Many factors influence a child’s responsiveness to an academic programme. The University of Oregon’s Ben Clark and colleagues recently evaluated the effects of baseline maths skills and their interaction with group size on the maths achievement of at-risk kindergartners (Year 1) in the ROOTs programme.
The ROOTS programme is a 50-lesson Tier-2 maths programme that addresses whole-number concepts and skills as a supplement to maths teaching. In this study, the researchers examined data from a randomised evaluation (Clark et al., 2017) studying kindergartners from 69 classrooms during two separate school years. Subjects were tested using five measures of whole-number sense each autumn, and those whose scores fell below a determined threshold were assigned to either a 2:1 ROOTS group (n=120), a 5:1 ROOTS group (n=295), or to the no-intervention control group (n=177). ROOTS pupils received 20-minute small-group sessions five times a week during ten weeks spanning late fall to early spring. Post-tests in the spring of kindergarten (Year 1) and then six months into first grade (Year 2) found that the pupils with lower initial maths skills demonstrated greater gains than others on two of the six outcome measures of the TEMA-3, although there was no correlation with intervention group size.
Source: Exploring the relationship between initial mathematics skill
and a kindergarten mathematics intervention (January 2019) Exceptional Children, 85(2)
A new article in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity investigated the association between GCSE results and three aspects of the way that teenagers had spent their time when they were 14.5 years old:
- Physical activity
- Screen time sedentary behaviour (TV/films, internet, computer games)
- Non-screen sedentary behaviour (reading, homework)
The study was based on 845 teenagers from Cambridgeshire and Suffolk. Data was taken from the ROOTS study, which aims to determine the relative contributions of genetic, physiological, psychological, and social variables to well-being and mental health during adolescence. Trained researchers administered questionnaires, conducted physical measurements, and gave instructions regarding physical activity measurements at participating schools.
The participants’ median daily screen time was approximately 1.9 hours. The authors found that teenagers reporting an extra hour of daily screen time at 14.5 years old achieved 9.3 fewer GCSE points (almost two grades lower) at 16. All three separate screen behaviours were independently negatively associated with academic performance.
However, participants doing an extra hour of daily homework and reading (up to four hours/day) achieved 23.1 more GCSE points (an increase of four grades). Physical activity did not appear to be either detrimental or beneficial to academic performance.
Other findings included that boys were more active and less sedentary than girls, and boys reported more screen time but less non-screen sedentary time than girls. Girls had higher academic performance than boys.
The authors noted some limitations in the study, including the possibility that less-academic pupils are likely to be doing the less-academic subjects and may be given less homework.
Source: Revising on the Run or Studying on the Sofa: Prospective Associations Between Physical Activity, Sedentary Behaviour, and Exam Results in British Adolescents (2015), International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12(106).