A weeklong DG-centered summer institute improved teachers' conjecturing-proving knowledge, with a statistically significant average gain of 1.37 points (p = .003)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
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.
q3 i? Teachers' conjecturing-proving test scores rose significantly from pre-test to post-test across the summer PD institute (average gain 1.37, p = .003). → Jiang et al. 2015
q3 i? The DG group's average gain (1.56) exceeded the control group's (1.18), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = .670). → Jiang et al. 2015
Evidence¶
Jiang et al. 2015¶
Zhonghong Jiang, Edwin Dickey, Alexander White, Ewelina McBroom, M. Alejandra Sorto, & Alana Rosenwasser. (2015). A Dynamic Geometry-Centered Teacher Professional Development Program and Its Impact. Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED584322
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Pre/post administration of a project-developed 26-item conjecturing-proving test at the summer institute for the 64 randomly assigned teachers. The article reports "an average gain of 1.37" with a significant paired-sample t-test; the DG-control gain difference (1.56 vs 1.18) was not significant (p = .670).
"Average scores were 20.49 on the pre -test and 21.86 on the post -test with an average gain of 1.37. A paired -sample t-test showed that this gain was statistically significant (p = .00 3)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Students of DG-group teachers scored significantly higher on a geometry achievement test than students of control-group teachers (p = .002), with effect size .45 and a larger effect at the Regular Geometry level — related
- DG-group lessons were significantly better designed for conjecture-to-proof progression and used dynamic features far more than control lessons, while other observed teaching aspects did not differ significantly — 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.