School location shows no significant difference in chemistry retention scores¶

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 retention was not significant, so urban and rural subjects retained similarly. → 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 Chemistry Retention Test performance with pretest as covariate. The location source in Table 4 is marked NS (F = 0.258) and "the null hypothesis case was accepted as stated". Equivalence was not tested beyond the non-significant result.

"Results in Table 4 shows that there was no significant difference in the post-test mean scores of urban and rural subjects in the retention tests in CAT with respect to location. Therefore, the null hypothesis case was accepted as stated."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• School location (urban vs rural) shows no significant difference in post-test chemistry achievement — related
• The strategy-by-location interaction is not significant for retention, indicating similar retention across strategies in both locations — related
• Mean retention scores were highest for PF, followed by PM and least for PC, in both urban and rural locations — related