1 Measuring the ‘effectiveness’ of Programme and pedagogy on maths disposition and self efficacy measures Maria Pampaka, Julian Williams, Graeme Hutcheson, Laura Black, Pauline Davis, Paul Hernandez-Martinez, and Geoff Wake School of Education, University of Manchester Abstract The aim of this paper is to report our work in progress on the measurement methodology and some preliminary results of our analysis on an incomplete data set. We report on the analysis of the effect of some specific ‘process variables’ (pedagogy and Programme in AS level mathematics) on value added to some ‘learning outcomes’ (measures of disposition), and how background variables such as gender, proxies of class, etc. influence these. The data set comprises of disposition measures at two data points early and late in the AS year, and does not yet include measures of grades or UCAS decisions that will follow later in the project. We focus on students disposition to ‘further study mathematically-demanding subjects’ and their ‘mathematics self-efficacy’ in this paper, and find some statistically significant but uninterpretable process effects related to Programme, pedagogy and EMA grant support. 1. Introduction This paper presents some preliminary results from the first phase of the quantitative analysis of the survey data gained from the ESRC TLRP research project on widening participation in HE, ‘Keeping open the door to mathematically-demanding F&HE programmes’. In this paper we address the first research question of the project which focuses on measuring the effectiveness of distinctive maths courses. We particularly ask “How effective is “Use of Mathematics” (UoM) in comparison to matched traditional “Mathematics” AS (ASTrad) programmes in promoting learning outcomes (LO) for 16-19 students?” We partly drew on social science literature on widening participation that suggests a positive disposition towards a subject, especially their self-efficacy in relation to the subject studied (Bandura and Locke, 2003) and personal commitment to success is often decisive in persistence with study. In particular we ask (i) How does ‘effectiveness’ vary with measures of affective and cognitive LO? And (ii) How does ‘effectiveness’ vary for different groups of students (e.g. classified by gender, SES, family education, postcode, college-type). Here we present the results of a quantitative analysis of the value added to the ‘soft’ learning outcomes established through the project (at this point we have to disregard the ‘hard learning outcome of mathematics attainment scores”, since these are not available up to date). Hence, we focus on ‘mathematics self-efficacy’ scores, from a new instrument already validated (see