Claims

Traditional chalk-and-talk instruction also produced significant pre-to-post gains in van Hiele level of geometric thinking on all three angle concepts

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2013 · 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.

q2 i2 The control group improved significantly on right angles (effect size 0.37), acute angles (0.62), and obtuse angles (0.65) after traditional instruction. → Poh Geik Tieng & Leong Kwan Eu 2013

Evidence

Poh Geik Tieng & Leong Kwan Eu 2013

Poh Geik Tieng & Leong Kwan Eu. (2013). Improving Students' Van Hiele Level Of Geometric Thinking Using Geometer's Sketchpad. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(3). www.mojet.net. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1086363

q2 · i2 · causal · r2

Paired samples t-tests for the control group (n = 15) taught by traditional method. Obtuse angles: t(14) = 5.12, p < 0.01, "The effect size is 0.65"; acute angles t(14) = 4.80, effect size 0.62; right angles t(14) = 2.87, p = .01, effect size 0.37.

"They improved significantly after the teaching of obtuse angles using traditional approach in posttest 3 ( M = 1.93, SD = 0.26), t (14) = 5.12, p< 0.01. The effect size is 0.65."

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.