Effects of a role model intervention on students’ aspirations, motivation and education choices

Last registered on January 23, 2023

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Effects of a role model intervention on students’ aspirations, motivation and education choices
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0010497
Initial registration date
November 27, 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
November 30, 2022, 4:30 PM EST

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

Last updated
January 23, 2023, 5:31 AM EST

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

Locations

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

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Universtiy of Stavanger

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
WU Vienna University of Economics and Business
PI Affiliation
University of Stavanger

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2022-11-28
End date
2025-12-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
The project aims at investigating the effect of a role model intervention on students' educational and career aspirations and choices. We focus on schools located in the rural are of Hungary. Students of these schools have a higher probability of being “Not in Education, Employment, or Training” after leaving school than students in the urban area. Potential reasons for the insufficient educational attainment are unrealistic expectations about the costs and benefits of education, insufficient information about potential educational paths, low self-confidence, and a lack of role models whose path students could follow. Our project provides these role models by organizing classroom visits of volunteers who share their careers and educational journey.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Haeckl, Simone, Gergely Hajdu and Zsuzsanna Vadle. 2023. "Effects of a role model intervention on students’ aspirations, motivation and education choices." AEA RCT Registry. January 23. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.10497-2.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The experiment targets Hungarian high schools with a large proportion of disadvantaged students. The intervention is a presentation given by a role model for 30 minutes. Role models visit the schools at the same time and give a presentation during class time.

CHANGE: The intervention initially consisted of two 15-15 minutes presentations given by a female and a male role model but we changed the intervention to a 30 minutes presentation given by one role model.
Intervention Start Date
2022-11-28
Intervention End Date
2024-07-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Short-term outcomes:
Educational Aspirations
Educational Expectations
Interest in Higher Education

Intermediate-term outcomes:
GPA
Diligence
Interest in Education (survey)
Intention to apply to University

Long-term outcomes (if available):
Final GPA
GPA A-Levels
Application to University
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Short-term outcomes:

Educational Aspirations (measured in T2):
We ask students the following question:
“You have 100 points. You can distribute these points across different levels of education. The more points you put into a certain level means that you would like to get this degree more. For example, if you know that you would like to get the A-Levels and do not want to get a higher educational degree, you put 100 points into the box next to A-Levels. In contrast, if you are not sure and think it would be equally desirable to get a Bachelor, you could put 50 points in the box next to A-Levels and 50 points into the box next to Bachelor. (You can write any numbers you want in the boxes, but don’t forget that the sum of your answers has to be 100.)”
They can distribute points to the following three categories: No A-Levels, A-Levels, Bachelor, Master or higher. Each of the categories is translated into minimal years of schooling as follows: No A-Levels= 8 years, A-Levels = 12 years, Bachelor = 15 years, Master or higher = 17 years. We generate a weighted average.

Educational Expectations (measured in T2):
We ask students the following question:
“You have 100 points. You can distribute these points across different levels of education. The more points you put into a certain level means that you think it is more likely that you will get this degree. For example, if you are sure that you will get the A-Levels and will not get a higher educational degree, you put 100 points into the box next to A-Levels. In contrast, if you are not sure and think that it is equally likely that you will get a Bachelor, you could put 50 points in the box next to A-Levels and 50 points into the box next to Bachelor. (You can write any numbers you want in the boxes, but don’t forget that the sum of your answers has to be 100.)”
They can distribute points to the following three categories: No A-Levels, A-Levels, Bachelor, Master or higher. Each of the categories is translated into minimal years of schooling as follows: No A-Levels= 8 years, A-Levels = 12 years, Bachelor = 15 years, Master or higher = 17 years. We generate a weighted average.

Interest in Higher Education:
Is a dummy variable with value 1 if a student clicked on the information material or downloaded it and 0 otherwise.
Intermediate-term outcomes

GPA (measured in T3);
GPA of (Math, History, Literature)

Diligence (measured in T3):
Grade in Diligence

Interest in Education (survey in T3):
Index with equal weighting on the following three questions: On a scale 0-100, how much do you agree with the following statements?
“I am familiar with the university application process. .”
“I often look up content about higher education (on the internet, flyers, magazines).”
“I talk to my family or classmates or friends about pursuing higher education.”

Intention to apply for University (survey in T3):
Intention to apply based on a survey question (T3)

Long-term outcomes from schools (if available)
Application for University

Final GPA

GPA A-Levels

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Manipulation checks:
Locus of control
Belongingness
Perceived Importance of Education
Optimism
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Locus of control:
Based on the following, selected subsample of the Rotter (1966) scale of locus of control previously used by Gábor Kertesi & Gábor Kézdi in the Hungarian Life Course Survey, 2006-2012, Tárki Research Institute. Locus of control is the sum of the internal locus of control statements chosen (indicated with “I”) below.
I - What happens to me is mainly up to me. OR E - I often feel that it is not up to me how my life turns out
I - What I plan, I usually carry out. OR E - It's not always wise to plan too far ahead, a lot depends on luck anyway.
I - Luck has little to do with whether I get what I want. OR E - In many cases, we might as well throw money around to decide what to do.
E - I often feel I have little influence over what happens to me.OR I - I can't believe that luck or chance can play a major role in my life.

