Claims

Whole-class Grammar for Writing over four weeks does not significantly improve Year 6 pupils' extended writing compared with business-as-usual control

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · 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.

q3 i? In a cluster-randomised trial, the class-level Grammar for Writing intervention produced a non-significant increase of 0.34 marks in extended writing score (effect size 0.10, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.30). → Torgerson 2014

Evidence

Torgerson 2014

Torgerson, D., Torgerson, C., Mitchell, N., Buckley, H., Ainsworth, H., Heaps, C., & Jefferson, L. (2014). Grammar for Writing: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://www.educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evaluation

q3 · i? · causal · r3

Primary multilevel regression analysis of the cluster-randomised trial on 1,982 pupils from 99 classes (1,004 intervention, 978 control), adjusted for predicted KS2 level, gender, FSM, EAL and month of birth. The article reports a "non -significant inc rease of 0.34 marks" and an effect size of 0.10 (95% CI: -0.09 to 0.30).

"There was little evidence of a difference in extended writing score between the allocated groups, with a non -significant inc rease of 0.34 marks for those in the intervention group when compared with those in the control group (p=0.30, 95% CI: -0.30 to 0.98)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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