Meta-findings from the Best Evidence Encyclopaedia Robert E Slavin University of York and Johns Hopkins University

Best Evidence encyclopaedia (BEE) Intended to provide easily accessible, scientifically valid summaries of the evidence base for educational programmes Educator’s summary – like Consumer’s Reports Full reports written for publication in academic journals

BEE Inclusion Standards Programmes compared to control group –Random or matched Control group within +.5 SD of experimental group at pretest Posttests adjusted for pretests Measures are not inherent to treatment Duration at least 12 weeks

Main BEE Reviews Primary Maths – RER, 2008 Secondary Maths – RER, 2009 Primary Reading – RER, 2009 Secondary Reading – RRQ, 2008 Struggling Readers – Educational Research Review, in press

Meta-findings: Substantive Textbooks: ES = IN 77 studies Technology, CAI: ES = in 130 studies Instructional process approaches: –Strongest effects in every review. ES = in 100 studies Co-operative learning, PALS Classroom management, motivation Metacognitive skills Combined Curriculum/CAI with Instructional Process: ES= in 39 studies -Read 180 -Success for All

Table 1: Weighted Mean Effect Sizes by Programme Category Curricula CAI InstructionalCurr/CAI + Process IP Maths - Primary+0.10 (13) (38) (36) - Maths - Secondary+0.03 (40) (40) (22) - Reading - Beginning+0.13 (8) (10) (18) (22) Reading - Upper Primary+0.07 (16) (34) (10) (6) Reading - Secondary (8) (14)+0.22 (11) Weighted Mean (77) (130) (100)+0.26 (39)

Meta-findings Specific to Reading Programmes that emphasize structured, systematic phonics get better outcomes But, outcomes of phonetic approaches depend on quality of teaching –Simple adoption of phonetic books ineffective –Effective programmes use extensive training in co-operative learning and other motivation and management methods

Meta-findings - Methodological Randomised and matched studies find nearly identical outcomes Small studies overstate outcomes (so the BEE weights by sample size) Measures inherent to treatments greatly overstate outcomes (so the BEE excludes them) Very brief studies overstate outcomes (so the BEE excludes them)

Importance of Phonics Almost all successful programmes emphasize structured, systematic phonics One-to-one tutoring by teachers –Programmes focused on phonics: ES=+0.69 (10) –Programmes less focused on phonics: ES=+0.23 (9) Within-study comparisons favour phonics in 1-1 –Difference: ES=+0.18 (5) But, adopting phonetic texts, software, or professional development is not sufficient

Teachers vs. Teaching Assistants Children tutored with phonetic programmes by qualified teachers gain somewhat more than those tutored by teaching assistants and volunteers. Teacher tutors: ES=+0.69 (10) TA/volunteer tutors: ES=+0.24 (18)

One-to-One vs. Small Group Children taught phonetic programmes one-to-one gain much more Teacher tutors: ES=+0.69 (10) TA/volunteer tutors: ES=+0.24 (18) Small groups: ES=+0.31 (18)

Classroom Approaches vs. Pullout Classroom instructional process programmes work as well as 1-1 tutoring Classroom instructional process: ES=+0.56 (16) Phonetic tutoring by teachers: ES=+0.69 (10) Combination of initial tutoring plus classroom process works best Success for All: ES=+0.55 (9)

Conclusion Education policies should identify and help disseminate proven programmes of all kinds. Well- specified programmes with extensive professional development to help teachers engage and motivate children are most likely to produce positive outcomes. Practical, consistent, scientific reviews of research can help educators make good choices for pupils.

For more information visit: