The longitudinal impact of a comprehensive literacy intervention

This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 09 October 2014, At: 18:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rere20

The longitudinal impact of acomprehensive literacy interventionNancy Ferguson a , Laura-Ann Currie a , Marianne Paul a & KeithTopping ba North Lanarkshire Psychological Service , Coatbridge, UKb School of Education , University of Dundee , Nethergate,Dundee, UKPublished online: 03 Aug 2011.

To cite this article: Nancy Ferguson , Laura-Ann Currie , Marianne Paul & Keith Topping (2011) Thelongitudinal impact of a comprehensive literacy intervention, Educational Research, 53:3, 237-256,DOI: 10.1080/00131881.2011.598657

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2011.598657

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rere20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00131881.2011.598657

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2011.598657

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The longitudinal impact of a comprehensive literacy intervention

Nancy Fergusona, Laura-Ann Curriea, Marianne Paula and Keith Toppingb*

aNorth Lanarkshire Psychological Service, Coatbridge, UK; bSchool of Education, University ofDundee, Nethergate, Dundee, UK

(Received 4 March 2009; final version received 24 September 2010)

Background: Writing, implementing and evaluating a literacy programme ischallenging particularly when the intervention is multi-faceted. In relation toliteracy content, certain features have been shown to improve reading attainment(e.g. a systematic phonics programme); however, advice on how to integrate thesestrands into a whole is less clear. Furthermore, the success of an intervention isarguably as dependent on teacher quality as the literacy components. Evaluationof multi-faceted interventions can fail to explore the relative effects of differentelements, whereas single strand interventions may be easier to measure but theycan be atypical. It was with these thoughts in mind that the authors developed aliteracy programme in North Lanarkshire, Scotland.Purpose: The paper evaluates the impact of a two-year literacy programme onattainment in reading and spelling.Programme description: The literacy programme ‘Think About It’ incorporatedthree strands: phonemic awareness and phonics instruction (strand 1), thedevelopment of semantic cueing systems (strand 2) and the use of metacognitivestrategies to improve decoding and comprehension (metacomprehension, strand3). The intervention was supported by continuing professional development,consultation and curriculum materials, parental involvement and by thedeployment of early years’ workers.Sample: The study took place in a socio-economically deprived local authorityin Central Scotland. Sixteen mainstream primary schools in rural and urban areastook part in the intervention, which targeted children in their first two years ofschool (ages five and six). A random sample of children from each interventionclass in the 16 pilot schools was assessed yearly. Additionally a randomcomparison sample of 10 children came from each class in the year previous to theintervention. Over the period of the study, approximately 480 interventionchildren were assessed.Design and methods: The study used a cross-sectional design over a period offour years, with standardised measures in each year. Each of the threeintervention groups started in ensuing years. The longest established of thesereceived the intervention for two years and were followed up for the next twoyears. The others followed this pattern as far as they were able. Because of thelongitudinal nature of the study, the measures were not the same across all theyears – they were changed to match the development of the children’s readingskills. Questionnaires were used with staff to assess their views of the intervention.Results: Children’s attainments in word reading, spelling and reading compre-hension were significantly improved as result of the intervention. This was truenot only at the end of the intervention, but at follow-up one and two years later.Conclusion: The intervention (of phonemic awareness and phonic instruction,the development of semantic and syntactical cueing systems, and the development

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Educational Research

Vol. 53, No. 3, September 2011, 237–256

ISSN 0013-1881 print/ISSN 1469-5847 online

� 2011 NFER

DOI: 10.1080/00131881.2011.598657

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

of metacognitive strategies) was evidence based and did appear to work.The intervention was multi-faceted, but the relative efficacy of these differentresource components is unknown. Recommendations for practice and futureresearch are made.

Keywords: continuing professional development; literacy; phonics; semanticand syntactical cueing systems; metacognition; effect; evaluation; pupilperformance

Introduction

There is a good deal of convergence of thought and research in the field of literacyinstruction, so the air of continuing controversy in the area is puzzling (Snow andJuel 2005). Much of this serves to confuse practitioners. The National Reading Panel(NRP; 2000) claim that decisions affecting literacy instruction have often been morebased on ideology than research. Their review of the research yielded teachingrecommendations in the areas of phonemic awareness, phonics instruction, fluency,vocabulary and comprehension.

For example, in 52 studies with 96 comparisons of treatment and control groups,systematic phonics instruction made a bigger contribution to K-6 children’s growthin reading than alternative programmes using unsystematic methods or no phonicsat all. Systematic phonic instruction also had a significant positive effect on childrenhaving difficulty learning to read, low achieving students and students with learningdifficulties. The NRP did not find a significant difference between working withphonemes or onset and rime, or between synthetic approaches (focusing onblending) or analytic approaches (focusing on word families).

Torgerson, Brooks, and Hall (2006) conducted a review of research in the area ofphonics teaching. The conclusions from these meta-analyses were that systematicphonics instruction was associated with better progress in reading accuracy, in allability groups. However, there was not enough evidence to suggest that systematicphonics instruction had a significant impact on reading comprehension or spelling.There was no strong evidence from randomised controlled studies to suggest howmuch systematic phonics instruction was required, or if one type of systematicphonics instruction was superior to another. However, Rose (2006) asserts that thequality of phonics work relies on the expertise, understanding and commitment of theteacher, thus underlining the crucial role that teachers play in phonics instruction.

With regards to comprehension, the NRP reviewed 50 studies and concluded thatseven comprehension strategies were found to be effective. These includedcomprehension monitoring (where readers learn to be aware of their understandingof the material), cooperative learning, the use of story maps, question answering andgeneration, story structure and summarisation of text. A combination of all thesewere found to be most effective in improving results on standardised tests. Pressleyand Woloshyn (1995) argue that teaching strategies alone cannot produce skilledreaders. To enable strategies to be coordinated with existing factual and conceptualknowledge the student must possess metacognitive knowledge, so that they canrecognise when, where and how to use known strategies. Furthermore, in theiranalysis of recent research in the area of comprehension, Block and Pressley (2007)conclude that this type of instruction is able to increase a learner’s ability tounderstand text by encouraging them to be active readers in the ways goodcomprehenders are active readers. Block and Pressley (2007) offer key recommenda-tions and examples of lessons based on their analysis of research.

238 N. Ferguson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

However, identifying ‘what works’ in literacy research is not always straightfor-ward. Studies of single interventions are relatively easy to measure, but evaluation ofan entire literacy programme is more problematic (Snow and Juel 2005). The morecomplex the literacy programme, the more difficult it becomes to isolate exactly whathas led to improvement. Nonetheless, some recent research suggests that multi-strand interventions are more useful than single programmes (Stobie et al. 2004).Pressley, Graham, and Harris (2006) conclude that the testing of single strandedinterventions has added much to the knowledge of effective literacy interventions –however, they assert that less research is focused on multi-stranded interventionswith long-term impact. They argue that:

there is a greater need for educational psychologists to tackle the evaluation of morecomplex interventions than have [previously] filled the pages of educational psychologyjournals . . . (p. 4)

Curriculum content is not the only factor to affect progress in literacy. Block,Hurt, and Oaker (2002) suggest that teacher abilities may have a greater impact onattainment than any curricular programme. Certainly, Pressley et al. (2001) foundthat effective literacy teachers of first grade children were able to combine severalcurricular elements while also balancing skill instruction with ‘real’ reading andwriting experiences. They could do this and foster self-regulation in their six-year-oldpupils’ use of strategy instruction. These teachers had excellent classroom manage-ment skills.

This has led Fisher (2005) to highlight the importance of interactions betweenteacher and pupil in learning to read. He concludes from his review that learning toread requires active engagement on the part of the learner, but how the teacherinteracts with the learner is crucial. According to the NRP, this can be a double-edged sword, as some apparently effective literacy programmes require the teachersto follow a set of specific instructions – this standardises instructional sequence, butmay also reduce teachers’ motivation. The challenge is to maintain consistency ofinstruction whilst still encouraging the unique contribution of teachers.

In a study of five primary and three comparison schools drawn from dis-advantaged areas, Taylor et al. (2005) found that growth in pupil achievement wasassociated with pupil activity rather than passivity. Higher level questioning had asignificant positive relationship with comprehension development. Teacher ‘telling ofinformation’ had a significant negative relationship with phonemic awareness,concepts of print, fluency and comprehension. When measuring the effectiveness of aliteracy intervention, it seems that curricular content represents only one of manyimportant variables.

The importance of providing support for staff is recognised in the USA‘Success for all’ initiative (Slavin and Madden 2006). This offers a comprehensivepackage of materials, training, ongoing professional development and a templatefor delivering and sustaining the model. Slavin and Madden (2006) argue that wellimplemented reforms have strong professional development and training compo-nents and offer follow up to teachers who are experiencing difficultiesimplementing in their classrooms. The randomised evaluation of Success for Allinvolving 35 schools over a three-year period revealed statistically significantschool-level effects on literacy outcomes. In his independent review of the teachingof early reading, Rose (2006) also stresses the importance of high quality trainingfor staff.

Educational Research 239

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Learning to read is a complex process. However, the literature suggests thatsystematic approaches are required (Rose 2006), which are likely to offer multiplestrands of activity, and which engage teachers in being active and creative, therebyoffering an appropriate model for their pupils. It was with these thoughts in mindthat the authors developed a literacy programme in North Lanarkshire, Scotland.The programme provided ran over several years. This paper describes theintervention and reports the outcomes.

The intervention: Think About It

The literacy programme was introduced in 16 pilot schools, targeting children agedbetween four and six years (Currie et al. 1999a; Currie, Gunion, and McLaren1999b). ‘Think About It’ incorporated three strands. Phonemic awareness andphonics instruction was strand 1. The development of semantic and syntacticalcueing systems was strand 2. The third strand was the development of metacognitivestrategies to improve decoding and comprehension sought to link strands 1 and 2(Flavell 1981; Paris and Winograd 1990; Currie 1998a; Block and Pressley 2007).

The programme was delivered to schools in two packages, year 1 and year 2.Each package included a short theoretical overview. Three termly planners outlinedthe content to be taught each week (term 1 comprised of 14 weeks, term two 11weeks and term three 8 weeks). In term 1, the literacy elements/headers in theplanner were metacognition/comprehension, phonological awareness and phonics.By term 3, this had changed to comprehension strategies, word attack strategies,using vocabulary in context and phonics. Within each term, teachers were providedwith a descriptor for each week. This stated the aim of each lesson, the recommendedgroupings (e.g. whole class, small group), and included a step-by-step guide on howto teach each lesson (Appendix 1). Examples of how to apply the teaching strategiesof scaffolding, modelling, reciprocal teaching and direct teaching were supplied forthe various literacy strands. It was hoped that this would enable teachers to integratethese strategies into their teaching. The schools used the programme alongside theirexisting ‘reading schemes’.

The resources required to deliver the programme were provided in photocopiableformat (e.g. for term 1, alphabet pictures and letters, nursery rhymes and games) andin the form of additional books (outlined later). Assessment records for the workcovered in each term were also included (for example, in term one a single soundassessment, phonological skills checklist, and comprehension and word attackchecklist). Suggested time allocations for each strand and recommended groups werediscussed with staff at training days and during weekly visits from the literacyteachers. Informal observations conducted by the literacy teachers and early yearsworkers revealed that this advice was generally being implemented.

Explicit systematic phonics instruction ran through the two-year programme.This strand was developed from the work of Adams (1990), Goswami and Bryant(1990), Bernhardt and Major (2005), Frederickson and Wilson (1996) (ideas from theNursery Rhyme section – a later edition of Phonological Awareness Training) andJohnston and Watson (2004). These authors found that early phonological andmeta-phonological intervention could promote normalisation of speech developmentand normal acquisition of literacy skills. The NRP (2000) highlighted the dangers ofteaching letter sound correspondence without providing opportunities for childrento use them. Therefore, the intervention aimed to embed phonics teaching within


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

a wider literacy curriculum in order to help children transfer their knowledge ofphonics into reading tasks.

In package 1 of the programme, the children were introduced to alphabet soundsand selected phonemes through a variety of multi-sensory activities (e.g. songs,sound games). At the same time, children were presented with a variety ofphonological tasks, which encouraged them to link sounds to print (e.g. listening toand reading nursery rhymes, isolating common rimes). One third of the way throughpackage 1, the children were exposed to rimes. These were introduced during a classlesson, which often incorporated a short story containing the target sound. Pupilswere also taught to make, break, blend and write words containing the focus rimeusing magnetic letters and Elkonin boxes (a series of drawn boxes in which theconstituent phonemes of words can be written).

