An evaluation of the Education Endowment Foundation trial of Tutor Trust’s affordable tuition project found that low-cost tutoring in small groups increased maths scores for disadvantaged pupils who are working below age-expected levels in maths.
One hundred and five schools in Manchester and Leeds with double the average numbers of disadvantaged pupils participated in the effectiveness trial of the Tutor Trust project from September 2016 until July 2017. The aim of the project is to improve the maths achievement of disadvantaged pupils by providing small-group tutoring sessions with trained university students and recent graduates.
Year 6 pupils (ages 10–11) who were struggling with maths were selected by their teacher to receive extra support from Tutor Trust tutors, should their school be randomly allocated to the intervention group. The selected pupils in the intervention schools received 12 hours of additional tuition, usually one hour per week for 12 weeks, in groups of three. Pupils in the control schools continued with normal teaching. Achievement was measured using Key Stage 2 maths scores.
The report found that children who received tutoring from Tutor Trust progressed more in maths compared to children in control schools (effect size = +0.19). Among children eligible for free school meals, the effect size was +0.25. There was also some evidence that pupils with lower prior achievement tended to benefit more from the tutoring.
Source: Tutor Trust: Affordable primary tuition evaluation report and executive summary (November 2018), Education Endowment Foundation
Marta Pellegrini from the University of Florence and Cynthia Lake, Amanda Inns and Robert E Slavin from Johns Hopkins Center for Research and Reform in Education have released a new report on effective programmes in primary maths. The report reviews research on the mathematics achievement outcomes of all programmes with at least one study meeting the inclusion criteria of the review. A total of 78 studies were identified that evaluated 61 programmes in grades K–5 (Years 1–6).
The studies were very high in quality, with 65 (83%) randomised and 13 (17%) quasi-experimental evaluations. Key findings were as follows:
- Particularly positive outcomes were found for tutoring programmes.
- One-to-one and one-to-small group models had equal impacts, as did teachers and paraprofessionals as tutors.
- Technology programmes showed modest positive impacts.
- Professional development approaches focused on helping teachers gain in understanding of maths content and pedagogy had no impact on pupil achievement, but more promising outcomes were seen in studies focused on instructional processes, such as cooperative learning.
- Whole-school reform, social-emotional approaches, maths curricula and benchmark assessment programmes found few positive effects, although there were one or more effective individual approaches in most categories.
The findings suggest that programmes emphasising personalisation, engagement and motivation have most impact in primary maths teaching, while strategies focused on textbooks, professional development for maths knowledge or pedagogy, and other strategies that do not substantially impact pupils’ daily experiences have little impact.
Source: Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis (October 2018), Johns Hopkins University
Evidence for Learning in Australia has published an evaluation of Thinking Maths – a professional learning programme for maths teachers to support pupils’ maths learning during the transition between primary and secondary school (currently Year 7 and Year 8 in South Australia).
The evaluation involved 158 schools in South Australia, which were randomly assigned to the intervention (63 schools) or the control group (104 schools). Teachers participated in 30 hours of face-to-face professional learning delivered at 4–5 week intervals over three school terms. The programme focuses on three areas for better teaching and learning of mathematics: (a) using quality task design, (b) sequencing a conceptual development, and (c) using research-informed effective pedagogies.
Pupils whose teachers received Thinking Maths made additional progress in maths when compared to business-as-usual maths classes (effect size = +0.05). However, there were differences between primary and secondary school pupils: the effect size for secondary pupils (Years 8–10) was -0.16, whereas the effect size for primary pupils (Years 5–7) was +0.14.
Source: Thinking Maths: A professional learning program supporting teachers to engage middle-school students in maths. Evaluation Report and Executive Summary, (September 2018). Evidence for Learning, the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER)
Pre-K Mathematics is a supplementary mathematics curriculum for pre-k (Reception) children. It focuses on the pre-k classroom and home learning environments of young children, especially those from families experiencing economic hardship. Activities aim to support mathematical development by providing learning opportunities to increase children’s informal mathematical knowledge.
In an article published in Evaluation Review, Jaime Thomas and colleagues report on a cluster-randomised control trial of the scale-up of Pre-K Mathematics in 140 schools in California (70 intervention schools, 70 control). The post-test measured outcomes on the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort Mathematics Assessment (ECLS-B) and the Test of Early Mathematics Ability (TEMA-3) at the end of the pre-k year. Results showed that Pre-K Mathematics had positive and significant effects, with an effect size of +0.30 on the ECLS-B and +0.23 on the TEMA-3.
The authors consider how these results differ from previous, smaller studies of the efficacy and effectiveness of Pre-K Mathematics. They find that effect sizes were usually larger in the earlier studies. As studies became larger, more heterogeneous, and less controlled, they tended to yield smaller results.
Source: The Sequential Scale-Up of an Evidence-Based Intervention: A Case Study (August 2018), Evaluation Review
In England there is currently a shortage of maths teachers; among the factors that might be influencing this shortage are that departments lose 40% of teachers during their first six years in the profession, and there are higher private sector wages for maths graduates. At the same time, demand for maths teachers has increased due to policy measures to increase participation in maths for 16 to 18 year olds. To examine what impact this has had, the Nuffield Foundation commissioned researchers from FFT Education Datalab to look at how secondary schools have responded to the shortage.
Rebecca Allen and Sam Sims used data from England’s School Workforce Census and found that schools are using their most experienced and well-qualified maths teachers for year groups taking high-stakes exams (GCSEs, A-levels, and GCSE retakes), and using inexperienced maths teachers and teachers who trained in other subjects to fill staffing gaps elsewhere.
In the most disadvantaged schools (those with more pupils eligible for free school meals), pupils across all year groups are more likely to be taught by an inexperienced teacher. At Key Stage 5 (age 16-18) pupils in the most disadvantaged schools are almost twice as likely to have an inexperienced teacher as in the least disadvantaged schools (9.5% versus 5.3%).
Source: How do shortages of maths teachers affect the within-school allocation of maths teachers to pupils? (June 2018), Nuffield Foundation
A new Campbell Collaboration systematic review has been published, which looks at the impact of Teach for America on learning outcomes.
Teach for America (TFA) is a nationwide teacher preparation programme designed to address the shortage of effective teachers, specifically in high-poverty rural and urban schools across the United States. The systematic review by Herbert Turner and colleagues considered the impact of TFA-prepared teachers relative to novice teachers, and alumni relative to veteran teachers. The impacts studied were for K–12 (Years 1–13) pupil outcomes in maths, English and science.
A total of 24 studies were eligible for the review. However, once the research design, study quality and comparison groups were considered, this was reduced to four qualifying studies.
The review found no significant effect on reading by TFA teachers in their first or second year teaching elementary grades (Years 1–6) when compared with non-TFA novice teachers. There was a small positive impact for pre-K to grade 2 (Reception to Year 3) teachers on reading, but not on maths. However, given the small evidence base, the review counsels that these results should be treated with caution.
Source: What are the effects of Teach for America on math, English language arts, and science outcomes of K–12 students in the USA? (June 2018), A Campbell Systematic Review 2018:7