The effect of group formation and differentiated instruction in financial literacy education. Evidence from a randomized experiment.

Last registered on October 25, 2018

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
The effect of group formation and differentiated instruction in financial literacy education. Evidence from a randomized experiment.
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0003478
Initial registration date
October 25, 2018

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 25, 2018, 5:47 PM EDT

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

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
KU Leuven

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
KU Leuven
PI Affiliation
Universiteit Antwerpen
PI Affiliation
KU Leuven

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2017-09-01
End date
2018-12-31
Secondary IDs
Abstract
Significant heterogeneity in financial literacy proficiency among students prevails, with an important group of the population not reaching the minimum performance level. Including differentiation practices in financial education may solve for these differences. Using two waves of a large-scale randomized experiment involving 69 schools and approximately 2,400 students, we evaluate the effect of within-class group formation and differentiated instruction on financial knowledge and behavior of eighth and ninth grade students in secondary education in the Flemish community of Belgium. Schools were randomly assigned to a control group (no financial literacy education) and treatment groups. The treatment groups received an intense four-hour financial education course which ran independently of the teacher, and where students worked together in groups of two. We examine the impact of group formation and differentiated instruction by comparing test scores of students for which teachers implemented heterogeneous group formation, homogenous group formation or homogenous group formation with differentiated instruction.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Declercq, Koen et al. 2018. "The effect of group formation and differentiated instruction in financial literacy education. Evidence from a randomized experiment.." AEA RCT Registry. October 25. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.3478-1.0
Former Citation
Declercq, Koen et al. 2018. "The effect of group formation and differentiated instruction in financial literacy education. Evidence from a randomized experiment.." AEA RCT Registry. October 25. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/3478/history/36263
Sponsors & Partners

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

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Schools are assigned to the following four experimental conditions:
1) Control group: Students do not follow financial literacy education.
2) Treatment group 1: Students follow financial literacy education. Students complete the course in groups of two and are randomly assigned to a group (heterogeneous group formation).
3) Treatment group 2: Students follow financial literacy education. Students complete the course in groups of two and are sorted into groups according to their grade in mathematics (homogeneous group formation).
4) Treatment group 3: Students follow financial literacy education. Students complete the course in groups of two and are sorted into groups according to their grade in mathematics. For the groups where students have low or medium grades in mathematics, additional instructions are provided (homogeneous group formation with differentiated instruction).
Intervention Start Date
2018-01-12
Intervention End Date
2018-06-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
We measure financial literacy proficiency by means of a test that contains 13 questions, covering both financial knowledge and financial behavior.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Schools were randomized to the aforementioned four experimental conditions. We measured the level of financial literacy proficiency before and after students followed the course. Students who were assigned to the control group completed the same tests at the same time as students in the treatment groups. The experiment was conducted in two separate waves. In the first wave, students in eighth grade (average age 13-14) participated in the experiment. In the second wave, students in ninth grade (average age 14-15) followed the exact same course and completed the same questionnaires.
Experimental Design Details
Before the intervention, all students (control and treatment groups) completed an online questionnaire in order to measure their financial knowledge and behavior. In addition, students reported some personal characteristics such as gender, grades and socioeconomic background. After all students completed the questionnaire, teachers in the treatment groups received the course material, including instructions on how to implement the course.
Approximately one month after completing the pretest, students in the treatment groups followed an intense four-hour financial education course covering the topic of means of payments. The course material was designed in the format of a serious game by secondary school teachers according to the age and ability of the students. Students worked together in groups of two and were able to finish the course material whenever they found correct answers to all questions. Booklets on the topic were provided such that students were able to look up information on the questions. We incentivized students to perform well during the course by providing a small gift for the winning team.
In treatment group 1, students were randomly assigned to a group (heterogeneous groups). In treatment groups 2 and 3, students were assigned to different groups according to their previous exam grade in mathematics. Students who obtained a similar grade were assigned to the same group (homogeneous groups). In treatment groups 1 and 2, all students received the same course material and instructions. In treatment group 3, all students received the same course material, but students with low or medium grades in mathematics received additional instructions.
At the end of the course, students filled in a posttest to measure financial knowledge and behavior. At the same time, students in the control group completed the posttest as well without having followed the course. This posttest contained similar questions as the pretest.
Randomization Method
Schools were randomly assigned to the different experimental conditions by a random number generator in Stata.
Randomization Unit
In both waves, we randomized at the school level. All pupils and teachers in the same school were assigned to the same condition. In this way, all teachers in the same school received the same teaching material and instructions. This minimizes the possibility of spill-over effects and contamination of the different experimental conditions.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
We report the actual number of participating students and schools, for which we have observations for both the pretest and the posttest. This sample will also be used for the calculation of the minimal detectable effect size.
Wave 1: 43 schools
Wave 2: 26 schools
Sample size: planned number of observations
Wave 1: 1,896 pupils Wave 2: 511 pupils
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Wave 1: eighth grade
Control group = 739 pupils, 13 schools
Treatment group 1 = 400 pupils, 9 schools
Treatment group 2 = 349 pupils, 9 schools
Treatment group 3 = 408 pupils, 12 schools

Wave 2: ninth grade
Control group = 111 pupils, 5 schools
Treatment group 1 = 161 pupils, 7 schools
Treatment group 2 = 148 pupils, 10 schools
Treatment group 3 = 91 pupils, 4 schools

Total sample
Control group = 850 pupils, 18 schools
Treatment group 1 = 561 pupils, 16 schools
Treatment group 2 = 497 pupils, 19 schools
Treatment group 3 = 499 pupils, 16 schools

Average number of schools per condition = 17.3
Average number of pupils per condition = 601.8
Average number of pupils per school = 34.9
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
We base our computation on List et al. (2011) and account for intracluster correlation in the calculation of the minimal detectable effect size. We combine both waves in our analysis. In our experimental setting, there are on average 17.3 schools in each experimental condition. Each school contains on average 34.9 students. Performing a one-way ANOVA analysis in Stata, we find an intra-school correlation of 0.12. Note that this is a conservative approach, as in our analyses we will control for school and student characteristics, which will decrease the intracluster correlation. With the conventional power of 0.8 and a significance level of 0.05, we are able to detect a treatment effect of 0.36 standard deviations or larger. Reference: List, J., Sadoff, S. and Wagner, M. (2011), So you want to run an experiment, now what? Some simple rules of thumb for optimal experimental design, Experimental Economics 14, 439-457.
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

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

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Yes
Data Collection Completion Date
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials