Policy Challenge
Path 2 Copy Created with Sketch.
Program Type
Path 2 Copy Created with Sketch.
9
3
5
Learning In Primary
Small group support (eLP)
16
2
Evaluation Effect Average Age Observations Experimental Evaluation Country Intervention
Banerjee 2007 i 14 Grade 4 12,855 Yes India Low-performing students worked on math and reading with an instructor
Cabezas 2011 5 Grade 4 5,724 Yes Chile Students received 15 90-minute sessions in groups of 5-6 students
Buchanan 2015 -6 Grade 6 726 No United Kingdom Students received 15 1-hour group or one-to-one English tutoring
Sibieta 2016 ii 14 Kindergarten 234 Yes United Kingdom Students received 60 small-group and 40 tutoring sessions for reading
Sibieta 2016 i 21 Preschool 231 Yes United Kingdom Students received 90 small-group and 40 tutoring sessions for reading

Graph of Effects

This graph shows the effects of [Number of Evaluations] evaluations of [Program Type] programs. The first evaluation, [Evaluation name 1], estimated an effect of [Estimated effect Eval. 1] points (graphed with the top grey circle). Because this is an estimate, there is uncertainty about what the true effect is. But we know that the true effect will probably lie between a low value of [True effect lie between – Low value, Eval. 1] and a high value of [True effect lie between – High value, Eval. 1] (graphed with the top horizontal line). We can combine the estimates from all the evaluations and compute an average effect of [Estimated effect, Average] (graphed with the black circle). There is also uncertainty about where the true average effect is. But we know that the true average effect probably lies between [True effect lie between – Low value, Average] and [True effect lie between – High value, Average] points (graphed with the bottom horizontal line).
Evaluation Effects Low Value High Value Weight in Average Effect (%)
Banerjee 2007 i 14 6 22 33
Buchanan 2015 -6 -25 13 10
Cabezas 2011 5 -2 11 39
Sibieta 2016 i 21 6 35 10
Sibieta 2016 ii 14 -1 29 9
Overall