Memorandum submitted by Sarah Seymour
1. I have been a main stream reception teacher,
a Senco and until recently, an Advisory Support teacher for the
Norfolk LEA, giving advice and support to schools when children
have special educational needs, in particular those with suspected
dyslexia. Part of my remit was to assess children for dyslexic
tendencies and then formulate a remedial literacy programme. I
repeatedly found that poor phonological awareness and inadequate
phonics knowledge were core problems and that a period of intensive,
focussed teaching using synthetic phonics could significantly
address their difficulties where other interventions (eg ELS,
ALS) had failed.
2. I used Sound Discovery, a programme written
by Dr Marlynne Grant, when I was teaching on a 1:1 basis. I had
had significant success using Jolly Phonics when I was a reception
teacher, and wanted to use the same progression but with non age
specific materials, as the children I was helping ranged from
8-13 years old.
3. When I was asked by a Year 2 teacher
in one school if I knew of a phonics programme that could help
eight children who were non readers, we decided to undertake an
informal trial using Sound Discovery.
4. The success of this prompted me to raise
with Cognition and Learning team (part of the Norfolk Psychology
Service) the possibility of a more formal trial at North Elmham
Primary school. This was undertaken in the Spring of 2004. The
purpose of this was to assess the feasibility of using Sound Discovery
as a Wave 3 intervention in a small rural primary school. (a copy
is attached).
5. The conclusion of the trial was that
Sound Discovery was shown to be economical to introduce and use,
with "user friendly" materials and methodology as well
as motivating for staff and children. It showed that the minimum
requirement of doubling the normal rate of progress (as recommended
by the DfES) was achievable for the majority of the children using
this programme.
6. In turn the measurably positive outcome
of this trial has stimulated interest in surrounding schools and
at the requests of their head teachers, I have to date, introduced
the programme into four other primary schools and one secondary
school. Training has been organised for two other schools and
I have been asked to lead a twilight presentation explaining the
principles behind Sound Discovery to a cluster of head teachers
in the February.
7. I suggest that the degree of interest
I am encountering reflects dissatisfaction with the many of the
materials provided by the NLS. This is coupled with convincing
and quantifiable evidence, both national and local, that there
is an effective and economically viable alternative.
8. I also believe that the ready response
that I find when I talk to teachers about the theory behind using
synthetic phonics to develop necessary underpinning skills is
because they are recognising something they already know as experienced
practioners: that it is best to "catch children before they
fall" and that a thorough grounding in phonics can go along
way towards achieving this.
9. My driving concern is to help children
avoid the avoidable, debilitating failure that I have encountered
in my work and that I have helped remediate by using methods that
would be best taught as a primary, initial strategy.
The strong demand for information about Jolly
Phonics and Sound Discovery has been such that I no longer work
for the LEA, but am now self-employed, helping schools to introduce
these programmes.
THE SOUND DISCOVERY TRIAL AT NORTH ELMHAM
PRIMARY SCHOOL NORFOLK SPRING 2004
BACKGROUND
In November 2003 it was agreed by the Cognition
and Learning Team that a small trial should be conducted into
the effectiveness and feasibility of using Sound Discovery as
a Wave 3 intervention in small rural schools. North Elmham Primary
was chosen because the head teacher, Robin Turner, was already
aware of Sound Discovery as a possible literacy intervention and
was consequently interested in participating.
What makes a successful Wave 3 intervention?
The DfES recommends that the "main impact
measure (of an intervention) should be ratio gain: the amount
of progress which children make, in months of reading or spelling
age, divided by the number of months over which those gains were
made. A ratio gain of one represents the normal rate of progress
of all children over time—one month of reading or spelling
age per month of chronological age" (DfES: 2003). The report
continues "if identified children in a school are not, on
average, achieving at least twice the normal rate of progress
through the school's existing Wave 3 literacy provision, it may
be appropriate to re-evaluate what is being offered."
However, it is clear that the overall feasibility
of an intervention within different settings must also be taken
into consideration. For example, the cost of training staff and
buying resources may preclude an intervention in a small school,
regardless of its proven effectiveness. These were issues that
we were interested in addressing apart from the measure of ratio
gain.
What is Sound Discovery?
Sound Discovery is a synthetic phonics programme
developed by Dr Marlynne Grant, an Educational Psychologist in
South Gloucester. It is suitable for "First Wave", "Slow
to start" and dyslexic pupils of all ages.
It was influenced by the literacy and language
programmes of Dr Jonathan Solity ((ERR), Sue Lloyd (Jolly Phonics),
Mona Mc Nee (Step by Step), Ruth Miskin (rml), and Diane McGuiness
(Phono-graphix) as well as academic research from major universities
such as St Andrew's (Johnson and Watson, 1997 and 1998), Dundee
(Seymour and Duncan, 1997) Hull (Muter, Snowing and Taylor, 1997),
Institute of Education, London (Stuart 1999) and Warwick (Solity
et al 1999).
What are the principles behind Sound Discovery?
