untutored

The approach

Built on what we know about how children learn. Honest about what we don't.

Untutored is a practice app for the 11+. Most of what it does, and most of what it refuses to do, comes from a body of research on learning, motivation and attention that is decades old and unusually well replicated. This page sets out the reasons — with the sources — so you can judge them for yourself.

Every question is a test

There is no reading first, no worked example, no flashcard to flip. Every screen is a question, and the child answers it from their own head. That is deliberate: being made to retrieve something is one of the best-evidenced ways to learn it — more effective than re-reading, more effective than re-studying, and shown to hold across ages, subjects and classrooms.1

Every answer is explained

Right or wrong, every answer is followed by two or three sentences that teach the method and name the trap. If the answer was wrong, the right one is shown and never hidden. The research is clear that feedback which only marks does little, and feedback which teaches does a great deal — and that the wrong options in a multiple-choice question are only safe when the correct one always follows.2 The wrong answers in Untutored are the mistakes children really make, so working out why they're wrong is part of the learning.3

Questions come back

A question a child has seen returns at spaced intervals — after a day, then after longer — timed so they meet it again just as it would otherwise fade. Spacing and retrieval together are among the most robust findings in the whole of learning research.4 Within a subject, question types are mixed rather than drilled in blocks, because choosing the method is the skill the exam tests.5

Starts easy, moves on evidence

Every topic starts at the easiest of five levels and moves up only when a child is comfortably getting things right — and down only when they are clearly not. Most of what a child meets is something they can do, with a little above it to grow into; that is the success rate teachers and researchers have consistently found works best.6 Whatever level a child is working at, they meet exam-standard questions regularly, so the real paper holds no surprises. And every round opens with something they can do.7

The child is never told any of this. There is no "level" on any screen they see.

Nothing is ever taken away

No lives. No lost points. No broken streaks. No timer that runs out. A wrong answer costs the mark and nothing else, and nothing the app has given a child is ever taken back. The mechanics we left out work by pressure — and pressure is one of the most reliable ways to make an able child perform below their ability.8

The streak is a plant. Miss a day and it droops a little; it never dies, and it is never mentioned. Research on habit formation finds that a single missed day does not break a habit — so the app doesn't pretend it does.9

Points and badges reward four different things — showing up, breadth, accuracy and persistence — so a child who isn't the strongest still collects them.10 Praise matches the result: a perfect round is celebrated, an ordinary one isn't dressed up, because children can tell.11 No leaderboards. No comparison with anyone.

The child sees effort. You see the analysis.

A child's screens show what they have done: days practised, questions answered, how the round just went. What they never see is a verdict on themselves — no accuracy percentage, no weakest topic, no trend, no ranking. Feedback that points a child at the task helps; feedback that points them at themselves often does the opposite, and does so most for the children who most need help.12

The analysis goes to you. Behind a grown-ups' door in the app: accuracy and its trend, mastery by topic, the level each topic is working at and which way it is moving, and what to do next — stated plainly, and kindly, because you need the truth.

Designed first for children who need calm

Untutored is designed first for children with ADHD or autism — for whom low sensory load, predictability and the absence of pressure are not preferences but requirements — and built so that every child gets the same.13 One question on the screen and nothing else. Everything where it was last time. No noise, no clutter, no sound unless you ask for it. Nothing rushes you, and nothing blames you. About ten minutes a day, and the app never nags.

A choice of clear, plain typefaces and a text-size control, remembered between sessions — because the research finds that distinct, uncluttered letterforms and the reader's own choice help, and specialist "dyslexia fonts" do not.14 Nothing is shown by colour alone. Light and dark themes, each designed on its own. Almost no motion, and none at all if your device asks for none.

Held by tests, not promises

Every colour pairing in the app is checked against the WCAG contrast thresholds — AA on all text, AAA on reading text — in light and dark, on every build.15 Every touch target is measured. Every string is checked for the word "lose". Every screen is checked for sound, for a percentage, for a countdown. When a rule matters, it is a test that fails the build, not a line in a document.

