Pupils at Level 4a and above, who received the intervention only in Year 6, showed no significant writing benefit¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 For pupils at Level 4a and above who were not eligible for the Year 7 continuation, the analysis of 181 pupils found a non-significant increase of less than 0.01 marks, an effect size of approximately 0.00. → Torgerson 2014

Evidence¶

Torgerson 2014¶

Torgerson, D., Torgerson, C., Ainsworth, H., Buckley, H., Heaps, C., Hewitt, C., & Mitchell, N. (2014). Improving Writing Quality: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581140

q3 · i0 · causal · r2

Secondary analysis repeating the primary model using only pupils at Level 4a and above (94 intervention, 87 control) who received the intervention only in Year 6. The report found "no evidence of a difference" with an effect size of approximately 0.00.

"There was no evidence of a difference in extended writing score between the allocated groups, with a non-significant increase of less than 0.01 marks for those in the intervention group when compared with those in the control group (p =1.00, 95% CI: -1.38 to 1. 38)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• SRSD combined with memorable experiences produced a large, statistically significant improvement in extended writing for pupils predicted Level 3 or insecure Level 4 at the primary-secondary transition — related
• RLC showed no differential impact for pupils eligible for free school meals — related
• The intervention had no statistically significant effect on reading scores — related
• Small-group Grammar for Writing shows a statistically significant but small positive effect on extended writing versus control (effect size 0.24) — related