Mathematics understanding and communication gains from Cooperative TGT were not sustained after the intervention was withdrawn¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · 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q3 i? Five weeks after TGT was withdrawn, the experimental group's mathematics understanding score (11.13) equalled the control group's score. → Veloo 2016
q3 i? Five weeks after TGT was withdrawn, the experimental group's mathematics communication score (25.03) was almost equal to the control group's (25.00). → Veloo 2016 (2)
Evidence¶
Veloo 2016¶
Veloo, A., Md-Ali, R., & Chairany, S. (2016). Using Cooperative Teams-Game-Tournament in 11 Religious School to Improve Mathematics Understanding and Communication. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 97-123. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1134733
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Post-test 2 (without cooperative TGT) results from Table 3 of the randomized study: experimental group M = 11.13 (SD = 2.14) versus control group M = 11.13 (SD = 2.47). The authors attribute the similar scores to withdrawing TGT from the teaching.
"However, when the use of cooperative TGT was stopped after Post-test 1, the MU score (11.13) for the experimental group was equal to the score for the control group (conventional approach)."
Veloo 2016 (2)¶
Veloo, A., Md-Ali, R., & Chairany, S. (2016). Using Cooperative Teams-Game-Tournament in 11 Religious School to Improve Mathematics Understanding and Communication. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 97-123. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1134733
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Post-test 2 (without cooperative TGT) results from Table 6: experimental group M = 25.03 (SD = 4.06) versus control group M = 25.00 (SD = 3.97). The article attributes the almost similar scores to the withdrawal of cooperative TGT.
"However, when the use of cooperative TGT was stopped after Post-test 1, the mathematics communication scores (25.03) for the experimental group is almost equal to the score for the control group (conventional approach) (25.00)."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Communication Skills — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- Cooperative TGT significantly improves Grade 11 students' mathematics understanding compared with conventional teaching over a five-week intervention — related
- Cooperative TGT significantly improves Grade 11 students' mathematics communication compared with conventional teaching — related
- The TGT experimental group significantly outperformed the lecture-based control group on the mathematics posttest — related
- Students in Cooperative TGT classrooms learned to socialise while learning mathematics and became more active learners — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.