Blog

The Mastering Maths randomised controlled trial: what’s in it for our college?

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have become increasingly part of the education research landscape. As are many of these trials, Mastering Maths is funded by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF). This is a large effectiveness trial that seeks to find out if the carefully designed professional development programme for GCSE resit teachers in colleges can result in an improvement in marks for students – and for some a consequent improvement in grade, to attain what for many is the elusive grade 4. This is the largest scale of RCT that the EEF funds and the first at this level in the post-16 sector. For this reason alone, it is an important trial and the contribution that your college might make by to our knowledge of ‘what works’ by taking up is of much importance.

But what, directly, is in it for the colleges that sign up?

I’ll refer to just three significant issues.

Importantly there is some evidence that the Mastering Maths programme reaches its desired outcome. That is, improved student marks and grades. In the efficacy trial that was conducted as part of the Centres for Excellence for Mathematics (CfEM) initiative, our team at the University of Nottingham found that students taught by teachers who took part in the full Mastering Maths intervention improved their outcomes as though they had been taught for an additional month when compared to their matched equivalents in usual classes. Even more significantly, the students from the most deprived backgrounds improved their marks as though they had an extra two months of learning.
>>> Your students have an opportunity to improve marks and grades beyond those who haven’t been taught by MM teachers

The design of the Mastering Maths trial has been developed so that, in every college that signs two teachers, one teacher will be assigned to the programme. This is not the usual approach in EEF RCTs, but they are mostly carried out in schools and there are many more of these than colleges. The MM trials have been pragmatically designed to ensure that every college can have a teacher who will benefit from the collective and collaborative learning of colleagues through a lesson study programme. Signing up two teachers, both of whom, alongside their students, will contribute data to the study, ensures participation of one of those teachers.
>>>> You are guaranteed a teacher participating in the intervention if you sign up two teachers who will contribute data to the trial.

In discussions with college leaders, we have found that some are using the MM research trial as part of a strategic development of new approaches to teaching GCSE resits across all their classes. Their aim is to ‘upskill’ all teachers of resits in the college over a period of time. They are using MM as a springboard for at least one of their staff to be fully immersed in Professional Development throughout the coming year. Of course, given that there is substantial funding for the MM programme during the research, and the proven likely improvement in students’ marks, this is a good way to kick-start their departmental strategic development. Although only one of the two teachers nominated will be involved in the intervention, we do need data from the other teacher as they provide the ‘business as usual’/ control group data against which the intervention is judged.
>>>> Participating in the Mastering Maths research programme can be used as part of a strategic approach to developing improved approaches to teaching and learning.

Finally, a word about equity. We’ve been asked whether or not it’s ethical to recruit a teacher and their students to the trial when they won’t have the benefit of being part of what looks like an intervention that has potential to improve grades - as I claim here.

Well, of course, firstly this improvement can’t be guaranteed, no matter how promising earlier research suggests. That’s what research like this seeks to determine. Don’t forget that the approach could lead to lower marks – although all evidence suggests the opposite.

Secondly, it is important to get ‘hard evidence’ of what works, and some would argue that the best way to get this evidence is by comparing the outcomes of the control and intervention groups. Without the control group, the RCT cannot happen, so, while this particular group of students does not benefit from the intervention, the potential contribution they make in adding to the knowledge base is enormous.

Do consider joining the research journey. This is important for all of us who care about the ‘forgotten third’.

You can sign up by filling in the Expression of Interest or writing to us at [email protected]

Why wouldn't you?

We are currently recruiting to our research study: Mastering Maths. The study is at a large scale and funded by the Education Endowment Foundation who recognise the importance of the study to the FE sector where there has been little previous research at such a scale. For it to go ahead we need a lot of teachers and colleges to take part. If you can help, please do.

This research is particularly important as it has the potential to add evidence about how we might solve a thorny problem that is important to colleges and most importantly learners themselves. That is, making sure that we improve marks and grades in GCSE resit maths. And importantly the study is focused on an approach that was developed and researched during the Centres for Excellence programme and has showed promise of achieving just such an improvement. You can find out more here.

