Although the analysis of recognition of clusters and digraphs has been children’s combined (in order for comparison with (2005) findings to be made), it is Gromko’s interesting that the interpretation and decoding of clusters was clearly more problematic than that of digraphs for these participating children. Appendices 13 and 14 (showing the correct and incorrect answers) reveal that in the pre-test, children’s 33 of the 50 children were unable to recognise and sound any of the four clusters. This number was reduced to fifteen children in the post-test. Of the eighteen children who moved from a score of 0 at pre-test to >0 at post-test, twelve were in the intervention group. This imbalance of progression contributed to a positive effect size larger than any other category in this research programme. By (2008: Wiliam’s 254) standard deviations is approximately the average progress in reckoning (“0.3 the effect size of 0.49 represents about 1.5 achievement made by a pupil in a year”), progress, an astonishing amount of progress over a six-week period. year’s 4.12 Nonsense word recognition mean scores Table 4.6: Nonsense word recognition mean scores Group Pre-test Post-test Gain Effect n mean (s.d.) mean (s.d.) size Intervention 25 7.12 (10.07) 15.64 (14.43) 8.52 = 0.37 d Control 25 8.00 (11.09) 11.44 (13.73) 3.44 Figure 4.7: Nonsense word recognition mean scores
Although the analysis of children’s recognition of clusters and digraphs has been combined (in order for comparison with Gromko’s (2005) findings to be made), it is interesting that the interpretation and decoding of clusters was clearly more problematic than that of digraphs for these participating children. Appendices 13 and 14 (showing the children’s correct and incorrect answers) reveal that in the pre-test, 33 of the 50 children were unable to recognise and sound any of the four clusters. This number was reduced to fifteen children in the post-test. Of the eighteen children who moved from a score of 0 at pre-test to >0 at post-test, twelve were in the intervention group. This imbalance of progression contributed to a positive effect size larger than any other category in this research programme. By Wiliam’s (2008: 254) reckoning (“0.3 standard deviations is approximately the average progress in achievement made by a pupil in a year”), the effect size of 0.49 represents about 1.5 year’s progress, an astonishing amount of progress over a six-week period. 4.12 Nonsense word recognition mean scores Table 4.6: Nonsense word recognition mean scores Group n Pre-test Post-test Gain Effect size mean (s.d.) mean (s.d.) Intervention 25 7.12 (10.07) 15.64 (14.43) 8.52 d = 0.37 Control 25 8.00 (11.09) 11.44 (13.73) 3.44 Figure 4.7: Nonsense word recognition mean scores
AAA_EdD_-_THE_WHOLE_THING_%28post_viva%29.docx