Evidence study - e Q

Evidence study

Improving spelling outcomes through explicit teaching

Melissa Caruana

Calen District State College

October 2017

Page | 2

Contents

Overview ................................................................................... 3

Planning and design .................................................................. 9

Implementation and scalability ................................................ 12

Resources and investment ...................................................... 17

Results, findings and impact ................................................... 18

References .............................................................................. 27

Acknowledgements ................................................................. 28

Appendices ............................................................................. 29

Page | 3

Overview

Context

Calen District State College is a small (band 8), rural, P-12 state school located 57 kilometres north of

Mackay in the Central Queensland Region. At the start of the initiative in 2016, the school had 119

primary-aged students. This figure dropped to 94 students by the completion of the initiative in May

2017. As a result, during the implementation of the initiative, five multi-age classes — Prep/1, 1/2, 2/3,

4/5 and 5/6 — had to be reduced to four — Prep/1, 1/2/3, 3/4/5 and 5/6. In the target cohort, ten students

were Indigenous, 3 students had English as an additional language or dialect, and 2 students were

verified with a disability. The school’s attendance rate was 89.4% in 2016, and 91.0% in 2017.

Evidence base

Data

At Calen District State College we believe that, as educators, we have an economic, social and moral

imperative to address the literacy needs of our students. We believe spelling is one of the cornerstones

of literacy that is essential to reading, writing and academic success.

Over recent years, we have seen the adoption of a number of programs by individual teachers

throughout the school, including Jolly Phonics, Sound Waves and Words Their Way. A review of current

teaching practices revealed that the school did not have a whole (primary) school approach to the

teaching of spelling, and the initial teacher surveys conducted during the scan and assess phase,

showed that many teachers lacked the confidence to explicitly teach spelling. Inconsistency in

approaches to the teaching of spelling was reflected in school results, as evidenced in an analysis of

2013 – 2015 NAPLAN Spelling data.

These data showed a steady decline in the school’s Year 3 and 5 spelling results, particularly in terms of

Mean Scale Score (MSS) when compared with the Nation. Figures 1 and 2 represent Year 3 trends and

figures 3 and 4 represent Year 5 trends.

Page | 4

Figure 5 shows an improvement versus achievement matrix for the school’s Year 3 and 5 spelling results

from 2013 to 2015. It indicates that while some improvement in Year 3 and 5 spelling has taken place

over this period, the school’s achievement relative to the Nation continued to decline. From 2013 to

2015, the school’s effect size gain in spelling from Year 3 to 5 was –0.19. In comparison, Queensland

State Schools (QSS) had an effect size of 0.08. This indicates that the school had gained less than the

Nation, while QSS had gained more than the Nation. This performance measure is particularly revealing

for our school as it is calculated on the whole cohort enrolled at the school for each test occasion.

Figure 3 NAPLAN Year 5 Spelling: School scores distribution and Mean Scale Score 2013-2015 compared with the Nation

Figure 4 NAPLAN Year 5 Test Spelling: School Mean Scale Score 2013-2015 (blue) compared with the Nation (purple)

Figure 2 NAPLAN Year 3 Test Spelling: School scores distribution and Mean Scale Score 2013–2015 compared with the Nation

Figure 1 NAPLAN Year 3 Spelling: School Mean Scale Score 2013–2015 (blue) compared with the Nation (purple)

Page | 5

Figure 5 Improvement versus Achievement data for Year 3 and 5 NAPLAN Spelling results from 2013 to 2015

The final performance measure used to confirm that spelling should be a focus for improvement across

Years 3 to 5 was student relative gain. Student relative gain is a means of assessing how much students

have gained in terms of NAPLAN performance from Test 1 to Test 2 relative their peers with the same

starting scores. Like effect size gain, this is a particularly useful performance measure because it reveals

the impact that the teaching practices within the school have on student performance. It can be seen in

Table 1 that, from 2013 to 2015, 50% of Year 5 students at the school had lower relative gain than their

state schooling peers who started at the same starting score, and no students had higher gains. These

data sets informed the school’s decision to focus on spelling improvement, and prioritise building the

capability and confidence of teachers in the explicit teaching of spelling as part of developing a whole

school approach.

Table 1 Year 3 to 5 Student Relative Gain: Spelling

Page | 6

Research

The rules of spelling must be learnt. Adoniou (2016, p. 2) states that “… our brains are not wired for

spelling …” and that there is “… nothing natural and intuitive about spelling.” In addition, English is more

complex than many other alphabetic languages because the letters that represent the sounds in the

words we speak “… are a result of a complex history in which humans and their languages have

interacted with one another over hundreds of years” (Adoniou, 2016, p. 8).

In order to effectively teach spelling, teachers must understand our phonetic system. When teachers

understand themselves how words work, and why words are spelled the way they are, they are able to

teach this to their students (Adoniou, 2016, p. 37). Adoniou further asserts that with strong content

knowledge, teachers can build their own spelling programs that take advantage of the teachable

moments throughout the school day and make spelling a fascinating exploration of words, history and

meaning.

Research suggests that many teachers lack understanding of the concepts underpinning spelling,

including phonemes, graphemes, syllables and morphemes (Daffern 2016, p. 81).This lack of content

knowledge often results in teachers resorting to replicating their own experiences with spelling

instruction, or mimicking the practices of others (Adoniou 2013, p. 144). As part of this initiative, teachers

undertook the Teaching, Handwriting, Reading and Spelling Skills (THRASS) program of professional

development, to build their knowledge of the linguistic concepts and processes that underpin our written

language, and develop a common understanding of the metalanguage required for the explicit teaching

of spelling. THRASS provided the common whole–school approach to teaching spelling within the

learning area and subject contexts of the Australian Curriculum at Calen District State College.

English, like other alphabetic languages, is based on the alphabetic principle. Competence in spelling

requires an understanding that letters of the alphabet are used on their own, and in various

combinations, to represent or write down the individual sounds of our language. There are 44 phonemes

in Standard Australian English (SAE) and these phonemes (speech sounds) are represented by

graphemes (spelling choices) that can be graphs, digraphs, tri-graphs or quad-graphs. When exploring

possible strategies to embed across the school to explicitly teach spelling, one of the key criteria was

that the strategy or practice adopted by the school would provide a sustainable and common foundation

for teaching.

