Small group and one-to-one interventions produced larger literacy gains for FSM pupils than whole class or whole school approaches¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 Small group interventions had a pooled literacy effect size of 0.14 (0.06, 0.22) and one-to-one 0.08 (0.04, 0.13), both exceeding whole school (0.02) and whole class (0.01) approaches. → Bilal Ashraf 2021

Evidence¶

Bilal Ashraf 2021¶

Bilal Ashraf, Akansha Singh, Germaine Uwimpuhwe, Tahani Coolen-Maturi, Jochen Einbeck, Steve Higgins and Adetayo Kasim. (2021). Individual participant data meta-analysis of the impact of EEF trials on the educational attainment of pupils on Free School Meals: 2011 - 2019. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED625398

q3 · i0 · quant-synthesis · r2

Subgroup IPD meta-analysis by intervention type (Table 11; 24 one-to-one, 17 small group, 30 whole class, 10 whole school literacy trials). The report states both targeted types improved literacy "by more than 0.10 SD, an equivalent of more than one month's progress"; printed effect sizes remain below d = 0.2.

"Small group interventions had the pooled effect size of 0.14 (0.06, 0.22), whilst one-to-one had an effect size of 0.08 (0.04, 0.13)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• EEF-funded interventions improved FSM pupils' literacy outcomes with a pooled effect size of 0.06, equivalent to about one month's progress — a broader claim this one bears on
• EEF-funded interventions showed no evidence of positive or negative overall effects on FSM pupils' mathematics outcomes — related
• EEF interventions showed a small overall narrowing of the literacy attainment gap in favour of FSM pupils, dependent on Key Stage — related
• Literacy benefits for FSM pupils were greatest in Key Stage 1 (ES 0.09) and Key Stage 3 (ES 0.08) and smallest in Key Stages 2 and 4 — related
• Small group sizes produced the largest CMC effect compared with no grouping or groups of more than 3 students — related
• The trial found a statistically significant negative literacy impact for FSM-eligible pupils, treated with caution — related
• Across 82 EEF RCT evaluations, overall meta-analysis weighted mean effect sizes were small: +0.04 SD for primary ITT, +0.01 SD for secondary ITT, and +0.03 SD for FSM subsample attainment outcomes — related
• The TextNow programme showed a differential effect by free school meal eligibility: a small non-significant positive effect for FSM-eligible pupils and a significant negative effect for non-FSM pupils — related