1. An Evaluation of an Evidence-Based Approach to Increasing the Literacy Attainment of At-Risk Children.
Catherine Storey MSc, BCBA
Dr. Claire McDowell BCBA-D
Prof. Julian Leslie

2. Evidence-Based Practice
3 Defining Factors…
Publications…Publications…PUBLICATIONS!!!
Replication
Consensus among the scientific community
“When we refer to evidence-based practice, we do not refer to the results of formal testing, rather a body of evidence which shows time and time again that a particular practice is effective across individuals and a range of environments”.
(Stanovich & Stanovich, 2003)

3. Education & Evidence-Based Practice
“Use this! It works I promise!”
Comparison alone cannot justify a causal inference.
Experimental Method: MANIPULATION and CONTROL.
Extreme pressure from Government bodies can lead to educators falling into the ‘anything goes’ trap.
Scientific and therefore evidence-based approaches belong in education.

4. Children At-Risk Who? From what?
Children as individuals are considered ‘at-risk’ if they have a developmental, physical or learning disorder, have been abused (sexually, physically, verbally) or have low self-esteem
Children can become ‘at-risk’ as a direct result of their environmental influences; poverty, instability
Community factors can determine the probability of a child being considered ‘at-risk’; high crime rates, limited school resources
We will consider those at-risk of educational failure

5. Literacy How are our at-risk groups doing?
Low Reading Ability by the age of 11, increases the risk of unemployment, low rates of pay, social and cultural exclusion and low levels of mobility (Levy, Little, Clough, Nutbrown, Bishop, Lamb & Yamada-Rice, 2014)
By age 11, children from the UK’s poorest families are 19-months behind their peers in measures of oral language & basic literacy skills.
2 in 5 at-risk pupils are not reading well by age 11.
13.4% of all students fail to reach an average literacy benchmark by age 11.

6. Targeting poor literacy skills
National Reading Panel’s 5 pillars to successful reading.
1. Phonemic Awareness.
2. Phonics.
3. Reading Vocabulary.
4. Reading Fluency.
5. Reading Comprehension
Targeting poor literacy skills with increased systematic phonics training is considered the most effective reading instruction method.
Clackmannanshire Study, (Johnson & Watson 2004) & Systematic Phonics for whole class teaching, (Shapiro & Solity 2008).

7. Headsprout Early Reading & Comprehension
Headsprout Reading is an online intervention which employs systematic phonics training to target the National Reading Panel’s 5 pillars of successful reading.
Headsprout Early Reading is an engaging, internet-based reading program, which is presented to children as an interactive cartoon set in a range of exciting environments; Sea World, Space World, Dinosaur World and Jungle World.
Children must reach 95% mastery criteria on each task to progress to the next, and likewise they must achieve 95% mastery on each episode in order to progress to the next episode.

8. Research Aims
The aim of this research was to evaluate the effectiveness of this program with at-risk populations in Northern Ireland and to compare the effectiveness of this program with literacy interventions that are currently used within our education system.

9. Study 1 Storey, McDowell & Leslie
Study 1 Storey, McDowell & Leslie. Evaluating the efficacy of the Headsprout© reading program with children who have spent time in care. Behavioral Interventions doi:
Rationale:
Method:
Pre- Post-test Control Group Design.
N=8 (Participants paired based on reading performance and grade level) between the ages of 6 and 8
All children were fully adopted and had spent at least one year in care prior to this.
Measures used; Diagnostic Indicators of Basic Early literacy Skills (DIBELS) and Word Recognition and Phonics Skills Test (WRAPS).
Sept 2012
Looked-After Children
General School Population
Attainment Gap
KS1
71%
94%
23%
KS2
45%
83%
38%
KS3
34%
79%

