Claims

Integrated STEM education and constructivist teaching did not differ significantly on reflective thinking skills towards problem solving at post-test, with the control group scoring higher

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · 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? On the RTSSPS post-test the constructivist control group averaged 52.86 versus 51.09 for the integrated STEM group, with no significant difference (p > 0.05). → Sarican 2018

Evidence

Sarican 2018

Sarican, G., Akgunduz, D. (2018). The impact of integrated STEM education on academic achievement, reflective thinking skills towards problem solving and permanence in learning in science education. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 13(1), 94-113. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1196043

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Independent t-test on RTSSPS post-test scores in the same 44-student quasi-experiment: t = 0.627, p = 0.534. The article reports "no significant difference between the two groups when compared with RTSSPS post-test data (p > 0.05)" and notes both groups' scores decreased after the application.

"When Table 7 was examined, the control group’s RTSSPS post -test average is 52.86 and standard deviation is 8.055; the experimental group’s RTSSPS post -test average is 51.09 and the standard deviation is 10.542."

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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