Gender showed no significant difference in retention among students taught physics with computer-assisted STAD¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The gender main effect on the retention test in the computer-assisted STAD group was not significant. → Gambarı and Yusuf 2015

Evidence¶

Gambarı and Yusuf 2015¶

Amosa Isiaka Gambarı, Mudasiru Olalere Yusuf. (2015). Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Stad Cooperative Learning Strategy on Physics Problem Solving, Achievement and Retention. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(3). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1085945

q2 · i? · causal · r1

ANCOVA on retention-test scores of the 46 STAD-group students by gender. The article reports the same statistics as the post-test gender analysis, "an F (1, 43) = 0.852, p = 0.361", not significant; no effect size is printed.

"The analysis in Table 7 shows the main effect of treatment group (computer-assisted STAD) on gender produced an F (1, 43) = 0.852, p = 0.361. This result was not significant at the .05 alpha level."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Gender — predictor: outcomes differ by group: a gap reflecting circumstances and treatment, not a cause

Related Claims¶

• Gender showed no significant difference in post-test performance among students taught physics with computer-assisted STAD — related
• No significant achievement difference between male and female students taught physics with computer-assisted Learning Together — related
• No significant gender difference in performance among undergraduates taught with blended learning — related
• Retention of physics content: the Results section reports a significant STAD-versus-ICI difference at p = 0.053, while the Discussion reports no significant difference in retention — related