Claims

Jigsaw's advantage over conventional instruction held for both male and female students, with no significant main effect of treatment on gender

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · 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 was no significant main effect of treatment on students' gender; mean post scores differed little between females and males in either the jigsaw group (25.33 vs 24.67) or the control group (18.80 vs 19.48). → Ajitoni Sunday Olukayode & Salako 2014

Evidence

Ajitoni Sunday Olukayode & Salako 2014

Ajitoni Sunday Olukayode & Salako, Ekima Tina. (2014). Effect of Jigsaw Technique and Gender on Students' Attitude to Ethnic Integration and Sustainable Development in Nigeria. World Journal of Education, 4(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/wje.v4n3p46

q2 · i? · causal · r1

ANCOVA treatment*gender analysis in the same quasi-experiment (Table 3) failed to reject H02; the article reports descriptive means only, with no effect size printed, so impact is null.

"Based on table 3, there is no significant main effect of treatment on students' gender. There is not much observed difference between the mean score of the female and male students in the experimental group (24.67 and 25.33)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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