The process evaluation found ThinkForward feasible to deliver, with teachers reporting benefits for intervention pupils' behaviour¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? School leads, coaches and young people reported the programme was beneficial, and teachers observed impacts on intervention pupils' behaviour in later months. → Demack et al. 2016

Evidence¶

Demack et al. 2016¶

Sean Demack, Colin McCaig, Claire Wolstenholme, Anna Stevens and Laura Fumagalli. (2016). ThinkForward: Evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evaluation/projects/think-forward

q2 · i? · qualitative · r?

Qualitative process evaluation with coaches, school leads and participating pupils across both intervention schools. Coaches and teachers felt support from "a trusted adult" helped pupils when considering GCSE options in Year 9 and after leaving school.

"Teachers reported benefits, particularly during t he later months of the pilot, where they observed impacts on the intervention pupils’ behaviour."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The ThinkForward pilot RCT found no evidence of impact on GCSE scores, absences, or attitudes — related
• Process evaluation found that poor behaviour and lack of pupil engagement spoiled delivery of some sessions and may have contributed to the lack of impact — reports the opposite
• Coaches reported that pupils engaged well with the variety of coaching sessions and found both one-to-one and small group work beneficial — related
• ThinkForward's theory of change holds that a stable relationship with a dedicated coach guides young people towards further education, training and employment — a broader claim this one bears on
• Delivery of the coaching programme varied considerably across the four schools in format, frequency, duration, and coach training and supervision — related