Effective Pre-School and Primary Education 3-11 Project (EPPE 3-11)

A longitudinal study funded by the DfES (2003 – 2008)

EPPE 3-11 Project
Room 416
Institute of Education
University of London Tel: +44 (0)207 612 6219
20 Bedford Way Fax: +44 (0)207 612 6230
London WC1H 0AL Email: b.taggart@ioe.ac.uk
Or visit our website on  http://www.ioe.ac.uk/projects/eppe

Dr Sofka Barreau
Institute of Education, University of London
00 44 (0)207 612 6608 / email s.barreau@ioe.ac.uk

Dr Yvonne Grabbe
Institute of Education, University of London
00 44 (0)207 612 6608 / email y.grabbe@ioeac.uk

Rebecca Smees
Institute of Education, University of London
00 44 (0)207 612 6219 / email r.smees@ioe.ac.uk 

Database Manager
Dr Stephen Hunt
Institute of Education, University of London
00 44 (0)207 612 6684 / email s.hunt@ioe.ac.uk 

Tracking Officer
Wesley Welcomme
Institute of Education, University of London
00 44 (0)207 612 6684 / email w.welcomme@ioe.ac.uk 

Overview/rationale

The Effective Pre-school and Primary Education 3-11 (EPPE 3-11) Project is the largest European longitudinal study of a national sample of young children’s development between the ages of 3 and 11 years. The EPPE 3-11 team has collected a wide range of information on 3,000 children, their parents, home environments and the pre-school and primary settings they attended. The main research questions focus on the impact of pre-schools and a range of other background factors on children’s cognitive and social/behavioural outcomes.

The EPPE 3-11 research demonstrates a mix method approach to longitudinal research with quantitative data on standardized assessments informing the qualitative work on classroom practices and processes. The research uses a range of instruments including standardized assessment data, interviews/questionnaires and observational schedules to build a complex individual ‘portrait’ and ‘learning trajectory’ for each of our 3,000 children. Multilevel modeling, effect sizes and other statistical techniques have been used to assess progress and attainment net of other background factors. Thus the impact of pre-school can be separated out from the influences of school/home factors. The research can answer questions on the long term impact of pre-school and how this articulates with other factors in determining children’s outcomes.

This is a significant symposia given the current interest in early years experiences and what constitutes effective schooling. The research implications of this study are wide ranging. They concern not only the influences on children’s cognitive and social/behavioural development but also demonstrate how research evidence can inform policy at national and Local Authority level, as well as contributing to the debate about effective practices in both early years and Key Stage 2.

The three papers submitted to this symposium continue a long tradition of presenting emergent findings from the research study at BERA and continue the ‘story’ of the research. The three papers focus on:

a) How does the effectiveness of the primary school a child attends link with other background factors?

b) How do Year 5 teachers vary in their classroom practices and how does this link to measures of effectiveness? and

c) What is the relationship between the home learning environment and child outcomes?

The papers in this symposia will be of interest to BERA members who are concerned with early years experiences, the impact of a child’s background on their development, effective schooling and mixed method research.

Principal Investigators:
Professor Kathy Sylva,   University of Oxford
Professor Edward Melhuish Birkbeck,   University of London
Professor Pam Sammons,   University of Nottingham
Professor Iram Siraj-Blatchford,   Institute of Education, University of London
Brenda Taggart Institute of Education,   University of London

This five year longitudinal study assessed the attainment and development of children between the ages of 3 to 7 years. Research began in 1997 and both quantitative and qualitative methods (including multilevel modelling) have been used to explore the effects of pre-school education on children's cognitive attainment and social/behavioural development at entry to school and any continuing effects on such outcomes two years later at the end of Key Stage 1 (age 7).

To investigate the effects of pre-school1 education for 3 and 4 year olds, the EPPE team collected a wide range of information on over 3,000 children, their parents, their home environments and the pre-school settings they attended.

In addition to pre-school centre effects, the study investigated the contribution to children’s development of individual and family characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, language, parental education and the educational environment of the home. The research design addresses a variety of research issues (methodological and practical) in investigating the impact of pre-school provision on children’s developmental progress.

EPPE has demonstrated the positive effects of high quality provision on children’s intellectual and social/behavioural developmental

Notes

2 ‘Integrated’ settings fully combines education and care and is referred to as ‘combined’ centres in EPPE Technical Papers.

EPPE has had a profound effect on both policy and practice in early years through robust research evidence. It has highlighted the importance of pre-school along with other child, family and centre characteristics which lead to positive outcomes for young learners.

The new project: Effective Pre-School and Primary Education 3-11 (EPPE 3-11, 2003 - 2008) continues to build on the extensive data collected in the original EPPE study, following the children up to the age of 11 at the end of Key Stage 2. The key research questions for this phase of the research are:

1. Do the effects of pre-school continue through to Key Stage 2?

2. What are the characteristics of ‘effective’ primary classrooms and schools?

3. Who are the resilient and vulnerable children in the EPPE sample?

4. What is the contribution of ‘out-of-school’ learning (home, communities, internet) to children’s development?

The new project adopts an innovative design explores the effectiveness of primary schools using quantitative data derived from analyses of matched data sets across Key Stages. This quantitative data will inform focus school observations which will explore the practices and process at classroom level which may influence children’s cognitive and social/behavioural development. The study combines statistical analyses, observational and interview data.

The research is being conducted in a series of ‘nested’ studies or ‘Tiers’ in over 800 schools. Each ‘Tier’ will help us answer the four research questions as well as building on each other.

