JCPSLP July 2014_Vol16_no2

Change in classification on the PA measure following intervention

LETTER ID

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 30 25 20 15 10

Finally, we were interested whether the number of students who were classified as “concern” or “within normal range” on the measure of phonological awareness (SPAT-R) changed over the course of the year. Mid-year, prior to intervention, only 1 student in PC3 (intervention) scored within average range and 20 students performed below the expected age range on the SPAT-R (< 25th percentile). When re-assessed at the end of the year, 13 students performed within the average range and only 8 performed below average. A similar trend was seen for the “regular classroom curriculum” group (PC2). Mid-year, 20 (91%) students performed below average, compared to only 10 students, who scored below average at the end of the year. All students from PC1 who participated in this task scored within normal limits at the end of their prep year. Table 4 This pilot study investigated if intensive classroom-based small-group intervention would enhance the emergent literacy skills of disadvantaged students attending their first (prep) year at a primary school in Queensland. Prep Class 1 (PC1) and PC2 received their regular classroom curriculum, while PC3 received additional intervention targeting phonological awareness, story grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure. Analysis of the results indicated that students in all three prep classes made significant progress on measures of letter knowledge, oral language (RAPT) and basic concepts (Boehm-3) over the course of the year. In addition, PC2 and PC3 made significant progress in phonological awareness (SPAT-R); unfortunately no initial phonological awareness data are available for PC1, so no conclusions can be drawn about the progress these students may have made during their first year at school. Notwithstanding, these results clearly show the positive influence of the regular classroom curriculum on the students’ emergent literacy abilities during their first year at school, even for the most disadvantaged students. Students in PC3 showed significantly better gains in phonological awareness (with a medium effect size) than the students in PC2. These results are consistent with previous research investigating the effectiveness of classroom-based phonological awareness intervention for young children from low socioeconomic backgrounds (McIntosh et al., 2007). However, the current results contribute to the existing body of knowledge by indicating an advantage of implementing intensive small-group instruction in addition to whole-class instruction for phonological awareness. These results are strengthened by the fact that all prep-year teachers attended the same professional development event prior to the pilot project, which indicates that the slower progress in PA made by PC2 compared to PC3 could not be contributed to an absence of teacher training. Future research now needs to investigate which aspects of this intervention contributed most to the results, that is: the intensity, the systematic approach, or the small-group instruction (see Hattie, 2009). In contrast to the significant effect of the intensive small- group intervention on students’ phonological awareness skills, there were no “intervention” effects on measures of letter knowledge, oral language, or basic concepts. Furthermore, there were no differences between PC2 and displays the results. Discussion

raw score

RAPT-G

raw score

5 0

RAPT-I

40 35 30 25 20 15 10

raw score

5 0

BOEHM

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10

raw score

5 0

SPAT-R

35 30 25 20 15 10

5 0 raw score Figure 1. Group performance pre- and post-intervention pre post PC1 PC2 PC3

62

JCPSLP Volume 16, Number 2 2014

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology