Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Reading Recovery had evidence of positive effect in all four domains. The other programmes known to be in use in the UK had evidence for only some domains: Accelerated Reader had positive evidence for comprehension and general reading achievement, Corrective Reading for alphabetics and fluency (but a null finding for comprehension), and Success for All for alphabetics and general reading achievement (but mixed findings for comprehension). Graphs comparing the effects within domains showed that Reading Recovery had the highest of all impacts in alphabetics (from 18 programmes), fluency (from 11 programmes) and general reading achievement (from 5 programmes), and the third highest impact from 19 programmes for comprehension – but its impact here, in common with other programmes, was distinctly lower than in the other three domains. Among the programmes known to be in use in the UK but with no evidence meeting the WWC standards were Direct Instruction (formerly DISTAR), Letterland, ‘Pause, Prompt and Praise’, Project Read and SuccessMaker Reading. 5.3 Reading Recovery in the UK 5.3.1 Reading Recovery in the UK before Every Child a Reader (ECaR) Reading Recovery was introduced into England in Surrey LEA in 1990 (Prance, 1992; Prance & Wright, 1992; Wright, 1992). A further 20 LEAs in England adopted the programme as a result of government funding during the period 1992–95. Reading Recovery was also widely implemented in Northern Ireland. According to Hobsbaum (1997) about 70% of the children in England who received the full programme were successfully discontinued, with about 30% referred for further support. In their review of interventions for literacy difficulties, Brooks et al. (1998) examined evidence supplied by over a dozen local Reading Recovery initiatives in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but found that ‘none of these reports provided either an impact measure or data from which such a measure could be calculated’ (p.37). The only report that satisfied appropriate scientific criteria was a study of Reading Recovery carried out over the period 1992–96 in six LEAs in London and in Surrey (see Section 5.4). Many LEAs which had taken up Reading Recovery with the help of government funding discontinued it later in the 1990s after funding ceased, although those that continued (such as Stockport and the London Borough of Hackney) claimed that the programme was beneficial (see Brooks, 2007, p.74). By 2001–02 the take-up of Reading Recovery had dwindled to the point that only 4,600 children in the UK and Ireland were receiving tuition (Douëtil, 2003). Annual monitoring reports of Reading Recovery in the UK and Republic of Ireland have been published by the Institute of Education, University of London (IoE), for the period 2002 to 2007; these also include data on children receiving Reading Recovery from 1993 onwards (see Douëtil, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007a). These show that the percentage of children who were successfully discontinued from the programmes (referred to in these reports as ‘having achieved accelerated progress’) rose from 70% in 1994–95 to 84% in 2006–07. Other than the annual monitoring reports there are few studies in the period that generated data useful to this review. However, Fudge (2001) studied 145 children in 21 schools in Bristol which were using the Reading Recovery programme during 1999–2001, and reported an average ratio gain of 2.9. 104 Intervention for Dyslexia
5.3.2 Every Child a Reader (ECaR) In 2005 the Reading Recovery initiative in England was revived by the provision of £10 million in funding committed jointly by government and sponsors, in a project called Every Child a Reader (ECaR). This began in a small number of local authorities and with a small number of teachers who had received the extra training to become ECaR teachers over and above being Reading Recovery teachers; it also started with a small subset of all children receiving Reading Recovery in England. As will be seen shortly, ECaR has expanded rapidly, but at the time of writing in 2009 has not yet been extended to cover all Reading Recovery provision in England, and does not apply in the rest of the UK (or in the Republic of Ireland, which is included in annual reports from IoE). In what follows, where necessary distinctions will be drawn between ECaR and Reading Recovery more generally. At the end of the first year of the project (2005–06) data for all the children who had completed ECaR programmes during the year (N=373) showed that 77% had been successfully discontinued, and 23% had been referred for further support (ECaR, 2006). At the beginning of the year, the full group of children had an average reading age of 4 years 10 months on the BAS Word Reading Test, and at the end of the intervention this had gone up to an average reading age of 6 years 7 months, an average gain of 21 months. For 286 of these children the average interval between the pre- and post-tests was, apparently, about 4½ months, but for the 87 who were in the ECaR in London study (see Section 5.4.2) it was 10 months. Averaging across the two groups, this equates to a ratio gain of 3.6. The children had received an average of 38.5 hours of one-to-one tuition during the year (ECaR, 2006). The evaluation of the second year of the project (2006–07) reported on ECaR teaching delivered to 1,838 children, of whom 1,081 had completed their programmes by the end of the school year and the remainder were due to complete during 2007–08 (ECaR, 2007). Data were based on delivery by 245 teachers, who each taught an average of between seven and eight children during the year. The average amount of tuition was 42 hours per child, slightly higher than in 2005-06. As in the 2005-06 samples, participating schools had high proportions of low-achieving children, socio-economic disadvantage, and EAL children. The ECaR children had very low levels of literacy on entry to the programme, as assessed by the Observation Survey. At the beginning of their programmes, the Reading Recovery children who completed them during the year (N=1,081) had an average reading age of 4 years 10 months on the BAS Word Reading Test. The 245 children who were referred made an average gain of 9 months of reading age (ECaR, 2007, p.13), whereas the 836 who were discontinued (ECaR, 2007, Figure 1, p.13) appear to have made an average gain of 21 months of reading age (the sample size given in ECaR, 2007, Table 2, p.14 appears to be erroneous). If these figures are correct, the average gain across the full sample was 18.3 months, giving an overall ratio gain of 4.0. Douëtil (2006) reported on 3,566 children who had been on Reading Recovery programmes in 2005–06 across Britain and Ireland (including those on ECaR mentioned above): the ratio gain in reading for this group was 4.2; 3,042 (85%) had been successfully discontinued (ibid., Table 3.1, p. 12). Analysing data on 1,440 and 516 children who could be traced and were re-tested three and six months respectively after the end of their programmes, Brooks (2007, p.215) showed that those children made, on average, exactly standard progress. When followed up at Key Stage 1 National Curriculum assessments, 38% of the sample achieved target levels (level 2b or above). However, it could be argued that, since the children on these programmes had made Intervention for Dyslexia 105
Page 1 and 2:
Intervention for Dyslexia A review
Page 3 and 4:
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........