Tier 1 –

The Tier 1 analyses were designed to enable the EPPE team to have some information about the schools the EPPE children attend. By deriving a series of ‘value added residuals’ scores for every primary school in England for three consecutive years, linked with measures in other administrative databases including links with the Autumn Package classifications and Ofsted ratings (e.g. pedagogical quality), this part of the study enables us to measure the effectiveness of every school in England, in terms of academic outcomes. With this information we are able to contextualise the 800+ EPPE schools EPPE children attend, enabling comparison to be made regarding the effectiveness of all the schools attended by EPPE children in the context of measures for all schools in England.

Tier 2 -

The key research question in Tier 2 is: Do the benefits of pre-school last into Key Stage 2?

The second tier (full EPPE sample) involves an investigation into the long-term effects of pre-school on children’s attainment, progress, attitudes, behaviour and SEN status. In Tier 2, EPPE 3-11 explores the continued cognitive and social/behavioural development of different groups of pupils between KS1 and KS2. This tier will help answer questions about the extent to which pre-school effects remain apparent during Key Stage 1 and will also provide data on the ‘resilient’ and ‘vulnerable’ children. This tier requires the continual monitoring of the EPPE 3-11 sample.

Tier 3 -

The key research question in Tier 3 is: What are the characteristics of effective primary classrooms?

This tier explores in more detail the characteristics of primary schooling (including classroom practice and school ethos) that may promote better developmental outcomes. The third tier holds the majority of EPPE children located within 125 schools within the original EPPE local authorities. These are referred to as the ‘focal schools’ and systematic observations have been conducted in these schools.

During BERA 2006 at Warwick the symposium will cover some of the first findings from this project. Other findings will be reported at subsequent BERA conferences.

Presentation 1: School effects and pupil progress in English primary schools

Edward Melhuish*, Pam Sammons³, Kathy Sylva², Iram Siraj-Blatchford¹, Brenda Taggart¹, Helena Romaniuk*, Mark Hibbett*

* Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social Issues, Birkbeck, University of London ¹ Institute of Education, University of London ² Department of Educational Studies, University of Oxford³ School of Education, University of Nottingham

This paper focuses on one aspect of the EPPE 3-11 study. The main research question asks how the effectiveness of the primary school a child attends links with other background factors. In order to establish this, an analysis was conducted on every primary school in England in order to isolate the 800 schools in which the EPPE 3-11 children attend and give them an ‘effectiveness estimate’. The sample comprises 15,771 schools providing information on over 616,000 pupils for each of 3 consecutive years, i.e. over 1.8 million pupils in all. The number of pupils per year in the 15,771 schools ranged from 1 to 240 (median=33, IQR=36). Around a fifth of pupils qualified for free school meals (socio-economic disadvantage). Less than 10% of pupils had English as an additional language and 86% of pupils were classified as white.

This analyses constitutes the first major multilevel value added study of the effectiveness of primary schools in England. The effectiveness measures are derived from the 2002, 2003 and 2004 Key Stage 2 (11-year-old) results for English, mathematics and science. Factors known to influence the Key Stage 2 result, including pupils’ prior achievement at Key Stage 1 (age 7) and certain individual pupil characteristics are included in the analysis to ensure that the measures of effectiveness reflect the schools’ effectiveness rather than the composition of the school. In addition the use of postcode information allows the matching of area level characteristics (e.g. deprivation, crime) to these data. This allows the investigation of area level effects upon school effectiveness.

The paper reports on the analysis using The English National Pupil Database and The Pupil Level Annual Schools Census (PLASC) which provide individual records for all pupils. These records include details of ethnicity, first language, special education needs, free school meal (FSM) eligibility (a measure of socio-economic disadvantage), postcode, etc. Linking these databases provides a basis for the analysis of pupil progress as related to basic demographic attributes of pupils. Where this analysis is undertaken using multilevel modelling (Goldstein, 1987) for sufficient numbers of pupils within a school, then the school level residuals can be used as an indicator of the impact of attending a specific school, having allowed for the characteristics of pupils attending that school (i.e. school effectiveness). Trends in effectiveness in terms of academic outcomes can thus be provided over three successive years.

The results are discussed in terms of the relative effect sizes and contributions of pupil characteristics (gender, age, ethnicity), school (effectiveness), and area characteristics (neighbourhood deprivation, employment, ethnicity, health and crime) to pupil attainment and progress. This mixed method approach adopted by the EPPE 3-11 study has enabled this quantitative analyses to inform the selection of schools/classrooms for systematic classroom observations to illuminate practices and processes which appear to lead to more ‘effective’ outcomes. This paper will be of interest to those BERA members interested in effective schooling and influences on children’s learning as well as innovative research methods.

The analyses are designed to answer the question: What affects pupils’ progress over Key Stage 2 in primary school? In analysing progress, the value added models include measures of a child’s ability at the start of Key Stage 2, i.e. measures of their Key Stage 1 attainment as well as predictor variables that might explain progress. The consequences of this strategy are as follows:

• The inclusion of Key Stage 1 attainment in the value added models will absorb the effects of several child, parent, family, home and area factors, if their effects do not persist additively over the Key Stage 2 period. Hence the relative importance of these factors in measuring progress may appear substantially less than would be the case if Key Stage 1 scores are excluded in the models, i.e. attainment only is considered.

• Where children are not showing high levels of attainment in Key Stage 1 assessments, there is more scope for progress for such children. Hence such children may show bigger progress effects, without necessarily showing high attainment at the end of Key Stage 2.

