The two groups did not differ significantly in prior agricultural science knowledge before the treatment¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·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? The pre-test t-test found no significant difference (P>0.05) between the conventional and CBMP groups' prior knowledge, with t-calculated 1.84 below the tabulated 1.99. → Abiola Lateef Olori and Adekunle Olusegun Igbosanu 2016
Evidence¶
Abiola Lateef Olori and Adekunle Olusegun Igbosanu 2016¶
Abiola Lateef Olori and Adekunle Olusegun Igbosanu. (2016). Effect of Computer- Based Multimedia Presentation on Senior Secondary Students’ Achievement in Agricultural Science. Journal of Education and Practice, Vol.7, No.31. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1122547
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Pre-test comparison of the two intact classes (N=40 each) on the AAT before treatment. Conventional mean 9.80 (SD 3.46), CBMP mean 8.63 (SD 2.06); t-cal 1.84 was less than t-tabulated 1.99, so "the null hypothesis is accepted". Equivalence was not tested beyond this t-test.
"Table 1 above shows that there is no significant di fference (P>0.05) in the previous knowledge of the two groups of the senior secondary school students in agricultural science prior to the application of the two teaching methods."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Students taught with computer-based multimedia presentation significantly outperformed students taught by the conventional method on the post-test — related
- Computer-based multimedia presentation significantly improved SS II students' agricultural science achievement from pre-test to post-test — related
- Experimental and control groups did not differ significantly on pre-test NOS or SK scores — related
- Experimental and control groups were equivalent in vocabulary before the glossing treatment — related
- The TIP and educational games groups were equivalent in prior literacy knowledge at pre-test — related
- Before treatment, the experimental and control groups showed no significant difference in overall language proficiency — related
- No significant pre-test difference existed between the two groups' entry listening knowledge — related
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.