The intervention group was reported to explain 15% of the variation in pupils' numeracy performance, but the table prints that effect size on the cognitive-style row¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? With sex and pre-test score controlled, the text says the intervention group accounted for 15% of the variation in performance, but Table 2 prints that partial eta square (0.15) on the CGEFT (cognitive-style) row (F = 4.00, p = 0.0145) and has no group row. → Gbenga-Akanmu & Jegede 2019

Evidence¶

Gbenga-Akanmu & Jegede 2019¶

Gbenga-Akanmu, T. O., & Jegede, P. O. (2019). Influence of Meta-cognitive Training and Cognitive Styles on Numeracy Achievement of Nigerian Pupils’ in Computer-mediated Classrooms. World Journal of Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v9n1p221

q2 · i? · causal · r1

ANCOVA (Table 2) of the quasi-experiment, with sex and pre-test score as covariates. The text states the intervention group "expl ained 15% of the variation in performance", but Table 2 has no group row: the partial eta square of 0.15 is printed on the "(CGEFT)" row, the group embedded figure test that measures cognitive style (F = 4.00, p = 0.0145). So no effect size is printed for the intervention on performance. A partial eta square of 0.15 is printed for the Group row of Table 3 (retention, with sex, pre-test and post-test as covariates), but that row's F = 2.16 is reported with p = 0.0269.

"The partial eta square for the intervention group is 0.15. This showed that intervention group expl ained 15% of the variation in performance."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Number Sense — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Field-dependent and field-independent pupils differed significantly in numeracy performance, with cognitive style accounting for 12% of variation — related
• The PAL pilot found no differences in literacy or numeracy attainment between intervention and control pupils at post-test — reports the opposite
• MANOVA with repeated measures showed significant main effects of test-time and a significant group-learning-by-test-time interaction on mathematics achievement — related
• Meta-cognitive training has a significant effect on primary school pupils' performance of learned numeracy concepts in computer-mediated classrooms — related
• Sex showed no significant effect on retention of learned numeracy concepts after meta-cognitive training in computer-mediated classrooms (no interaction was tested) — related