What Works for Children with Literacy Difficulties? - Digital ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

22 Integrated Learning Systems, National Council for Educational Technology study (1) Mainstream, A. Phase II Main reference: National Council for Educational Technology (1996) Date: 1994-96 Age-range: Y3-6 ? (‘Key Stage 2’; in School U, Y2 and Y6; Key Stage 3 also in project but not covered here) Type of children: Mixed-ability (mostly; in School U, SEN) N of experimental group: 760 in 7 primary schools in main study (NCET, 1996, p. 12); this certainly includes children involved in numeracy but not literacy - but not clear if it includes controls - only 375 experimentals traceable in details of report N of control group: not stated Equivalence of groups: not stated N of alternative intervention group: (no alternative intervention group) Length of intervention in weeks: not stated (26 in Schools A and U) Reading test: Progress was measured by tests within the programs. These provided ‘... assessment in terms of "AVG" levels. These represent US grade equivalents and although preliminary work to reference them to UK measures seems to indicate that they are reasonably accurate, they have been treated with caution by our evaluators’ (NCET, 1996, p.21). Pre- and post-test average scores and s.d’s: not stated Gain: ‘No consistent learning gains’ (NCET, 1996, p.19); in School A, 30 experimentals (across full primary age range?) made average gain of 8.4 months of r.a. in 6 months - controls’ average gain was 2.7 months; in School U, control group outperformed experimentals Ratio gains: RGs overall and for School U were not given and could not be calculated; for School A, exps: 1.4; controls: 0.5 Effect sizes calculated using pre-test s.d’s of experimental and control groups (for formula used see NCET, 1996, pp.6 & 10, footnotes), as stated in report: School A, 0.55 in favour of experimentals; School U, 0.4 in favour of controls (NCET, 1996, p.19); report also implies that overall effect size was close to zero and ns, because there were no consistent learning gains Statistical significances: ns except for Schools A and U 128
22 Integrated Learning Systems, National Council for Educational Technology study (1) Mainstream, B. Phase III Main reference: BECTa (1998) Date: 1996-97 Age-range: Y5 Type of children: Mixed-ability N of experimental group: 193 in 11 schools N of control group: 284 in 19 schools Equivalence of groups: not matched; pre-test differences handled statistically N of alternative intervention group: (no alternative intervention group) Length of intervention in weeks: 52 Reading test: not stated Pre- and post-test average standardised scores and s.d’s: not stated Gain: not stated Ratio gain: n/a Effect size: -0.02 (BECTa, 1998, p.9) Statistical significance: statistically significant in favour of control group even though difference was very small (BECTa, 1998, p.9) 22 Integrated Learning Systems, National Council for Educational Technology study (2) For pupils with low attainments in reading No data reported here – see section 3.24 129
Page 1 and 2:
What Works for Children with Litera
Page 3 and 4:
CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES iii LIST OF
Page 5 and 6:
18 SPELLIT 122 19 THRASS 123 20 Tim
Page 7 and 8:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF INFORMATION PRO
Page 9 and 10:
CHAPTER ONE FOCUS AND INTENTION OF
Page 11 and 12:
1.2 The need What proportion of chi
Page 13 and 14:
B. Schemes involving ICT 21 AcceleR
Page 15 and 16:
system that operates in England. Bu
Page 17 and 18:
2.1 Finding your way CHAPTER TWO SI
Page 19 and 20:
As the Appendix again shows, most c
Page 21 and 22:
There appeared to be no tendency fo
Page 23 and 24:
2.10 Partnership approaches for rea
Page 25 and 26:
Somerset, THRASS (for reading, thou
Page 27 and 28:
CHAPTER 3 THE SCHEMES AND THEIR EVA
Page 29 and 30:
A. General schemes 3.1 Better Readi
Page 31 and 32:
(4) Redcar and Cleveland Very few d
Page 33 and 34:
Evaluations The full programme of t
Page 35 and 36:
3.4 Family Literacy (1) Basic Skill
Page 37 and 38:
3.5 Individual Styles in Learning t
Page 39 and 40:
3.7 Interactive Assessment and Teac
Page 41 and 42:
3.9 Multi-sensory Teaching System f
Page 43 and 44:
3.11 Parental Involvement in Haring
Page 45 and 46:
3.13 Phonological Awareness Trainin
Page 47 and 48:
shows that the initiative continues
Page 49 and 50:
(1) London and Surrey The Phonologi
Page 51 and 52:
3.17 Somerset Self-esteem and Readi
Page 53 and 54:
Counselling by non-professionals pl
Page 55 and 56:
Evaluation The programme was evalua
Page 57 and 58:
3.20 Time for Reading Do volunteers
Page 59 and 60:
B. Schemes involving ICT 3.21 Accel
Page 61 and 62:
3.22 Integrated Learning Systems: t
Page 63 and 64:
3.23 RITA (Reader’s Intelligent T
Page 65 and 66:
Yarrow and Topping (2001) studied 1
Page 67 and 68:
CHAPTER 4 COMMENTS ON THE EVALUATIO
Page 69 and 70:
Secondly, most of the tests provide
Page 71 and 72:
REFERENCES Andrews, R., Burn, R., L
Page 73 and 74:
Gorman, T.P. and Brooks, G. (1996).
Page 75 and 76:
Moore, M. and Wade, B. (1998). ‘R
Page 77 and 78:
Torgerson, C., King, S. and Sowden,
Page 79 and 80:
A.1 Introduction to the evaluation
Page 81 and 82:
4) Range of tests used: In all, at
Page 83 and 84:
Where there is a control group but
Page 85 and 86: A.2 Data on evaluated schemes 1 Bet
Page 87 and 88: 1 Better Reading Partnerships (3) C
Page 89 and 90: 1 Better Reading Partnerships (5) W
Page 91 and 92: 2 The Catch Up Project (1) The Pilo
Page 93 and 94: 2 The Catch Up Project (3) Cornwall
Page 95 and 96: 2 The Catch Up Project (5) Norfolk
Page 97 and 98: 3 Cued Spelling (2) Main reference:
Page 99 and 100: 4 Family Literacy (2) Hampshire Mai
Page 101 and 102: 5 Individual Styles in Learning to
Page 103 and 104: - on comprehension, Inference Train
Page 105 and 106: 8 Knowsley Reading Project Main ref
Page 107 and 108: 9 Multi-Sensory Teaching System for
Page 109 and 110: Follow-up: The Kirklees project pro
Page 111 and 112: 1-year follow-up, July 1979 (Tizard
Page 113 and 114: 12 Phono-Graphix (2) Surrey Main re
Page 115 and 116: 14 Reading Intervention (formerly C
Page 117 and 118: 14 Reading Intervention (formerly C
Page 119 and 120: Average pre- and post-test raw scor
Page 121 and 122: Statistical significances: between
Page 123 and 124: 16 Reciprocal Teaching Main referen
Page 125 and 126: Pre- and post-test average scores (
Page 127 and 128: SOMERSET (3) Main reference: Lawren
Page 129 and 130: Ratio gain: n/a Statistical signifi
Page 131 and 132: 19 THRASS Main reference: Matthews
Page 133 and 134: 21 AcceleRead AcceleWrite (formerly
Page 135: 21 AcceleRead AcceleWrite (formerly
Page 139 and 140: 24 Paired Writing (1) Main referenc
Page 141 and 142: 24 Paired Writing (2) Main referenc
Page 143 and 144: 25 Family Literacy Main references:
Page 145 and 146: Table A.4: List of reading studies
Page 147 and 148: Study Year group experimentals) The
Page 149 and 150: BRP in Durham Y2 other adults 1.1 0
Page 151 and 152: PAT Y4-7 teachers, 1-1 0.16 BRP in
Page 153 and 154: Table A.7: List of spelling studies
Page 155 and 156: How should this mass of comparative
show all

What Works for Children with Literacy Difficulties? - Digital ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?