Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-sk4tg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-14T18:59:35.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peer effects in computer assisted learning: evidence from a randomized experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Marcel Fafchamps  and
Di Mo
Marcel Fafchamps
Affiliation:
Stanford University and NBER, Stanford, CA, USA
Di Mo*
Affiliation:
Stanford University and REAP, Stanford, CA, USA University of Leuven, LICOS, Leuven, Belgium
*
di.mo.cn@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We conduct a large scale experiment to investigate peer effects in computer assisted learning (CAL). Identification relies on three levels of randomization. We find an average 0.17 standard deviation improvement in math scores among primary school students. This average effect is the same for students treated individually or in pairs, implying that peer effects double the learning benefit from a given equipment. Among paired students, poor performers benefit more from CAL when paired with good performers and vice versa. Average performers benefit equally irrespective of who they are paired with. This suggests that the treatment is dominated by knowledge exchange between peers. We also find that CAL treatment reduces the dispersion in math scores and that the beneficial effects of CAL can be strengthened if weak students are systematically paired with strong students.

Keywords

Peer effectsPairingMath performanceDispersion

JEL classification

B4: Economic Methodology I2: Education and Research Institutions
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 355 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angrist, JD, & Lang, K (2004). Does school integration generate peer effects? Evidence from Boston’s Metco Program. American Economic Review, 94, 1613–1634. 10.1257/0002828043052169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacharach, M (2006). Beyond individual choice: Teams and frames in game theory, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandiera, O, Barankay, I, & Rasul, I (2010). Social incentives in the workplace. Review of Economic Studies, 77(2), 417–58 10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00574.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, AS, Leuven, E, & Oosterbeek, H (2014). The effect of ability grouping in university on student outcomes, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bougheas, S, Nieboer, J, & Sefton, M (2015). Risk taking and information aggregation in groups. Journal of Economic Psychology, 51, 34–47. 10.1016/j.joep.2015.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruhn, M, & McKenzie, D (2009). In pursuit of balance: Randomization in practice in development field experiments. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(4), 200–232.Google Scholar
Burns, J, Corno, L, & La Ferrara, E (2013). Interaction, stereotypes and performance: Evidence from South Africa, Mimeo: Bocconi University.Google Scholar
Bursztyn, L, Ederer, F, Ferman, B, & Yuchtman, N (2014). Understanding mechanisms underlying peer effects: Evidence from a field experiment on financial decisions. Econometrica, 82(4), 1273–1301. 10.3982/ECTA11991Google Scholar
Caeyers, B., & Fafchamps, M. (2016). Exclusion bias in the estimation of peer effects. In NBER Working Paper 22565.Google Scholar
Carrell, SE, Fullerton, RL, & West, JE (2009). Does your cohort matter? Measuring peer effects in college achievement. Journal of Labor Economics, 27(3), 439–464. 10.1086/600143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, SE, Sacerdote, BI, & West, JE (2013). From natural variation to optimal policy? The importance of endogenous peer group formation. Econometrica, 81(3), 855–882. 10.3982/ECTA10168Google Scholar
China National Bureau of Statistics (CNBS). (2011). China national statistical yearbook, 2011, Beijing: China State Statistical Press.Google Scholar
China National Bureau of Statistics (CNBS). (2013). China national statistical yearbook, 2013, Beijing: China State Statistical Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, DJ, & Kagel, JH (2005). Are two heads better than one? Team versus individual play in signaling games. American Economic Review, 95(3), 477–509. 10.1257/0002828054201431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, DJ, & Rege, M (2011). Misery loves company: Social regret and social interaction effects in choices under risk and uncertainty. Games and Economic Behavior, 73, 91–110. 10.1016/j.geb.2010.12.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duflo, E, Dupas, P, & Kremer, M (2011). Peer effects, teacher incentives, and the impact of tracking: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in Kenya. American Economic Review, 101(5), 1739–74 10.1257/aer.101.5.1739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epple, D, Romano, RE Benhabib, J, Bisin, A, & Jackson, MO (2011). Peer effects in education: A survey of the theory and evidence. Handbook of social economics, Amsterdam: Elsevier 1053–1163.Google Scholar