While many commercially produced programs reinforce the notion that spelling is a linear process and

that it can be taught in progressive and distinct phases, THRASS reflects the converging evidence that

supports a more complex, non-linear model of spelling development. Triple Word Form Theory (TWFT)

Page | 7

suggests that students are capable of drawing on and coordinating phonological, orthographic, and

morphological skills from quite early in their spelling development, and that explicit instruction in

phonological, orthographic and morphological components of the language is needed (Daffern,

Mackenzie and Hemmings, 2015). The unique methodology used by THRASS, and the Meaning,

Analysis, Synthesis, Using Memory, Testing, Application (MASUTA) sequence for teaching spelling

(outlined in the THRASS teacher’s manual) develops students’ proficiency in spelling, as it does not

restrict them to a specific spelling stage. Instead, this methodology encourages learners to co-ordinate

and cross map the three word forms (phonological, orthographic, and morphological skills) with

increasing efficiency and autonomy.

According to Oakley and Fellowes (2016, p. 6), effective spellers make use of four kinds of linguistic

knowledge, alongside visual and strategic processes:

phonological knowledge – knowledge of the sound structure of language

morphological knowledge – knowledge of morphemes: the smallest part of the word that carries

meaning

etymological knowledge – knowledge of the origin of words

orthographical knowledge – knowledge of the system of written symbols used to represent

spoken language: the conventions that have developed over time.

Phonological knowledge

Phonological awareness refers to the ability to focus on the sounds of speech as distinct from its

meaning. Phonological awareness plays a critical role in spelling development. According to Oakley and

Fellowes (2016, p. 7), “children must be able to segment each word into smaller units (syllables,

phonemes, or onset and rime) and match these units to appropriate letters or letter combinations”. One

subset of phonological awareness is phonemic awareness which is the ability to hear, identify and

manipulate the individual phonemes in a language. Research shows that phonemic awareness is critical

for acquiring early reading and spelling skills (Stanovich, 1993-4). Phonemic awareness is the

prerequisite to learning a language based on the alphabetic principle, because if a child cannot hear the

individual phonemes in a word, they cannot represent these sounds using letters of the alphabet.

Phonics is the learned process of understanding how letters are used to represent sounds in written

sounds. Phonics is based on an understanding of the alphabetic principle; letters of the alphabet are

used to represent sounds, either singularly, in pairs, or in groups of three and four. There are two main

approaches to teaching phonics; synthetic phonics instruction and analytic phonics instruction. THRASS

supports an explicit and systematic synthetic phonics approach. “Synthetic phonics does not mean a

prescriptive, one-size-fits-all, continuum that teaches a letter sound, or initial sound per week, and does

Page | 8

not differentiate for individual learners” (The THRASS Institute, 2016). Denyse Ritchie (2016), the co-

author of THRASS Australia, argues that the use of prescriptive and contrived programs based on linear

continua restricts learners, and is an unsustainable model of teaching.

Morphological knowledge

Engaging students in dialogue about morphological structures (meaningful units within words) can also

support student learning in spelling (Apel, 2014). Morphemes are the smallest unit of meaning used in a

language. An awareness of morphemes, and how they combine in English spelling enhances spelling

competency. Morphemes are represented by base words, prefixes and suffixes, and in changes that

signal variation in verb tense, possession or plurality (Westwood, 2008 p. 15). Research in recent years

has increasingly placed importance in understanding and using morphological information and principles

to improve spelling.

Etymological knowledge

Etymology refers to the history and origins of words and how this relates to their meaning and spelling.

Many other languages have influenced SAE; that is, many words come from, or have their roots in other

languages, particularly Greek and Latin. Adoniou (2016, p. 17) argues that etymology should be the

beginning of all spelling work with students of all ages and abilities - not the end. Etymology provides the

context for understanding the phonological and morphological clues to how a word is spelled.

Importantly, etymology reinforces the connection between meaning and spelling.

Orthographical knowledge

Orthographic knowledge is the awareness of the symbols (letters) used to represent spoken language in

written form. Orthography is about knowing which graphemes are plausible, possible, and acceptable in

written language. As children become increasingly aware of spelling and patterns and their applications,

they can better predict the structure of unknown words. According to Schlagal, cited in Westwood (2008,

p. 15), at least 80% of English words can be spelled according to phonic principles if we attend to groups

of letters representing pronounceable parts of words (orthographic units, rather than to single letter

sound correspondences). The THRASS chart is a teaching tool that demonstrates how all the integrated

parts of SAE come together. The THRASS chart shows the 44 sounds (phonemes) that make up our

language (24 consonants and 20 vowels), and 120 of the most common letters (graphemes) used to

represent those sounds. These graphemes are presented in each phoneme box from the most common

spelling choice, to the least common. This is important because good spellers make decisions based on

knowledge of the sequences and locations of letters in relation to other letters and the frequency of letter

patterns. Developers of the tool specifically chose the THRASS keywords used on the chart to illustrate

Page | 9

the most common position of the grapheme in a word. For example, in the ‘k’ phoneme box, the

grapheme ‘ck’ is the third spelling choice in the box, and the picture that represents this grapheme is a

duck to show that ‘ck’ is often used at the end of a word or syllable to represent the phoneme ‘k’.

THRASS assists teachers, and consequently their students to build their knowledge of common and

legitimate letter sequences used in SAE. Using THRASS for the explicit teaching of spelling introduces

learners to the metalanguage of spelling and to the rules governing spelling choices, from an early age.

Planning and design

Participants

As the school population of Calen District State College is too small to conduct random sampling, or use

a control and treatment group, all students enrolled in Year 2, 3 and 4 in 2016 participated in the

initiative. Students in Year 2 and 4 participated in the initiative to enable NAPLAN testing in 2017 to yield

valid and reliable data of both students’ improvement. Year 3 students also participated in the initiative

as part of monitoring their progress, preparation for the Year 5 NAPLAN test in 2018 and continuity

across this sector of the school. 45 students participated from the start of the initiative in 2016. This

sample consisted of 25 females and 20 males, with ages ranging from 7 years and 1 month to 10 years

and 2 months. Two students in the participant group had English as an additional language or dialect. All

students were in multi-age classes which resulted in the Year 2 cohort being split between a 1/2, and a

2/3 class. There were 16 students in the Year 2 cohort (56% female and 44% male) with an average age

of 7 years and 7 months; 12 students in the Year 3 (50% female and 50% male) with an average age of

8 years and 8 months, and 17 students in the Year 4 cohort (59% female and 41% male) with an

average age of 9 years and 6 months.

Five female primary teachers, comprising four class teachers and the Support Teacher Literacy and

Numeracy (STLaN), were directly involved in the initiative and participated in all of the professional

development sessions. As mentioned earlier, school enrolment numbers declined in 2017 which resulted

in the loss of the Year 5/6 teacher. This teacher’s responses have not been included in the final report.

All teachers involved had substantial teaching experience – ranging from 18 to 34 years, with an average

of 25 years and 4 months.