Sound Discovery is underpinned by the following
principles:
Whole class/group teaching—to develop
attention, social skills and interaction
Reinforcement and repetition are built in—interleaved
learning
Recall—students are encouraged
to make active attempts at recall rather than just recognition
Oral work—to develop phonological
skills
Interactive and lively teaching—to
engage children and keep them focussed
Multi-sensory methods
Frequent rehearsal—little and often
Fluency and mastery in learning is essential
Direct instruction (modelling )—I
do, we do, you do.
Sound Discovery teaches
— initially by fusing the Jolly Phonics
programme (Jolly Phonics 1992) with the Sound Discovery methodology
— that the alphabet is a logical code
— synthetic phonics as an initial,
primary strategy
— using a systematic and progressive
structure
— using the "Snappy lesson"—which
integrates both reading and writing skills
— using the following progression in
each lesson: phoneme < word < sentence level
— a modelled approach to writing: I
do, we do, you do.
Sound Discovery was piloted, then trialled and
evaluated in a large mainstream primary in South Gloucester with
low entry assessments (approx 630 pupils) before it was published
in 2000 (Sound Discovery, 2000). It can be used as Wave 1, 2 or
3 interventions.
The first cohort of pupils to have started with
the programme when it was being piloted (as Wave 1)in Reception
took their KS2 SATs in Summer 2003. 33.3% of the boys got Level
5 in writing, compared to 9.5% for the LEA and 11% nationally.
Why trial Sound Discovery in Norfolk?
— evidence based research elsewhere
has shown it to be effective
— it has been shown to be very motivating—particularly
to boys
— the materials and methodology are
non age specific
— it is very adaptable within its own
framework
— the materials are reasonably priced
and accessible
— LSAs can deliver it after relatively
brief training
— it uses group teaching as a preferred
model
— it is being considered by other LEAs
as their main Wave 3 intervention.
The main aims of the trial were to evaluate
— What impact can Sound Discovery have
on: reading skills; spelling age; phonic skills; motivation?
— Which pupils will benefit most from
Sound Discovery?
— How cost/time effective is it in
terms of school resources?
— How manageable were the materials
and methodology for those delivering it?
— If the training/support given to
the school were adequate?
Length of trial and number of sessions
The 10 week trial (with a one week break for
half term) took place during the Spring term. Each pupil had five
20 minute sessions a week in small groups of 3-5 children, taught
by an LSA.
The groups
The children were taught in five groups, arranged
according to attainment rather than year group. This made it possible
to include a Yr 5 child with SLD whose attainment is significantly
behind her peers, by placing her with Yr3/2s (Child O).
The children were screened using the Sound Discovery
placement test provided in the manual, which places children on
a "step" of the programme. The children were then grouped
according to the step they were on (Appendix 1).
The role of the Norfolk Psychological Service
was
— to discuss the principles behind
Sound Discovery with teachers/staff
— to outline the project requirements
— to train the relevant school staff
to use programme
— to discuss the selection of pupils
and time tabling
— to provide further support and advice
after initial training
— to administer pre and post testing
and collect data
— to analyse data and discuss results
with school.
The role of the school was
— to identify pupils in discussion
with AST
— to allocate staff and time to work
with groups
— assist in pre and post testing questionnaires
— to inform parents if their children
were part of the project
— to liaise with NPS and help monitor
the project.
Assessing and measuring progress
The following pre and post data was to be collected
for the trial
Salford Reading Test (revised 2000)
Young's Parallel Spelling test
The Basic Literacy Assessment
Sound Discovery Placement test
Questionnaires for pupils, teachers and LSA's
to gauge their response to the programme.
Assessment and age range
As Sound Discovery can be used with any age
group, and target different levels and types of literacy skills,
it was decided to use it from Reception to Year 6 at North Elmham.
There was a wide range of attainment in the
sample: for example between children developing pre-reading skills
to those whose reading was age appropriate but who needed a boost
with spelling. The sample also included children with identified
SpeLD, ADHD and SLD.
As there were no standardised tests available
that could measure all the skills across the age range, it was
decided to use the same battery of tests as those used in other
trials eg the Phonics Based Reading trial, even though they were
applied to a much narrower age range in those instances.
It was agreed that for consistency we would
use all tests with all the children, although with such a difference
in age/attainment, significant numbers inevitably scored either
below the baseline or above the ceiling of the tests, either before
or after the trial.
The diversity of the data made it hard to give
meaningful overall average or ratio gains for all the tests. In
order to give an idea of the effectiveness of the programs in
average ratio terms we have omitted from the calculation children
who were below the baseline age or above the ceiling of the tests
in attainment. The Reception children were below the baseline
age for the Young's spelling test. In some instances the children
hit the ceiling of the test in post testing and scored 100%—this
is indicated on the data.
OUTCOMES OF THE TRIAL
READING SKILLS
Using the Salford Sentence Reading Test as a
measure (for those whose age and attainment made it appropriate)
the average ratio gain was 3.8 over a period of 11 weeks. (Appendix
1).
Some children made substantial gains (eg Child
F—a ratio gain of 10.4, 26 months) while others made gains
which were not as dramatic, but reflected significant progress
given the nature and degree of their difficulties (eg Child O).
The data from the Basic Literacy Assessment
gives useful insight into individual as well as collective progress.
