Study from math learning platform shows difficulty in motivating teachers to change behaviors
Like an online retailer trying to woo a customer back by offering a 10% discount on the boots they've been eyeing, education researcher Angela Duckworth wanted to understand how to incentivize teachers to log in regularly to an online math platform that aims to help them improve their students' academic performance.
'Today is perfect for checking your Pace Report!'
'Keep Zearning!'
'By opening this email, you've earned another 100 digital raffle tickets in the Zearn Math Giveaway!'
In partnership with Zearn Math, a nonprofit online math instruction platform used by roughly 25% of U.S. elementary school students, Duckworth and a team of researchers from the University of Pennsylvania's Behavior Change for Good Initiative launched a megastudy, published in March 2025, that peppered 140,000 teachers with different email prompts to log into the platform's dashboard each week and check their students' progress.
Behavioral scientists like Duckworth, who popularized the 'power of grit' about a decade ago, spend a lot of time trying to pinpoint what, exactly, it is that prompts an individual to sign a form, become an organ donor or click an ad that promises a secure and safe retirement now.
'In the case of education there's the idea of nudging the students directly,' Duckworth said. 'But there's also the idea that's less commonly studied, which is, what do you do to nudge the teachers, who are not in complete charge, but have a lot of authority about what is going to happen in the classroom that day? It was clear to us that if we could get the students onto the Zearn platform that their learning would progress. But are they actually going to log in?'
To that end, Duckworth and the team developed 15 types of intervention emails featuring things like planning prompts, teaching tips, learning goals, digital swag and celebrity endorsements. The goal was to change behavior without mandates, bans or substantial financial incentives — though teachers were enrolled in a giveaway and earned digital raffle tickets every time they opened an email, increasing their chances of winning such prizes as autographed children's books, stickers and gift cards.
The researchers then compared the average number of lessons the teachers' students completed on the Zearn Math platform over four weeks to a control group using Zearn that received only a simple weekly email.
So did it work? Did the emails prompt teachers to log in more regularly? And if so, did the number of lessons their students completed increase? To some degree, yes, it did work. But not at all to the extent that Duckworth and the researchers had anticipated.
The best-performing intervention, which encouraged teachers to log into Zearn Math for an updated report on how their students were doing that week, produced a 5% increase in students' math progress. Emails that referenced data specific to a teacher's students — versus those without that information — boosted students' progress by 2.3%. And teachers who received any of the behaviorally informed email nudge saw their students' math progress increase by an overall average of 1.9%
Duckworth was sure that the emails featuring famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and literary rockstar Judy Blume would move the needle more than anything else. But teachers were virtually unaffected.
'We had sexier treatment conditions,' she said. 'But no, it turns out, a simple message that says, 'Hey, your students' data are here, remember to log in,' that is what worked the best.'
Notably, the intervention effects were consistent across school socioeconomic status and school type, both public and private. Moreover, the impact persisted for eight weeks after the email intervention period ended. Collectively, the reminders resulted in students completing an estimated 80,424 additional lessons during the four weeks their teachers received emails, and an estimated 156,117 additional lessons during the following eight weeks.
Yet the limited impact of the email reminders surprised virtually everyone involved with the study: Students whose teachers received any type of behaviorally informed email reminder only marginally outperformed students whose teachers received a simple email reminder. In fact, the effect on both Zearn Math staff and a sample of elementary school teachers was at least 30 times smaller than the behavioral scientists who designed the interventions forecasted.
'It's a sober reminder that big effects are very rare,' Duckworth said. 'In general, we're finding in our megastudies and what's emerging across the social sciences is that intervention effects tend to be very small.'
'One of the things that this megastudy has reinforced is a kind of humility about how complicated human beings are and how challenging it is to durably change behavior. A kid is a complicated organism. Teachers are complicated. Schools are complicated,' she continued. 'It would be naive to think that you could radically change behavior with these like light touch interventions.'
The findings not only underscore the difficulty of changing behavior, but also the need, Duckworth said, for large-scale, rigorous, empirical research on how to drive impact in math, which is a high-priority subject for education policy experts at the moment.
Indeed, the findings come at an inflection point for math in the U.S.
The most recent release of the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that, nationally, average mathematics scores in 2024 were lower by 3 points among fourth-grade students and lower by 8 points among eighth-grade students compared to their scores in 2019—the most significant drop since 1990. School districts have struggled to rebound after significant academic setbacks incurred by the COVID-19 pandemic. For math in particular, by the spring of 2022, the average public school student in grades three to eight had lost the equivalent of a half-year of learning.
Compared to students in other developed countries, Americans have ranked in the bottom 25% of students globally on standardized tests of mathematics for decades. U.S. students saw a 13-point drop in their 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment math results when compared to the 2018 exam — 'among the lowest ever measured by PISA in mathematics' for the U.S., according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which administers the exam.
As a result, a contentious debate has erupted surrounding whether educators are effectively teaching the subject — and whether they themselves are being effectively taught how to teach it.
'There was a dawning realization that there's a real urgency around math achievement in the United States,' Duckworth said when her team decided to design the megastudy. 'This very light touch nudge was helpful, but it does underscore how hard behavior is to change. And if there are bigger levers to influence teacher behavior, I think we would have found a bigger downstream effect on student achievement.'
