Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

In summer 2021, as exams could not take place, GCSE, AS and A level grades in England were awarded by teachers, in accordance with relatively broad official guidance. This guidance stressed that grades had to be based on evidence of candidate work, though what this was, how much was needed or where/when it should come from were not tightly specified. This was to deal with variations in teaching and learning across centres as a consequence of the variable impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The quality of these teacher assessed grades (TAGs) was assured by awarding organisations by sampling a selection of the evidence used. This report looks at samples for GCSE Mathematics and English Language, to try to get an understanding of what this evidence looked like at different centres, how it varied, and how different centres combined evidence to come up with final grades. The data inspected was hugely varied in terms of the detail centres offered on what evidence was used to determine grades and how it was brought together. The report concludes that, while the TAGs process provided assessment outcomes to candidates in what was a difficult situation and that these grades were on the whole accepted by stakeholders and wider society (at least compared to the situation in 2020), there are questions about comparability of standards between centres because of the level of variation found. The report ends with four recommendations for improving possible future teacher assessment processes to enhance consistency, efficiency and comparability of standards. [The title on the report cover differs from the suggested citation. Title on cover: "What Do We Know about the Evidence Sources Teachers Used to Determine Teacher Assessed Grades? "]

Digital storytelling is an educational practice which has attracted the attention of many experts. However, there has been little research on the disadvantages of digital storytelling assignments from the students' perspectives in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) education. Addressing difficulties or problems which are likely to occur in integrating digital storytelling in language learning would provide better insights for education in the future. Thus, this study aims to examine not only the advantages but also the disadvantages of introducing digital storytelling assignments in EFL education by focusing on learners' motivation. To achieve the aim of this study, data was obtained from questionnaire surveys in six courses entitled 'Information English' for students in Japan. Though most students were motivated for learning with digital storytelling assignments, there were also some students who were less motivated. The findings from students' comments revealed that it would be effective to provide specific instruction based on (1) proper guidance of effective narration, (2) the condition of having sufficient time to accomplish the assignment, (3) technical support, and (4) information ethics. [For the complete volume of short papers, see ED590612.]

This bibliography contains some 2,000 articles on empirical investigation and theoretical considerations covering the topic of students' conceptions entered before September 1990. PUblications in journals, books, working papers, and contributions to conferences are included. English, German, and French publications, and ones in other languages are contained in the bibliography. The bibliography is divided into nine groups: (1) general considerations concerning research in this area; (2) everyday notions and scientific notions; (3) development of notions in the history of science as compared to development of notions of individuals; (4) language and notions; (5) methods of investigations; (6) investigations of students' notions; (7) instruction taking students' notions into account; (8) investigations of teachers notions; and (9) notions and teacher training. The entries include the author's name, year of publication, title, place of publication, and a set of keywords that help the reader to categorize the articles. Keywords indicate the group of the article (1-9), physics, chemistry, or biology, and further areas or concepts. Articles dealing with conceptions of the teaching and learning process, conceptions of science, conceptions on the use of science for technology and society, and empirical studies in which gender differences are investigated are also indicated by keywords. An author index, an appendix that contains publications added during the preparation of the present edition from October to December 1990, a second appendix that contains entries from another bibliography not listed in this bibliography, and a list of keywords are included. (KR)

Project Based Learning (PBL) is a pedagogical approach that seeks to provide Year 7 pupils with independent and group learning skills to meet both the needs of the Year 7 curriculum as well as support their learning in future stages of their education. It particularly aims to improve their engagement in learning as well as practical literacy skills. This trial evaluates a specific type of PBL known as "Learning through REAL Projects", developed by the Innovation Unit--an independent social enterprise that aims to improve public sector services. A year long pilot project in 2013/2014 with eight schools (763 pupils) established the feasibility of a main trial. It provided the opportunity to develop the intervention and test the research procedures. The results contained in this report relate to a randomised controlled trial that took place between September 2014 and April 2016. Twelve intervention schools (2,101 pupils) and 12 control schools (1,973 pupils) were involved in the trial. REAL projects was delivered by teachers, supported in many instances by teaching assistants (TAs), with further support from senior leadership colleagues. It was delivered for a year in the intervention schools with a relatively large proportion of timetabled teaching (varying between 20% and 50%). In almost all cases it was delivered to mixed-ability Year 7 classes. The intervention used structured cross-subject "REAL Projects" planned by the delivery teachers who were supported by Classroom Coaches from the Innovation Unit. Schools were also supported by Leadership Coaches. REAL Projects are driven by an "essential question" which has significant educational content. The projects encouraged pupils to create an "excellent" product through drafting and redrafting and then to exhibit their work to an "authentic" audience. Visits were made to intervention schools at two time points and consisted of lesson observations, interviews, and focus groups with school leadership, project leads, class teachers, and pupils. Two case studies were also conducted in schools that it was agreed delivered the intervention well. Key conclusions are as follows: (1) Adopting PBL had no clear impact on either literacy (as measured by the Progress in English assessment) or student engagement with school and learning; (2) The impact evaluation indicated that PBL may have had a negative impact on the literacy attainment of pupils entitled to free school meals. However, as no negative impact was found for low-attaining pupils, considerable caution should be applied to this finding; (3) The amount of data lost from the project (schools dropping out and lost to follow-up) particularly from the intervention schools, as well as the adoption of PBL or similar approaches by a number of control group schools, further limits the strength of any impact finding; (4) From our observations and feedback from schools, we found that PBL was considered to be worthwhile and may enhance pupils' skills including oracy, communication, teamwork, and self-directed study skills; and (5) PBL was generally delivered with fidelity but requires substantial management support and organisational change. The Innovation Unit training and support programme for teachers and school leadership was found to be effective in supporting this intervention. Overall, the findings have low security. The trial was designed as a two-armed randomised controlled trial with schools being allocated to intervention or control groups. It was set up as an efficacy trial which aimed to test if the intervention can succeed under ideal conditions. However, 47% of the pupils in the intervention and 16% in the control group were not included in the final analysis. Therefore there were some potentially important differences in characteristics between the intervention and control groups. This undermines the security of the result. The trial results did not find that the PBL programme had an impact either on the pupils' literacy performance (as measured by Progress in English 12 tests), engagement, or attendance. The analysis did find a statistically significant negative impact on students eligible for free school meals (FSM), however no negative impact was found for lower-attaining pupils more generally, which makes it difficult to hypothesise why PBL might negatively impact FSM pupils specifically. This adds to the uncertainty of the finding.

Project Based Learning (PBL) is a pedagogical approach that seeks to provide Year 7 pupils with independent and group learning skills to meet both the needs of the Year 7 curriculum as well as support their learning in future stages of their education. It particularly aims to improve their engagement in learning as well as practical literacy skills. This trial evaluates a specific type of PBL known as "Learning through REAL Projects", developed by the Innovation Unit--an independent social enterprise that aims to improve public sector services. A year long pilot project in 2013/2014 with eight schools (763 pupils) established the feasibility of a main trial. It provided the opportunity to develop the intervention and test the research procedures. The results contained in this report relate to a randomised controlled trial that took place between September 2014 and April 2016. Twelve intervention schools (2,101 pupils) and 12 control schools (1,973 pupils) were involved in the trial. REAL projects was delivered by teachers, supported in many instances by teaching assistants (TAs), with further support from senior leadership colleagues. It was delivered for a year in the intervention schools with a relatively large proportion of timetabled teaching (varying between 20% and 50%). In almost all cases it was delivered to mixed-ability Year 7 classes. The intervention used structured cross-subject "REAL Projects" planned by the delivery teachers who were supported by Classroom Coaches from the Innovation Unit. Schools were also supported by Leadership Coaches. REAL Projects are driven by an "essential question" which has significant educational content. The projects encouraged pupils to create an "excellent" product through drafting and redrafting and then to exhibit their work to an "authentic" audience. Visits were made to intervention schools at two time points and consisted of lesson observations, interviews, and focus groups with school leadership, project leads, class teachers, and pupils. Two case studies were also conducted in schools that it was agreed delivered the intervention well. Key conclusions are as follows: (1) Adopting PBL had no clear impact on either literacy (as measured by the Progress in English assessment) or student engagement with school and learning; (2) The impact evaluation indicated that PBL may have had a negative impact on the literacy attainment of pupils entitled to free school meals. However, as no negative impact was found for low-attaining pupils, considerable caution should be applied to this finding; (3) The amount of data lost from the project (schools dropping out and lost to follow-up) particularly from the intervention schools, as well as the adoption of PBL or similar approaches by a number of control group schools, further limits the strength of any impact finding; (4) From our observations and feedback from schools, we found that PBL was considered to be worthwhile and may enhance pupils' skills including oracy, communication, teamwork, and self-directed study skills; and (5) PBL was generally delivered with fidelity but requires substantial management support and organisational change. The Innovation Unit training and support programme for teachers and school leadership was found to be effective in supporting this intervention. Overall, the findings have low security. The trial was designed as a two-armed randomised controlled trial with schools being allocated to intervention or control groups. It was set up as an efficacy trial which aimed to test if the intervention can succeed under ideal conditions. However, 47% of the pupils in the intervention and 16% in the control group were not included in the final analysis. Therefore there were some potentially important differences in characteristics between the intervention and control groups. This undermines the security of the result. The trial results did not find that the PBL programme had an impact either on the pupils' literacy performance (as measured by Progress in English 12 tests), engagement, or attendance. The analysis did find a statistically significant negative impact on students eligible for free school meals (FSM), however no negative impact was found for lower-attaining pupils more generally, which makes it difficult to hypothesise why PBL might negatively impact FSM pupils specifically. This adds to the uncertainty of the finding.

