Claims

The VFT group outperformed the conventional group on all three item types, while the conventional group improved only on objective items

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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 article concludes the VFT group achieved higher on objective, structured and essay items, whereas the conventional group showed improvement only on objective items. → Norbaizura HARIS & Kamisah OSMAN 2015

Evidence

Norbaizura HARIS & Kamisah OSMAN 2015

Norbaizura HARIS & Kamisah OSMAN. (2015). The Effectiveness of a Virtual Field Trip (VFT) Module in Learning Biology. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 16(3). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1092841

q2 · i? · causal · r2

The authors' summary in the Discussion of the item-type results from Tables 4-9 of the quasi-experiment, contrasting the VFT group's gains across objective, structured and essay items with the conventional group's improvement on objective items only. No effect size is printed.

"Students who use VFT have a higher achievement in all three types of items which are the objectives, structured and essay than students taught using conventional methods which only showed improvement in objective items."

Discussion

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.