x

NEW UPDATE: Completed trials may now upload and register supplementary documents (e.g. null results reports, populated pre-analysis plans, or post-trial results reports) in the Post Trial section under Reports, Papers, & Other Materials.
The Impact of Mobile Pedagogical Tutors on the Education Outcomes of Children in Rural Areas of Mexico
Last registered on October 02, 2016

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
The Impact of Mobile Pedagogical Tutors on the Education Outcomes of Children in Rural Areas of Mexico
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0001645
Initial registration date
October 02, 2016
Last updated
October 02, 2016 7:37 PM EDT
Location(s)
Region
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
World Bank
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
World Bank
Additional Trial Information
Status
On going
Start date
2014-09-15
End date
2017-02-28
Secondary IDs
Abstract
The National Council for Education Development (CONAFE) introduced a community-based model (referred to as community schools) to deliver educational services to rural highly marginalized areas. Young graduates – mostly from high school –teach in the primary and lower secondary levels. In exchange, these teachers receive a small stipend during their posting as well as a scholarship to continue their studies after their posting. In 2009, as part of the attempts to improve the quality of service delivery, CONAFE launched the Asesores Pedagogicos Itinerantes (APIs) (simply referred as mobile tutors) program. The intervention, which targets under-performing primary schools in remote areas, aims primarily at empowering parents, and providing pedagogical support to teachers and low-performing students. The APIs, who are selected among recent university graduates, are paid stipends in line with the entrance salaries of public school teachers. Each mobile tutor is assigned to two schools, where he/she spends two weeks on a continuous basis each month. During the time spent in the community, the tutor engages in three different activities: 1) delivery of pedagogical support to teachers; 2) one-on-one remedial sessions to the worst-performing students; and 3) home visits to the parents to provide information on their children’s learning progress, and promote their involvement in their education and participation in school related activities.

The objective of the study is to evaluate the impact of the APIs program on a) students’ reading, math and vocabulary and verbal skills as measured by the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA), Early Grade Math Assessment (EGMA), b) the transition from primary to lower secondary education. The study will analyze the potential contributing factors by analyzing the impact of the APIs program on c) the pedagogical practices used by the teachers in the classroom as measured by a Stallings type instrument; and d) the involvement of parents in the children’s education through the HOME instrument.

The evaluation is experimental, with an initial random assignment of schools to the following intervention and comparison groups:
1. T1 group: 70 schools were assigned to the standard API treatment, as described above
2. T2 group: 60 schools were assigned to the strengthened API treatment. The treatment T2 differs from the T1 treatment in the intensity and the contents of the training provided to the APIs. Instead of an one-week initial training, the APIs in the T2 group receive two weeks of training, and they will attend bimonthly three day sessions, that will allow the APIs, among other things, to receive feedback from the community.
3. C group: 100 schools (of the type A) act as a control group and receive no treatment
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Avitabile, Ciro and Alonso Sanchez. 2016. "The Impact of Mobile Pedagogical Tutors on the Education Outcomes of Children in Rural Areas of Mexico." AEA RCT Registry. October 02. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.1645-1.0.
Former Citation
Avitabile, Ciro, Ciro Avitabile and Alonso Sanchez. 2016. "The Impact of Mobile Pedagogical Tutors on the Education Outcomes of Children in Rural Areas of Mexico." AEA RCT Registry. October 02. http://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/1645/history/10974.
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
The APIs, who are selected among recent university graduates, are paid stipends in line with the entrance salaries of public school teachers. Each mobile tutor is assigned to two schools, where he/she spends two weeks on a continuous basis each month. The school type A is selected based on the following criteria: 1) having at least 30% of students classified as Insufficient in a national standardized test, and 2) having at least 6 students. The school type B is selected based on the proximity to school type A. During the time spent in the community, the tutor engages in three different activities: 1) delivery of pedagogical support to teachers; 2) one-on-one remedial sessions to the worst-performing students; and 3) home visits to the parents to provide information on their children’s learning progress, and promote their involvement in their education and participation in school related activities.
Intervention Start Date
2014-09-15
Intervention End Date
2016-06-30
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
a) Students’ reading, math as measured by the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA), Early Grade Math Assessment (EGMA)
b) Probability of transitioning from 6th to 7th grade
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
Schools where randomly selected in three groups:
1. T1 group: 70 schools were assigned to the standard API treatment
2. T2 group: 60 schools were assigned to the strengthened API treatment. The treatment T2 differs from the T1 treatment in the intensity and the contents of the training provided to the APIs. Instead of an one-week initial training, the APIs in the T2 group receive two weeks of training, and they will attend bimonthly three day sessions, that will allow the APIs, among other things, to receive feedback from the community.
3. C group: 100 schools (of the type A) act as a control group and receive no treatment
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office
Randomization Unit
The unit of randomization is the school
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
230 Schools
Sample size: planned number of observations
1950 students 1100 households 130 Mobile Tutors 310 Teachers
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
The evaluation is experimental, with an initial random assignment of schools into one of the following intervention and comparison groups:
1. T1 group: 70 schools were assigned to the standard API treatment
2. T2 group: 60 schools were assigned to the strengthened API treatment. The treatment T2 differs from the T1 treatment in the intensity and the contents of the training provided to the APIs. Instead of an one-week initial training, the APIs in the T2 group receive two weeks of training, and they will attend bimonthly three day sessions, that will allow the APIs, among other things, to receive feedback from the community.
3. C group: 100 schools (of the type A) act as a control group and receive no treatment
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Post-Trial
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Intervention
Is the intervention completed?
No
Is data collection complete?
Data Publication
Data Publication
Is public data available?
No
Program Files
Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials
Relevant Paper(s)
REPORTS & OTHER MATERIALS