Policy Challenge
Path 2 Copy Created with Sketch.
Program Type
Path 2 Copy Created with Sketch.
2
5
10
Learning In Secondary
Technology (eLS)
11
-6
Evaluation Effect Average Age Observations Experimental Evaluation Country Intervention
Barrera-Osorio 2009 1 Grade 5 2,626 Yes Colombia Schools received refurbished computers, teachers received training
Angrist 2002 ii 0 Grade 8 2,607 Yes Israel Procurement of hardware, software, training of teachers
Berlinski 2013 ii -16 Grade 7 2,049 Yes Costa Rica Interactive whiteboard, workbooks and manuals, teacher training
Berlinski 2013 iv -35 Grade 7 1,945 Yes Costa Rica Individual laptops for students; training, manuals for teachers
Berlinski 2013 iii -21 Grade 7 1,822 Yes Costa Rica Computer lab, workbooks and manuals, teacher training
Barrow 2008 17 Grade 9 1,605 Yes United States Software and hardware for math skills
Schoen 2003 19 Grade 9 1,050 No United States Teachers were trained for implementation of the new math curriculum
Fairlie 2013 -5 Grade 8 938 Yes United States Computers to schoolchildren for home use
Louw 2008 -5 Grade 11 580 Yes South Africa Schools received 40 computers and Master Math software
O’Dwye 2007 15 Grade 9 463 No United States Students worked on internet-connected computers during class time

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 (%)
Angrist 2002 ii 0 -7 7 15
Barrera-Osorio 2009 1 -9 11 13
Barrow 2008 17 7 27 13
Berlinski 2013 ii -16 -31 -1 4
Berlinski 2013 iii -21 -40 -2 3
Berlinski 2013 iv -35 -50 -20 4
Fairlie 2013 -5 -12 2 15
Louw 2008 -5 -19 9 11
O’Dwye 2007 15 0 30 10
Schoen 2003 19 9 29 13
Overall