It suggests the programme was providing basic pre reading skill
for some, but also filling in gaps for other children. So while
the Yr R/1 children were focusing on learning single sound/symbol
correspondence and their ability to blend and segment (see Appendices
3, 4, 5, 6) others benefited from practising these skills as catch
up, bringing their skills up to 100% on the assessment. This is
also noticeable in the reading and spelling of high frequency
words (see Appendices 7 and 8).
SPELLING
Using Young Parallel Spelling Test as a measure
for those within the age range, an average ratio gain of 2.7 was
made over 11 weeks. Although individual gains were less dramatic
(with the exception of Child Q who made a ratio gain of 6.4),
most children made gain around the 2 mark. There was also evidence
of significant progress on the Basic Literacy Assessment 10—spelling
of HF words.
MOTIVATION
The level of motivation has been one of the
most encouraging aspects of the trial. This has been reported
by the LSAs, the teachers and the head teacher as being an important
factor amongst both the children and staff. (Appendix 9 and 10)
As the head teacher comments in his summary "the staff were
highly motivated by its (Sound Dicovery) simplicity and the enjoyment
expressed by the children who took part. Quite simply they were
sold on the idea. Their belief in its success was transmitted
to the children, whose enthusiasm then drove the scheme forward."
(Appendix 12).
The children's comments are very positive (see
Appendix 11) not only saying that they like it but giving examples,
suggesting they have reflected on their own progress eg "it
definitely helps in class with my spelling—I could spell
`brilliant' by sounding it out" Other comments indicate an
increase in general confidence eg "I like it because it makes
me feel good. When I go back to class I feel I can do it all.
I feel proud".
While there was some quite dramatic progress
shown by some children (eg Children F, N, L and Q) there was progress
shown by all children in some areas, most of them in all, according
to their starting point on the trial and other underlying factors.
It suggests that it was effective as a Wave 2 intervention for
some and as a Wave 3 for others.
HOW COST/TIME
EFFECTIVE WAS
IT IN
TERMS OF
SCHOOL RESOURCES?
It is estimated by the school that £320
was spent on additional resources—this included the Sound
Discovery manuals, four sets of magnetic letters and boards, and
Sound Discovery "Phonics First" reading books.
One and half days were put aside for training
the four LSAs, which included the visit to observe a lesson being
taught.
The ongoing costs are minimal as the all materials
are photocopiable. The school has chosen to laminate these for
durability and to further reduce future preparation time.
HOW MANAGEABLE
WERE THE
MATERIALS AND
METHODOLOGY FOR
THOSE DELIVERING
IT?
The LSAs reported that the materials and methodology
are straightforward to use and rated it better than other interventions
they have used. They found the manual simple and clear, useful
as a base. Some felt the preparation of materials was more onerous
than others. The time taken is partly because the materials were
being laminated for future use and longevity. The idea of arranging
them into folders according to individual "steps" was
a good one and should limit the amount of preparation time in
future. The majority felt they were clear about the principles
behind Sound Discovery and all found it easy to use.
WAS THE
TRAINING/SUPPORT
GIVEN TO
THE SCHOOL
ADEQUATE?
While this question was answered positively
on the questionnaire, there were additional suggestions. One was
that the visit to observe and discuss a Sound Discovery session
at another school should happen before the days training. This
opportunity was considered by most to have been useful.
Another was that the training should be split
in two, perhaps with the visit in between, to allow "absorption
time".
The follow up training visit, intended as an
opportunity to air concerns, ask questions and clarify issues
was regarded as useful.
The Sound Discovery training videos were not
generally liked.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
RAISED BY
STAFF
The importance of having a permanent teaching
space for SD was raised. The size of group was raised (that five
were too many).
The usefulness of peer/staff observation was
mooted as a method of monitoring the delivery of the Snappy lesson.
The importance of record keeping as a way of
informing future planning of lessons.
There was a suggestion that a linkup with parents
of those on Sound Discovery could be fruitful.
CONCLUSION
The main aims of the trial were to evaluate
the impact that Sound Discovery has on reading, writing and motivation,
and also the feasibility of its implementation within a small
rural school.
The "rule of thumb" advocated by the
DfES, of a ratio gain of "at least double the normal rate
of progress" (DfES 2003) was satisfied at North Elmham. This
is especially significant given the brevity of the trial. It is
the expectation of the Head teacher and the staff that the gains
will continue to rise exponentially.
The general impression given by staff and children
is that the experience of using Sound Discovery has been a particularly
motivating one. (See Appendices 9, 10, 11, 12).
A measure of the success of the trial at the
school was their decision to continue with Sound Discovery, regardless
of any statistical outcomes, which have merely confirmed what
they had observed. Old Buckenham Primary, where it had been trialled
for two terms on a smaller, more ad hoc scale, have been similarly
convinced by their own experience and have now introduced it,
after appropriate training, on a whole school basis.
It is certainly seen by North Elmham School
as a cost effective intervention "cheap and easy to introduce,
economical in terms of time, all combined in a multi sensory,
easy to use hands on package".
