School location (urban vs rural) shows no significant difference in post-test chemistry achievement¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The ANCOVA location main effect on post-test achievement was not significant, so urban and rural subjects did not differ significantly in achievement. → Jacobson Barineka Nbina & Obomanu 2011

Evidence¶

Jacobson Barineka Nbina & Obomanu 2011¶

Jacobson Barineka Nbina & Obomanu, B. Joseph. (2011). Assessment of the Effects of Problem Solving Instructional Strategies On Students' Achievement and Retention in Chemistry With Respect to Location in Rivers State. World Journal of Education, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v1n2p74

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Two-way ANCOVA of achievement in CAT with pretest as covariate, testing 428 SS II students taught by PF, PM and PC. The location source in Table 2 is marked NS (F = 0.017); "The null hypothesis was therefore accepted as stated". Equivalence was not tested beyond this non-significant result.

"Results in Table 2 showed that there was no significant difference in the post-test mean scores of urban and rural subjects in the Chemistry achievement tests. The null hypothesis was therefore accepted as stated."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• School location shows no significant difference in chemistry retention scores — related
• The strategy-by-location interaction is not significant for retention, indicating similar retention across strategies in both locations — related
• Urban-school students significantly outperformed rural-school students in reading comprehension between experimental and control groups — reports the opposite