The effectiveness of the use of learning support assistants in improving the mathematics achievement of low achieving pupils in primary school

This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]On: 09 October 2014, At: 17:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rere20

The effectiveness of the use of learning supportassistants in improving the mathematicsachievement of low achieving pupils in primaryschoolDaniel Muijs & David Reynoldsa Institute of Education, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7ALb School of Education, University of Exeter, Heavitree Road, Exeter EX1 2LUPublished online: 04 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Daniel Muijs & David Reynolds (2003) The effectiveness of the use of learning support assistants inimproving the mathematics achievement of low achieving pupils in primary school, Educational Research, 45:3, 219-230,DOI: 10.1080/0013188032000137229

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188032000137229

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rere20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0013188032000137229

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188032000137229

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Educational Research Vol. 45 No. 3 Winter 2003 219–230

Educational Research ISSN 0013-1881/print/ISSN 1469-5847 online @ 2003 NFERhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/0013188032000137229

The effectiveness of the use of learning support assistants in improving the mathematics achievement of low achieving pupils in primary schoolDaniel Muijs, Institute of Education, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL and David Reynolds, School of Education, University of Exeter, Heavitree Road, Exeter EX1 2LU

Summary

The use of learning support assistants in schools has become increasinglycommon in England, partly as a result of government support for this strategy.One suggested advantage of the deployment of learning support assistants is toprovide additional support to low achieving pupils. However, so far research onthe effects of this strategy is very limited. In this study the effect of using trainedlearning support assistants to help pupils underachieving in mathematics isexamined using a quasi-experimental design whereby pupils receiving supportwere matched to those not receiving support on prior achievement and pupilbackground factors.

Keywords: classroom assistants, pupils at risk, mathematics achievement

Introduction

During recent years, the use of learning support assistants has become increas-ingly common in schools in England. This is due to a number of factors,including teacher shortages leading to larger class sizes, the policy of inclusion ofpupils with special educational needs in mainstream schooling leading to a needfor in-class support for these pupils, and the move towards whole-class inter-active teaching methods, as opposed to individual learning, leading to a perceivedneed for individual support for certain pupils.

Acknowledgement: We should like to thank GTEP and Gatsby Charitable Trust forfunding this study.Address for correspondence: Dr Daniel Muijs, Lecturer in Quantitative ResearchMethods, Institute of Education, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. Tel:024 76522197. E-mail: [email protected]

79S 100144 (ds).fm Page 219 Wednesday, October 22, 2003 8:51 AM

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

7:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

220 Educational Research Volume 45 Number 3 Winter 2003

Recent policy pronouncements point to an extension of the use of learningsupport assistants. Former Minister of Education Estelle Morris, in the UK,envisioned an increased use of and role for learning assistants in a speech to theSocial Market Foundation, inviting schools to ‘build on the creative use ofteaching assistants that many schools are making already’. According to theminister, learning assistants will in future be employed in supervision of classesthat are undertaking work set by a teacher, or working with small groups of pupilson reading practice, supervising lunchtime activities and invigilating tests, givingpastoral and other individual support to pupils and covering for teacher absence(Morris, 2001). This statement was criticized by one of the main teacher unionsin Britain who, in rather blunt terms, criticized the use of what may seem asinsufficiently trained staff to do teachers’ jobs (Plomin, 2001).

Learning assistants are now being utilized in increased numbers in some of thegovernment schemes to ‘remodel’ the teaching profession, and recently a newagreement between government and the teaching unions was proposed whichlikewise increases the use of classroom assistants in English schools. The largestteacher union has refused to sign up to this agreement, however (Woodward,2003). This policy seems to be based on the same perceived benefits that have ledto an increase in the use of learning assistants over the years in both the UK andthe USA, such as improving pupil achievement, encouraging pro-social behav-iour, helping classroom management, helping specific categories of pupils such aslow achieving pupils and pupils with special needs, fostering parental involve-ment and improving pupils’ self-esteem (Gerber et al., 2001).

One suggested use of classroom support assistants is therefore to provide addi-tional support to low achieving pupils, usually in reading. One reason that this isposited to have positive effects on the learning of these low ability students is thefact that using learning support assistants will decrease pupil–adult ratios in theclassroom and thus form an alternative to reducing class sizes. Support for the viewthat individual support and a smaller adult–pupil ratio could help improve achieve-ment has been found in a range of studies (Mortimore et al., 1988; Iacovou, 2001;Wenglinsky, 1997; Mosteller, 1995). Not all studies have found this to be the case,however. Hanushek (1998), in his review of research, reports that class size was nota significant factor in student achievement, while Slavin (1989) found that reducedclass size had only a small positive effect on students that did not persist after theirreduced class experience in his best evidence research synthesis.

While there may be some support for the view that a lower pupil–adult ratiomay be beneficial to achievement to be taken from research into class size effects,it is not certain whether this means that a reduction in pupil–adult ratios is initself sufficient to improve achievement, or whether on the contrary, it should bea reduction in pupil–teacher ratios that is striven for. All the studies reviewedabove have looked specifically at the pupil–teacher ratio, and thus of themselvesdo not necessarily support the use of classroom support assistants as a means toreduce pupil–adult ratios.

Research on the effect of the use of classroom support assistants on achieve-ment has so far been limited. Early studies produced mixed results – the earlieststudy, conducted in the mid-1950s in Michigan, found that use of learningassistants did not improve achievement compared to classes in which no assis-tants were employed. Learning assistants were largely used to help with adminis-trative tasks, rather than intervening educationally, however (Park, 1956). Asmall-scale (nine classes) study conducted in Minneapolis in the late 1960s didfind positive effects of using learning assistants on pupils’ reading readiness,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

7:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Learning support assistants and mathematics achievement 221

students in classes having either one or five assistants making more progress overthe year than those in classes with no assistants (Bennett and Falk, 1970).Davidson, Beckett and Peddicord (1994) analysed data from an early 1980sreform effort in Mississippi that had introduced learning assistants into schools.Comparing the achievement of pupils who had and those who had not been inclasses receiving support, they found no long-term positive effects, and somenegative effects for pupils in classes with support assistants.

A large-scale recent study formed part of project STAR, the longitudinalstatewide project in Tennessee devised to look at the effects of smaller class sizesand the use of learning assistants from kindergarten to grade 3 of primary school.Controlling for gender, ethnicity, free meal eligibility and urbanicity, no signifi-cant differences in pupil achievement were found between regular-sized classeswith or without teacher aids in any of the four grades (kindergarten, 1, 2 and 3)or on any of the tests studied. Pupils in regular-sized classes with teacherassistants did significantly worse than those in smaller classes in all grades and onall tests, however (Gerber et al., 2001). The authors suggest that this lack of effectcould be remedied through better training and clearer roles for learning assis-tants, and point out that while the use of learning assistants may not have overallpositive effects on achievement, their work with specific students may well lead tohigher achievement for those particular students, a question that their data didnot allow to be studied. It is this question that we will look at in this study.

The Gatsby numeracy support assistants project

A project that has attempted to provide both training and an enhanced role forclassroom support assistants, specifically to help poor achievers in mathematics, isthe Gatsby Mathematics Enhancement Programme Primary. This project wasinitially set up to promote the use of whole-class interactive teaching methods andto provide teachers with the training, materials and support necessary to imple-ment this teaching method in two selected local education authorities in England.Evaluation showed this programme to have been successful initially in raisingattainment in maths (Muijs and Reynolds, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001), but the effecthad diminished over time, not least due to the implementation of the government-sponsored National Numeracy Strategy in English primary schools which, like theGatsby project, advocated whole-class interactive teaching methods. Furthermore,there was evidence that the teaching methods used had been less effective inimproving achievement of the lowest achieving students in the project schools. Asone of the responses to these evaluation findings, the developers of the Gatsbyproject decided to put in place a training programme and more extensive use ofclassroom support assistants in mathematics (known as Numeracy Support Assis-tants, NSAs). These support assistants were to provide extra support to lowachieving pupils during and after mathematics lessons, starting in the summer term2000. It was thought that the use of the numeracy support assistants could bebeneficial for the following reasons (MEPP, 2001):

• The NSA will be an ‘extra adult’ to support children in whole-class activities.• With the focus group working with the NSA, children spend more time with

the class teacher.• The NSA is another good role model and can show children that numeracy is

valued by adults other than teachers.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

7:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4


• The NSA provides opportunities for children to work in small groups,enabling more adult interaction in each session.

• The adult intensive session ensures children spend more time focused and ontask, increasing their learning time.

• The close attention and interaction with the NSA can improve behaviour asthe children spend more time on task.

• The focus group gets immediate feedback and praise, boosting the children’sconfidence and motivation, and making them feel valued.

• The NSA gains a more in-depth knowledge of their group and can ensurequestioning, modelling and future activities support the children’s learningstyle.

The proposed role of the numeracy support assistant was the following (ibid.):

• to scan and assess a group, providing feedback for the class teacher onchildren’s interaction levels, and use of strategies;

• to interact alongside the class teacher, e.g. questioning, playing devil’s advo-cate, etc.;

• to take small groups to practise/reinforce skills and strategies; • to model, question, describe, interact, etc.; • to demonstrate and encourage the correct use of vocabulary; • to provide practical and interactive support to the focus group; • to teach or reinforce both the strategies and skills, e.g. ability to work with a

partner; • to assess the children’s progress; • to provide immediate praise and feedback.

Classroom observation carried out as part of the evaluation of the Gatsby project(208 lessons were observed) showed the following actual roles for NSAs duringthe Numeracy hour.

1. During the mental and oral starter activity, with which all ‘Gatsby-stylelessons’ commence, NSAs were observed usually sitting on the carpet with aparticular group of low achieving pupils, encouraging them, reinforcing or prac-tising skills and helping pupils who were having problems with the content of theactivity (usually quick-fire mental arithmetic exercises). In a minority of cases,the NSA took a group of pupils with her to another part of the classroom, to doa separate mental starter activity, deemed more suitable to the achievement levelsof that group.2. During the main delivery part of the lesson, the NSA was either found sittingwith a group of low achieving pupils, helping them understand the content of thelesson or providing practical support to the teacher by preparing or distributingmaterials. Where the NSA was working with a group of pupils, she helped themby giving further explanation often involving a great deal of hands-on work, suchas using manipulables to explain a point the teacher was making in anothermanner. In many cases, the role of the NSA seemed most limited during this partof the lesson.3. During individual or group activities, the NSA would in almost all cases stayat a table with one group, while the teacher would go round the class supportingthe other groups, occasionally liaising with the NSA in the process. The NSAwould intensively support the pupils in carrying out their task. This was done by


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

7:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4


modelling (for example, showing them how to use multi-links to add andsubtract), questioning (‘how can you find the answer?’) and interacting (oftenproviding praise and encouragement) with the group. This allowed the teacher toconcentrate on the higher achieving groups. The role of the NSA was at itsstrongest during this part of the lesson.4. Gatsby-style lessons are supposed to end with a plenary, during which themain points of the lesson are recapped and any misconceptions addressed. In athird of observed lessons, the plenary did not happen due to the teacher runningout of time. In most of the other observed lessons, the plenary was a very briefrecap which did not involve the NSA.

Pupils who were to be targeted for support by the NSA were chosen by schoolson the basis of test results and teacher judgement, the overall aim being toimprove the achievement of low achieving pupils. Classroom support assistantsin these schools took part in a variety of training activities. An initial three-daytraining event was set up, delivered by Gatsby MEPP local area coordinators. Thefirst day of training focused on the role of the NSA, identifying underachievingpupils and assessment. During the second day, NSAs observed a three-partGatsby-style lesson, which was then discussed. In the afternoon the NationalNumeracy Strategy was introduced, and the role of the NSA during the mainlesson parts (mental and oral starter, main teaching activity, individual or grouppractice and the plenary) was outlined. The morning of the final day was devotedto a session on developing the ‘numerate child’, focusing on theories of learning,interactive teaching, the use of mathematical language, the use of equipment andquestioning techniques. The final session looked at the importance of calculatingstrategies and introduced the main calculating strategies used. Four follow-upmeetings with numeracy support assistants and local area coordinators focusedon problems encountered and further training needs identified, such as use of theRM Integrated Learning System that was being introduced in the Gatsby schoolsat the same time, working with pupils with special needs and reinforcement of theimportance of the plenary. The local area coordinators regularly visited their areaschools, observing lessons and providing feedback and support to the NSAs.During these visits, NSAs in each school discussed their progress with the areacoordinator. Support assistants also took part in the Teacher EffectivenessEnhancement Project, a course designed to improve the effectiveness of teachersthrough focused training on the use of factors found to be significant during theevaluation of MEPP (Muijs and Reynolds, 2000, 2001). This programmeconsisted of three one-day sessions. The first focused on classroom and behaviourmanagement, the second on interactive teaching (e.g. discussion and questioningtechniques) and the third on learning styles (visual, audio, kinaesthetic, multipleintelligences). Evaluation of these training events were largely positive, with 74per cent following session 1 (the remaining 26 per cent felt that this session wasinsufficiently challenging), 92 per cent following session 2 and 88 per centfollowing session 3 rating the programme as effective. These percentages weregenerally somewhat higher among NSAs than among teachers.

During the first phase of the project, numeracy support assistants wereemployed in Years 1 and 2 of primary school, with the aim of remedying theproblems of low achievement as early as possible in the pupil’s school career.Support assistants were to aid selected pupils during mathematics lessons, byworking with them both during the whole-class teaching segments and theindividual practice parts of lessons. In order to facilitate the evaluation of the use


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

7:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4


of NSAs, not all schools and classrooms were provided with this support duringthe initial stage of the project, so a comparison group could be studied as well.

The purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which the use ofnumeracy support assistants was effective in improving the achievement of theselow achievers at key stage 1, the first two years of primary school in England,when pupils are between five and seven years old.

Method

In order to answer this research question, a quasi-experimental research designwas developed in which low achieving children who had received support werecompared to those who had not (not all children received support in thisexperimental phase of the project). Out of a total sample of 2,142, 180 pupilswho had received support were matched to 180 who had not, based on theirscore on a standardized mathematics test used for measuring progress in thewhole of the project evaluation, their gender, their eligibility for free school meals(a proxy measure of social disadvantage), their special educational needs status(identified as having special needs according to the Code of Practice for Englishprimary schools) and their ethnicity. A close-to-exact match for all pupilstargeted for support was found. At the end of the school year, pupils wereretested using the same numeracy test, so measures of progress could becomputed. As well as a measure of whether or not the pupil had received supportfrom the numeracy support assistant, we also collected data on the exact amountof time the numeracy support assistant had spent supporting the child, and theeffectiveness of the classroom teacher, data which were collected through class-room observation using the MECORS instrument (see Muijs and Reynolds,2000, 2001). The selected sample was, by nature of the targeting of pupils forsupport by the NSAs, significantly lower achieving, more likely to be eligible forfree school meals and more likely to have special needs than the sample as awhole.

The 18 schools in which the project was implemented were based on two localeducation authorities in the north-east of England. Schools in one LEA served alargely middle-class population, while schools in the other served a moredisadvantaged community, with half the schools in that LEA serving one of themost deprived estates in the country.

The test used was originally designed by the University of Leeds for theevaluation of the National Numeracy Project, and covers all elements of theEnglish National Curriculum in mathematics. It contains an oral (‘mentalmaths’) and a written part. The written part consists of open-ended questions,and pupils are required to show their workings (which are marked). The pupilbackground data were collected from schools by NFER, along with the testresults. Numeracy support assistants involved in the project had to fill in a formafter every maths lesson with the names of the pupils they had worked with, whatsubjects had been covered and how long they had worked with them. Thisallowed us to determine the total amount of time NSAs had spent with particularpupils, and compare their results with those of matched pupils who had notreceived this support.

In this paper, we shall report on the findings from the first year of thenumeracy support assistants project, the 2000/01 school year. Analysis will focuson the impact of the support received, controlling for relevant variables such as


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

7:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4


teacher and school effectiveness. Multilevel modelling will be used to analyse this(multilevel) data set.

Results

The descriptive statistics in Table 1 show that we managed to match supportedand comparison pupils on prior achievement, gender, special needs and freeschool meal eligibility, but that pupils from ethnic minorities and with English asan additional language are over-represented in the comparison group. It can alsobe seen that both selected and comparison pupils improved their age-standard-ized score over time, and to a similar degree. Pupils received a mean of almost 10hours of NSA support, with some receiving more than 37 hours of support.

In order to see whether the support provided by the NSAs is significantlyrelated to pupil test score gains once the other relevant variables in this study(such as prior achievement and teacher effectiveness) are controlled for, multi-level models were computed. Multilevel modelling is a technique that we need touse when our sample is clustered – i.e. rather than sampling pupils individually,we sample classrooms, and then look at all pupils clustered within the classroom.If we do not use this method, we run the risk of wrongly concluding that a resultis statistically significant. Multilevel modelling also helps us to look at how muchof the differences in achievement between pupils can be explained by theirindividual characteristics as opposed to classroom characteristics.

Table 2 presents the null-multilevel model, with none of the explanatory varia-bles added. As can be seen, in this selected sample of 360 low achieving pupils 18.2per cent of the variance to be explained can be found at the school level, which isalmost twice as much as in the full sample (Muijs and Reynolds, 2002).

Prior achievement was added in the second model, explaining a significantproportion of the variance in achievement at the end of the year, as one wouldhypothesize. Most of this variance explained was at the school rather than thepupil level, which could in part be the result of instability in test scores amongpupils this young (Table 3).

TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics, main variables

NSA supported Not supported

Prior achievement Mean: 90.8 Mean: 90.9End of year achievement Mean: 94.2 Mean: 95.0Time spent with NSA Mean: 587 min (min: 30 min,

max: 2,265 min)Gender 50.4% boys 50.4% boysSpecial needs 42.7% identified with special

needs41.9% identified with special needs

Free school meals 43.1% eligible for FSM 42.1% eligible for free school meals

English language 5.0% ethnic minority 14.7% ethnic minorityEthnicity 3.4% English as second

language12.4% English as second language

Teacher effectiveness Mean: 212.9 Mean: 214.15


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

7:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4


In Table 4, the pupil background variables (age, gender, special needs, freeschool meal eligibility) have been added. In this sample of low achieving pupils,in contrast to the overall sample (ibid.), gender, free school meal eligibility andEnglish proficiency did not significantly affect pupil progress in mathematics(largely due to the reduced variance on these factors in this subsample), althoughthe effect of special needs was highly significant, and reduced variance at both thepupil and school levels substantially.

In Table 5, the effect on achievement of support by NSAs was added to themodel. No effect of being supported by a numeracy support assistant was found.Likewise, adding amount of time spent with the NSA did not have any significanteffect on progress in mathematics, this being the case whether or not only thosepupils supported by the NSA were selected.

Finally, the effect of the teacher was added to see whether differential effective-ness of teachers could mask possible NSA effects (Table 6). However, whileteacher effectiveness was highly significant for these low achieving pupils, NSAsupport remained insignificant.

TABLE 2 Null-multilevel model

Parameter Error variance Percentage variance to be explained

Constant 101.13 1.65School level variance 63.2 21.69 18.2%Pupil level variance 282.93 18.10 81.7%

TABLE 3 Multilevel model, including prior achievement

Parameter Error variance Percentage variance (variance explained compared to previous

model)

Constant 80.01 5.59Prior achievement 0.23 0.06School level variance 53.37 19.04 16.2% (–15.4%)Pupil level variance 276.60 17.69 83.8% (–2.2%)

TABLE 4 Multilevel model, including prior achievement and pupil back-ground variables


model)

Constant 94.48 5.94Prior achievement 0.16 0.06Age –1.26 1.22Gender 1.58 1.40Special needs –14.18 1.50Free school meals –0.07 1.58English language –4.56 3.91Ethnicity 2.62 4.23School level variance 44.06 15.78 15.8% (–17.4%)Pupil level variance 234.28 14.99 84.2% (–15.3%)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

7:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4


Discussion

In this study, we looked at the effect of the use of specially trained classroomsupport assistants on the achievement of the low achieving Years 1 and 2 studentsthey worked with. Having matched the 180 pupils in the project schools who hadreceived support from an NSA with 180 pupils who had not on a number ofvariables, including free meal eligibility, prior achievement, special needs,ethnicity and gender, we found that pupils who had received NSA support didnot make more progress in mathematics than those who had not.

This was not due to lack of support and training, both of which had beenprovided through the programme, and was thus far more extensive than thatreceived by most classroom support assistants in the UK. However, it does notnecessarily mean that the training provided was of a sufficiently high quality andcompletely addressed NSA needs.

