DID YOU SUCCESSFULLY TEACH YOUR CHILD TO READ?

[Mandabplus3]

Early Reading Success Survey. I need your help Please!

I have decided to collect data and anecdotal evidence of early learning and compile the information into both a website as case studies and a book as a potential HOW TO manual based on the success of others. I would like to include any successes you have had with your children in as much detail as possible. It is likely that all the detail you give me will not make it into the published print however please don't feel that you are giving me too much. The more information I can gather the more trends and patterns I can determine that do create reliable success.
I am looking to read results of 2000 families. So I need you! I also need your mum, aunty, neighbour and anyone else not here on Brillkids you can think of.that had early learning success 

The survey below focuses mostly on early reading skills as this is the area of EL most under question  in the general public. I  am interested in ALL early learning activities including math, music and perfect pitch, physical developmental skills, speech, swimming, piano, violin, memory, creativity and any other skills obtained sooner than is the social norm. As such if you feel that the survey doesn't leave you enough room to discuss your child's particular skill please ask me for another one or write as much as you can think of and send me that! 

The survey questions are attached below for you to read. Please PM me and I will email you a word copy which is editable. When filling them out please change all names to protect your child's privacy. If you have a relevant blog I will happily link to it so please provide the details.
I am so keen to read your responses and share this information with the world. Do you wish you had this information when you started on this early learning journey?

[nuria2012]

Very interesting survey, Mandabplus!!

[Tamsyn]

Do you want us to fill it out for each child?  For our oldest child?  Our most success child?

[robbyjo]

You should design the survey very well so that it has some scientific validity. Here are some suggestions:

1. Include annual family income in ranges. E.g.: <20K, 20K-40K, 40K-60K, 60K-80K, 80-100K, 100-150K, 150K-200K, 200K+

2. Include family structure: Single parent, two parents, or some multiplicity

3. Include parental education level: e.g., did not finish high school, high school, some college, bachelor, master, professional degree (M.D., J.D.), doctorate

4. The current country the family lives in.

(Note: The first few questions are to proxies to tease out confounding factors, namely the genetic and socioeconomic status)

5. Kids ages and sexes

6. When they started the program (presumably YBCR)

7. When they started to read

8. Any other programs used as supplements (for reading only) and list all programs used and starting when

9. Any formal schooling for the kids, and starting when

10. Current reading levels of the kids (if any)

11. Any medical conditions of the kids (any severe illness, if applicable). Any dyslexia or autism or asperger syndrome, or anything that affect reading proficiency.

(I'll add more later)

[robbyjo]

The problem with this survey is that this is purely retrospective cross-sectional study. Critics will always point this out. But we can try to eliminate bias as much as we can by doing this:

1. Report the results of all kids, not only the most successful ones
2. Recruit as many controls (i.e., those that did not use YBCR or other reading program) as possible, even more than those using YBCR
3. Get more stratified samples (similar income levels, family structure, educational levels, etc)
4. More samples from geographical regions

Also I think it's important to indicate whether the family lives in an urban / rural area, and IQ scores of kids and parents, when available.

[Mandabplus3]

Fair point Robbyjo. Most of your questions are covered in my survey with different wording.
Adding in family income and any known medical conditions the kids have would be a good addition in terms of making the survey more scientific.
My concerns are that by asking these questions I deviate somewhat from the purpose. Which is to inform other parents of HOW to replicate these results. A parent doesn't need to know how much the other successful candidates earns in order to replicate the results and I think by knowing it could actually be used as an excuse NOT to try.
I see no reason to pry further to get the answers I need but understand that to be more scientific these factors should be included. I will leave it up to the individuals to divulge as much as they see as relevant.
I believe in order for me to claim it as a scientific study I need to actually see evidence of EVERY child successfully reading, as opposed to taking your word for it. Because of this any scientist will be able to pick wholes in it immediately. Considering the complete lack of available information I believe this is far better than nothing. 
I am not advocating for YBCR or any one other specific product but seeking results from ANY successful means.
Tamsyn- I want as much information as possible! So if it is easier for you to do them one for each child please do that. if you think you can do it on one survey showing similarities and differences then feel free to do that. if I get confused I will contact you for clarification. There are families on this forum that have used multiple methods with different levels of success for different children and I DO want to hear about that as I think it is most relevant.
Please do keep making suggestions and asking questions.

[robbyjo]

I had thought that you wanted to do this in defense of Dr. Titzer's lawsuit.

Very well, but as a scientifically inclined parent, I would also want to know the behavior of the control population. And it is definitely not hard to get some control samples in retrospective studies (but watch for the bias). This way, we can use the data as a scientific data, if you will, and really test the efficacy of YBCR. I think this will be the first study of its kind, even with all its flaws. This is something that people would need (i.e., scientific backing of a "proper" EL program). Considering that you've done about 70-80% of the effort already, why don't you do it all the way?

