The PAL pilot's secondary outcome showed a non-significant negative effect on attitude towards school¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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.
q2 i? The intervention group reported enjoying school less than the control group (ES = -0.16), but the result was not statistically significant. → Miller 2015
Evidence¶
Miller 2015¶
Miller, S., Gildea, A., Sloan, S., & Thurston, A. (2015). Physically Active Lessons: Evaluation report and Executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581164
q2 · i? · causal · r2
Post-test only pilot trial analysis of the secondary outcome, measured via the InCAS attitude subscale or the Pell and Jarvis Enjoyment of School scale. The adjusted effect size was "ES = -0.16" favouring control, not statistically significant (p=0.22 in Table 6).
"With respect to the secondary outcome ‘attitude to school’, the effect size estimate is larger (ES = -0.16) indicating that the intervention group are reporting that they enjoy school less than the control group. This result is not statistically significant."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- A responsive PAL does not improve learner attitudes toward the agent, and competency and interaction type show no significant interaction — related
- The PAL pilot found no differences in literacy or numeracy attainment between intervention and control pupils at post-test — related
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.