Claims

STEM education with 7E instruction, flipped learning, problem-based learning or technology-enhanced learning showed no significant effect on learning achievement

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · checked against its sources 2026-10-31 (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 i? Subgroup effects for 7E instruction, flipped learning, problem-based learning and technology-enhanced learning were not statistically significant. → Mustafa Çevik 2022

Evidence

Mustafa Çevik 2022

Mustafa Çevik, Büşra Bakioğlu. (2022). The Effect of STEM Education Integrated into Teaching-Learning Approaches (SEITLA) on Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis Study. International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.431.8

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Random-effects subgroup analysis (Table 5). The four named approaches showed non-significant effects (e.g., technology-enhanced learning g = 0.13, p = .45; flipped learning g = 0.15, p = .64); no equivalence test was reported.

"The effect size on learning achievement of studies in which STEM education was carried out with 7E instruction, flipped learning, problem-based learning and technology-enhanced learning was not significant."

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.