Page 5 and 6:
4.3.4 Computer-based screening test
Page 7 and 8:
presuppose any neurological link be
Page 9 and 10:
(0.56 for reading accuracy, 0.91 fo
Page 11 and 12:
instruction in phonics, it cannot b
Page 13 and 14:
Acknowledgements I would like to ex
Page 15 and 16:
The remit calls for conclusions to
Page 17 and 18:
Co-occurring difficulties may be se
Page 19 and 20:
Teacher Status (ATS). In general, c
Page 21 and 22:
Table 1. Why use multisensory teach
Page 23 and 24:
pupils are going to be identified a
Page 25 and 26:
coloured overlay as the criterion f
Page 27 and 28:
have reported standard scores; unfo
Page 29 and 30:
2 Intervention studies in the US an
Page 31 and 32:
progressing normally (36 boys and 2
Page 33 and 34:
training in phonological awareness,
Page 35 and 36:
subtest. All these children were in
Page 37 and 38:
intervention identified by Vaughn a
Page 39 and 40:
Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003). Ove
Page 41 and 42:
1. Lindamood Auditory Discriminatio
Page 43 and 44:
and writing. Students were taught i
Page 45 and 46:
evised as the Lindamood Phoneme Seq
Page 47 and 48:
2.5.10 Torgesen et al. (2004) Torge
Page 49 and 50:
period 1995-2003 were identified, a
Page 51 and 52:
“The actual reading impairment a
Page 53 and 54: from multisyllabic words. Instructi
Page 55 and 56: 3 UK intervention studies 3.1 Stage
Page 57 and 58: and effect sizes of 0.55 for readin
Page 59 and 60: used Lexia for 10 weeks, after whic
Page 61 and 62: structured phonologically-based sec
Page 63 and 64: 3.3.9 SIDNEY Norgate and Bentote (2
Page 65 and 66: Table 6. Summary of results of UK i
Page 67 and 68: Table 6 (continued). Summary of res
Page 69 and 70: Table 6 (continued). Summary of res
Page 71 and 72: 3.4 Studies in UK specialist dyslex
Page 73 and 74: Rack and Walker (1994) presented an
Page 75 and 76: probably require some 1:1 teaching
Page 77 and 78: & Baker, 2008; Frost et al., 2005;
Page 79 and 80: Unlike traditional learning disabil
Page 81 and 82: According to Wolfendale and Bryans
Page 83 and 84: cases). Glascoe and Byrne (1993) ar
Page 85 and 86: Between 1.0 and 1.4: moderate dysle
Page 87 and 88: provided by a study reported in Faw
Page 89 and 90: Against the many advantages of comp
Page 91 and 92: Peer, 1998). A high overall level o
Page 93 and 94: Recently Singleton and Henderson (2
Page 95 and 96: 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 Scope 5 Read
Page 97 and 98: 5.1.4 Reading Recovery and the teac
Page 99 and 100: writing. To be able to work on word
Page 101 and 102: success of the programme appears to
Page 103: in a meta-analysis. However, the av
Page 107 and 108: phonological awareness compared wit
Page 109 and 110: (accuracy or comprehension or both)
Page 111 and 112: 5.5.2 Key Stage 1 results of Readin
Page 113 and 114: 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2
Page 115 and 116: ‘accelerated progress’ children
Page 117 and 118: It is not until Level 2b that child
Page 119 and 120: Reading Recovery specifically benef
Page 121 and 122: 6 Computer technology and support o
Page 123 and 124: 6.2.1 The advantages of computer as
Page 125 and 126: and Olson, 2000). Software designed
Page 127 and 128: new phonic principle was introduced
Page 129 and 130: impact on reading and spelling, par
Page 131 and 132: Berninger, V.W., & Hidi, S. (2006)
Page 133 and 134: Clay, M.M. (1993a) Observation Surv
Page 135 and 136: www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/p
Page 137 and 138: Frost, J. & Sørensen, P.M. (2007)
Page 139 and 140: Hatcher, P.J. (2003) Reading Interv
Page 141 and 142: Kuhn, M.R. & Stahl, S.A. (2003) Flu
Page 143 and 144: Marks, A. & Burden, B. (2005) How U
Page 145 and 146: Olofsson, Å (1992) Synthetic speec
Page 147 and 148: Reason, R. & Boote, R. (1994) Helpi
Page 149 and 150: Singleton, C.H. (1977) Dyslexia or
Page 151 and 152: Speece, D.L., Case, L.P. & Molloy,
Page 153 and 154: Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wa
Page 155 and 156:
Vaughn, S. & Roberts, G. (2007) Sec
Page 157:
Wilson, J. & Frederickson, N. (1995
show all

Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?