We present results from the first randomized experiment of a remedial inquiry-based science education program for low-performing elementary students in a developing country. Among third-grade students in 48 low-income public elementary schools in Metropolitan Lima who score in the bottom 50% of their school baseline science distribution, half are randomly assigned to receive remedial inquiry-based science education in after-school sessions, and the remaining half to business as usual control conditions. Assignment to treatment increased endline science achievement by 3 percentiles (0.12 SD) with greater gains for students who attended at least one remedial session, and a concentration of gains among boys. We cannot reject the null hypothesis of no indirect science achievement gains among nonparticipants.
AlfonsoM.BosM. S.DuarteJ.RondonC. (2012). Panorama general de la educación en América Latina y el Caribe [General landscape of education in Latin America and the Caribbean]. In CabrolM.SzekelyM. (Eds.), Educación para la Transformación [Education for the Transformation]. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
3.
BanerjeeA.BanerjiR.BerryJ.DufloE.KannanH.MukerjiS.. . . WaltonM. (2017). From proof of concept to scalable policies: Challenges and solutions, with an application. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31, 73–102.
4.
BanerjeeA.ColeS.DufloE.LindenL. (2007). Remedying education: Evidence from two randomized experiments in India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122, 1235–1264.
5.
BeuermannD.Näslund-HadleyE.RuprahI.ThompsonJ. (2013). The pedagogy of science and environment: Experimental evidence from Peru. The Journal of Development Studies, 49, 719–736.
6.
BloomH. (2012). Modern regression discontinuity analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5, 43–82.
7.
BrickmanP.GormallyC.ArmstrongC.HallarB. (2009). Effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ science literacy skills and confidence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), Article 16.
8.
BuddelmeyerH.SkoufiasE. (2004). An evaluation of the performance of regression discontinuity design on PROGRESA (World Bank policy research working paper 3386). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
9.
CalonicoS.CattaneoM.FarrellM. (2017). rdrobust: Software for regression discontinuity designs. Stata Journal, 17, 372–404.
10.
CattaneoM.KeeleL.TitiunikR.Vazquez-BareG. (2016). Interpreting regression discontinuity designs with multiple cutoffs. The Journal of Politics, 78, 1229–1248.
11.
ClarkR. E.KirschnerP.SwellerJ. (2012). Putting students on the path to learning: The case for fully guided instruction. American Educator, 36, 6–11.
12.
ColburnA. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23, 42–44.
13.
CookT.WongV. (2008). Empirical tests of the validity of the regression discontinuity design. Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 91–92, 127–150.
14.
CuetoS.RamirezC.LeonJ. (2006). Opportunities to learn and achievement in mathematics in a sample of sixth grade students in Lima, Peru. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62, 25–55.
15.
DufloE.DupasP.KremerM. (2011). Peer effects, teacher incentives, and the impact of tracking: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in Kenya. The American Economic Review, 101, 1739–1774.
16.
ElbaumB.VaughnS.HughesM. T.MoodyS. W. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 605–619.
17.
ErgülR.SimsekliY.CalisC.ÖzdilekZ.GöcmencelebiS.SanliM. (2011). The effects of inquiry-based science teaching on elementary school students’ science process skills and science attitudes. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy, 5, 48–68.
18.
FenemaE.PetersonP. L.CarpenterT.LubinskiC. (1990). Teachers’ attributions and beliefs about girls, boys, and mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 55–69.
19.
ForcinaA. (2011). The instrumental variable estimand as an average causal effect under partial compliance. Far East Journal of Theoretical Statistics, 35, 137–147.
20.
FurtakE. M.SeidelT.IversonH.BriggsD. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82, 300–329.
21.
GlewweP.KremerM.MoulinS. (2009). Many children left behind? Textbooks and test scores in Kenya. American Economic Journal, 1, 112–135.
22.
HarrisC. J.PenuelW. R.DeBargerA. H.D’AngeloC.GallagherL. P. (2014). Curriculum materials make a difference for next generation science learning: Results from year 1 of a randomized controlled trial. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
23.
Hmelo-SilverC. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266.
24.
Hmelo-SilverC. E.DuncanR. G.ChinnC. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry-learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 43, 99–107.
25.
HoutveenT.van de GriftW. (2007). Reading instruction for struggling learners. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12, 405–424.
26.
HoutveenT.van de GriftW. (2012). Improving reading achievements of struggling learners. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23, 71–93.
27.
HudgensM.HalloranM. E. (2008). Towards causal inference with interference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103, 832–842.
28.
Institute of Education Services. (2017). What Works Clearinghouse: Standards handbook version 4. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks
29.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática. (2015). Encuesta Nacional Especializada de Trabajo Infantil ETI [National Specialized Survey of Child Labor]. Retrieved from http://catalog.ihsn.org/index.php/catalog/7259
JunS. W.RamirezG.CummingA. (2010). Tutoring adolescents in literacy: A meta-analysis. McGill Journal of Education, 45, 219–238.
32.
KaiserS.PalumboK.BialozorR. C.McLaughlinT. F. (1989). The effects of direct instruction with rural remedial students: A brief report. Reading Improvement, 26, 88–93.
33.
KirschnerP. A.SwellerJ.ClarkR. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.
34.
Laboratorio Latinoamericano de Evaluación de la Calidad de la Educación. (2015). Informe de Resultados Tercer Estudio Regional Comparativo: Factores Asociados [Report on results from the third regional comparative study: Associated factors]. Santiago, Chile: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
35.
LauerP. A.AkibaM.WilkersonS. B.ApthorpH. S.SnowD.Martin-GlennM. (2006). Out-of-school time programs: A meta-analysis of effects of at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76, 275–313.
36.
Linan-ThompsonS.VaughnS. (2007). Research-based methods of reading instruction for English language learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
37.
LoeraA.Näslund-HadleyE.AlonzoH. (2013). El desempeño pedagógico de docentes en Nuevo Leon: Hallazgos de un estudio basado en videos de lecciones de matemáticas y ciencias [The pedagogical performance of teachers in Nuevo Leon: Findings from a study based on instructional videos for teaching mathematics and science]. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, 43, 11–41.
38.
MendickH. (2006). Masculinities in mathematics. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
39.
MiguelE.KremerM. (2004). Worms: Identifying impacts on education and health in the presence of treatment externalities. Econometrica, 72, 159–217.
40.
Näslund-HadleyE.LoeraA.HepworthK. (2014). What goes on inside Latin American math and science classrooms: A video study of teaching practices. Global Education Review, 1, 110–128.
41.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 results: Excellence and equity in education. Vol. I. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
42.
RitterG. W.BarnettJ. H.DennyG. S.AlbinG. R. (2009). The effectiveness of volunteer tutoring programs for elementary and middle school students: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 79, 3–38.
43.
RosenbaumP.RubinD. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.
44.
RubinD. (1980). Discussion of “randomization analysis of experimental data in the fisher randomization test.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 591–593.
45.
SinclairB.McConnellM.GreenD. (2012). Detecting spillover effects: Design and analysis of multilevel experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 1055–1069.
46.
SlavinR. E.LakeC.DavisS.MaddenN. A. (2011). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6(1), 1–26.
47.
TutwilerM. S.GrotzerT. (2013). Why immersive, interactive simulation belongs in the pedagogical toolkit of next-generation science: Facilitating student understanding of complex causal dynamics. In SalehI. (Ed.), Italic/approaches and strategies in next generation science learning (pp. 127–146). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
48.
VanderWeeleT. J.HongG.JonesS. M.BrownJ. L. (2013). Mediation and spillover effects in group-randomized trials: A case study of the 4Rs educational intervention. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 108, 469–482.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