The trial has demonstrated that Sound Discovery
is economical to introduce and use, with "user friendly"
materials and methodology as well as motivating for staff and
children. It has shown that the minimum requirement of doubling
the normal rate of progress is achievable for most children using
this programme.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The positive impact that the introduction of
Sound Discovery has had on the children's progress at North Elmham
School indicates that it merits consideration as a recommended
Wave 3 literacy intervention in Norfolk pending further consideration
by the strategy group.
The trial has confirmed its potential for meeting
the needs for children struggling with literacy. In particular,
it is:
— non age specific, the methodology
and materials spanning the key stages; and
— possible to incorporate within the
NLS.
In view of these significant qualities it seems
reasonable to propose an initiative that introduces it more widely,
perhaps by initially targeting schools that demonstrate the greatest
level of need. Although it can be used with all ages, it would
be in line with the philosophy of early intervention if these
were primary schools.
Interested schools would be invited to attend
a short introductory session, outlining the programme and the
level and nature of commitment necessary for successful implementation.
This would include an identified member of the leadership group
responsible for organising and monitoring the programme.
The next step would be staff training: this
would comprise: a short twilight for teachers; two half days and
an arranged observation trip (to see best practice). Following
the introductory training, monitoring should be undertaken by
the designated teacher in school with support from the area Advisory
Support Teacher. Access to a further session or regular "user
group" sessions would be worthy of consideration and a follow
up session for LSAs.
It is intended that by planning and introducing
the programme appropriately the LSAs would have the requisite
skills and knowledge to deliver sessions that ensure the success
the programme is designed to achieve.
REFERENCES
DfES (2003). Targeting Support: choosing and
implementing interventions for children with significant literacy
difficulties: Ref DfES 0201/2003.
Lloyd. S (1992). The Phonics Handbook. Jolly
Learning Ltd.
Grant. M (2000). Sound Discovery. Ridgehill
Publishing.
Grant M (in press). Raising Literacy attainment
of all pupils in a mainstream primary setting with a particular
reference to boy's writing a six years longitudinal study. Educational
Psychology Service. South Gloucester Council.
APPENDIX 1
PROGRESS WITH READING SALFORD SENTENCE READING
TEST (REVISED)
| Child | DOB
| CA | NCYG |
RA 9.1.04 | RA 30.3.04
| Ratio Gain |
| A. | 30.6.99 | 4 years 6 months
| R | No score | No score
| NA |
| B. | 7.2.99 | 4 years 11 months
| R | No score | No score
| NA |
| C. | 4. 4.98 | 5 years 8 months
| 1 | No score | No score
| NA |
| D. | 1.4.98 | 5 years 9 months
| 1 | No score | No score
| NA |
| E. | 3.3.97 | 6 years 10 months
| 2 | 4 years 3 months | 5 years
| 3.6 |
| F. | 9.12.96 | 7 years
| 2 | 4 years 10 months | 7 years
| 10.4 |
| G. | 10.8.96 | 7 years 4 months
| 3 | 4 years 10 months | 5 years 6 months
| 3.2 |
| H. | 4.6.96 | 7 years 7 months
| 3 | 5 years 7 months | 7 years 1 month
| 7.2 |
| I. | 27.4.96 | 7 years 8 months
| 3 | 7 years 6 months | 7 years 10 months
| 1.6 |
| J. | 25.3.96 | 7 years 9 months
| 3 | 5 years 2 months | 5 years 8 months
| 2.4 |
| K. | 10.12.95 | 8 years
| 3 | 4 years 6 months | *4 years 5 months
| -0.4 |
| L. | 1.8.95 | 8 years 5 months
| 4 | 5 years 7 months | 6 years 7 months
| 4.8 |
| M. | 30.8.94 | 9 years 4 months
| 5 | 7 years 9 months | 8 years 4 months
| 2.8 |
| N. | 13.3.94 | 9 years 9 months
| 5 | 7 years | 8 years 1 month
| 5.2 |
| O. | 26.4.94 | 9 years 8 months
| 5 | 4 years 6 months | 4 years 9 month
