A study published in Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis presents findings from a four-year evaluation of a national scale-up of Reading Recovery – a one-to-one reading intervention for struggling first grade (Year 2) readers. The evaluation included an implementation study and a multisite randomised controlled trial with 6,888 pupils in 1,222 schools in the US.
Philip Sirinides and colleagues compared the achievement of struggling first grade (Year 2) readers following the Reading Recovery programme with business-as-usual literacy teaching. Results were measured using pupils’ scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) total reading assessment, as well as the ITBS reading comprehension and reading words subtests.
Results showed a medium to large effect on pupils’ reading over the course of the four years (effect size = +0.37) compared to the control group. The impacts of Reading Recovery on the ITBS total reading scores showed an effect size of +0.37. The effect sizes for ITBS reading comprehension and reading words subtests were +0.38 and +0.35, respectively. Effect sizes tended to be larger in schools where pupils had lower average reading performance overall.
Source: The impacts of Reading Recovery at scale: results from the 4-year i3 external evaluation (March 2018), Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
Field trips to the theatre provide a number of educational benefits to pupils, according to research published in Educational Researcher. Jay P Greene and colleagues found that giving pupils the opportunity to take part in a field trip to see a live theatre performance produced an increase in tolerance as well as a greater understanding of the plot and vocabulary of those plays.
Schools in Arkansas in the US were assigned by lottery to receive free tickets to attend one of five live theatre performances over a two-year period. Grade 9 (Year 10) classes from participating schools were then randomly assigned to take part in theatre field trip or to serve as a control group and not take part in the field trips. In addition, for two of the five experiments, a second treatment group was added in which pupils were randomly assigned to watch a film version of the theatre play. The average age of pupils in the treatment and control groups was 14 years old.
The impact to pupils of the theatre field trip was measured on five outcomes: tolerance, social perspective taking (the ability to understand others’ feelings and perspectives), content knowledge, theatre consumption and theatre participation. Pupils in the theatre field trip treatment groups scored higher for levels of tolerance and social perspective taking (+0.14 and 0.16 of a standard deviation higher than the control group). Pupils’ content knowledge of the plot and vocabulary in the plays was also greater (by 0.15 of a standard deviation) than pupils in the control group.
However, watching a film did not produce benefits, and as the film-viewing group also left school for a field trip, the results suggest that the educational benefits to pupils come from the experience of watching live theatre, and not simply from leaving school for a field trip. Results also indicate that theatre field trips may encourage pupils to visit the theatre more often.
Source: The play’s the thing: experimentally examining the social and cognitive effects of school field trips to live theater performances (March 2018), Educational Researcher, Vol 47, Issue 4, pp. 246 – 254
The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) has published findings from a new evaluation report of “Family Skills”, a programme that aims to improve the literacy and language of children learning English as an additional language.
A total of 115 primary schools in England took part in a randomised controlled trial of Family Skills. Over the course of one term, parents of four- and five-year-olds were offered weekly sessions with family learning tutors. The 2.5 hour sessions focused on topics like reading to children, phonics, making the most of bilingualism, learning through play and understanding primary education in England. Families were encouraged to do learning activities at home with their children, and were also given opportunities to visit a local library and take a tour of their child’s school.
The evaluation, conducted by the National Centre for Social Research, found that, overall, children of parents who were offered the Family Skills intervention did not make any more progress in literacy than children of parents who were not offered it (effect size = +0.01). However, the evaluation also suggests that children whose parents actually attended Family Skills sessions made greater progress in literacy than children whose parents did not. While the evaluators are cautious about this, it may indicate some potential if ways can be found to ensure more parents attend. The key challenge the evaluation highlighted is that some schools struggled to get parents to show up – only around one-third of eligible parents attended at least one session.
Source: Family Skills: evaluation report and executive summary (May 2018), Education Endowment Foundation
As part of their Straight Talk on Evidence initiative, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation has released a new evidence report on KIPP Charter Schools in the US. The report summarises the evidence from two randomised controlled trials that respectively evaluated the effectiveness of KIPP elementary schools and KIPP middle schools as implemented on a sizable scale.
KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) is a nationwide network of charter schools that serve a predominantly low-income, minority population of pupils from pre-K (reception) through to secondary school. Pupils are admitted through a lottery system. KIPP schools in the two randomised studies were located in nine US states and the District of Columbia.
According to the evidence report, the KIPP elementary and middle schools in the studies both produced sizable, statistically significant effects on reading and maths achievement—increases of between 5 and 10 percentile points (compared to the control group)—as measured two to three years after random assignment.
The report notes that a longer-term follow-up of the two KIPP RCTs could be a valuable addition to the research.
Source: KIPP charter schools—strong, replicated evidence of sizable effects on student achievement (May 2018), Laura and John Arnold Foundation
A longitudinal study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign shows that the older pupils get, the less they approve of male classmates who are looked upon as class clowns. Specifically, boys who act mischievously to make their peers laugh in first grade (Year 2) start to be shunned for their behaviour by third grade (Year 4), and lose self-esteem.
Educational psychologist Lynn Barnett followed 278 children from kindergarten through to third grade (Year 1 to Year 4) to examine “playful” children’s perception of themselves and how others saw them as the school years progressed. To determine which children were the most “playful,” Barnett used the 23-item Children’s Playfulness Scale; surveys on teacher-, peer-, and self-rated social competence; and teacher-, peer-, and self-rated disruptive classroom behaviours, placing pupils named by at least 25% of their peers into the “playful” category.
She found that pupils in the first grade equally regarded girls and boys as class clowns, but by third grade, mostly boys were labelled as such, even when the girls still demonstrated playful behaviour. Although playful children were often popular in the early school years and saw themselves as having better social skills than others, by third grade the male class clowns were the ones likely to be played with the least, losing confidence and seeing themselves as socially incompetent. This is in sharp contrast to female class clowns, who did not lose popularity or self-esteem by third grade. One pattern of note was that in all Year groups, teachers did not view playful girls as negatively as they did playful boys. Dr Barnett discusses these implications, and teachers’ influence on the way male class clowns are perceived.
Source: The education of playful boys: class clowns in the classroom (March 2018), Frontiers in Psychology Volume 9, Article 232
Getting above or failing to reach thresholds in high-stakes public examinations is an important feature of success or failure in many people’s lives. One well-known example is the need to obtain a grade C in GCSE English. New research by the Centre for Vocational Education Research (CVER) analyses the costs of narrowly failing, or only just achieving, a grade C in English GCSE.
Stephen Machin and colleagues tracked the progress of more than 49,000 pupils who took their English GCSE in 2013 and got a grade C or D, and then looked at how they progressed over the next three years. Results showed that pupils of similar ability have significantly different trajectories depending on whether they just pass or fail the exam. Pupils who continue in education post-16 may find that the options open to them are more limited, and may end up in settings with less-well performing peers. Those who narrowly miss out on a grade C have a lower probability of enrolling in a higher-level qualification – by at least nine percentage points. Furthermore, pupils who narrowly miss out on a grade C are more likely to drop out of education at age 18 (by about four percentage points), and are at increased risk of poorer prospects in the long term.
Source: Entry through the narrow door: the costs of just failing high stakes exams (April 2018), Centre for Vocational Education Research (CVER) Research Discussion Paper 014