Imagine Learning shows no positive effects compared to the control group¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Imagine Learning's treatment effects versus control were not positive on any subtest in either year. → Sarah Humpage and Horacio Álvarez-Marinelli 2014

Evidence¶

Sarah Humpage and Horacio Álvarez-Marinelli 2014¶

Sarah Humpage and Horacio Álvarez-Marinelli. (2014). Teachers’ Helpers: Experimental Evidence from Costa Rica on Computers for English Language Learning. SREE Spring 2014 Conference. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED562994

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Difference-in-difference estimates from the same randomized trial (n=217 for Imagine vs. control, restricted sample). Table 4b shows Imagine*t coefficients of 0.049, 0.270, -0.102, -0.054 and 0.045 in year one, none statistically significant; the article states Imagine Learning "has no positive effects".

"These tables show that DynEd has significant positive effects compared to the control group, while Imagine Learning has no positive effects."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• DynEd has a significantly greater effect than Imagine Learning on several subtests in both years — related
• DynEd software produces significant positive effects on some English subtests compared to teacher-only instruction in the first year — related
• Treatment effects vary by baseline performance and gender: Imagine Learning's effects are lower in low-scoring schools and for low-scoring students, and DynEd's advantage is greater for girls in year two — related