Individual study effect sizes range from negative to very strong, with one study showing no effect¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · 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? Per-study Hedges' g values vary widely — the article reports a range from -0.01 to 1.78 in the forest plot — and 47.4% of studies are classified very strong while one study (g = -0.015, Integrated Cogency Method) showed no effect. → Sa’idah 2026
Evidence¶
Sa’idah 2026¶
Sa’idah, N., Jailani, Sudiyatno, & Retnawati, H. (2026). Innovative teaching models and critical thinking in mathematics and statistics education: A meta-analytical review. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 12(1), 140-157. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.5054
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Forest plot of the 19 coded studies (Figure 2), where box size reflects each study's relative weight. Table 2 lists g values from -0.015 (Bates et al., 2024, no effect) to 4.594 (Setiyawan et al., 2024, very strong); the article classifies 21% less strong, 26.3% strong, 47.4% very strong.
"The analysis results, as shown in Figure 2, reveal that the effect sizes of the analyzed studies vary greatly, ranging from -0.01 to 1.78."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Individual study effect sizes ranged from 0.010 to 2.031, with two studies exceeding 2.00, and the forest plot shows a difference greater than zero in favour of the experimental group — related
- Effect sizes across studies show substantial heterogeneity, with wide prediction intervals spanning large negative to large positive true effects — a broader claim this one bears on
- Effects of game-based learning in STEM education vary substantially across studies, with prediction intervals spanning trivial-to-negative through very strong effects — a broader claim this one bears on
- Most individual 7E effect sizes were positive, but three were negative, with effect sizes ranging from -.473 to 3.953 — related
- Effect sizes were positive in fourteen of the nineteen included studies and negative in five — 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.