Claims

The hybrid approach produced a significant advantage in the problem-solving domain but not in the conceptual-understanding domain

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · 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.

q2 i? Combined Q3-Q4 problem-solving scores differed significantly in favor of the experimental group (M: 27.82; SD: 11.26 vs M: 17.16; SD: 9.05), t(74)=4.546, p<0.05. → Çakiroğlu 2013 q2 i? Combined Q1-Q2 conceptual-understanding scores showed no significant difference between groups (EG M: 31.78; SD: 5.88; CG M: 29.47; SD: 7.42), t(74)=1.507, p>0.05. → Çakiroğlu 2013 (2)

Evidence

Çakiroğlu 2013

Çakiroğlu, Ü. (2013). Using a hybrid approach to facilitate learning introductory programming. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 161-177. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1008878

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Domain-level analysis of the ProKT posttest combining Q3 and Q4; independent t-test favored the experimental group. The article prints "t(74)=4.546" with p below 0.05 and no effect size. Q3 alone was significant (t(74)=3.594, p: 0.001) and Q4 significant by Mann Whitney U (U=343.500, p: 0.000).

"Statistically, a significant difference exists in the “problem solving” domain of programming knowledge between groups in favor of the EG, which are t(74)=4.546, (p:0.000 <0. 05)."

Çakiroğlu 2013 (2)

Çakiroğlu, Ü. (2013). Using a hybrid approach to facilitate learning introductory programming. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 161-177. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1008878

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Domain-level analysis combining Q1 and Q2 on the ProKT posttest; the t-test found no significant difference between the groups, though descriptive means favored EG. Equivalence was not tested; no effect size is printed.

"Posttest results for (Q1 and Q2), did not show significant difference in the mean scores between groups for “conceptual understanding”; the statistical result was t(74)=1.507 and p>0.05)."

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.