Claims

The experimental group reported richer and more frequent outcomes from the environmental education course than the control group

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? Content analysis of open-ended answers found seven outcome categories in the experimental group versus three in the control group, with higher frequencies in the experimental group. → Derman et al. 2016

Evidence

Derman et al. 2016

Aysegul Derman, Elvan Sahin, Esme Hacieminoglu. (2016). Does Outdoor Education Make any Difference in Environmental Literacy of Pre-service Classroom Teachers? INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SCIENCE EDUCATION, 11(15), 8491-8506. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Content analysis of answers to the open-ended Environmental Education Outcome Evaluation Survey questions. Table 7 prints frequencies such as knowledge about environmental issues (44 experimental vs 9 control) and concern in environmental issues (45 experimental vs none reported for control).

"the outcomes the participants had in the experimental group are quite rich (a, b, c, d, e, f, g), and there are more participants who had these outcomes than those of the control group. On the other hand, in the control group in which the traditional lecturing method was used, the outcomes are more limited (a,d,g) and the participants who had outcomes are quite a little."

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.