Closing the Achievement Gap through Modification of Neurocognitive and Neuroendocrine Function: Results from a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial of an Innovative Approach to the Education of Children in Kindergarten
Blair C, Raver CC · 2014
grade Brctunclearunreplicated
Sample
29 schools, 79 classrooms, 759 kindergarteners; about half high-poverty (over 75% free/reduced-price lunch) and half low-poverty
Population
Massachusetts, United States; kindergarten children.
Design
The strongest positive Tools of the Mind trial and the one the programme's defenders rely on. Block randomisation at school level with two districts randomised at classroom level, about 5% attrition unrelated to condition, no baseline differences, objective child assessments and salivary biomarkers. Two weaknesses matter. The control was BUSINESS AS USUAL while Tools teachers received two years of professional development and coaching, so dose and attention are confounded with content. And independence is unclear - the authors are not the programme's originators but are the champions of the kindergarten version, designing and running a trial of a programme they advocate.
Key findings
Whole-sample effects were small - backward digit span 0.14 (p < .05), EF composite reaction time 0.12 (p < .05), maths 0.13 (p < .05) - with NO overall effect on EF composite accuracy. The large effects are all in the high-poverty subgroup - EF composite reaction time 0.48 (p = .10), accuracy 0.31 (p < .10), attention-bias 0.82 (p < .05), vocabulary 0.43, Raven's reasoning 0.46. At first-grade follow-up reading was 0.14 (p < .05), having grown from a non-significant 0.07, vocabulary 0.10 and maths 0.07 (p < .10). Salivary cortisol was higher and alpha-amylase lower in Tools high-poverty schools, which the authors read favourably.
Genetic confound
Low for the randomised contrast. The subgroup analyses are where the reported effects live and they are not protected by randomisation in the same way.
Replication notes
Unreplicated. It is the only positive large Tools trial using objective EF measures, there is no independent kindergarten replication, and no follow-up beyond first grade has been published. The pre-K version of the programme failed independent replication comprehensively.
DOI / URL
10.1371/journal.pone.0112393
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Backward digit span (working memory), whole sample | effect size | 0.14, p < .05 | standardized | end of kindergarten | business-as-usual | end-of-treatment | near-transfer |
| Executive-function composite accuracy, whole sample | effect size | no overall effect (high-poverty subgroup 0.31, p < .10) | standardized | end of kindergarten | business-as-usual | end-of-treatment | near-transfer |
| Mathematics, whole sample | effect size | 0.13, p < .05 | standardized | end of kindergarten | business-as-usual | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
| Reading at first-grade follow-up | effect size | 0.14, p < .05 (grew from a non-significant 0.07) | standardized | end of first grade | business-as-usual | 1-2yr | domain-skill |
| High-poverty subgroup, reasoning and vocabulary | effect size | Raven's 0.46, vocabulary 0.43 | standardized | end of kindergarten | business-as-usual | end-of-treatment | far-transfer |
Cited by
- Can executive function be trained, and does it transfer to learning?no effectconf: highgc: low