Before treatment, the Logo and control groups showed no statistically significant difference in achievement on two-dimensional shapes¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The pre-test mean scores of the experimental and control groups did not differ significantly, t(34) = -1.72, p = .09; no effect size is printed. → Boo Jia Yi 2016

Evidence¶

Boo Jia Yi 2016¶

Boo Jia Yi, Leong Kwan Eu. (2016). Effect of Using Logo on Pupils' Learning in Two-Dimensional Shapes. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(3). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1106476

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Independent samples t-test on pre-test scores in the quasi-experiment: experimental M = 54.28 (SD = 5.42), control M = 57.17 (SD = 4.66). "t(34) = -1.72, p = .09"; no effect size is printed, so equivalence was not tested.

"The independent t-test indicated that the pre-test mean scores were not statistically significant for the control and experimental group, t(34) = -1.72, p = .09. Thus the null hypothesis that the pre -test mean scores were the same cannot be rejected."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The GCR and control groups were equivalent in grammar performance before treatment — related
• Year 4 pupils taught two-dimensional shape properties with Logo outperformed a traditionally taught control group on the post-test — related
• Experimental and control groups were academically equivalent on the organic chemistry achievement test before the treatment — related
• Before treatment, the CBI and FII groups showed no significant difference in mathematics achievement — related
• Experimental and control pupils showed equivalent reading ability at pre-test — related
• The lecture and academic controversy groups showed no significant difference in TUCE pretest scores, indicating equivalent prior economic knowledge — related