The three teaching methods showed no significant post-test differences on the other five SMTML motivation dimensions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Self-efficacy, active learning strategies, value of mathematics learning, performance goal, and learning environment stimulation showed no significant between-group post-test differences. → Akçakın 2018

Evidence¶

Akçakın 2018¶

Akçakın, V. (2018). Teaching Mathematical Functions Using Geometric Functions Approach and Its Effect on Ninth Grade Students’ Motivation. International Journal of Instruction, 11(1), 17-32. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.1112a

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Kruskal-Wallis H tests on post-test scores of the remaining five SMTML dimensions across the three groups (29 students each); all p-values exceeded .05 (e.g., self-efficacy H=4.748, p=.093).

"According to the results in Table 3, no statistically significant differences were found between the scores of SMTML questionnaire dimensions for the experimental group I, experimental group II and control groups except for the achievement goal dimension post-test scores."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Both experimental groups significantly improved in active learning strategies, value of mathematics learning, and learning environment stimulation, while the control group did not — related
• Using the geometric functions approach with dynamic mathematics software significantly raises ninth-graders' achievement goal motivation toward mathematics relative to software-only and traditional teaching — related
• Self-efficacy and performance goal motivation did not change significantly in any of the three groups — related