In package 2, pupils were taught the remaining phonemes, continuing the use of asimilar teaching methodology. Teacher ‘big books’ and children’s levelled textscontaining the rimes and phonemes were employed to encourage children togeneralise their phonics knowledge into text. Phonics was taught daily for 20 minutesin a whole class format. An independent phonic activity was incorporated into thechildren’s literacy programme for four days each week, and these phonics tasks werespecified in the programme. Within the core phonic programme, differentiatedopportunities for children who were struggling with the acquisition of letter soundrelationships was provided. This began in term 1 week 10. It was delivered in smallgroups and focused on reinforcing the children’s existing phonological and phonicsknowledge. Similar resources to the main programme were used, but the pace andthe content of the lessons were more closely matched to the children’s ability.

In an attempt to promote integration in early reading instruction and a broad,language-based curriculum (e.g. NRP 2000; Rose 2006), a wide range of graded textswere used to develop the two main psycholinguistic cueing systems – the use ofsyntax and semantics (Adams 1998). These texts included the existing graded readingscheme, texts that supported the phonics programme, ‘big books’ for teacherinstruction, and fiction and non-fiction books for children to read at home andschool. The texts provided a meaningful context for learning (Orasanu and Penney1986). Their use meant that pupils were reading more books in class compared withprevious years in the schools, and this was confirmed by informal observation andteacher report. In addition to increasing the time children spent reading, training onhow to improve the quality of reading lessons was provided.

Teachers were encouraged to respond to children’s initiatives in individual, groupand whole class sessions, using a variety of teaching strategies. To ensure thatdevelopment in this area was not wholly based on incidental learning, teachers wereprovided with ‘core elements’ to explicitly teach. These focused on the developmentof word attack and comprehension skills (Pressley and Woloshyn 1995). These coreelements were outlined on the termly planner and further explanation given in theweekly descriptors. Teachers taught one ‘big book’ lesson to the whole class everyweek and a daily reading lesson to all groups four times a week. For pupils engagedin daily independent reading activities, for example, the programme containedlanguage activities that encouraged children to make and read sentences, based onthe principles of Clay (1993).

The metacognitive component encouraged children to ‘think about their thinkingprocesses in relation to reading’ (Flavell 1981; Paris and Winograd 1990; Currie1998a; Afflerbach and Meuwissen 2005). It served to link psycholinguistic and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

phonetic aspects of reading, bringing together the major cueing systems involved inlearning to read (Adams 1998; Currie 1998a). It was also the vehicle through whichindependent thinking and learning strategies were promoted. It aimed to producestrategic readers who could use their newly acquired reading skills appropriately.The development of independent, strategic readers was largely dependent on teacherbehaviour, but cartoon characters in stories were also developed for individualexploration (e.g. Waldo Word Detective and Detective Constable Waldo).Comprehension strategies were explicitly taught as recommended by the NRP(2000). This began with concepts of print in term 1 (Clay 1993; Iversen and Tunmer1993) and extended to sequencing, identification of main character and summarisa-tion – reasoning strategically when encountering difficulties with understanding.(Further details about the programme can be provided by the authors on request.)

The critical role of teacher behaviour in effective literacy acquisition is widelyrecognised (Topping and Ferguson 2005; Hall and Harding 2003). In order toincrease the effectiveness of the teaching of reading, teachers were encouraged todevelop their skills in reciprocal teaching (Palincsar and Brown 1984; Palincsar,Brown, and Martin 1987, Hashey and Connors 2003), think aloud (Baumann,Seifert-Kessell, and Jones 1992; Sainsbury 2003; Lau 2006), modelling (Paris,Wixson, and Palinscar 1986; Paris 1991; Pani 2004; Fisher 2002) and scaffolding(Bruner 1972; Graves and Graves 1995; Liboiron and Soto 2006). As mentionedearlier, examples of how these strategies could be applied to literacy teaching wereincluded in the programme, and teachers were given the opportunity to observeliteracy staff using these strategies.

Comparison group – typical literacy curriculum

The comparison group were exposed to the schools’ existing literacy programme,which was typical of the literacy curriculum experienced by pupils in this Scottishlocal authority. All schools taught phonics; however, the pace was slower comparedwith the experimental group and the activities were worksheet based. The approachfocused on learning initial sounds and blends but not using them to make or breakwords. Johnston and Watson (2004) documented a similar approach used by theircontrol group in another local authority in Scotland. Commercial reading schemeswere used for teaching reading; however, comprehension or word attack strategieswere not explicitly taught. The reading session focused primarily on hearing childrenread aloud in a group. The reading scheme was the main source of text reading forpupils. Both experimental and comparison schools followed the same writingprogramme. Literacy was taught daily and each session lasted roughly 80 minutes.At the time of the study, all Scottish schools adhered to the 5–14 Curriculum. TheEnglish Language 5–14 document (Scottish Office Education Department 1991)provided learning outcomes for pupils in the areas of reading, writing, talking andlistening, but in a framework of generic literacy outcomes rather than detailed lessonplans.

Method

Design

The study used a cross-sectional design over a period of four years, with measures ineach year. Each of three intervention groups started in ensuing years. The longest


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

established of these received the intervention for two years and were followed up forup to the next two years (see Table 1 – in Scotland the official primary school yearsare numbered P1 for the first year and so on up to P7). The others followed thispattern as far as they were able. A single comparison group was followed throughoutthe interventions. This was the cohort from the year before the interventionstarted. Thus the comparison group was a year older than the first experimentalgroup. For ethical reasons, permission was not granted to allocate children of thesame age to a control condition or gain access to children in additional schools to actas controls. As the experimental and comparison groups were randomly selectedfrom near-age classes in the same schools, they were assumed to be comparable onsocio-economic status, gender, ethnic minority proportion, learning disabilityproportion, pre-test literacy levels and school factors. They were tested when atthe same chronological age. Testing took place in the beginning of the each academicyear in September.

Because of the longitudinal nature of the study, the measures were not the sameacross all the years – they were changed to mirror the growing sophistication of thechildren’s reading skills. The British Abilities Scales (BAS) Word Reading wasreplaced in later years by the NFER Group Reading Test (GRT) with the BASSpelling Test. A suitable test of reading comprehension was not available for five-year-olds when the research design was established. The Phonological Abilities Test(PAT) was administered only in the first two primary years, as from the age of sevenit was anticipated that the majority of children would reach the ceiling on thismeasure. Testing at the P.1 stage took place at the beginning of the term, when theaverage age of the children was 4 years 11 months and thus the PAT was used as abaseline measure. At this age, a test of word reading would have been toochallenging for the majority of pupils. However, the PAT does measure children’sknowledge of alphabet letters and this is known to be an excellent predictor of laterreading skills (e.g. Adams 2001).