The analyses focus on progress, rather than attainment, in four areas; English, Mathematics, Science and average score. The value added models controlled for pupil background characteristics such as gender, ethnic group, English as an additional language, free school meal eligibility and special educational needs. Further development of the value added models measured the differential effects for boys and girls in different ethnic groups, as well as considering area effects. The child’s postcode was used to relate the child’s residence to the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and to variables derived from the 2001 Census. Further variables reflecting the composition of schools were also used in the analyses. From these analyses, it is possible to identify trends in effectiveness in terms of academic outcomes over the three successive years.

The analyses are designed to answer the question: What affects pupils’ progress over Key Stage 2 in primary school? In analysing progress, the value added models include measures of a child’s ability at the start of Key Stage 2, i.e. measures of their Key Stage 1 attainment as well as predictor variables that might explain progress. The consequences of this strategy are as follows:

In all the models developed, regardless of subject or year, the prior attainment of pupils is by far the greatest contributor to their performance in Key Stage 2 assessments. The powerful effect of prior attainment has consequences for the effect sizes to be attributed to other variables, such as pupil characteristics. As Key Stage 1 attainment will absorb much of the effects of other variables upon school attainment, the effects of other variables is likely to be substantially less than if the models focussed on the contribution of other variables in predicting attainment at Key Stage 2 rather than progress across Key Stage 2. In our analyses the effects for other variables can be regarded as effects on progress across the Key Stage 2 period.

With regard to other pupil characteristics, pupils who are younger in their school year consistently show better progress, across subjects and years, and the effect sizes indicate that this is substantial. However, this does not mean that younger pupils are showing higher attainment at the end of Key Stage 2. They are starting from a substantially lower attainment and are showing better progress, but still have lower Key Stage 2 attainment in all subjects. The younger pupils are therefore narrowing the gap with their older classmates.

Pupils’ eligibility for free school meals can be regarded as a marker for family poverty. This marker consistently predicts poorer progress in Key Stage 2 for all subjects across all years. However, these effects are not large, being slightly less for Mathematics than for the other subjects. Pupils eligible for free school meals are attaining lower Key Stage 2 attainment indicating that the gap related to poverty is widening.

Pupils for whom English is an additional language (EAL), show better progress than native English speakers for all areas except Science. This effect is small but consistent. As these pupils may well be starting from a lower base, and are not reaching higher attainment at Key Stage 2, this finding reflects a narrowing of the gap between EAL pupils and native speakers.

Where pupils have a special educational need (SEN) they show substantially less progress across all subjects in all years. The effect is greater for English and the average score, but is substantial for all subjects. This indicates that the gap between SEN pupils and non-SEN pupils is widening.

When Key Stage 2 attainment is considered, there are consistent gender effects. Girls attain better in English for all ethnic groups, while boys attain better in Mathematics, except for the two Black ethnic groups where girls are equal or better than boys. In Science there is no clear pattern of gender difference in attainment.

When Key Stage 2 progress is considered, there are consistent gender effects, but also ethnicity by gender interaction effects that need to be considered. For example, for White British and Irish (WBI) pupils, girls show more progress in English, whereas in Mathematics and Science, and consequently in the 3-subject average, boys show more progress. For some ethnic groups (Bangladeshi, Chinese, "other" and "Unknown") gender effects are similar to the WBI group. For the remaining ethnic groups there is some consistent gender by ethnic group interaction in one or more subjects, and these are discussed below as part of the consideration of ethnic group effects:

For the Chinese ethnic group, pupils consistently show more progress than WBI counterparts in all subjects across years. The effect is large in the case of Mathematics and moderate in size for other subjects. As these pupils have higher prior attainment the gap between Chinese and WBI pupils is widening substantially, as it continues to do through Key Stage 4 (DfES, 2005c, 2006).

Pupils from a White other ethnic background show more progress than pupils from a WBI ethnic background in English, Mathematics and average score in almost all years and the effects are small. In Science WBI and White other boys are similar and do better than White other girls, who do better than WBI girls.

For the Black Caribbean ethnic group, ethnic by gender interactions occur consistently in all subjects, reflecting better performance by girls than boys (relative to WBI group). Results related to ethnicity indicate less progress than WBI pupils in all subjects in all years with the effects being small to moderate, and greatest in Mathematics and Science, indicating attainments gaps are widening. However ethnicity by gender interactions must be considered. In English WBI girls progress better than Black Caribbean girls, who do better than WBI boys, who do better than Black Caribbean boys. For Mathematics, WBI boys progress better than Black Caribbean boys, who do better than WBI girls, who do better than Black Caribbean girls, and similar patterns emerge in Science and average score in all three years.

Pupils from a Black African/Black Other ethnic background show slightly more progress than the WBI group in English, indicating the attainment gap is narrowing slightly. However the pattern of ethnicity by gender interactions for other subjects requires consideration. For Mathematics WBI boys progress better than Black African/other boys, who do better than WBI girls and Black African/other girls, who show similar levels of progress, any differences for girls being slight and inconsistent.

For the Indian group there are small effects indicating less progress than pupils from a WBI ethnic background in Mathematics. As this group has higher attainment in English and Mathematics than the WBI group, attainment gaps for Mathematics are narrowing. For Science WBI boys progress better than Indian boys, who do better than WBI girls, who do better than Indian girls.

Pakistani ethnic group pupils show small effects indicating less progress than WBI pupils in Science and average score indicating a widening attainment gap. In English, there are no consistent differences in progress to the WBI group. In Mathematics Pakistani boys sometimes show progress marginally better than WBI boys, who do better than WBI girls, who do better than Pakistani girls.

