Post-test programming scores after Alice with 4C-ID, adjusted for ECDL logical reasoning, did not differ significantly between a very-low-SES school group with more grade retentions and an intermediate-SES school group (n = 14)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · checked against its sources 2026-11-02 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · 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.

q2 i? The programming knowledge test was given only after the intervention; with the ECDL logical-reasoning pre-test as covariate, its total score did not differ significantly between the two school groups, which differed in socioeconomic status, grade-retention history and school (F(1,11) = 0.158; p > 0.05; n = 14). → Costa and Miranda 2019 q2 i? The covariate-adjusted post-test mean of the lower-SES, higher-retention experimental group (7.783 +/- 0.936) was numerically higher than the control group's (7.288 +/- 0.809), but planned contrasts did not detect a significant difference (t(11) = 0.398; p > 0.05). → Costa and Miranda 2019 (2)

Evidence¶

Costa and Miranda 2019¶

Costa, J. M., & Miranda, G. L. (2019). Using Alice Software with 4C-ID Model: Effects in Programming Knowledge and Logical Reasoning. Informatics in Education, 18(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2019.01

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Quasi-experimental ANCOVA in a two-month intervention with 30 lessons; experimental group n = 6, control group n = 8, same teacher, both taught with Alice under 4C-ID, in two schools. The factor was "socioeconomic status combined with the scholar path": the experimental school was very low SES and its students had more previous retentions, so SES is not isolated from retention history or school. Programming knowledge was measured only after the intervention (no programming pre-test), with the ECDL logical-reasoning pre-test as covariate, so the result is about adjusted post-test scores, not gains. The article reports the covariate-adjusted result as "wasn't significantly influenced" (F(1,11) = 0.158; p > 0.05); with 14 students, a non-significant result does not show the groups performed the same.

"The total score obtained in the programming knowledge test wasn't significantly influenced by the socioeconomic status combined with the scholar path of each group after accounting the result of the application of the ECDL as a co-variable (F(1,11) = 0.158; p > 0.05)."

Costa and Miranda 2019 (2)¶

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Planned contrasts between the two groups in the same ANCOVA of the post-intervention programming test (no programming pre-test was given). The article reports the adjusted means and states "the differences between both groups aren't statistically significant" (ψ = 0.496; t(11) = 0.398; p > 0.05); no standardised effect size is printed. The groups differed in school and retention history as well as SES.

"The experimental group, that is, the group with a lower socioeconomic status and a higher number of previous retentions, obtained a superior average result (7.783 +/- 0.936) comparing to the group with a higher socioeconomic status and a more constant scholar path (7.288 +/- 0.809)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Socioeconomic Status — predictor: outcomes differ by group: a gap reflecting circumstances and treatment, not a cause

Page metadata

Field	Value
`status`	`review`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-11-02`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.