The intervention lasted 27 weeks (November to June) in the first year and 37weeks (a full academic year) in the second year. Assessments were continued up tothe fourth primary year for long-term follow-up.

Table 1. Pattern of assessment over four years.

YearInterventionGroup 3

InterventionGroup 2

InterventionGroup 1

ComparisonGroup

1 P1 P2PAT PAT

BAS Reading2 P1 P2 P3

PAT PAT GRTBAS Reading BAS Spelling

3 P1 P2 P3 P4PAT PAT GRT GRT

BAS Reading BAS Spelling BAS Spelling4 P2 P3 P4 P5

BAS Reading GRT GRT GRTBAS Spelling BAS Spelling BAS Spelling

Note: PAT, Phonological Abilities Test; BAS, British Abilities Scales; GRT, NFER Group Reading Test.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Participants

The local authority was socio-economically deprived. The average Scottish Index ofMultiple Deprivation (SIMD) for the participant schools was 2071 (the SIMD givesa relative ranking from most deprived rank 1 to least deprived rank 6,505). Theprimary schools were located in two geographical clusters in an urban and rural arearespectively. For each intervention year, a randomised sample of 10 children fromeach intervention class in the 16 pilot schools was assessed. However, all children inthe class were exposed to the programme, which was aimed at raising attainment inliteracy for all ability groups. Additionally, a randomised sample of 10 children camefrom a comparison class in every school in the year before the intervention. Giventhat the experimental and comparison groups were randomly selected from the sameschools, they were assumed comparable on socio-economic status (based on theSIMD figures) and literacy levels, and were tested at the same chronological age. Inthe first intervention year, 320 children took part in the study (160 experimental; 160comparison). The average age of pupils commencing P1 was 4 years 11 months andfor P2 5 years 11 months. (See Appendix 2 for Scottish primary school stages andcorresponding ages.) Consent for children to take part in the study was granted priorto selection. Sixteen primary 1 teachers participated in the intervention in year 1, and32 in years 2 and 3 (16 primary 1 and 16 primary 2).

Tests were conducted at the beginning of each year between September andOctober. In the first year of the intervention, all randomly selected children weretested. In subsequent years, daily absences and departures from the schools led tosome attrition. However, the average n across 11 separate assessments was 148(maximum 160 to minimum 135). The attrition was moderate and there was noevidence of any biasing effect from it.

Measures

Questionnaires

A questionnaire was distributed to teachers at the end of the fifth year, whichfocused on the effectiveness of the programme. This questionnaire was posted to theschools and returned by 9 out of the 16 teachers (response rate 56%). At this point,the schools no longer received support from literacy staff. Many teachers had beenimplementing the intervention for five years. Everyone who responded had receivedtraining.

Phonological skills

The PAT (Muter, Hulme, and Snowling 1997) provides a standardised measure ofthe children’s phonological skills. It is an individually administered test and includessubtests of rhyme deletion, rhyme production, word completion syllables, wordcompletion phonemes, phoneme deletion beginning sounds, phoneme deletion endsounds, speech rate and letter knowledge. It has been shown to be highly correlatedwith future reading attainment as measured by the BAS Word Reading Test (Muter,Hulme, and Snowling 1997). The reliability coefficient of the following sub-tests areas follows; rhyme detection, 0.87; rhyme production, 0.83; word completion –syllables, 0.87; word completion – phonemes, 0.93; phoneme deletion – beginning


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

sounds, 0.97; phoneme deletion – end sounds, 0.92; speech rate, 0.67. In addition tomeasuring phonological skills, the PAT was used in P.1 as a baseline measure.

Word reading

The BAS Word Reading Test (Elliott, Murray, and Pearson 1979) is a norm-referenced sight word reading test providing a measure of readers’ sight wordreading, with reliability of 0.95. It is administered on an individual basis. There is noopportunity for readers to use their psycholinguistic skills when attempting to readthe BAS. This test was administered to all groups at the P.2 stage (approx 5 years 11months; Figure 1).

Spelling

The BAS Spelling Test (NFER–Nelson) (Elliott 1992) is a norm-referenced writtentest of spelling single words, which are presented in the context of sentences. Itrequires a child to recall the spelling of a word from memory and not just torecognise whether or not a spelling is correct. Reliability is 0.96 for P3s and P4s, and0.92 for P5. Correlation between BAS Spelling and Kaufman Test of EducationalAchievement (K-TEA; Kaufman and Kaufman 1985) for 29 children aged 7:1 to11:4 referred for giftedness by their parents was 0.85 (Elliott 1990).

Context comprehension and sentence completion

The Group Reading Test II (NFER–Nelson 1998) is norm-referenced and assessesreading skills using sentence completion and context comprehension. It can beadministered to groups and is suitable for children age 6–14 years. The GRT test wasadministered to the groups at the P3 and P4 stages (approximately 6 years 11 monthsand 7 years 11 months, respectively). It does not provided detailed informationabout reading sub-skills. Forms A and C were found to correlate at r ¼ 0.74(n ¼ 270, aged 12–13 years) (NFER–Nelson 1998).

Procedure

Development of the intervention

The literacy programme ‘Think About It!’ (Currie et al. 1999b) was developed in thefirst phase of the project. Initially the 16 teachers in the pilot schools were given twodays of continuing professional development looking at approaches to teachingreading (e.g. systematic phonics instruction, comprehension strategies). They werethen allocated an early literacy teacher who worked with them to develop activities ineach of the three strands of the intervention. Feedback from the training was used tocompile volume 1 of ‘Think About it’. The programme was grounded in a firmtheoretical base, which had been determined at the onset of the project. However, theimportance of responding to on-going feedback from staff and to pupil observationand assessment was crucial. In year 1, the curriculum was presented to schools infour-week blocks. At the end of the first year, the draft curriculum was finalised andpublished. Volume 2 was developed in the same way. This allowed standardisationacross schools but ensured that the programme development was sensitive to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

feedback. This form of curriculum development also ensured that staff hadownership of the intervention.

Role of additional staffing

Additional staffing for the pilot comprised of 17 part-time early years workers(nursery nurses) (0.5 per 34 pupils), four early literacy support teachers and one

Figure 1. Reading, comprehension and spelling between groups 1, 2, 3 and comparisongroup.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

research assistant. A deputy principal psychologist managed this project in additionto other generic responsibilities. Each school received a weekly visit from a literacysupport teacher and 2½ days from an early years worker. In addition to helping staffwith the delivery of the programme, the team ensured that all schools were deliveringthe curriculum as prescribed. In the first year of the pilot this team focused on thefirst cohort of children who were four to five years old (primary one) and theirteachers and parents. In year two, as the intervention moved into primary two, thestaff divided their time between the two school grades, giving a lower staffing ratio.

