Claims

The article infers male students performed better than female students using WBI, although its reported gender comparison was not statistically significant

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · 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 authors infer that male students (N=26, post-test M=19.35) performed better than female students (N=22, post-test M=19.23), yet the reported t-value of .259 with Sig .797 indicates no significant difference. → Sudha and Amutha 2015

Evidence

Sudha and Amutha 2015

A. Sudha, S. Amutha. (2015). Higher Secondary Learners' Effectiveness towards Web Based Instruction (WBI) on Chemistry. Universal Journal of Educational Research 3(7). https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2015.030706

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Post-test gender comparison in the same quasi-experiment: males (N=26) M=19.35, SD 1.495; females (N=22) M=19.23, SD 1.688; t=.259, Sig .797. The article states "male students performed better than the female students" as an inference, while its own table shows a non-significant difference.

"From this it is inferred that male students performed better than the female students in using WBI for learning the topic 'Purification of Organic Compounds' in chemistry."

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.