Table 5: Mean effect sizes on summary measures of classroom observation

|<br>Dependent variable|<br>(1)|<br>(2)|<br>(3)|<br>(4)|<br>Control<br>Average|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|A. Instructional activities|0.062***<br>[0.013]|0.061***<br>[0.013]|0.057***<br>[0.013]|0.052***<br>[0.013]|0.704|
|B. Classroom management activities|-0.036***<br>[0.009]|-0.035***<br>[0.009]|-0.033***<br>[0.009]|-0.028***<br>[0.009]|0.211|
|C. Off-task activities|-0.026***<br>[0.007]|-0.026***<br>[0.007]|-0.025***<br>[0.007]|-0.025***<br>[0.006]|0.085|
|D. Instructional activities all students engaged|0.003<br>[0.020]|-0.003<br>[0.019]|-0.005<br>[0.020]|-0.011<br>[0.020]|0.265|
|E. Big group (>6) of student off-task|-0.043**<br>[0.017]|-0.036**<br>[0.016]|-0.036**<br>[0.016]|-0.030*<br>[0.016]|0.187|
|Control for baseline||x|x|x||
|Student, teacher and classroom covariates<br>School covariates<br>_Note_: Sample size 3121. Robust standard errors in<br>time teacher was instructing. These variables assu<br>p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01|brakets, clustere<br>mes missing value|d at the school le<br>s if the teacher di|x<br>vel. Variables D a<br>d not spend any t|x<br>x<br>nd E only consid<br>ime instructing|er the<br>. *|

Figures 6 – 10 unpack results for each of the five summary measures using specification (4) - OLS results with baseline and all covariates as control.<sup>9</sup> The figure displays coefficients and 90% confidence intervals for summary measures and for all individual outcomes under each category. The black line crosses at zero; results to the right of the zero line represent positive effects of the treatment and results to the left represent negative effects of the treatment.

The impact of the program on teacher time on instruction, as shown in Figure 6, was driven by statistically significant increases in time spent on “discussion/debate/Q&A” (2% of class time), “copying” (1,8%) and “demonstration/lecture” (2%). “Reading aloud” showed a statistically significant but smaller increase of 0.7%.

The use of more interactive teaching techniques, and especially the importance of using questions to probe students’ understanding of the material being taught and to stimulate discussion are key elements of the coaching program and the _Teach Like a Champion_ book. Notwithstanding the increase, teachers in treatment schools still used discussion/question and answer only 10.5% of the time at endline, and only 8.4% of time in control schools. Lecturing from the blackboard remained the dominant teaching mode – used on average 38% of the time in treatment schools and 34% of time in control schools. There was a statistically significant increase in copying in the treatment schools relative to control schools, but it still absorbed less than 10% of the time.

Figure 6 – Decomposition of effects on instructional time - all controls (90% confidence interval) <!-- Start of picture text -->
-0.030 0.020 0.070 0.120 0.170<br>In stru c o nal A c vi es<br>0.052<br>R ead ing A lo ud<br>0.007<br>D em on stra o n /Lecture<br>0.020<br>D iscu ssio n /D eb ate/<br>0.020 Q & A<br>P rac ce & D rill<br>-0.001<br>A ssign m ent/C lass w o rk<br>-0.0 12<br>C o pying<br>0.018<br>Pais:<br>A<br>vidades<br>Engajamento<br>1<br><!-- End of picture text -->

Figure 7 presents the average treatment effects for the four underlying activities that constitute classroom management. The improvement was driven by a sharp, 2% reduction in teacher time spent on classroom management alone (e.g., teacher at his/her desk grading papers). Declines in time spent on verbal instruction (teacher discussing non-academic matters, such as plans for school activities or dates for upcoming tests,

> 9 Regression results for each outcome measure using the four specifications are shown in Appendix tables A2 to A6.

13