Passive dissemination showed no evidence of improving literacy attainment for the subgroup of pupils who have ever been eligible for free school meals¶

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¶

q4 i0 For everFSM pupils, effect sizes versus control ranged from -0.01 to 0.00 with confidence intervals spanning zero. → Lord 2017

Evidence¶

Lord 2017¶

Lord, P., Rabiasz, A., and Styles, B. (2017). 'Literacy Octopus' Dissemination Trial: Evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN84508118

q4 · i0 · causal · r3

Pre-specified subgroup analysis on the primary outcome using a model with everFSM and everFSM-by-intervention interaction covariates, plus a model on everFSM children only. Effect sizes versus control were 0.00 (CEM), -0.01 (IEE), 0.00 (ResearchEd), 0.00 (How2s), each with 95% CIs spanning zero (e.g. -0.03 to 0.03); "There was no evidence that any of the Literacy Octopus passive communication approaches impacted on pupil attainment in literacy."

"There was no evidence that any of the Literacy Octopus passive communication approaches impacted on pupil attainment in literacy. This was the case for all pupils and for the sub-group of pupils who have ever been eligible for free school meals."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Socioeconomic Status — moderator: an instructional effect differs by group

Related Claims¶

• Passive dissemination of research summaries and evidence-based literacy materials to primary schools showed no evidence of improving pupils' Key Stage 2 English attainment compared with control — related
• EEF interventions showed a small overall narrowing of the literacy attainment gap in favour of FSM pupils, dependent on Key Stage — related