 |
Asia-Pacific Forum
on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 11, Issue 2, Article 12 (Dec., 2010) |
As can be seen from Table I, the study reported the results of 65 effect sizes included in 52 studies, since some studies performed multiple comparisons within the same study. The overall number of subjects was 3,902 in 52 studies. Although 63 (97%) of the 65 effect sizes in the present analysis were positive and favored the CAI, only 2 (3%) were negative and favored traditional instruction.
Table 1. Publishing year, number of comparisons and effect sizes of each primary study
Authors of the studies
Year
Number of ES
ES
Akçay, et al.
2006
2
1.58
0.66
Akçay, Tüysüz & Feyzioğlu
2003
4
1.32
3.41
1.98
3.31
Akgün
2005
1
0.53
Akpınar & Ergin
2007
1
1.44
Akpınar, Aktamış, Günay & Ergin
2005
1
0.83
Ardac and Dilek
2002
2
0.67
-0.78
Arıkan, et al.
2006
1
1.59
Ayas, Yılmaz & Tekin
2001
1
1.17
Aydoğdu
2006
1
0.47
Aykanat, Doğru & Kalender
2005
1
1.77
Başaran
2005
1
0.03
Bayrak, Kanlı & İngeç
2007
1
0.20
Çavaş
2005
1
0.63
Çekbaş, et al.
2003
1
0.22
Çepni, Taş & Köse
2006
1
0.64
Çömek & Bayram
2004
1
1.20
Demirer
2006
1
0.71
Feyzioğlu & Akçay
2006
1
0.14
Gönen & Kocakaya
2005
1
0.79
Gönen, Kocakaya & İnan
2006
1
0.79
Güler & Sağlam
2002
1
0.05
Gündüz
2005
1
0.48
Güney, Özmen & Kenan
2007
1
1.68
İlbi
2006
1
0.17
Kara
2005
2
1.36
2.45
Kara, Gürses & Özkan
2006
2
0.94
0.76
Kara & Yeşilyurt
2006
2
1.85
1.18
Karamustafaoğlu, Aydın & Özmen
2005
1
0.96
Katırcıoğlu & Kazancı
2003
2
0.50
0.84
Kıyıcı & Yumuşak
2005
1
2.31
Korkmaz
2006
2
3.23
1.82
Morgil, et al.
2003
1
1.39
Ocak & Ocak
2002
2
2.68
0.09
Oğur
2006
1
0.87
Olgun
2006
1
0.47
Özdener, Karagöz & Bayrak
2005
1
0.06
Özmen
2008
1
2.26
Özmen
2007
1
0.76
Özmen & Kolomuç
2004
1
0.24
Pektaş, Türkmen & Solak
2006
1
0.71
Saka & Yılmaz
2005
1
1.46
Salgut
2007
1
0.73
Sarıçayır
2007
2
2.13
-0.25
Sevim
2006
1
0.65
Sılay, Gök & Oğur
2004
1
2.79
Şengel, Özden & Geban
2002
1
0.88
Taş, Köse & Çepni
2006
1
0.65
Tekmen
2006
1
2.02
Topçu & Pamuk
2006
1
0.17
Yakar
2005
2
1.86
2.15
Yenice, et al.
2003
1
1.04
Zaman
2006
1
1.77
Grand Mean Of ESs
1.12
Grand Median Of ESs (Stnd. Dev.)
0.87 (0.88)
The range of the ESs was from -0.78 to 3.41. The grand mean effect size for 65 ESs was 1.12. This mean can be interpreted as a large ES. Nevertheless a grand median and standard deviation for all ESs were 0.87 and 0.88 respectively.
Table 2 shows the F values and descriptive statistics for the six variables. Two variables (grade level of subjects and instruction method of comparison group) indicated statistically significant effects at a 95% confidence level. In order to determine the source of these effects, Scheffe’s post hoc test was performed for each of these variables.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and the results of ANOVA for the variables
Variables
N
%
Mean of ESs
SD
F
p
Publishing year
2001-2003
16
24.6
1.17
1.17
0.313
0.732
2004-2005
18
27.7
1.22
0.84
2006-2007
31
47.7
1.03
0.74
Type of publication
Dissertation/thesis
17
26.2
1.25
0.93
0.298
0.744
Journal article
34
52.3
1.09
0.92
Conference paper
14
21.5
1.01
0.74
Grade level of subjects
Elementary
(4th-8th grade)25
38.5
1.43
0.98
3.264*
0.045
Secondary
(9th-12th grade)21
32.3
0.79
0.76
University
19
29.2
1.06
0.77
Subject area
Physics
20
30.8
1.21
0.88
0.183
0.833
Chemistry
22
33.8
1.11
1.04
Biology
23
35.4
1.05
0.73
Instruction method of comparison group
Traditional
55
84.6
1.25
0.89
2.989*
0.038
Laboratory Based
5
7.7
0.31
0.40
Constructivist (7E)
3
4.6
0.77
0.03
Others
2
3.1
0.15
0.02
Sample size
1-40
17
26.2
1.31
0.97
0.916
0.405
41-60
19
29.2
0.92
0.73
More than 61
29
44.6
1.13
0.92
*p < 0.05
