How can we improve math instruction? Experimental evidence from Chile
Last registered on August 23, 2018

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
How can we improve math instruction? Experimental evidence from Chile
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0003207
Initial registration date
August 23, 2018
Last updated
August 23, 2018 7:07 PM EDT
Location(s)

This section is unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access to this information.

Request Information
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
University of Maryland
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development - New York University
Additional Trial Information
Status
On going
Start date
2018-03-14
End date
2020-07-01
Secondary IDs
Abstract
Many developing countries struggle with building foundation math skills. We plan to conduct a two-year randomized evaluation of a promising math curriculum for primary school called JUMP Math in grades 1 and 3 in Santiago, Chile. The curriculum combines learning and teaching materials with teacher training and a specific pedagogy for teaching math in primary school. Specifically, it includes three main components: (a) it breaks down long learning units into shorter, more manageable, units that students can understand; (b) it ensures that students master a given unit before moving on to the next one; and (c) it provides students with feedback through ongoing formative assessment.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Galiani, Sebastian and Alejandro J. Ganimian. 2018. "How can we improve math instruction? Experimental evidence from Chile." AEA RCT Registry. August 23. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/3207/history/33440
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2018-03-19
Intervention End Date
2019-12-01
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Time spent on instructional tasks; student achievement in math; students' socio-emotional skills
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
We invited 55 public secondary schools in the Santiago metropolitan area to participate in the study. A representative from the non-profit met with the principal of each of these schools to invite them to participate the evaluation.

52 schools accepted to participate. They were located across different districts (municipios) within Santiago, including: El Bosque, La Granja, Pedro Aguirre Cerda, San Bernardo, Santiago y Santo Domigo.

We randomly selected two grade 1 and two grade 3 sections per school. Then, a representative from the non-profit met with all the principals of sampled schools to explain the requirements of the program and the evaluation and collect their baseline data. This process resulted in 3,300 students who were entered into a lottery roster.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
We randomly assigned each grade (i.e., both sections) at each school to a treatment group, which was offered the program, or to a control group, which was not offered the program. This lottery resulted in 1,650 students in each group. The offer of the program allowed students to remain in the program for two years.
Randomization Unit
Grades
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
52 schools
Sample size: planned number of observations
3,300 students
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
26 grade 1 groups will be assigned to the treatment group (and the grade 3 groups at those schools will be assigned to the control group) and 26 grade 1 groups will be assigned to the control group (and the grade 3 groups at those schools will be assigned to the treatment group).
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
University of Maryland College Park Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2018-06-11
IRB Approval Number
N/A