Abstract
Unrecognized ambiguities in validity of intervention research: an example on explicit phonics and text-centered teaching.
Highlights
The effect of phonics-enhanced Big Book reading on the language and literacy skills of six-year-old pupils of different reading ability attending lower SES schools by Tse, L. and Nicholson,T. (2014)
The pre- to post-test performance gain of the intervention that combined phonics with shared reading was compared with the mean of the gains of shared reading and explicit phonics interventions, each taught separately
The gain in word accuracy in oral text reading was not greater for the combined intervention, failing to reach a statistically significant difference (T&N, Table 5). This orthogonal contrasts analysis, relevant to the purpose of the study, was not sufficient for this randomized treatments-versus-control design. It required statistical comparisons between the performance gains of the combined intervention sample and the sample that controlled for gains in reading performance from influences external to the intervention
Summary
The effect of phonics-enhanced Big Book reading on the language and literacy skills of six-year-old pupils of different reading ability attending lower SES schools by Tse, L. and Nicholson,T. (2014). This report of T&N, lacked evidence about what the children received of each of these components prior to, and concurrent with, the intervention study.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
