Claims

Achievement effects of modelling vary by content domain, with probability and statistics highest but inflated by an outlier and calculus lowest

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r1 · q3 · i3 large
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 i3 Probability and statistics generated the highest subgroup effect (ES = 3.11, SE = 1.17), but removing the Eysink et al. outlier of 4.49 reduced it to ES = 0.21 (SE = 0.17); calculus produced the lowest effect (ES = 0.38, SE = 0.09). → Andrzej Sokolowski 2015

Evidence

Andrzej Sokolowski 2015

Andrzej Sokolowski. (2015). The Effects of Mathematical Modelling on Students’ Achievement-Meta-Analysis of Research. The IAFOR Journal of Education, Volume III - Issue I - Winter 2015. https://journals.iafor.org/index.php/joe

q3 · i3 · quant-synthesis · r1

Content-domain moderator analysis across algebra, calculus, probability and statistics, and geometry subgroups. The article reports "ES = 3.11, SE = 1.17" for probability and statistics, an outlier of 4.49, and ES = 0.21 with the outlier removed; calculus was the lowest at ES = 0.38 (SE = 0.09).

"According to computations, probability and statistics, generated the highest effect size (ES = 3.11, SE = 1.17). The magnitude of this effect size was inevitably affected by an outlier of 4.49 (Eysink et al., 2009). If this study were re moved, the effect size would have been ES = 0.21, with SE = 0.17."

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.