Claims

Programming self-concept developed significantly in the robot group while remaining stable in the control group

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2010 · checked against its sources 2026-11-02 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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 experimental group's programming self-concept increased significantly from pre-test to post-test (t = −2.60; p = 0.01). → Pásztor et al. 2010 q2 i? The control group's programming self-concept remained stable (t = −0.45; p = 0.66). → Pásztor et al. 2010

Evidence

Pásztor et al. 2010

Attila PÁSZTOR, Róbert PAP-SZIGETI, Erika LAKATOS TÖRÖK. (2010). Effects of Using Model Robots in the Education of Programming. Informatics in Education, 9(1), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2010.09

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Pre/post comparison of a collapsed six-item programming self-concept factor (KMO = 0.87, %point scale) in both sub-samples; the experimental rise from 47.2%p to 52.2%p is reported significant, with no effect size printed.

"We found stable programming self-concept in case of the control group ( xpre =46.3%p; xpost =4 4.1%p; t = −0.45; p =0 .66), while the experimental group's programming self-concept developed significantly ( xpre =4 7 .2%p; xpost =5 2 .2%p; t = −2.60; p =0 .01)."

Discussion

Learner Variables

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.