A research briefing published by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) looks at what progress has been made in embedding evidence-informed practice within teaching in England.
As part of
the brief, researchers from the National Foundation for Educational Research
(NFER) summarised findings from a nationally representative survey of 1,670
schools and teachers. The survey was conducted between September and November
2017, and investigated teachers’ research use. The results of the survey
Research evidence continues to play
a relatively small role in influencing teachers’ decision-making. Eighty-four percent of those
surveyed said that their continuing professional development was based on
information other than academic research.
Most teachers report that their
schools offer supporting environments, which enablesevidence-informed practice to flourish. Seventy-three percent
‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that their school provided a positive culture for
professional development and evidence use.
Teachers report generally positive attitudes towards research evidence, despite the fact that research
evidence had only a small influence on their decision-making.
responses varied by school phase, by type of respondent, and by type of schools.
Those who were more likely to report that their schools had a positive research
culture, and that they used research to inform their selection of teaching
Senior leaders (as opposed to classroom teachers).
Primary school teachers (rather than secondary school teachers).
Schools with the lowest 25 percent of achievement (versus highest 25 percent achievement).
Source: Teachers’ engagement with
research: what do we know? A research briefing (May 2019), Education Endowment Foundation
The Education Endowment Foundation has published an evaluation of Research Leads Improving Students’ Education (RISE). The programme, which was developed and delivered by Huntington School in York, aimed to improve the maths and English achievement of pupils in secondary school using a research-informed school improvement model.
Forty schools took part in the randomised controlled trial and were randomly allocated to either take part in RISE or to a control group which continued with business as usual. Schools participating in RISE appointed a senior teacher as a Research Lead who was responsible for promoting and supporting the use of research throughout the school. Support for Research Leads included an initial eight professional development sessions held over eight months, occasional follow-up meetings over two academic years, a customised email newsletter, a website with resources, a peer network, and school visits by the RISE team. The RISE team also provided a workshop for headteachers and annual workshops for English and maths subject leads.
The evaluation examined the impact on pupils in two cohorts:
in the first cohort (A) the school was only exposed to one year of RISE, while
in the second cohort (B) the school experienced two years of the intervention. For
both the one-year and two-year cohorts, children in RISE schools made a small
amount of additional progress in maths (effect size = +0.09 for cohort A and
+0.04 for cohort B) and English (effect size = +0.05 for cohort A and +0.03 for
cohort B) compared to children in the control-group
schools. However, the differences were small and not significant, so the
evaluation concludes that there is no evidence that participating in one or two
years of the RISE programme has a positive impact on pupil achievement.
In addition, the evaluation highlights the importance of
schools’ ability and motivation to make use of the Research Lead in shaping
school improvement decisions and processes. For example, it suggests that
implementation was stronger when headteachers gave clear and visible support
for the project and Research Leads had additional dedicated time to undertake
Source: The RISE
project: Evidence-informed school improvement (May 2019), Education Endowment Foundation
An evaluation of a pilot of Teensleep, a sleep education programme that aims to improve outcomes for pupils by improving the quality of their sleep, found no evidence that the programme led to improvements in pupils’ sleep.
The Teensleep programme
trains teachers to promote good ‘sleep hygiene’ as part of pupils’ Personal,
Social and Health Education (PSHE) lessons. Teachers deliver a series of 10
half-hour lessons highlighting the importance of sleep for effective learning,
as well as providing practical advice for better sleep, such as avoiding
caffeine in the evening.
Ten UK secondary schools took part in the pilot funded by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) and the Wellcome Trust. All Year 10 pupils received the intervention as delivered by their teachers and completed a sleep quiz and sleep survey pre- and post-intervention. Parents and pupils were informed about the pilot study and parents could opt out of schools sharing pupils’ data with the research team, but not out of pupil participation in the intervention.
Overall, the evaluation
found there was no evidence that Teensleep improved pupils’ sleep as measured
using a wrist-worn activity monitor before and after the intervention. However,
the evaluation did find some evidence of improvements to sleep-related behaviour
as reported by pupils, such as napping less during the daytime.