Project Based Learning (PBL) is a pedagogical approach that seeks to provide Year 7 pupils with independent and group learning skills to meet both the needs of the Year 7 curriculum as well as support their learning in future stages of their education. It particularly aims to improve their engagement in learning as well as practical literacy skills. This trial evaluates a specific type of PBL known as "Learning through REAL Projects", developed by the Innovation Unit--an independent social enterprise that aims to improve public sector services. A year long pilot project in 2013/2014 with eight schools (763 pupils) established the feasibility of a main trial. It provided the opportunity to develop the intervention and test the research procedures. The results contained in this report relate to a randomised controlled trial that took place between September 2014 and April 2016. Twelve intervention schools (2,101 pupils) and 12 control schools (1,973 pupils) were involved in the trial. REAL projects was delivered by teachers, supported in many instances by teaching assistants (TAs), with further support from senior leadership colleagues. It was delivered for a year in the intervention schools with a relatively large proportion of timetabled teaching (varying between 20% and 50%). In almost all cases it was delivered to mixed-ability Year 7 classes. The intervention used structured cross-subject "REAL Projects" planned by the delivery teachers who were supported by Classroom Coaches from the Innovation Unit. Schools were also supported by Leadership Coaches. REAL Projects are driven by an "essential question" which has significant educational content. The projects encouraged pupils to create an "excellent" product through drafting and redrafting and then to exhibit their work to an "authentic" audience. Visits were made to intervention schools at two time points and consisted of lesson observations, interviews, and focus groups with school leadership, project leads, class teachers, and pupils. Two case studies were also conducted in schools that it was agreed delivered the intervention well. Key conclusions are as follows: (1) Adopting PBL had no clear impact on either literacy (as measured by the Progress in English assessment) or student engagement with school and learning; (2) The impact evaluation indicated that PBL may have had a negative impact on the literacy attainment of pupils entitled to free school meals. However, as no negative impact was found for low-attaining pupils, considerable caution should be applied to this finding; (3) The amount of data lost from the project (schools dropping out and lost to follow-up) particularly from the intervention schools, as well as the adoption of PBL or similar approaches by a number of control group schools, further limits the strength of any impact finding; (4) From our observations and feedback from schools, we found that PBL was considered to be worthwhile and may enhance pupils' skills including oracy, communication, teamwork, and self-directed study skills; and (5) PBL was generally delivered with fidelity but requires substantial management support and organisational change. The Innovation Unit training and support programme for teachers and school leadership was found to be effective in supporting this intervention. Overall, the findings have low security. The trial was designed as a two-armed randomised controlled trial with schools being allocated to intervention or control groups. It was set up as an efficacy trial which aimed to test if the intervention can succeed under ideal conditions. However, 47% of the pupils in the intervention and 16% in the control group were not included in the final analysis. Therefore there were some potentially important differences in characteristics between the intervention and control groups. This undermines the security of the result. The trial results did not find that the PBL programme had an impact either on the pupils' literacy performance (as measured by Progress in English 12 tests), engagement, or attendance. The analysis did find a statistically significant negative impact on students eligible for free school meals (FSM), however no negative impact was found for lower-attaining pupils more generally, which makes it difficult to hypothesise why PBL might negatively impact FSM pupils specifically. This adds to the uncertainty of the finding.