This story was produced by The 74 and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
5 days ago
- The Hill
No, prosperity doesn't cause population collapse
For years, it was treated as a demographic law: as countries grow wealthier, they have fewer children. Prosperity, it was believed, inevitably drove birth rates down. This assumption shaped countless forecasts about the future of the global population. And in many wealthy countries, such as South Korea and Italy, very low fertility rates persist. But a growing body of research is challenging the idea that rising prosperity always suppresses fertility. University of Pennsylvania economist Jesús Fernández-Villaverde recently observed that middle-income countries are now experiencing lower total fertility rates than many advanced economies ever have. His latest work shows that Thailand and Colombia each have fertility rates around 1.0 births per woman, which is even lower than rates in well-known low-fertility advanced economies such as Japan, Spain and Italy. 'My conjecture is that by 2060 or so, we might see rich economies as a group with higher [total fertility rates] than emerging economies,' Fernández-Villaverde predicts. This changing relationship between prosperity and fertility is already apparent in Europe. For many years, wealthier European countries tended to have lower birth rates than poorer ones. That pattern weakened around 2017, and by 2021 it had flipped. This change fits a broader historical pattern. Before the Industrial Revolution, wealthier families generally had more children. The idea that prosperity leads to smaller families is a modern development. Now, in many advanced economies, that trend is weakening or reversing. The way that prosperity influences fertility is changing yet again. Wealth and family size are no longer pulling in opposite directions. This shift also calls into question long-standing assumptions about women's income and fertility. For years, many economists thought that higher salaries discouraged women from having children by raising the opportunity cost of taking time off work. That no longer seems to hold in many countries. In several high-income nations, rising female earnings are now associated with higher fertility. Studies in Italy and the Netherlands show that couples where both partners earn well are more likely to have children, while low-income couples are the least likely to do so. Similar findings have emerged from Sweden as well. In Norway, too, higher-earning women now tend to have more babies. This trend is not limited to Europe. In the United States, richer families are also beginning to have more babies than poorer ones, reversing patterns observed in previous decades. A study of seven countries — including the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Australia — found that in every case, higher incomes for both men and women increased the chances of having a child. This growing body of evidence challenges the assumption that prosperity causes people to have fewer children. Still, birth rates are falling across much of the world, with many countries now below replacement level. While this trend raises serious concerns, such as the risk of an aging and less innovative population and widening gaps in public pension solvency, it is heartening that it is not driven by prosperity itself. Wealth does not automatically lead to fewer children, and theories blaming consumerism or rising living standards no longer hold up. Although the recent shift in the relationship between prosperity and fertility is welcome, it is not yet enough to raise fertility to the replacement rate of around 2.1 children per woman — a challenging threshold to reach. But the growing number of policymakers around the world concerned about falling fertility can consider many simple, freedom-enhancing reforms that lower barriers to raising a family, including reforms to education, housing and childcare. Still, it's important to challenge the common assumption that prosperity inevitably leads to lower birth rates: Wealth does not always mean fewer children. Chelsea Follett is managing editor of a project of the Cato Institute, and a policy analyst in Cato's Center for Global Liberty & Prosperity.
CBS News
5 days ago
- CBS News
Are you getting the best deal? Try this hack when grocery shopping
Think you're a savvy shopper? There's a simple tool you could be overlooking to make sure you're getting the most for your money when grocery shopping: unit pricing. Taking a closer look at the unit price of an item can help you figure out if buying bigger or store brand is really the best bang for your buck, according to Barbara Kahn, a University of Pennsylvania marketing professor who is an expert in retail and consumer choice. "If you care about price and you want to know how much you're paying just on price then … unit price will give you that information," Kahn explained. Instead of total cost, unit price tells you how much you're paying for a specific amount, like per ounce or pound. CBS Philadelphia Take this example comparing a name brand and store brand ketchup. At first glance, the store brand looks cheaper based on the retail price. But when you do the math, the 18-ounce name brand is actually the better deal per ounce. Just make sure you're comparing the same unit, like pound to pound or ounce to ounce, Kahn said. Unit pricing can take some of the guesswork out of comparing different sizes, brands or packaging of the same item. Kahn said don't always assume bigger is better. Instead of buying a 3-pack of paper towels, it could be cheaper to buy each roll of paper towels individually, for example. But unit price is just one consideration, Kahn said, as brand or size might matter more to you in the end. "You can decide when you can compare whether or not it's worth it," she said. In our area, New Jersey is the only state that mandates unit pricing – and only in big box stores. So you might not always have the option to compare when you're shopping. There are free apps that can help you, and the math to calculate unit price is pretty simple – just divide the total price by the total measurement. For example, if you have a 10-ounce can of beans that costs $2.50, you divide $2.50 by 10 to determine the unit price is $0.25 per ounce. Do you have a money question, a consumer issue, or a scam story you want to share? Email InYourCorner@
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
Study from math learning platform shows difficulty in motivating teachers to change behaviors
