No prior RCTs existed on foreign-language-teaching effects on English literacy, and the trial was designed to compare FLL against existing school language provision rather than no language teaching¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? No Randomised Controlled Trials had been conducted on the topic and no large-scale UK studies existed; the trial compared FLL against business-as-usual provision, which in practice included no language teaching, untrained class-teacher teaching, or specialist language teaching. → Wiggins et al. 2017

Evidence¶

Wiggins et al. 2017¶

Meg Wiggins, Constanza Gonzalez Parrao, Helen Austerberry and Anne Ingold. (2017). Foreign Language Learning in Primary School: Evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581156

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Background evidence review in the report. The best related evidence came from two US retrospective cohort studies offering 30 minutes per school day (2.5 hours per week) of foreign language instruction; the trial was explicitly not designed to assess whether teaching an additional language affects English literacy, since some control classes also taught a foreign language.

"No Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) have been conducted on this topic and no large -scale studies from the UK address this issue."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The null UK trial result contrasts with two US retrospective cohort studies, possibly due to shorter duration and lower intensity and to control groups already teaching foreign languages — related
• Implementation of the FLL intervention varied widely, with some schools delivering fewer weeks and some omitting the linked English literacy component — related