Teachers perceived Literacy Plus and Sounds-Write as less appropriate or less essential than VEIP, with Sounds-Write aimed at a younger audience than Year 7¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Teachers rated the non-VEIP components as less appropriate or less essential; Sounds-Write was used despite being aimed at a younger audience because of a lack of secondary-specific phonics programmes. → Styles 2014

Evidence¶

Styles 2014¶

Styles, B., Stevens, E., Bradshaw, S., & Clarkson, R. (2014). Vocabulary Enrichment Intervention Programme Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN67513320/

q2 · i? · qualitative · r1

Process-evaluation finding from telephone interviews with five teachers representing four schools, conducted in March 2014. The report states these components were "perceived by teachers to be less appropriate or less essential than VEIP".

"In general, Literacy Plus and Sounds-Write were perceived by teachers to be less appropriate or less essential than VEIP. Sounds-Write is aimed at a younger audience than Year 7, but was used as there is a lack of phonics programmes specifically designed for secondary school pupils."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Schools combined the three intervention components with considerable variation, and the evaluators concluded the programme would have benefited from a pilot stage — related
• Some higher-ability pupils found the VEFP too easy and teachers felt such pupils should not have been in the study — related
• The Vocabulary Enrichment Full Programme showed no statistically significant impact on Year 7 pupils' reading ability in a pupil-randomised controlled trial — related
• PLC was implemented in different ways and with different levels of understanding across schools, and was judged not ready for a large-scale trial — related