Visual learners retained mathematics knowledge better than auditory and tactile learners under reform-based instruction¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Visual learners retained the mathematics knowledge acquired more than auditory and tactile learners (Scheffe comparisons: visual vs auditory mean difference 1.4923, p = .000; visual vs tactile 1.9590, p = .000). → M. N. Modebelu & C. C. Ogbonna 2014

Evidence¶

M. N. Modebelu & C. C. Ogbonna 2014¶

M. N. Modebelu & C. C. Ogbonna. (2014). Reform-Based-Instructional Method and Learning Styles on Students' Achievement and Retention in Mathematics: Administrative Implications. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies 2(2). https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.2n.2p.48

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Scheffe multiple-comparison test on retention scores of the experimental group. The article concludes "the visual learners retained better the mathematics knowledge acquired more than the auditory and tactile learners"; descriptive retention means were 66.92, 52.0 and 47.33 for visual, auditory and tactile learners.

"the visual learners retained better the mathematics knowledge acquired more than the auditory and tactile learners. This finding is in agreement with Agwaga (2010) that stressed that children learn not only in different ways, but different rates."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Learning-Style Preferences — predictor: learners reporting different styles differed here; not a test of matching instruction to style

Related Claims¶

• Students taught with the reform-based instructional method retained significantly more mathematics knowledge than those taught with the traditional method — a broader claim this one bears on
• Among reform-based instruction students, visual learners achieved significantly higher mathematics scores than tactile learners — related
• Auditory learners are the highest scorers under both teaching styles but gain no significant benefit from the experiment format — reports the opposite