In this study, we explore the effects of an educational intervention in the form of digital games targeted towards improving the learning outcomes in mathematics and Hindi language among first, second and third graders in four government schools in southern New Delhi. In addition to administering these games in the classroom, we randomly recruited 40 households from a low-income community, where children play the games as an extra-curricular activity. We measure the improvement in aptitude in math and Hindi pre- and post-intervention, using various demographic controls and find that the community intervention had some impact in boosting aptitude. In contrast, the school intervention did not show the desired results though it did register some improvement in children’s knowledge. Using qualitative observation coupled with the quantitative assessment of impact, we attempt to deconstruct the various infrastructural challenges and sampling issues posed in our school intervention, and identify key features that need to be adhered to for future researchers who may want to assess the impact of educational interventions on young children from underprivileged backgrounds in India.
Azim Premji Foundation. (2004). Impact of computer aided learning on learning achievements: A study in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. Karnataka: Azim Premji Foundation.
2.
BanerjeeA.V.ColeS.DufloE.LindenL. (2007). Remedying education: Evidence from two randomized experiments in India. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1235–1264.
3.
BlochJ. (2002). First friends: Assisting children to develop social and emotional competence. Early Childhood News, 14(5), 38–49.
4.
BogenschneiderK.JohnsonC. (2004). Family involvement in education: How important is it? What can legislators do? In BogenschneiderK.GrossE. (Eds), A policymaker’s guide to school finance: Approaches to use and questions to ask (Wisconsin Family Impact Seminar Briefing Report No. 20, pp. 19–29). Madison: University of Wisconsin Center for Excellence in Family Studies.
5.
CascioE.U.StaigerD.O. (2012). Knowledge, tests and fadeout in educational interventions (National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper 18038). Cambridge, MA: NBER.
6.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
CubanL.KirkpatrickH.PeckC. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.
8.
DiasM.B.Mills-TetteyG.A.MertzJ. (2005). The TechBridge World initiative: Broadening perspectives in computing technology education and research. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Women and ICT: Creating Global Transformation. New York, NY: ACM.
9.
FantuzzoJ.McWayneC. (2002). The relationship between peer-play interactions in the family context and dimensions of school readiness for low-income preschool children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 79–87.
10.
GeeJ.P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 1–4.
11.
GershenfeldA. (2014). Why gaming could be the future of education. Scientific American, 310(2). Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-gaming-could-be-the-future-of-education/
12.
JainR.SarinA. (2009). Effect of mobiles on socio-economic life of urban poor (Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad Working Paper Series No. 2009-02-05). Ahmedabad, India: IIM Ahmedabad.
13.
KamM.AgarwalA.KumarA.LalS.MathurA.TewariA.CannyJ. (2008). Designing e-learning games for rural children in India: A format for balancing learning with fun. Proceedings from DIS ’08: ACM International Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. Cape Town: ACM.
14.
KamM.KumarA.JainS.MathurA.CannyJ. (2009). Improving literacy in rural India: Cellphone games in an after-school program. Proceedings of IEEE/ACM Conference on Information and Communication Technology and Development (ICTD ’09). Doha: IEEE.
15.
KothariB.TakedaJ.JoshiA.PandeyA. (2002). Same language subtitling: A butterfly for literacy?International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(1), 55–66.
16.
KothariB.PandeyA.ChudgarA.R. (2004). Reading out of the ‘idiot box’: Same-language subtitling on television in India. Journal of Information Technologies and International Development, 2(1), 23–44.
17.
LeiJ. (2009). Digital natives as pre-service teachers: What technology preparation is needed?Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87–97.
18.
LikertR. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55.
19.
McGrawK.O.WongS.P. (1992). A common language effect size statistic. Psychol-ogical Bulletin, 111(2), 361–365.
20.
MishraP.KoehlerM. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
21.
MitraS. (2003). Minimally invasive education: A progress report on the ‘hole-in-the-wall’ experiments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 367–371.
22.
MitraS.RanaV. (2001). Children and the internet: Experiments with minimally invasive education in India. The British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 221–232.
23.
PrenskyM. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
24.
ShafferD.W.HalversonR.SquireK.R.GeeJ.P. (2005). Video games and the future of learning (WCER Working Paper No. 2005-4). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
25.
SmithH.J.HigginsS. Wall K. MillerJ. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91–101.
26.
WeissH.CaspeM.LopezM.E. (2006). Family involvement in early childhood education (Harvard Family Research Project (HFRP) Research Brief, Series A: No. 1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
27.
ZhangX.AndersonR.C.MorrisJ.MillerB.Nguyen-JahielK.T.LinT.J. … HsuJ.Y.-L. (2016). Improving children’s competence as decision makers: Contrasting effects of collaborative interaction and direct instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 53(1), 194–223.
