Experimental group shows significant pre-to-post achievement gains under mutual learning¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The experimental group's mean achievement rose significantly from pre-test to Post Test I (t = 7.87). → Arulselvi 2013 q2 i? The experimental group's mean achievement rose significantly from pre-test to Post Test II (t = 8.83). → Arulselvi 2013 (2) q2 i? No significant difference between Post Test I and Post Test II of the experimental group (t = 0.38), indicating sustained performance across units. → Arulselvi 2013 (3)

Evidence¶

Arulselvi 2013¶

Arulselvi, E. (2013). Effectiveness of Mutual Learning Approach in the Academic Achievement of B.Ed Students in Learning Optional II English. i-manager's Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(3), 25-31. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1068866

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Within-group comparison of the 25-member experimental group's pre-test and Post Test I means (45.7 vs. 68 as printed in Table 2). The article attributes the gain to "the effectiveness of Mutual learning approach."

"The experimental group shows significant difference between its pre- test and post-test -1 mean achievement scores ( 't' = 7.87, significant at 0.01 level)."

Arulselvi 2013 (2)¶

Arulselvi, E. (2013). Effectiveness of Mutual Learning Approach in the Academic Achievement of B.Ed Students in Learning Optional II English. i-manager's Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(3), 25-31. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1068866

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Within-group comparison of the experimental group's pre-test and Post Test II scores (45.7 vs. 70 per Table 4). The article states the group "shows better performance in Post test II than in its Pre test performance."

"Achievement scores of the Pre test and Post test II of the experimental group were compared and there exists significant difference between these two scores by the 't' value 8.83 which is significant at 0.01 level of significance."

Arulselvi 2013 (3)¶

Arulselvi, E. (2013). Effectiveness of Mutual Learning Approach in the Academic Achievement of B.Ed Students in Learning Optional II English. i-manager's Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(3), 25-31. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1068866

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Comparison of the experimental group's two post-tests (68 vs. 70 as printed). The article observes performance was "equally better" across both tests, with Post Test II slightly higher descriptively.

"Achievement scores of Post test 1 and Post test II of the experimental group were compared and there exists no significant difference between these two scores by the 't' value 0.38 which is not significant at 0.01 level of significance."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Mutual learning approach outperforms conventional instruction in academic achievement among B.Ed Optional II English students — related
• Experimental-group achievement rose significantly from pre- to post-test while the control group's gain was not significant — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Within the experimental group, achievement rose significantly from pre-test to post-test, while the control group's gain was not statistically significant — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Experimental (ABSI) group's achievement scores increased significantly from pre-test to post-test, while the control group's did not — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• The experimental group's achievement scores rose significantly from pre-test to post-test under the technology-supported program — related
• The experimental group's Mathematics achievement rose significantly from pre-test to post-test after multimedia instruction — related
• Experimental-group students' listening comprehension scores rose significantly from pre-test to post-test after interactive whiteboard instruction with visual materials — related