Formal Research

A. GROUP ONE

The first group to be taught with this approach for reading (Easy-for-Me™ Reading which includes SnapLetters™, Alphabet Tales, SnapWords®, Easy-for-Me™ Books, and the multisensory approach to learning to read) and math (Kid-Friendly Computation series)were taught small group, half day and were 4-5 years old. 2000-2001.

Formal testing in April included:

1. Phonics Mastery Inventory

Blends & Digraphs

Number of Syllables

Base Words & Affixes

Plurals

Vowel Teams

Two Consonant Endings

2. Features Spelling

3. John’s Basic Reading Inventory

Graded Word Lists - Form A

Oral Reading Passages - Form A

In the results of this battery of testing, the lowest reader was 2^nd grade, while the highest level reader was 4^th grade.

B. GROUP TWO

The second group was a public school kindergarten which began incorporating some Child1st materials and approaches in November of 2000. Children attended two full days and a half day on Fridays. Teacher reported that her real usable/productive time with the students totaled about 2 half days. The materials used were SnapWords™ and Easy-for-Me™ A Books. The other products were not completed.

Testing included 1) sight word recognition as mandated by the district, 2) reading the EFM Books which require both decoding and sight word fluency, and 3) writing words and sentences from oral dictation by an adult.

January Testing:

Children had progressed through the teaching sequence and had begun reading the books, following the mini-lesson inside the covers. Students could write words and sentences from dictation as follows: Book 1 on 1-24-01, Book 2 on 1-25-01, and they were on Book 6 by 2-7-01. All words on assessments were spelled correctly. Assessment on reading and writing were based on both decodable words and sight words.

February Testing:

This assessment was on sight word recognition using the district-supplied word list for the school year, 17 words were required for kindergarten.

Results: After only 3 months, out of 21 children, 11 could read all 17 words, 3 could read 16, 2 could read 14, 2 could read 12, 1 could read 10, 1 could read 9, and 1 read 3.

Spring assessments are not available to me; however, I have letters each student wrote to their future first grade teacher by way of introducing themselves. Language used included final silent E as in “like”, digraphs SH and TH, OY, ING, OO as in “good”, “food”, “pool”, “foot”, sight words were generally spelled correctly, LL as in “ball”, AY as in “play”, OW as in “how”. Nearly every child spelled “have”, “hav.” Complete sentences used.

C. GROUP THREE

5 kindergarten classrooms in an at-risk/Title 1 school with total immersion. Sarah Major supervised the K teachers as they began to implement the program. This student group had many challenges to overcome including poverty, language barriers, learning issues, behavior challenges, retention, and stressors at home. Teachers had one aide apiece and taught whole group and small group.

Materials utilized:

SnapLetters™, an early version of Alphabet Tales, SnapWords™, Easy-for-Me™ Books, and just an outline of the Easy-for-Me™ Reading Program.

October testing:

After only 2 months, children were tested on a combination of 20 decodable words and sight words. They also were asked to write words from dictation. Achievement varied significantly from classroom to classroom depending on the teacher and the level of classroom control exhibited.

November testing:

Assessments from October were repeated to measure progress.

Classes

#1 - 17 students, 6 sped

#2 – 19 students, 5 sped

#3 – 17 students, 6 sped

#4 – 18 st., w/10 sped

#5 – 18 st., w/ 10 sped

Oct

6 read 15-20 words

4 read 10-14

4 read 5-9

2 read 3 words

5 read 15-20

3 read 10-14

5 read 5-9

5 read 0-4 words

9 read 15-20

5 read 10-14

3 read 2-4 words

8 read 15-20

7 read 10-14

3 read 5-9

9 read 15-20

2 read 10-14

4 read 5-9

3 read 3-4 words

Nov

14 read 15-20

2 read 10-14 words

10 read 15-20

1 read 10-14

4 read 5-9

4 read 1-4 words

12 read 19-20

2 read 10-14

2 read 7-9

1 read 3 words

15 read 15-20

3 read 10-12

6 read 15-20

4 read 10-14

4 read 5-9

2 read 3 words

*Data is not available from spring testing. Teacher 3 reported via email that I would be astonished at how the kids were reading.

Classes 2 and 5 exhibited poor classroom control. In the other 3 classrooms, children were engaged and progressing.

D. GROUP FOUR

TITLE 1 small groups

SnapLetters™, SnapWords™ and Sounds & Their Spelling Patterns approaches were used for remediation in a school with approximately 65 at risk students K-7^th grade (not already in SPED). In order to enter the Title 1 program, students could not qualify for SPED and had to be failing or significantly below grade level in reading. Format was small groups which met 2-3 times a week for 20 or 30 minutes. I have mid-year (Feb) and year-end (May) scores for grades from 1-7.

Testing utilized:

Johns Passages and Words Lists.

Status in the fall by grade level:

1^st grade students could not read or decode and were fuzzy on sounds; missing Kindergarten skills.
2^nd grade students 3 were either below pre-primer or at pre-primer. 3 could read nothing at all.
3^{rd –}5^th grade students were at least two grade levels behind or more - the higher the grade, the more behind.
6^th grade children hovered around a 2^nd grade reading level in the fall (as measured by John’s testing), and were unable to read content material across the curriculum. In grades 3 and up, behavior problems were associated with those who were failing.

