Claims

Component-level retention shows the same pattern: LTM superior except knowledge, where the traditional method is superior

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

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Retention component scores differed significantly between methods for knowledge (t = -4.272), comprehension (t = 11.190), application (t = 18.337) and skills (t = 21.590), all 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 · r2

Independent sample t-tests on the four retention components (Table 9), n = 60 per group. Means show Traditional higher on knowledge (1.0308 vs .8712) and Laboratory higher on comprehension (1.2492 vs .5306), application (1.0875 vs .3403) and skills (4.5333 vs .6833). No effect sizes printed.

"Components of knowledge the t-value of -4.272 Components of comprehension t-value of 11.190, Components of Application the t-value of 18.337 and Components of Skills the t-value of 21.590 were found to be statistically significant as the p value of .000 was smaller than the cut-off .05"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.