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
The Better Schools for All? report, published by the Nuffield Foundation, examines the role that schools play in pupils’ education and suggests that the school reforms in the UK in the past two decades have failed to bridge the gap in pupil achievement.
Researchers from University College London and the National
Institute of Economic and Social Research looked at data from around 3,000
secondary schools in England between 2003 and 2016 and compared pupil outcomes
and teachers’ experiences with those of employees elsewhere.
They found that:
- Attending a “good” secondary school adds only a
small amount more value than attending a “bad” secondary school. Overall,
schools were found to contribute around 10% of variance in pupil achievement.
- State schools are better at managing staff than
private schools. Using Workplace Employment Relations Survey data, the study
shows that state schools were more likely to have rigorous hiring practices and
employee participation programmes than private schools, and the link between
human resource management and effective and high-performing schools was only
apparent in the state sector.
- Performance-related pay and performance
monitoring, which were found to improve workplace performance elsewhere, were
ineffective for teachers.
- Schools with more middle leaders tended to be
rated more highly by Ofsted in terms of leadership and management. However, in
schools which formed part of a multi-academy trust, no significant relationship
Source: Better schools for all? (June 2019), Nuffield Foundation
Teachers’ gaze patterns could reveal the different priorities expert teachers and novice teachers have in their classrooms, according to a recent study published in Learning and Instruction.
Using eye-tracking glasses, Nora McIntyre and colleagues
investigated how gaze proportions might be different for teachers of different
expertise and culture, indicating differences in teachers’ priorities. Twenty
secondary school teachers from Hong Kong and twenty secondary school teachers
from the UK participated in this study. Teachers were considered as expert
teachers if they had six years’ or more experience, were selected by their
school leadership as experts in teaching, had professional membership within
the field of teaching, and scored highly in performance ratings.
Teachers’ gaze proportions were measured during questioning
(information seeking) and lecturing (information giving) in normal timetabled
lessons, for their gaze frequencies on the pupils, pupil materials, teacher
materials, and non-instructional areas (such as door, windows). The findings
were as follows:
- Regardless of culture, expert teachers prioritised
their gaze to pupils during both questioning and lecturing, while beginning teachers
prioritised non-instructional classroom areas.
- HK teachers prioritised their gazes to teacher
materials, while UK teachers prioritised it to non-instructional areas during
- HK expert teachers also used more teacher
materials gaze than the UK expert teachers.
The authors suggest that the finding of prioritisation of
gaze to pupils by expert teachers was consistent with other research since
prioritisation of pupils deepens pupils’ understanding of the subject,
emotional security, security with peers, and their interest in subject
teacher priorities: Using real-world eye-tracking to investigate expert teacher
priorities across two cultures (April 2019), Learning and Instruction, volume 60
Jingchun Nie and colleagues conducted a randomised controlled trial to examine the effects of providing free glasses to pupils in a poor rural area of Western China.
study, screening and vision testing were provided to 1,974 grade seven and
eight (Year 8 and 9) pupils from 31 schools located in northern Shaanxi
province in China before they were divided into treatment and control groups.
Free glasses were distributed in treatment schools to pupils found to need
them, regardless of whether they had a pair of glasses already. In contrast, pupils
in the control group solely received a prescription for glasses. The glasses
usage of the treatment group increased from 31% at baseline at the start of the
school year to 72% at the end of the school year, while that of the control
group increased from 28% to 50%.
questioned pupils about their academic aspirations, administered a standardised
exam using items drawn from a bank of questions developed by the Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and measured the dropout
rate to evaluate the intervention. Findings were as follows:
the pupils without glasses at baseline, the provision of glasses increased
their maths achievement (effect size = +0.196), while there was no effect on pupils
who already had glasses at baseline.
glasses also increased pupils’ aspiration for attending academic high schools
(instead of vocational schools) by 9% on average.
glasses reduced the rate of dropout by 44% among the pupils who did not own
glasses at baseline.
Source: Seeing is believing: Experimental evidence on the impact of eyeglasses on academic performance, aspirations and dropout among junior high school students in rural China (May 2019), Economic Development and Cultural Change DOI: 101086700631