Claims

The TAC tutor tablet intervention was by far the most cost-effective of the three PRIMR ICT interventions

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · 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.

q3 i? Per US$100 invested, the TAC tutor treatment yielded 7.8 additional pupils reaching English emergent fluency and 7.4 in Kiswahili, versus 4.3 and 4.2 for teacher tablets and fewer than one for e-readers. → Piper 2015

Evidence

Piper 2015

Piper, B., Jepkemei, E., Kwayumba, D., & Kibukho, K. (2015). Kenya's ICT Policy in Practice: The Effectiveness of Tablets and E-readers in Improving Student Outcomes. FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education, 2(1). http://preserve.lehigh.edu/fire/vol2/iss1/2

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Cost-effectiveness analysis dividing each treatment group's PRIMR effect by per-pupil, per-subject unit cost of the ICT tools. The article reports the teacher tablet figures of 4.3 and 4.2 pupils per US$100 and fewer than one additional student for e-readers, concluding "the TAC tutor tablet was by far the most cost-effective".

"This analysis revealed that an investment of US$100 translated into an additional 7.8 pupils reaching the emergent fluency level in English (30 correct words per minute) and 7.4 pupils in Kiswahili (17 correct words per minute), under the TAC tutor treatment"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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