In May, administration reported that referrals to special education had dropped to near zero school wide and behavior problems referred to the office had dropped significantly also.

Spring testing results by grade showing independent reading level/instructional reading level:

*4 6^th graders and 1 7^th grader **these two children repeated 1^st grade

Independent/instructional:	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grades 6-7*
pp/-	2**students	1
p/1	8	2
1/2	5		1
2/3	1	3	2
3/4			6	1
4/5			3
5/6			1	2	5
6/7			2	4	1	5
7/8				1

E. GROUP FIVE

CLASSROOMS GRADE 1 AND GRADE 2, 2004-2006.

In another at risk school, total inclusion, no classroom aides, several students who had already repeated a grade, ESOL students, multiple learning disabilities and behavior disorders – testing utilized was Fox in the Box and DIBELS. Classroom teacher administered FOX while DIBELS was administered by another staff member.

GRADE 1: DIBELS tests from Fall and Spring, benchmarks listed at top of column for spring testing

Student	Description	Words	PSF fall/sprg 35	NWF fall/sprg 40	ORF fall/sprg 35
1	Repeating 1^st grade, ESOL, dyslexia	600	21/40	38/70	20/42
2		700	36/33	30/125	17/96
3	Shy, very deliberate in her work	600	24/16	45/42	15/55
4	Scores from Fall – child moved away		51/	48/	20/
5	Started year late, very low skills	600	40/44	24/62	4/56
6		700	56/58	45/102	28/98
7	Child with very difficult home setting	700	51/38	31/102	5/61
8		700	47/11	36/60	15/63
9	Really struggled for everything he learned	600	44/34	15/79	7/81
10	ESOL	600	51/37	40/105	4/75
11	ESOL, severe speech problem	0-100	1/35	0/24	5/15
12	ESOL, shy, deliberate	600	43/40	37/49	11/44
13	ESOL, new to USA	200	9/35	10/21	1/20
14		800	52/45	48/102	29/104
15	ESOL, mental health issues	600	9/30	29/87	3/63
16		800	47/49	31/126	6/59
17	Scores from Fall – child moved away	700	51/	69/	24/

Words lists 1-8: 100 words on each. Lists attached to end of this document. “Words” column shows the numbers of words they mastered during the year. They did this independently, only coming to the teacher to be tested for knowledge.

Some challenges of this school year were the three hurricanes that hit beginning in August. Students missed a number of school days, and several were displaced in the storms. The school building was damaged and repair was on-going for several months.

GRADE 2: 10 students looped up from 1^st grade

(Student 7, who had the most labels of any student in the school, was on grade level by November as demonstrated by DIBELS and FOX testing. He is the most dramatic example of the benefit received from the multisensory approach.)

Grade 2: DIBELS FALL and SPRING SCORES by student – targets identified for each category:

Student	details	NWF fall 50	NWF spring 50	ORF fall 44	ORFspring 90	Peabody Pict. Vocab.*	Errors/total items viewed
1	Muscular dystrophy, SLD, held back 2x	21	43	3	10	10-11	15/96
2	AIP	32	77	39	85	12-16	27/144
3	ESL, shy, too many absences, should not do timed tests	37/51	54	11/39	60	12-16	43/144
4	ESL	10/40	79	1/29	79	8-9	18/84
5	Very dreamy	42	95	45	105	12-16	32/132
6	ESL, held back, severe dyslexia,IEP	38/27	56	20/55	108	12-16	27/120
7	ESL, SLD, speech	84	148	48	91	17-adult	49/156
8		45/55	74	15/55	108	12-16	25/132
9	Transferred in. No fall testing		205		134	17-adult	52/168
10	ESL	109	201	69	132	12-16	25/144
11		31/122	182	6/73	111	17-adult	45/168
12	Cannot do nonsense words. Great reader.	36/47	50	15/90	140	12-16	27/144
13	Came in Apr. No fall testing. IEP		45		72	12-16	18/132
14	1^st reader in family. Cannot do nonsense words	15/53	49	7/115	191	8-9	11/84
15	ESL	40/98	181	4/77	148	12-16	23/132
16		48/109	143	29/97	147	12-16	15/122
17	IEP	76	156	88	123	10-11	13/108
18	ESL, IEP	29/112	224	3/75	125	8-9	35/84

Comments: Those students who looped up from 1^st grade have a slash mark before the score showing scores in Fall of 1^st grade. Ex: 1^st grade fall score/ 2^nd grade fall score						*Chronological age compared to others of their same age.	408 total items: 34 sets of 12

*Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – measure of receptive vocabulary

The class as a whole had well-developed writing skills, using paragraphs and topic sentences with supporting sentences.

Formal Research

A. GROUP ONE

B. GROUP TWO

C. GROUP THREE

D. GROUP FOUR

E. GROUP FIVE

Get in touch

Products

Learn

About