Students receiving SMS learning support scored significantly higher on the programming posttest than control students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The experimental group's posttest mean was significantly higher than the control group's (t(50) = -2.64, p = .011). → Al-Mothana M. Gasaymeh & Osamah M. Aldalalah 2013 q2 i? After controlling for pretest scores as a covariate, posttest differences between the two groups remained statistically significant (F(1,49) = 12.55, p < .05). → Al-Mothana M. Gasaymeh & Osamah M. Aldalalah 2013 (2)

Evidence¶

Al-Mothana M. Gasaymeh & Osamah M. Aldalalah 2013¶

Al-Mothana M. Gasaymeh & Osamah M. Aldalalah. (2013). The Impact of Using SMS as Learning Support Tool on Students' Learning. International Education Studies, 6(10). https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n10p112

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Nonrandomized control group pretest–posttest quasi-experiment with 23 control and 29 experimental students in an introductory Visual Basic course. Independent-samples t-test on posttests: "t (50) = -2.64, p = .011", experimental mean higher.

"But the mean of the posttest scores for the participants in the control group (M = 69.34, SD = 13.5 0) was significantly different than the mean of the posttest scores for the participants in the experimental group (M = 77.93, SD = 9.86), t (50) = -2.64, p = .011."

Al-Mothana M. Gasaymeh & Osamah M. Aldalalah 2013 (2)¶

Al-Mothana M. Gasaymeh & Osamah M. Aldalalah. (2013). The Impact of Using SMS as Learning Support Tool on Students' Learning. International Education Studies, 6(10). https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n10p112

q2 · i? · causal · r2

ANCOVA with pretest as covariate and teaching method (control vs experimental group) as independent variable confirmed the posttest difference: "F(1,49)=12.55, p < .05".

"The results indicate that after controlling for pretest scores, the differences in posttest scores are statistically significantly different between the two groups, F(1,49)=12.55, p < .05."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Both the SMS and control groups improved significantly from pretest to posttest in the programming course — related
• Chinese EFL students learning vocabulary via daily SMS messages outperformed a paper-based self-regulated group on the immediate posttest after a three-week intervention — related