Number relationships instruction shows no differential benefit by gender¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Neither the main effect of gender nor the Treatment × Gender interaction on posttest scores was statistically significant. → Jung 2013

Evidence¶

Jung 2013¶

Jung, M., Hartman, P., Smith, T., & Wallace, S. (2013). The Effectiveness of Teaching Number Relationships in Preschool. International Journal of Instruction, 6(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1085361

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Linear model (Model 5) on the same 73-child sample testing gender as a moderator of the intervention effect, with pretest and age as covariates. No effect sizes were printed for these null results.

"a linear model (Model 5 in Table 5) showed no statistically significant main effect for gender ( F(1, 67) = 0.10, p = .76) and no significant Treatment × Gender interaction effect (F(1, 67) = 0.28, p = .60)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Gender — moderator: an instructional effect differs by group

Related Claims¶

• The effect of number relationships instruction on posttest scores does not differ by child age — related
• Neither age nor gender significantly moderated DRC treatment effects, though subgroup samples were small — related
• Model gender and observer gender do not affect learning outcomes or near transfer from video modeling examples — related
• Number relationships instruction shows no differential benefit by preschool registration group (EC, COMM, or PFA) — related
• Literacy achievement differences showed no statistically significant effect of gender or of the method-by-gender interaction — related