If successful, I'm sure that it will entice further follow ups and perhaps prospective studies from other researchers---a domino effect. Even if it doesn't succeed (weak / confounded effect, diluted population, etc.), you can still publish the good testimonials and descriptive statistics for parental information.

[Korrale4kq]

This isn't about YBCR is it? We didn't use it.
Everyone used a variety of different methods.

[Mandabplus3]

No it isn't about YBCR. I am not doing this to validate Titzers work. I actually think there are better ways to teach reading than YBCR although I completely KNOW it does work, in my humble opinion it isn't a complete program. Though I might be proved wrong soon enough 
I want to gather data on WHAT does work. The WHOLE picture. Not just details of one program.
Maybe you used little reader but also had great success from meet the sight words. Or maybe you used no program at all but taught letter sounds and read alot pointing to the words?maybe you used YBCR and then added in flash card words for more variety?  There are many paths ways to early reading. By gathering this information in copious quantities ( hence the 2000 samples needed!) I can find any common denominators that may be overlooked other wise.
I do think this is a beginning. A stepping stone to further research which I might or might not do myself.
I personally can't see any reason to include a control sample. The rest of the population IS the control sample. It is common knowledge the reading abilities of the average 1 or 3 year old. Zip!  I can't see any bias I need to avoid there. The bias I can see I need to get past is the Brillkids forum bias. By asking you here ( or connecting with you from here) I have biased my sample to include those who commonly discuss or read about early learning. So if anyone can find a way around that let me know! If you know any early readers who arnt on here please give them my survey!
I do plan to include my teaching experience and hunt down a few more sources for a more rounded overall cross section. Plus currently we clearly have an English speaking bias....
Ultimately I do hope to create a domino effect for further research but primarily I just want parents to be able to replicate the successful results and be able to get the information on HOW to do it.

[robbyjo]

I see.

The bias at least includes social economic status (SES) and parental educational level. In fact, SES and parental educational level are two most recognized confounders (or, bias factors, if you will) in any research papers in education. If the result of early reading is merely genetics (i.e., because their parents are smart and thus we can expect that the kids are also smart), then the effectiveness of these programs are confounded with the genetic factor. Skeptics would readily point out that the effect would be most likely due to genetics rather than the EL program. The same goes to economic status. Richer people could afford better nutrition, better overall programs on top of what are available. Thus, again, the effectiveness of EL programs are confounded. To tease out the effects of these confounders, therefore, one need to either account for, condition on, or stratified after these factors. So, at least, please include these factors. And please report all kids so that we don't fall into the "cherry-picking" bias.

You should still use "control" population, where the families do not use any EL programs whatsoever. At least descriptive statistics that show the stark contrast could persuade some parents. Plus you have the real data and not made-up numbers. Especially when you stratify based on SES and parental education. An example of descriptive stats I have in mind is:
* SES = high, Parental Edu = both PhDs: With EL = 2 yrs +/- 0.5 yrs, Without EL = 3.3 yrs +/- 0.9 yrs
* SES = high, Parental Edu = One PhD, One Bachelor, With EL = 2.1 yrs +/- 0.7 yrs, Without EL = 3.5 yrs +/- 1.2 yrs
... etc. Something like that.

In terms of analysis, given that there are various EL programs, the analysis would be much harder (if done at all). But I think descriptive stats would do at this point. I think it would still not be appealing enough for researchers to do follow up research unless there's some retrospective study in order. (Remember, researchers typically need grant money to do research and that money typically comes from the govt, Govt always demands preliminary scientific, not anecdotal, evidence before approving grants.) That said, luminaries that do EL like Larry Sanger could pique the researcher's interest.

But, if you have gathered like 2000+ data points, then we can start asking some serious questions, like:
1. What is the average reading speedup of EL programs (in terms of enabling kids to read, in years)?
2. What is the average reading speedup of SES or parental educations or both?
3. What is the average reading speedup of YBCR, or flashcards, or any other programs with sufficient respondents?
4. What is the impact of EL program to brain-damaged kids (e.g., validating Doman's results)?
etc. etc.

[teachingmykids]

I see.

The bias at least includes social economic status (SES) and parental educational level. In fact, SES and parental educational level are two most recognized confounders (or, bias factors, if you will) in any research papers in education. If the result of early reading is merely genetics (i.e., because their parents are smart and thus we can expect that the kids are also smart), then the effectiveness of these programs are confounded with the genetic factor. Skeptics would readily point out that the effect would be most likely due to genetics rather than the EL program. The same goes to economic status. Richer people could afford better nutrition, better overall programs on top of what are available. Thus, again, the effectiveness of EL programs are confounded. To tease out the effects of these confounders, therefore, one need to either account for, condition on, or stratified after these factors. So, at least, please include these factors. And please report all kids so that we don't fall into the "cherry-picking" bias.

