Claims

The two-year LRS cohort showed no evidence of benefit, with point estimates slightly negative for maths

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q4 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2017 · 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 For cohort B (two years of LRS use), the estimated effect was -0.08 for maths and -0.04 for reading, neither statistically significant. → Wiggins et al. 2017

Evidence

Wiggins et al. 2017

Meg Wiggins, Mary Sawtell and Dr John Jerrim. (2017). Learner Response System: Evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581136

q4 · i0 · causal · r3

Table 1 of the cluster RCT reports maths (cohort B) effect size -0.08 (-0.21 to 0.05), p 0.24, estimated -1 months progress, 3,127 pupils; reading (cohort B) was -0.04 (-0.17 to 0.10), p 0.60, 3,013 pupils. The report states "no evidence that the LRS improved Key Stage 2 results" for either cohort.

"Maths (cohort B) -0.08 (-0.21 to 0.05) 0.24 -1 months 3,127"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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