No significant change in mathematics attitudes for either group except a significant decline in enjoyment for the control group¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr1·q2·i1small
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Design limits · Fabian 2018: the intervention came bundled with another change (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? No significant difference in MAI gain scores between groups on any subscale. → Fabian 2018
q2 i1 Control group showed a significant decline in enjoyment of mathematics, t(24) = -2.680, p = 0.013, ES = -0.55. → Fabian 2018 (2)
Evidence¶
Fabian 2018¶
Fabian, K., Topping, K. J., & Barron, I. G. (2018). Using mobile technologies for mathematics: effects on student attitudes and achievement. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9580-3
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Independent t-tests on gain scores of the maths attitude inventory in the quasi-experimental study "resulted in no significant difference in all subscales of the MAI"; equivalence was not tested.
"An independent t-test of the MAI gains between the experimental and control group resulted in no significant difference in all subscales of the MAI"
Fabian 2018 (2)¶
Fabian, K., Topping, K. J., & Barron, I. G. (2018). Using mobile technologies for mathematics: effects on student attitudes and achievement. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9580-3
q2 · i1 · causal · r1
Within the control group, paired t-tests across the same quasi-experimental study showed a significant decline only in enjoyment, t(24) = -2.680, p = 0.013, ES = -0.55, a medium effect.
"The paired sample t-test for pre-test and post-test scores also showed no significant difference in all subscales except for enjoyment, where there was a significant decrease in score for control group, t(24) = -2.680, p = 0.013, ES = -0.55."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Interest — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- Cognitive apprenticeship students became more anxious about mathematics but reported gains in self-confidence, rapport, and enjoyment — related
- Cignition group tutoring produced slightly higher math confidence and enjoyment than control in an RCT — related
- Experimental-group students' attitudes to mathematics became significantly more positive after PA-driven instruction — reports the opposite
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-28 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.