Belongingness:
We calculate an index of the following 4 questions about belongingness based on (Yeager et al. 2016) which are based on a 5-point Likert scale. We are using a dedicated measurement model in which we anchor the common factor in item 1.
I am sure that I could fit in at university.
When I'm struggling in high school, I wonder if I'll be able to fit in when I get to college. (R)
I think that people in universities and colleges would like it.
I think that I would not belong in a university or college. (R)

Perceived Importance of Education:
On a scale from 0-100 how much do you agree to the statement “ I think it is important to go to school”?

Optimism:
We create an index that contains the standardized value of the responses to the three questions below. We will put equal weights on each of the three items.:
Students provide probabilities to the following 2 questions (Gábor Kertesi & Gábor Kézdi Hungarian Life Course Survey, 2006-2012, Tárki Research Institute)
1) What do you think is the probability of: at the age of 35, you will be earning more than the average?
2) What do you think is the probability of: after finishing your education you will find a regular job?
3) We measure students' expected own returns as the gap between earnings with and without a higher educational degree based on the following question:
What do you think your average net monthly earnings would be at the age of 25 on a scale ranging from 0 to 800,000 HUF (or more) in Hungary, if …
... you do not have higher education (university, college)
... you do have higher education (university, college)

CHANGE: We added own returns to education measured as a gap between earnings with and without a higher educational degree. We also added that we create an index to evaluate these three questions.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
In Period 1 (November - February), participating classes will receive an online survey that measures the outcome variables of interest at baseline as well as a set of control variables. Then individuals are randomized into treatment and control groups. We randomize individuals within classrooms. In Period 2 (two weeks later), the role models visit the school and give a presentation to the treatment groups, whereas the control group gets a test about their interests (based on Holland, 1985). Students within one class will be guided into two different rooms: the “role-model room” and the “aptitude room” (those names will not be used in front of the students). Students in the “role-model room” see a 30 minutes presentation given by a role model. During the same time, students in the “aptitude-test room” fill out the test about their interests. Immediately after the intervention, the students in both groups are asked to fill out a survey in which we measure their locus of control, belongingness, optimism, aspirations and expectations. We also measure students' interest in higher education by providing them with information material that they can download. We will record whether or not a student has clicked on the information link. In addition, students in the treatment group report how relatable the role model was. In Period 3 (end of the school year), we distribute a follow-up survey with the same questions as in Period 1. We also ask students to report whether they took the A-levels and whether they submitted their university applications. We will collect these data from the schools as well.

CHANGE: The intervention initially consisted of two 15-15 minutes presentations given by a female and a male role model but we changed the intervention to a 30 minutes presentation given by one role model.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
It is a multi-site randomized trial with individual-level randomization. The sites are high-school classes in grades 11 and 12. Students draw a token that determines whether they go to the treatment or the control room.
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
See planned number of observations
Sample size: planned number of observations
We randomize individuals within classes (individual blocked randomization) in the academic year 2022/23. The expected average number of students present in class (accounting for children being absent) is 24. As the sign-up is still in progress, we calculate the sample size under different scenarios. In scenario 1, we include classes of schools we have been in contact with and who said that they would like to participate in the study. In this scenario, we will be able to conduct the experiment in 23 classes, leading to a total sample of 552 students. In scenario 2, we only include classes, we will certainly be able to visit. This reduces our sample to 8 classes, leading to a total sample of 192 students. We hope to be able to come back to the schools that participate in this academic year in 2023/24 and recruit the new 11th-graders. This would increase our sample size to 888 students in scenario 1 and to 288 students in scenario 2. We do not know yet if we will be allowed to visit the schools again.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Scenario 1 with only 1 year of data collection: 552 (276 treatment, 276 control)
Scenario 2 with only 1 year of data collection: 192 (96 treatment, 96 control)
Scenario 1 with 2 years of data collection: 888 (444 treatment, 444 control)
Scenario 2 with 2 years of data collection: 288 (144 treatment, 144 control)
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Power calculations for the different scenarios are provided in the analysis plan.
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Norsk Senter For Forskningsdata
IRB Approval Date
2022-10-04
IRB Approval Number
857265
IRB Name
WU Ethics Board
IRB Approval Date
2022-11-23
IRB Approval Number
WU-RP-2022-042
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information