Claims

Students learning with the software showed higher learning motivation at post-test than students taught by traditional method

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · 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? Post-test motivation was significantly higher for the experimental group (mean 3.39) than the control group (mean 3.06), t = 6.44, Sig 0.01. → Mohd. Jasmy Abd Rahman 2014

Evidence

Mohd. Jasmy Abd Rahman 2014

Mohd. Jasmy Abd Rahman, Mohd. Arif. Hj. Ismail & Muhammad Nasir. (2014). Development and Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Physics Instruction. International Education Studies, 7(13). https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n13p14

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Quasi-experiment motivation measure: pre-test means nearly equal (3.05 vs 3.03, t = 1.60, Sig 0.12); post-test experimental mean 3.39 versus control 3.06, t = 6.44, Sig 0.01, marked significant at p < 0.05.

"Table 8. Result of pre-test and post-test for experimental and control group Test Group N Min Standard Deviation t-value Sig Pre Experimental 38 3.05 0.22 1.60 0.12 Control 36 3.03 0.17 Post Experimental 38 3.39 0.49 6.44 0.01* Control 36 3.06 0.23"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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