Fafchamps, M, & Vicente, P (2013). Political violence and social networks: Experimental evidence from a Nigerian election. Journal of Development Economics, 101, 27–48. 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.09.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fafchamps, M., Kebede, B., & Zizzo, D. (2015). Keep up with the winners: Experimental evidence on risk taking, asset integration, and peer effects. European Economic Review, Journal of Development Economics, 79C, 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fafchamps, M., Vaz, A., & Vicente, P. (2014). Voting and peer effects: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Stanford University (mimeograph).Google Scholar
Falk, A, & Ichino, A (2006). Clean evidence on peer effects. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(1), 39–57. 10.1086/497818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, BS (2008). Identifying social interactions through conditional variance restrictions. Econometrica, 76(3), 643–660. 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2008.00850.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guryan, J, Kroft, K, & Notowidigdo, M (2009). Peer effects in the workplace: Evidence from random groupings in professional Golf tournaments. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(4), 34–68.Google ScholarPubMed
Hoxby, C. M., & Weingarth, G. (2005). Taking race out of the equation: School reassignment and the structure of peer effects, working paper.Google Scholar
Kocher, MG, & Sutter, M (2005). The decision maker matters: Individual versus group behaviour in experimental beauty contest. Economic Journal, 115(500), 200–23 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00966.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kocher, M, Sutter, M, & Wakolbinger, F (2014). Social learning in beauty-contest games. Southern Economic Journal, 80(3), 586–613. 10.4284/0038-4038-2010.150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahno, A, & Serra-Garcia, M (2015). Peer effects in risk taking: Envy or conformity?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 50(1), 73–95. 10.1007/s11166-015-9209-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, F., Luo, R., Zhang, L., Huang, X., & Rozelle, S. (2011). Does computer-assisted learning improve learning outcomes? Evidence from a randomized experiment in migrant schools in Beijing. In REAP Working Paper.Google Scholar
Lai, F., Zhang, L., Qu, Q., Hu, X., Shi, Y.,, & Boswell, M., et al. (2012). Does computer-assisted learning improve learning outcomes? Evidence from a randomized experiment in public schools in rural minority areas in Qinghai, China. In REAP Working Paper.Google Scholar
Lai, F, Zhang, L, Qu, Q, Hu, X, Shi, Y, Boswell, M et al., (2013). Computer assisted learning as extracurricular tutor? Evidence from a randomized experiment in rural boarding schools in Shaanxi. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 5(2), 208–231. 10.1080/19439342.2013.780089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, L.-F., Liu, X., Patacchini, E., & Zenou, Y. (2012). Criminal networks: Who is the key player? In CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP8772.Google Scholar
Lyle, D (2007). Estimating and interpreting peer and role model effects from randomly assigned social groups at west point. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(2), 289–299. 10.1162/rest.89.2.289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyle, D (2009). The effects of peer group heterogeneity on the production of human capitalat west point. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1, 69–84.Google Scholar
Manski, CF (1993). Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. Review of Economic Studies, 60(3), 531–42 10.2307/2298123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mo, D, Zhang, L, Luo, R, Qu, Q, Huang, W, Wang, J et al., (2014). Integrating computer-assisted learning into a regular curriculum: Evidence from a randomised experiment in rural schools in Shaanxi. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 6(3), 300–323. 10.1080/19439342.2014.911770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mo, D., Zhang, L., Wang, J., Huang, W., Shi, Y.,, & Boswell, M., et al. (2013). The persistence of gains in learning from computer assisted learning: Evidence from a randomized experiment in rural schools in Shaanxi Province. In REAP Working Paper.Google Scholar
Sacerdote, B (2001). Peer effects with random assignment: Results for Dartmouth roommates. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(2), 681–704. 10.1162/00335530151144131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacerdote, B (2011). Peer effects in education: How might they work, how big are they and how much do we know thus far?. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 3, 249–277. 10.1016/B978-0-444-53429-3.00004-1Google Scholar
Shue, K. (2012). Executive networks and firm policies: Evidence from the random assignment of MBA Peers. In Working Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, R (1993). Thinking as a team: Towards an explanation of nonselfish behaviour. Social Philosophy and Policy, 10, 69–89. 10.1017/S0265052500004027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigdor, J., & Nechyba, T. (2007). Peer effects in North Carolina public schools. In Schools and the equal opportunity problem. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, JM (2002). Econometric analysis of cross-section and panel data, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, DJ (2003). Peer effects in academic outcomes: Evidence from a natural experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(1), 9–23. 10.1162/003465303762687677CrossRefGoogle Scholar