What we don't claim

We have not yet run a study of Untutored itself. The research on this page is the reason the app is built the way it is; it is not proof that this app, in particular, raises a child's score. We intend to find out, and we will publish what we find whichever way it goes. Until then, the honest description is the one above: built on the evidence, and held to it.

Sources

Untutored is an independent learning aid. Content is written in the style of, but not affiliated with or endorsed by, the relevant assessment boards.

  1. 1

    Roediger, H.L. III and Karpicke, J.D. (2006) 'Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention', Psychological Science, 17(3), pp. 249–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x

    Rowland, C.A. (2014) 'The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect', Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), pp. 1432–1463. doi:10.1037/a0037559

    Adesope, O.O., Trevisan, D.A. and Sundararajan, N. (2017) 'Rethinking the use of tests: A meta-analysis of practice testing', Review of Educational Research, 87(3), pp. 659–701. doi:10.3102/0034654316689306

    Yang, C., Luo, L., Vadillo, M.A., Yu, R. and Shanks, D.R. (2021) 'Testing (quizzing) boosts classroom learning: A systematic and meta-analytic review', Psychological Bulletin, 147(4), pp. 399–435. doi:10.1037/bul0000309

    Agarwal, P.K., Nunes, L.D. and Blunt, J.R. (2021) 'Retrieval practice consistently benefits student learning: A systematic review of applied research in schools and classrooms', Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), pp. 1409–1453. doi:10.1007/s10648-021-09595-9

    Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K.A., Marsh, E.J., Nathan, M.J. and Willingham, D.T. (2013) 'Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology', Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), pp. 4–58. doi:10.1177/1529100612453266

  2. 2

    Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K. and Hattie, J. (2020) 'The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research', Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3087. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087

    Fazio, L.K., Huelser, B.J., Johnson, A. and Marsh, E.J. (2010) 'Receiving right/wrong feedback: Consequences for learning', Memory, 18(3), pp. 335–350. doi:10.1080/09658211003652491

    Metcalfe, J. (2017) 'Learning from errors', Annual Review of Psychology, 68, pp. 465–489. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044022

    Butler, A.C. and Roediger, H.L. III (2008) 'Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing', Memory & Cognition, 36(3), pp. 604–616. doi:10.3758/MC.36.3.604

    Education Endowment Foundation (2021a) Feedback: Teaching and Learning Toolkit. London: Education Endowment Foundation. Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/feedback (Accessed: 24 September 2026).

  3. 3

    Little, J.L., Bjork, E.L., Bjork, R.A. and Angello, G. (2012) 'Multiple-choice tests exonerated, at least of some charges: Fostering test-induced learning and avoiding test-induced forgetting', Psychological Science, 23(11), pp. 1337–1344. doi:10.1177/0956797612443370

    Ryan, J. and Williams, J. (2007) Children's mathematics 4–15: Learning from errors and misconceptions. Maidenhead: Open University Press. (ISBN 978-0-335-22042-7; 252 pp.)

  4. 4

    Cepeda, N.J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J.T. and Rohrer, D. (2006) 'Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis', Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), pp. 354–380. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354

    Latimier, A., Peyre, H. and Ramus, F. (2021) 'A meta-analytic review of the benefit of spacing out retrieval practice episodes on retention', Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), pp. 959–987. doi:10.1007/s10648-020-09572-8

    Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K.A., Marsh, E.J., Nathan, M.J. and Willingham, D.T. (2013) 'Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology', Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), pp. 4–58. doi:10.1177/1529100612453266

    Perry, T., Lea, R., Jørgensen, C.R., Cordingley, P., Shapiro, K. and Youdell, D. (2021) Cognitive science approaches in the classroom: A review of the evidence. London: Education Endowment Foundation. Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/evidence-reviews/cognitive-science-approaches-in-the-classroom (Accessed: 24 September 2026).