Fundamental to the programme is that teachers work together across colleges to consider how to change their teaching. They focus on ways of teaching that support learners to understand and master the maths, that during their school years has eluded them.

Mark from Harlow College, one of the Lead Teachers who will work on the research programme, talks about the new approaches as changing his classroom practice by being brave about trying out something different. He argues that if we don’t embrace such changes then things will remain as they are now – in classrooms, and importantly in terms of students’ chances of success.

The programme doesn’t tell teachers how to teach, but rather exemplifies broad principles that were developed by teachers in the FE sector for teachers in the FE sector. It provides tools which small groups of teachers across colleges can use collaboratively to adopt new ways of working in their classrooms.

Mark told us that his experience suggests that learners recognise important changes that the approach can provide that help them become more engaged and interested. This leads to them beginning to experience more success in learning maths than ever before which helps motivate them further. He also values the approach as a teacher who is learning from others and considering a range of different perspectives. As he says, “We, as teachers, should always be learning too – not just our students.”

It is important that we sign up enough teachers willing to get involved with the Mastering Maths research study as it gives us the opportunity to research at scale the effectiveness of an approach with proven efficacy in improving students’ learning as though they have had two months of extra learning. Mark argues, “There is always room for improvement, and the Mastering Maths programme might be the way!”

Join us in this exciting research. As Mark puts it, “Why wouldn’t you?”

Learning Maths - research in the classroom

As a maths teacher/educator/researcher we can find a lot in the literature in relation to student learning in general and learning maths in particular. Having worked as both a teacher and researcher over many years, I have witnessed much effort directed at building our knowledge base substantially. This has certainly added to what I know and understand of what, and how, students think when they are learning maths. Indeed, there is possibly more research into the learning of maths than of any other knowledge domain.

We can find research that focuses on every topic of the maths curriculum from children’s early encounters with numbers, through spatial thinking, to the difficulties of understanding probability and risk, and on to calculus. We can turn to cognitive science to get an understanding of how we currently think the human brain processes information. On a different scale we can find survey responses about how much young people like or dislike maths, how resilient they might be in their learning of the subject and so on.

In another direction our new Observatory for Mathematical Education will provide insight into students' pathway through mathematics by working with large and national data sets as well as tracking cohorts of students throughout different phases of their studies. We will have a lot of work on our hands to keep on top of so much research and knowledge.

And an important question you might have: what might all this research tell me about what works in the classroom? This is also, of course, of crucial importance to students themselves, their parents, and society more widely.

Classrooms are complex social spaces with many – some would argue too many – students coming together with their teacher(s) and mathematics in a multitude of different ways, expectations, and emotions. Research in classrooms that seeks to understand "what works" in face of this complexity is equally complex, as all manner of approaches are used by different teachers at different times and in particular circumstances. What can we do to research students’ outcomes in light of such complexity?

That’s where research like our Mastering Maths research study sits. Central to the study is a very detailed and carefully designed professional learning programme that works with further education (FE) GCSE resit teachers. Teachers work on a modified lesson study programme that involves inquiry into their own practice in teaching with a mastery approach developed by and for GCSE resit teachers.

The study is an Education Endowment Foundation effectiveness randomised controlled trial, which means that half of the participating teachers are allocated to a ‘business as usual’ group and aren’t involved in the programme of professional learning. Students’ scores and grades are compared between those taught by teachers who have been in the intervention programme and those taught by the ‘business as usual’ teachers.

When the study is completed in 2025, we hope to find out not only about these outcomes, but also exactly the teachers’ and their students’ experiences of the Mastering Maths approach to teaching.

The detail of the design of the Mastering Maths programme builds on much work of mine and numerous colleagues over many years. It brings together design of tasks, understanding of student learning, thinking about the structure of maths and its representation, consideration of teacher professional learning through lesson study, and much else. It embodies more than a lifetime’s work: it’s a synthesis of knowledge, understanding and expertise from the dynamic maths education community that has been active at Nottingham over many years.

Why not join us on the next stage of our journey?

Sign up here: https://forms.office.com/e/ANB4HAeaZR

You can find out more about the work of the Observatory for Mathematical Education on our website.