PBL effect sizes on science achievement do not differ significantly across instructional variations of PBL¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Pure PBL (0.950), technology-supported (1.100), thinking-oriented (0.951), paper-based (1.665), and constructivist-assisted PBL (1.267) all showed high effect sizes with no significant between-group difference (Q = 0.657, p > 0.05). → Ufuk Uluçınar 2022

Evidence¶

Ufuk Uluçınar 2022¶

Ufuk Uluçınar. (2022). The Effect of Problem-Based Learning in Science Education on Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analytical Study. Science Education International, 34(2), 72-85. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v34.i2.1

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Moderator analysis by instructional variation across the 55 datasets (random effects model): 42 pure PBL, 4 technology-supported, 3 thinking-oriented, 2 paper-based, 4 constructivist-assisted. Paper-based PBL's confidence interval was very wide (−2.056 to 5.333).

"The results also show no significant difference between the studies included in the meta-analysis by instructional variations with PBL (Q=0.657; Ρ > 0.05)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Relative to traditional PBL, the AI-IVE-PBL model improves vocational students' design ability and creative ability — related
• AI-supported PBL students obtain significantly higher posttest academic achievement scores in robotics programming than traditional-lecture students when controlling pretest scores — related
• GenAI-assisted education produces significantly higher higher-order thinking abilities than non-GenAI approaches (g = 0.72) — related
• PBL has a high positive effect on science academic achievement compared to traditional instruction (random-effects g = 1.009) — related