Comments on: Weak impact for RF http://TeachEffectively.com/2008/05/02/weak-impact-for-rf/ Evidence-based teaching methods for helping students who are at risk for school failure or who have disabilities. Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:07:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: educ8m http://TeachEffectively.com/2008/05/02/weak-impact-for-rf/#comment-68685 educ8m Thu, 08 May 2008 15:02:46 +0000 http://TeachEffectively.com/2008/05/02/weak-impact-for-rf/#comment-68685 To John L. No I'm not associated with that blog. From what I read on Dr. Lyon's interview on this topic, there was no "control" group. This was in no way a scientific study. I still cannot find out exactly what particular pedagogy, programs, reading material, etc. was used in Reading First schools. To John L. No I’m not associated with that blog.

From what I read on Dr. Lyon’s interview on this topic, there was no “control” group. This was in no way a scientific study. I still cannot find out exactly what particular pedagogy, programs, reading material, etc. was used in Reading First schools.

]]> By: Lee http://TeachEffectively.com/2008/05/02/weak-impact-for-rf/#comment-68664 Lee Wed, 07 May 2008 04:46:03 +0000 http://TeachEffectively.com/2008/05/02/weak-impact-for-rf/#comment-68664 What programs were used in RF schools? I know they only had to be "based" on scientific research. There is no silver bullet, but if we want to make any meaningful improvement on reading achievement, I think we need to follow England's lead and implement synthetic phonics... What programs were used in RF schools? I know they only had to be “based” on scientific research. There is no silver bullet, but if we want to make any meaningful improvement on reading achievement, I think we need to follow England’s lead and implement synthetic phonics…

]]> By: JohnL http://TeachEffectively.com/2008/05/02/weak-impact-for-rf/#comment-68627 JohnL Mon, 05 May 2008 23:05:04 +0000 http://TeachEffectively.com/2008/05/02/weak-impact-for-rf/#comment-68627 educ8m (great license plate; are you associated with http://educ8m.com/ ?), I agree with much of your analysis. Even though I'm not sure that the students in the "experimental group" in the RF impact analysis had lower outcomes than those in "comparison group," if there were differences in other aspects of reading (e.g., accurate decoding at a normal speech rate), then those students in the experimental group should have a longer-term advantage. Thanks for the reminder about Johnson and Watson's study. For those who do not have the complete reference, here 'tis: Johnston, R.S, & Watson, J. (2005) The effects of synthetic phonics teaching on reading and spelling attainment, a seven year longitudinal study. Scottish Executive Education Department. (<a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/02/20688/52449" rel="nofollow">PDF available here</a>.) educ8m (great license plate; are you associated with http://educ8m.com/ ?),

I agree with much of your analysis. Even though I’m not sure that the students in the “experimental group” in the RF impact analysis had lower outcomes than those in “comparison group,” if there were differences in other aspects of reading (e.g., accurate decoding at a normal speech rate), then those students in the experimental group should have a longer-term advantage.

Thanks for the reminder about Johnson and Watson’s study. For those who do not have the complete reference, here ’tis:

Johnston, R.S, & Watson, J. (2005) The effects of synthetic phonics teaching on reading and spelling attainment, a seven year longitudinal study. Scottish Executive Education Department. (PDF available here.)

]]> By: educ8m http://TeachEffectively.com/2008/05/02/weak-impact-for-rf/#comment-68611 educ8m Mon, 05 May 2008 17:13:31 +0000 http://TeachEffectively.com/2008/05/02/weak-impact-for-rf/#comment-68611 I read the same results and note that in Canada, state-mandated tests give similar results for comprehension among schools that use a direct instruction phonics approach, although the students are reading at or above grade level in other assessments. The fact that young children decode is promising for later comphrension. Also if there isn't "significant diffences" from those schools not under the plan, how do the researchers actually know what those other schools are really doing? Perhaps as a result of generally more attention paid to literacy initiatives ALL schools are doing more by using effective teaching practice, hence little relative differences. The study did show that there was improvement after all! Teachers who support effective practice should not be disheartened. Do your readers know about the Clackmannanshire, Scotland UK study by Johnson & Watson (2005)? This seven-year longitudinal study compared three approaches: Synthetic phonics(British terminology for a direct instruction sequential systematic phonics program before reading text), analytic phonics (balanced literacy--or teaching phonics unconnected to text), and a control group. They found that teaching hundreds of low income (K or Grade 1) children "synthetic" phonics (20 minutes a day for 16 weeks) put them miles ahead of their higher-income peers even after seven years in all areas including comprehension! In fact, the researchers noticed that the gains were so significant they felt it unethical not to teach the rest of the control groups using synthetic phonics. It can be accessed here: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/02/20688/52464 Frankly I don't think the Reading First programs were getting it right even though they were supposed to be using the recommendations of the National Reading Panel. Some of those recommendations still border on what in Canada we call "balanced literacy" --whole language with phonics on the side. I read the same results and note that in Canada, state-mandated tests give similar results for comprehension among schools that use a direct instruction phonics approach, although the students are reading at or above grade level in other assessments.

The fact that young children decode is promising for later comphrension. Also if there isn’t “significant diffences” from those schools not under the plan, how do the researchers actually know what those other schools are really doing? Perhaps as a result of generally more attention paid to literacy initiatives ALL schools are doing more by using effective teaching practice, hence little relative differences. The study did show that there was improvement after all! Teachers who support effective practice should not be disheartened.

Do your readers know about the Clackmannanshire, Scotland UK study by Johnson & Watson (2005)? This seven-year longitudinal study compared three approaches: Synthetic phonics(British terminology for a direct instruction sequential systematic phonics program before reading text), analytic phonics (balanced literacy–or teaching phonics unconnected to text), and a control group.

They found that teaching hundreds of low income (K or Grade 1) children “synthetic” phonics (20 minutes a day for 16 weeks) put them miles ahead of their higher-income peers even after seven years in all areas including comprehension! In fact, the researchers noticed that the gains were so significant they felt it unethical not to teach the rest of the control groups using synthetic phonics.

It can be accessed here:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/02/20688/52464

Frankly I don’t think the Reading First programs were getting it right even though they were supposed to be using the recommendations of the National Reading Panel. Some of those recommendations still border on what in Canada we call “balanced literacy” –whole language with phonics on the side.

]]>