Claims

The effect of multiple intelligence practices does not differ significantly by course type, though Social Sciences shows the highest and Physics-Chemistry the lowest value

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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.

q3 i? The highest effect size (1,748) was for Social Sciences and the lowest (0,893) for Physics-Chemistry, with no significant difference by course type (QB=11,354; p=0,124). → Eyüp Yurt & Seyat Polat 2015

Evidence

Eyüp Yurt & Seyat Polat 2015

Eyüp Yurt & Seyat Polat. (2015). The Effectiveness of Multiple Intelligence Applications on Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Social Studies Education Research 6(1), 84-122. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1105368

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Sub-group moderator analysis across courses grouped as Biology, Religious Education, Language Education, Science, Physics-Chemistry, Fine Arts, Math and Social Sciences. The homogeneity test was non-significant despite the descriptive spread.

"the highest effect size value (1,748) was calculated for Social Sciences and the lowest effect size value (0,893) was calculated for Physics -Chemistry. The result of the homogeneity test showed that there was not a significant difference between the effect size values of studies according to course type (QB=11,354; p=0,124)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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