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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? DynEd's effects did not vary significantly by schools' baseline scores, but Imagine Learning's effects were significantly lower in low-scoring schools and for low-scoring students on some subtests in both years. → Sarah Humpage and Horacio Álvarez-Marinelli 2014 q3 i? Neither software's effects varied significantly by gender, but DynEd's advantage over Imagine was significantly greater for girls on some subtests in the second year. → Sarah Humpage and Horacio Álvarez-Marinelli 2014 (2)

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

Subgroup difference-in-difference analyses (Tables 5 and 6) testing treatment-by-subgroup interactions in the randomized trial. The article reports DynEd's effects "did not vary significantly by schools’ baseline test scores", while Imagine's were significantly lower for low-scoring schools and students (e.g., tImagineLow of -1.116** on verbal analogies, Table 5b).

"In contrast, Imagine Learning’s effects were significantly lower in low-scoring schools and for low-scoring students on some subtests in both years."

Sarah Humpage and Horacio Álvarez-Marinelli 2014 (2)¶

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

Gender-subgroup analyses (Tables 7a-7c) in the same trial. Table 7c shows tDynEdFemale coefficients of 0.424** (picture vocabulary), 0.397* (understanding directions) and 0.390* (oral language) at end of year two.

"Neither software’s effects varied significantly by gender, but Dyned’s advantage over Imagine is significantly greater for girls on some subtests in the second year."

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
• Imagine Learning shows no positive effects compared to the control group — related