Policy Challenge
Path 2 Copy Created with Sketch.
Program Type
Path 2 Copy Created with Sketch.
4
4
5
Learning In Primary
Guided technology (eno extra time) (eLP)
13
-5
Evaluation Effect Average Age Observations Experimental Evaluation Country Intervention
Dynatski 2007 4 Grade 4 8,020 Yes United States Students used software for reading or math during 50 minutes per week
Wijekumar 2009 2 Grade 4 2,456 Yes United States Students used the math software Odyssey Math 1 hour per week
Rosas 2003 28 Grade 2 1,105 Yes Chile Students played math and reading videogames for 20-40 minutes daily
Carrillo 2010 30 Grade 5 722 Yes Ecuador Schools receive 4 computers and principal and 2 teachers are trained
Linden 2008 i -48 Grade 3 526 Yes India Students worked on math worksheets in computers for 1/3 of school time

Graph of Effects

This graph shows the effects of [Number of Evaluations] evaluations of [Program Type] programs. The first evaluation, [Evaluation name 1], estimated an effect of [Estimated effect Eval. 1] points (graphed with the top grey circle). Because this is an estimate, there is uncertainty about what the true effect is. But we know that the true effect will probably lie between a low value of [True effect lie between – Low value, Eval. 1] and a high value of [True effect lie between – High value, Eval. 1] (graphed with the top horizontal line). We can combine the estimates from all the evaluations and compute an average effect of [Estimated effect, Average] (graphed with the black circle). There is also uncertainty about where the true average effect is. But we know that the true average effect probably lies between [True effect lie between – Low value, Average] and [True effect lie between – High value, Average] points (graphed with the bottom horizontal line).
Evaluation Effects Low Value High Value Weight in Average Effect (%)
Carrillo 2010 30 2 58 5
Dynatski 2007 4 1 8 49
Linden 2008 i -48 -89 -8 3
Rosas 2003 28 -18 75 2
Wijekumar 2009 2 -3 7 41
Overall