LTM outperforms the traditional method on comprehension, application and skills achievement, but the traditional method is superior on the knowledge component¶

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? Component-level post scores differed significantly between LTM and traditional groups for knowledge (t = -4.272), comprehension (t = 12.205), application (t = 22.402) and skills (t = 21.590), with LTM higher on all but knowledge. → 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

Independent sample t-tests on the four achievement components (Table 7), n = 60 per group. Means show Traditional higher on knowledge (1.2974 vs 1.1436) and Laboratory higher on comprehension (1.6606 vs .8486), application (1.5194 vs .4396) and skills (4.9000 vs 1.1889). No effect sizes printed.

"Components of knowledge the t-value of -4.272, Components of comprehension the t-value of 12.205, Components of Application the t-value of 22.402and Components of Skills the t-value of 21.590 were found to be statistically significant as the p-value of .000 were smaller than the cut-off .05"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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