School trial, 18 schools, two years

Education research poster

A two year school trial comparing twenty minutes of small group phonics against whole class revision, laid out as an A0 landscape board built around a comparison table. It reports the reading gain, the adult hours and the cost per child together, because those are the three numbers a head teacher decides with.

Create a poster with OneCraftA0 Landscape, printed at 1189 by 841 millimetres

The whole board

The poster at full size, exactly as it prints. Every number, citation and caption on it was written for this example, so the layout is being judged on real content.

NU
Twenty minutes of small group phonics against whole class teaching: a two year school trial
R. Whitfield ¹, A. Boateng ¹,², S. Kaur ²
1 School of Education, Northgate University · 2 Meadowbank Teaching School Alliance
Introduction
Schools in this alliance were spending an extra forty minutes a week on whole class phonics revision for children who had fallen behind by the end of the first year. Teachers reported that the children who needed it most were the least able to use it, because a whole class session moves at the pace of the class. The alternative on offer was twenty minutes of small group teaching, three times a week, delivered by a teaching assistant with four days of training. It costs less staff time in total but it costs a trained adult, which is the resource schools have least of. The alliance agreed to test the two directly rather than adopt the small group model on the strength of the literature, because the literature is mostly from trials with researcher delivered teaching, and those effect sizes have not survived contact with ordinary school staffing. We also wanted the comparison stated in the terms a head teacher actually decides in. An effect size on its own does not answer whether to fund a teaching assistant for a year, so we recorded adult hours per child and cost per child alongside the reading score, and we report all three together rather than leading with the one that flatters the intervention. The trial ran for two academic years across eighteen schools in one alliance, which share a catchment profile and a phonics scheme. That makes the comparison internally clean and limits how far the numbers should be carried to schools using a different scheme or serving a different intake.
METHODS
Design. Two arm trial across 18 schools, randomised at school level, two academic years.
Participants. 1,412 children in the lowest attaining third at the end of year one, aged 5 to 6.
Arms. Small group: 20 minutes, three times weekly, groups of four. Whole class: 40 minutes weekly revision.
Delivery. Teaching assistants with four days of training, fidelity checked by observation twice a term.
Outcome. Standardised reading score at the end of year two, marked externally and blind to arm.
The two approaches
What differs
Small group
Whole class
Session length
20 minutes
40 minutes
Frequency
Three times weekly
Once weekly
Group size
Four children
Whole class, 28 to 31
Delivered by
Trained teaching assistant
Class teacher
Adult hours per child, per term
4.0
0.4
Mean gain, standardised score
+7.4 points
+2.1 points
Effect size against no revision
0.31
0.09
Cost per child, per year
$118
$14
The two arms as delivered, with the cost and the measured gain side by side.
+5.3
points ahead, small group
95% CI 3.1 to 7.5, p<0.001
Points ahead
Autumn
Spring
Summer
-20246
Figure 1. Gap in mean standardised reading score, small group minus whole class, by term.
Conclusion
Small group teaching gained 5.3 points more, at eight times the cost per child.
Small group ahead by 5.3 points, 95% CI 3.1 to 7.5
Effect size 0.31 against 0.09 for whole class
Costs $118 per child per year against $14
Gain held through the summer term, no fade

Block by block

What each block on the board is for, in the order a reader walks it.

Title band and authors
The trial title across the band with the university and teaching alliance affiliations, and a QR to the full protocol.
Introduction
What the schools were already doing, why the children who needed it most could not use it, and why the alliance tested rather than adopted on the strength of the literature.
Methods as a labelled protocol
Design, participants, the two arms as delivered, who delivered them and how fidelity was checked, and the externally marked outcome.
The comparison table
Eight rows covering session length, frequency, group size, who delivers, adult hours per child, mean gain, effect size and cost per child.
Key number
A stat block carrying the 5.3 point difference with its confidence interval and p value.
The gap by term
A figure plotting small group minus whole class across autumn, spring and summer, showing the gap opening rather than fading.
Conclusion
One line stating both halves of the result: the gain, and the eight times higher cost that comes with it.
Takeaway points
Four checked points carrying the difference, the effect sizes, the costs and the fact that the gain held through the summer term. The three references are invented for this fictional study, because the reference block is required on this layout; on your board, replace them with your sources.
How to adapt this board
Put one row per outcome in the comparison table and keep the columns as what differs, arm one, arm two. The effect size belongs in the key number block where it can be compared with other studies, and the cost belongs in the last table row so it sits directly beside the gain it bought. That pairing is the whole argument of a school trial: a head teacher is deciding whether the effect is worth the staff time, not whether it is statistically significant. Keep the term by term chart if your outcome was measured more than once, because it answers the fade question before anyone asks it.

What makes this board work

The table is the argument

Eight rows put session length, group size, adult hours, gain, effect size and cost against each other. A comparison written as two paragraphs makes the reader hold both in their head; a table does not.

Cost sits beside the effect

The gain is 5.3 points and the cost is eight times higher per child. Education posters routinely report the first and omit the second, which makes them useless to the person deciding.

The figure shows the gap, not the scores

Plotting both arms on a standardised scale made the bars look identical. Plotting the gap by term shows what the trial actually measured, and shows it opening rather than fading.

Questions people ask

What goes on an education research poster?

The problem in classroom terms, the design and who was in it, what each arm actually received, the outcome with its interval, and the resource cost. Effect size alone does not tell a school whether it can afford the change.

How do I compare two approaches on a poster?

A table with one row per dimension you are comparing. Keep the rows to things that differ, and put the cost and the resource use in the same table as the result.

Should fidelity be reported?

Yes, if the intervention is delivered by staff. This board states that fidelity was checked by observation twice a term, which is what separates a trial of an approach from a trial of an ideal.

Can I edit the table after generating?

Yes. The table block lets you add or remove rows and columns, retype any cell and resize the columns, and the poster reflows around it.

How many rows can the comparison table hold?

Eight rows and four columns with a header row. That is enough for four outcomes with a control column, a treated column and a difference column. If you have more outcomes, keep the primary ones on the board and put the full table behind the QR code.

Should I report effect sizes or raw scores?

Both, in different places. Raw scores belong in the table so a reader can see the scale; the standardised effect belongs in the key number block, where it can be compared with other studies. This board puts 5.3 points in the table and 0.31 in the stat.

What if my two approaches were not randomised?

Say so in the first entry of the methods block, name what was matched, and keep the word difference rather than effect in the results. The table still works; the claim on the board has to be smaller.

Build your own in about a minute

The button below opens the generator with this use case already described. Change the wording to match your own, generate, then edit anything you like.

Make my education research poster

Other poster examples

Nursing research poster

A ward based trial of four hourly against two hourly repositioning on high specification foam, laid out as an A0 landscape board in four columns. It reports both outcomes a nursing trial has to report: whether patients were harmed, and how much nursing time the change gives back.

Engineering test poster

An engineering poster is read the way a test report is read: rig, standard, tolerances, then the table of what broke and how. This A0 landscape example puts eight of twelve beam specimens in a failure load table, one load against deflection curve per beam type, and the plate and screw tolerances in the methods block.

Machine learning research poster

A model that detects diabetic retinopathy from smartphone fundus images, laid out as an A0 landscape board. It is built around the figure, which is what a machine learning poster usually needs, and the text does the two things these posters most often skip: it describes the split honestly, and it says plainly what the result does not show.

Want the steps in the builder? Read Add charts and diagrams, then choose the template, theme and size. For everything this generator can do, see the poster maker.

Sources

Written and checked by the OneCraft team. Last checked .