Teaching science concepts during the activities was the most effective timing of the three GPA-based treatments¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q1
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.
q1 i? The authors interpret the pattern of results as showing the during-activities timing produced the best science achievement among the experimental groups. → Celal Boyraz 2017
Evidence¶
Celal Boyraz 2017¶
Celal Boyraz, Gökhan Serin. (2017). Science Instruction through the Game and Physical Activities Course: An Interdisciplinary Teaching Practice. Universal Journal of Educational Research 5(11). https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.051119
q1 · i? · causal · r1
Authors' interpretation in the discussion section, not a tested contrast: they attribute the during-activities group's advantage to third graders' concrete-operational stage, arguing that introducing concepts before or after the games may make them abstract due to the time interval.
"The experimental group in which the science concepts were taught during the activities was more successful in science achievement than the other experimental groups."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- GPA-based interdisciplinary science instruction produced significantly higher science achievement than regular instruction after five weeks — related
- All three GPA-based groups retained significantly more science knowledge than the control group six months after instruction — 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.