A meta-analysis examining the evidence between overall screen time, specific screen-based activities, and academic performance found that overall screen time is not related to children’s and teens’ academic achievement, yet the type of screen time is.
Mireia Adelantado-Renau and colleagues in Spain found that
TV and video game time greater than two hours a day was associated with poorer
academic achievement, while internet and mobile phone time was not. In
addition, the negative effects on academic performance were larger for teens
than for children.
The meta-analysis included 58 studies from 23 countries that
met its inclusion criteria, encompassing the academic achievement of 106,000 4–18
year olds (assessed by school grades, standardised tests, and academic
failure). Subgroup analysis was conducted between children and teens. In
children (4–12 years old), the length of TV watching negatively affected
performance in language (effect size = -0.20) and maths (ES= -0.36); in teens
(12–18 years old), longer TV duration affected language (ES= -0.18) and maths
(ES= -0.21). Playing video games also negatively impacted teens’ scores (ES=
-0.16), but did not affect the scores of younger children (ES=+0.04).
The authors suggest that these findings offer evidence that
decreasing TV and video game time might be an effective strategy in improving
academic achievement in children and teens.
Source: Association between screen media use and academic performance among children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis (September 2019), JAMA Pediatrics
An independent evaluation of Stop and Think: Learning Counterintuitive Concepts has found evidence of a positive impact in maths and science outcomes for pupils in Key Stage 2.
The Learning Counterintuitive Concepts project, funded by
the Education Endowment Foundation and Wellcome, aimed to improve science and maths
achievement for Year 3 (7–8 year olds) and Year 5 (9–10 year olds) using an
intervention called Stop and Think. When learning new concepts in science and
maths, pupils must be able to inhibit prior contradictory knowledge and
misconceptions to acquire new knowledge successfully. Stop and Think is a
computer-assisted learning activity that aims to improve a learner’s ability to
adapt to counterintuitive concepts by training them to inhibit their initial
response, and instead, give a slower and more reflective answer.
The randomised controlled trial involved 6,672 children from
89 schools across England. The intervention was delivered to the whole class
and consisted of 30 sessions delivered for a maximum of 15 minutes, three times
a week, for 10 weeks at the start of maths or science lessons.
The results suggest that pupils who participated in Stop and
Think made more progress in science and maths on average, compared to children
in the business-as-usual control group. The combined effect size across
the two year groups for maths was +0.09 and +0.12 for science.
To check whether this impact was due to the Stop and Think
game specifically, or was a result of the extra pupil engagement and motivation
arising from having a fun computer-based activity at the start of lessons more
generally, schools were offered an alternative computer-based programme that
did not include any content from Stop and Think. Intervention-group pupils
also made more progress than pupils in this “active” control group. The
combined effect sizes for maths and science were +0.13 and +0.15 respectively.
Source: Stop and
Think: Learning counterintuitive concepts. Evaluation report (September 2019), Education Endowment Foundation
This meta-analysis, published in Educational Research Review, explores whether shared reading interventions are equally effective across a range of study designs, across a range of different outcome variables, and for children from different socioeconomic status (SES) groups.
Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they met the
Must contain a universal and/or targeted shared
book reading intervention.
Must include at least one control group.
Participants must be typically developing
children ages seven years or younger.
Must not target multilingual populations and/or
the acquisition of an additional language.
Must isolate the variable of interest (shared
Must report on objective quantitative measure of
Must provide sufficient data to calculate the
The results suggest that shared reading had an overall effect size of +0.19 on children’s language development. They also show that this effect was moderated by the type of control group used and was near zero in studies with active control groups (ES = +0.03). The meta-analysis also shows no differences across outcome variables or for SES.
impact of shared book reading on children’s language skills: A meta-analysis (September
2019), Educational Research Review, Volume
Social Programs That Work has released a new evidence summary on Learning Accounts, a demonstration programme in New Brunswick, Canada that provided up to $8,400 in conditional financial aid for post-secondary education to low-income 10th grade (Year 11) pupils. The pupils had to meet certain benchmarks (ie, completion of 10th, 11th, and 12th grade (Years 11-13)) to receive the funding.
The programme was evaluated through a randomised controlled
trial with a sample of 1,145 low-income 10th graders in 30 high schools in New
Brunswick, Canada. Within each school, the low-income pupils were randomly
assigned to a group that was offered participation in the Learning Accounts
programme, or to a control group that received usual school services. Survey
data was used to measure high school graduation rates, and administrative data
was used to examine later graduation from college.
According to the evidence report, over the 10 years
following random assignment, the programme produced a 6.5 percentage point
increase in the high school graduation rate, and 6.8 percentage point increase
in the rate of post-secondary completion.
Source: Learning Accounts (September 2019), Social Programs That Work
A study published in Oxford Review of Education evaluates the effects of TutorBright tutoring on the reading and maths skills of children in family foster care. TutorBright uses one-to-one, at-home tutoring with detailed instructor’s manuals and customised pupil workbooks. Children receive two one-hour tutoring sessions per week, on designated days of the week, for up to 50 hours of tutoring. Children in the waiting list control group were asked to continue with their schooling as usual and not seek additional tutoring or academic support during the school year, and were then offered the tutoring intervention at the end of the school year. TutorBright tutors all had experience with teaching or mentoring, and an undergraduate or master’s degree (completed or in progress).
For the randomised controlled trial, conducted by Andrea J
Hickey and Robert J Flynn, child welfare workers nominated foster care children
in Ontario, Canada, who met the following criteria: enrolled in grades 1–11 (Years
2–12), fluent in English, currently living in a foster-family setting, and
judged likely to remain in care for the duration of the study. Thirty-four
children were randomly assigned to tutoring, and 36 to a waiting-list control
The results suggest that the tutored children made greater
gains than those in the control group in reading fluency (effect size = +0.16),
reading comprehension (ES = +0.34) and maths calculation (ES = +0.39).
of the TutorBright tutoring programme on the reading and mathematics skills of
children in foster care: a randomised controlled trial (July 2019), Oxford Review of Education, 45:4
The findings from a randomised controlled trial of Let’s
Talk – an interactive intervention to support young children’s language
development – suggest that the intervention has a positive effect on narrative
and vocabulary development.
The trial, conducted by Gillian Lake and Maria Evangelou, and published in European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, involved 94 three- to four-year-old children in early education settings in Oxfordshire. The children were randomly assigned to control or intervention groups and tested pre- and post-intervention on standardised vocabulary and narrative assessments. Children in the intervention group attended twice-weekly sessions over ten weeks, in groups of three to five children. The first session of the week was a group shared storybook reading session with a puppet, while the second weekly session consisted of a planned pretend play session based on the storybook read in the first session that week. Children in the control group completed age-appropriate early numeracy activities and games – also in groups of three to five children.
The results suggest that the intervention had a positive
effect on the vocabulary of the children in the intervention group, with medium
to large effect sizes, and also on their narrative ability.
Source:Let’s Talk! An interactive intervention to support children’s language development (February 2019). European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 27:2