SMART Spaces content showed a significant benefit over a no spaces/materials control, with ES g = 0.19¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i0 In the optimisation study, the SMART Spaces programme content produced a significant benefit over a no spaces/materials control on total scores on an attainment test using past GCSE questions, with ES g = 0.19. → O'Hare et al. 2017

Evidence¶

O'Hare et al. 2017¶

Dr Liam O'Hare, Dr Patrick Stark, Professor Carol McGuinness, Dr Andy Biggart, Professor Allen Thurston. (2017). Spaced Learning: The Design, Feasibility and Optimisation of SMART Spaces — Evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581430

q2 · i0 · causal · r2

Optimisation study: small RCT in 12 schools with pre- and post-testing on a bespoke measure of past GCSE science questions. The report prints the effect size "ES g = 0.19" for the content benefit over the no spaces/materials control.

"The content of the SMART Spaces programme was found to have a significant benefit over a no spaces/materials control in the optimisation study, with ES g = 0.19 on total scores on an attainment test using past GCSE questions."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Combining ten-minute and 24-hour spaces was the most promising SMART Spaces variant in a small pilot RCT — related
• Pupil engagement with SMART Spaces was a significant mediator of outcome change — related
• SMART Spaces was feasibly delivered in English schools, with teachers reporting faithful delivery and positive engagement — related
• The interleaving benefit is not caused by spacing, and the benefit extends to delayed tests — related