Claims

Scientific discipline does not significantly moderate PBL’s effect on secondary science achievement

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2021 · 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? Moderator analysis across disciplines shows no significant heterogeneity (p = .554); Biology (1.262), Chemistry (1.022), and Physics (.768) obtained large effect sizes, Environmental Science (.605) medium, and Science and Technology (.304) small. → Funa 2021

Evidence

Funa 2021

Funa, A. A., & Prudente, M. S. (2021). Effectiveness of problem-based learning on secondary students’ achievement in science: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Instruction, 14(4), 69-84. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.1445a

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r1

Moderator analysis of the 11 pooled studies by scientific discipline. The article reports large effect sizes for Biology (1.262), Chemistry (1.022), and Physics (.768), a medium effect for Environmental Science (.605), a small effect for Science and Technology (.304), and an overall discipline ES of .855 with between-group p = .554.

"The heterogeneity between scientific fields (p > .05) showed no significant effects signifying that PBL as applied to different scientific disciplines may share common effect sizes."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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