The effect of teacher professional development through a webinars series on students’ financial literacy proficiency

Schools were assigned to the following four experimental conditions:
1) Control condition: Students follow a financial education course
2) Experimental condition 1: Students follow a financial education course. Teachers do not follow professional development in the form of a webinar series.
3) Experimental condition 2: Students follow a financial education course. Teachers do not follow professional development in the form of a webinar series, but will be expected to implement an introductory phase and regular plenary feedback moments.
4) Experimental condition 3: Students follow a financial education course. Teachers follow professional development in the form of a webinar series and will be expected to implement the introductory phase and regular plenary feedback moments that they develop during the professional development trajectory.

2018-10-01

2018-12-10

The financial literacy levels of students are measured by a test, consisting of a series of multiple-choice questions. Specifically, this test assesses students’ knowledge on saving and investing, which are the topics covered in the educational material. The financial literacy of teachers is measured by a separate questionnaire. Pre- and posttests are compared to be able to examine the learning process. Participants do not receive feedback on their answers to prevent learning from the test, and identifiers are used to match the tests.

A randomized controlled trial was used, and schools were randomized to the aforementioned four experimental conditions. A pretest-posttest design was conducted to measure the levels of financial literacy before and after students followed the course.

The educational material was designed for students in the second and third year of secondary education (13 – 15 years old) in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium. Before the intervention, all students filled in pretest to examine their financial literacy. Students also reported characteristics like gender, socio-economic status and performance in Dutch and mathematics. Teachers completed a separate questionnaire. After completion of the questionnaires, schools in the experimental conditions received the educational material, including instructions for teachers on how to implement the course. Schools assigned to the control condition completed the tests at the same time as those in the experimental conditions, but did not follow the course until after completion of the posttest.
Approximately one month after filling in the pretest, students in the three experimental conditions followed a 4-hour course on financial literacy, focusing on saving and investing. The material was offered in the form of a digital adaptive learning path, that the students followed in pairs. Students were assigned to one of three different paths based on a test that examined their prior knowledge on the topic. The three paths differed in the difficulty of exercises and the extent to which feedback was provided.
Experimental condition 2 allows to examine the effectiveness of the course in itself. Therefore, teachers solely received a teacher manual containing the learning goals, instructions on the implementation of the material, an overview of the content, and solutions to all questions and exercises. Experimental condition 3 provides insight into whether enhanced teacher involvement would enhance the effectiveness of the adaptive learning path. Specifically, teachers were asked to develop and implement a motivational phase of approximately 20 minutes, that would precede the programme. Teachers had to coach students while going through the material, and regularly organise feedback moments. Teachers allocated to experimental condition 3 followed a three-part webinar series. The initiative took place before the educational material was received (in October 2018). Each webinar lasted one hour (+ one hour preparation time), and included instruction by the senior teachers who developed the material, and online cooperation with peers. The series focused on enhancing teachers’ knowledge on saving and investing, as well as their didactical knowledge on how to stimulate self-regulated learning. Comparing this condition with experimental condition 2 reveals whether professional development was needed for a beneficial impact of enhanced teacher involvement.

At the end of this course, students and teachers again filled in a test that measures their knowledge on the content covered. For comparability, the pretest and posttest contained similar questions.

Schools are recruited using an open call, resulting in all Flemish schools being eligible. During registration, teachers are asked to indicate whether they are interested in participating in the professional development initiative. Schools whose teachers are not interested, are randomly assigned (using a random number generator in Stata) to one of the three conditions without professional development. Schools whose teachers are willing to participate in the initiative, are randomly assigned to one of the four different conditions. A robustness check is run to check whether this procedure leads to selection effects. In particular, in a robustness test we focus only on the teachers who indicated to be willing to participate in the professional development.

Randomization occurs at the school level. All students and teachers in the same school are assigned to the same condition. This ensures that all teachers within a school receive the same teaching material and instructions. This minimizes the possibility of spill-over effects and contamination of the different experimental conditions.

Yes

At least 20 schools

At least 1000 students

Planned sample sizes:

Control condition = 250 students, 5 schools
Experimental condition 1 = 250 students, 5 schools
Experimental condition 2 = 250 students, 5 schools
Experimental condition 3 = 250 students, 5 schools