Treatment and gender do not interact significantly in their effect on mathematics achievement¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The interaction effect of treatment and gender on students' achievement in mathematics was not significant, so the CRAIS advantage did not differ by gender. → Sabainah Oyebola Akinoso 2015

Evidence¶

Sabainah Oyebola Akinoso 2015¶

Sabainah Oyebola Akinoso. (2015). Teaching Mathematics in a Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous (VUCA) World: The Use of Concrete – Representational – Abstract Instructional Strategy. JISTE Vol. 19, No. 1, 2015. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1177074

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Omnibus ANCOVA interaction test in the quasi-experiment: Table 5 shows CRAIS means of 20.92 (male) and 21.72 (female) versus control means of 18.55 and 19.60, with the interaction reported as "not significant"; no effect size is printed.

"From Tables 2 and 5 , the interaction effect of treatment and gender on students’ achievement in mathematics is not significant (F (1, 190) =.01; p < .05). Therefore, hypothesis 3 is rejected."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Senior secondary students taught with CRAIS achieved significantly higher mathematics posttest scores than students taught with modified conventional teaching strategy — related
• No significant differential treatment effects by prior (Grade 4) achievement level or gender; the Grade 4 Level 3 subgroup difference was marginal (p = .053) — related
• The simulation advantage and interest differences hold across subgroups of age, gender, school form, and grade — related