Claims

First-semester calculus students in an experimental reflective-abstraction section outperformed a matched traditional section on a posttest of limits

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2013 · checked against its sources 2026-11-02 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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 i3 Experimental-section students scored significantly higher than traditional-section students on the limits posttest, with a large effect size. → Cappetta 2013

Evidence

Cappetta 2013

Cappetta, R.W., and Zollman, A. (2013). Agents of Change in Promoting Reflective Abstraction: A Quasi-Experimental Study on Limits in College Calculus. REDIMAT – Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 2(3), 343-357. https://doi.org/10.4471/redimat.2013.35

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Quasi-experimental posttest analysis of all 35 participating students (16 experimental, 19 traditional) scored on a two-point rubric. The experimental mean was 21.18 versus 16.95 traditional; "Cohen's d = 0.877 so there was a large effect."

"Using a significance level of p < .05, a one -tailed t-test for equality of means was performed. T he results of the t -test are t (32) = 2.63 and p < .01. Cohen's d = 0.877 so there was a large effect."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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