Claims

Traditional teaching also produced a statistically significant pre-to-post gain in scientific thinking in the control group

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
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.

q2 i? The control group taught by the classic method showed a significant pre-to-post gain in scientific thinking (t = 2.790 > 2.042, df = 31). → Hameed 2016

Evidence

Hameed 2016

Hameed, Saddam Mohammed; Mohammed, Essam Mahmoud. (2016). Enrich the Physics Curriculum Scheduled for Students of Intermediate School E-Learning and Its Effectiveness in Scientific Thinking and Their Attitude Towards the Development of Physics. Journal of Education and Practice, Vol.7, No.17. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1105303

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Paired t-test for the 32-student control group taught traditionally: post mean 13.937 versus pre 13.406 on the scientific thinking test. The article reports "a significant difference between the mean scores of the tribal and post for control group"; no effect size is printed.

"calculated t (2.790) is greater than the tabulated t (2.042) at level of (0.0 5) and degree of freedom (31) This means that there is a significant difference between the mean scores of the tribal and post for control group"

Discussion

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.