Like an online retailer trying to woo a customer back by offering a 10% discount on the boots they've been eyeing, education researcher Angela Duckworth wanted to understand how to incentivize teachers to log in regularly to an online math platform that aims to help them improve their students' academic performance. 'Today is perfect for checking your Pace Report!' 'Keep Zearning!' 'By opening this email, you've earned another 100 digital raffle tickets in the Zearn Math Giveaway!' In partnership with Zearn Math, a nonprofit online math instruction platform used by roughly 25% of U.S. elementary school students, Duckworth and a team of researchers from the University of Pennsylvania's Behavior Change for Good Initiative launched a megastudy, published in March 2025, that peppered 140,000 teachers with different email prompts to log into the platform's dashboard each week and check their students' progress. Behavioral scientists like Duckworth, who popularized the 'power of grit' about a decade ago, spend a lot of time trying to pinpoint what, exactly, it is that prompts an individual to sign a form, become an organ donor or click an ad that promises a secure and safe retirement now. 'In the case of education there's the idea of nudging the students directly,' Duckworth said. 'But there's also the idea that's less commonly studied, which is, what do you do to nudge the teachers, who are not in complete charge, but have a lot of authority about what is going to happen in the classroom that day? It was clear to us that if we could get the students onto the Zearn platform that their learning would progress. But are they actually going to log in?' To that end, Duckworth and the team developed 15 types of intervention emails featuring things like planning prompts, teaching tips, learning goals, digital swag and celebrity endorsements. The goal was to change behavior without mandates, bans or substantial financial incentives — though teachers were enrolled in a giveaway and earned digital raffle tickets every time they opened an email, increasing their chances of winning such prizes as autographed children's books, stickers and gift cards. The researchers then compared the average number of lessons the teachers' students completed on the Zearn Math platform over four weeks to a control group using Zearn that received only a simple weekly email. So did it work? Did the emails prompt teachers to log in more regularly? And if so, did the number of lessons their students completed increase? To some degree, yes, it did work. But not at all to the extent that Duckworth and the researchers had anticipated. The best-performing intervention, which encouraged teachers to log into Zearn Math for an updated report on how their students were doing that week, produced a 5% increase in students' math progress. Emails that referenced data specific to a teacher's students — versus those without that information — boosted students' progress by 2.3%. And teachers who received any of the behaviorally informed email nudge saw their students' math progress increase by an overall average of 1.9% Duckworth was sure that the emails featuring famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and literary rockstar Judy Blume would move the needle more than anything else. But teachers were virtually unaffected. 'We had sexier treatment conditions,' she said. 'But no, it turns out, a simple message that says, 'Hey, your students' data are here, remember to log in,' that is what worked the best.' Notably, the intervention effects were consistent across school socioeconomic status and school type, both public and private. Moreover, the impact persisted for eight weeks after the email intervention period ended. Collectively, the reminders resulted in students completing an estimated 80,424 additional lessons during the four weeks their teachers received emails, and an estimated 156,117 additional lessons during the following eight weeks. Yet the limited impact of the email reminders surprised virtually everyone involved with the study: Students whose teachers received any type of behaviorally informed email reminder only marginally outperformed students whose teachers received a simple email reminder. In fact, the effect on both Zearn Math staff and a sample of elementary school teachers was at least 30 times smaller than the behavioral scientists who designed the interventions forecasted. 'It's a sober reminder that big effects are very rare,' Duckworth said. 'In general, we're finding in our megastudies and what's emerging across the social sciences is that intervention effects tend to be very small.' 'One of the things that this megastudy has reinforced is a kind of humility about how complicated human beings are and how challenging it is to durably change behavior. A kid is a complicated organism. Teachers are complicated. Schools are complicated,' she continued. 'It would be naive to think that you could radically change behavior with these like light touch interventions.' The findings not only underscore the difficulty of changing behavior, but also the need, Duckworth said, for large-scale, rigorous, empirical research on how to drive impact in math, which is a high-priority subject for education policy experts at the moment. Indeed, the findings come at an inflection point for math in the U.S. The most recent release of the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that, nationally, average mathematics scores in 2024 were lower by 3 points among fourth-grade students and lower by 8 points among eighth-grade students compared to their scores in 2019—the most significant drop since 1990. School districts have struggled to rebound after significant academic setbacks incurred by the COVID-19 pandemic. For math in particular, by the spring of 2022, the average public school student in grades three to eight had lost the equivalent of a half-year of learning. Compared to students in other developed countries, Americans have ranked in the bottom 25% of students globally on standardized tests of mathematics for decades. U.S. students saw a 13-point drop in their 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment math results when compared to the 2018 exam — 'among the lowest ever measured by PISA in mathematics' for the U.S., according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which administers the exam. As a result, a contentious debate has erupted surrounding whether educators are effectively teaching the subject — and whether they themselves are being effectively taught how to teach it. 'There was a dawning realization that there's a real urgency around math achievement in the United States,' Duckworth said when her team decided to design the megastudy. 'This very light touch nudge was helpful, but it does underscore how hard behavior is to change. And if there are bigger levers to influence teacher behavior, I think we would have found a bigger downstream effect on student achievement.' This story was produced by The 74 and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
