Claims

The TextNow programme produced no statistically significant difference in enjoyment of reading or motivation to read compared with the comparison group

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · 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.

q3 i? No statistically significant difference was detected between participating pupils and comparison pupils on either the 'Students Like Reading' or 'Students Motivated to Read' measures. → Maxwell 2014

Evidence

Maxwell 2014

Maxwell, B., Connolly, P., Demack, S., O'Hare, L., Stevens, A., & Clague, L. (2014). TextNow Transition Programme: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581131

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Secondary outcomes of the randomised trial used two PIRLS sub-scales administered under the same conditions as the primary test; the report notes the pre-test correlations with these attitude measures were fairly weak (r = 0.19 and r = 0.08), limiting the value of the pre-test covariate.

"In addition to attainment, pupils’ enjoyment of reading and motivation to read was assessed. No statistically significant difference was detected between participating pupils and those in the comparison group on either measure."

Discussion

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.