Examining the Impact of a Classroom Game on Student Knowledge of Environmental Policy

Last registered on November 18, 2022


Trial Information

General Information

Examining the Impact of a Classroom Game on Student Knowledge of Environmental Policy
Initial registration date
October 03, 2022

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
October 05, 2022, 11:15 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
November 18, 2022, 3:53 PM EST

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.


Primary Investigator

Georgia State University

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Georgia State University

Additional Trial Information

In development
Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
This study analyzes the impact of a cap-and-trade game on student knowledge of and attitudes towards environmental policy. The planned experiment uses undergraduate economics students at a large public university and uses survey data from before and after the game to measure attitudes towards environmental policy and knowledge of cap-and-trade policy. In addition, the experiment will employ random assignment of participation in an in-class game. The game is intended as an interactive method to teach students about cap-and trade policies which are popular mechanisms for reducing pollution and uses both technology and in-person interaction. This study contributes to the literature on active learning methods in environmental economics while also exploring the impact of teaching about environmental policy.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

King, Sarah and Caroline Lamprecht. 2022. "Examining the Impact of a Classroom Game on Student Knowledge of Environmental Policy." AEA RCT Registry. November 18. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.10166-2.0
Experimental Details


Sections of students will be assigned to play a game in class or not. The game is an interactive market-based game where students engage in a market for "chairs" with chairs representing emission permits in a cap-and-trade market. All students who participate, including those who are not in sections which play the game, will take a baseline and follow-up survey which will ask about attitudes towards environmental policy and will assess knowledge of cap-and-trade policy.
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
We hope to see if this game is effective for teaching students about cap-and-trade policies.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Understanding of cap-and-trade policies will be garnered from quiz-like questions on cap-and-trade policies.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
We hope to see if teaching about environmental policy can impact student attitudes towards environmental policy. Further, we intend to examine heterogeneous effects such as if students with different political leanings or from different backgrounds respond differently to the game
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The instructors of large sections of economics students were contacted regarding their participation. Instructors were asked to agree to give extra credit to students who participate. Instructors were assigned to have their students play the game in class (treatment group) or just complete surveys (control group). Approximately 1 week before the game, students in a participating section will be sent a survey to complete. Then, approximately 2 weeks after the game is played in class (or 3 weeks after the initial survey goes out for survey-only sections), students will be sent a follow-up survey.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
We assume that students are randomly allocated across course sections as our sample sections cover a variety of times of the day and levels of experience for the instructors. Further, we divided the instructors by last name by ordering them and selecting instructors for the control group based on the first letter of their last name. As we did not want to cause an undue burden on instructors, we had all of their sections in the same group. Therefore, the ordering of names led to a control-treatment-treatment selection pattern.
Randomization Unit
Students are clustered in course sections with the course sections being randomized as described above.
Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
10 course sections
Sample size: planned number of observations
500 students (1000 students in the courses with expected participation of 50%)
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
5 sections control, 250 students in control sections, 5 sections treatment, 250 students in treatment sections
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Georgia State University Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number


Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information


Is the intervention completed?
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials