Press Release

Education Endowment Foundation research into the effectiveness of Let’s Think Secondary Science published.

The Education Endowment Foundation published the evaluation of the Let’s Think Secondary Science project (LTSS) on 15th July 2016.

Main findings

Thisindependent evaluation from the Institute for Effective Education (IEE) at the University of York found that both control and experimental (i.e. the LTSS pupils) performed the samewhen tested for science attainment with the2009 Science at KS3, tier 3-6, paper 2.

The independent evaluators made changes to the original study protocol and did not test for the effect of LTSS on cognitive reasoning nor assess how gains in cognitive reasoning correlated to gains in student achievement so the evaluation cannot report on these changes.

The teachers involved enjoyed the challenge of LTSS and were enthusiastic about the training and the support of the LTSS Tutors.

Most teachers surveyed enjoyed the challenge of LTSS;were positive about the practical activities;were more likely to use group discussions;give time for students to think; and recognised improvements in their questioning techniques. Many strongly agreed that students actively collaborated and that the lessons improved students’ ability to reason. Teachers welcomed the change in their role to a mediator of learning.

Studentspreferred LTSS lessons and the opportunity they provided to discuss ideas and work collaboratively.

The majority of students surveyedby the IEE said they favoured LTSS over ordinary science lessons although the range for this aspect was high. The large amount of group work was popular with most students and they rated having discussions and working in small groups very high.

The evaluation report highlighted the importance of implementing LTSS fully.

From the sample of 8 lesson observations made by the evaluators it was clear that teachers were following the intentions of the approach but in some schools and for some teachers there were implementationproblems. The ability to undertake joint planning, use practice lessons and teach all 19 lessons meant that some schools were unable to fulfill the project aims and this points to the importance of senior leader support which,the report found, was frequently absent.

Further study will be necessary to assess the longer termimpact of LTSS.

Previous evaluations of CASE (Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education upon which LTSS is based) had a long-term impact on academic attainment and therefore the evaluation report suggests follow up studies for the students receiving LTSS.

The change to the study protocol which meant that student’s cognitive reasoning was not assessed may be possible to address through sampling of student reasoning done by the tutor team.

Differences between LTSS and CASE (which has a history of successful evaluations) need to be evaluated by its sponsor, the Let’s Think Forum in order to build in the lessons from this evaluation.

The full report is published here:

Let’s Think Forum

2nd September 2016

Note to editors:

Let’s Think Secondary Science (LTSS) is based on Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE), a programme that was first developed and evaluated in the 1980s. Like CASE, LTSS was designed to promote better thinking by providing students with cognitive challenge in the context of science education. It reflects the social construction of knowledge by promoting collaborative working, and encourages students to reflect on their own thinking and learning (metacognition).

CASE was based on teachers delivering an hour-long session every fortnight over two years for a total of 30 lessons. The LTSS developers considered that some of this material could be merged or dropped, and the full LTSS programme consisted of 19 one-hour lessons. Like CASE, it was designed to be delivered by Science teachers across the first two years of secondary school (Years 7 and 8).

Although it was intended to be delivered during time set aside for science, the lessons were not designed to directly address individual elements of the science curriculum. Rather, the aim was that learners would engage emotionally and cognitively; would construct meaning collaboratively through group work; and would reflect on the new ideas over time (before, during and after the lesson) and across contexts (linking for instance to previous learning, or understanding how the new learning could be transferred to other situations).

  • Significant similarities between CASE and LTSS are that they both:
  • aim to improve reasoning;
  • aim to include the same level of challenge in any lesson;
  • introduce pupils to the same scientific reasoning concepts (where they had not been omitted, see differences below); and
  • are based on the same pedagogical principles.

Significant differences included the following:

  • LTSS had fewer lessons: 19 as opposed to 30.
  • LTSS omitted some scientific reasoning concepts that were introduced in CASE.
  • LTSS had fewer lessons per scientific reasoning concept.
  • LTSS offered different support and materials to teachers: simplified pedagogical principles, fewer support notes, video tutorials, peer co-planning.
  • LTSS offered different materials and presentation to students: digital resources, cartoon worksheets, and more group work.
  • LTSS involved CPD with less tutor contact and more in-school responsibility.
  • LTSS required that teachers deliver each lesson twice to different classes, so that they had the opportunity to practise.

For queries about this press release or if you are interested in the LTSS or CASE materials then email the Let’s Think Forum:

The Let’s Think Forumaims to transform education through high quality teaching and learning which:

•accelerates young people’s cognitive development;

•makes young people responsible for their own learning, through self-regulation;

•helps young people to learn cooperatively, increasing their sense of community;

•isoptimised through sustainable professional development;

•recognises teachers as agents of change

•challenges any aspect of the curriculum which we believe could act as barriers to learning.