Claims

Origami instruction shows no statistically significant posttest advantage over conventional instruction in spatial visualization, despite descriptive gains

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
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.

q3 i? Univariate ANOVA found no statistically significant difference in posttest spatial visualization mean scores between the origami and conventional groups. → Akayuure et al. 2016

Evidence

Akayuure et al. 2016

Peter Akayuure, S. K. Asiedu-Addo, Victor Alebna. (2016). Investigating the Effect of Origami Instruction on Preservice Teachers’ Spatial Ability and Geometric Knowledge for Teaching. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.78424

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Univariate ANOVA on spatial visualization (punched holes test) posttest scores in the quasi-experiment (experimental n = 52, control n = 42). Descriptive posttest means were 52.29 versus 47.13 on an 80-point max, but the difference was not statistically significant; equivalence was not tested.

"The analysis showed no statistical significant difference in posttest mean score between the experimental and control groups regarding spatial visualization."

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.