Claims

The effect of cooperative learning on mathematics achievement differs significantly by learning domain, with geometry showing the largest effect

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · 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.

q3 i? Between-group homogeneity testing shows a statistically significant difference in effect sizes across learning domains (QB=6,452, p=0,040), and cooperative learning is mostly effective in geometry. → Turgut 2018

Evidence

Turgut 2018

Turgut, S., & Gülşen Turgut, İ. (2018). The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Mathematics Achievement in Turkey: A Meta-Analysis Study. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 663-680. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11345a

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Moderator analysis reported in Table 6 across mathematics (37 effect sizes, ES=0,823), geometry (11, ES=1,101) and combined mathematics and geometry (11, ES=0,643). The test exceeded the critical value of 5,991 for 2 degrees of freedom; the authors state geometry's effect size has a large level of effect per Cohen et al. (2007).

"It is seen that Q value is larger than the critical value that corresponds to 2 degree of freedom in chi-square table (QB=6,452, p=0,040). Regarding this, there is a statistically significant difference between groups in terms of learning domain."

Discussion

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.