Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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