Both experimental groups significantly improved in active learning strategies, value of mathematics learning, and learning environment stimulation, while the control group did not¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Within-group pretest-posttest gains on these three dimensions were significant in Experimental I and Experimental II but absent in the control group. → Akçakın 2018

Evidence¶

Akçakın 2018¶

Akçakın, V. (2018). Teaching Mathematical Functions Using Geometric Functions Approach and Its Effect on Ninth Grade Students’ Motivation. International Journal of Instruction, 11(1), 17-32. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.1112a

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Wilcoxon signed-rank comparisons of pretest-posttest SMTML scores within each group; Tables 5 and 6 show significant posttest gains (e.g., Experimental I value of mathematics learning z=-3.612, p=.000, r=.47), Table 7 shows none in control.

"Geometric functions appr oach, dynamic mathematics software which supported the mathematics teaching and dynamic mathematics software which supported the mathematics teaching made a significant difference in active learning strategies and value of mathematics learning, which was i n favour of posttest. In control group there was no significant difference."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Self-efficacy and performance goal motivation did not change significantly in any of the three groups — related
• The three teaching methods showed no significant post-test differences on the other five SMTML motivation dimensions — related
• Both experimental and control students showed significant pre-to-post gains on the Newton's Laws achievement test — related
• The experimental group improved significantly from pre-test to post-test after learning the synthesis strategy — related