Methods

Because the subjects could not be randomly assigned, and the lack of a comparable control group for

each year level, a quasi-experimental research design was used. To compensate for the lack of a true

control group, and in an attempt to validate the results of the initiative, the Year 5 2017 NAPLAN spelling

Page | 10

results were compared to the Nation using the 2015 to 2017 student relative gain, which compares the

gains individual students made compared to their state schooling peers. The results of effect size gain

(relative to the Nation) were also used to compare how much the Year 5 cohort had gained in

performance against the Nation (expressed in standard deviation units), and how this cohort performed

in comparison to Queensland State Schools from 2015 to 2017.

A quantitative approach was used to collect pre- and post- data using the spelling component of the

NAPLAN Language Conventions Test and the South Australian Spelling Test (SAST). Pre-test data was

established baseline for individual students’ spelling age and mean scale score. Post-test data was

collected to understand the impact that embedding THRASS as a specific pedagogical practice for the

explicit teaching of spelling had on improving student spelling outcomes.

Written surveys showing teacher’s linguistic knowledge in teaching spelling were conducted to gain an

understanding of changes in teacher knowledge resulting from the initiative, and to guide the

professional learning needed for the initiative. They were conducted before the initiative, to establish a

baseline and repeated at the end of the initiative to reveal the effect that the target strategy had on

developing specific aspects of teacher’s linguistic knowledge that demand explicit teaching in spelling.

Data collection methods

“Maximising accuracy (validity) and consistency, which is the (reliability of the methods used to measure

students’ achievements, expertise and abilities) remain central goals of educational assessment”

(Pellegrino, 2001 as cited in Calleia and Howard 2014, p. 14). Standardised spelling assessments often

employ one of four modes of assessment to index learners’ levels of orthographic knowledge

(proofreading, error correction, multiple choice, and or dictation). While some studies have shown that

students’ spelling achievements across various test formats is highly correlated, other findings suggest

that students’ test performance differs across these modalities. To increase the accuracy and validity of

the results obtained in this action research initiative, two standardised spelling assessments were used

to collect data in this initiative. The two assessments, NAPLAN Spelling and the South Australian

Spelling Test (SAST) were specifically chosen to assess student’s spelling performance due to their

different formats.

The NAPLAN spelling assessment requires students to correct an identified spelling error in a sentence,

and identify the error in a sentence before writing the correction. Further, the entire NAPLAN test is

presented in written form. In contrast, when undertaking the South Australian Spelling Test (SAST), a list

of words to be spelled is presented orally to the whole class and students are asked to record their

Page | 11

individual written responses. Some researchers suggest that when completing NAPLAN tests, the

incorrect letter sequences presented to students may interfere with their abilities to produce the correct

spelling of the target word (Willett and Gardiner, cited in Calleia and Howard 2014, p. 15).

Students’ individual results in NAPLAN spelling results were used to evaluate the impact that the

embedding THRASS as a whole school approach to the teaching of spelling had on their achievement.

The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) state that the reliability of

NAPLAN tests is high, according to routine methods for estimating reliability. Individual student results

from the 2015 and 2016 Year 3 NAPLAN spelling test were used as one form of baseline data for the

Year 3 and 4 students participating in the study, all students then completed another NAPLAN test in

2017. Year 2 and 4 students sat an actual NAPLAN test in 2017, while Year 3 students undertook a

NAPLAN resit. The results of these tests and the baseline data were used to evaluate student progress

over 12 months.

All students also completed the SAST in July 2016 to calculate their spelling age. The SAST is a

standardised test of spelling achievement for students aged 6 years to 16 years, providing normed data.

A large representative sample of students in South Australia provided the means for developing an

understanding of the average or typical performance of different age groups, or ‘norm’ (Westwood 2005,

p. 61). These norms were updated in 2004, and the test-retest reliability of the SAST is .96 for most year

levels (Westwood 2005, p. 75). As such, the SAST may reliably be used as a quantitative measure of

student progress. The results of the SAST established baseline data for the Year 2 students participating

in the initiative as they had not yet participated in NAPLAN testing. The SAST test was administered

orally to students at Calen District State College in July of 2016 and individual students’ raw scores were

converted into an approximate spelling age for each student. The test was readministered 12 months

later in July of 2017 to evaluate student progress and determine the impact the target strategy had on

students’ spelling outcomes.

No single test can test the depth and breadth of a student’s knowledge. These tests can however, give a

rough indication of the level a student has achieved and provide a comparison against typical rates of

progression for similar students. It was important that students were not exposed to either of the tests

too frequently throughout the initiative as the results may be skewed as some children could become

overly familiar with the content; which is also known as test bias. Many standardised tests such as the

SAST are not particularly sensitive to increments over small time periods. The authors of the SAST test

recommend avoiding re-testing students on the test within six months.

Page | 12

Informal written surveys were also conducted with the teachers involved in the initiative at the beginning,

and end of the initiative, to evaluate the impact that participating in the THRASS training, and

involvement in the action research initiative, had on teachers’ linguistic knowledge and overall

confidence in teaching spelling. The informal survey of linguistic knowledge is based on aspects of

Louisa Cook Moat’s 1995 Informal Survey of Linguistic Knowledge and her 2010 Brief Survey of

Language Knowledge. Teachers were presented with a series of questions designed to ascertain their

knowledge of key linguistic terms, phoneme counting, and syllable counting and grapheme identification.

A copy of the informal written survey given to teachers can be viewed in Appendix 1.

Implementation and scalability

Professional learning – Part one

All primary classrooms were provided with the resources required to effectively implement THRASS as

the school’s whole school approach to the teaching of spelling. Teachers were supported through

ongoing modelling, coaching, team teaching, observation and feedback sessions with the Master

Teacher. Parent sessions were held throughout the year to provide parents with the necessary

knowledge and skills to support their child’s literacy development at home, and encourage them as

active participants in their child’s learning.

To focus attention on “what to teach” in terms of year level expectations, teachers engaged in

collaborative planning sessions to unpack the Australian Curriculum. The Master Teacher created year

level documents that clearly outlined how using THRASS as a specific pedagogical practice would

ensure that teachers at Calen District State College were teaching spelling within the Australian

Curriculum. Within these documents were the agreed definitions of key terminology, to help ensure that

the metalanguage for teaching spelling was consistent throughout the school.

To build teacher capability to embed THRASS as the whole school approach to teaching spelling, staff

participated in was the Foundation level course provided by The THRASS Institute. All primary class

teachers, including the STLaN, Master Teacher, and teacher aides working with students participating in

the initiative, undertook this initial training in the second week of Term 1, 2016.

