DGS (Cabri II Plus) instruction produced the highest overall transformational geometry achievement, followed by manipulatives, with traditional instruction last¶

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 ANCOVA on total-test gain scores (pre-test as covariate) showed a significant group difference, with Computer > Manipulatives > Traditional on all pairwise comparisons. → Gül Kaleli Yılmaz 2015

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

3×1 ANCOVA with pre-test as covariate on 117 freshman teacher candidates' total TGAT scores; Bonferroni comparisons showed Computer > Manipulatives (mean difference = 3.50), Computer > Traditional (11.12), Manipulatives > Traditional (7.62), all p < .001; η2 = .60.

"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 overall test [ F (2, 111) = 81.73, p < .001, η2 = .60]"

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 instruction was most effective for recognizing transformations and stating their features, where it beat both manipulatives and traditional instruction — related
• The three groups were statistically equivalent in transformational geometry achievement before instruction — related