Please direct me toward evidence based teaching methods for reading
-
little_voices
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2015 1:20 pm
Please direct me toward evidence based teaching methods for reading
I've been into a number of my local schools recently providing them with information about what the evidence shows is effective methods for teaching if reading. I've shown them the National Inquiries, the Rose report and have directed them to this website. I have discussed with them the number of struggling readers they have in their school and how to best cater for them. I have been very impressed with the response - they do want to make changes. One school has asked me to recommend particular programs that they could use. They feel they can begin to implement an evidence based program in the prep year and then roll it out from there gradually. I am aware of some great programs such as MultiLit & Sounds Write, but I'd like to find out about studies that have compared the different programs. I've looked through the MUSEC briefings and what works clearinghouse (looking at WWC suggests that Reading Recovery is one of the most effective programs), but would like to find out a bit more. Could anyone point me in the direction of some compiled studies (meta analyses) on effective reading programs for schools to implement?
-
Susan Godsland
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 1:32 pm
Re: Please direct me toward evidence based teaching methods for reading
Hello 'little voices', I suspect you're in Australia?
All the available scientific research evidence points to systematic synthetic phonics (taught as part of a language and literature curriculum) being the most effective method to teach people of all ages how to read (decode) and spell in countries which use an Alphabet Code for their written language.
My webpage has the research links flagged up with a # sign - please scroll down
http://www.dyslexics.org.uk/main_method_3.htm
The most conclusive evidence for SSP came from the Scottish Clackmannanshire research. ''Johnston and Watson (2004) carried out two experiments, one controlled trial and one randomised controlled trial (the gold standard of scientific research) to understand the effects of synthetic phonics teaching on reading and spelling attainment. The research is known as the ‘Clackmannanshire study’. Clackmannanshire is a very deprived area of Scotland. Many of the pupils came from extremely deprived homes and/or had significant educational difficulties – and yet pupils tracked from pre-school to age 11 achieved results in reading and spelling far beyond that expected for their age'' (italics added. DfE. evidence paper p3)
What hasn't been done yet, is *independently* conducted research to determine which of the several evidence-informed SSP programmes available produce the best results. A couple of the UK programmes (Sounds-Write and Sounds Discovery) have gone ahead and produced their own research. I think that MultiLit have done this too.
This webpage lists the programmes which meet the UK's core criteria (see the Rose Report) for a systematic synthetic phonics programme. I know a few of them are also available in Australia.
http://www.dyslexics.org.uk/reading_res ... rammes.htm
Reading Recovery is ''a multi-cueing, non-systematic approach'' (Sir Jim Rose to the SPELD conference AU)
Two positive reports on Reading Recovery® (RR) produced by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) are often used to claim that RR is an effective intervention. Professors James W. Chapman and William E. Tunmer examined the claims: Reading Recovery®: Does It Work? http://johnbald.typepad.com/files/readi ... t-work.pdf
Susan
All the available scientific research evidence points to systematic synthetic phonics (taught as part of a language and literature curriculum) being the most effective method to teach people of all ages how to read (decode) and spell in countries which use an Alphabet Code for their written language.
My webpage has the research links flagged up with a # sign - please scroll down
http://www.dyslexics.org.uk/main_method_3.htm
The most conclusive evidence for SSP came from the Scottish Clackmannanshire research. ''Johnston and Watson (2004) carried out two experiments, one controlled trial and one randomised controlled trial (the gold standard of scientific research) to understand the effects of synthetic phonics teaching on reading and spelling attainment. The research is known as the ‘Clackmannanshire study’. Clackmannanshire is a very deprived area of Scotland. Many of the pupils came from extremely deprived homes and/or had significant educational difficulties – and yet pupils tracked from pre-school to age 11 achieved results in reading and spelling far beyond that expected for their age'' (italics added. DfE. evidence paper p3)
What hasn't been done yet, is *independently* conducted research to determine which of the several evidence-informed SSP programmes available produce the best results. A couple of the UK programmes (Sounds-Write and Sounds Discovery) have gone ahead and produced their own research. I think that MultiLit have done this too.
This webpage lists the programmes which meet the UK's core criteria (see the Rose Report) for a systematic synthetic phonics programme. I know a few of them are also available in Australia.
http://www.dyslexics.org.uk/reading_res ... rammes.htm
Reading Recovery is ''a multi-cueing, non-systematic approach'' (Sir Jim Rose to the SPELD conference AU)
Two positive reports on Reading Recovery® (RR) produced by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) are often used to claim that RR is an effective intervention. Professors James W. Chapman and William E. Tunmer examined the claims: Reading Recovery®: Does It Work? http://johnbald.typepad.com/files/readi ... t-work.pdf
Susan