Targeting students directly (versus caregivers) produced significantly larger nudge effects on test scores (0.31 vs. 0.08 s.d.)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The effect size was significantly larger when students were targeted directly rather than through caregivers (0.31 s.d. vs. 0.08 s.d., difference significant at the 10% level). → Lichand 2024

Evidence¶

Lichand 2024¶

Lichand, G., Christen, J., & Van Egeraat, E. (2024). Neglecting students’ socio-emotional skills magnified learning losses during the pandemic. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00235-9

q3 · i? · causal · r3

CATE analysis by whether the targeted phone number belonged to the student, on the summary test-score measure with controls and IPW (960 observations); targeting was not randomly assigned but phone ownership was balanced across treatment and control.

"targeting students mattered for the effects of nudges on standardized test scores: its effect size was significantly larger when students were targeted directly (0.31 s.d. vs. 0.08 s.d., a difference significant at the 10% level)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Parents-only SMS/audio nudges produced statistically non-significant learning gains of d = 0.081 in rural Cote d'Ivoire — related
• An SMS-based nudge intervention in Cote d'Ivoire did not reduce child labor or raise learning overall, but raised learning and domestic work among children starting with low learning levels — related
• Teacher-only and combined parent-teacher nudges showed no statistically significant impacts on learning; point estimates were small and negative for the learning summary and literacy, and near zero for numeracy — related
• SMS nudges targeting socio-emotional skills increased student-level standardized test scores during remote learning, by 0.21 s.d. in Portuguese and 0.19 s.d. on the summary measure — related