Claims

Teaching Art lessons with instructional resources made lessons more practical and interactive and improved pupils' understanding and performance compared with lessons taught without resources

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
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.

q2 i? Teachers reported that pupils understood lessons taught with the developed resources better and answered questions and practical work more successfully than in lessons taught without resources. → Yeboah et al. 2016

Evidence

Yeboah et al. 2016

Rita Yeboah, Eric Appau Asante, Nana Afia Opoku-Asare. (2016). Teaching Interactive Art Lessons with Recycled Waste Materials as Instructional Resources. Journal of Education and Practice, Vol.7, No.14. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1102965

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Interview feedback from the 14 practising Art teachers who tested the resources in the quasi-experimental comparison of lessons taught with and without resources. The teachers acknowledged that learners "understood what they were taught better with the use of the sample instructional res ources". No effect size is printed.

"Over all the teachers acknowledged that the student s and the pupils understood what they were taught better with the use of the sample instructional res ources because during those lessons, the learners w ere able to answer verbal questions very well than in previous lessons they taught without the use of the resource s."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-03
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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