For the "any other ethnic origin" and Bangladeshi groups, pupils generally show slightly better progress than WBI pupils. In Science any differences disappear. For the "any other ethnic origin" group the gap with the WBI group has all but closed except in Science and hence average score. For the Bangladeshi group the better progress reflects a narrowing of the gap with the WBI group, but they are still showing consistently lower levels of attainment. The effect sizes for progress are small overall.

Pupils with an "unknown" ethnic background show very little difference in progress to pupils from a WBI background. Pupils of unknown ethnic background have, on average, lower Key Stage 2 attainment across subjects.

Overall the results for ethnic group differences are compatible with data on attainment from DfES reports. Pupils of Chinese and Indian origin show high levels of attainment relative to the average. However, pupils of Black Caribbean, Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin do worse than the average. In terms of progress across the Key Stages, progress for Bangladeshi and Black African pupils is greater than the average across Key Stage 2 and across Key Stage 4. Pakistani pupils also show greater improvement across Key Stage 4. Pupils from Chinese, Indian and "other" ethnic backgrounds show greater improvement across each of the Key Stages. However, pupils from White, Black Caribbean and Black Other ethnic backgrounds show lower progress than the national average.

The results associated with the interactions between gender and ethnic background lead to qualifications being placed upon the differences in progress associated with ethnic group. Note that in all ethnic groups, Key Stage 2 attainment in English is better for girls than boys, whereas attainment in Mathematics and Science is very similar. For some ethnic groups there are significant differences between the performance of girls and boys. DfES (2006) refers to girls consistently outperforming boys in all of the minority ethnic groups over Key Stages 1 to 4. Currently this is true for GCSE overall attainment. The results reported here, which are for progress rather than attainment, partially confirm such a view but indicate that the nature of ethnic by gender interactions require a rather more nuanced approach. The effects associated with ethnic groups may also be changing as different cohorts of children work their way through school.

Different cultural norms for gender may partly explain the differential gender effects for some ethnic groups. Black ethnic groups show fairly consistent better progress by girls, Indian girls show better progress for Science, yet Pakistani boys show better progress for Mathematics.

Gender differences may well vary by social class groups. Also the effects of poverty and social class may vary by ethnic group. Further investigation may shed further light on these issues.

There are consistent small effects associated with the area in which a pupil resides, which reflect the effects of level of deprivation. Primary schools typically have distinct catchment areas, and hence school composition effects can also be interpreted as reflecting the effect of area deprivation. Further exploration of area effects may be fruitful e.g. in considering the component domains of the Index of Multiple Deprivation; i.e. income, employment, health, education, housing, environment and crime rather than just overall deprivation. Also commercially derived descriptions of area types that include cultural as well as economic aspects of communities may provide a perspective on area influences rather different from deprivation-based measures. The data and technology are also now available to investigate the possible impact of Area-Based Initiatives, e.g. Education Action Zones and New Deal for Communities, either individually or in concert, upon school effectiveness.

The analysis of school level measures of effectiveness across subjects and across years indicates some consistency and stability but also that there is considerable variation and change amongst schools in their degree of effectiveness across subjects and across years. In particular, measures involving English seem open to most variation and instability, and measures of school effects upon Mathematics are most stable.

The analysis of random effects within the final value added models reveals an interesting conclusion concerning what makes the difference between effective and ineffective schools. The analysis strongly suggests that a major differentiating feature between effective and ineffective schools resides in their degree of success with low ability children. In a perfect world with perfectly effective primary schools, initial differences in pupil ability would be overcome by the end of primary school as far as inherent pupil constitution and potential would allow, i.e. initial differences would "wash out". The most effective schools are moving in this direction.

Presentation 2: Teacher and pupil behaviours in Year 5 classrooms and how this links to measures of effectiveness.

Pam Sammons³, Brenda Taggart¹, Iram Siraj-Blatchford¹, Kathy Sylva², Edward Melhuish*, Sofka Barreau¹

* Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social Issues, Birkbeck, University of London ¹ Institute of Education, University of London ² Department of Educational Studies, University of Oxford³ School of Education, University of Nottingham

Having established the ‘effectiveness’ of every primary school in England through statistical data matching (see the first paper in this symposium) the research team was able to focus on the 800 schools attended by the 3,000 EPPE children. Taking a sample across a range of ‘effectiveness’, the EPPE 3-11 team undertook structured classroom observations in 125 schools. The research question aimed to investigate the variation in Year 5 teachers’ classroom practices in order to identify the range of practices and their association with different child outcomes and school levels of effectiveness. The project sought to identify a purposive school sample to include in the observation component of the research. The criteria for sampling included indicators of a schools’ effectiveness (across a range of ‘effectiveness’) and the number of EPPE 3-11 children enrolled.

Two observation instruments were adapted and used in the EPPE 3-11 project to obtain information about variation in classroom processes, including teachers’ and pupils’ classroom behaviour and experiences. These instruments are the Classroom Observation System for Fifth Grade (COS-5, Pianta, 2001) and the Instructional Environment Observation Scale (IEO, Stipek, 1999). These instruments were selected because they were devised relatively recently, they are appropriate for the primary age group, they cover a wide range of pupil and teacher behaviours and they offer the opportunity to facilitate comparison with recent research in other contexts (e.g. Galton et al 1999, NICHD, 1999). Both instruments were developed for use by the National Institute for Child Health and Development (NICHD) for a major longitudinal study in the USA.

The paper will describe the instruments used to conduct the observations. The Pianta instrument covers a frequency of behavior coding system (child level settings, content of child’s activity, teacher and child behaviors etc.) coupled with measures of observed quality (positive affect, disruption, activity level, purposeful use of instructional time etc). The Stipek instrument covers General Classroom Management and Climate Scales and General Instruction Scales with both Mathematical and Reading/Writing Instruction Scales.