Training courses

Further formal and informal staff development was provided. All P1 teachers andearly years’ workers were provided with training at the beginning of the new schoolterm, delivered by local educational authority staff. This was designed to establishthe research background and the intervention strategy, and foster good workingpartnerships between teachers and early years’ intervention workers. One day at theend of the school year was used to reflect on practice, look at the teaching materialsand to investigate the intervention strategy for the following year (progression intoP2). Head teachers also received the equivalent of two days’ (one full day and twohalf-day sessions) staff development. One day was used to look at the research onchildren’s reading development and the practical application of such knowledge.Two further half-day sessions were used to look at the management implications ofdelivering the early literacy programme within their schools. The early years’workers were provided with additional staff development because of the unusualcontext in which they were being asked to work. A senior officer from the localauthority introduced the training for all groups of staff and situated the interventionwithin local and national priorities.

Consultation

Informal staff training and consultation took place on a weekly basis as the classteachers, the early years’ workers and the early literacy teachers worked togetherthrough the programme. The early literacy teacher frequently modelled for the earlyyears’ intervention workers and class teachers the assessment and teaching strategiesto be used with their children. They also acted as consultants, tailoring their adviceto the specific classroom context in which they were working.

Parental involvement

In addition to the classroom materials provided, resources were also developed forparents. These were designed to inform parents about the reading process and theskills involved in learning to read (Currie 1998b), and to give them phonologicalawareness games and activities to use with their child at home (Ferguson 1999). Inaddition, school lending libraries were provided with ‘prompts’ to guide parents’interaction with their children. The parents were introduced to the materials and anoutline of the programme in pre-entrant workshops delivered by schools and literacyteam members. Pre-entrant workshops had existed for some time in the school. Theintervention merely sought to alter the content of these sessions. Materials from theparental support pack were matched to individuals’ needs and sent home with


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

children for use by parents. These materials replaced previous homework activities inworksheet format. The early years workers managed the lending libraries. In thisway, the parental support activities were appropriately differentiated (but notseparately evaluated).

Results

Comparability of groups using PAT as baseline measure

The PAT was administered in P1 as the children entered school and thus served as abaseline measure. Intervention Group 2 was generally comparable with InterventionGroup 1 at P1. In two cases PAT scores were significantly higher for InterventionGroup 2 (rhyme detection ¼ 0.005, rhyme production p 5 0.001), in one casesignificantly lower (word completion 0.021), in the other cases no difference. Giventhat the children in every group were randomly selected from the same schools andhad the same socio-economic status, it is not surprising that the baseline measures ofthe groups did not vary significantly.

Comparison group comparability issues

Baseline measures for the intervention groups demonstrated comparability.However, a major issue concerns the comparability of the first intervention groupand the comparison group from the previous year. Relating Intervention Group 1 P1to Comparison Group P2, we find that Comparison Group P2 is ahead on six ofseven subtests of the PAT, as we would expect them to be, since although they havehad no intervention, they are one year older. Thus on rhyme detection, rhymeproduction, word completion, phoneme deletion, words per second and letterknowledge, the Comparison Group P2 were significantly ahead of InterventionGroup 1 P1 (t-tests at p ¼ 0.014, 50.001, 50.001, 50.001, ¼ 0.001, 50.001respectively). On one subtest (speech rate), Group 1 were significantly superior(p ¼ 0.017).

However, comparing Intervention Group 1 P2 with Comparison Group P2, wefind that on the PAT the comparison group is significantly behind on three subtests(rhyme detection p 5 0.001, rhyme production p 5 0.001, letters correctlyidentified p ¼ 0.001). On phoneme deletion, Intervention Group 1’s superiorityapproached significance (p ¼ 0.097). On word completion, the two groups wereidentical. The further two subtests were not administered to Group 1, so nocomparison can be made. There is thus evidence here of Intervention Group 1outperforming the comparison group on PAT after intervention when compared atthe same year level. Similarly, on BAS Reading, Group 1 were significantly ahead(p 5 0.001) (see below). Overall, this picture suggests that the comparison groupwas indeed comparable with the first intervention group, although no assertions canbe made about the exactness of this comparison.

Considering 26 possible comparisons between experimental and comparisongroups, in 17 cases the experimental group was higher, in six cases approximatelyequal and in three cases lower (in the latter two circumstances almost entirely in thefirst year). In 12 cases, the experimental variance was higher, in seven casesapproximately equal and in seven cases lower. Thus although the experimental groupshowed slightly higher variance (as would be expected), there was no suggestion ofconsistent instability in variance in either group which might affect the conclusions.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Intervention Group 1 (P2) versus Comparison Group (P2) – word reading

This analysis considers the first intervention group and compares it to the com-parison group. Intervention Group 1 (P2) was substantially ahead (p 5 0.001)compared with Comparison Group (P2) on BAS Word Reading (Table 2).

Intervention Group 1 (P3) versus Comparison (P3) – higher-order reading skillsand spelling

At the first year of follow-up beyond the intervention, these P3 pupils were againcompared with the P3 Comparison Group, this time on a reading test assessinghigher-order reading skills. Again the intervention group were substantially ahead(p 5 0.001). On BAS Spelling, the intervention group was also ahead of thecomparison group (p 5 0.001) (Table 3).

Intervention Group 1 (P4) versus Comparison (P4) – higher-order reading skillsand spelling

Once these pupils moved up a further year (P4) they were again compared with theComparison Group (P4), on the same tests, and again they were substantially aheadon both GRT and BAS Spelling (GRT p 5 0.008, BAS Spelling p 5 0.001)(Table 4).

Intervention Group 2 versus Comparison Group (all measures at P2 and P3)

Turning to the second intervention group, at P2 the intervention group were farahead of the P2 comparisons on BAS Reading (p 5 0.001) (Table 5). At P3, theywere also far ahead of the P3 comparisons, albeit on different tests (GRT Readingp 5 0.001; BAS Spelling p 5 0.001).

Intervention Group 3 (P2) versus Comparison (P2) (Word Reading)

Turning to the third intervention group, at P2 the intervention group were far aheadof the P2 comparisons on BAS Reading (p 5 0.001) (Table 6).

