Participation in the animation course was very low, so trial results estimate the effect of eligibility rather than participation¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? 72% of pupils eligible for the animation course did not attend any sessions, so results must be regarded as estimating the effect of being offered the course rather than participating in it. → Dorsett 2014

Evidence¶

Dorsett 2014¶

Dorsett, R., Rienzo, C., Rolfe, H., Burns, H., Robertson, B.-A., Thorpe, B., & Wall, K. (2014). Mind the Gap: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581160

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Implementation finding from the randomised controlled trial: because randomisation assigned eligibility for the animation course rather than attendance, and "72% of pupils eligible for the animation course did not attend any sessions", the estimates are of the effect of eligibility, not participation.

"Participation in the course was very low: 72% of pupils eligible for the animation course did not attend any sessions. The results must therefore be regarded as estimating the effect of eligibility for the animation course (alone or in combination with teacher training, as appropriate) rather than participation in it."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Eligibility for the animation course increased pupils' productive thinking and metacognitive skilfulness — related
• Offering parents the Parent Academy did not improve pupils' reading or mathematics outcomes in a three-arm randomised controlled trial — related