Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2 or above 2b or above W 1 2c 2b/2a 2b 2a 3 All England Figure 8. Patterns of performance of the 2005-6 Reading Recovery cohort compared with all children in England in 2006 KS1 National Curriculum assessments (percentages). 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2 or above 2b or above W 1 2c 2b/2a 2b 2a 3 accelerated progress all completed programs All England accelerated progress Figure 9. Patterns of performance of the 2006-7 Reading Recovery cohort compared with all children in England in 2007 KS1 National Curriculum assessments (percentages) 116 Intervention for Dyslexia all completed programmes
It is not until Level 2b that children are ‘almost entirely accurate’ readers. 48%–51% of ‘accelerated progress’ Reading Recovery children and 38%-43% of all Reading Recovery children who completed their programmes achieved Level 2b or above, compared with 71% of all children in England in both years. Moreover, most of these Reading Recovery children (35%–37% accelerated progress, 28%-31% all completed programmes) achieved Level 2b, not any level above this. Only 12% of accelerated progress children and 9%–10% of all completed programme children achieved Level 2a, and 3% or fewer achieved Level 3, compared with 26% of all children in England. At best, Reading Recovery enabled children to perform within the low average range (2c) for their age, whilst about 30% of completed programme children remained consistently at Level 1 or working towards Level 1, and only 10%–12% were working at Level 2a or above. Remember, Level 2a is the level at which children can ‘tackle unfamiliar words’ – the necessary feature that defines successful development of a selfsustaining word recognition system. The same exercise has been conducted examining the Key Stage 1 writing National Curriculum assessment performance of children on Reading Recovery cohorts from 2003–04 to 2006–07, as well as comparing the 2005–06 and 2006-07 Reading Recovery cohorts with National Curriculum assessment results of all children in England in 2006 and 2007. Without going into all the details, the results tell a similar story to the one described above for reading. 25%-31% of ‘accelerated progress’ children and 36%-40% of all children who completed their Reading Recovery programme scored at the lowest levels for writing (Level 1 or Working towards Level 1). At best, Reading Recovery succeeded in getting about 40% of children who completed their programmes into the low average range of writing performance for their age (2c). A further 35%–40% of children who completed their programmes were below this range. Thus, 75%–80% of children completing Reading Recovery were low average writers or worse by the end of Key Stage 1, with only two in ten writing within the average range (Level 2b) or above, compared with six in ten of all pupils in England. Fewer than one in a hundred Reading Recovery children (whether we count those making accelerated progress or all pupils completing the programme) achieved Level 3 in writing, compared with 13%-14% of all children in England. 5.5.3 Reading Recovery children’s standardised reading test results The Reading Recovery annual reports for 2004-05 to 2006-07 also give measures of children’s progress on the British Abilities Scales Word Reading Test, Second Edition (BAS-II). For each of the three years the results published are identical: i.e. the average reading age of children entering programmes was 4 years 10 months, and average reading age of children of those who had been ‘successfully discontinued’ was 6 years 7 months (Douëtil, 2005, p.12; 2006, p.12, 2007a, p. 14). On the face of it, this looks like good progress. However, before reaching this conclusion, two factors need to be considered. First, 6 years 7 months was the average reading age of only those children who responded well to Reading Recovery, and does not take into account those pupils for whom Reading Recovery did not seem to be such an effective intervention. Secondly, a child can achieve a reading age of 6 years 7 months on BAS-II with knowledge of only a few words. To attain a reading age of 6 years 7 months, only 21 words on the test have to be read correctly, which can easily be achieved by a child who has memorised some very high frequency common words (e.g. the, up, you, at, said, out), and knows and can use single letter sounds, plus the simple digraphs ‘sh’ and ‘th’. In other words, Intervention for Dyslexia 117
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 and 104: in a meta-analysis. However, the av
Page 105 and 106: 5.3.2 Every Child a Reader (ECaR) I
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: ‘accelerated progress’ children
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?