Claims

Playing MATHERIAL did not affect motivation to learn math

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Design limits · Es-Sajjade 2020: the intervention came bundled with another change; groups were assigned but students were analysed as independent (read from the study by two models, 2026-10-28)

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? ANOVA revealed no effect of the intervention on motivation to learn math (F(1, 226) = 0.006, p > 0.93). → Es-Sajjade 2020

Evidence

Es-Sajjade 2020

Es-Sajjade, A., & Paas, F. (2020). Educational theories and computer game design: lessons from an experiment in elementary mathematics education. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09799-w

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Motivation measured with a 17-item four-point Likert scale adapted from the Dutch 'Attitude towards Mathematics' scale (Cronbach's alpha of 0.73); no significant effect found.

"With regard to motivation to learn math, an ANOVA revealed no effect of the intervention (F(1, 226) = 0.006, p > 0.93 (experimental condition, M = 38.75, SD = 8.18, control condition, M = 38.65, SD = 9.76)), and the effect size was very small (partial eta squared = 0.0001)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id matherial-no-motivation-effect
title Playing MATHERIAL did not affect motivation to learn math
description Playing MATHERIAL did not affect motivation to learn math
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2020
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-28
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — es-sajjade-2020

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