The paper will also report on results from the observations demonstrating the variation in teacher and pupil behaviours in classrooms within schools which demonstrate a range of ‘effectiveness’. To conclude the presentation will describe the links between observed measures of classroom practices and other measures of effectiveness. For this stage of the analyses data from the classroom observations have been linked to the Ofsted data sets on school performance. The analyses describes statistically the relationship between Ofsted judgements of ‘effectiveness’ and ‘improvement’, as well as such factors as free school meals eligibility (FSM) and observed classroom behaviours. This paper will be of interest to those BERA members concerned with effective schooling and influences on children’s learning, as well as innovative research methods.

Classroom observations pointed to considerable variation in the quality of learning experiences for Year 5 children. The considerable variation suggests that pupils in different Year 5 classes (despite a highly structured National Primary Strategy) can have quite different educational experiences. This was particularly evident in the extent to which children experienced the following: Richness of instructional methods, Using basis skills in the context of problem solving and the Development of higher order thinking skills. Characteristic of classroom that were rated more highly in these areas were: ‘thought provoking’ reciprocal discussions, children using hypothesis to experiment with a range of ways of tackling a problem and teachers modelling problem solving.

Teaching Analyses – there was little or none of this pedagogical practice observed in around 30% of classes. ‘Analysis’ in this context includes ‘higher order’ critical thinking skills of analysis, inference, application, interpretation, problem solving, and planning.

Student engagement. Overall, levels of student engagement were found to be relatively high and classroom climates were generally positive. Teacher detachment was low and there was less ‘off task’ behaviour observed than in classroom studies of the 1980s.

Didactic teaching - Overall time spent in different forms of setting (e.g. whole class, individual etc.) was in accordance with the guidance of the National Strategies (Literacy/Numeracy) for daily lesson, with the exception of the use of the plenary session (see later). Overall there was more whole class (56.1%) than individual work (36.4%) and group work was less common (8.5%). The findings are different from earlier studies where individual work tended to be more common than whole class work (Galton et al.’s 1999). While teachers are making more use of ‘interactive whole class teaching’ as encouraged in the National Strategies, Smith et al. (2004) have found that the ‘interactive whole class’ teaching strategies have not dramatically transformed traditional patterns of whole class interaction. As Alexander (2004) has suggested, the benefits of ‘Dialogic Teaching’(1) will only be realised when teachers recognise that it:"…demands both pupil engagement and teacher intervention. And the principle means by which pupils actively engage and constructively intervene is through talk" (Alexander, 2004, authors emphasis).

Interactive whole class teaching will only promote high quality dialogue and facilitate discussion when pupils are given more opportunity to participate actively in classroom discussions by posing questions, contributing ideas and explaining and demonstrating their thinking to the class.

‘Group work’ - Observations of large and small group settings were generally extremely limited (except in Science 11%). Teachers varied in the extent to which they encourage pupil co-operation in Year 5 classes both in the type of tasks they assigned and the level of co-operation they encourage. This was demonstrated statistically in the high standard deviation on the observations of levels of ‘co-operation between peers’. The SPRinG study (Blatchford et al, 2004) has shown that the benefits of collaborative group work can be realised at KS2 as pupils engage in more (and more sustained) interactions with other pupils and more of these were on-task. Conversely, at both KS1 and KS2, less pupil-pupil interaction was off-task.

Most schools broadly followed the format of the National Strategies (Literacy and Maths) except for the use of plenary. The quality of teaching was significantly higher in classes where plenaries were used. The absence of the plenary in around half of literacy and numeracy lessons observed (50.7% Literacy, 47.8% Numeracy) is of particular concern as this part of the lesson is intended to give opportunities for feedback for improvement and consolidate learning. Black and Wiliam (1998) consider this to be the ‘informative’ feedback that is ‘an essential component of classroom work’ (1998 p9) that can lead to raised standards of achievement. By missing this part of the lesson some teachers may be reducing the opportunity to provide such consolidation. In particular the use of more demanding higher order communication is typically more common in plenary and other whole class activities. Overall, around 28% of classes used a plenary in both the observed literacy and numeracy lessons, while around a quarter did not use a plenary in either. In half the classes a plenary was observed in one but not he other subject.

The quality of teaching tends to be poorer in schools with higher levels of disadvantage. In these schools teachers rated lower on particular aspects of ‘quality’ teaching. For instance, in mathematics, there were less opportunities for pupils to practice basic skills in the context of problem solving (which encourages higher order thinking). There was also less ‘social support for learning’ characterised by everyone’s contribution being taken seriously and pupil errors being used as opportunities to explore learning. There was also opportunities for children to demonstrate their subject knowledge in maths.

In literacy, pupils in more disadvantage schools spent more time in ‘off task’ talk (student engagement) and their classrooms were less likely to look like ‘a well oiled machine’, with transitions between activities being poorly managed (classroom routines). In addition the classroom climate (extent to which pupils are respected and have autonomy) and social support for learning (high expectations) were significant and negatively associated with FSM.

The classroom observations which focused on disruptive behaviour, discipline episodes and class ‘chaos’ suggests that pupil behaviour overall was fairly good. However, behaviour tended to be worse in schools where there were relatively more children eligible for free school meals (% FSM), There was some suggestions of poor organisation of work and classes by some Year 5 teachers.

