Claims

Experimental class significantly outperformed control class in ability to write physics teaching materials on both topics

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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? Kruskal-Wallis tests rejected the null hypothesis for writing ability on waves and optics (Hcal = 22.77) and electromagnetism (Hcal = 19.74), both exceeding Hcrit = 7.88 at α = 0.005. → Sinaga 2015

Evidence

Sinaga 2015

Sinaga, P., Suhandi, A., & Liliasari. (2015). The Effectiveness of Scaffolding Design in Training Writing Skills Physics Teaching Materials. International Journal of Instruction, 8(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1085295

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis hypothesis test comparing experimental (scaffolding) and control (expository approach) classes on writing teaching materials ability. Hcal = 22.77 exceeded Hcrit = 7.88 at α = 0.005, df = 1, so H0 was rejected. No effect size is attached to this test statistic.

"The ability to write physics teaching materials on the topic of waves and optics, it was shown that Hcal = 22.77."

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.