What Really Works to Improve Learning in Developing Countries? An Analysis of Divergent Findings in Systematic Reviews

By David K. Evans, Anna Popova. 2015

311 citations recorded by the source corpus.

In the past two years alone, at least six systematic reviews or meta-analyses have examined the interventions that improve learning outcomes in low- and middle-income countries. However, these reviews have sometimes reached starkly different conclusions: reviews, in turn, recommend information technology, interventions that provide information about school quality, or even basic infrastructure (such as desks) to achieve the greatest improvements in student learning. This paper demonstrates that these divergent conclusions are largely driven by differences in the samples of research incorporated by each review. The top recommendations in a given review are often driven by the results of evaluations not included in other reviews. Of 227 studies with student learning results, the most inclusive review incorporates less than half of the total studies. Variance in classification also plays a role. Across the reviews, the three classes of programs that are recommended with some consistency (albeit under different names) are pedagogical interventions (including computer-assisted learning) that tailor teaching to student skills; repeated teacher training interventions, often linked to another pedagogical intervention; and improving accountability through contracts or performance incentives, at least in certain contexts. Future reviews will be most useful if they combine narrative review with meta-analysis, conduct more exhaustive searches, and maintain low aggregation of intervention categories.

Subfields: Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7e1bc6fed84be4841c72c7748494fca40f34ca4e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Identifying Effective Education Interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Meta-Analysis of Impact Evaluations (2017, methodology): “3An unpublished manuscript of this research (Author, 2014) has also been cited in recent reviews of the literature (Evans & Popova, 2015; Ganimian & Murnane, 2016; Glewwe & Muralidharan, 2015; Snilstveit et al., 2015).”
What Do Teachers Know and Do? Does it Matter? Evidence from Primary Schools in Africa (2017, background): “…literature reviewed in, for example, Kremer, Brannen, and Glennerster (2013); Glewwe and Muralidharan (2015); Bruns, Filmer and Patrinos (2014) and Evans and Popova (2016), showing that traditional educational inputs have little impact on test scores but incentivizing teacher effort and…”
Building back better to avert a learning catastrophe: Estimating learning loss from COVID-19 school shutdowns in Africa and facilitating short-term and long-term learning recovery (2021, background): “Their review complemented a series of additional evidence reviews (Conn, 2017; Evans and Mendez Acosta, 2020; Evans and Popova, 2016; Friedman et al., 2016; Ganimian and Murnane, 2016; Glewwe and Muralidharan, 2016; Kremer et al., 2013; Snilstveit et al., 2015).”
Improving Education in Developing Countries (2016, background): “These syntheses reach seemingly conflicting conclusions about which educational interventions improve educational outcomes (Evans & Popova, 2015).”
Teacher Professional Development around the World: The Gap between Evidence and Practice (2018, background): “Indeed, there is much more variation in effectiveness across teacher training programs than across education programs more broadly (Evans and Popova 2016; McEwan 2015).”
The effects of cash transfers on adult labor market outcomes (2018, background): “We do not attempt to undertake a formal systematic review, but rather conduct what Evans and Popova (2016) call a narrative review.”