Search

ABSTRACT: Empirical evidence has shown that returns to English language ability are substantial in India. Research has also focused on the impact of private tutoring in the context of developing economies to find evidence that remedial teaching leads to better student achievement and higher test scores. In this paper I analyze whether private tutoring helps in developing English language ability. Simple OLS estimates suggest statistically significant effects but estimated coefficients are rather small at 0.2 percentage points. Presence of confounders and selection bias may potentially understate the true effects of private tutoring on English language ability. To address this issue, I exploit a unique policy experiment in India in a regression discontinuity framework to identify cohorts eligible for private tutoring and compare their outcomes to the ineligible. I use this potentially exogenous policy variation as an instrument for private tutoring and find significant increases in English language ability estimated at 16 percentage points which is much larger than the simple OLS effects. Since standard academic curriculum is not directed towards improving foreign language ability, private tutoring as an input in the education production function seems to offer high marginal returns. From a policy perspective, this implies that private tutoring should be encouraged for enhancing English ability even though there are concerns that this provides disincentives for teachers to teach in school. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Investment in mobile devices to support primary or elementary education is increasing and must be informed by robust evidence to demonstrate impact. This systematic review of randomised controlled trials sought to identify the overall impact of mobile devices to support literacy and numeracy outcomes in mainstream primary classrooms. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to understand how mobile devices are used in primary/elementary education around the world, and in particular, determine how activities undertaken using mobile devices in the primary classroom might impact literacy and numeracy attainment for the pupils involved. Within this context, mobile devices are defined as tablets (including iPads and other branded devices), smartphones (usually those with a touchscreen interface and internet connectivity) and handheld games consoles (again usually with touchscreen and internet‐enabled). The interventions of interest were those aimed at improving literacy and/or numeracy for children aged 4–12 within the primary/elementary school (or equivalent) classroom. Specifically, the review aimed to answer the following research questions: ‐What is the effect of mobile device integration in the primary school classroom on children's literacy and numeracy outcomes?‐Are there specific devices which are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Tablets, smartphones, or handheld games consoles)‐Are there specific classroom integration activities which moderate effectiveness in supporting literacy and numeracy?‐Are there specific groups of children for whom mobile devices are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Across age group and gender).‐Do the benefits of mobile devices for learning last for any time beyond the study?‐What is the quality of available evidence on the use of mobile devices in primary/elementary education, and where is further research needed in this regard? An Expert Advisory Group supported the review process at key stages to ensure relevance to current practice. Search Methods: The search strategy was designed to retrieve both published and unpublished literature, and incorporated relevant journal and other databases with a focus on education and social sciences. Robust electronic database searches were undertaken (12 databases, including APA PsychInfo, Web of Science, ERIC, British Education Index and others, and relevant government and other websites), as well as a hand‐search of relevant journals and conference proceedings. Contact was also made with prominent authors in the field to identify any ongoing or unpublished research. All searches and author contact took place between October and November 2020. The review team acknowledges that new studies will likely have emerged since and are not captured at this time. A further update to the review in the future is important and would build on the evidence reflected here. Selection Criteria: The review included children within mainstream primary/elementary/kindergarten education settings in any country (aged 4–12), and interventions or activities initiated within the primary school classroom (or global equivalent) that used mobile devices (including tablets, smartphones, or hand‐held gaming devices) to intentionally support literacy or numeracy learning. In terms of study design, only Randomised Controlled Trials were included in the review. Data Collection and Analysis: A total of 668 references were identified through a robust search strategy including published and unpublished literature. Following duplicate screening, 18 relevant studies, including 11,126 participants, 14 unique interventions, and 46 relevant outcome measures were synthesised using Robust Variance Estimation and a random effects meta‐analysis model. Risk of Bias assessment was undertaken by three reviewers using the ROB2 tool to assess the quality of studies, with 13 studies rated as having some concerns, and 5 as having high risk of bias. Qualitative data was also extracted and analysed in relation to the types of interventions included to allow a comparison of the key elements of each. Main Results: A positive, statistically significant combined effect was found (Cohen's d = 0.24, CI 0.0707 to 0.409, p < 0.01), demonstrating that in the studies and interventions included, children undertaking maths or literacy interventions using mobile devices achieved higher numeracy or literacy outcomes than those using an alternative device (e.g. a laptop or desktop computer) or no device (class activities as usual). However these results should be interpreted with caution given the risk of bias assessment noted above (5 studies rated high risk of bias and 13 rated as having some concerns). As the interventions and classroom circumstances differed quite widely, further research is needed to understand any potential impact more fully. Sensitivity analysis aimed to identify moderating factors including age or gender, screen size, frequency/dosage of intervention exposure, and programme implementation features/activities (based on Puentedura's [2009] SAMR model of technology integration). There were too few studies identified to support quantitative analysis of sufficient power to draw robust conclusions on moderating factors, and insufficient data to determine impact beyond immediate post‐test period. Sensitivty analysis was also undertaken to exclude the five studies identified as having a high risk of bias, to identify any impact they may have on overall findings. Authors' Conclusions: Overall, this review demonstrates that for the specific interventions and studies included, mobile device use in the classroom led to a significant, positive effect on literacy and numeracy outcomes for the children involved, bringing positive implications for their continued use in primary education. However given the concerns on risk of bias assessment reported above, the differing circumstances, interventions and treatment conditions and intensities, the findings must be interpreted with caution. The review also supports the need for further robust research to better understand what works, under what circumstances, and for whom, in the use of mobile devices to support learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High school completion, like many educational phenomena, is the result of processes that, when taken together, constitute a complex system. In this paper, we describe the innovative use of group model building (GMB) as an entry point for complex systems analysis of educational processes that collectively determine high school completion. GMB exercises were conducted in a community in the state of Victoria in Australia. GMB brought together stakeholders from around the community and encouraged them to view high school completion from a complex systems perspective. Not only were participants able to use their experience to create an action plan to increase high school graduation rates but they also provided researchers with valuable information that can be used as input into rigorous, quantitative models of high school completion. