PBLCCS shows no significant advantage over EDI for mathematical curiosity attitude gains¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · 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? N_Gain means for MCA were low in both classes (0.09 experiment, 0.03 control). → Zetriuslita 2017
Evidence¶
Zetriuslita 2017¶
Zetriuslita, Wahyudin & Jarnawi. (2017). Mathematical Critical Thinking and Curiosity Attitude in Problem Based Learning and Cognitive Conflict Strategy: A Study in Number Theory course. International Education Studies, 10(7). https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n7p65
q2 · i? · causal · r2
Descriptive gain analysis of curiosity questionnaire data: experiment class N_Gain mean 0.09 (Low), control class 0.03 (Low), per Table 5. Both categories are Low; no effect size is printed.
"Table 5 shows that both experimental and control classes have different gain-average (N-Gain Mean) of Mathematical Curiosity Attitude (MCA)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- PBLCCS yields greater gains in mathematical critical thinking skill than Explicit Direct Instruction in a Number Theory course — related
- PBLCCS produces better N_Gain than EDI on each critical thinking indicator — related
- EDI qualitatively outperformed DI on MMA normalized gain, though both groups' gains were in the low category — related
- Students taught with structured inquiry report more favourable attitudes and perceptions than conventionally taught students — 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.