Catherine Storey BCBA, Dr. Claire McDowell & Prof. Julian Leslie A Comparison of Headsprout Early Reading™ and Reading A-Z™ as supplementary instruction for those Children “At-Risk” of Reading Failure. Catherine Storey BCBA, Dr. Claire McDowell & Prof. Julian Leslie Introduction The UK has a particular challenge with educational fairness. The gap between the best and worst 10 year old readers in the UK is equivalent to approximately 7 years of schooling (Read on Get On, 2014). Children from low socioeconomic status (SES) begin school with oral language and phonological awareness (PA) skills lower than that of their more advantaged peers. These skills are essential for learning to read successfully, meaning that before they have even started their general schooling, low- SES children are at greater risk of educational failure (Locke, Ginsberg & Peers, 2002). Research investigating remedial action for children from low income backgrounds suggests that explicit phonological training is the fastest most effective method of increasing word recognition and subsequently reading accuracy (Bradley & Bryant, 1983). Headsprout© Early Reading and Comprehension© is a CAI program designed by behaviour analysts. This is an online instructional program which targets each of the 5 sub-skills identified by the National Reading Panel through intensive systematic phonics training. The most defining feature of Headsprout© is that it is individualised to every child to ensure that no child gets left behind. If a child fails to master a particular task, that task is broken down into its component parts for the child to reduce errors. Experimental evaluations of Headsprout© to date have shown a clear level of efficacy in increasing the reading skills of individuals with autism and with typically developing learners within the classroom setting. Despite the large body of evidence which points to the success of phonics-based instructional methods, many practitioners still persist with the use of whole-reading approaches such as shared-reading or peer- assisted reading. This study aimed to add to current literature by comparing the efficacy of 2 reading programs on disadvantaged children’s literacy skills. A systematic synthetic phonics training program (Headsprout Early Reading™ ) and a whole reading approach (Reading A-Z™) were used to target the early literacy skills of children from low socio-economic backgrounds. Results An ANOVA demonstrated that there was no main effect of group, but a significant effect of training (F1,27=17.80, p<0.001). Pairwise comparison between training showed that Pre-treatment scores were lower than post- treatment scores (p<0.001). There was also a significant interaction between group and training (F2,27=28.16, p<0.001). Three independent samples T-Tests were used to explore the nature of the interaction. 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. In the PrePhonics measure the Headsprout™ group had a significantly higher mean post-test score(M=62.00, SD=5.75) than the Reading A-Z™ group (M=48.20, SD=13.98); t(18)=2.89, p<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 In the PrePhonics measure the Headsprout™ group had a significantly higher mean post-test score(M=62.00, SD=5.75) than the control group (M=51.20, SD=8.31); t(16)=3.38, p<0.005. There was no significant difference in the PrePhonics Pre- or post-test scores between Reading A-Z™ and Control groups. Differences in scores across all groups for word/non-word recognition were non significant. Individual change from Pre- to Post-treatment in Pre-Phonics and Word Recognition Scores. Objectives Conclusions Despite a significantly lower pre-test score in the PERA than the Reading A-Z™ and control groups, the Headsprout™ treatment group had significantly higher post-test scores on the PrePhonics measure. The findings support the findings of Bradley & Bryant (1983), that explicit phonological training is the most effective method in increasing early literacy skills. Despite a significant increase in PrePhonics skills for children in the Headsprout™ treatment group, changes from pre- to post-test for word/non-word recognition was not significant. This is surprising given that pre phonics skills are a prerequisite to both word recognition and sentence reading. 3 of the 10 children receiving the Reading A-Z™ intervention obtained post-test scores lower than their pre- test scores on the Prephonics assessments. This is concerning for educators who continue to adopt this method of supplementary instruction for children who are at-risk of reading failure. Similarly, 4 out of the 10 children in the control group obtained post-test scores lower than their pre-test scores. Given that these children were receiving their classroom literacy lessons as usual, this supports the Read on, Get on (2014) campaign that as ‘at-risk’ children progress through the education system, the gap in attainment grows Despite the findings which support the use of Headsprout™ as an instructive tool for children “at-risk” of reading failure, only the change in performance for the PrePhonics measure was significant. Further work needs to be done in this area to ensure that increases in PrePhonics skills directly impact performance on word/non-word recognition. Future studies will focus on building fluency with phoneme and word recognition through precision teaching, alongside the Headsprout™ program. Methods Participants Participants were 30 school children (n=30) between the ages of 5 and 6 attending the same Primary School in Belfast. Measures Pre-Phonics Assessment standardized score (PPA) and word/non-word recognition were measured using the Phonics and Early Reading Assessment (PERA). Procedure Baseline data on each child’s PPA and word/non-word recognition were collected using the PERA assessment form A (pre-test assessment). Following this, children were randomly assigned to one of three groups; waiting list control (n=10), RAZ treatment (n=10) and HER treatment (n=10). Sessions ran 5 times per week (Monday to Friday) over a 16 week period (excluding school holidays) and each session lasted for exactly 20 minutes. Sessions were carried out in groups of 5. HER wore soundproof headphones while engaging with the 20-minute direct instruction literacy lesson. The researcher only issued the verbal prompt “keep working on your Headsprout”, if they engaged in off- task behaviour. The RAZ treatment group interacted with the researchers individually during each 20-minute session. They read a printable book from the Reading A-Z™ leveled book catalogue beginning with Category A. The researcher intervened only if the child could not say the correct word after 3 attempts at 'sounding-out'. It is important to note that children were presented with a new leveled book for each session as prescribed by the program. The control group continued with their daily classroom literacy practice during this time. References Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read: A causal connection. Nature, 301: 419-421. Locke, A., Ginsberg, J., & Peers, I. (2002) Development and Disadvantages: Implications for the early years and beyond, International Journal Of Language and Communication Disorders, 37: 3-15. Save the Children. 2014, Read on Get on, London, www.savethechildren.org.uk. . www.ulster.ac.uk