x

Please fill out this short user survey of only 3 questions in order to help us improve the site. We appreciate your feedback!
One Email to Students: Can a Light-Touch Intervention Make a Difference?
Last registered on September 17, 2020

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
One Email to Students: Can a Light-Touch Intervention Make a Difference?
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0006396
Initial registration date
September 15, 2020
Last updated
September 17, 2020 8:08 AM 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 Iowa
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
University of Iowa
Additional Trial Information
Status
In development
Start date
2020-09-16
End date
2020-12-16
Secondary IDs
Abstract
This study measures the effects of different forms of instructor communication in an online/hybrid class setting at a large, public university. Study participants randomly receive different forms of communications from their instructors. We hypothesize that various forms of communication in this setting has the potential to affect course grades, the frequency of help-seeking, and overall perceptions of instructor quality.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Page, Darren and Travis Williams. 2020. "One Email to Students: Can a Light-Touch Intervention Make a Difference?." AEA RCT Registry. September 17. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.6396-1.0.
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
Students receive various forms of instructor communication.
Intervention Start Date
2020-09-16
Intervention End Date
2020-09-29
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Course performance, perception of instructors, and frequency of help-seeking.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Course performance is measured by the following set of variables: final course grade, grade on subsequent exam, indicator for course passing. Perception of instructor quality and TA quality are indices of quality developed by a set of 5 questions related to perceptions of instructors. Frequency of help-seeking measures number of times students correspond with their instructor and TA over email and sought help via office hours.
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Perceptions of instructor and TA across different categories, grades on subsets of course material, knowledge of the professor and TA's office hours dates, interest in further courses of the same discipline, time spent each week on course materials, perceptions of course difficulty.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Categories of perceptions include "the professor (TA) cares whether or not I learn the material", "my professor (TA) is available to talk to me and answer my questions", "my professor (TA) is interested in teaching the course", "my professor understands the material and is able to communicate it clearly". Subsets of course material include attendance measures, homework, exams, online interaces.
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
Students receive different forms of communication from course instructors.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization is conducted with a random number generator in Stata.
Randomization Unit
Randomization occurs at the student level.
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
54 discussion sections.
Sample size: planned number of observations
1,000 students in data collection phase and 300 students in the experimental phase. Actual numbers depend on fractions of students who consent to participate and fraction scoring sufficiently low on the first exam.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
100 in each treatment arm and 100 in control for a total of 300.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
With standard errors clustered at discussion section level, we can detect an effect of 4 percentage points for overall course score 80 percent of the time. This assumes a standard deviation of 9 in overall course scores. We can detect an effect in office hour visits of 0.75, with standard deviation of 1.7. We can detect an effect of 6 percentage points on the second exam, with standard deviation 14.5.
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
University of Iowa Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2020-09-08
IRB Approval Number
202004489