| 1.2 |
| P. | 6.7.94 | 9 years 8 months
| 5 | **10 years 2 months+ |
NA | NA |
| Q. | 1.12.92 | 11.1 months
| 6 | **10 years 2 months+ |
NA | NA |
| Total | | |
| | | 42
|
CA = chronological age
RA = reading age
RG = ratio gain
*Unwell on day of test ** these children scored at the ceiling of the test ie above 10 years 2 months
Average Ratio Gain = 3.8 (42/11 (The number between floor and ceiling of the test) = 3.8)
| | | |
| | |
APPENDIX 2
PROGRESS WITH SPELLING YOUNG'S PARALLEL SPELLING TEST
| Child | DOB |
CA | NCYG | SA 9.1.04
| SA 30.3.04 | Ratio
Gain
|
| A. | 30.6.99 | 4 years 6 months
| R | <5 years 9 months |
6 years | NA |
| B. | 7.2.99 | 4 years 11 months
| R | <5 years 9 months |
No score | NA |
| C. | 1. 4.98 | 5 years 9 months
| 1 | <5 years 9 months |
6 years 4 months | NA |
| D. | 14.4.98 | 5 years 8 months
| 1 | 5 years 11 months | 6 years 6 months
| 2.8 |
| E. | 3.3.97 | 6 years 10 months
| 2 | 6 years 6 months | 6 years 11 months
| 2 |
| F. | 9.12.96 | 7 years
| 2 | 6 years 11 months | 7 years 4 months
| 2 |
| G. | 10.8.96 | 7 years 4 months
| 3 | 7 years | 7 years 4 months
| 1.6 |
| H. | 4.6.96 | 7 years 7 months
| 3 | 6 years 11 months | 7 years 4 months
| 2 |
| I. | 27.4.96 | 7 years 8 months
| 3 | 7 years 5 months | 8 years
| 2.8 |
| J. | 25.3.96 | 7 years 9 months
| 3 | 7 years 1 months | 7 years 8 months
| 2.8 |
| K. | 10.12.95 | 8 years
| 3 | 6 years 4 months | 7 years
| 3.2 |
| L. | 1.8.95 | 8 years 5 months
| 4 | 7 years | 7 years 5 months
| 2 |
| M. | 30.8.94 | 9 years 4 months
| 5 | 7 years 6 months | 8 years
| 2.4 |
| N. | 13.3.94 | 9 years 9 months
| 5 | 7 years 6 months | 8 years
| 2.4 |
| O. | 26.4.94 | 9 years 8 months
| 5 | 6 years 2 months | 6 years 7 months
| 2 |
| P. | 6.7.94 | 9 years 8 months
| 5 | 8 years 1 month | 8 years 8 months
| 2.8 |
| Q. | 1.12.92 | 11.1 months
| 6 | 8 years 8 months | 10 years
| 6.4 |
| Total | |
| | | | 37.2
|
| CA = chronological age | |
| | |
| |
| SA = spelling age | |
| | | |
|
| RG = ratio gain | |
| | | |
|
| Average Ratio Gain = 2.7 (37.2/14) |
| | | |
| |
| | |
| | |
|
APPENDIX 3
BASIC LITERACY ASSESSMENT TESTS 1a AND b ALPHABET—SOUND/SYMBOL:
SYMBOL/SOUND
| Child | NCYG |
Test date:
9.1.04/
52 | Test date:
1.4.04/
52
| % known before | % known after
| % gain |
| A | R | 27
| 45 | 52 | 87 |
35 |
| B | R | 7
| 34 | 13 | 65 |
52 |
| C | 1 | 27
| 50 | 52 | 96 |
44 |
| D | 1 | 43
| 50 | 83 | 96 |
13 |
| E | 2 | 47
| 52 | 90 | 100
| 10 |
| *F | 2 | 52 |
52 | 100 | 100 |
NA |
| *G | 3 | 52 |
52 | 100 | 100 |
NA |
| *H | 3 | 52 |
52 | 100 | 100 |
NA |
| *I | 3 | 52 |
52 | 100 | 100 |
NA |
| *J | 3 | 52 |
52 | 100 | 100 |
NA |
| *K | 3 | 52 |
52 | 100 | 100 |
NA |
| *L | 4 | 52 |
52 | 100 | 100 |
NA |
| *M | 5 | 52 |
52 | 100 | 100 |
NA |
| *N | 5 | 52 |
52 | 100 | 100 |
NA |
| O | 5 | 45
| 51 | 87 | 98 |
11 |
| *P | 5 | 52 |
52 | 100 | 100 |
NA |
| *Q | 6 | 52 |
52 | 100 | 100 |
NA |
| * These children scored at the ceiling of the test.
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|
APPENDIX 4
BASIC LITERACY ASSESSMENT TESTS 2 AND 3 CONSONANT DIGRAPHS
AND BLENDS
| Child | NCYG |
Test date:
9.1.04
/24
|
Test date:
1.4.04
/24 | % known before
| % known after | % gain
|
| A | R | 0
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
0 |
| B | R | 0
| 2 | 0 | 8 |
8 |
| C | 1 | 0
| 1 | 0 | 4 |
4 |
| D | 1 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
0 |
| E | 2 | 2
| 23 | 8 | 96 |
88 |
| *F | 2 | 24 |
24 | 100 | 100 |
NA |
| G | 3 | 11
| 23 | 46 | 96 |
50 |
| *H | 3 | 24 |
24 | 100 | 100 |
NA |
| *I | 3 | 24 |
24 | 100 | 100 |
NA |
| J | 3 | 19
| 24 | 79 | 100
| 21 |
| K | 3 | 6
| 13 | 25 | 54 |
29 |
| *L | 4 | 24 |
24 | 100 | 100 |
NA |
| *M | 5 | 24 |
24 | 100 | 100 |
NA |
| *N | 5 | 24 |
24 | 100 | 100 |
NA |
| O | 5 | 4
| 18 | 17 | 75 |
58 |
| *P | 5 | 24 |
24 | 100 | 100 |
NA |
| *Q | 6 | 24 |
24 | 100 | 100 |
NA |
| * These children scored at the ceiling of the test.
