In the construction section, DGS and manipulatives instruction were equally effective and both significantly outperformed traditional instruction¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 ANCOVA on construction-section gain scores showed no significant difference between Computer and Manipulatives Groups (mean difference = .25, p > .05), while both exceeded the Traditional Group. → Gül Kaleli Yılmaz 2015

Evidence¶

Gül Kaleli Yılmaz 2015¶

Gül Kaleli Yılmaz. (2015). The Effect of Dynamic Geometry Software and Physical Manipulatives on Candidate Teachers’ Transformational Geometry Success. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.5.2610

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

ANCOVA on the construction section with its pre-test as covariate; CG vs. TG mean difference = 3.78 and MG vs. TG = 3.52, both p < .001, but CG vs. MG = .25, p > .05. The article attributes the equality to both groups applying transformations one-by-one themselves.

"There was a significant mean difference in the gain scores of students in the Computer Group, Manipulatives Group, and Traditional Group with respect to the construction section of the test [F(2,111) = 86.92, p < .001, η 2 = .61]"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• All three instruction groups (DGS, manipulatives, traditional) significantly increased their transformational geometry achievement from pre-test to post-test — related
• DGS instruction was most effective for recognizing transformations and stating their features, where it beat both manipulatives and traditional instruction — related
• DGS (Cabri II Plus) instruction produced the highest overall transformational geometry achievement, followed by manipulatives, with traditional instruction last — related
• The three groups were statistically equivalent in transformational geometry achievement before instruction — related