Claims

The control group improved significantly in completion speed from pretest to posttest while the treatment group showed no significant speed improvement

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

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.

q2 i? Within the control group, pre- to posttest completion time improved significantly (t(13) = 3.60, p < .025), whereas the treatment group's change in completion time was not significant (t(13) = 1.50, p > .025). → Letwinsky 2017

Evidence

Letwinsky 2017

Letwinsky, K. M., & Berry, M. D. (2017). Technology Integration and the Effect on Mathematics Fact Fluency in the Middle East. Journal of International Education and Leadership, 7(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1153618

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Repeated measures MANOVA with paired t-tests (Bonferroni-adjusted alpha of .025) on within-group pre/post changes. The article reports the treatment group's time change was not significant (t(13) = 1.50, p > .025); no effect size is printed, so impact is unquantified.

"the control group reached statistical significance on pre- and posttest scores (t(13) = -3.41, p < .025) and also was significant on pre- and posttest time (t(13) = 3.60, p < .025)."

Discussion

Learner Variables

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.