Claims

Prior studies reviewed in the article consistently report achievement advantages for computer-assisted mathematics teaching over traditional methods

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q1
Currency · newest study 2016 · 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.

q1 i? The review reports that studies by Nour (2003), Afaneh (2003), Al-Sherif (2002), Al-Far (2001), Gebeily (1999) and Al-Ali (1996) found functional statistical differences in learning in favor of computer-taught experimental groups. → Salah 2016

Evidence

Salah 2016

Dr. Raed Omar Salah. (2016). Effectiveness of Using Computerized Educational Packages in Teaching Math Curriculum on the Learning of Student in Eighth Grade at Ma'an City. Journal of Education and Practice, Vol.7, No.12. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1099555

q1 · i? · causal · r1

Narrative review attributing this finding to Afaneh (2003), a study of 86 fifth-grade students in Ramala governorates taught an area unit via a PowerPoint program versus two traditional methods. The review reports the difference in favor of the computer group and, on gender, in favor of females.

"The results shows presence of functional differences in favor of the experimental group which studied by using the computer and presence of difference in learning by using computer refers to gender in favor of females."

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.