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|
APPENDIX 5
BASIC LITERACY ASSESSMENT TESTS 4a AND b SEGMENTING AND
BLENDING SKILLS
| Child | NCYG |
Test date:
9.1.04
/42 | Test date:
1.4.04
/42
| % known before | % known after
| % gain |
| A | R | 2
| 21 | 5 | 50 |
48 |
| B | R | 8
| 15 | 19 | 36 |
17 |
| C | 1 | 16
| 36 | 38 | 90 |
52 |
| D | 1 | 33
| 34 | 78 | 81 |
3 |
| **E | 2 | 36 |
42 | 86 | 100 |
14 |
| **F | 2 | 40 |
42 | 95 | 100 |
5 |
| **G | 3 | 40 |
42 | 95 | 100 |
5 |
| **H | 3 | 40 |
42 | 95 | 100 |
5 |
| I | 3 | 36
| 40 | 86 | 95 |
9 |
| **J | 3 | 38 |
42 | 90 | 100 |
10 |
| *K | 3 | 42
| 42 | 100 | 100
| NA |
| *L | 4 | 42
| 42 | 100 | 100
| NA |
| *M | 5 | 42
| 42 | 100 | 100
| NA |
| *N | 5 | 42
| 42 | 100 | 100
| NA |
| **O | 5 | 36 |
42 | 86 | 100 |
14 |
| *P | 5 | 42
| 42 | 100 | 100
| NA |
| *Q | 6 | 42
| 42 | 100 | 100
| NA |
| * These children scored at the ceiling of the test at pre-testing.
| | | |
| | |
| ** These children achieved scores at the ceiling of the test at post testing.
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|
APPENDIX 6
BASIC LITERACY ASSESSMENT TESTS 5, 6, 7 ABILITY TO DECODE
CVC,CCVC,CCVCC WORDS
| Child | NCYG |
Test date:
9.1.04
/30 words |
Test date:
1.4.04
/30words |
% known before | % known after
| % gain |
| A | R | 0
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
0 |
| B | R | 0
| 1 | 0 | 3 |
3 |
| C | 1 | 0
| 5 | 0 | 16 |
16 |
| D | 1 | 0
| 10 | 0 | 33 |
33 |
| E | 2 | 5
| 24 | 33 | 80 |
47 |
| **F | 2 | 27 |
30 | 90 | 100 |
10 |
| G | 3 | 13
| 24 | 43 | 80 |
37 |
| **H | 3 | 17 |
30 | 57 | 100 |
43 |
| **I | 3 | 23 |
30 | 76 | 100 |
24 |
| **J | 3 | 21 |
30 | 70 | 100 |
30 |
| K | 3 | 1
| 17 | 3 | 57 |
54 |
| *L | 4 | 30
| 30 | 100 | 100
| NA |
| *M | 5 | 30
| 30 | 100 | 100
| NA |
| **N | 5 | 23 |
30 | 76 | 100 |
24 |
| O | 5 | 6
| 19 | 20 | 63 |
43 |
| *P | 5 | 30
| 30 | 100 | 100
| NA |
| *Q | 6 | 30
| 30 | 100 | 100
| NA |
| * These children scored at the ceiling of the test at pre-testing.
| | | |
| | |
| ** These children achieved scores at the ceiling of the test at post testing.
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|
APPENDIX 7
BASIC LITERACY ASSESSMENT TEST 9 SIGHT VOCABULARY: READING
| Child | NCYG |
Test date:
9.1.04
/45 | Test date:
1.4.04
/45
| % known before | % known after
| % gain |
| A | R | 0
| 6 | 0 | 13 |
13 |
| B | R | 0
| 5 | 0 | 11 |
11 |
| C | 1 | 1
| 15 | 2 | 33 |
31 |
| D | 1 | 1
| 18 | 2 | 40 |
38 |
| E | 2 | 26
| 38 | 58 | 84 |
26 |
| **F | 2 | 41 |
45 | 91 | 100 |
9 |
| **G | 3 | 39 |
45 | 87 | 100 |
13 |
| **H | 3 | 44 |
45 | 98 | 100 |
2 |
| *I | 3 | 45
| 45 | 100 | 100
| NA |
| *J | 3 | 45
| 45 | 100 | 100
| NA |
| K | 3 | 30
| 37 | 67 | 82 |
15 |
| **L | 4 | 42 |
45 | 93 | 100 |
7 |
| *M | 5 | 45
| 45 | 100 | 100
| NA |
| **N | 5 | 43 |
45 | 95 | 100 |
5 |
| O | 5 | 30
| 37 | 67 | 82 |
15 |
| *P | 5 | 52
| 52 | 100 | 100
| NA |
| *Q | 6 | 52
| 52 | 100 | 100
| NA |
| * These children scored at the ceiling of the test.
| | | |
| | |
| ** These children achieved scores at the ceiling of the test at post testing.
