The jigsaw and control groups did not differ on material recognition or usage pre-tests¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Pre-test scores showed no meaningful difference between groups for material recognition (t=-0.98; p=.332) or material usage (t=-1.24; p=.223). → Abdullah Aydin 2017

Evidence¶

Abdullah Aydin 2017¶

Abdullah Aydin, Filiz Biyikli. (2017). The Effect of Jigsaw Technique on the Students' Laboratory Material Recognition and Usage Skills in General Physics Laboratory-I Course. Universal Journal of Educational Research 5(7). https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050701

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Pre-test comparison in the same quasi-experiment: recognition means 30.58 (jigsaw) vs 29.03 (control), t=-0.98, p=.332; usage means 20.38 vs 16.77, t=-1.24, p=.223. The article reports "not a meaningful difference between the scores of two groups in the material recognition pre-test."

"as (t= -0.98; p=.332) p>.05, there is not a meaningful difference between the scores of two groups in the material recognition pre-test."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Jigsaw cooperative learning produced higher laboratory material recognition post-test scores than traditional instruction in General Physics Laboratory-I — related
• Jigsaw cooperative learning produced higher laboratory material usage post-test scores than traditional instruction — related
• Weekly laboratory skills ratings of the jigsaw group exceeded the scale midpoint across all experiment stages — related
• No significant difference in achievement between ABSI and control groups on pre-test or post-test scores — related