These finding warrant further consideration, given concerns about the gap in attainment related to pupil background that has been shown to increase as children progress through school. Our findings may reflect the influence of lower teacher expectations, less experienced or poorer teachers or to difficulties relating to pupil behaviour, attitudes and attendance. In fact it may be all of these, ‘expectations’ do not have to be ‘self-fulfilling’ to constitute a problem, as Good and Brophy (1997) have argued: "Expectations tend to be self-sustaining. They affect both perception, by causing teachers to be alert for what they expect and less likely to notice what they do not expect, and interpretation, by causing teachers to interpret (and perhaps distort) what they see so that it is consistent with their expectations. Some expectations persist even though they do not coincide with the facts. (Good & Brophy, 1990, p441).

One method used to explore the ‘effectiveness’ of a school was to analyse pupil test scores from KS1 to KS2 taking account of the background characteristics of the child and the school. This enabled schools to be grouped into those where children performed ‘as expected’ or ‘less/beyond expectations’. This is a value-added analyses based on the ‘residual’ scores for each school. This data was then compared, for our 125 focal schools, to the classroom observations and associations were explored.

There were moderately strong ‘between-subject’ statistical results which suggested that school that were more effective in one core subject tend to be more effective also in others while those that are less effective in one area also tend to be less effective in others. A number of aspects teacher’s practice was found to be significantly associated with the value added analyses of progress in Maths and English in KS2.

Although only weak to moderate, such associations point to the links between overall school effectiveness and specific features of classroom practices and provide some helpful insights into what feature of more effective practice and pedagogical approaches may promote better pupil progress.

In English three aspects of pedagogy were noteworthy: having a positive classroom climate (safe and respectful, opportunities for collaboration, sensitive discipline), good classroom routines (maximised use of instructional time, well prepared materials) and the developing of higher order thinking skills in the context of ‘reading as meaning making’. This involved teachers encouraging children, when reading, to go beyond decoding text, teachers draw on pupils previous knowledge and reasoning to encourage students into critically evaluate their understanding.

In Maths, as well as having good classroom routines, three other areas of mathematical pedagogical knowledge were importantly associated with better outcomes: ‘use of maths analyses’, ‘depth of knowledge’ and ‘locus of maths authority’. In ‘use of maths analyses’ it was important that children were given opportunities to construct original ways to solve maths problems and allowed to make conjectures with justifications. ‘Depth of knowledge’ was the extent to which maths knowledge is treated deeply in class. This was demonstrated by teachers who structured their lessons so that most students were engaged in at least one of the following: demonstrating their understanding of the problematic nature of information or ideas, demonstrating complex understandings by arriving at a reasoned, supported conclusion or explain how they solved a complex problem. The ‘locus of maths authority’ was the extent to which the teacher and the pupil hold each other accountable for convincing themselves and each other that their reasoning is sound. In these classroom the teacher often answers a question with a question or offers instrumental help (good scaffolding), pushing pupils to make their own decisions.

The second method of exploring ‘effectiveness’ and its relationship to classroom practices was to compare the observations of our 125 ‘focal’ schools with Ofsted judgements from inspection reports. Classroom observations were matched with Ofsted judgements on ‘effectiveness’, ‘improvement since last inspection’, ‘leadership’, ‘quality of teaching and learning’ and inspectors’ ratings of pupil outcomes (attendance, attitudes and behaviour). The results revealed significant, though modest positive associations with various measure of teacher quality and pupil behaviour. Teachers practice in Y5 classes tended to be ‘better’ in those schools rated more positively in the professional judgement of inspectors. Of particular note was the associations between Ofsted judgements and higher observed ratings of ‘productive use of instructional time’ (smooth transitions, good planning, efficient routines for when pupils finish work), ‘pupil self reliance’ (where pupils display autonomy, initiative and are self directed), ‘richness of instructional methods’ (intellectually engaging and thought provoking lessons which contain reciprocal discussions) and ‘positive classroom climate’ (where the emotional and social tone of the classroom was respectful, safe and welcoming). The positive associations between school leadership and better classroom observations supports the view that overall school influences may affect classroom practice and good leadership may promote better teaching and learning and thus better outcomes for children. Overall the findings suggest that there are links between more global constructs of school effectiveness as defined by inspectors and more specific aspects of observed classroom practice related to the quality of teaching. The classroom practices of teachers in more effective schools appears to be influenced directly or indirectly by the school.

The correspondence between Ofsted rating of quality and the ‘value added’ indicators with the classroom level observations gives confidence in the extent to which the two different classroom observations schedules used by the EPPE researchers in our 125 ‘focal’ schools can identify important features of classroom practice associated with better outcomes for children in English primary schools. These analyses help improve understanding of the variation in school and classroom processes and provide insights into more effective practice and pedagogical approaches. The information about the variation in teachers’ behaviour and pupil responses is relevant to policy makers concerned with the further development of the National Strategies and points to areas of possible weakness in the teaching in some classes that could benefit from further guidance and professional development. The findings are likely to be of relevance to the achievement of the Excellence and Enjoyment (DfES, 2003) agenda, and the further development of the National Strategies.

1. Broadly equivalent conceptions include ‘mutualist and dialectical pedagogy’ (Bruner), ‘dialogic enquiry’ (Wells), ‘interthinking’ (Mercer), ‘dialogue of enquiry’ (Lindfor), and in the early years, ‘sustained shared thinking’ (Siraj-Blatchford, et al, (2002).

Alexander, R. (2004) Towards dialogic teaching: rethinking classroom talk, York, Dialogos

Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998), 'Assessment and classroom learning'. Assessment in Education: Principals, Policy and Practice, 5, 7-75.

Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Wall, D. and Pell, A. (1999), Inside the Primary Classroom: 20 Years On. London: Routledge.

Blatchford, P., Galton, M. and Kutnick, P. (2004) Improving the effectiveness of pupil group work. Report on first results from the TLRP Phase 2 SPRinG project, Paper to Annual ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, November 2004

Good, T.L. & Brophy, J.E. (1990) Educational Psychology: A realistic approach 4^th ed. London: Longman

NICHD. (2001), 'Fifth Grade School Observation Procedures Manual.' NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development: NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development.

Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Muttock, S., Gilden, R., & Bell, D. (2002). Researching effective pedagogy in the early years (DfES Research Rep. 356). London: DfES.

Smith, F., Hardman, F., Wall, K. and Mroz, M. (2004), 'Interactive Whole Class Teaching in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies'. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 395-411.

Stipek, D. (1999), Instructional Environment Observation Scale. University of California: MacArthur Pathways through Middle Childhood Network.

Presentation 3: The relationship between the Home Learning Environment and Child outcomes

Pam Sammons³, Kathy Sylva², Edward Melhuish*, Iram Siraj-Blatchford¹, Brenda Taggart¹, Sofka Barreau¹

* Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social Issues, Birkbeck, University of London ¹ Institute of Education, University of London ² Department of Educational Studies, University of Oxford³ School of Education, University of Nottingham

The first two papers in this symposium report on school influences on pupil’s outcomes yet the original EPPE study (The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education Project 1997-2003) explored and reported on the importance of other background factors which influence pupil development. The EPPE study showed the extent to which pupil (gender, EAL etc) and family (SES etc.) characteristics have to be considered (and accounted for via multilevel modeling) in order to more accurately understand the impact of schooling upon child outcomes.

One additional factor included in the EPPE research which proved to be extremely important to child outcomes was the quality of the home learning environment (HLE) during the pre-school period. The EPPE team developed a ‘Home Learning Environment Index’ for the families of pre-school children, which showed the relationship between young children’s experiences in the home and their developmental outcomes when they entered school around age 5. Early reporting on this topic has shown that girls on the whole have better ‘scores’ on the HLE scale as do some specific ethnic groups. This aspect of the original research has had great influence in recent national initiatives, most notably the Sure Start programme, targeted at socially disadvantaged areas in order to close the social exclusion gap.

This paper reports on the effects of the Home Learning Environment during Key Stage 1 on children’s developmental outcomes at age 7. When the EPPE children were in the first two years of primary school the project sent a second questionnaire to parents in order to investigate (among other things) the Home Learning Environment. The questionnaire covers the use of computers in the home as well as the help parents give with homework and the ‘outings’ they share with their children in the community. This presentation will describe the HLE in the first few years of primary school and show its impact on children’s intellectual and social–behavioural development at the age of 7. This paper will appeal to those BERA members interested in home influences on children’s learning as well as in ways to describe important learning in the home.

Overall, 12 items were included in the home learning environment scale. These were:

All these items were on a 5-point scale of 0 to 4 with 0 corresponding to "never" and 4 corresponding to "everyday".

In this analysis the sample included 2442 parents of children around the age of 6 from 845 primary schools.

The 12 items were entered into ‘factor imaging analysis’ which is a sophisticated form of exploratory factor analysis. Equamax rotation was used and four robust factors were extracted.

These were:

Child plays on computer by themselves

Respondent (parent) plays computer with child

Respondent uses computer with child for ‘education’ purposes

Respondent goes on ‘educational’ visits with child, e.g., science museum

Respondent does sport/physical activities with child

Respondent visits library with child

Respondent listens to child read

Respondent reads to the child

Respondent plays with the child using toys, games, puzzles

Child plays make-believe/pretend games

Child paints/draws/makes models

Child enjoys dance, music and movement

This factor solution accounted for 58.4% of the variance, indicating moderate to strong factor structure.

In order to investigate the effect of the new (age 6) HLE on children’s outcomes at age 7 the derived factors were entered into explanatory multi-level models. First child characteristics (e.g., gender) were entered into the model, followed by parent (e.g. qualifications) and family (e.g., socio-economic status) characteristics. This modeling strategy allowed us to control for the effect of child, parent and family characteristics BEFORE estimating the effect of the HLE on children’s outcomes.

We created five main models for each of the following outcome measures at age 7:

Maths national assessment tests

Reading national assessment tests

Self-regulation

Positive social behaviour

Anti-social behaviour

The last three social behavioural measures were derived from exploratory factor analysis of a classroom teacher rating scale and are described in EPPE Technical Paper 11 (Sammons et al 2004)

(a) MATHS

Of the four factors, the only one significantly related to children’s outcome was ‘home computing’. However the effects were not linear, in other words, doing too little or too much computing at home was not good for maths attainment. There seem to be optimal levels of home computing and these are moderate rather than high levels.

(b) READING

Three of the four factors were related to children’s reading attainment: parent-child outings/activities outside the home, 1:1 parent-child interaction, and expressive play. The 1:1 interaction is not surprising since two of the three items are about reading at home with the child. Also, the outings item is not surprising since all the ‘outings’ centred around child development. Finally, the beneficial contribution of the child’s expressive play to subsequent reading will not surprise parents or theorists of play. Note that the effect of expressive play appears to have a ceiling effect. Moderate amounts of play are beneficial for reading but high amounts do not add additional benefit. However, high amounts of expressive play are different from computing where ‘too much’ computing was related to worse outcomes compared to moderate amounts. Thus ‘too much’ expressive play is not related to lower reading scores.