The main comparisons for all these analyses are illustrated in Figure 1 for readeraccessibility.

Questionnaire

The teacher summative evaluation questionnaire was distributed to 16 schools. Nineresponses were received (response rate 56%), with responses as indicated in Table 7.The teachers reported a high degree of implementation integrity. Minor alterationsrelated to the use of other commercial resources/visual aids and the sequence ofphonics teaching. In additional comments, the majority of teachers stated that thechildren enjoyed ‘Think About it’. They attributed this to the variation in thepackage and in particular to the cartoon character Waldo and the nursery rhymes.The only negative comments about the package centred on the phonics teaching.Teachers felt that the way sounds were introduced in the first term needed to be moreinteresting and interactive, as in ‘Fast Phonics’/Jolly Phonics. It was suggested that


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Table

2.

First

interventiongroupcf.comparisongrouponBritish

AbilitiesScales(BAS)Readingatfirstcomparison.

Chronological

age(m

onths)

nMeanreadingage

(months)

SD

tSig.

(two-tailed)

BASReadingofP2children

ComparisonGroup

73(6

years

1month)

145

70.9172(5

years

11months)

8.44714

75.621

0.000

Group1

72(6

years)

137

80.0365(6

years

8months)

17.49765

Thecomparisongroupwasayearolder

thantheinterventiongroupthroughout,buttest

resultswerewhen

theagegroupswereofcomparable

age,

albeitfrom

different

cohorts.

Table

3.

First

interventiongroupcf.comparisongrouponGroupReadingTest(G

RT)ReadingandBritish

AbilitiesScales(BAS)Spellingatsecond

comparison.

Meanchronological

age(m

onths)

nMeanreading/

spellingage(m

onths)

SD

tSig.

(two-tailed)

GRT

ReadingofP3children

ComparisonGroup

85(7

years

1month)

149

93.1342(7

years

9months)

11.85706

74.115

0.000

Group1

84(7

years)

142

99.2676(8

years

3months)

13.54735

BASspellingofP3children

ComparisonGroup

85(7

years

1month)

139

87.5036(7

years

4months)

10.55927

77.086

0.000

Group1

84(7

years)

142

97.8239(8

years

2months)

13.62793

Table

4.

First

interventiongroupcf.comparisongrouponGroupReadingTest(G

RT)ReadingandBritish

AbilitiesScales(BAS)Spellingatthird

comparison.

Meanchronological

age(m

onths)

nMeanreading/

spellingage(m

onths)

SD

tSig.

(two-tailed)

GRT

ReadingofP4children

ComparisonGroup

97(8

years

1month)

139

96.4892(8

years

0months)

16.41375

72.692

0.008

Group1

96(8

years)

135

101.4222(8

years

5months)

13.84319

BASSpellingofP4children

ComparisonGroup

97(8

years

1month)

137

103.6277(8

years

8months)

15.54879

73.565

0.000

Group1

96(8

years)

136

111.1176(9

years

3months)

19.00139


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Table

6.

Thirdinterventiongroupcf.ComparisonGrouponBritish

AbilitiesScales(BAS)Reading.

Meanchronological

age(m

onths)

nMeanreading

age(m

onths)

SD

tSig.

(two-tailed)


ComparisonGroup

73(6

years

1month)

145

70.9172(5

years

11months)

8.44714

76.812

0.000

Group3

74(6

years

2months)

137

82.2555(6

years

10months)

18.06322

Table

5.

Secondinterventiongroupcf.comparisongrouponBritish

AbilitiesScales(BAS)Reading,GroupReadingTest(G

RT)ReadingandBAS

Spelling.

Meanchronological

age(m

onths)

nMeanreading/

spellingage(m

onths)

SD

tSig.

(two-tailed)


ComparisonGroup

73(6

years

1month)

145

70.9172(5

years

11months)

8.44714

78.209

0.000

Group2

74(6

years

2months)

152

84.9276(7

years

1months)

18.82267

GRT

ReadingofP3children

ComparisonGroup

85(7

years

1month)

149

93.1342(7

years

9months)

11.85706

73.904

0.000

Group2

86(7

years

2months)

139

98.8921(8

years

3months)

13.16599

BASspellingofP3children

ComparisonGroup

85(7

years

1month)

139

87.5036(7

years

3months)

10.55927

75.757

0.000

Group2

86(7

years

2months)

143

95.9510(7

years

12months)

13.81789


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Table

7.

Teacher

summativeevaluationquestionnaireresponses.

Question

Always

Sometim

esNever

Doyoufollow

theprogramme’s:

Content

100%

(9)

Methodology?

100%

(9)

Teachingstrategies

Doyoumodel

word

attack

andcomprehensionstrategiesaloud?

100%

(9)

Comprehension

Doyouuse

ametacognitiveapproach

toteachingreading?

100%

(9)

Comprehension

89%

(8)More

able

pupilsuse

them

independentlybutless

able

pupils

requireprompting.

Dothechildrenuse

metacognitive/comprehensionstrategies

independently?

11%

(1)

Phonics

33%

(3)

33%

(3)

Did

youfollow

thesequence

ofphonicsteaching?

33%

(3)

Phonics

43%

(3)

Dothechildrenuse

word

attack/decodingstrategies

independentlyduringword

reading?

67%

(6)

Phonics

45%

(4)–only

themore

able

pupils.

Lessablepupilsrequireprompting.

Dothechildrenuse

word

attack/decodingstrategies

independentlyduringtextreading?

55%

(5)–

allchildren

Phonics

43%

(3)

Doyouuse

theadditionalresources

provided

e.g.alphabet

cards

67%

(6)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

teaching of initial sounds in term 1 should be more multi-sensory and should enablethe children to make small words quickly.

Discussion and conclusion

Children’s attainments in word reading, spelling and reading comprehension appearedsignificantly improved as a result of the intervention. This was true not only at the endof the intervention, but at follow-up one and two years later. Sample attrition wassmall and unlikely to have had a biasing effect given the size of the gains. Theintervention involved phonemic awareness and phonics instruction, the developmentof semantic and syntactical cueing systems, and the development of metacognitivestrategies to improve decoding and comprehension. It combined systematic phonicsinstruction (NRP 2000; Torgerson et al. 2006) taught independently but embeddedwithin a rich literacy curriculum (Adams 1998; Rose 2006) with explicit teaching ofcomprehension and word attack strategies (Block and Pressley 2007), all taughtthrough the development of metacognitive skills (Flavell 1981; Paris and Winograd1990; Currie 1998a, Afflerbach and Meuwissen 2005). The intervention was derivedfrom evidence-based literature and appeared to work. Offering additional training andpersonnel to support a curricular intervention is found to be effective in large-scalestudies (e.g. Slavin and Madden 2006). Thus the intervention was supported not onlyby continuing professional development, consultation and curriculum materials, butalso by the deployment of early years’ workers into P1 classes.

However, the relative efficacy of these different resource components is unknown.For example, it is not clear if the 0.5 full time equivalent early years’ workerscontributed disproportionately to the positive outcomes. Equally, the inclusion ofcontinuing professional development might have been crucial. It is also difficult toascertain to what degree the balance between the different strands of the languageprogramme contributed to the positive outcomes. Therefore, although derived fromevidenced-based literature, the results of this evaluation do not necessarily supporteach item of specific content of the intervention. Similarly, while the programmeattempted to incorporate parental involvement the relative impact of this was notmeasured.

The study has limitations. The selection of the schools has implications forupscaling – would a lesser intervention have equal impact in less disadvantagedschools? There was sample attrition, although not as bad as might have beenexpected. However, the gains are large and can hardly be attributed to attrition. Thechanges of test, although inevitable, brought complications in terms of comparisonof test scores. If a comprehensive assessment, which spanned these year groups, hadbeen available, it would have been helpful. The GRT did not provide a detailedanalysis of comprehension skills. Ideally, individually administered assessments ofcomprehension should have been used. Unfortunately staffing required to administerthese on a large scale was not available.

There are further implications for the upscaling of the programme. The relativeimpact of the early years’ workers is still to be separately established. In this project,they represented a considerable proportion of the funding; therefore this valuableresource must be used effectively. Interestingly, the children’s word reading scoreswere better in the second year of the intervention than in the first year, and achievedwith half the original early years’ worker input. As alterations to the programmewere minor, such gains may be attributed to greater staff familiarity with the new


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

teaching methods and curriculum content, and enhanced working relationships.Subsequent trials both with and without the early years’ workers might be desirable.

Trialling different models of staff development and support may also be necessaryif the intervention is rolled out into a larger geographical area. The impact of the earlyliteracy teachers may be diluted if additional schools are added to their workload.Strategies such as training existing Support for Learning teachers, encouraging classteachers to form self-help groups (Wilson and Berne 1999), and increasing thefrequency of literacy training but reducing the number of visits to schools may beconsidered. It has been suggested (Lacey and Porter 1998) that in-service trainingalone has been ineffective in changing schools. Whatever model is adopted mustprovide teachers with the opportunity to reflect on and discuss their experiences as wellas having the option to observe others’ teaching. Wilson and Berne (1999) stress theimportance of in-service delivery activating teacher learning. It is possible that ifteachers lose ownership of the intervention its impact may be reduced (Smith andColdron 1999). The challenge in upscaling is to maintain consistency of instructionwhilst still encouraging the unique contribution of teachers.

The schools in the study placed literacy on their yearly improvement plan, as didthe local authority. The importance of senior managers at the school and authoritylevel engaging in strategic planning, review and monitoring is recognised (Smith andColdron 1999). In this study, the on-going collection of data, regular visits fromearly literacy teachers and the support of the local authority imposed accountability.The role of monitoring the quality of teaching and learning in classes and conductingoutcome measures in the future may be more directly undertaken by senior managersat the school level.

References

Adams, M.J. 1990. Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.

Adams, M.J. 1998. The three-cueing system. In Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning,ed. F. Lehr, and J. Osborn, 73–99. New York: Guilford.

Adams, M.J. 2001. Alphabet anxiety and explicit: systematic phonics instruction: A cognitiveperspective. In The handbook of early literacy research, ed. S.B. Neuman and D.K.Dickson, 66–80. London: Guilford.

Afflerbach, P., and K. Meuwissen. 2005. Teaching and learning self-assessment strategies inmiddle school. In Metacognition and literacy in learning: Theory, assessment, instructionand professional development, ed. S.E. Israel, C.C. Block, K.L. Bauserman, and K.Kinnucan-Welsh, 141–65. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baumann, J.F., N. Seifert-Kessell, and L.A. Jones. 1992. Effect of think-aloud instruction onelementary students’ comprehension monitoring abilities. Journal of Reading Behavior 24:143–72.

Bernhardt, B., and E. Major. 2005. Speech, language and literacy skills 3 years later: A follow-up study of early phonological and metaphonological intervention. International Journalof Language and Communication Disorders http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title*content¼t713393930*db¼all*tab¼issueslist*branches¼40-v40 40, no. 1: 1–27.

Block, C.C., N. Hurt, and M. Oaker. 2002. The expertise of literacy teachers: A continuumfrom preschool to grade five. Reading Research Quarterly 37: 178–206.

Block, C.C., and M. Pressley. 2007. Best practices in teaching comprehension. In Bestpractices in literacy instruction, ed. L.B. Gambrell, L.M. Morrow, and M. Pressley, 220–42. New York: The Guilford Press.

Bruner, J. 1972. Nature and uses of immaturity. American Psychologist 27: 687–708.Clay, M.M. 1993. Reading recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Auckland:

Heinemann.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Currie, L.A. 1998a. Developing a metacognitive approach to the teaching of reading com-prehension in the primary school classroom. PhD thesis, University of Strathclyde.

Currie, L.A. 1998b. Learning to read: Putting parents in the picture. North Lanarkshire:Quality Development Service, Department of Education.

Currie, L.A., A. Donaldson, N. Ferguson, J. MacKenzie, and E. Ross. 1999b. Think about it!A complete programme for the beginner reader. North Lanarkshire: Department ofEducation.

Currie, L.A., M. Gunion, and M. McLaren. 1999a. Early intervention in North Lanarkshire:A multifaceted approach to achievement. Support for Learning 14, no. 2: 62–7.

Elliott, C.D. 1990. BAS introductory and technical handbook. San Antonio, TX: ThePsychological Corporation.

Elliott, C.D. 1992. British Ability Scale: Spelling scale. Windsor: NFER–Nelson PublishingCompany Ltd.

Elliott, D.C., J.D. Murray, and S.L. Pearson. 1979. British Ability Scale. Windsor: NFER–Nelson.

Ferguson, N. 1999. Supporting literacy in the home: A practical manual for the teachers of earlyyears. North Lanarkshire: Quality Development Service, Department of Education.

Fisher, R. 2002. Shared thinking: Metacognitive modelling in the literacy hour. Reading 36,no. 2: 63–7.