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Montessori education is the oldest and most widely implemented alternative education in the world, yet its effectiveness has not been clearly established. Objectives: The primary objective of this review was to examine the effectiveness of Montessori education in improving academic and nonacademic outcomes compared to traditional education. The secondary objectives were to determine the degree to which grade level, Montessori setting (public Montessori vs. private Montessori), random assignment, treatment duration, and length of follow‐up measurements moderate the magnitude of Montessori effects. Search Methods: We searched for relevant studies in 19 academic databases, in a variety of sources known to publish gray literature, in Montessori‐related journals, and in the references of studies retrieved through these searches. Our search included studies published during or before February 2020. The initial search was performed in March 2014 with a follow‐up search in February 2020. Selection Criteria: We included articles that compared Montessori education to traditional education, contributed at least one effect size to an academic or nonacademic outcome, provided sufficient data to compute an effect size and its variance, and showed sufficient evidence of baseline equivalency–through random assignment or statistical adjustment–of Montessori and traditional education groups. Data Collection and Analysis: To synthesize the data, we used a cluster‐robust variance estimation procedure, which takes into account statistical dependencies in the data. Otherwise, we used standard methodological procedures as specified in the Campbell Collaboration reporting and conduct standards. Main Results: Initial searches yielded 2012 articles, of which 173 were considered in detail to determine whether they met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Of these, 141 were excluded and 32 were included. These 32 studies yielded 204 effect sizes (113 academic and 91 nonacademic) across 132,249 data points. In the 32 studies that met minimum standards for inclusion, including evidence of baseline equivalence, there was evidence that Montessori education outperformed traditional education on a wide variety of academic and nonacademic outcomes. For academic outcomes, Hedges' g effect sizes, where positive values favor Montessori, ranged from 0.26 for general academic ability (with high quality evidence) to 0.06 for social studies. The quality of evidence for language (g = 0.17) and mathematics (g = 0.22) was also high. The effect size for a composite of all academic outcomes was 0.24. Science was the only academic outcome that was deemed to have low quality of evidence according to the GRADE approach. Effect sizes for nonacademic outcomes ranged from 0.41 for students' inner experience of school to 0.23 for social skills. Both of these outcomes were deemed as having low quality of evidence. Executive function (g = 0.36) and creativity (g = 0.26) had moderate quality of evidence. The effect size for a composite of all nonacademic outcomes was 0.33. Moderator analyses of the composite academic and nonacademic outcomes showed that Montessori education resulted in larger effect sizes for randomized studies compared to nonrandomized studies, for preschool and elementary settings compared to middle school or high school settings, and for private Montessori compared to public Montessori. Moderator analyses for treatment duration and duration from intervention to follow‐up data collection were inconclusive. There was some evidence for a lack of small sample‐size studies in favor of traditional education, which could be an indicator of publication bias. However, a sensitivity analysis indicated that the findings in favor of Montessori education were nonetheless robust. Authors' Conclusions: Montessori education has a meaningful and positive impact on child outcomes, both academic and nonacademic, relative to outcomes seen when using traditional educational methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe the distribution of pediatricians and family physicians (child physicians) across school districts and examine the association between physician supply and third‐grade test scores. Data Sources and Study Setting: Data come from the January 2020 American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, the 2009–2013 and 2014–2018 waves of American Community Survey 5‐Year Data, and the Stanford Education Data Archive (SEDA), which uses test scores from all U.S. public schools. We use covariate data provided by SEDA to describe student populations. Study Design: This descriptive analysis constructs a physician‐to‐child‐population ratio for every school district in the country and describes the child population served by the current distribution of physicians. We fit a set of multivariable regression models to estimate the associations between district test score outcomes and district physician supply. Our model includes state fixed effects to control for unobservable state‐level factors, as well as a covariate vector of sociodemographic characteristics. Data Collection: Public data from three sources were matched by district ID. Principal Findings: Physicians are highly unequally distributed across districts: nearly 3640 (29.6%) of 12,297 districts have no child physician, which includes 49% of rural districts. Rural children of color in particular have very little access to pediatric care, and this inequality is more extreme when looking exclusively at pediatricians. Districts that have higher child physician supplies tend to have higher academic test scores in early education, independent of community socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic composition. While the national data show this positive relationship (0.012 SD, 95% CI, 0.0103–0.0127), it is most pronounced for districts in the bottom tertile of physician supply (0.163 SD, 95% CI, 0.108–0.219). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates a highly unequal distribution of child physicians in the U.S., and that children with less access to physicians have lower academic performance in early education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cross‐country studies reveal two consistent gender gaps in education—underachievement in school by boys and low rates of participation in STEM studies by girls. Recent economics research has shown the importance of social influences on women's STEM avoidance, but male low achievement has been less‐studied and tends to be attributed to behavior problems and deficient non‐cognitive skills. I revisit the determinants of the gender gap in U.S. educational attainment with a relatively‐advantaged sample of young men and women and find that school behavior and measured skills are not very important drivers of gender differences, particularly in the transition to college. Educational aspirations, on the other hand, are strongly predictive of educational gaps and the gender difference in aspirations cannot be explained, even with rich adolescent data that includes parental expectations and school achievement indicators. These results suggest that gender identity concerns may influence (and damage) the educational prospects of boys as well as girls through norms of masculinity that discourage academic achievement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]