Web records showed all fifteen virtual manipulatives were used across the three projects, with usage frequencies between 17 and 28¶

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? Usage frequencies for the 15 VMs ranged from 17 to 28, with VM5 most used in Project 1 and VM8, VM9, and VM12 most common for Project 2. → Çakıroğlu 2014

Evidence¶

Çakıroğlu 2014¶

Çakıroğlu, Ü. (2014). Enriching project-based learning environments with virtual manipulatives: A comparative study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 55, 201-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2014.55.12

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Web statistics from the ePBL platform were used to determine users and use rates of the VMs for the projects. The records showed "all of the VMs are used in the EG for all projects" with frequencies between 17 and 28, and VM14 and VM15 had similar usage rates for Project 3.

"As shown on Table 9, all of the VMs are used in the EG for all projects in which the usage frequency is between 17 and 28. VM5 was most frequently preferred in doing Project 1. VM8, VM9, and VM12 were the most commonly used for studying on Project 2."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Tenth-grade students in a PBL environment enriched with virtual manipulatives significantly outperformed students in a traditional PBL environment on an achievement test in Polynomials and Quadratic Equations — related
• Interviewed students reported that VMs supported learning (understanding, quick feedback, correcting mistakes) and independence from the teacher, but also reported fatigue, stress, distraction, and repetitive examples — related