Claims

Pupils taught with the IWB and XERTE resource scored no better on post-tests than pupils taught traditionally

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · 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? There were no significant differences between post-test marks of pupils taught via IWB/ER and traditional methods. → Bahadur 2013

Evidence

Bahadur 2013

Bahadur, G. K. & Oogarah, D. (2013). Interactive whiteboard for primary schools in Mauritius: An effective tool or just another trend? IJEDICT, 9(1), 19-35. http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu//viewarticle.php?id=1559

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Quasi-experiment in three Standard 5 classes from two schools (40 test pupils), with matched-ability groups taught the Solar System via IWB/ER or traditionally, pre- and post-tested. The article reports means of "6.6 as compared to 6.3" correct and "3.9 ... 4.2" wrong, with no significant T-test difference.

"The mean performance of students who answered correctly using the IWB was 6.6 as compared to 6.3 for those who did not use the IWB. As those who answered the questions wrong, the means performance was 3.9 for those who used IWB as compared to 4.2 to those who did not use the IWB. The T- test revealed that there are no significant differences between the two marks obtained by the students."

Discussion

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.