To ensure the successful implementation of the target strategy, the Master Teacher acted as an agent of

change to “drive” the strategy throughout the school. As a school we had to ensure that the THRASS

training did not become a professional development activity that had little or no impact on what was

occurring in the classrooms. The literature supporting the target strategy also asserted that teacher

Page | 13

knowledge, not programs would have the biggest impact on student learning. A focus on building teacher

capability aligns with Professor Richard Elmore’s work that shows “the impact of professional learning on

student outcomes is inversely proportional to the distance it occurs from the classroom”. Our aim was to

develop a learning culture in the school where teachers were learning in the setting where they do the

work. As an instructional leader leading the change in the school, the Master Teacher was fully aware

that “the route to improvement lies in building the capacity of teachers – their knowledge and skills”

(Fullan 2008, as cited in In Conversation). One of the main aims of the initiative was to build a culture of

collaboration around the teaching of spelling and develop our teachers’ collective sense of efficacy. To

ensure that a culture of learning was being developed in the school the Master Teacher regularly

modelled lessons in each primary classroom, engaged in team teaching lessons and collaborative

planning sessions, and provided ongoing feedback to support classroom teachers to embed THRASS

teaching approaches. Each morning before school, the Master Teacher was available to support

teachers with questions they may have around words being taught, or specific teaching practices. These

informal discussions were held in the staffroom and often resulted in other teachers joining in the

discussion and sharing their collective knowledge.

Instructional time

One of the first activities conducted was a review of the current teaching time devoted to the teaching of

spelling. This review of primary timetables revealed that specific lessons were not being timetabled for

the explicit teaching of spelling. Collaborative discussions with staff resulted in agreement that four, 20 to

35 minute spelling/word study lessons were going to be scheduled each week. Students in Prep and

Year 1 engaged in 20 minute lessons, while older students participated in 35 minute lessons. The first

three lessons of the week in each class were non-negotiable, as these were the lessons the Master

Teacher would attend. As there were only five primary classes in 2016, the Master Teacher was able to

attend spellings lessons on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in every classroom. The fourth weekly

lesson, a consolidation lesson was optional, allowing for teachers’ non-contact lessons on Thursdays

and Fridays. During explicit teaching lessons the Master Teacher modelled activities for developing

students’ chart knowledge and knowledge of terminology and linguistics concepts, and showed how to

use the MASUTA model (Davies and Ritchie, 1998, p. 99) for the explicit teaching of spelling.

Professional Learning – Part two

At the start of Term 2 2016 all Prep to Year 2 teachers, and the Master Teacher, then undertook the

follow up one day Foundation to Proficiency course. This course is designed to revise, consolidate and

Page | 14

extend the learning teachers gained in the Foundation course. Teachers completing this course were

required to have been using THRASS as a specific teaching practice for at least one term in their

classroom. Year 3 – 6 teachers completed this course later in the year (the second week of Term 4,

2016), so that by the end of 2016, every primary teacher had completed the Foundation to Proficiency

training. Two teachers in the school, the Master Teacher, and the primary curriculum co-ordinator (also

the 2/3 teacher), also completed the THRASS Mastery and Lead Level course early in Term 4, 2016.

This course deepened their knowledge of the philosophy, teaching methodology and linguistics of

THRASS, and enabled the Master Teacher to mentor and support the primary teaching staff to embed

THRASS in the school.

School visits

Visits to schools already using THRASS, further developed our knowledge of how to embed THRASS as

the whole school approach to the teaching of spelling. In the third week of Term 2, 2016 the Master

Teacher, along with the primary curriculum co-ordinator, visited Dysart State School to observe one of

the THRASS trainers deliver demonstration lessons to their staff. This visit was invaluable as it allowed

us to see how important it was to have one person in the school driving the change. The Master

Teacher’s role in this initiative was to ensure that THRASS approaches to teaching spelling were being

enacted with fidelity. After this visit, we developed an environmental scan template guiding classroom

observations. This scan allowed the physical environment of each classroom to be critically examined to

ensure that the materials being displayed and physical resources used in the classroom aligned with

THRASS methodology, particularly, that letters do not make sounds, they are used to represent the

sounds we hear in words. A copy of this scan appears in Appendix 3. We then arranged a visit to St

Hilda’s Anglican Girls School on the Gold Coast to observe Denyse Ritchie, the co-developer of

THRASS, working with teachers in the school to ensure the whole school approach to teaching spelling

was being embedded. The Master Teacher then spent one full day with Denyse discussing how to best

implement THRASS as the target strategy for improving spelling outcomes at Calen District State

College.

Professional learning – Part three

Engaging the professional services of THRASS trainers to work with the school throughout the initiative

was another key professional learning activity used to build teacher capability. Early in Term 4 in 2016, a

THRASS trainer spent four days working with the primary staff. During this time the trainer met with the

school leadership team to discuss school priorities, modelled explicit teaching lessons and ideas for

warm up activities, observed lessons and provided feedback, participated in planning sessions with

teachers, and provided professional learning sessions for teacher aides working with primary students. A

Page | 15

copy of the timetable devised for this visit has been included in Appendix 3. A second round of

demonstration lessons was booked with the co-developer of the THRASS program, Denyse Ritchie, for

late in Term 1 in 2017, but due to the school’s closure during Cyclone Debbie, was rescheduled for Term

3.

Consistent resourcing

Resourcing the initiative included the provision of classroom resources; each classroom teacher

accessed a full set of resources to support the implementation of THRASS. These included, a large

class-size THRASS Picture chart, class-size THRASS Grapheme chart, Word Level chart, THRASS

Phonic Handbook, Phoneme Grapheme Cards, Magnetic Graphemes, Magnetic Picture Tiles and

playing cards. Teachers in Prep to Year 2 also accessed Hotwords 1, 2, 3 boxes, Alphabet cards, a

jigsaw and THRASS Early Reading Books, while teachers in Years 3 to 6 received the magnetic IPA

tiles. The resources included two large floor mats, for use throughout the school. To allow the display of

magnetic resources, sheet metal panels were purchased and mounted in each classroom. Students in

Prep to Year 2 were required to purchase their own desk-size picture charts, the THRASS Hotwords

chart, and The THRASS Phonics Word Bank book. Students in Years 3 to 6 purchased the desk-size

spelling master chart and The THRASS Phonics Word Bank book. Class sets of overwrite charts were

made, laminated and distributed to students. Photos showing the physical layout of the THRASS

resources set up in the classrooms are available in Appendix 4.

