The extent to which education interventions have been studied and the range of effects typically observed.

!e EEF’s education database is comprised of thousands of education research studies from across the globe, all focused on measuring the impact of education interventions on students’ outcomes. !e studies in the database have been coded to enable analysis and searching across a range of factors, including country, pupil age and type of intervention. Rather than simply focusing on the impact of interventions, the database also records information about the delivery of interventions (such as the frequency and intensity of the intervention) and detailed quantitative impact data, such as variations in e#ects based on subject or delivery mechanism (such as whether an intervention is delivered by a quali"ed teacher or a classroom assistant). Impact is translated from standardised e#ect sizes to ‘months of learning’ for ease of communication and to aid discussion around the impact of interventions. Months of learning, communicated as a headline "gure for each approach, however, can hide important variation caused by duration of intervention, group size and the test measures used. Building the database containing all of this data allows researchers to examine which factors are driving the impact behind the overall average to "nd the signal amongst the noise. It is this detailed data which makes this education database unique. It will signi"cantly reduce the time and e#ort needed to review the impact of di#erent types of interventions, and to analyse the factors that increase or reduce e#ectivenes

Communicating comparative findings from meta-analysis in educational research: some examples and suggestions

This article reviews some of the strengths and limitations of the comparative use of meta-analysis findings, using examples from the Sutton Trust-Education Endowment Foundation Teaching and Learning ‘Toolkit’ which summarizes a range of educational approaches to improve pupil attainment in schools. This comparative use of quantitative findings has similar characteristics to umbrella reviews which provide a succinct but applicable summary of the current state of evidence to inform practice or policy. Meta-analysis helps to identify which approaches have, on average, made the most difference to tested learning outcomes, in terms of effect size. We suggest that any comparative inferences made between meta-analyses should be treated cautiously, but taken seriously. Additionally, we present alternative ways of interpreting effect sizes, security ratings and cost-estimates to make research findings accessible, whilst retaining appropriate accuracy which is discussed using the ‘Toolkit’ as an example. We conclude by arguing that we should consider the available information not as ‘what works’, but ‘what has worked’ to understand its value and limits in terms of supporting the development of research-based practice

Evidence from meta-analysis about parental involvement in education which supports their children’s learning

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to understanding of different ways that parents and schools develop and maintain working partnerships to improve outcomes for children by focusing on quantitative evidence about parental involvement (PI). The key questions for this synthesis are: what is the evidence about the extent of impact of PI on cognitive or academic outcomes for children, and how consistent and reliable is this evidence? Design/methodology/approach – This is an “umbrella” review comparing and contrasting findings from 13 meta-analyses across three areas of PI and home/school partnerships: first, general approaches; second, home and family literacy programmes; and finally, targeted interventions focused on individual or specific family need. Findings – There is consistent evidence about the extent of impact from general approaches (three to six months average additional gain for children’s educational outcomes) and for targeted intervention (four to six months), but with a wider range of estimates for family literacy (two to eight months average gain). Variation in approaches and evaluation quality make specific recommendations for practice challenging, though some consistent patterns of findings indicate strategies that are likely to be “good bets” to explore and evaluate. Research limitations/implications – The quality of the underlying studies makes drawing secure implications for practice difficult. The nature of the review means that it does not capture the most recent studies. Originality/value – The paper provides a synthesis of quantitative evidence from 13 meta-analyses to identify where there is consistency in estimates of impact and what is associated with systematic variation in this impact

The Sutton Trust - Education Endowment Foundation Teaching and Learning Toolkit

The Sutton Trust-EEF Teaching and Learning Toolkit is an accessible summary of educational research which provides guidance for teachers and schools on how to use their resources to improve the attainment of disadvantaged pupils. The Toolkit currently covers 33 topics, each summarised in terms of their average impact on attainment, the strength of the evidence supporting them and their cost. The Toolkit is a live resource which will be updated on a regular basis as findings from EEF-funded projects and other high-quality research becomes available

The Teaching and Learning Toolkit: Communicating research evidence to inform decision‐making for policy and practice in education

This article compares and contrasts two versions of the Education Endowment Foundation's (EEF) Teaching and Learning Toolkit (‘Toolkit’), a web-based summary of international evidence on teaching 3–18 year-olds. The Toolkit has localised versions in six different languages in Australia, Cameroon, Chile, Jordan and Spain. The initial Toolkit, created in 2011 with funding from the Sutton Trust and updated since then with funding from EEF, drew upon over 250 meta-analyses across 30 areas of education research. An updated version, drawing on a database of over 2500 single studies from these meta-analyses was launched in Autumn 2021. This change was motivated by increased interest in evidence-use in education, and a desire to engage in more rigorous synthesis of primary studies. The article presents the rationale for these changes, outlines the methods adopted to populate and analyse the Toolkit database and presents results from this analysis. Findings indicate that although the broad picture of the relative benefits of the different approaches is similar, a more fine-grained analysis is possible. This deeper synthesis can provide more specific guidance about what has been successful in the different areas of the Toolkit in research studies and offers opportunities for further refinement and improvement. This increased specificity, however, comes at the cost of greater complexity in the findings and the implications for policy and practice, and it increases the challenge of ensuring findings are both accurate and accessible. A final section reflects on the challenges of summarising evidence from research to inform decision-making in education