Claims

Cooperative TGT significantly improves Grade 11 students' mathematics communication compared with conventional teaching

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2016 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 3 of 3 entries) · 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 i2 There was a significant interaction between group type and time period on mathematics communication, with partial eta squared = 0.11. → Veloo 2016 q3 i2 The between-subject main effect of group on mathematics communication was significant, F(1,62)=4.81, partial eta squared = 0.07. → Veloo 2016 (2) q3 i? At post-test 1 the experimental group's mathematics communication score (32.22) was higher than the control group's (26.69). → Veloo 2016 (3)

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 · i2 · causal · r2

Mixed between-within subjects ANOVA on mathematics communication scores across pre-test, post-test 1 and post-test 2 in the same 64-student randomized control group study. The article reports a significant interaction with Wilks Lambda = 0.89, F(2,61) = 3.87, p < .05, partial eta squared = 0.11.

"There was significant interaction between group type and time periods, (Wilks Lambda = 0.89, F (2,61) = 3.87, p < .05, partial eta squared (λ)= 0.11)."

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 · i2 · causal · r2

Between-subject effect for mathematics communication from Table 5 of the same study. The article reports the group effect as significant with F(1,62) = 4.81, p = .03, partial eta squared = 0.07, described as moderately supporting the overall findings.

"The main effect for experimental group and control group was significant, F (1, 62) = 4.81, p < .05, partial eta squared ( λ) = 0.07), suggesting a difference in the effectiveness of the cooperative TGT teaching approaches on mathematics communication."

Veloo 2016 (3)

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

Descriptive means from Table 6 for post-test 1 mathematics communication: experimental group M = 32.22 (SD = 6.47) versus control group M = 26.69 (SD = 9.16), a printed difference of 5.53 attributed to the TGT effect.

"Figure 3 shows that the post 1 mathematics communication score for the experimental group (32.22) is higher than the control group (26.69)."

Discussion

Learner Variables

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.