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|
APPENDIX 8
BASIC LITERACY ASSESSMENT TEST 10 HIGH FREQUENCY WORDS:
SPELLING
| Child | NCYG |
Test date:
9.1.04
/45 | Test date:
1.4.04
/45
| % known before | % known after
| % gain |
| A | R | 0
| 13 | 0 | 29 |
29 |
| B | R | 0
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
0 |
| C | 1 | 2
| 19 | 4 | 42 |
38 |
| D | 1 | 8
| 19 | 18 | 42 |
24 |
| E | 2 | 21
| 31 | 47 | 69 |
22 |
| F | 2 | 31
| 39 | 69 | 87 |
18 |
| G | 3 | 35
| 43 | 78 | 96 |
18 |
| H | 3 | 34
| 41 | 76 | 91 |
15 |
| I | 3 | 43
| 43 | 96 | 96 |
0 |
| J | 3 | 36
| 44 | 80 | 98 |
18 |
| K | 3 | 28
| 36 | 62 | 80 |
18 |
| L | 4 | 38
| 39 | 84 | 87 |
3 |
| *M | 5 | 44 |
45 | 98 | 100 |
2 |
| *N | 5 | 43 |
45 | 96 | 100 |
4 |
| O | 5 | 13
| 29 | 29 | 64 |
35 |
| *P | 5 | 44 |
45 | 98 | 100 |
2 |
| *Q | 6 | 44 |
45 | 98 | 100 |
2 |
| * These children achieved at the ceiling of the test at post testing.
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|
APPENDIX 9
SOUND DISCOVERY QUESTIONNAIRE: LEARNING SUPPORT ASSISTANTS
| Training | Low
| . . . | High
|
| Q. Was the initial training adequate?
| 1 2 3 4 5 |
Clearly explained, easy to understand
Sarah a good trainer
Modelling at OBP very useful
Yes
| Average: 4 |
| Q. What would you add/take away? |
| | |
Sound Discovery
Observation at Old Buckenham first, before days input
| | | |
| Q. How useful was the follow up visit?
| | | |
It was reinforcing/affirming.
Opportunity to talk through changes/feedback
Limited access to Sarah on second visit—did increase pace post visit
Very useful—opportunity to clarify and ask questions
Ok—could air any problems or queries
| Average: 4.5 |
| Q. How useful was the visit to see a lesson modelled?
| | | |
Came away feeling much more confident
Not useful
Really useful
Very helpful and discussion afterwards with the LSA at OBCP
| Average: 3.5 |
| Materials | |
| |
| Q. Is the manual clear and comprehensible?
| | | |
As a base it is useful
Simple and clear
Sorted the sessions into folders for future use
| Average: 4.25 |
| Q. Are the materials straightforward to use?
| | | |
| Yes. | Average: 4.25
|
| Q. Do they take long to prepare? |
| | |
No—initially yes but they are simple
Better than others programs—less preparation
About 35 mins per step—to copy laminate and cut up—lasts 2 weeks
20 mins per week
| Average: 4.5 |
| Methodology | |
| |
| Q. Are you clear about the principles behind SD?
| | | |
Yes
Yes, fine
We benefited from the teacher and LSA sessions.
No
| Average: 3.75 |
| Q. Is it a straight forward method to use?
| | | |
Strands are clear
Brilliant
Yes
Fine
| Average: 4.75 |
| Q. How does it compare to other interventions you have used?
| | | |
Better—ALS is tedious
Better—less preparation
Length of session better excellent—much better
Never fan of ALS—PAT—enjoyed using this with younger children—older ones needed something more challenging eg SD
| Average: 5 |
| Q. Does it motivate the children? |
| | |
Yes, competitive—speed element
Yes—greater confidence to have a go
Yes.
| Average: 4.5 |
| Q. Do you like using it? |
| | |
I enjoy using it—it gets the children more involved, both verbally and mentally, than other interventions I have used. its much more fun and interactive
Yes—it gives a chance for praise
I like the enjoyment of pupils and you can see the progress
Yes—the children are happy and enjoy it—size of group helps
| Average: 4.75 |
| Q. Is there evidence that the children transfer their leaning into the class room?
| | | |
A bit early to say—but you can see progress within the sessions
Confidence of pupils
Yes, with literacy—try first with spelling—greater independence
Can't comment really as they are in a different class
| Average: 4 |
| Any other comments: |
| | |
Vertical grouping can be problematic—in terms of class timing.
Need for observation by staff to consolidate skills I found 5 in a group too large.
A permanent teaching space for SD is vital.
Issues around SAT's period.
SD reading books not very inspiring.
Easy to maintain and pick up for delivery.
Link up with parents of SD group.
Even though my group levelled—I found difficulties very different—in future will be done by LSA's/teachers.
Levelling—some inaccuracies.
Less confident with accelerating progress pf children with pervasive difficulties.
Would be better to have same room each day.
Feel record keeping important—week by week—planning session by session then develop from this.
| | | |
| | |
|
APPENDIX 10
SOUND DISCOVERY QUESTIONNAIRE : TEACHERS
| Learning | Low
| . . . | High
|
| Q. Do you think Sound Discovery has made an impact on the children's reading/ spelling?
| 1 2 3 4 5 |
More enthusiasm for reading
More focussed
Helped Christian and Christopher
Too soon to say
Pride in progressing through the numbered books
| Average: 3 |
| Q. Have you noticed any transfer of skills into to other area of the curriculum?
| | | |
More independence with reading and writing
Seem more generally motivated
| Average: 4 |
| Q. Do you think SD is motivating? |
| | |
Children terribly keen
Brett and Heather definitely benefited
Tom less interested
There is enthusiasm to go to SD groups
| Average: 5 |
| Management | |
| |
| Q. Are you clear about the principles behind SD?
| | | |
Comments:
Yes definitely
As much as I need to know
| Average: 4 |
| Q. Do you think it is an effective use of LSA time?
| | | |
| Provided targeted at right children | Average: 5
|
| Q. In comparison with other programmes would you feel SD is a robust Wave 3 intervention?
| | | |
| | |
|
APPENDIX 11
PUPIL'S COMMENTS ON SOUND DISCOVERY
CHILD Q Y6
"A lot of fun. I feel a lot better. I think it helped
me a lot; it's helped me with my spellings. When I write spellings
in class, it's a bit easier".
