LTM-taught students retain chemistry learning significantly better than traditionally taught students one month later¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? One month after instruction, the LTM group scored significantly higher on overall retention of chemistry achievement than the traditional group (t = 18.019, p = .000). → Badeleh 2011

Evidence¶

Badeleh 2011¶

Alireza Badeleh. (2011). The Effect of Laboratory Training Model of Teaching and Traditional Method on Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Skills-Components of Achievement, Total Achievement and Retention Level in Chemistry. i-manager's Journal of School Educational Technology, Vol. 7, No. 1. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1102743

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Delayed post-test administered after a one-month gap to both groups; independent sample t-test (Table 8) prints means of 56.2958 (Laboratory) vs 27.2583 (Traditional), n = 60 per group. No effect size printed.

"the t-value of 18.019 was found to be statistically significant as the p value of .000 was smaller than the cut-off .05. This showed that there was significant difference between students taught by LTM, and traditional methods with respect to post scores in retention of achievement in chemistry"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students taught with the reform-based instructional method retained significantly more mathematics knowledge than those taught with the traditional method — a broader claim this one bears on
• GSP-taught students retained significantly more geometry learning one month after instruction than traditionally taught students — related
• Component-level retention shows the same pattern: LTM superior except knowledge, where the traditional method is superior — related
• LTM-taught students achieve significantly higher overall chemistry achievement than traditionally taught students — related