There is no interaction between learning approach (SSML vs CL) and school level (high vs middle) on enhancement of MPSA¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Two-way ANOVA shows no significant interaction between learning approach and school level (F = 0.021, Sig. 0.886), while the learning approach main effect is significant (F = 14.694, Sig. 0.000). → Murni 2013

Evidence¶

Murni 2013¶

Murni, A., Sabandar, J., Kusumah, Y. S., & Kartasamita, B. G. (2013). The Enhancement of Junior High School Students' Abilities in Mathematical Problem Solving Using Soft Skill-Based Metacognitive Learning. IndoMS-JME, Volume 4, No. 2, July 2013, pp. 194-203. https://jurnal.unila.ac.id/index.php/jme

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Two-way ANOVA on enhancement of MPSA (Table 2): interaction F = 0.021, Sig. 0.886 (H0 accepted); learning approach F = 14.694, Sig. 0.000 (H0 rejected); school level F = 1.122, Sig. 0.291.

"In Table 2 can be seen that there is no interaction between the school level learning approach to enhancement MPSA students. The difference is caused by an enhancement MPSA students learning different approaches used (SSML and CL)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• There is no interaction between learning approach (SSML vs CL) and mathematical prior knowledge (upper, middle, low) on enhancement of MPSA — related
• Overall, students receiving soft skill-based metacognitive learning show significantly higher enhancement of mathematical problem solving ability than students receiving conventional learning — related
• The SSML advantage in MPSA enhancement is significant for middle-MPK students but not for upper- and low-MPK students — related