Applying the intervention to the control group produced statistically and practically significant gains in both problem recognition (d = 1.5) and problem-solving (d = 2.2)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 The control group's problem recognition LS mean rose from 2.42 to 2.96 after its intervention, with d = 1.5 indicating high practical significance. → Meintjes A 2015 q2 i3 The control group's problem-solving LS mean rose from 1.91 to 2.38 after its intervention, with d = 2.2 indicating high practical significance. → Meintjes A 2015 (2)

Evidence¶

Meintjes A 2015¶

Meintjes A, Henrico A & Kroon J. (2015). Teaching problem-solving competency in Business Studies at secondary school level. South African Journal of Education, 35(3), Art. #1102. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v35n3a1102

q2 · i3 · causal · r2

ANOVA for the control group (n = 24) between post-test 1 and post-test 2, when only the control group received the intervention; Bonferroni p < 0.05 (p = 0.00000) and "a d value of 1.5 indicates that the improvement was also highly practically significant".

"The LS mean value for post-test 1 on problem recognition was 2.42, and for post-test 2 it was 2.96, which means that for the control group , there was a statistically significant improvement in problem recognition after the implementation of the intervention."

Meintjes A 2015 (2)¶

Meintjes A, Henrico A & Kroon J. (2015). Teaching problem-solving competency in Business Studies at secondary school level. South African Journal of Education, 35(3), Art. #1102. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v35n3a1102

q2 · i3 · causal · r2

ANOVA for the control group (n = 24) on problem-solving after the second intervention; Bonferroni p < 0.05 (p = 0.00000), and "a d value of 2.2 indicates that the improvement was also highly practically significant".

"The LS mean value for post-test 1 on problem-solving was 1.91 and for post -test 2 it was 2.38, which means that for the control group , there was a statistically significant improvement regarding problem-solving after the implementation of the intervention."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The experimental group's gains were not sustained: at post-test 2 its problem recognition was lower than both the control group and its own post-test 1, and problem-solving showed no significant change — related
• The same intervention significantly improved learners' problem-solving, with a medium practical effect (d = 0.6) — related
• Performance depended on group-by-time interaction: a highly significant interaction effect (p < 0.00001) was obtained for both problem recognition and problem-solving — related