Source: Teensleep: Pilot report and executive summary (February
2019) Education Endowment Foundation
Helping pupils to understand the logical principles underlying maths may improve their mathematical achievement, according to the findings of a randomised controlled trial published by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF).
Mathematical Reasoning lessons focus on developing pupils’ understanding of the logic principles underlying maths, and cover principles such as place value and the inverse relation between addition and subtraction. One hundred and sixty English primary schools took part in the trial, and were randomly allocated to receive either Mathematical Reasoning or to be in the control group. The control group was given the opportunity to take part in the programme the following year. Teachers in the intervention schools delivered the programme to Year 2 pupils over 12 to 15 weeks as part of their usual maths lessons. Learning was supported by online games, which could be used by pupils at school and at home.
The independent evaluation by a team from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) found a small but statistically significant effect size of +0.08 on maths achievement for pupils who took part in the programme, compared to other pupils. It had the same impact for pupils eligible for free school meals. They also found some evidence that the programme had a positive impact on mathematical reasoning.
An evaluation of the Education Endowment Foundation’s trial of Families and Schools Together (FAST), delivered by Save the Children, did not appear to make a difference to children’s achievement, but was found to be an effective mechanism for engaging parents in their children’s early education. FAST was also shown to have a positive impact on children’s social and behavioural outcomes across the whole year group and not just for the children who participated in the programme.
FAST is a parental engagement programme that aims to support parenting and enhance links between families, schools and the community. Parents and their children attend eight weekly two-and-a-half-hour group sessions delivered after school by accredited FAST trainers.
The school-level randomised trial measured the impact of FAST for the whole year group on Key Stage 1 (KS1) reading and arithmetic achievement, and children’s behavioural and pro-social outcomes (measured using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire). One hundred and fifty eight schools took part in the trial, with a total of 7,027 pupils across the Year 1 cohort in these schools, and 632 pupils taking part in the eight-week programme.
The evaluation found no evidence that FAST had an effect on KS1 reading and arithmetic outcomes for the whole year group (effect size = +0.01). There was also no evidence that FAST had an impact on KS1 outcomes for the children whose families took part in the eight-week programme. However, FAST showed some promise on non-academic outcomes, with positive outcomes for the whole year group. Immediately after the eight-week programme, Year 1 pupils in the intervention schools had a higher average pro-social score and a lower average total difficulties score than pupils in comparison schools. However, these effects diminished by the end of Year 2.
Source: Families and Schools Together (FAST) evaluation report and executive summary (November 2018), Education Endowment Foundation
The IPEELL intervention is a writing process model in which pupils are encouraged to plan, draft, edit, and revise their writing. IPEELL stands for Introduction, Point, Explain, Ending, Links, and Language. The strategy provides a clear structure to assist writers and can be used for most genres of writing, including narrative writing. In addition to the writing process, the IPEELL intervention also involves ‘memorable experiences’ for pupils designed to act as a stimulus for their writing.
The trial tested the impact of one year of IPEELL for children in Year 6 and the impact of two years of IPEELL for children who started it in Year 5 and continued in Year 6. In total, 84 schools and 2,682 children in the north of England participated in the one-year trial and 83 schools and 2,762 children participated in the two-year trial. Writing outcomes were measured using Key Stage 2 (KS2) writing outcomes for the one-year trial and a bespoke writing test based on historic KS2 writing tests for the two-year trial.
The results showed that pupils who used IPEELL for two years made more progress in writing (effect size = +0.11) than pupils who did not. However, they made less progress in reading, spelling and mathematics than pupils in the control group (ES = -0.17—0.30). Pupils who used IPEELL for one year made less progress in writing, reading, spelling and maths than comparison pupils.
A previous trial of the approach had shown large positive results, but there were important differences between the two trials. In this latest trial, the model used teacher trainers who had never seen IPEELL delivered in the classroom. It also measured the average impact across all pupils, while the first looked only at pupils with low prior attainment. In this latest trial, pupils with low prior attainment who used IPEELL for two years made more progress in writing (effect size = +0.26) than pupils who did not – a larger effect size than the figure for all pupils.
Source: Calderdale Excellence Partnership: IPEELL evaluation report and executive summary (November 2018), Education Endowment Foundation