Claims

The differentiation approach significantly increased mathematics achievement of gifted students compared with the Purdue model.

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · checked against its sources 2026-11-03 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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? Gifted 5th-grade students taught with the differentiation approach scored significantly higher on a post-test of Ratio and Proportion than gifted students taught with the Purdue model. → Altintas 2015

Evidence

Altintas 2015

Altintas, E., & Ozdemir, A. S. (2015). Evaluating a Newly Developed Differentiation Approach in Terms of Student Achievement and Teachers' Opinions. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.4.2540

q2 · i? · causal · r1

A quasi-experimental comparison with gifted 5th graders in a private school (n = 27) on Ratio and Proportion content. The differentiation-approach group scored significantly higher than the Purdue-model group on the post-test, with "significant differences in post-achievement scores (U = 0.50, p = .00 < .05) in favor of the experimental group". No effect size was reported.

"However, after implementation, there were significant differences in post-achievement scores (U = 0.50, p = .00 < .05) in favor of the experimental group. In specific the achievement test scores in the experimental group increased after the implementation."

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-03
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.