STUDIES IN SUPPORT OF THRASS® AS A PHONICS TEACHING TOOL

Lovegrove (1998). ‘Reading Acquisition Using Phonemic Strategies For Students Experiencing Difficulties With Learning’. Published in the Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, Volume 3, Issue 2 June 1998, pages 31-37. Published in the Australian Journal of Learning Disabilties, Volume 3, Issue 2 June 1998, pages 31-37. Please note that as of 2008 this journal was retitled the Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties. Pre-and post-testing results reported ‘significant gains from THRASS when compared to a matched control group over an 8-week period’.

Matthews (1998). 13-week study. Showed RGs of 2.5 in Spelling in Yr 3s; RGs in Reading Accuracy of 2.3 for Yr 3s, 2.4 for Yr 4s, 3.4 for Yr 5s, 2.4 for Yr 6s; RGs in Reading Comprehension of 2.3 for Yr 3s, 2.7 for Yr 4s, 3.8 for Yr 5s, 4.2 for Yr 6s.

Brooks (2002). ‘Research Report 380’. The report compared 25 programs and the overall comment was that, 'THRASS was one of the more effective programs'. The report listed average RGs of 3.4 in Reading Accuracy and 3.8 for Comprehension in Yr 5s. It also reported RGs of 2.4 for Reading Accuracy in Yrs 3, 4 and 6 and average RGs of 4.2, 2.7 and 2.3 for Comprehension in the same years.

DfES (2003). Department For Education & Skills, UK. The Department for Education & Skills, ‘National Literacy Strategy’ guidance leaflet (NLS Ref 0201, May 2003), recommends THRASS because NLS research indicates that ‘there is at least double the normal rate of progress for many pupils’.

Boutilier & Norris (2003). Concluded that ‘THRASS resulted in significant improvements in the literacy skills of Secondary pupils’. Showed mean RGs for Yr 8 Spelling: 1.71, Yr 9 Spelling: 1.93, Combined Yr 8 and 9 Reading Comprehension: 1.85, Combined Year 8 and 9 Reading Accuracy: 1.22. On average 40.5% of students achieved RGs of 2.0 or more for spelling. Although reading was not the specific target of the intervention there were gains in both accuracy and comprehension, with 44% achieving RGs of 2.0 or more for Reading Accuracy and 32% achieving RGs of 2.0 or more for Reading Comprehension.

Edington & Shapwick School (2003). 5-month study with Secondary age dyslexics. RGs were between 4.0 and 6.0 for spelling when learners received 10-30 minutes of THRASS per day. Using the Vernon Spelling Test, a group of Yr 8s made 30 months progress in Spelling in 5 months. A group of Yr 7s made 20 months progress in Spelling in 5 months. One pupil improved three-and-a-half-years in the five months.

Perri (2005). Concluded that, ‘As well as being significantly more effective in teaching literacy skills by ensuring students understand the fundamentals of reading acquisition, THRASS has shown to improve academic and general self-perception for students with learning difficulties’. ‘There was a significant difference between the THRASS group and the comparison group in pseudoword decoding and single word reading immediately after the 10 week intervention’. ‘RG scores showed the THRASS group to be learning at 3 times the control group’s rate’. ‘Furthermore when tested again 5 months after the intervention ceased a significant overall main effect was found for the THRASS group’. ‘RGs also demonstrated significantly better improvement for the THRASS group over the comparison group on the three word-level measures at post-test and 5 months later’.

McLachlan (2005). Concluded that, ‘The THRASS group showed significantly greater improvement to a matched comparison group, in a literacy score consisting of the WIAT sub-tests of Pseudoword Decoding, Spelling, Word Reading and the Test of Reading Comprehension’. ‘RGs generated strong evidence of the effectiveness of THRASS, with RGs of 3.0 compared to -0.47 with the comparison groups on the three measures of Pseudoword Decoding, Spelling and Word Reading’. ‘This means that in the 10-week program, using these measures the THRASS group increased their reading and spelling ages by an average of 30 weeks, whereas the comparison group on average actually decreased by 5 weeks’. ‘The students not only benefited immediately after the program had ended, but maintained their gains for at least another 4 months’.

Parry (2005). ‘There was a significant difference in pseudoword reading age scores for the THRASS group compared to the non- THRASS group following the intervention’. ‘The THRASS group increase in mean pseudoword reading age is 26 months, whereas the non-THRASS group increase is 6 months’. ‘The interaction of time and the THRASS group and the significant effect of the THRASS group suggests pseudoword reading scores following the intervention have improved significantly more for the THRASS group’. Other measures included: ‘The THRASS group increase in mean spelling age is 7 months, whereas the non-THRASS group increase is 2 months’. ‘The THRASS group increase in mean reading age is 10 months, whereas the non-THRASS group increase is 4 months’. In 2005, two Queensland schools (populations of indigenous students who speak English as a second or third language), won Australian Literacy Awards. Official literacy data and testing from the Yr 3 students showed that these children were at or above state benchmark.
Principals of both schools have stated that the impact made by THRASS was clearly the main variable in securing these outstanding results.

Burgess (2009). ‘To THRASS or not to THRASS’.
This paper examined the suitability of THRASS for use in adult literacy programs. Following is an excerpt from the summary. The paper concluded that, ‘sufficient elements of good phonics instruction as described in the research review are evident in THRASS to merit its inclusion in adult literacy programmes. The importance of strategies to assist the development of phonological awareness is well noted. THRASS does this explicitly while maintaining an emphasis on real writing and reading. It provides a set of resources that are therefore compatible with whole language and functional literacy approaches. The THRASS Chart acts as a motivational and confidence building tool kit that adult students may use, when needed, as a reference that re-inforces familiarity with grapho-phonemic units. Its use can be applied to any whole language or functional literacy task. The flexible, multi-sensory and interactive nature of THRASS resources and
methodology caters well for the varying abilities and demands of adult learners. Strategies such as word analysis by analogy and emphasis on independent and self-reflective learning are well suited to the learning styles of adult students’. Please note that the paper incorrectly identifies THRASS as a ‘British scheme’. In fact the co-authors of THRASS are Denyse Ritchie from Perth, Western Australia and Alan Davies from Chester, England. Following is a link to the entire paper. www.qcal.org.au/seminars/thrass.doc

THRASS Australia Pty Ltd • E-Mail. enquiries@thrass.com.au •Web. www.thrass.com.au