DGS instruction was most effective for recognizing transformations and stating their features, where it beat both manipulatives and traditional instruction¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 On the recognition section, ANCOVA showed Computer > Manipulatives > Traditional (F(2,111) = 53.53, η2 = .49). → Gül Kaleli Yılmaz 2015 q3 i3 On the features section, ANCOVA showed the same ordering (F(2,111) = 52.07, η2 = .48). → Gül Kaleli Yılmaz 2015 (2)

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 recognition section with its pre-test as covariate; Bonferroni comparisons: CG vs. MG mean difference = 1.63, CG vs. TG = 3.83, MG vs. TG = 2.20, all p < .001. The article credits Cabri's visual features and dynamism for instant viewing of transformations.

"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 recognition section of the test [ F(2,111) = 53.53, p < .05, η 2 = .49]"

Gül Kaleli Yılmaz 2015 (2)¶

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 features section with its pre-test as covariate; Bonferroni comparisons: CG vs. MG = 1.58, CG vs. TG = 3.47, MG vs. TG = 1.89, all p < .001. The article explains Computer Group students could measure sides and area on screen to check features.

"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 features section of the test [F(2,111) = 52.07, p < .001, η2 = .48]"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• All three instruction groups (DGS, manipulatives, traditional) significantly increased their transformational geometry achievement from pre-test to post-test — related
• In the construction section, DGS and manipulatives instruction were equally effective and both significantly outperformed 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