Claims

Correspondence-course students taught with the e-learning material outscored controls by wider margins than in the regular course

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · 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 the correspondence course, the experimental group averaged 86.10% (theory) and 57.37% (practical) versus 68.78% and 37.33% for controls, with reported chances of 99.87% and 98.70% that the material caused the differences. → Király 2016

Evidence

Király 2016

Sándor Király. (2016). How to Implement an E-learning Curriculum to Streamline Teaching Digital Image Processing. Acta Didactica Napocensia, Volume 9, Number 2. https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/2065-1430

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Correspondence-course experiment (Table 2): after an F-test found variances not substantially different, two-sample t-tests were reported for theory and practical parts, with experimental averages 86.10% and 57.37% versus control 68.78% and 37.33%. The article states the improvement was higher than in the regular course.

"According to the two sample t -test, it has 99.87% chance of that the developed material caused the difference of achievements in the case of theory test, and that it has 98.70% chance of that the developed material caused the difference of achievements in the case of the practical test."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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