Retention of physics content: the Results section reports a significant STAD-versus-ICI difference at p = 0.053, while the Discussion reports no significant difference in retention¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The ANCOVA retention test main effect yielded F (1, 81) = 3.870, p = 0.053, which the Results section calls significant at the .05 alpha level. → Gambarı and Yusuf 2015 q2 i? The Discussion states there was no significant difference in retention between computer-assisted STAD and ICI students. → Gambarı and Yusuf 2015 (2)

Evidence¶

Gambarı and Yusuf 2015¶

Amosa Isiaka Gambarı, Mudasiru Olalere Yusuf. (2015). Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Stad Cooperative Learning Strategy on Physics Problem Solving, Achievement and Retention. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(3). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1085945

q2 · i? · causal · r1

ANCOVA of the delayed retention test (administered four weeks after the post-test) for the same 84 students. The article reports "an F (1, 81) = 3.870, p = 0.053" and treats it as significant, with mean retention gains of 39.71 (STAD) versus 40.13 (ICI).

"Table 5 shows that the main effect of treatment group (computer -assisted STAD) and ICI groups produced an F (1, 81) = 3.870, p = 0.053. This result was significant at the .05 alpha level."

Gambarı and Yusuf 2015 (2)¶

Amosa Isiaka Gambarı, Mudasiru Olalere Yusuf. (2015). Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Stad Cooperative Learning Strategy on Physics Problem Solving, Achievement and Retention. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(3). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1085945

q2 · i? · causal · r1

The Discussion section contradicts the Results section's characterization of the retention test, stating "no significant difference in retention" between the STAD and ICI groups. The p = 0.053 value is marginal either way.

"The results of the analyses related to hypothesis three indicated no significant difference in retention of students taught physics using computer -assisted STAD cooperative learning and those taught using ICI."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Nigerian SS II physics students taught with computer-assisted STAD cooperative learning achieved significantly higher post-test scores than students taught with Individualized Computer Instruction — related
• Nigerian secondary students taught physics with computer-assisted STAD and LTM cooperative strategies achieved significantly higher posttest scores than students taught with individualized computer instruction — related
• Gender showed no significant difference in retention among students taught physics with computer-assisted STAD — related
• All three groups gained from pretest to posttest, with the computer-assisted STAD group showing the highest mean gain score in physics achievement — related