Claims

PISA content domain does not significantly moderate the effect of RME on mathematical literacy

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · 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? The heterogeneity test across PISA content domains was non-significant (Q = 2.268, p = 0.519), though the uncertainty domain showed the largest descriptive effect (g = 1.630). → Amelia Defrianti Putri 2024

Evidence

Amelia Defrianti Putri 2024

Amelia Defrianti Putri, Dadang Juandi, Turmudi. (2024). Realistic mathematics education and mathematical literacy: a meta-analysis conducted on studies in Indonesia. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), Vol. 18, No. 4. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v18i4.21650

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Moderator analysis across PISA content domains: change and relationship (2 studies, g = 1.194), space and shape (10, g = 0.883), quantity (2, g = 0.977), uncertainty (3, g = 1.630). The printed Q was 2.268 with p = 0.519, indicating no statistically significant difference.

"the Q value derived from the heterogeneity test was 2.268, with a corresponding p-value of 0.519, beyond the significance level of 0.05. This implies that there is no statistically significant difference in the effect size of the RME strategy on students' mathematical literacy ability, specifically in the content domain of the PISA assessment."

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.