School-community partnerships

Teachers were not the only ones to engage in professional learning activities. At Calen District State

College we believe that parents, families, and carers are vital partners in their child’s education. The way

many parents learned to spell at school is very different to how their children were now being taught

using THRASS. To alleviate fear of the unknown and provide information on how they can support their

child’s learning, regular parent sessions were held throughout the initiative. As THRASS has been

adopted throughout our small cluster of Northern Highway schools, these parent sessions were open to

the wider community. A total of four parent sessions were held at Calen District State College throughout

the initiative. Parent information sessions were also delivered to three neighbouring schools, Pindi Pindi

SS, Seaforth SS and Hampden SS, to build a community of practice (COP) with a focus on THRASS as

a pedagogical practice. During the THRASS trainer’s visit in Term 4 of 2016, an additional parent

session was delivered, which was well attended. To ensure any parents new to the school in 2017 were

kept informed, a repeat of the introductory session was held in Term 1, 2017. Every parent that attended

a parent session received a parent pack with a variety of THRASS resources to take home.

Page | 16

Monitoring

Diagnostic testing was also used throughout the initiative to identify key spelling concepts/patterns that

particularly cohorts needed to focus on. A comprehensive analysis of previous Year 3 and 5 NAPLAN

spelling tests was conducted that matched the NAPLAN spelling questions to year level content

descriptions of the Australian Curriculum. These documents clearly outlined to teachers what specific

spelling patterns and/or generalisations particular questions were testing, and provided them with a small

list of other words they could teach to revisit or introduce these concepts. A copy of the documents

created for Year 3 and 5 is not included due to the size of the file, but is available on request.

Customised diagnostic tests were then created to test specific year level content descriptions using the

Central Queensland assessment program, CQ3S. The results of these tests were then collated in a

spreadsheet and sorted to show the questions in which the cohort’s results varied the greatest from the

Nation’s percentage correct. Diagnostic testing was also conducted using the THRASS Hotwords lists,

and the 120 key words on the THRASS chart. The results of all the diagnostic testing were used to help

teachers make decisions when choosing words to make part of their class spelling lists.

Celebrating success

The culminating activity for the initiative was to hold a THRASS dress up day. This was held on the

Monday before our students sat NAPLAN to celebrate the work that the staff and students had done over

the last 12 months. Children were encouraged to come dressed up as something from the THRASS

chart, and participated in a variety of THRASS based activities. The community support for this event

was amazing, and it will now become an annual event.

Page | 17

Resources and investment

Table 2: Initiative costs

Costs Total cost Per person Notes

Foundation level training $3388 $484.00 pp 7 staff (No TRS, flights/ accommodation were required -

course run in Mackay on a Friday afternoon and Saturday).

Foundation to Proficiency

training (P-2 teachers)

$ 2208

$ 242 pp

$ 420 TRS pp

4 staff (Includes 2 x TRS, flights and accommodation in

Brisbane)

Mastery and Lead level

training

$ 2840 $ 1210 pp

$ 420 TRS pp

Completed on a Friday and Saturday

No TRS required for Master Teacher

THRASS information day $1000 No TRS as only Master Teacher attended

School visit to St Hilda’s $590.00 No TRS as only Master Teacher attended

Includes flights, accommodation and airport transfers

THRASS demonstration

and support days

$9300

($1500 a day

+$1800 travel)

(five day visit was conducted in 2016 and included

providing foundation to proficiency training for teachers in

Years 3 to 6)

TRS to release teachers to

observe THRASS demos

$1680 $420 per day 1 TRS booked per day

Visit to Dysart SS $610.00

($ 190 accom.

+ $ 420 TRS)

Includes accommodation and TRS for primary curriculum

co-ordinator

THRASS Classroom

Resources

$ 4697.10 Approximately

$1250 per

classroom to fully

resource each

teacher

The school already had a number of THRASS resources in

the library, additional resources were purchased to ensure

the five primary classrooms had access to the full suite of

resources

I pads $ 2800 Approx $700 pp 1 pad per teacher loaded with Cambridge dictionary and 1

THRASS app

THRASS Parent meetings $500 Catering supplies (4 parent sessions)

Purchase of parent packs

Photocopying/printing,

stationery, equipment

lease

$980.00

TOTAL OUTLAY FOR

INITIATIVE

$30 593.81 It is difficult to assign a cost per unit, or cost per outcome as THRASS was

implemented throughout the whole primary sector, not just the two classes from

which data was collected. The resources and training costs would be one off

costs that would not occur every year. The only ongoing costs to continue the

initiative in 2018 will now relate to training and supporting new staff.

Page | 18

0

73.3

26.7

14.1

39.4 45.5

0102030405060708090

100

Lower 2 Bands Middle 2 Bands Upper 2 Bands

Year 3 NAPLAN Spelling 2017 Achievement Bands

School Nation

Figure 6 Year 3 NAPLAN Spelling MSS School (blue) versus the Nation (purple) 2014-2017

Figure 7 Year 3 NAPLAN Spelling achievement by bands % school compared to the Nation

Results, findings and impact

Year 3

As seen in Figure 6 below, the gap between the school 2017 Year 3 Mean Scale Score (MSS) in

NAPLAN spelling and the Nation’s MSS has reduced significantly. In fact, an analysis of the school’s

historical data shows that the school’s MSS in 2017 of 404.3 is the highest MSS the school has achieved

since first participating in NAPLAN spelling testing in 2008. Another significant indicator of the success of

the initiative was that in 2017, there were no Year 3 students at Calen District State College below

national minimum standard (NMS), or in the lower two bands (L2B) for spelling. A visual comparison of

the school’s achievement versus the Nation, shown in Figure 7, shows that while the school’s

performance in terms of the percentage of students in the lower two bands compared favourably to the

Nation, the number of students at the school in the upper two bands (U2B) was still slightly less than the

Nation. In this instance, 26.7% of Year 3 students at Calen District State College achieved results in the

U2B’s for spelling compared to 45.5% of the Nation. It is important to note that in 2017 only fifteen Year

3 students participated in NAPLAN testing at Calen District State College. The effect of the very small

numbers in this cohort must be considered when analysing and interpreting the results.

An

An analysis of the pre- and post-test SAST data, collected to determine the impact the embedding the

target strategy had on improving student spelling outcomes, revealed students made greater than

expected gains in their spelling achievement. Baseline data collected showed that in 2016 the Year 2

cohort had an average spelling age of 7.49 years (7 years and 5 months). 12 months later, this same

Page | 19

cohort had an average spelling age of 8.73 years (8 years and 7 months). These figures show that for

the 12 months teaching these students had received, on average the cohort made 1.24 years of growth

(1 year and 2 months). A copy of the Year 3 cohort’s individual results for the SAST is provided in

Appendix 5.

