Using the geometric functions approach with dynamic mathematics software significantly raises ninth-graders' achievement goal motivation toward mathematics relative to software-only and traditional teaching¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2018 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 Post-test achievement goal scores differed significantly across the three groups, with Experimental I highest (H(2)=12.968, p=.002). → Akçakın 2018 q2 i3 Experimental I significantly outscored both Experimental II and the control group on achievement goal post-test (p<.0167, r=.49 and r=.50). → Akçakın 2018 (2)

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 · i3 · causal · r2

Kruskal-Wallis H comparison of post-test SMTML scores across three intact ninth-grade groups (n=29 each) in a pretest-posttest quasi-experiment; the achievement goal dimension showed "a statistically significant difference betw een groups [ H(2)=12.968 p<.05]" with effect size η²=0.15.

"In achievement goal dimension, there was a statistically significant difference betw een groups [ H(2)=12.968 p<.05]."

Akçakın 2018 (2)¶

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 · i3 · causal · r1

Mann-Whitney U follow-ups with Bonferroni correction (critical value .0167) on achievement goal post-test scores; Table 4 reports r=.49 for Experimental I vs Experimental II and r=.50 for Experimental I vs control, both p=.002.

"However, there was a statistically significant difference between experimental group I and experimental group II, and also between experimental group I and control groups (p<.0167)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Achievement Goal Orientation — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Achievement goal motivation declined significantly in the control group over the four-week traditional teaching period — related
• The three teaching methods showed no significant post-test differences on the other five SMTML motivation dimensions — related
• Self-efficacy and performance goal motivation did not change significantly in any of the three groups — related
• Students learning with the software showed higher learning motivation at post-test than students taught by traditional method — related