Claims

No significant difference in achievement between male and female students taught basic science with concept mapping

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · 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.

q2 i? Among concept-mapping students, the difference in mean achievement between male (45.30) and female (48.40) students was not statistically significant (F-calculated .897 vs critical 3.89). → Ukpai Patricia Ogonnaya 2016

Evidence

Ukpai Patricia Ogonnaya 2016

Ukpai Patricia Ogonnaya, Gabriel Okafor, Okechukwu S. Abonyi, J.O Ugama. (2016). Effects of Concept Mapping Instruction Approach on Students’ Achievement in Basic Science. Journal of Education and Practice, Vol.7, No.8. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1095361

q2 · i? · causal · r2

ANCOVA on treatment-group scores only (30 males, 40 females) tested the gender hypothesis. Since "F-calculat ed is .897" was less than the critical value, the null hypothesis was upheld; the descriptive means slightly favoured females but no effect size was printed.

"For hypothesis 2, table 8 indicates that F-calculat ed is .897 while the critical value is 3.89 at an a lpha level of 0.05."

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.