Before the experiment, the control and experimental groups differed in previous-year fine art marks but not in previous-year mathematics marks¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2018: local conditions change quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? T-tests showed statistically important differences between groups in previous-year fine art marks (t = -2.129, p = 0.001) but no statistically important difference in previous-year mathematics marks (p = 0.511). → Brezovnik 2015

Evidence¶

Brezovnik 2015¶

Brezovnik, A. (2015). The Benefits of Fine Art Integration into Mathematics in Primary School. c e p s Journal, 5(3). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1128967

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Pre-experiment comparison of the two groups (105 each) using final marks from the prior academic year. The experimental group had higher fine art marks; mathematics marks were statistically comparable, supporting group equivalence on the outcome domain.

"T-test for independent Samples shows that there were statistically important differences between the control group and the experimental group in the previous year’s fine art marks (F = -2,129, p = 0.001). Comparing the control group and the experimental group, the values of the previous year’s mathematics marks were not statistically important."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students successful in fine art (previous-year mark of 5) who received art-integrated mathematics instruction outperformed equally successful fine art students taught traditionally on all four tests — related
• The experimental and control groups did not differ significantly on the pre test — related
• Experimental and control groups were statistically equivalent in mathematics self-efficacy perceptions before the intervention — related