<0.001), but that the interaction of time and group was not statistically significant (F(1,48) = 2.465, = 0.123). The test of the mean post-mean scores was also p (t = 0.074; = 48; one-tailed = 0.471). df p Gromko (2005) found the effect size of her intervention on letter-naming fluency to be to be = 0.09 (see chapter 2, 2.19.3), which was a much smaller effect than those d in the other two categories of her study. Because of the ceiling, in my study the effect of the intervention on ability to identify single graphemes is much more children’s pronounced even than in to the extent that it has produced a negative Gromko’s, result. A calculated effect size of = -0.45 for single-letter grapheme recognition, d demonstrates that the control group made significantly greater progress than the intervention group. An explanation for this can be found in the data of two children (one from each class) who each scored only eleven marks in the pre-test, all of which were gained exclusively from recognition of single-letter graphemes (the focus of this analysis), but who had both been randomly allocated to the control group by the casting of the die. However, the single-letter grapheme recognition scores of these two children improved greatly during the period of the intervention (post-test scores of 16 and 19 respectively), a level of improvement which was mathematically impossible for the other children, because their knowledge of this area at pre-test was very close to the maximum. The that these two children enjoyed explains ‘catch-up’ the greater average progress of the control group. Because their scores produced a
<0.001), but that the interaction of time and group was not statistically significant (F(1,48) = 2.465, p = 0.123). The test of the mean post-mean scores was also (t = 0.074; df = 48; one-tailed p = 0.471). Gromko (2005) found the effect size of her intervention on letter-naming fluency to be to be d = 0.09 (see chapter 2, 2.19.3), which was a much smaller effect than those in the other two categories of her study. Because of the ceiling, in my study the effect of the intervention on children’s ability to identify single graphemes is much more pronounced even than in Gromko’s, to the extent that it has produced a negative result. A calculated effect size of d = -0.45 for single-letter grapheme recognition, demonstrates that the control group made significantly greater progress than the intervention group. An explanation for this can be found in the data of two children (one from each class) who each scored only eleven marks in the pre-test, all of which were gained exclusively from recognition of single-letter graphemes (the focus of this analysis), but who had both been randomly allocated to the control group by the casting of the die. However, the single-letter grapheme recognition scores of these two children improved greatly during the period of the intervention (post-test scores of 16 and 19 respectively), a level of improvement which was mathematically impossible for the other children, because their knowledge of this area at pre-test was very close to the maximum. The ‘catch-up’ that these two children enjoyed explains the greater average progress of the control group. Because their scores produced a
AAA_EdD_-_THE_WHOLE_THING_%28post_viva%29.docx