Under the Target-Task Model, high, medium and low scoring students differed significantly in post-test performance, with low scorers showing the largest mean gain¶

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

Subclaims¶

q2 i? ANCOVA on post-test scores of high, medium and low scoring students taught with the Target-Task Model was significant (Scoring Level F = 92.018, p = .000). → Olaniyan 2015 q2 i? Low scoring students gained more (mean gain 29.35) than high (25.33) and medium (15.27) scoring students. → Olaniyan 2015

Evidence¶

Olaniyan 2015¶

Olaniyan, A. O., & Omosewo, E. O. (2015). Effects of a Target-Task Problem-Solving Model on Senior Secondary School Students' Performance in Physics. Science Education International, 25(4), 522-538. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1086539

q2 · i? · causal · r1

ANCOVA of post-test PTCE scores for the 60 experimental-group students by scoring level (N = 12 high, 18 medium, 30 low). Scoring Level F = 92.018, Sig. .000. Table 3 printed mean gains of 29.35 (low), 25.33 (high), 15.27 (medium); the text states "low scoring students perform better than high scoring students".

"Table 4 showed that the P value (0.000) is less than the P alpha level of 0.050 (P<0.050); therefore the null hypothesis is rejected."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Performance differed significantly across low, medium and high scoring students taught with behavioural objectives, with low scorers benefiting most — related
• Male students taught with the Target-Task Model significantly outperformed female students on the PTCE — related
• Achievement level significantly differentiated posttest performance among students taught with PowerPoint, with high achievers outperforming medium and low achievers — related
• Sidak post-hoc comparisons show high achievers significantly outperformed medium and low achievers, and medium achievers outperformed low achievers, under PowerPoint instruction — related