|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
Although most children in El Salvador attend school, many still struggle with reading and writing. This randomized controlled trial evaluates two early literacy interventions for low-performing second to ninth grade (XXX?) students from Morazán, El Salvador. We randomly assign 600 students into a control group or one of two experimental groups receiving a six month intervention: 1) twice-weekly reading and writing sessions from NGO-hired teachers during class hours 2) the same intervention, complemented by motivational text messages to parents and parent focus evenings. The aim of this trial is two-fold. First, we investigate the effectiveness of high-intensity, short-term and targeted support during class hours in enhancing literacy outcomes among students facing learning difficulties. Second, we evaluate whether complementary parental involvement and motivation, can provide additional benefits in improving these outcomes.
|
After
Although most children in El Salvador attend school, many still struggle with reading and writing. This randomized controlled trial evaluates two early literacy interventions for low-performing second to ninth grade students from Morazán, El Salvador. We randomly assign 600 students into a control group or one of two experimental groups receiving a six month intervention: 1) twice-weekly reading and writing sessions from NGO-hired teachers during class hours 2) the same intervention, complemented by motivational text messages to parents and parent focus meetings. The aim of this trial is two-fold. First, we investigate the effectiveness of high-intensity, short-term and targeted support during class hours in enhancing literacy outcomes among students facing learning difficulties. Second, we evaluate whether complementary parental involvement and motivation can provide additional benefits in improving these outcomes.
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
April 22, 2025 10:21 AM
|
After
June 23, 2025 08:47 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
T1) 200 students from 28 schools receive twice-weekly reading and writing sessions during regular school hours. Lessons are delivered by external, NGO-hired and trained teachers for 6 months. Each session has a duration of 90 minutes and is delivered in small groups of 10 to 15 students.
T2) 200 students from 28 schools receive treatment 1 complemented by a parental intervention. Parents are motivated by twice-weekly text messages and focus evenings to support their children in their learning process.
The children in the control group take part in regular lessons and do not receive any specialized sessions.
|
After
T1) 224 students from 28 schools and 202 households receive twice-weekly reading and writing sessions during regular school hours. Lessons are delivered by external, NGO-hired and trained teachers for 6 months. Each session has a duration of 90 minutes and is delivered in small groups of 10 to 15 students.
T2) 223 students from 28 schools and 202 households receive treatment 1 complemented by a parental intervention. Parents are motivated by twice-weekly text messages and focus meetings to support their children in their learning process.
The children in the control group (216 students from 202 households) take part in regular lessons and do not receive any specialized sessions.
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
Student learning outcomes in literacy are measured via a baseline and an endline assessment that both consist of a written and an oral part. The assessments evaluate six core concepts: writing skills, motor skills, reading skills, reading comprehension, oral comprehension, phonological awareness.
|
After
Student learning outcomes in literacy are measured via a baseline and an endline assessment that both consist of a written and an oral part. The assessments evaluate six core concepts: writing skills, motor skills, reading skills, reading comprehension, oral comprehension, phonological awareness.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Clusters
|
Before
30-40 (28) schools in the main study
|
After
606 households
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
approximately 600 students
|
After
663 students
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
T1) 200 students
T2) 200 students
Control) 200 students
|
After
T1) 202 households
T2) 202 households
Control) 202 households
|
|
Field
Power calculation: Minimum Detectable Effect Size for Main Outcomes
|
Before
We assume (conservatively) that the baseline covariates (e.g., the baseline test score, age, and gender) explain 50% of the variance. This calculation is based on data from two previous trials run by the research team in El Salvador, which found the explanatory power of age, gender, cohort and baseline test to be 0.45 and 0.69 respectively. Assuming 200 students per experimental group, we can therefore detect an effect size of at least (MDE) 0.198 SD with power 80% using a 5% test of level when comparing each treatment to the control or comparing the two treatments against each other.
|
After
We assume (conservatively) that the baseline covariates (e.g., the baseline test score, age, and gender) explain 50% of the variance. This calculation is based on data from two previous trials run by the research team in El Salvador, which found the explanatory power of age, gender, cohort and baseline test to be 0.45 and 0.69 respectively. Assuming 200 students per experimental group, we can therefore detect an effect size of at least (MDE) 0.198 SD with power 80% using a 5% test of level when comparing each treatment to the control or comparing the two treatments against each other.
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
Parental engagement
Parental responsiveness to intervention
Student motivation and engagement
|
After
Parental engagement
Parental responsiveness to intervention
Student motivation and engagement
Student grades in language, math and other subjects (if available)
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
We assess parental engagement by conducting a parent survey at endline.
We assess parental responsiveness to our intervention by tracking response rates to text messages (XXX keep this?) and attendance at parent focus evenings.
We assess student motivation and engagement in our survey at baseline and endline and track student attendance throughout the year using attendance records. (XXX keep this?)
|
After
We assess parental engagement by conducting a parent survey at endline.
We assess parental responsiveness to our intervention by tracking response rates to text messages and attendance at parent focus evenings.
We assess student motivation and engagement in our survey at baseline and endline and track student attendance of the specialized lessons.
We aim to assess whether we see any spillovers from the intervention to other subjects such as math by collecting student grades at baseline and endline. It is not yet clear, whether we will have access to that data however.
|