T-test found a statistically significant difference between groups (t = -13.203, df = 242, p = 0.000)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
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 i? An independent-samples t-test showed a statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups on scientific literacy. → Al-Rsa'i 2013
Evidence¶
Al-Rsa'i 2013¶
Al-Rsa'i, M. S. (2013). Promoting Scientific Literacy by Using ICT in Science Teaching. International Education Studies, 6(9). https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n9p175
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Table 2 reports the t-test for the two-group comparison: with equal variances assumed, t = -13.203, df = 242, Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.000; without the assumption, t = -13.184, df = 233.880, Sig. = 0.000. Only a test statistic is printed, so no effect size is reported.
"Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed - 1 3 . 2 0 3 2 4 2 0 . 0 0 0 -13.184 233.880 0.000"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- At post-test, the e-learning experimental group significantly outperformed the control group in scientific thinking — related
- The experimental and control groups did not differ significantly in reading comprehension at pretest — related
- The ADI group showed significant within-group gains on demonstrated scientific literacy from pre- to post-test, while the structured-inquiry group did not — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-03 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.