TABLE 5 Multilevel model, including prior achievement, pupil backgroundvariables and effect of support assistant


model)

Constant 95.07 5.94Prior achievement 0.16 0.06Age –1.26 1.22Gender 1.60 1.39Special needs –14.08 1.50Free school meals –0.08 1.58English language –4.61 3.90Ethnicity 2.36 4.23Support assistant 2.20 1.57School level variance 44.26 15.82 15.9% (+0.4%)Pupil level variance 233.32 14.93 84.0% (–0.4%)

TABLE 6 Multilevel model, including prior achievement, pupil backgroundvariables and effect of support assistant and teacher


model)

Constant 64.68 12.58Prior achievement 0.16 0.06Age –0.28 1.27Gender 1.30 1.39Special needs –13.70 1.50Free school meals –0.47 1.57English language –5.33 3.89Ethnicity 3.15 4.21Support assistant 1.87 1.56Teacher effectiveness 0.13 0.05School level variance 37.27 13.91 13.9% (–15.7%)Pupil level variance 231.70 14.82 86.1% (–0.7%)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

7:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4


We also need to draw attention to some methodological explanations andshortcomings of this study. Regression to the mean may be one explanation forthe results found here. As noted above, both selected and comparison studentsprogressed over the year by a mean of approximately 5 points on the age-standardized test. Regression to the mean could have occurred here, as thesepupils, selected as being low achievers (partly but not solely on the basis of theirscores on this test), would obviously be placed towards the lower end of the scaleon these scores. However, the improvement of these pupils is reflected by an evengreater improvement in age-standardized scores for the sample as a whole (from95.8 to 106.4). Also, floor effects are not particularly likely to occur, as the meanat 90 is significantly above the possible minimum (70), with only two pupils at thelowest point, and just 9 per cent scoring 75 or less.

A further limitation was the lack of a good measure of pupil social back-grounds. In view of the fact that prior studies have shown that parental socio-economic status and education level have a profound impact on pupil achieve-ment (Muijs, 1997), the omission of these variables has to be considered a flaw,and it is not impossible that the selected and comparison groups could differ onone or more of these dimensions. The use of free school meal eligibility cannot beconsidered a particularly good proxy for parental background. Furthermore, thesample, resulting from the evaluation of a project located in three geographicareas, is not random and may not be entirely representative of the UK populationas a whole. Therefore, generalization of these findings should be made withcaution.

A major weakness in this type of quantitative study is that it does not allow usto look more closely at underlying explanations of the results and to study inmore detail the differential behaviour of the NSAs. Using a case-study approach,whereby the work of a smaller sample of NSAs was followed in depth, usingmethods such as shadowing, qualitative observations and interviews, wouldgreatly benefit our understanding of these processes. It was not possible for us tocarry out such a study within the parameters of this research contract, but we areseeking to do so in future.

These weaknesses and the fact that no one study can ever provide definitivefindings on any given topic mean that any conclusion must be given tentatively.However, what this study does suggest is that more individual attention bytrained adults will not necessarily solve the problem of low achievers in mathe-matics. It is possible that the amount of individual attention was not sufficient,although the lack of a relationship between amount of time spent with pupils bythe NSA and achievement does not suggest that this is the case. It is, of course,possible that additional or higher-quality training is needed although sometraining was provided, as has been discussed above.

A number of possibilities exist. First, from the evidence above it seems that ifone wants to reduce pupil–adult ratios, reducing class sizes is a more promisingavenue than increasing the number of learning assistants. The evidence issomewhat mixed on this matter, however. One element that has been found tomatter is the quality of teaching. Teacher effectiveness has been found to enhanceachievement at all levels of ability – predicted differences between pupils taught bythe most as opposed to the least effective teacher in this sample, for example,being up to 20 per cent, holding constant prior achievement and student back-ground (Muijs and Reynolds, 2000). Specifically with respect to numeracy, Askewet al. (1997) found that those teachers described as connectionist teachers are moreeffective. These teachers believed that being numerate involves being both efficient


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

7:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4


and effective; being able to choose an appropriate problem-solving or calcula-tion method; and being able to make links between different parts of thecurriculum. Connectionist teachers stressed the importance of the applicationof number to new situations by encouraging students to use realistic problems.The use of collaborative group work, wherein the low achieving pupils can learnfrom their peers and which is rarely used in the project schools (Muijs andReynolds, 2000), has been found to benefit low achieving students as well astheir more able peers in a wide range of studies, as has peer tutoring by moreable students (Slavin, 1989, 1996; Johnson and Johnson, 1994). A differentform of more individualized instruction is provided by the use of individualizedcomputerized learning systems, the use of which is also being evaluated withinthis project by the present team, or targeted help by educational psychologists,both of which may be useful.

