Pre-test achievement in graph functions did not differ significantly between the experimental and control groups¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2006 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The pre-test difference between the control and experimental groups was not significant (t(20) = −3.42, p = 0.15). → Eu 2006

Evidence¶

Eu 2006¶

Leong Kwan Eu. (2006). Impact Of Geometer's Sketchpad On Students Achievement In Graph Functions. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology. http://www.mojet.net

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Quasi-experiment pre-test comparison: experimental mean 29.23 (SD 18.62), control mean 12.95 (SD 13.48). The article reports the difference as "not significant as p =0.15"; no effect size is printed and equivalence was not tested.

"Hypothesis testing shows that this value is not significant as p =0.15 ( p > 0.01) and t(20) = −3.42."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students taught graph functions with Geometer's Sketchpad showed significantly more positive attitude at post-test than the control group — related
• Students reported that Geometer's Sketchpad encouraged interaction with teachers and friends in the mathematics classroom — related
• Student perceptions were mixed or negative on learning graph functions in greater depth and on increased problem-solving confidence with Geometer's Sketchpad — related
• Form Six students taught graph functions with Geometer's Sketchpad scored significantly higher on the post-test achievement measure than students taught by chalk and talk — related
• Control and experimental groups were equivalent at pre-test but differed significantly at post-test in mathematics achievement — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)