You should still use "control" population, where the families do not use any EL programs whatsoever. At least descriptive statistics that show the stark contrast could persuade some parents. Plus you have the real data and not made-up numbers. Especially when you stratify based on SES and parental education. An example of descriptive stats I have in mind is:
* SES = high, Parental Edu = both PhDs: With EL = 2 yrs +/- 0.5 yrs, Without EL = 3.3 yrs +/- 0.9 yrs
* SES = high, Parental Edu = One PhD, One Bachelor, With EL = 2.1 yrs +/- 0.7 yrs, Without EL = 3.5 yrs +/- 1.2 yrs
... etc. Something like that.

In terms of analysis, given that there are various EL programs, the analysis would be much harder (if done at all). But I think descriptive stats would do at this point. I think it would still not be appealing enough for researchers to do follow up research unless there's some retrospective study in order. (Remember, researchers typically need grant money to do research and that money typically comes from the govt, Govt always demands preliminary scientific, not anecdotal, evidence before approving grants.) That said, luminaries that do EL like Larry Sanger could pique the researcher's interest.

But, if you have gathered like 2000+ data points, then we can start asking some serious questions, like:
1. What is the average reading speedup of EL programs (in terms of enabling kids to read, in years)?
2. What is the average reading speedup of SES or parental educations or both?
3. What is the average reading speedup of YBCR, or flashcards, or any other programs with sufficient respondents?
4. What is the impact of EL program to brain-damaged kids (e.g., validating Doman's results)?
etc. etc.

I agree with this. I was also wondering if you were just looking for parents who taught their children to read or parents who used early learning. What about the parents that did not have success. What starting age counts for early learning?

[robbyjo]

Another point I'd like to add: Some eager parents count their kids as "able readers", but we need to make sure what they can read, even at pre-K or pre-pre-K levels. For examples: Can they read short-voweled unisyllabic words? Blends? Long-voweled unisyllabic words? Multisyllabic words? Grade level reading equivalency? Etc.

[lzp11]

I do think that the exact nature of the research question being asked will have a big impact on the questions asked as well as the need (or not ) for a control group.

Manda please correct me if I'm wrong but I had the impression that you were seeking to conduct a descriptive survey of learning methods used by families carrying out EL (in particular teaching reading) and to establish parents opinions as to the effectiveness of different teaching strategies. This would be more of a qualitative piece of research and as such does not require a control group and would actually benefit from a biased group in that the aim is to seek out self defined EL parents and find out their views on how they taught reading. Of course it would also be helpful to target EL parents who had lesser or no success as this is also extremely important. Questions about attitudes towards teaching and daily learning routines might also be very interesting. The collated data could certain,y be used to develop a how to manual from a parents point of view. Generally qualitative data such as this might then stimulate a larger funded research trial which needs a lot of time and resources to carry out effectively.

Another slightly different study would seek to establish statistically which are the most effective methods for teaching early reading and to calculate at what age kids typically learn to read using them. I must say I think that would be quite difficult to carry out a quantitative study such as this and get valid numerical data without a control group.

[Korrale4kq]

That is how I understood this brief testimonial to be too IZP.  It is not a complete scientific study. It is a brief survey about what methods were successful at what ages from the children that have been successfully taught to read. And also the things that didn't work.

Once Manda has some results from this initial survey, if she desires a follow up she can refine, and expand the questionaire to account for bias and create an anonymous survey. I am sure many people wouldn't wish to divulge too much personal information without anonymity.

If you read through the survey you will see that Manda does cover the important question about what parents consider their child/ren's reading level to be. There are dozens of scales to use and I am sure that it would be helpful to align all the children on the same scale. If during this initial survey Manda finds that a large percentage of parents use DRA or Lexile or RAZ to determine reading proficiency she can then take that into account with a more detailed questionnaire. Which might provide a quick assessment.

[robbyjo]

I didn't notice the PDF file on the signature.

Suggestion: Make an online survey to get more respondents. Anonymizing answers should be really easy.

document.getElementById('recent_loading').style.display = 'none';document.getElementById('recent_page_box').style.display = '';

Page: 1/4  

Loading...

Members

• Total Members: 214772
• Latest: addisonjones

Stats

• Total Posts: 110526
• Total Topics: 19136
• Online Today: 522
• Online Ever: 826
• (January 22, 2020, 12:09:49 AM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 443
• Total: 443