Search

"Affordable Online Maths Tuition" is a one-to-one tutoring programme where pupils receive maths tuition over the internet from trained maths graduates in India and Sri Lanka. It is delivered by the organisation Third Space Learning (TSL). Tutors and pupils communicate using video calling and a secure virtual classroom. Before each session, the pupils' normal classroom teachers are able to select lessons from TSL's maths curriculum to target individual learning issues. The intervention was targeted at Year 6 pupils who were working at Key Stage (KS) 2 level 3 or an insecure KS2 level 4, and was delivered over 27 weeks from September 2014 to May 2015 by (TSL) in an initial testing phase, with support from Nesta and Nominet Trust. The impact of the intervention was evaluated using a randomised controlled trial design, involving 64 schools and 600 pupils. Schools were randomised to either receive the intervention or deliver "business as usual" teaching, which might have involved intensive one-to-one support for maths. A process evaluation was undertaken to understand the perceptions of teachers and pupils, assess whether the intervention was delivered as intended, and inform any future development of the intervention. The evaluation should be considered an efficacy trial. Key conclusions include: (1) The impact evaluation found no evidence that the intervention had an impact on Key Stage 2 maths, compared with "business as usual" teaching and support in Year 6; (2) Teachers were largely positive about the online tuition, and reported that it appeared to improve pupils' comprehension, verbal fluency, and confidence in maths; (3) Schools should consider whether their computer network can support the implementation of an online programme. Teachers were positive about the technical support and user experience of the programme, but some experienced technical challenges in the implementation; (4) As the online tuition is a "talking" intervention, it appeared to work better when the pupils were spaced out in larger rooms so that the noise from other sessions was less distracting; and (5) Future research could examine whether the programme has an impact on pupils' comprehension, mathematical capacities, verbal fluency, and confidence in maths, as this was an outcome reported by teachers.

Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) is a writing process model in which students are encouraged to plan, draft, edit, and revise their writing. In this evaluation 23 primary schools and their Year 6 teachers in the Calderdale area of West Yorkshire were randomly allocated to receive training in the SRSD approach from an external consultant. Twelve schools were allocated to the comparison group and 11 schools to the intervention group. The evaluation was set up as an efficacy trial to test the impact of using SRSD in conjunction with memorable experiences at the transition from primary to secondary school. The study was well conducted with independent randomisation and a moderate sample size. Intention-to-treat analysis was used (i.e., pupils were compared in the groups to which they were originally randomly assigned), blind marking of the test papers was undertaken, and the analysis was adjusted for school randomisation. Key conclusions include: (1) The approach had a strong positive effect on the writing outcomes of low attaining pupils at the transition from primary to secondary school among a sample of pupils in State schools in the West Yorkshire area; (2) The approach had beneficial effects for both free school meals (FSM) and non-FSM pupils; (3) These findings, in combination with existing evidence from the United States and elsewhere, suggest that the Self-Regulated Strategy Development approach has substantial promise as a literacy catch-up approach; (4) A larger effectiveness trial could be commissioned to test the approach on a larger scale and with other age groups; and (5) Teachers were trained in the SRSD approach by the North American developers, but adapted it in some ways for an English context.

The Discover Summer School was a four-week programme which aimed to improve the reading and writing skills of children during the summer between Year 6 and Year 7. The programme was targeted at pupils who had been predicted to achieve below Level 4b in English by the end of Key Stage 2. Pupils meeting the eligibility criteria for the study, and due to transition from Year 6 to Year 7 in 2013, were recruited through 29 primary schools in proximity to the Discover Children's Story Centre in Stratford, London, in July and August 2013. The study involved 124 pupils from 29 local schools, of whom 76 were randomly selected to attend the summer school; the remaining 48 formed a comparison group. This evaluation was set up as an efficacy trial. An individually randomised controlled trial design was employed to compare outcomes for pupils attending the summer school with outcomes for pupils in a "business as usual" comparison group who did not attend. The evaluation was unable to provide a secure estimate of the programme's impact on reading or writing attainment, due to the low number of pupils who took part and the problems with testing. The programme was relatively expensive compared to other literacy catch-up approaches delivered in the normal school year. Given the relative cost of the programme, even if the indicative impact which was detected had been secure, as a way of improving academic outcomes other approaches are likely to be more cost-effective. Participating pupils enjoyed the programme and were engaged by the literacy workshops and the enrichment activities. The specific challenges of pupil recruitment, attendance, and test completion experienced should be considered prior to undertaking any further evaluations of summer schools. [Dr. Taeko Becque contributed to the writing of the statistical analysis plan appended to this report.]

The Grammar for Writing intervention is a curriculum intervention aimed at improving writing skills by providing contextualised grammar teaching. This evaluation was set up as an effectiveness trial to test the impact of a four-week version of Grammar for Writing, delivered with the developer leading the recruitment and retention of the schools and participants and the training, and overseeing the provision of the intervention. The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) effectiveness trials aim to test whether an intervention can work at scale, in real-world conditions. In each school, one Year 6 class was randomly assigned to the intervention group and one Year 6 class was randomly assigned to continue with teaching as usual. Within the intervention class, eligible pupils were randomised on an individual basis to receive either whole group Grammar for Writing teaching or the whole group approach plus small group Grammar for Writing teaching. At the end of the intervention period all pupils were asked to complete the Progress in English 11 (Long Form) Test developed by GL Assessment, as a measure of general writing ability. There was about 20% drop-out in terms of the primary outcome, but this was evenly spread between the groups and there was no evidence that it introduced selection bias. The process evaluation indicates the programme was delivered with good fidelity (i.e. as intended by the developer). Overall, this indicates the findings are secure. A previous trial evaluation of Grammar for Writing showed a statistically significant impact among older children, but methodological issues in the way the data were analysed means that there are doubts about the validity of the findings. Key conclusions include: (1) Grammar for Writing is not effective in improving general writing among Year 6 pupils when delivered as a whole class intervention over four weeks; (2) Grammar for Writing is modestly effective in improving writing as a small group intervention, although this is likely to be a result of small group teaching, rather than an intrinsic benefit of Grammar for Writing itself; (3) The evidence for Grammar for Writing from this evaluation is insufficient to recommend widespread adoption among Year 6 pupils; (4) Small group teaching amongst Levels 3c to 4b pupils does seem an effective strategy to increase writing skills; and (5) Possible further research question: Is small group teaching for children at Levels 3c to 4b effective and costeffective over a longer time period?