Descriptively, the high constructivist group showed the largest gain over the posttest grand mean and the low transmissive group the largest deficit¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Posttest gains over the grand mean (24.16) ranked: high constructivist (6.15) > high transmissive (2.23) > low constructivist (-3.64) > low transmissive (-4.75). → Atomatofa 2016

Evidence¶

Atomatofa 2016¶

Atomatofa, R., Okoye, N., & Igwebuike, T. (2016). Learning Environments as Basis for Cognitive Achievements of Students in Basic Science Classrooms in Nigeria. Universal Journal of Educational Research 4(6): 1471-1478. doi:10.13189/ujer.2016.040627

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Descriptive analysis of Table 2 pretest/posttest means for the four ability-by-environment groups; the article states learning environment "had greatest impact on the high constructivist group" and "the least impact on the low transmissive group". Descriptive only; no significance test reported for this ordering.

"The post-test grand mean is 24.16 and the direction of gains in scores over grand means from the highest to the lowest is in this order: high constructivist (6.15) > high transmissive (2.23) > low constructivist (-3.64) > low transmissive (-4.75)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The constructivist environment significantly favoured high ability students over high ability transmissive students, but low ability constructivist and low ability transmissive students did not differ significantly — related
• Students taught basic science in a constructivist learning environment achieved significantly more at posttest than students taught in a transmissive learning environment — a broader claim this one bears on
• High ability students achieved more than low ability students in both the constructivist and the transmissive learning environments — related