Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

teaching was 10 years 2 months. Table 7 shows results for these pupils over 30 months of specialist teaching. The ratio gains for reading accuracy were 1.53 on NARA and 2.0 on BAS Word Reading (the lower of these two figures is because the ceiling on the NARA is 12 years 10 months, hence pupils scoring at ceiling would not have their performance reflected in the score.) Ratio gains for reading comprehension and spelling were more modest (1.33 and 1.63 respectively), but only in fluency did the pupils continue to make less than the normal expected rate of gain (ratio gain for fluency 0.86). Although at the end of the intervention most of the children could read accurately and comprehend well, their reading still tended to be slow and dysfluent. This somewhat poorer outcome for reading fluency is typical of such studies (see Section 2.6) and indicates the continuing need for their children to practise reading in order to further improve fluency. Table 7. Results for 252 pupils attending East Court School, 1983–2000, means (and standard deviations in parentheses), adapted from Thomson (2003) with additions Measure Entry (years:months) Leaving (years:months) Chronological age 10:2 (1.3) 12:8 (0.99) 30 Reading accuracy age (BAS Word Reading) Reading accuracy age (NARA) Reading comprehension age (NARA) Reading rate (NARA) Gain (in months) 7:9 (1.7) 12:9 (1.8) 60 2.0 8:1 (1.9) 11:11 (1.6) 46 1.53 8:9 (1.8) 12:3 (1.2) 40 1.33 7:10 (1.4) 10:0 (2.0) 26 0.86 Spelling (Vernon) 7:1 (1.1) 11:2 (1.7) 49 1.63 3.4.3 Dyslexia Action Ratio gain Dyslexia Action is an educational charity that was established in 2006 following the merger of the Dyslexia Institute (founded in 1972) and the Hornsby International Dyslexia Centre (founded in 1984). These organisations have provided specialist literacy teaching for many thousands of children and adults with dyslexia. Dyslexia Action tuition is multisensory, phonologically-based (see Walker, 2000 and Townend, 2000) and is normally delivered in two, or sometimes more, one-hour sessions per week in groups of up to three children working at similar levels, with daily practice activities to be carried out at home. The average age of pupils receiving specialist tuition from Dyslexia Action is around 9–10 years. For a short overview of the teaching techniques used by Dyslexia Action, see Moss (2000). 72 Intervention for Dyslexia
Rack and Walker (1994) presented an analysis of 145 pupils who had been taught by the Dyslexia Institute at its Sheffield centre. Prior to starting specialist literacy teaching at the Dyslexia Institute, these pupils had made an average of a little over 6 months’ progress per calendar year in reading, and a little under over 6 months’ progress per calendar year in spelling (ratio gain approximately 0.5). After about two years of teaching the average rate of progress had increased to just over one year per calendar year in reading and just under one year per calendar year in spelling (ratio gain approximately 1.0). Rack and Hatcher (2002, see also Rack, 2004) reported on the Dyslexia Institute’s SPELLIT project, in which a national sample of about 240 7-year-old pupils with very weak literacy skills (i.e. in the bottom 10% of their age group in reading and spelling) was allocated randomly to one of three groups: (1) The children received two hours per week of tuition at a Dyslexia Institute centre (maximum of 48 hours’ total tuition); (2) The children received a programme of home activities (15 minutes per day, five times each week for 30 weeks) delivered by parents who had been trained by Dyslexia Institute teachers; (3) The children remained in a ‘waiting control’ with no intervention during the project. The children in groups 1 and 2 received intervention over nine months, during which time the average reading age of group 1 went up from 5 years 9 months to 6 years 8 months (ratio gain 1.2: slightly above ‘normal’ progress). The average reading age of group 2 increased somewhat less: on average from 5 years 10 months to 6 years 7 months (ratio gain 1.0: i.e. exactly ‘normal’ progress). During this period, the children in group 3 fell further behind: their average reading age increased from 5 years 10 months to only 6 years 4 months (ratio gain 0.67, i.e. below ‘normal’ progress). In the Dyslexia Institute’s SPELLIT project an analysis of the severity of the pupil’s difficulties was also carried out. Those pupils scoring below 85 standard score on reading and who had the lowest scores in phonological skills were classed as ‘severe’ (N=77). Pupils in this category made an average gain of 1.63 standard score points in reading when taught at a Dyslexia Institute centre, but declined by a comparable amount when on the home support programme or in the waiting control group. The effect size of the difference in reading progress between the taught group and the waiting control group was 0.65. The effect size of the difference in reading progress between the taught group and the home support group was 0.56. On the other hand, pupils on the home support programme did make good progress if their difficulties were less severe: on average, 3.4 standard score points gain in reading. The effect size of the difference in reading progress between the less severe pupils in the home support group and that of the less severe pupils in the waiting control group was 0.42. 3.5 Conclusions The studies reviewed in Section 3.3 and summarised in Table 6 demonstrate that, in general, systematic phonologically-based interventions work. Brooks (2007) agrees that such schemes are ‘mostly effective’. Fawcett (2002a), in her review for the DfES of traditional phonologically-based interventions, also concluded that early intervention “…can reduce the severity of impairments, allowing some children to keep pace with their peers and others to move to a milder category of deficit” (p.13). The average ratio gains obtained in the studies presented in the current review were 4.44 for reading accuracy, 4.13 for reading comprehension, and 2.75 for spelling, with medium to large effect sizes (0.56 for reading accuracy, 0.91 for reading comprehension, and 0.59 for spelling). Although only three of these studies focused exclusively on children with Intervention for Dyslexia 73
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: 3.4 Studies in UK specialist dyslex
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?