Skip to main content

Table 3 ANCOVA for the effects of context relevance and context familiarity on posttest performance (H1-H4)

From: Effects of learning content in context on knowledge acquisition and recall: a pretest-posttest control group design

Effect

B (SE)

β

t (139)

p-value

95 % confidence interval

Lower

Upper

Intercept

20.015 (0.768)

 

26.061

< 0.001

18.497

21.534

Contexta

-3.803 (1.027)

-0.301

-3.704

< 0.001

-5.834

-1.773

Relevantb

0.942 (0.784)

0.091

1.201

0.232

-0.608

2.492

Familiarc

1.769 (0.789)

0.169

2.244

0.026

0.210

3.329

Self-perceived learningd

1.018 (0.354)

0.196

2.874

0.005

0.318

1.719

Preteste

0.830 (0.113)

0.507

7.333

< 0.001

0.606

1.054

  1. β-values around 0.10, 0.25 and 0.40 are indicative of small, medium, and large effects, respectively
  2. acontext (1) vs. no context (0); Hypothesis 1 ‘learning with a paper-patient context leads to better performance than learning without context’ could not be confirmed
  3. brelevant (1) vs. irrelevant (0); Hypothesis 2 ‘relevant context leads to better performance than irrelevant context’ is not supported convincingly
  4. cfamiliar (1) vs. unfamiliar (0); Hypothesis 3 ‘familiar context leads to better performance than unfamiliar context’ is confirmed
  5. dmean centered; Hypothesis 4 ‘higher scores on the self-perceived learning scale predict higher performance’ is confirmed
  6. emean centered; Even in the pretest, participants scored significantly better on the test questions with context than on test questions without context