ASCENTS 121 Support for Science – second trial

University of Roehampton
Implementation costThe cost estimates in the Toolkits are based on the average cost of delivering the intervention.
Evidence strengthThis rating provides an overall estimate of the robustness of the evidence, to help support professional decision-making in schools.
Impact (months)The impact measure shows the number of additional months of progress made, on average, by children and young people who received the intervention, compared to similar children and young people who did not.
+2
months
Project info

Independent Evaluator

NatCen logo
NatCen

A trial to test the impact of one-to-one mentoring delivered by STEM undergraduates on KS4 Science attainment.

Pupils: 922 Schools: 55 Grant: £861,131
Participating settings: 55

The project

This page covers the second (efficacy) trial of the ASCENTS 121 Support for Science programme. To read about the first trial – click here.

ASCENTS 121 Support for Science trains university STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) students to be mentors and pairs them with year 11 pupils who are eligible for Pupil Premium. University mentors provide 23 weeks of one-to-one hour-long sessions in science subjects and a revision session in the weeks leading up to the year 11 students’ GCSE exams. Mentors receive training from their university and their allocated school and receive ongoing support from a trained university programme manager.

Outcome/​Group
ImpactThe size of the difference between pupils in this trial and other pupils
SecurityHow confident are we in this result?
GCSE science attainment – Pupils eligible for Pupil Premium
+2
Months' progress
(Effect size 0.1)

EEF summary

This trial was one of a number of trials of programmes commissioned as part of the Department for Education’s Accelerator Fund. The EEF funded a previous efficacy trial of ASCENTS in 2019. Covid-19 disruption and changes to grading meant an impact evaluation could not be completed; however, an Implementation and Process EvaluationAn IPE is used to understand how and why an intervention has (or has not) been successful. Data is analysed to explore programme quality, reach, adaptation and differentiation, as well as setting fidelity and responsiveness to the trial design. reported perceived benefits for mentees, mentors and teachers. A previous small study carried out by the programme developer found a positive impact on GSCE science results. Furthermore, the EEF Teaching and Learning Toolkit described one to one tuition as having​‘high impact for moderate cost based on moderate evidence’ and mentoring as having​‘low impact for moderate cost based on moderate evidence’.

Pupils allocated to receive ASCENTS made, on average, two additional months’ progress in science attainment compared to pupils allocated to receive business-as-usual science provision. This result has a moderate to high security rating (3 padlocks on the EEF security rating scale).

University partners who delivered the programme and schools taking part considered ASCENTS to be an appealing offer, though the evaluation noted there were some challenges to deliver the programme with fidelity. These included changes in mentor-mentee pairings, revision days not being delivered as intended, and variation in the amount of support offered to mentees by their universities. Sustained high-quality relationships were considered key drivers for both mentors’ and mentees’ engagement and benefits of the programme.

Were the schools in the trial similar to my school?

Project type: Efficacy level evidenceKey Stage: Key Stage 4Subject: Science
  • 57 schools took part in the trial.
  • Schools were non-selective, state-funded schools located within the vicinity of the university partners in London, Lincoln, Liverpool, Newcastle, Cambridge, Hull, or Plymouth
  • All year 11 pupils nominated by schools to take part in the trial were eligible for Pupil Premium, with 83% eligible for Free School Meals in the last six years.

Could I implement this in my school?

Delivered by: VolunteersParticipant group: IndividualsIntervention length: 23 week(s)
  • Schools taking part in ASCENTS need to make provision for mentoring sessions to take place in a classroom under the supervision of a teacher, outside of normal school hours.
  • Some barriers to implementation were noted in the evaluation. These included some logistical challenges around mentoring sessions which impacted consistent mentor-mentee pairings and the scheduling of revision days which were not delivered by all universities.

How much will it cost?

Cost per pupil: £610No. of teachers/TAs: -Staff training duration: unknown days
  • The average cost of delivering ASCENTS was £610 (including the revision day) or £596 (excluding the Revision Day) per pupil per year when averaged over three years. ASCENTS is therefore deemed to be a moderate-cost programme.

Downloads