62
JCPSLP
Volume 16, Number 2 2014
Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology
Change in classification on the PA
measure following intervention
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
displays the results.
Discussion
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
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
LETTER ID
raw score
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
RAPT-G
raw score
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
RAPT-I
raw score
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
BOEHM
raw score
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
SPAT-R
raw score
Figure 1. Group performance pre- and post-intervention
pre
post
PC1
PC2
PC3
