Claims

Grade 6 learners show no significant difference in mathematics gains whether using a customised workbook or a conventional textbook

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2011 · 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.

q3 i? In a 44-school RCT, gains did not differ significantly between the workbook (PM) and textbook (CM) groups, each improving by over 8 percentage points. → Brahm Fleisch 2011

Evidence

Brahm Fleisch 2011

Brahm Fleisch, Nick Taylor, Roelien Herholdt and Ingrid Sapire. (2011). Evaluation of Back to Basics mathematics workbooks: a randomised control trial of the Primary Mathematics Research Project. South African Journal of Education, Vol 31:488-504. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1136612

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Randomised control trial in 44 Gauteng primary schools (22 per group), Grade 6, 14 weeks, with 1374 CM and 1141 PM learners tested pre and post. The difference in gains between CM and PM was "not statistically significant (p value of 0.29)"; equivalence was not tested.

"Despite the differences in both form (workbook vs. textbook) and internal logic of these materials, there was no significant difference in the gains made by the two groups, each group achieving a mean improvement of over 8 percentage points"

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.