Can explicit teaching of knowledge improve reading attainment? An evaluation of the Core Knowledge curriculum
Primary school (grades 1–6) Explicit teaching and knowledge building Reading and writing
Links to claims
Limits (1)
| Claim | Basis |
|---|---|
| C17 | Randomised pilot, 17 English primary schools: a year of a Core Knowledge-based curriculum (Word and World Reading, ages 7–9) left a standardised English test that included reading comprehension unchanged (effect size −0.03; ~18% missing). C17 weakened 2026-10-18 (consistency bound). |
Review state: first-pass draft, pending human review.
Source note
Syntes: Can explicit teaching of knowledge improve reading attainment? An evaluation of the Core Knowledge curriculum (2017)
Källa: https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3278 (British Educational Research Journal 43(2), 372–393). Full evaluation report of the same trial: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED581108.pdf (EEF, July 2015).
Verified content
- [abstract] Word and World Reading, an English adaptation of Hirsch's Core Knowledge approach, for pupils aged 7–9; nine primary schools randomised to start at once, eight a year later (waitlist).
- [abstract] Progress in English after one year: effect size −0.03 overall; +0.06 for pupils eligible for free school meals; about 18% of 1,628 pupils' results missing.
- [full text, EEF report] Knowledge-rich reading material (history and geography), vocabulary lists, read-aloud, atlases and globes, for Year 3 and 4 classes over the 2013–14 school year (p. 3).
- [full text, EEF report] Post-test was the long paper version of Progress in English: spelling, grammar, narrative and non-narrative reading comprehension, two extended comprehension exercises and two writing compositions; the long version was a protocol change requested by the developers after the evaluation started (p. 12).
- [full text, EEF report] Gain scores: treatment 24.7 (n = 659) vs control 25.1, effect size −0.03 (p. 33, Table 4); −0.02 with age-standardised scores (Table 6); Year 3 −0.03, Year 4 −0.04; boys −0.13, girls +0.05; FSM +0.06 (not secure, FSM pupils not randomised as such) (pp. 33–34, Tables 6–10).
- [full text, EEF report] 287 post-tests missing (206 treatment, 81 control); one treatment school accounted for 43% of missing cases; baseline imbalance in FSM, EAL and SEN with 17 schools randomised (pp. 32–33).
Limits
- [full text, EEF report] A pilot: "The study did not seek to assess impact on attainment in a robust way"; the evaluators recommend a larger, possibly longer trial (p. 3).
- [full text, EEF report] Implementation uneven; in some lessons teachers' subject knowledge did not support in-depth discussion (p. 3).
- [assessment] Outcome is a general English test (comprehension plus spelling, grammar and writing), not comprehension of texts on the taught topics; topic knowledge gained was not measured. One school year only.
Added 2026-10-18 by the project (nightly attack run). [abstract] = from the published abstract; [full text, EEF report] = read in the full EEF evaluation report of the same trial (journal full text behind a Cloudflare check); [assessment] = the project's own assessment.
Metadata as recorded
- ID
- KNOW-007
- Tier
- cluster RCT (school-level, waitlist; pilot)
- Titel
- Can explicit teaching of knowledge improve reading attainment? An evaluation of the Core Knowledge curriculum
- Författare
- See, B. H.; Gorard, S.; Siddiqui, N.
- År
- 2017
- Källa/DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3278
- Tidskrift
- British Educational Research Journal 43(2), 372–393
- Typ
- peer-reviewed article (independent evaluation; the same trial is reported in full in the EEF evaluation report, See, Gorard & Siddiqui 2015, ERIC ED581108)
- Åldersgrupp
- grundskola-lag
- Teman
- explicit-undervisning-kunskap;lasning-och-skrivande
- Hämtad
- 2026-10-18
- Verifierad
- Crossref metadata (title, authors See/Gorard/Siddiqui, journal, volume 43, issue 2, pages 372–393, 2017) checked 2026-10-18; DOI resolver redirects to Wiley (publisher page behind a Cloudflare check from the box); Durham accepted manuscript (durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1400382) listed but its file was behind a Cloudflare check
The original files (PDF or abstract) are kept in the project archive and are not published here.