SPELD NZ remedial intervention for dyslexia -a pilot study.
Karen E. Waldie, Jack Austin, John A. Hattie and Marion Fairbrass 1
Intensive tutoring has been shown to be effective in improving the academic skills of children intervention. The 42 participants were aged seven years and in Year 3 in 2011. The teaching provided was one to one from qualified SPELD NZ teachers. Analyses were conducted onJohnson III (WJIII) scores post-¬test compared to pre-¬study assessment.
Analyses revealed significant scores gains in both the WJIII Cognitive Abilities and Test of
Achievement. Noteworthy were the large effect sizes post-¬remediation from the broad reading skills cluster, the word attack subscale and verbal comprehension. Less expected, however, were the large gains from measures of cognitive efficiency and processing speed. Taken together, the findings support the conclusion that SPELD NZ interventions can be most
effective in lifting specific and broad achievement levels for students with dyslexia
page3.All participants attended New Zealand State and Integrated Schools, staffed by
New Zealand registered teachers, and are inspected by the Education Review Office
(ERO) regularly to ensure that the instruction being given is up to an approved
standard. The students in our sample were all in mainstream classes receiving
instruction via the approach currently accepted as appropriate. As such, we took as a
baseline that an appropriate degree of reading instruction had been received by our
participants, particularly as school assessments had noted lack of progress in the
children in the sample. Whilst there is debate as to whether whole language method
of teaching reading is suitable for all, that discussion is outside the purview of this
Note also on page 5 ''Of the 42 participants, 27 had taken ReadingIn this study, the teachers, RTLBs and SENCOs, being familiar with the backgrounds of
their students they were involved with, were instructed not to refer students where
learning difficulties were likely to have resulted from one of the following: visual,
hearing or motor impairment;; low general cognitive ability;; economic, cultural or
environmental disadvantage. Given this approach, it is unlikely that the sample
included students whose learning difficulties related to trauma, tuition, or
motivation, although those factors cannot be completely ruled out.
Recovery classes (69.2%)''