10. Results Mean ORF scores for treatment and control participants at pre-test and post-treatment.

11. Results Mean WRA for treatment and control participants at pre-test and post-treatment.

12. Study 2
A Comparison of Two Reading Intervention Approaches as Supplementary Instruction for Children "At-Risk" of Reading Failure.
Rationale:
Children from low socioeconomic status (SES) begin school with oral language and phonological awareness (PA) skills lower than their more advantaged peers. These skills are essential for learning to read successfully, thus before they start their schooling, low-SES children are at greater risk of educational failure (Locke, Ginsberg & Peers, 2002).
Many practitioners still persist with the use of whole-reading approaches rather than systematic phonics training.
Method:
Pre- Post-test control group design.
N=30. Primary School Boys between the ages of 5 and 6 receiving free school meals with low reading ability.
Phonics Early Reading Assessment (PERA) administered pre- and post-test to obtain a measure of PrePhonics Awareness and Word Recognition

13. Study 2
Procedure
Following pre-test assessment children were randomly assigned to either Headsprout Treatment, Reading A-Z treatment or Control groups.
Children in the Headsprout group completed one episode of the program daily. Reading A-Z group read aloud from one leveled book from the Reading A-Z catalogue.
Headsprout children were prompted only if they became off-task.
Reading A-Z children were prompted only after 3 attempts to correctly sound out a word.

14. Results Individual change from Pre- to Post-treatment in Pre-Phonics and Word Recognition Scores

15. Results
ANOVA demonstrated that there was a significant effect of training (F1,27=17.80, p<0.001) for scores on the PrePhonics Assessment and a significant interaction between group and training (F2,27=28.16, p<0.001).
Across both measures, the Headsprout™ group had a significantly lower mean pre-test score(M=41.50, SD=7.79) than the Reading A-Z™ group (M=50.10, SD=9.31); t(17)=-2.24, p<0.05.
Across both measures the Headsprout™ group had a significantly higher mean post-test score than the Reading A-Z™ group <0.05.
Across both measures the Headsprout™ group had a significantly lower mean pre-test score (M=41.50, SD=7.79) than the control group (M=52.30, SD=8.03); t(18)=-3.05, p<0.01 
Across both measures, the Headsprout group had a significantly higher mean post-test score than the control group 

16. Study 3 Rationale: Method:
Many children who are struggling readers receive additional supplementary instruction from the school SENCO.
Many SENCO’s will adopt an eclectic approach to instruction; some phonics training, guided reading or high frequency word training.
Method:
Pre- Post-test control group design.
N=33. Primary School Children between the ages of 7 and 9 with mild learning difficulty receiving supplementary literacy support.
Phonics Early Reading Assessment (PERA) administered pre- and post-test to obtain a measure of Word Recognition and Sentence Reading.

17. Results
ANOVA demonstrated a significant interaction between group and training (F1,30=55.14, p<0.001) for Word Recognition Scores.
The Headsprout group had a significantly higher mean post-test score(M=99.41, SD=7.13) than the Control group (M=78.27, SD=8.70); t(30)=7.55, p<0.001. 
ANOVA demonstrated a significant interaction between group and training (F1,30=14.44, p<0.05) for Sentence Reading Scores.
The Headsprout group had a significantly higher mean post-test score(M=97.53, SD=8.64) than the Control group (M=88.67, SD=9.85); t(30)=3.33, p<0.05. 

18. Implications What does it all mean?!
Headsprout Early Reading is effective in increasing the literacy skills of children at-risk of reading failure across a range of environments.
A Phonics based approach to literacy instruction produced better outcomes than the widely used whole-reading approach.
Headsprout Early Reading not only produces better literacy outcomes but is more cost and time efficient than adopting an eclectic approach to literacy instruction. .

19. Informing Policy and Practice
Study 1 published in Journal of Behavioral Interventions.
Studies 2 and 3 are in preparation for submission to the British Journal of Educational Psychology.
Schools have received their training in using Headsprout and will be adopting it as an additional supplementary approach for students from Primary 2 to Primary 4.
4 Special Education schools in the Coleraine and Derry (NI) and Donegal and Kilkenny ( ROI) area are using Headsprout as their primary literacy approach for children with Autism.
Funding just obtained from NI DfE to run 3 yr project supporting school wide implementation of HER in schools in low SES areas.

20. Thank-You For Listening.