Claims

Post-test attitudes towards science differed significantly in favor of the ICT-narrative group, with a small-to-medium effect

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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 i2 Post-test attitude mean ranks were significantly higher for the experimental group than the control group (z = -2.140, p = .032, abs(r) = .32). → Fatma Taşkin Ekici 2015 q2 i2 Pre-test attitude ratings did not differ significantly between groups (z = -1.635, p > .05, abs(r) = .25). → Fatma Taşkin Ekici 2015 (2)

Evidence

Fatma Taşkin Ekici 2015

Fatma Taşkin Ekici, Sultan Pekmezci. (2015). Using ICT-Supported Narratives in Teaching Science and their Effects on Middle School Students. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(4). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1077655

q2 · i2 · causal · r2

Mann-Whitney U comparison of post-test attitudes towards science (control n=21, experimental n=23) on the 30-item Benli (2010) scale; Table 4 prints post-test mean ranks of 14.36 versus 29.93, z=-4.020, p=.000. The article reports the effect size "abs(r) = .32", i.e. r = .32, a small-to-medium effect by its cited convention.

"The distributions of attitude scores between experimental and control group were found to differ significantly, z = -2.140, p = .032, abs(r) = .32"

Fatma Taşkin Ekici 2015 (2)

Fatma Taşkin Ekici, Sultan Pekmezci. (2015). Using ICT-Supported Narratives in Teaching Science and their Effects on Middle School Students. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(4). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1077655

q2 · i2 · causal · r1

Mann-Whitney U comparison of pre-test attitudes between the same groups; mean ranks were 19.19 (control) versus 25.52 (experimental), with the article reporting the effect size "abs(r) = .25", i.e. r = .25, and no significant difference, establishing baseline equivalence on this measure.

"the two distributions of ratings were not found to differ significantly, z = -1.635, p > .05, abs(r) = .25"

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.