CHILD O Y5
"It learnt me new things and that, I liked it. I liked
writing the best in our green books. It helped me writing and
that, really good. I liked to be in the group. It's helped me
in class . . .'cos if you didn't know how to spell the words,
now I can sound the words out with my phoneme fingers".
CHILD N YR
5
"I know how to spell everything and read everything—though
some bits are a quite hard and some bits are easy. Phoneme fingers
is hard with some words but it is helping. I think I am getting
better slowly. I like it because it makes me feel good. When I
go back to class I feel I can do it all. I feel proud".
CHILD M YR
5
"Its good and I like it. My friends are there to help
me. I don't know if it has helped me but I like doing it".
CHILD P YR
5
"It has helped me with my sounds and spelling and it's
fun! I would like to go on doing it next term. It definitely helps
in class with my spelling. I sound out in my head and use my fingers.
I think I am getting better. I could spell `brilliant' by sounding
it out".
CHILD L YR
4
"It's alright. It may have helped me. I liked making
words up on the board—I don't know if it has helped me in
class".
CHILD J YR
3
"I liked it—its fun. I liked making words on the
board and the game passing the sentence—you have to read
them out".
CHILD H YR
3
"Its fun. We make different words and I like spelling
them as well. My favourite bit is handwriting. I am getting better
at reading and handwriting".
CHILD K Y3
"Its good doing it. It's helping me learn about words.
My favourite bit is when we play the swap game".
CHILD K YR
3
"I don't like it. I get bored—I find it easy sometimes
when I am up to it. I think it has helped a little bit".
CHILD I YR
3
"I think it's very good 'cos you get to learn lots of
stuff about words, sounds and handwriting. I like playing games".
CHILD E YR
2
"It's really good because you get to do really good
stuff. It helps me when I write a story in class because if there's
a word I don't know I can sound it out".
CHILD F YR
2
"I like it because it really gets me going. It gets
me learning more about spellings and how to make words—that
two sounds say something together. I work hard".
CHILD C YR
1
"I like it especially the games and making words on
the board".
CHILD D YR
1
"You have to listen and do writing on the board. Its
fun and I like it—it helps me spell words".
CHILD A YR
R
He liked the magnetic letters.
APPENDIX 12
HEAD TEACHER'S SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
Over the last two years, analysis of internal assessments
and analysis of performance data highlighted a small number of
children who fall behind with literacy skills despite very good
delivery of the national literacy and support strategies. This
led to the search for a more effective intervention strategy.
Sound Discovery had a variety of attractions; cheap and easy
to introduce, claims of good rates of progress, economical in
terms of time, all combined in a multi-sensory, easy to use, hands-on
package.
IMPLEMENTATION
After a day's training the support staff found the scheme
easy to introduce. They were highly motivated by its simplicity
and the enjoyment expressed by the children. Quite simply, they
were sold on the idea. Their belief in its success was transmitted
to the children, whose enthusiasm then drove the scheme forward.
BENEFITS
Long before the final retesting, the decision had been made
to continue with Sound Discovery. Regardless of statistics, the
conversion of the reluctant reader/writer who always said; "No"
or "I can't" into children who say; "I can"
or "Can we do some more during playtime?" was evidence
enough that it had a very beneficial effect.
There were social benefits too. The skills involved in sharing,
or playing games in a constructive daily setting, met other needs.
Finally, the data from retesting validated what we knew was
happening. It illustrated the substantial gains that we were looking
for.
SUMMARY
It works. When you read the children's own comments, hear
their opinions round the lunch table, observe their enthusiasm
and enhanced self-esteem then you know Sound Discovery works without
even looking at statistical gains.
It is the cycle of pleasure: success. . .self-esteem. . .motivation.
. .which I find most encouraging.
APPENDIX 13
PLACEMENT GROUPS FOR SOUND DISCOVERY—SPRING TERM
2004
| Group 1 | Step 2.2
|
| Y6 | Child Q |
|
| Y5 | Child P |
|
| Group 2 | Step 1.5
|
| Y5 | Child M |
|
| Y5 | Child N |
|
| Y4 | Child L |
|
| Group 3 | Step 1.3
|
| Y3 | Child I |
|
| Y3 | Child J |
|
| Y3 | Child H |
|
| Y2 | Child F |
|
| Group 4 | Step 1.1
|
| Y5 | Child O |
|
| Y3 | Child G |
|
| Y3 | Child K |
|
| Y2 | Child E |
|
| Y1 | Child D |
|
| Group 5 | Step 1.1
|
| Y1 | Child C |
|
| Yr | Child A |
|
| Yr | Child B |
|
| |
|
| 
