The Institute of Education Sciences at the US Department of Education has released A review of instruments for measuring social and emotional learning skills among secondary school students. The review is designed to help state and local education agencies find assessments that measure secondary students’ social-emotional skills, specifically in the areas of collaboration, perseverance and self-regulated learning, and to help readers interpret the information about reliability and validity for each assessment.
A total of 16 assessments met the following inclusion
criteria for the review: they had to be publicly available, had to have been
administered to secondary students in the US, and had to have undergone
validation study in 1994 or after. Tables in the review detail the format of
instruments by emotional skill, and the reliability and type of validity
information for each assessment. Authors conclude with implications for use of
each type of instrument.
Source: A review
of instruments for measuring social and emotional learning skills among
secondary school students (October 2019), US
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (REL 2020–010
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 research report published in the International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders investigates the effectiveness of teaching assistant (TA)-delivered narrative and vocabulary interventions to secondary school children with language difficulties.
Researchers at City University of London and University of
Oxford conducted a randomised controlled trial in two outer London boroughs.
Across 21 schools, 358 Year 7 underperforming pupils (mean age = 12.8 years)
were recruited, and randomised to four groups within each school: vocabulary
intervention, narrative intervention, combined narrative and vocabulary
intervention, and delayed waiting control group. The narrative programme
focused on the understanding and telling of stories, using a story structure to
support story generation. Pupils were introduced to different types of stories
(fictional, non‐fictional, scripts) and narrative genres. The vocabulary
programme focused on developing key concepts and vocabulary items relevant to
the curriculum (eg, nutrition) and age-appropriate (eg, careers). A variety of
tasks including word associations, categorisation, mind‐mapping and
word‐building were used to reinforce word learning.
The language and communication programmes (narrative,
vocabulary, and combined narrative and vocabulary) were delivered by TAs in the
classroom, three times per week, for 45–60 min each, over six weeks, totalling
18 sessions. Assessments were conducted pre- and post-intervention.
Overall, pupils in the intervention groups made greater
improvements on standardised measures of narrative (effect size = +0.296), but
not vocabulary skills, compared with control group children.
storytelling and vocabulary in secondary school students with language
disorder: a randomized controlled trial (March 2019), International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 54:4
In a recent issue of Best Evidence in Brief, we reported on an English study of a growth mindset intervention, which found no evidence that it led to additional progress in literacy or numeracy. Now a US randomised controlled trial published in the journal Nature has found that a short, online, self-administered growth mindset intervention may improve achievement among lower-achieving students and increase overall enrollment in advanced math courses.
The study, conducted by David Yeager and colleagues, was the largest ever randomised controlled trial of growth mindset in US schools, with 12,000 ninth graders (Year 10) in 65 schools involved.
Students were individually randomised to either a control or
intervention group. The intervention group was asked to complete two 25-minute
online courses, taken three weeks apart. Students were given information
about how the brain works and the latest research on growth mindset
– then they completed activities such as explaining what they had
learned from the course to students in the year below. Students in the
control group were given a similar programme with information on how the brain
worked, but no information on growth mindset.
Following the intervention, students’ grade point average (GPA) in their core classes of maths, science, English, and social studies, were collected. (In the US, grade point averages run from 4.0, which is an A, to 1.0, which is a D. There is no E grade. The score below D is an F.)
The study found that:
- GPA scores for lower-achieving students in the
intervention group rose by 0.1 points relative to peers in the control group
(effect size = +0.11).
- The proportion of lower-achieving students with
D or F averages dropped by 5%.
Both higher- and lower-achieving students were more likely to take an advanced maths class in 10th grade (Year 11) – meaning enrollment in these courses rose from 33% to 36% in the 41 schools that shared this data.
Source: A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement (August 2019) Nature.
Research into grouping by achievement, by academics from
Queen’s University Belfast and University College London, has found that nearly
a third of students in England were allocated to higher or lower maths sets
than their previous test performance implied.
The study, published in the British Educational Research Journal, analysed data from 9,301 Year 7 students at 46 secondary schools in England. The researchers compared which maths set the students would have been put in – based on Key Stage 2 maths test scores – with the sets they were actually placed in. Overall, they found that 31.1% of students were misallocated – placed in sets that were either higher or lower than their results at the end of primary school would have indicated.
Boys were slightly more likely to be misallocated to higher
sets in maths (16.7%) than lower sets (13.0%), whereas girls were more likely
to be misallocated to lower sets (17.9%) than higher sets (14.7%). Other
findings showed that:
- Black students were 2.4 times more likely than
white students to be misallocated to a lower maths set.
- Asian students were 1.7 times more likely than white
students to be misallocated to a lower maths set.
- Female students were 1.53 times more likely than
males to be misallocated to a lower maths set.
- White students were 2.09 times more likely than
black students to be misallocated to a higher maths set.
- White students were 1.72 times more likely than
Asian students to be misallocated to a higher maths set.
- Male students were 1.32 times more likely than females to be misallocated to a higher maths set.
Source: The misallocation of students to academic sets in maths: A study of secondary schools in England (June 2019) British Educational Research Journal
Attending career talks with people in employment may change the attitudes of Key Stage 4 pupils regarding their education, according to new research published by the UK charity, Education and Employers.
Year 11 pupils in five schools took part in the trial and
were randomly assigned at class level into an intervention group (n=307) and a
control group (n=347). Pupils in the intervention group received three extra
career talks by employee volunteers on top of usual career activities organised
by their schools. These talks took place either during tutor group time or
private study time rather than during class.
The results of the study indicated that pupils who attended the career talks reported feeling more confident in their own abilities, feeling more positive about school, and having greater faith in their ability to fulfill their career aspirations. It also seemed to provide the incentive for increased study time. Pupils in the intervention group reported, on average, a 9% higher increase in the amount of time spent each week on individual study for GCSE exams than those in the control group.
The intervention programme also had a small positive effect on achievement, with pupils slightly more likely to exceed predicted GCSE grades relative to the control group. Lower achievers and less-engaged learners responded best to the career talks, with 74% reporting that they felt more motivated as a result of the talks. These pupils also exceeded their predicted GCSE grades compared with the control group (+0.14 of a grade effect size for English, +0.05 for maths, and +0.05 for science).
Source: Motivated to achieve: How encounters with the world of work can change attitudes and improve academic attainment (June 2019), Education and Employers Research