Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

eading accuracy, 8.3 for reading comprehension, and 3.3 for spelling (Vernon). The reading ability of participants from Year 2–6 in these studies was very poor before intervention and most clearly made substantial progress as a result of intervention. Lore (2001) reported on the use of Phono-Graphix at Moon Hall School in Surrey, an independent specialist school for children with dyslexia. The participants were pupils in Years 5 and 6, all of whom were severely dyslexic and were at least three years behind chronological age levels in reading ability. After 6 months using Phono-Graphix, the average reading improvement for one cohort of 11 pupils was 24.5 months (range 13 – 37 months), with a ratio gain of 4.1. After intervention most of these dyslexic pupils were performing within, or approaching, the normal range in reading ability, and with further input would be expected to improve further. Lore reports similar progress with subsequent cohorts taught using Phono-Graphix in that school, and Brooks (2007) also reports on a study using Phono-Graphix with 12 dyslexic children in Year 4 in the same school. After 6 months’ intervention, the children were found to have made remarkable progress, with a ratio gain of 4.5 (Macmillan Graded Word Reading test). 3.3.6 Phonology with Reading Bowyer-Crane et al. (2008) compared a ‘phonology with reading’ intervention approach (P + R) with an oral language approach (OL) for a sample of children (mean age 4 years 9 months) who were at risk of literacy difficulties because of their poor oral language at school entry, i.e. before formal reading instruction had commenced. Initial screening of 960 children in 23 schools was carried out using tests of expressive language and nonword repetition, with the lowest scoring children being classified as at risk (N=152) and randomly assigned to either the P + R or the OL (comparison) condition. Both groups received 20 weeks of daily intervention from trained teaching assistants, who alternated daily between 30 minutes of individual tuition and 20 minutes of small group work (approximately 42 hours of total intervention). The P + R group focused on lettersound knowledge, phonological awareness and text reading skills. The OL group focused on vocabulary, comprehension, inference generation and narrative skills. Although this study did not attempt to classify any of these at-risk children as being dyslexic, it is highly likely that a significant proportion of them were, given the evidence on the relationship between early language skills and later dyslexia (Snowling, 2008; Snowling & Hayiou-Thomas, 2006). At the end of the intervention, the P + R group displayed significant advantages over the OL group in measures of literacy (effect sizes 0.32–0.45) and strong advantages in phonological skills (0.7 SD at post-test). Since the experimental design involved a treated control group, lower effect sizes were to be expected than if the control had remained untreated. The OL group showed advantages over the P + R group on measures of vocabulary (1 SD at post-test) and grammatical skills. A follow-up five months later indicated that these gains had mostly been maintained. A standard score of below 85 for reading was used to identify children who still remained at risk after the intervention; on this criterion 50% of the P + R group and 68% of the OL group were still at risk. Moreover, 7% of the children in the P + R group had above average reading scores (above SS 115) while none of the OL children fell in this range. This study does not provide a cognitive analysis of the children who were ‘normalised’ compared with those still at risk at the end of the study, and hence it remains a possibility that the dyslexic children within this sample all remained below 85 SS in reading. Nevertheless, this study does demonstrate that trained teaching assistants are able to deliver 60 Intervention for Dyslexia
structured phonologically-based secondary intervention that has significant benefits for at-risk children. 3.3.7 Read Write Inc. Read Write Inc. is a phonics initial instruction programme devised by Ruth Miskin, designed primarily for children in Years 1–4 (Wave 1); however, it has occasionally been used as a Wave 2 or Wave 3 intervention both at primary and secondary level. Brooks (2007) reports on a study of Read Write Inc. carried out in 12 primary schools in Bristol with 117 SEN children in Years 2–6. After about 8-9 weeks of intervention (each pupil received about 4-5 hours of teaching) the ratio gains found were 2.3 for reading accuracy (NFER Individual Reading Analysis), 2.6 for reading comprehension (NARA) and 1.7 for spelling (Vernon). Brooks (2007) also reports on two studies using Read Write Inc. in the London Borough of Haringey. In the first, 30 very poor readers in Years 5–6 in approximately seven primary schools were given intervention over 5 months, with a ratio gain of 3.8 (NARA). In the second study, 21 very poor readers in Years 3–6 in one primary school were given intervention over 3 months, with a ratio gain of 5.0 (New Salford Reading Test). Brooks, Harman and Harman (2003) carried out an evaluation of Read Write Inc. for the DfES with secondary school pupils in Years 7–9. All the participants had reading ages more than three years below chronological ages and may be considered to have severe reading difficulties. A total of 156 pupils in six schools participated, although spelling data were available for only 96 children in five schools. The length of the intervention was 5.5 months. For reading (Suffolk Reading Scale), a ratio gain of 1.6 was found (effect size 0.34). For spelling (Young’s Parallel Spelling Test) the ratio gain was only 0.9 (ES: zero). Lanes et al. (2005) evaluated the use of Read Write Inc. as an intervention for pupils with poor literacy skills in one secondary school in Leicester. Two successive cohorts of Year 7 pupils were involved (total N=63) and all participants had reading ages below 9.0 years on entry to the school (i.e. at least two years behind chronological age levels). Over a 9-month intervention period a ratio gain of 2.3 was found for reading (New Macmillan Individual Reading Analysis) but only 0.8 for spelling (Vernon). Brooks (2007) reports on an unpublished study of Read Write Inc. carried out in Cornwall. A total of 29 Year 7 pupils in one secondary school were involved; all had low literacy attainment on entry to the school. The intervention was relatively short (6 weeks) but nevertheless in reading a substantial ratio gain of 8.0 was found (NFER 9–14 Group Reading Test), with an effect size of 0.25. 3.3.8 Reading Intervention Reading Intervention is a system that integrates training in phonological awareness and letter knowledge within the context of a programme of structured reading instruction based on methods used in Reading Recovery (see Chapter 5 for review of Reading Recovery). This approach arose out of a landmark RCT study by Hatcher, Hulme and Ellis (1994) in which it was shown that phonological awareness training is most effective when combined with the teaching of reading (the ‘phonological linkage hypothesis’). In this study, 32 poor readers in Year 2 received a structured reading programme combined with phonological awareness training over a 20-week period, with two 30- Intervention for Dyslexia 61
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: used Lexia for 10 weeks, after whic
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 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?