MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057063917 · doi:10.5539/ies.v7n7p125

Is a Summer School Programme a Promising Intervention in Preparation for Transition from Primary to Secondary School?

2014· article· en· W2057063917 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nadia Siddiqui, Stephen Gorard, Beng Huat See

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEducation Endowment Foundation
KeywordsDisadvantagedNumeracyIntervention (counseling)LiteracyMedical educationPsychologyMathematics educationPedagogyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In England, some children have not reached what are considered to be expected levels in literacy and maths by the time they move from primary to secondary school. This is more likely for children living in disadvantaged areas. One proposal to address this is the provision of summer holiday schools for potentially disadvantaged pupils who are reaching the end of their primary schooling. Future Foundations ran a pilot summer school in 2012. This 4-week programme was intended to reduce summer learning loss, develop children’s skills and confidence and perhaps increase parental engagement in their children’s learning as they prepare for school transition. The programme provided targeted small-group academic tuition focusing on literacy and numeracy, using a scheme of work written by external experts in consultation with local schools, and a diverse programme of enrichment activities. The children involved were at Years 5 and 6 in the summer of 2012 (Years 6 and 7 in autumn of 2012). This pilot has been successful in demonstrating that the concept is feasible, with some suggested improvements, but it has not yet demonstrated that summer schools are effective in improving the educational outcomes of disadvantaged children.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.375 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207