  5. 5

    Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R.F. and Stershic, S. (2015) 'Interleaved practice improves mathematics learning', Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), pp. 900–908. doi:10.1037/edu0000001

    Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R.F., Hartwig, M.K. and Cheung, C.-N. (2020) 'A randomized controlled trial of interleaved mathematics practice', Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(1), pp. 40–52. doi:10.1037/edu0000367

    Perry, T., Lea, R., Jørgensen, C.R., Cordingley, P., Shapiro, K. and Youdell, D. (2021) Cognitive science approaches in the classroom: A review of the evidence. London: Education Endowment Foundation. Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/evidence-reviews/cognitive-science-approaches-in-the-classroom (Accessed: 24 September 2026).

  6. 6

    Rosenshine, B. (2012) 'Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know', American Educator, 36(1), pp. 12–19, 39.

    Education Endowment Foundation (2021b) Mastery learning: Teaching and Learning Toolkit. London: Education Endowment Foundation. Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/mastery-learning (Accessed: 24 September 2026).

    Kulik, C.-L.C., Kulik, J.A. and Bangert-Drowns, R.L. (1990) 'Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis', Review of Educational Research, 60(2), pp. 265–299. doi:10.3102/00346543060002265

    Bjork, E.L. and Bjork, R.A. (2011) 'Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning', in Gernsbacher, M.A., Pew, R.W., Hough, L.M. and Pomerantz, J.R. (eds) Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society. New York: Worth Publishers, pp. 56–64.

  7. 7

    Bandura, A. (1977) 'Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change', Psychological Review, 84(2), pp. 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

    Adesope, O.O., Trevisan, D.A. and Sundararajan, N. (2017) 'Rethinking the use of tests: A meta-analysis of practice testing', Review of Educational Research, 87(3), pp. 659–701. doi:10.3102/0034654316689306

  8. 8

    Ashcraft, M.H. and Kirk, E.P. (2001) 'The relationships among working memory, math anxiety, and performance', Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), pp. 224–237. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.224

    Beilock, S.L. and Carr, T.H. (2005) 'When high-powered people fail: working memory and "choking under pressure" in math', Psychological Science, 16(2), pp. 101–105. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00789.x

    Ramirez, G., Gunderson, E.A., Levine, S.C. and Beilock, S.L. (2013) 'Math anxiety, working memory, and math achievement in early elementary school', Journal of Cognition and Development, 14(2), pp. 187–202. doi:10.1080/15248372.2012.664593

    Carey, E., Devine, A., Hill, F. and Szűcs, D. (2017) 'Differentiating anxiety forms and their role in academic performance from primary to secondary school', PLoS ONE, 12(3), e0174418. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0174418

    von der Embse, N., Jester, D., Roy, D. and Post, J. (2018) 'Test anxiety effects, predictors, and correlates: a 30-year meta-analytic review', Journal of Affective Disorders, 227, pp. 483–493. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.048

    Deci, E.L., Koestner, R. and Ryan, R.M. (1999) 'A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation', Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), pp. 627–668. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627

  9. 9

    Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C.H.M., Potts, H.W.W. and Wardle, J. (2010) 'How are habits formed: modelling habit formation in the real world', European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), pp. 998–1009. doi:10.1002/ejsp.674

  10. 10

    Deci, E.L., Koestner, R. and Ryan, R.M. (1999) 'A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation', Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), pp. 627–668. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627

    Cerasoli, C.P., Nicklin, J.M. and Ford, M.T. (2014) 'Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: a 40-year meta-analysis', Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), pp. 980–1008. doi:10.1037/a0035661

    Sailer, M. and Homner, L. (2020) 'The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis', Educational Psychology Review, 32(1), pp. 77–112. doi:10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w

  11. 11

    Mueller, C.M. and Dweck, C.S. (1998) 'Praise for intelligence can undermine children's motivation and performance', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), pp. 33–52. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.33

    Henderlong, J. and Lepper, M.R. (2002) 'The effects of praise on children's intrinsic motivation: a review and synthesis', Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), pp. 774–795. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.774

    Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Orobio de Castro, B., Overbeek, G. and Bushman, B.J. (2014) '"That's not just beautiful—that's incredibly beautiful!": the adverse impact of inflated praise on children with low self-esteem', Psychological Science, 25(3), pp. 728–735. doi:10.1177/0956797613514251

  12. 12

    Kluger, A.N. and DeNisi, A. (1996) 'The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory', Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), pp. 254–284. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254

    Butler, R. (1988) 'Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: the effects of task-involving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and performance', British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(1), pp. 1–14. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1988.tb00874.x

    Devine, A., Hill, F., Carey, E. and Szűcs, D. (2018) 'Cognitive and emotional math problems largely dissociate: prevalence of developmental dyscalculia and mathematics anxiety', Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(3), pp. 431–444. doi:10.1037/edu0000222

  13. 13

    Sayal, K., Prasad, V., Daley, D., Ford, T. and Coghill, D. (2018) 'ADHD in children and young people: prevalence, care pathways, and service provision', The Lancet Psychiatry, 5(2), pp. 175–186. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30167-0.

    Roman-Urrestarazu, A., van Kessel, R., Allison, C., Matthews, F.E., Brayne, C. and Baron-Cohen, S. (2021) 'Association of race/ethnicity and social disadvantage with autism prevalence in 7 million school children in England', JAMA Pediatrics, 175(6), e210054. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.0054.

    van Steensel, F.J.A., Bögels, S.M. and Perrin, S. (2011) 'Anxiety disorders in children and adolescents with autistic spectrum disorders: a meta-analysis', Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 14(3), pp. 302–317. doi:10.1007/s10567-011-0097-0.

    Boulter, C., Freeston, M., South, M. and Rodgers, J. (2014) 'Intolerance of uncertainty as a framework for understanding anxiety in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders', Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(6), pp. 1391–1402. doi:10.1007/s10803-013-2001-x.

    Martinussen, R., Hayden, J., Hogg-Johnson, S. and Tannock, R. (2005) 'A meta-analysis of working memory impairments in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder', Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44(4), pp. 377–384. doi:10.1097/01.chi.0000153228.72591.73.

    W3C (2021) Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities. W3C Working Group Note, 29 April 2021. Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/ (Accessed: 24 September 2026).

    Pun, K. (2016) 'Dos and don'ts on designing for accessibility', Accessibility in government blog, GOV.UK, 2 September. Available at: https://accessibility.blog.gov.uk/2016/09/02/dos-and-donts-on-designing-for-accessibility/ (Accessed: 24 September 2026).

  14. 14

    Rello, L. and Baeza-Yates, R. (2013) 'Good fonts for dyslexia', Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '13), Bellevue, WA, 21–23 October. New York: ACM, Article 14, pp. 1–8. doi:10.1145/2513383.2513447.

    Joseph, H. and Powell, D. (2022) 'Does a specialist typeface affect how fluently children with and without dyslexia process letters, words, and passages?', Dyslexia, 28(4), pp. 448–470. doi:10.1002/dys.1727.

    Azzarello, C., Paek, S., Hodge, C., Jameson, M. and Lewis, J. (2026) 'Does font improve reading in dyslexic children?: meta-analysis of dyslexia-friendly fonts and dyslexic children's reading performance', Annals of Dyslexia, published online 31 July 2026. doi:10.1007/s11881-026-00389-8.

    British Dyslexia Association (2023) Dyslexia Style Guide 2023: Creating Dyslexia Friendly Content. Available at: https://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/advice/employers/creating-a-dyslexia-friendly-workplace/dyslexia-friendly-style-guide (Accessed: 24 September 2026).

  15. 15

    W3C (2023) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation, 5 October 2023 (edited Recommendation republished 12 December 2024). Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/ (Accessed: 24 September 2026). SC 1.4.3, 1.4.6, 1.4.11, 2.5.5.