Stratified teaching positively affects all seven studied subjects, with larger effects in English, physics, and geography than in chemistry, biology, and mathematics¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · 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.
q3 i? All subject-level combined effect sizes exceeded 0.2, and the ordering was English > Physics > Geography > Information Technology > Mathematics > Biology > Chemistry, with no significant between-subject difference (P = 0.276). → Shi 2020
Evidence¶
Shi 2020¶
Shi, H., Cheung, E.S.T., & Cheung, A.C.K. (2020) The impact of stratified teaching on the academic performance of Chinese middle school students: A meta-analysis. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 7(1):735-760. https://doi.org/10.15354/sief.20.re012
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Subject moderator analysis of the included studies (Table 3), covering seven subjects with between 1 and 8 datasets each. The article reports "the combined effect sizes of English, geography, and physics are all greater than 0.5", all disciplines above 0.2, and a non-significant between-group difference (P = 0.276).
"The order of effect size among different disciplines is: English > Physics > Geography > Information Technology > Mathematics > Biology > Chemistry. This shows that stratified teaching positively impacts English, physics, and geography better than chemistry, biology, and mathematics."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Stratified teaching's effect does not differ significantly between middle school and high school students — related
- LLM teaching effectiveness varies substantially across subject domains, strongest where knowledge points apply directly and weakest in physics and chemistry — related
- Concept-mapping effect sizes vary by science subject (physics/earth science g = 1.040, biology g = 0.671, chemistry g = 0.590) but not significantly — related
- Positive subject-specific effects of Medly in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, with no evidence the effect differed across subjects — related
- The effect of the 7E learning cycle on achievement differs significantly by subject matter, with the largest average for chemistry and the smallest for science — related
- Flipped classrooms benefit students in STEM subjects such as chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and physics less than students in other subjects — related
- Science-related subject areas (mathematics, science, medical science) show larger effects than programming technology and other fields — related
- Scientific discipline does not significantly moderate PBL’s effect on secondary science achievement — related
- Intervention effects did not differ between physics and English subjects — related
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.