To further evaluate the impact that embedding THRASS had on the spelling outcomes of Year 3

students an improvement versus achievement matrix was created that correlated spelling age in years

with improvement/decline in years. This is shown in figure 8. The results for improvement/decline were

based on individual students’ approximate spelling ages, calculated using the norm tables provided with

the test. The quadrants of the matrix were developed using the cohort’s average chronological age (8

years and 6 months) and a figure of 1.0 to indicate one year of growth.

Figure 8 Year 3 SAST results: Improvement versus Achievement 2016 to 2017

Figure 8 above shows that 80% of Year 3 students made at least 1 year of gain for 1 year of teaching.

One of the three students who did not make the expected gain is working on an Individual Curriculum

Plan (ICP) for English. The improvement versus achievement matrix clearly shows that a vast majority of

students (90%), working at or above their chronological spelling age, made better than expected gain.

The average gain for these students as a group was 1.48 years of growth (1 year and 5 months) for 1

year of teaching. These results suggest that using THRASS for the explicit teaching of spelling resulted

Page | 20

in our high achieving students in Year 3 improving at a similar or higher rate than the remaining cohort.

Historically, our school has focused on providing intervention and support for students at risk of not

achieving the standards articulated in the curriculum. These findings suggest that using THRASS, as a

whole class strategy, meets the specific learning needs of our higher performing students.

Year 4

The current Year 4 cohort completed a NAPLAN resit test in May 2017 to track and monitor their

spelling progress over the 12 month period following their actual Year 3 NAPLAN spelling test in 2016.

An application developed in the Central Queensland Region, CQ3S, was used collate the results of the

resit and evaluate the Year 4 cohort’s progress against school performance targets. These targets were

developed using the average of the Nation’s MSS for last four years in Year 3 and 5 NAPLAN spelling.

These figures were then used to calculate an average gain in MSS from Year 3 to 5 of 83.3 scale score

points, which equates to approx. 41.6 points per year. The results indicated that 3 out of the 9 students

that completed the resit test did not reach the expected NAPLAN gain, 1 student demonstrated gains

close to the average gain, and 5 students gained greater than the average gain result. The average gain

across the 9 students was 60.7 points. It should be noted that as this test was a resit, and not an actual

NAPLAN test, the results may not be reliable.

In order to better understand the NAPLAN findings, an improvement versus achievement matrix was

also created using the results of the SAST. Figure 10 shows that 100% of Year 4 students made at least

1 year of gain for 1 year of teaching, with many students exceeding the expected growth. While the

results of the SAST appear to show greater improvement than the NAPLAN resit information, this may

be due to the differing test delivery modes. As mentioned earlier, there is some research that suggests

that when completing NAPLAN tests, the incorrect letter sequences that are presented to students

interferes with the student’s ability to produce the correct spelling. To test this assumption an oral test of

the same words tested in the NAPLAN test could be given to students, and the results compared to

confirm whether test mode does influence student performance. The results of the SAST show that after

embedding THRASS as our whole school approach to the teaching of spelling the Year 4 cohorts’

average spelling age increased from 8.54 years (8 years and 6 months) in 2016 to 10.29 years (10 years

and 3 months) in 2017. In 1 year, the cohort’s average spelling age had increased by 1.75 years or 1

year and 9 months. The Year 4 cohort’s individual results for the SAST appear in Appendix 6.

Page | 21

Figure 10 Year 4 SAST results: Improvement versus Achievement 2016-2017

Year 5

The Year 5 data collected throughout the initiative is perhaps the most reliable data as student relative

gain to the Nation, and effect size relative to the Nation can be used to understand more fully the impact

the target strategy had on student spelling outcomes. Table 3 shows 100% of students in Year 5 2017

had positive relative gain, with 76.9% of these students making similar gain, and 15.4% of students

making higher gains than their state schooling peers that started with the same test 1 scale score.

Page | 22

Table 3 Year 3 to 5 Student Relative Gain NAPLAN 2017

The average gain of the Year 5 cohort in terms of scale score points for NAPLAN spelling 2017 was

121.3, which outperformed the Nation’s average gain of 91.7 by 29.6 points. In 2017, the school’s

relative gain in Year 3 to 5 spelling was above Similar Queensland State Schools (SQSS). As 76.9% of

students were matched for both tests, these figures provide a reliable measure of the impact that

teaching practices at the school are having on student spelling outcomes. Figure 11 shows the band

movement of the Year 5 cohort from Year 3 in 2015 to Year 5 in 2017, demonstrating both a decrease in

the percentage of students in the lowest band, and an increase in the percentage of students in the

upper three bands.

Figure 11 Band Movement from Year 3 2015 to Year 5 2017

The Year 5 improvement gains were further supported by the school’s Effect Size Gain (Relative to the

Nation) from 2015–2017. As mentioned earlier, in the previous two NAPLAN cycles (2013–2015 and

2014–2016), the school had negative effect size gain in Year 3 to 5 spelling. However, in 2015–2017, the

school outperformed both the Nation and Queensland State Schools in relation to effect size. The school

Page | 23

recorded a positive effect size gain of 0.40, which was four times the effect size gain of Queensland

State Schools. Table 6 establishes both the historical trend and improvement in 2015 – 2017.

Table 6 Year 3 to 5 Effect Size Gain (Relative to the Nation)

Figure 12 further supports that the implementation of THRASS has begun to close the gap between the

school’s performance in Year 5 NAPLAN spelling compared to the Nation.

Figure 12 Closing the gap in Spelling Year 3 2015 to Year 5 2017

The results of the SAST show that this particular Year 5 cohort started with initiative with spelling results

two years behind their chronological age. The group had an average spelling of 8.54 years (8 years and

6 months), which was significantly below their average chronological age of 10.54 years (10 years and 6

Page | 24

months). The post data collected showed that in 1 year, the cohort made and average of 1.06 years (1

year and 1 month) growth. The improvement versus achievement matrix shown in Figure 13 shows that

while a majority of the students in Year 5 made the expected growth, there were four students who did

not meet the improvement expectations. However analysis of these students’ 2017 NAPLAN spelling

gains shows that all four of these students made similar gains to their state schooling peers.

Figure 13 Year 5 Results SAST

The results of the SAST reveal that after receiving 12 months teaching using THRASS as the whole

school approach to the teaching of spelling, the combined Year 3–5 cohort made an average gain in

spelling age of 1.28 years (1 year and 3 months). All three year levels made the expected gain, with the

Year 4 cohort making the greatest improvement in spelling age.