Fisher, R. 2005. Teacher-child interaction in the teaching of reading: A review of researchperspectives over twenty five years. Journal of Research in Reading 28, no. 1: 15–27.

Flavell, J.H. 1981. Cognitive monitoring. In Children’s oral communication skills, ed. W.P.Dickson, 35–60. New York: Academic Press.

Frederickson, N., and J. Wilson. 1996. Phonological awareness training: A new approach tophonics teaching. Dyslexia 2: 101–20.

Goswami, U., and P. Bryant. 1990. Phonological skills and learning to read. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Graves, F.M., and B.B. Graves. 1995. The scaffolded reading experience: A flexible frameworkfor helping students get the most out of text. Reading 29, no. 1: 29–34.

Hall, K., and A. Harding. 2003. A systematic review of effective literacy teaching in the 4 to 14age range of mainstream schooling. Research evidence in education library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.

Hashey, M.J., and J.D. Connors. 2003. Learn from our journey: Reciprocal teaching actionresearch. The Reading Teacher 57: 224–32.

Iversen, S., and W.E. Tunmer. 1993. Phonological skills and the Reading Recoveryprogramme. Journal of Educational Psychology 85: 112–26.

Johnston, R.S., and J.E. Watson. 2004. Accelerating the development of reading, spelling andphonemic awareness skills in initial readers. Reading and Writing: An InterdisciplinaryJournal 17, no. 4: 338–58.

Kaufman, A.S., and N.L. Kaufman. 1985. Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement. CirclePines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Lacey, P., and J. Porter. 1998. Enabling teachers: In-service education in learning difficultiesand challenging behaviour. Journal of In-service Education 24, no. 3: 475–89.

Lau, K- L. 2006. Reading strategy use between Chinese good and poor readers: A think-aloudstudy. Journal of Research in Reading 29, no. 4: 383–99. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?title¼thinkþaloud&title_type¼tka&journal¼Reading&journal_type¼words&year_from¼1998&year_to¼2007&database¼1&pageSize¼20&index¼1 - aff_1#aff_1

Liboiron, N., and G. Soto. 2006. Shared storybook reading with a student who usesalternative and augmented communication: A description of scaffolding practices. Childand Language Teaching and Therapy 22, no. 1: 69–95.

Muter, V., C. Hulme, and M. Snowling. 1997. The phonological abilities test. London: ThePsychological Corporation and Harcourt Brace & Company.

National Reading Panel (NRP). 2000. Report of the National Reading Panel: Reports of thesubgroups. Washington DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentClearing House.

NFER–Nelson. 1998. Group Reading Test II (6–14). Windsor: NFER–Nelson.Orasanu, J., and M. Penney. 1986. Comprehension theory and how it grew. In Reading com-

prehension from research to practice, ed. J. Orasanu, 1–10. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?title=think+aloud&title_type=tka&journal=Reading&journal_type=words&year_from=1998&year_to=2007&database=1&pageSize=20&index=1 - aff_1#aff_1













Palincsar, A.S., and A.L. Brown. 1984. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering andmonitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1: 117–75.

Palincsar, A.S., A.L. Brown, and S.M. Martin. 1987. Peer interaction in readingcomprehension instruction. Educational Psychologist 22: 231–53.

Pani, S. 2004. Reading strategy instruction through mental modelling. ELT Journal 58, no. 4:355–62.

Paris, S.G., and P. Winograd. 1990. Promoting metacognition and motivation of exceptionalchildren. Remedial and Special Education (RASE) 11, no. 8: 7–15.

Paris, S.G., K.K. Wixson, and A.S. Palincsar. 1986. Instructional approaches to readingcomprehension. In Review of Research in Education, ed. E. Rothkopf, 14: 19–128.

Paris, S.G. 1991. Assessment and remediation of metacognitive aspects of children’s readingcomprehension. Topics in Language Disorders 12: 32–50.

Pressley, M., S. Graham, and K. Harris. 2006. The state of educational research as viewedthrough the lens of literacy intervention. British Journal of Psychology 76: 1–19.

Pressley, M., R. Wharton-McDonald, R. Allington, C. Block, L. Morrow, D. Tracey, andet al. 2001. A study of effective first grade literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading5: 35–58.

Pressley, M., and V. Woloshyn. 1995. Cognitive strategy instruction that really improveschildren’s academic performance. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Rose, J. 2006. Independent review of the teaching of early reading. London: Department forEducation and Skills.

Sainsbury, M. 2003. Think aloud: Children’s interactions with text. Reading 37, no. 3: 131–5.Scottish Office Education Department. 1991. 5–14 English language. Edinburgh: SOED.Slavin, R.E., and N.A. Madden. 2006. Success for all: Summary of research on achievement

outcomes. Available www.cddre.org [22 December 2009].Smith, R., and J. Coldron. 1999. Conditions for learning as a teacher. Journal of In-Service

Education 25, no. 2: 245–59.Snow, E., and C. Juel. 2005. Teaching children to read: What do we know about how to do it?

In The science of reading a handbook, ed. M. Snowling, and C. Hume, 501–20. Oxford:Blackwell Publishing.

Stobie, I., J. Boyle, L. Woolfson, E. Truswell, and N. Connaughton. 2004. Quality indicatorsfor effective early intervention in literacy and numeracy. International Journal of EarlyYears Education 12, no. 2: 157–68.

Taylor, B.M., P. Pearson, D.S. Peterson, and M.C. Rodriguez. 2005. The CIERA schoolchange framework: An evidence-based approach to professional development and schoolreading improvement. Reading Research Quarterly 40, no. 1: 40–69.

Topping, K.J., and N. Ferguson. 2005. Effective literacy teaching behaviours. Journal ofResearch in Reading 28, no. 2: 125–43.

Torgerson, C.T., G. Brooks, and J. Hall. 2006. A systematic review of the research literature onthe use of phonics in the teaching of reading and spelling. London: Department forEducation and Skills Research.

Wilson, M., and J. Berne. 1999. Teacher learning and the acquisition of professionalknowledge: An examination of research on contemporary development. In Review ofresearch in education, ed. A. Iran-Nejad, and P.D. Pearson, 24, no. 1: 173–209.Washington: American Research Association.

Supplementary material available online

Appendix 1: Step-by-step guide on how to teach each lesson (Year 2)

Appendix 2: The structure of Scottish Education – primary school stages andcorresponding age


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

8:57

09

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.cddre.org

Documents

The longitudinal impact of a comprehensive literacy intervention