Innovative learning is more effective than conventional learning for junior high school students' mathematical problem-solving ability (summary effect 0.95, 95% CI 0.71–1.19)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2021 · 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? Across 31 grouped studies, the random-effects summary effect of innovative versus conventional learning on mathematics problem-solving ability was 0.95 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.71 to 1.19, excluding zero. → Ridwan 2021
q3 i? Hypothesis testing via the summary effect mean and its p-value (z = 8.759, p reported as 0) indicated a difference in effectiveness between the experimental (innovative) and control (conventional) groups. → Ridwan 2021
Evidence¶
Ridwan 2021¶
Ridwan, M. R., Retnawati, H., Hadi, S., & Jailani (2021). The effectiveness of innovative learning on mathematical problem-solving ability: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 7(3), 910-932. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.2287
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Meta-analysis of 31 experimental and control group comparisons of junior high school mathematics problem-solving ability. The random-effects summary effect was 0.95 with a 95% CI of "0.71 and = 1.19", an interval that "does not contain zero"; the authors report z = 8.759 with a two-tailed p-value reported as 0.
"The results of the calculation of the average value of the summary effect using the random effects model are obtained 0.95 with values of = 0.71 and = 1.19 at the 95% confidence interval, which is at the lower and upper limit of the summary effect interval with and does not contain zero."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Trim-and-fill analysis shows no publication bias in the meta-analysis of innovative learning effects on mathematical problem-solving ability — related
- Study effect sizes are heterogeneous (I² reported as 83.197%), so a random-effects model is used for the summary effect — related
- Individual study effect sizes span moderate to very high: eight studies medium, ten high, and thirteen very high by Cohen-criteria classification — related
- Mathematics test practice does not improve domain-general problem-solving ability — related
- Guidance during inquiry learning improves performance success during the inquiry (d = 0.71), with type of guidance moderating this effect — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
innovative-learning-more-effective-problem-solving-meta-analysis |
title |
Innovative learning is more effective than conventional learning for junior high school students' mathematical problem-solving ability (summary effect 0.95, 95% CI 0.71–1.19) |
description |
Innovative learning is more effective than conventional learning for junior high school students' mathematical problem-solving ability (summary effect 0.95, 95% CI 0.71–1.19) |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2021 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-02 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — ridwan-2021 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.