Claims

Graphical calculator instruction produces significantly higher post-test performance in linear functions than traditional lecture method among Ghanaian SHS students

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
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.

q3 i? Students taught linear functions with the Microsoft Math Tool graphical calculator scored significantly higher on a 25-item WASSCE-based post-test than students taught by traditional lecture method, t(96) = -6.984, p = 0.00. → Kissi et al. 2016

Evidence

Kissi et al. 2016

Philip Siaw Kissi, Opoku Gyabaah and Sampson Kwadwo Boateng. (2016). The Effects of the use of Microsoft Math Tool (Graphical Calculator) instruction on students' performance in linear functions. Journal of Education and Practice, Vol.7, No.21. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1109378

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Quasi-experimental pre-test post-test two-group study of 98 SHS students in Accra; experimental group (n=50) taught with the graphical calculator, control (n=48) by lecture, same instructor. The article reports "a significant difference, t (96) = -6.984, p = 0.00"; post-test means were 12.88 (control) and 17.74 (experimental).

"Independent T-test with equal variance assumed analysis showed that there was a significant difference, t (96) = -6.984, p = 0.00, p < 0.05 in linear function performance of students between the control and the experimental groups."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.