AUGUST 2013
Abstract: I identified and coded 76 randomized experiments conducted in developing-country
primary schoolsfrom the mid-1970s to 2013. The experiments evaluated the impact of 110
school-based treatments on language and mathematicstest scores, as compared with “businessas-usual” in the same settings. The treatments included instructional interventions, health
interventions, and incentive-based interventions. On average, monetary grants and deworming
had effects that were close to zero and statistically insignificant. Nutritional treatments,
treatments that provided information to parents or students, and treatments that improved school
management and supervision had small mean effect sizes(0.04-0.06) that were not always robust
to controls for study moderators. The largest mean effect sizes included treatments with
instructional materials (0.08); computers or instructional technology (0.15); teacher training
(0.12); smaller classes, smaller learning groups within classes, or ability grouping (0.12); student
and teacher performance incentives (0.10); and contract or volunteer teachers (0.10). Metaregressions that controlled for treatment heterogeneity and other moderators suggested that the
effects of materials and contract teachers, in particular, were partly accounted for by composite
treatmentsthat also included teacher training and class size reduction. A caveat is that
interventions like deworming and school lunches often affected enrollment and attainment
independently of learning, implying that student time is not always used productively in schools.
There is insufficient data to gauge the relative cost-effectiveness of categories of interventions.
http://academics.wellesley.
Abstract: I identified and coded 76 randomized experiments conducted in developing-country
primary schoolsfrom the mid-1970s to 2013. The experiments evaluated the impact of 110
school-based treatments on language and mathematicstest scores, as compared with “businessas-usual” in the same settings. The treatments included instructional interventions, health
interventions, and incentive-based interventions. On average, monetary grants and deworming
had effects that were close to zero and statistically insignificant. Nutritional treatments,
treatments that provided information to parents or students, and treatments that improved school
management and supervision had small mean effect sizes(0.04-0.06) that were not always robust
to controls for study moderators. The largest mean effect sizes included treatments with
instructional materials (0.08); computers or instructional technology (0.15); teacher training
(0.12); smaller classes, smaller learning groups within classes, or ability grouping (0.12); student
and teacher performance incentives (0.10); and contract or volunteer teachers (0.10). Metaregressions that controlled for treatment heterogeneity and other moderators suggested that the
effects of materials and contract teachers, in particular, were partly accounted for by composite
treatmentsthat also included teacher training and class size reduction. A caveat is that
interventions like deworming and school lunches often affected enrollment and attainment
independently of learning, implying that student time is not always used productively in schools.
There is insufficient data to gauge the relative cost-effectiveness of categories of interventions.
http://academics.wellesley.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário