Schools combined the three intervention components with considerable variation, and the evaluators concluded the programme would have benefited from a pilot stage¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? There was considerable variation in how the three components (VEIP, Sounds-Write, Literacy Plus) were combined across schools, leading the evaluators to recommend a pilot stage. → Styles 2014

Evidence¶

Styles 2014¶

Styles, B., Stevens, E., Bradshaw, S., & Clarkson, R. (2014). Vocabulary Enrichment Intervention Programme Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN67513320/

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Process-evaluation conclusion drawn from training observations, session observations, teacher logs and telephone interviews with teachers in the twelve schools. The report states there was "considerable variation in the way that the three components of the intervention were combined".

"There was considerable variation in the way that the three components of the intervention were combined. The intervention would therefore have benefited from a pilot stage to refine the elements used in the Full Programme."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Teachers perceived Literacy Plus and Sounds-Write as less appropriate or less essential than VEIP, with Sounds-Write aimed at a younger audience than Year 7 — related
• The PAL pilot found no differences in literacy or numeracy attainment between intervention and control pupils at post-test — related
• Some higher-ability pupils found the VEFP too easy and teachers felt such pupils should not have been in the study — related
• The Vocabulary Enrichment Full Programme showed no statistically significant impact on Year 7 pupils' reading ability in a pupil-randomised controlled trial — related
• PLC was implemented in different ways and with different levels of understanding across schools, and was judged not ready for a large-scale trial — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)