EdTech effects for disadvantaged pupils are smaller and inconsistent: no significant impact in disadvantaged-focused subgroups (d = 0.0527) and a smaller significant effect in partial-subset studies (d = 0.1624)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r3 · q4 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q4 i0 In studies focused on disadvantaged populations (low SES, free school meals), there was no statistically significant positive impact (d = 0.0527, p = 0.2077). → Björn Haßler 2025 q4 i0 In studies where disadvantaged students were a partial subset of the sample, there was a statistically significant positive impact (d = 0.1624), which the review notes is lower than for the general student population (d = 0.4). → Björn Haßler 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Björn Haßler 2025¶

Björn Haßler, Bethany Huntington, Christopher Klune, Jennie Lester, Aditi Bhutoria, Hassan Mansour. (2025). Understanding Quality Characteristics of EdTech Interventions and Implementation for Disadvantaged Pupils: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Education Endowment Foundation. https://doi.org/10.53832/opendeved.1170

q4 · i0 · quant-synthesis · r3

Meta-analytic subgroup of studies focused on disadvantaged populations (low socio-economic standing, free school meals). The review reports "no statistically significant positive impact (d = 0.0527, p = 0.2077)"; equivalence was not tested.

"When analysing a subgroup of studies that focused on these disadvantaged populations, there was no statistically significant positive impact (d = 0.0527, p = 0.2077)"

Björn Haßler 2025 (2)¶

q4 · i0 · quant-synthesis · r3

Meta-analytic subgroup where disadvantaged students were part of the sample: "a statistically significant positive impact (d = 0.1624)", a negligible effect size below d = 0.2, reported by the review as lower than the general population effect of d = 0.4.

"a subgroup analysis of studies where disadvantaged students made up a partial subset of the population showed a statistically significant positive impact (d = 0.1624)"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Socioeconomic Status — moderator: an instructional effect differs by group

Effects were larger in intervention schools with a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students or a lower percentage of White students — reports the opposite
No clear evidence that Medly's effect differed by Pupil Premium disadvantage status — reports the opposite
Evidence for metacognitive intervention effectiveness in low-SES populations is inconsistent and weak despite the interventions' high-impact toolkit rating — related
Mind-set interventions show weak overall effects on achievement, with some support that low-SES or academically at-risk students might benefit — related
ITS effects are similar for low-achieving students and the general student population — related
For pupils entitled to free school meals, Butterfly Phonics showed no statistically significant effects on any outcome (NGRT g = 0.16, SWRT g = 0.42, PhAB g = 0.18) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim

Page metadata

Field	Value
`status`	`review`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-31`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.