|
Field
Trial Title
|
Before
Socioemotional Skills in Preschool-Evidence from Mexico
|
After
Socioemotional Skills in Preschool. Evidence from Mexico
|
|
Field
Trial Status
|
Before
on_going
|
After
completed
|
|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
Investing in the early years is a cost-effective public policy. Evidence indicates that developing key socio-emotional skills is instrumental in the acquisition of cognitive and academic skills and that these skills can be developed through psychological interventions. To test this at scale, we conduct a randomized experiment in Mexico to test if a mindfulness-based curriculum can help to improve the socio-emotional and cognitive skills of preschool children. Teachers from all 111 preschools in Nuevo Leon were trained to implement the curriculum. As a potential mechanism, we study changes in classroom practices oriented to improve children's socioemotional skills. Finally, we also test the indirect impacts of the intervention on teacher's socioemotional skills and psychological wellbeing.
|
After
Investing in the early years is a cost-effective public policy. Evidence indicates that developing key socio-emotional skills is instrumental in the acquisition of cognitive and academic skills and that these skills can be developed through psychological interventions. To test this at scale, we conduct a randomized experiment in Mexico to test if a mindfulness-based curriculum can help to improve the socio-emotional and cognitive skills of preschool children. Teachers from all 111 preschools in Nuevo Leon participated in the study, half of them were randomly selected to be trained to implement the curriculum and the other half was randomly assigned to a comparison group. As a potential mechanism, we test the indirect impacts of the intervention on teacher's socioemotional skills and psychological wellbeing.
|
|
Field
JEL Code(s)
|
Before
|
After
J13, J22, I24, I12, J12, J16
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
January 27, 2020 11:37 AM
|
After
January 27, 2021 07:45 PM
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
Our ultimate goal is to estimate treatment effects on students. To this end, we intend to study the impact of the program on the following margins: (i) Cognitive—by measuring their language and numeracy skills and (ii) socioemotional or behavioral—by measuring their socioemotional development in terms of inhibitory control and socioemotional development.
To study some of the mechanisms behind any treatment effect we might find we intend to look at some intermediate outcomes at the school and the teacher level. Specifically, we intend to study teachers’ behavior across the following margins: (i) Attendance—as measured by our enumerators during a spot check, (ii) pedagogical practices—as measured by the classroom observation tool TEACH, (iii) behaviors—by measuring their socioemotional skills through games and task-based and self-reported information.
This project constitutes the first one of our research agenda on SEL during early childhood and their mid- and long-term effects on development outcomes. We plan to track these kids (using administrative data and their unique ID) to measure the impact of the program on first-grade enrollment and performance (using educational census), primary school test-scores (using the nation-wide standardized PLANEA test), wages (using the IMSS database), and whether they vote or commit a crime (using the INE database).
|
After
Our ultimate goal is to estimate treatment effects on students. To this end, we intend to study the impact of the program on children's socioemotional wellbeing in terms of inhibitory control and socioemotional development.
To study some of the mechanisms behind any treatment effect we might find, we intend to look at some intermediate outcomes at the teacher level. Specifically, we intend to study teachers’ wellbeing using measures of emotional wellbeing, stress, anxiety, depression, burnout.
This project constitutes the first one of our research agenda on SEL during early childhood and their mid- and long-term effects on development outcomes. We plan to track these kids (using administrative data and their unique ID) to measure the impact of the program on first-grade enrollment and performance (using educational census), primary school test-scores (using the nation-wide standardized PLANEA test), wages (using the IMSS database), and whether they vote or commit a crime (using the INE database). These mid- and long-term effects will be part of upcoming projects.
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
The study universe includes all preschools in the municipality of Escobedo in Nuevo Leon. Out of the total of 111 schools, 50 percent of them were randomly assigned to treatment (55 preschools) and the rest to control (56 preschools) groups. The randomization process used the type of system (In Spanish Sistema, which indicates whether the school was originally a State-ran school or whether it was transferred from the Federal to the State Government) and shift (whether it is a morning or an evening shift) as stratification variables.
In this municipality, some preschool centers are located in the same facility but have different shifts. These are completely separate schools that do not share principals, students, or teachers. For this reason, some treatment and control preschools are located in the same facility. The implementation of this research project will include two phases. First, schools assigned to the treatment group will receive the full intervention, including components 1 and 2. After one and a half years, schools in the control group will participate in the intervention.
|
After
The study universe includes all preschools in the municipality of Escobedo in Nuevo Leon. Out of the total of 111 schools, 50 percent of them were randomly assigned to treatment (55 preschools) and the rest to control (56 preschools) groups. The randomization process used the type of system (In Spanish Sistema, which indicates whether the school was originally a State-ran school or whether it was transferred from the Federal to the State Government) and shift (whether it is a morning or an evening shift) as stratification variables. In some of these municipalities, some preschool centers are located in the same facility but have different shifts. These are completely separate schools that do not share principals, students, or teachers. For this reason, some treatment and control preschools are located in the same facility.
|
|
Field
Randomization Method
|
Before
The randomization was done in-office y the researchers using STATA
|
After
The randomization was done in-office by the researchers using STATA
|
|
Field
Randomization Unit
|
Before
Randomization unit was the preschool
|
After
The randomization unit was the preschool
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
We expect to collect data from 30 children per preschool, making a total of 3,300 preschoolers
|
After
We expect to collect data from around a total of 500 teachers and 1,500 caregivers (15 caregivers per preschool).
|
|
Field
Power calculation: Minimum Detectable Effect Size for Main Outcomes
|
Before
For the statistical power and sample size estimations, we assume (conservatively) an intra-school correlation of 0.3, an R2 of 30%, a type I Error rate of 0.05 and statistical power of 0.9. Using these values, the minimum detectable effect is 0.29SD. However, if the intra-school correlation is lower, say 0.15, then the MDE is 0.21. An additional complication is that 3 treatment schools are non-compliant, as their principals decided not to participate in the program (all control schools are compliant). Thus, the MDE with non-partial compliance is 0.30 and 0.22, with an ICC of 0.3 and 0.15, respectively. See estimations in Figure 2. These estimated MDE are not different from some found in existing studies for similar interventions.
|
After
For the statistical power and sample size estimations, we assume (conservatively) an intra-school correlation of 0.3, an R2 of 30%, a type I Error rate of 0.05, and statistical power of 0.8. Using these values, the minimum detectable effect is 0.29SD. However, if the intra-school correlation is lower, say 0.15, then the MDE is 0.21. An additional complication is that 3 treatment schools are non-compliant, as their principals decided not to participate in the program (all control schools are compliant). Thus, the MDE with non-partial compliance is 0.30 and 0.22, with an ICC of 0.3 and 0.15, respectively. See estimations in Figure 2. These estimated MDE are not different from some found in existing studies for similar interventions.
|
|
Field
Additional Keyword(s)
|
Before
Socio-emotional skills, Early Childhood
|
After
Socio-emotional skills, Preschool, Mental health, Child Behavior
|
|
Field
Pi as first author
|
Before
No
|
After
Yes
|