Page | 25

Teacher capability

At the beginning of the initiative, five primary teachers undertook a written informal survey to provide

baseline data around their knowledge of specific linguistic terms and concepts that underpin our written

language. The results revealed that prior to participating in the initiative; the majority of teachers were

lacked specific knowledge of the key terms that underpin our written language, supporting the research

that shows that many teachers are unaware or misinformed of key concepts which demand explicit

teaching in spelling (Moats, 2014). After 12 months of embedding THRASS as a whole school approach

to the teaching of spelling, and attending THRASS training sessions, a post-test was conducted, which

demonstrated marked improvement in teacher knowledge. These results suggest the professional

learning and coaching in the school has improved teacher knowledge, which in turn appears to have

resulted in improved spelling outcomes for students.

Conclusions

The aim of this initiative was to evaluate the impact that building teacher capability to explicitly and

systematically teach spelling using the THRASS approach would improve student spelling outcomes in

Years 3 to 5. The results showed that in NAPLAN spelling 2017, our Year 3 cohort had no students in

the lower two bands, and after one year of THRASS-based instruction, they had an average increase of

1.16 years (1 year and 1 month) in spelling age. The SAST results also revealed of the three year levels

that participated in the initiative, the Year 4 cohort had the greatest average increase in spelling age of

1.75 years (1 year and 9 months), and all students in the Year 4 cohort made or exceeded the expected

gain over a 12 month period. While there is some inconsistency between the gains the Year 4 students

made in the NAPLAN resit compared to the SAST, as previously discussed, the two different modes of

testing used to examine student spelling outcomes may explain these findings. Analysis of the Year 5

cohort’s 2017 NAPLAN spelling results indicated that this cohort made greater than expected gain in

terms of NAPLAN relative gain, effect size gain (relative to the Nation), and improvement in MSS. 100%

of Year 5 students made positive relative gain, with 93.3 % making similar or higher gains than their

state schooling peers. The Year 5 2017 NAPLAN spelling results show that the gap between the

school’s MSS, and the Nation’s MSS is closing. Analysis of the pre- and post-test data suggests that

embedding THRASS as the whole school approach to the teaching of spelling does lead to improved

spelling outcomes for students in Years 3 to 5, and improves teacher knowledge of the basic linguistic

processes that underpin the explicit teaching of spelling.

Page | 26

Limitations and learnings

One of the biggest limitations in this initiative was the small sample size of participants (36 students from

Years 3 to 5). The small cohort numbers at Calen District State College meant that it was not possible to

have a comparison group within the school, as this would have meant the target group was not sufficient

in size to generalise the findings. Instead, a valid comparison was available in the Year 5 2017 NAPLAN

spelling results of the Nation in terms of relative gain, effect size and average improvement in MSS, and

the results of the SAST. In order to validate and confirm the findings of the study, this initiative would

need to be replicated and then reviewed with larger student populations.

The small number of teachers that participated in the initiative made it relatively easy to ensure that all

teachers had access to the same professional development and support throughout the initiative, and

were using consistent metalanguage and practices throughout the school. This may be more difficult to

monitor in a larger school setting with increased numbers of staff. Finally, the actual way in which both

the NAPLAN spelling test, and the SAST test are marked, limits the amount of information given about a

child’s actual level of spelling ability. Both tests mark students’ responses either correct or incorrect; no

analysis of the child’s attempt is undertaken. Therefore, a child who spells the word ‘snail’ as ‘snale’ will

be marked incorrect, as will a child who spells the word ‘hayasfanrhjkh’. An analysis of the two attempts

reveals that the child who spelled the word ‘snale’ has a much higher level of spelling ability that the

second child, but this is not reflected in the overall scores. The Words Their Way diagnostic tests assess

students according to the number of feature points evident in their attempts; however there are no norm-

referenced tables to compare student achievement results.

Recommendations

Research shows that improving the effectiveness of teaching is the way to lift school performance

(Hattie, 2003).Teachers teach, not programs. If schools want to see students’ spelling outcomes

improve, they must invest in developing teachers’ capability to explicitly and systematically teach

spelling. In 2017, THRASS was fully embedded as the whole (primary) school approach to teaching

spelling in our P to 12 school. We are now considering its use in the junior secondary sector, to support

teacher capability and deepen students’ knowledge, skills and understandings of Australian Curriculum

learning areas and subjects through students’ subject-specific vocabulary and spelling (word study).

Page | 27

References

Adoniou, M. (2016) Spelling It Out: How Words Work and How to Teach Them. Melbourne, Victoria, Cambridge University Press. Apel, K. (2014). A comprehensive definition of morphological awareness: Implications for assessment. Topics in Language Disorders, 34 (3), 197-209. doi: 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000019 Calleia, A and Howard, S (2014) Assessing what students know: Effects of assessment type on spelling performance and relation to working memory. Journal of Student Engagement: Education Matters, 4(1), 2014, 14-24. Available at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jseem/vol4/iss1/3 Daffern, T. (2016). What happens when a teacher uses metalanguage to teach spelling? The Reading Teacher. doi: 10.1002/trtr.1528. Available at http://www.academia.edu/29835663/Daffern_T._2016_._What_happens_when_a_teacher_uses_metalanguage_to_teach_spelling_The_Reading_Teacher._doi_10.1002_trtr.1528 Daffern, T & Mackenzie, N & Hemmings, B. (2015). The development of a spelling assessment tool informed by Triple Word Form Theory. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. 2015. Available from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282739894_The_development_of_a_spelling_assessment_tool_informed_by_Triple_Word_Form_Theory Davies, A. and Ritchie, D. (1998) THRASS Teacher’s Manual For Teaching English As A First Or Other Language. Osborne Park, Western Australia. The THRASS Institute Australia.

Hattie, J.A.C. (2003) Teachers Make a Difference: What is the research evidence? Paper presented at the Building Teacher Quality: What does the research tell us ACER Research Conference, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/4/

In Conversation (2008) Leading Change. Fall 2008 Volume 1 Issue 1. Available from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/leadership/change.pdf Moats, L. (2010) Principles of Effective Teaching of Reading, Spelling, and Writing. Brookes Publishing. Available from http://archive.brookespublishing.com/newsletters/downloads/Moats_language-knowledge.pdf

Moats, L. (2014) Informal Survey of Linguistic Knowledge. The Missing Foundation in Teacher Education American Education, Vol. 19, Summer 1995. Available from http://www.effective-educators.net/uploads/7/0/5/7/7057513/assessment_knowledge_of_reading.pdf Oakley, G. and Fellows J. (2016) A Closer Look at Spelling In the Primary Classroom. Newtown, N.S.W. Primary English Teaching Association Australia. Stanovich, Keith E. (1993-94) "Romance and Reality (Distinguished Educator Series)". Reading Teacher, 47(4), 280-91.

