The experimental group showed no significant score decline between post-test and four-week retention test, while the control group declined significantly¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr1·q2
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.
q2 i? Within the experimental group, post-test (19.11) and permanence test (18.81) scores did not differ significantly (t=0.938, p>.05), which the authors read as information being more permanent in that group. → Aktas 2016
q2 i? Within the control group, the post-test (16.63) and permanence test (16.26) scores differed significantly (t=2.217, p=.033), although the article calls the means quite similar. → Aktas 2016 (2)
Evidence¶
Aktas 2016¶
Aktas, S., & Aydin, A. (2016). The effect of the smart board usage in science and technology lessons. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 64, 125-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.64.7
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Dependent-samples t-test within the experimental 7th-grade class comparing its post-test mean (19.11) with its permanence test mean (18.81). The article reports no significant difference (t=0.938, p>.05) and interprets the information as more permanent.
"According to the results of the t -test for dependent groups, there is no significant difference between the post -test and permanence test scores of the experimental group (t=0.938; p>.05). As a result, the information seems to be more permanent in the experimental group."
Aktas 2016 (2)¶
Aktas, S., & Aydin, A. (2016). The effect of the smart board usage in science and technology lessons. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 64, 125-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.64.7
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Dependent-samples t-test within the control class comparing post-test (16.63) and permanence test (16.26) means. The article reports a significant difference (t=2.217, p=.033) while noting the means are quite similar; no effect size is printed.
"there is a significant difference between the post -test and permanence test scores of the control group (t=2.217, p<.05), but while the average post -test score for the control group was X̅ = 16.63, the average score of the permanence test was X̅ = 16.26, which is quite similar."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Students taught with smart board support retained more information four weeks after instruction than students taught with the 2005 curriculum — related
- Knowledge gained through performing-arts teaching persisted: permanence-test scores four weeks later showed no significant drop from posttest and remained higher than the control group — related
- Smart board-supported teaching of the 7th-grade unit 'electricity in our lives' produced higher post-test achievement than the 2005 Science and Technology curriculum — related
- Within the integrated STEM group, academic achievement declined significantly from post-test to one-year permanence test, while the control group's decline was not significant — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.