929 English pupils were randomly assigned to either the Medly platform or traditional self-study revision in biology, chemistry and physics. The drop-out rate was 30.7 per cent.
A team led by Wayne Harrison published on 13 September the results of a randomised controlled trial conducted in English secondary schools on GCSE science reviews. The scheme is unusual in its form: three parallel micro-trials, one per subject, led by the teachers themselves rather than by an external research team, over a four-week window.
929 students took the initial assessment, 644 the final assessment. Students assigned to the Medly platform performed better than those left for ordinary independent revisions, with a Hedges g of 0.33 (95% confidence interval: 0.18 to 0.48). The breakdown by subject remains homogeneous — 0.31 in physics, 0.32 in chemistry, 0.52 in biology — and, notably, no significant difference appears depending on whether or not the students come from a disadvantaged background.
The authors themselves describe these findings as preliminary. There are two limitations: a 30.7% attrition between the two measures, and the use of curriculum-aligned tests rather than standardized tests, which complicates comparison with other work. The trial also focuses on complementing the courses, not replacing them.
Read the full article on the original source
Go to the source →