Claims

Cooperative learning benefited all three cognitive style groups equally in mathematics, with no interaction between methodology and cognitive style

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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? In math, the ANCOVA showed no effect of cognitive style (F=1.79, p=0.17) and no GROUP by cognitive style interaction, suggesting the benefit of cooperative learning was equivalent for field dependent, intermediate, and field independent students. → Mery Luz Vega; Christian Hederich M 2015

Evidence

Mery Luz Vega; Christian Hederich M 2015

Mery Luz Vega; Christian Hederich M. (2015). The Impact of a Cooperative Learning Program on the Academic Achievement in Mathematics and Language in Fourth Grade Students and its Relation to Cognitive Style. New Approaches in Educational Research 4(2), 84-90. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2015.7.124

q2 · i? · causal · r1

In the math ANCOVA (Table 1), the COGNITIVE STYLE factor was non-significant (F=1.794, p=0.175) and the GROUP*CS interaction non-significant (F=0.215, p=0.807). Because style differences present at pretest disappeared at post-test, the authors conclude the benefit was "equivalent for all three style groups".

"With regards to cognitive style, the tests did not show any effect of this factor (F=1,79, p=0,17) nor of its interaction with the treatment either."

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.