Perceived student impact
• Confidence: The most consistent qualitative impact was increased confidence
• Exam readiness: Comments reference being more knowledgeable about the paper and what to expect.
• Ownership / independence: Some signs of greater ownership / independence in work.
• Attainment signal early / unclear: One teacher observed students“ doing well in class,” but most said it’ s too early to judge attainment until the topic is revisited.
Section 8: Statistical Analysis
Individual analysis on assessed vs mocks vs actual grades
It is important to note the timing of the programmes for context when looking at the analysis of the results. For Portsmouth Academy, they received the intervention in Year 11, post mocks, around 4 weeks before exams. For Bitterne Park School, they received the intervention in Year 10, prior to any mocks( around 6 months before) and a year before the actual exams.
There is also a myriad of other factors involved with students, both personally and academically with many interventions being offered by the schools( e. g. revision classes and support) as well as the normal teaching. This intervention was only a small part of the young people’ s lives which needs to be held in mind whilst analysing the results.
Within the statistical analysis it is interesting to note the initial and final assessment of Twenty Twenty at the beginning and end of the intervention and to see how that marries to the mock results already received( Year 11) and the performance subsequently in mocks for Year 10.
For the Year 10 cohort, as stated already, 19 students improved from the pre assessment to the post assessment, with 2 remaining the same and the remainder not completing both assessments. For the Year 10 student, out of 29 students, 15 were assessed at the end of the intervention as either the same as they then went on to achieve in their mock, or better. The comparison between the final assessment and the actual grade, shows in most cases the grade improved( 16 students), remained the same( 9 students) and decreased for 4 students. When compared to the mock results and the final grade( 20 student improved, 7 remained the same and 2 decreased). Twenty-four students improved from their mock results, with four remaining the same and one decreasing. Though a large amount of time past between the intervention and the mocks, two thirds of the group improved within the week and then continued that trajectory to improve on their mock results and final grades, it could be inferred the intervention played a part in this.
For year 11 students, who had already completed their mocks a few months early, the assessor graded the same as the mock grade with the pre-assessment grade for four students. The remaining eight students were assessed at a grade higher( in one instance, two grades higher) than their previous mock result, which would correlate with gap between the mocks and the GCSEs. However, only three of students subsequently achieved the same actual grade as assessed by Twenty Twenty, achieving higher than predicted in the mock results. One student achieved the same as their mock result( but two grades lower than assessed grade), two students received one grade lower than their mock result and 2-3 grades lower than their assessed grade. The remaining six students, though not getting the grades equivalent to the final assessed grade from the intervention, did improve on their mock result by one grade. This potentially corroborates the claim of the intervention to improve students grades by one grade by the end of the intervention,( even if that didn’ t equate to a pass) with nine students improving by one grade on their mock result, one stayed the same and two declining by one grade.
Regarding the students, not all completed the assessments from the intervention, and one did not attend their mock, however we do have actual results from whole cohort.
Page 8 of 22