Scholarlink

<p>This study investigated the effects of a Decision-Making Development Model (DMDM) on middle school students’ decision-making skills using a class-clustered quasi-experimental design. One experimental class and one control class (N = 70) participated in a five-week instructional period within the social studies curriculum. Decision-making performance was evaluated using an analytic rubric adapted from the PACED decision-making model. Descriptive and within-group analyses indicated a meaningful pre–post improvement in the experimental group (d = 0.67), whereas no significant change was observed in the control group. Unadjusted posttest comparisons revealed a large between-group difference favoring the experimental group (Hedges’ g = 1.15, 95% CI [0.64, 1.65]). However, after controlling for pretest scores, the ANCOVA-adjusted group effect was not statistically significant, F (1, 66) = 0.23, p = .633, despite meeting the assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes. This pattern likely reflects high baseline performance levels and the limited statistical power associated with a two-class clustered design. Overall, the findings provide promising preliminary evidence for the potential effectiveness of the DMDM in this educational context; however, stronger causal inferences will require multi-school, multi-class randomized designs with larger samples to address clustering and potential ceiling effects.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The effect of a decision-making development model on middle school students’ decision-making skills in Turkish social studies

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月11日

查看全文
  • Filiz Arzu Yalın

摘要

This study investigated the effects of a Decision-Making Development Model (DMDM) on middle school students’ decision-making skills using a class-clustered quasi-experimental design. One experimental class and one control class (N = 70) participated in a five-week instructional period within the social studies curriculum. Decision-making performance was evaluated using an analytic rubric adapted from the PACED decision-making model. Descriptive and within-group analyses indicated a meaningful pre–post improvement in the experimental group (d = 0.67), whereas no significant change was observed in the control group. Unadjusted posttest comparisons revealed a large between-group difference favoring the experimental group (Hedges’ g = 1.15, 95% CI [0.64, 1.65]). However, after controlling for pretest scores, the ANCOVA-adjusted group effect was not statistically significant, F (1, 66) = 0.23, p = .633, despite meeting the assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes. This pattern likely reflects high baseline performance levels and the limited statistical power associated with a two-class clustered design. Overall, the findings provide promising preliminary evidence for the potential effectiveness of the DMDM in this educational context; however, stronger causal inferences will require multi-school, multi-class randomized designs with larger samples to address clustering and potential ceiling effects.