What Works and What Fails? Evidence from Seven Popular Literacy "Catch-Up" Schemes for the Transition to Secondary School in England

Autor/inn/en	Gorard, Stephen; Siddiqui, Nadia; See, Beng Huat
Titel	What Works and What Fails? Evidence from Seven Popular Literacy "Catch-Up" Schemes for the Transition to Secondary School in England
Quelle	In: Research Papers in Education, 32 (2017) 5, S.626-648 (23 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Gorard, Stephen) ORCID (Siddiqui, Nadia)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0267-1522
DOI	10.1080/02671522.2016.1225811
Schlagwörter	Literacy Education; Secondary School Students; Foreign Countries; Disadvantaged; Poverty; Randomized Controlled Trials; Reading Programs; Summer Programs; Computer Software; Teaching Methods; Response to Intervention; Control Groups; Experimental Groups; Comparative Analysis; Instructional Effectiveness; United Kingdom (England) + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Sekundarschüler; Ausland; Armut; Sommerkurs; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode; Unterrichtserfolg
Abstract	There are concerns that too many young people, from disadvantaged backgrounds, are moving into secondary education in the UK, and elsewhere, without the necessary literacy skills to make progress with the wider secondary school curriculum. A large number of interventions have been proposed to reduce this poverty gradient. This paper summarises the evidence from randomised controlled trials of seven popular interventions, giving a different comparative perspective to individual reports, and permitting more detail than a wider review. Of these, it shows that Switch-on Reading (Reading Recovery) and Accelerated Reader, for example, are currently the most promising. And that summer schools and the use of generic literacy software are the least successful and may even harm pupil progress. The way in which the evidence is assessed in this paper suggests a way forward for practitioners and policy-makers navigating the evidence in their areas of interest. There is also evidence that practitioners should be able to conduct robust evaluations of their own with only minimal support, which could lead to a revolution in school improvement. The combined results suggest that "soft" evaluations may be worse than just a waste of time and money, and that theoretical explanations might appear satisfying to readers but are largely unnecessary when assessing "what works" in education. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01