. Eze 2016 (2)¶

T. D. Bot & John E. Eze. (2016). Effects of concept mapping and cooperative learning strategies on senior secondary school students' achievement in trigonometry in Kano state, Nigeria. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(1), 56-66. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1107765

q2 · i? · causal · r2

ANCOVA on post-test scores with pre-test as covariate (Table 2) showed a significant main effect of teaching method; the article reports "F2, 207) =586.046" with p = 0.000. No effect size is printed, so impact is null.

"based on the main effect of teaching method (F2, 207) =586.046, p‐value of 0.000 is less than α=0.05, there is a significant mean difference between the post‐test achievement scores of the two experimental groups and the control group"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Concept mapping instruction produces significantly higher basic science achievement than conventional teaching among Nigerian junior secondary students — related
• Scheffe post-hoc comparisons ranked concept mapping highest, followed by cooperative learning, then conventional teaching, with all pairwise differences significant — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Gender did not significantly interact with concept mapping to affect achievement, but a significant interaction of group and method emerged for cooperative learning — related
• The control group showed no significant pre-test to post-test difference under conventional teaching — related
• Under concept mapping instruction, male students achieved significantly better than female students in trigonometry — related
• Descriptive post-test means show the demonstration group (M = 58.57) scored higher than the control group (M = 48.13) — related