(c) SELF REGULATION

Three of the four factors were related to self regulation: home computing, expressive play, and 1:1 parent-child interaction. The pattern for home computing was similar to that of maths in which moderate amounts were related to increased self regulation. Again, 1:1 child-parent interaction was related to better self regulation and the effects were linear, i.e., the more 1:1, the better for the child. Note that for self regulation (but not for reading) the more expressive play, the higher the self regulation.

(d) POSITIVE SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Only one factor predicted positive social behaviour and this was 1:1 parent-child interaction. Obviously the more parent child 1:1 the better (i.e. a linear relation). Recall that the items in this factor include reading to the child, listening to the child read, and joint play with toys/games/puzzles - all activities rich in language. The two reading items depict activities potentially rich in narrative structures involving people in social contexts. The positive contribution of this factor to positive social behaviour may rest on language within a 1:1 context.

(e) ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Only one factor predicted this outcome and this was the reverse of the finding on positive behaviour , i.e, lack of 1:1 parent-child interaction was related to more anti-social behaviour. This is a simple linear relationship and shows the vital importance of 1:1 parental interaction with children in the early years of primary school.

Several conclusions can be drawn. First, the impact of home learning continues through the primary school. Parental involvement continues to be important along with children’s independent play. However - new in the primary school HLE are home activities such as computing which do not have a simple linear relationship with attainment and social behaviour. For example, too much or too little computing is not beneficial for mathematical development. Similarly high levels of expressive play are not more beneficial than moderate levels in terms of reading attainment. One of the most striking findings is the contribution of 1:1 parent-child interaction to four of the five major outcomes (with maths the only exception). Note that the positive contribution of 1:1 parent-child interaction is linear in every case, ‘you cannot have too much of a good thing’.

This paper has replicated an important EPPE finding from the pre-school period; the Primary Home Learning Environment makes a major contribution to children’s developmental outcomes at age 7. Moreover the nature of beneficial home activities changes with the child’s age and the relationships between home activities and child development are not linear in every case. EPPE continues to show that a full understanding of developmental outcomes requires data from both home and school.

Technical Paper 1 - An Introduction to the Effective Provision of Pre-school Education  (EPPE) Project ISBN: 085473 591 7 Published: Autumn 1999 Price £8.50

Technical Paper 2 - Characteristics of the Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project sample at entry to the study ISBN: 085473 592 5 Published: Autumn 1999 Price £4.00

Technical Paper 3 - Contextualising EPPE: Interviews with Local Authority co-ordinators and centre managers ISBN: 085473 593 3 Published: Autumn 1999 Price £3.50

Technical Paper 4 - Parent, family and child characteristics in relation to type of pre-school and socio-economic differences. ISBN: 085473 594 1 Published: Autumn 1999 Price £4.00

Technical Paper 5 – Characteristics of the Centre in the EPPE Study: (Interviews) ISBN: 085473 595 X Published: Autumn 2000 Price £5.00

Technical Paper 6 - Characteristics of the Centres in the EPPE Sample: Observational Profiles ISBN: 085473 596 8 Published: Autumn 1999 Price £8.50

Technical Paper 6A - Characteristics of Pre-School Environments ISBN: 085473 597 6 Published: Autumn 1999 Price £8.50

Technical Paper 7 - Social/behavioural and cognitive development at 3-4 years in relation to family background ISBN: 085473 598 4 Published: Spring 2001 Price £5.00

Technical Paper 8a – Measuring the Impact of Pre-School on Children’s Cognitive Progress over the Pre-School Period. ISBN: 085473 599 2 Published: Autumn 2002 Price £8.50

Technical Paper 8b – Measuring the Impact of Pre-School on Children’s Social/behavioural Development over the Pre-School Period. ISBN: 085473 683 2 Published Spring 2003 Price £8.50

Technical Paper 9 - Report on age 6 assessment ISBN: 085473 600 X Published Autumn 2004 Price £5.50

Technical Paper 10 - Intensive study of selected centres ISBN: 085473 601 8 Published Autumn 2003 Price £11.00

Technical Paper 11 - Report on the continuing effects of pre-school education at age 7 ISBN: 085473 602 6 Published Autumn 2004 Price £5.50

Technical Paper 12 - The final report ISBN: 085473 603 4 Published Autumn 2004 Price £5.50

The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale: Revised Edition (1998). Harms, Clifford and Cryer ISBN: 08077 3751 8 Available from Teachers College Press. Columbia University. 1234 Amsterdam Avenue. New York. NY10027

Assessing Quality in the Early Years, Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale Extension (ECERS-E):Four Curricular Subscales (2003) Sylva, Siraj-Blatchford and Taggart (2002) Trentham Books

Early Years Transition and Special Educational Needs (EYTSEN) Technical Paper 1: Special Educational Needs across the Pre-school Period.

EYTSEN Technical Paper 2: Special Educational Needs in the Early Primary Years: Primary school entry up to the end of Year One.

EYTSEN Technical Paper 3: Special Educational Needs: The Parents’ Perspective

The Bookshop at the Institute of Education. 20, Bedford Way. London WC1H OAL. Tele: 00 44 (0) 207 612 6050 Fax: 0207 612 6407 e-mail: ioe@johnsmith.co.uk , website: www.johnsmith.co.uk/ioe  or The EPPE Office. The University of London, Institute of Education. 20 Bedford Way, London. WC1H OAL. U.K.Telephone 00 44 (0) 207 612 6219 / Fax. 00 44 (0) 207 612 6230 / e-mail b.taggart@ioe.ac.uk  Please Note : Prices will vary according to size of publication and quantities ordered.