Studies report experiment classes using JAS achieve higher average study results than control classes¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · checked against its sources 2026-10-31 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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? A review of 106 JAS research reports, using qualitative descriptive, quasi-experimental, classroom action (PTK) and R&D designs, concludes that many of them found experiment classes using JAS had higher average scores than control classes; it gives no count or pooled result for the controlled comparisons. → S. Ngabekti 2017
Evidence¶
S. Ngabekti 2017¶
S. Ngabekti, S. Ridlo, E. Peniati, R. Martanto. (2017). META-ANALYSIS OF JELAJAH ALAM SEKITAR (JAS) APPROACH IMPLEMENTATION IN LEARNING PROCESS. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v6i1.8490
q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r1
The review's Conclusion, summarising 106 research reports of several designs (qualitative descriptive, quasi-experimental, PTK and R&D); it does not isolate or quantify the studies that compared experiment and control classes. Individual reviewed studies (e.g., Wahyuni 2012: 100% > 57%; Safarini 2014: 90% vs 70%) are narrated as showing experiment-class advantages.
"Many types of research proved JAS approach succeeded in increasing the study result, can differentiate the resulting study between experiment class and control class where the experiment class has a higher average score."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- A biology learning chatbot system had a positive impact on grade 7 students' biology learning achievement in a quasi-experiment — related
- Post-test mean learning outcomes were 81.81 in the ChatGPT class versus 70.45 in the conventional class — related
- JAS most frequently optimizes study results (52.83%) and student activity (40.57%) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Cooperative learning with Think-Pair-Share and RoundTable was followed by larger critical thinking gains than traditional teaching in 4th graders, in a two-class quasi-experiment — related
- Using ChatGPT during technology learning produces significantly higher post-test learning outcomes than conventional learning in a quasi-experiment of two classes of 31 students — related
- Teacher feedback produced larger first-task score gains that dropped 32.8% by the second task, while AI-assisted peer feedback gains remained stable (a learning-curve effect) — related
- In one quasi-experiment in EFL writing classes, students given AI-peer integrated feedback reported higher posttest cognitive engagement than students given conventional peer feedback — related
- In a 16-week quasi-experiment, A-Level STEM students receiving high-frequency automated marking scored 16.8 percentage points higher on a blind-graded final mock exam than control students with human marking — related
- A meta-analysis of 103 JAS studies reports the approach's effectiveness in 97% of researches — related
- Experimental-class students scored higher on average (78 vs 70) on the science process skills test — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.