Overall, then, this study does not provide much support for the use of classroomsupport assistants as a way of improving the achievement of low achieving students,or as a means of increasing child–adult contact without employing more teachers,and it would seem ill-advised to seek to solve teacher shortages by replacing themwith an army of learning assistants, unless entry qualifications, training andrewards for the latter are substantially improved. Any firm conclusions have toremain tentative, however, until further (especially qualitative) research is done onhow learning assistants can assist teachers and pupils effectively.

References

ASKEW, M., RHODES, V., BROWN, M., WILLIAM, D. and JOHNSON, D. (1997).Effective Teachers of Numeracy. Report of a Study Carried Out for the Teacher TrainingAgency. London: King’s College London, School of Education.

BENNETT, W. S. and FALK, R. F. (1970). New Careers and Urban Schools: A SociologicalStudy of Teacher and Teacher Aide Roles. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

DAVIDSON, C. W., BECKETT, F. E. and PEDDICORD, H. Q. (1994). The effects of astatewide teacher aide program on functional literacy examination scores of eleventh-grade students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South EducationalResearch Association, Nashville, Tenn., USA, November.

GERBER, S. B., FINN, J. D., ACHILLES, C. M. and BOYD-ZAHARIAS, J. (2001).‘Teacher aides and students’ academic achievement’, Educational Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis, 23, 2, 123–43.

HANUSHEK, E. A. (1998). The Evidence on Class Size (Occasional Paper No. 98–1).Rochester, NY: University of Rochester, W. Allen Wallis Institute of PoliticalEconomy, February.

IACOVOU, M. (2001). Class Size in the Early Years: Is Smaller Really Better? Colchester:Essex University Institute for Social and Economic Research.

JOHNSON, D. W. and JOHNSON, R. T. (1994). Joining Together: Group Theory and GroupSkills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

MATHEMATICS ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMME PRIMARY (MEPP) (2001).Working Together – a Guide for Class Teachers and Numeracy Assistants. London: TheGatsby Technical Education Project.

MORRIS, E. (2001). Professionalism and trust – the future of teachers and teaching.Speech to the Social Market Foundation, 12 November.

MORTIMORE, P., SAMMONS, P., STOLL, L., LEWIS, D. and ECOB, R. (1988).School Matters. Wells: Open Books.

MOSTELLER, F. (1995). ‘The Tennessee Study of class size in the early school grades’,Future of Children, 5, 2, 113–27.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

7:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4


MUIJS, R. D. (1997). Self, School and Media. Leuven: Catholic University of Leuven.MUIJS, R. D. and REYNOLDS, D. (1998). Report on the Evaluation of the Gatsby

Mathematics Enhancement Programme Primary. Newcastle: University of Newcastle,School of Education.

MUIJS, R. D. and REYNOLDS, D. (1999). Second Report on the Evaluation of the GatsbyMathematics Enhancement Programme Primary. Exeter: University of Exeter, School ofEducation.

MUIJS, R. D. and REYNOLDS, D. (2000). ‘School effectiveness and teacher effective-ness: some preliminary findings from the evaluation of the Mathematics EnhancementProgramme’, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 3, 247–63.

MUIJS, R. and REYNOLDS, D. (2001). Student background and teacher effects onachievement and attainment in mathematics: a longitudinal study. Presentation at theInternational Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Toronto, 7January.

PARK, C. B. (1956). ‘The Bay City, Michigan experiment: a cooperative study for betterutilisation of teacher competencies’, Journal of Teacher Education, 7, 1, 99–153.

PLOMIN, J. (2001). ‘Unison demands apology for “pig ignorant” attack’, Guardian, 16December.

SLAVIN, R. (1989). ‘Cooperative learning and student achievement’. In: SLAVIN, R.(Ed) School and Classroom Organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

SLAVIN, R. E. (1996). Education for All. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.WENGLINSKY, H. (1997). When Money Matters: How Educational Expenditures Improve

Student Performance and How They Don’t. Policy Information Perspective, Princeton,NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service, April.

WOODWARD, J. (2003). ‘Teacher union threatens old style action’, Guardian, 23 April.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

7:13

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

The effectiveness of the use of learning support assistants in improving the mathematics achievement of low achieving pupils in primary school