Teaching with the Test : Experimental Evidence on Diagnostic Feedback and Capacity Building for Public Schools in Argentina
Despite the recent growth in the number of large-scale student assessments, there is little evidence on their potential to inform improvements in school management and classroom instruction in developing countries. This study conducted an experimen...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/488751511886071513/Teaching-with-the-test-experimental-evidence-on-diagnostic-feedback-and-capacity-building-for-public-schools-in-Argentina http://hdl.handle.net/10986/28922 |
| Summary: | Despite the recent growth in the number
of large-scale student assessments, there is little evidence
on their potential to inform improvements in school
management and classroom instruction in developing
countries. This study conducted an experiment in the
Province of La Rioja Argentina, that randomly assigned 105
public primary schools to: (a) a "diagnostic
feedback" group in which standardized tests were
administered in math and reading comprehension at baseline
and two follow-ups and the results were made available to
the schools through user-friendly reports; (b) a
“capacity-building” group for which schools were provided
with the reports and also workshops and school visits for
supervisors, principals, and teachers; or (c) a control
group, in which the tests were administered only at the
second follow-up. After two years, diagnostic feedback
schools outperformed control schools by .34 and .36 standard
deviations (SD) in third grade math and reading, and by .28
and .38 SD in fifth grade math and reading. The principals
at these schools were more likely to report using assessment
results for management decisions, and students were more
likely to report that their teachers engaged in more
instructional activities and improved their interactions
with them. Capacity-building schools saw more limited
impacts due to lower achievement at baseline, low take up,
and little value-added of workshops and visits. However, in
most cases the results cannot discard the possibility that
both interventions had the same impact. |
|---|