The Centre for Independent Studies (2017) Explicit Phonics Instruction. Available from http://www.fivefromfive.org.au/explicit-phonics-instruction/

Page | 28

Westwood, P. (2005) Spelling: Approaches to Teaching and Assessment. Camberwell, Victoria. ACER Press. Westwood, P. (2008) What Teachers need to know about Spelling. Camberwell, Victoria. ACER Press.

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge Mrs Denyse Ritchie, co-developer of THRASS, and her team of trainers for

the support and encouragement provided to the staff of Calen District State College throughout this

initiative. At Calen District State College we believe that if we want to change educational outcomes, we

need to make change classroom practice. Thank you to the hardworking, dedicated, and passionate

teachers at Calen District State College who were so willing to come on this journey.

Page | 29

Appendices

Appendix 1. Informal Written Survey of Teacher Knowledge

Section 1 Definitions and Concepts

Write a definition or explanation of the following. You may give examples to support your

explanation.

1. Phoneme:

_________________________________________________________________________

2. Grapheme:

_________________________________________________________________________

3. Morpheme:

_________________________________________________________________________

4. Syllable:

_________________________________________________________________________

5. Vowel:

_________________________________________________________________________

6. Consonant:

_________________________________________________________________________

7. Digraph:

_________________________________________________________________________

8. Diphone:

_________________________________________________________________________

9. Blend

_________________________________________________________________________

Page | 30

10. Prefix:

_________________________________________________________________________

11. Suffix:

_________________________________________________________________________

12. Base word:

_________________________________________________________________________

13. Onset:

_________________________________________________________________________

14. Rime:

_________________________________________________________________________

15. Compound word

_________________________________________________________________________

Section 2 General Knowledge of Standard Australian English

How many sounds are there in Standard Australian English (SAE)? ________

How many consonant sounds are there in SAE? ________

How many vowel sounds are there in SAE? ________

Page | 31

Section 3 Knowledge of Phonemes and Syllables

For each of the words below record the number of speech sounds in the word (phonemes),

the number of syllables, and the number of morphemes.

Number of Phonemes

Number of Syllables

What letter/s represent the third speech sound

snail

scrunch

queen

giant

garden

knowledge

cheque

excess

anxiety

physical

joyful

boil

king

thank

straight

precious

thrown

poison

shower

start

Page | 32

Appendix 2. THRASS Environmental Scan

Focus: THRASS Resources

Classroom

Teacher Date

KEY THRASS RESOURCES ARE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED WHERE APPLICABLE AND EASILY ACCESSED DURING EXPLICIT TEACHING LESSONS

NOTES

THRASS Picture Chart (Class Size)

THRASS Grapheme Chart (Class Size)

THRASS Magnetic Picture tiles displayed in a position that allows students to access the tiles

THRASS Magnetic Grapheme tiles displayed in a position that allows students to access the tile

THRASS Word Level Workchart

THRASS High Frequency THRASS words displayed as per THRASS Hotwords Chart

INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS HAVE ACCESS TO THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES

NOTES

THRASS Picture Chart (desk size)

THRASS Grapheme Chart (Desk Size)

THRASS Overwrite chart (Desk Size)

DISCUSS WITH TEACHER NOTES

How are you using the Phoneme Grapheme Cards in your room?

How are you using the THRASS playing cards in your room?

How are you using the THRASS floor mats in your room?

How are you using the Early Readers in your room (Prep only)

How do you use the THRASS jigsaw in your room?

ARE THERE RESOURCES ON DISPLAY OR BEING USED IN THE CLASSROOM, OR SENT HOME FOR HOMEWORK THAT MAY GIVE STUDENTS A CONTRADICTORY MESSAGE?

NOTES

Page | 33

Appendix 3. Copy of THRASS trainer’s timetable

* Timetable developed at Calen District State College for professional learning.

Page | 34

Appendix 4. Photos of various classroom layouts

Page | 35

Appendix 5. Individual spelling results

SAST Year 3 Actual Age Spelling Age 2016 Spelling Age 2017 Improvement/Decline (yrs) NAPLAN 2017

Student 1 8.75 8.833 9.5 0.667 461 Band 5

Student 2 8.917 7.5 9.083 1.583 378 Band 4

Student 3 8.75 6.833 6.833 0.000 378 Band 4

Student 4 9 8.333 9.5 1.167 449 Band 5

Student 5 8.333 7.333 9.083 1.750 389 Band 4

Student 6 8.083 7.667 9.333 1.666 A

Student 7 8.083 8.333 9.333 1.000 399 Band 4

Student 8 8.167 6.667 7.667 1.000 331 Band 3

Student 9 9.167 8.083 9.5 1.417 439 Band 5

Student 10 8.417 7.333 9.333 2.000 399 Band 4

Student 11 8.083 6.583 7.667 1.084 399 Band 4

Student 12 8.25 6.5 8.083 1.583 357 Band 3

Student 13 8.75 7.667 7.917 0.250 378 Band 4

Student 14 8.917 7.083 8.583 1.500 450 Band 5

Student 15 8.917 7.667 9.5 1.833 495 Band 6

SAST Year 4 Actual Age Spelling Age 2016 Spelling Age 2017 Improvement/Decline (yrs) NAPLAN resit 2017

Student 1 9.667 9.333 10.417 1.084

Student 2 9.417 10.167 11.167 1.000

Student 3 9.833 7.5 9.083 1.583

Student 4 9 8.333 10.667 2.334

Student 5 9.833 9.083 10.167 1.084

Student 6 10.667 6.917 9.083 2.166

Student 7 9.583 9.333 10.667 1.334

Student 8 9.5 7.333 10.417 3.084

Student 9 9.417 8.833 10.917 2.084

SAST Year 5 Actual Age Spelling Age 2016 Spelling Age 2017 Improvement/Decline (yrs) NAPLAN 2017

Student 1 10.917 9.5 10.167 0.667

Student 2 10.75 9.333 9.5 0.167

Student 3 10.25 10.167 10.417 0.250

Student 4 10.75 6.667 7.5 0.833

Student 5 10.417 7.083 8.833 1.750

Student 6 10.417 7.917 9.083 1.166

Student 7 10.167 10.417 11.417 1.000

Student 8 10.917 9.333 10.417 1.084

Student 9 10.417 8.333 9.333 1.000

Student 10 10.083 8.333 9.5 1.167

Student 11 10.25 9.083 10.167 1.084

Student 12 11.167 7.083 8.833 1.750