home index by author index by subject

There is a PowerPoint file available to accompany this presentation. The BDA Conference 2001 CD-ROM contains 61 PowerPoint files. For details of how to obtain the CD-ROM, please contact the BDA.

Talk; ind diffs

Friday stream 4 Session 11.35 - 12.50 Length 25 minutes

Evaluation of Reading Interventions in Infant and Junior Schools

Angela J. Fawcett, Roderick I. Nicolson, Lisa Lynch, Margaret K. Nicolson, Helen Moss and Rea Reason

(1) Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, (2) Dept of Special Educational Needs, University of Manchester a.fawcett@shef.ac.uk

Abstract

There is widespread concern over literacy standards in UK schools. Research evidence suggests that the earlier children at risk of literacy failure can be identified, the more effective (and cost-effective) intervention will be. In this talk we present data from a range of controlled studies designed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectivess of support using traditional and computer-based teaching methods in infant, junior and secondary schools. The results have been extremely encouraging and provide a baseline that allows alternative interventions to be compared. The general approach adopted was:

(1) to screen for potential problems, using teacher recommendations and/or screening tests for each child participating, to develop an individual education plan on the basis of their profile of strengths, weaknesses, attainments and objectives
(2) to create groups of 2-3 children on the basis of similarity of IEP
(3) to undertake structured support in periods of two half hours per week in groups
(4) to evaluate progress at the end of 10 weeks support.

It is important next to determine the effectiveness of the approach. We calculate a quantitative 'cost-effectiveness index' (CEI) of the intervention by dividing the 'effect size' of the improvement by the total amount of resource input. An Added-Value CEI (ACEI) may be derived by substracting from the effect size of the intervention that of a matched group of children in another school, before dividing by the resource input. Results were outstanding, with CEI and ACEI an order of magnitude better than those reported for Reading Recovery, and the majority of participants 'accelerated' to rejoin their classmates. Nonetheless a significant minority of children failed to make sufficient progress and needed further support. These children were particularly likely to be 'at risk' on the dyslexia screening tests.