How it works
The FunScreen tool revolutionises the way we approach early literacy assessment. Designed with children in mind, FunScreen combines the excitement of gaming with the precision of dynamic assessment techniques to screen for risk of reading difficulties in a fun and engaging manner.
Read on to discover why early screening and intervention are crucial, and explore how the FunScreen app effectively supports this goal.
Why screen for reading difficulty at the start of school?
Early screening for reading difficulty risk is crucial because it allows for proactive intervention before a child experiences significant reading struggles. Waiting until a child faces difficulties can hinder their academic progress and lead to negative perceptions about their potential to read - as evidence by the conversation below.
Child: I’m just stupid.
Adult: Who told you that?
Child: No-one.
Adult: So why do you think that?
Child: All my friends can read, but I can’t.
Zac is already on blue level, and I am still on red. I'll never be able to read. I'm too stupid!
By identifying risk factors early, such as through the FunScreen tool, schools can intervene promptly to support children's literacy development (Boets et al., 2011; Corriveau, Goswami, & Thomson, 2010; McCardle, Scarborough, & Catts, 2001; Ortiz et al., 2012).
Why is early intervention so important?
Intervening early, as soon as possible after the child has started school, is essential because research shows that early identification and intervention are more effective in preventing or mitigating reading difficulties (Lovett et al., 2017). Addressing reading issues before formal instruction begins can significantly improve a child's literacy outcomes and prevent long-term academic challenges (Kantor, Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 2011; New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2008; Petersen & Gillam, 2015; Wilson & Lonigan, 2010).
Early intervention is particularly important for those children who need it the most, such as those with dyslexia. For example, research has shown that children with dyslexia take significantly longer to master specific reading skills than other children (Nijakowska, 2010). Thus, it is important that these children get help as soon as possible, particularly in the light of research findings that indicate that with age, reading difficulties become more severe and harder to remediate (Nijakowska, 2010; Morlini, Stella, & Scorza, 2014; Tunmer & Greaney, 2010). Early intervention can have a marked positive impact on the severity of the reading difficulty and the concomitant effects on the child’s other studies, self-esteem, anxiety, and motivation to read (Norton & Wolf, 2012).
The FunScreen Tool: Assessment that's fun!
The features of the FunScreen tool include a gamified assessment that feels like a game to the children being assessed. This helps to reduce 'test anxiety' and helps to maximise child engagement. The child doesn't even realise they are being tested. Instead it feels like fun!
FunScreen employs a dynamic assessment approach, where children are taught letter sounds and asked to identify letters based on those sounds. They are also taught how to blend letter sounds to read pseudowords ('made-up' words). This method has been shown to be more accurate than traditional static tests in terms at identifying those children at risk, and those who are not (Bisschoff, 2019).
The tool is quick to administer, taking under 15 minutes per child, and requires minimal teacher involvement. Results are securely sent for analysis, and schools receive individualized reports outlining each child's risk profile and recommended follow-up actions.
FunScreen: A science-based approach
FunScreen is considered a science-based approach because it is rooted in research findings that emphasise the importance of early identification and intervention for reading difficulties. Furthermore, it incorporates dynamic assessment techniques supported by studies showing their effectiveness in predicting reading difficulties.
The tool's design aligns with the evidence-based practice of early intervention, aiming to prevent or minimize reading difficulties before they significantly impact a child's academic progress (Bishop & League, 2006; Bridges & Catts, 2011; Huang, Moon, & Boren, 2014; Lonigan, Purpura, Wilson, Walker, & Clancy-Menchetti, 2013; Tunmer et al., 2013).
References
Bishop, A. G., & League, M. B. (2006, Fall). Identifying a multivariate screening model to predict reading difficulties at the onset of kindergarten: A longitudinal analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(4), 235-252. https://doi.org/10.2307/30035552
Boets, B., Vandermosten, M., Poelmans, H., Luts, H., Wouters, J., & Ghesquière, P. (2011). Preschool impairments in auditory processing and speech perception uniquely predict future reading problems. Research in Development Disabilities, 32(2), 560-570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2010.12.020
Bridges, M. S., & Catts, H. W. (2011). The use of dynamic screening of phonological awareness to predict risk for reading disabilities in kindergarten children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 330-338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411407863
Corriveau, K. H., Goswami, U., & Thomson, J. M. (2010). Auditory processing and early literacy skills in preschool and kindergarten population. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(4), 369-382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410369071
Huang, F. L., Moon, T. R., & Boren, R. (2014). Are the reading rich getting richer? Testing for the prescence of the Matthew Effect. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 30(2), 95-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2013.789784
Kantor, P. T., Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. (2011). Comparing two forms of dynamic assessment and traditional assessment of preschool phonological awareness. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 313-321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411407861
Lonigan, C. J., Purpura, D. J., Wilson, S. B., Walker, P. M., & Clancy-Menchetti, J. (2013). Evaluating the components of an emergent literacy intervention for preschool children at risk of reading difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(1), 111-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.08.010
Lovett, M., Frijters, J., Wolf, M., Steinbach, K., Sevcik, R., & Morris, R. (2017). Early intervention for children at risk for reading disabilities: The impact of grade at intervention and individual differences on intervention outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000181.
McCardle, P., Scarborough, H. S., & Catts, H. W. (2001). Predicting, explaining and preventing children's reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(4), 230-239. https://doi.org/10.1111/0938-8982.00023
Morlini, I., Stella, G., & Scorza, M. (2014). A new procedure to measure children's reading speed and accuracy in Italian. Dyslexia, 20(1), 54-73. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1462
Nijakowska, J. (2010). Second language acquisition: Dyslexia in the foreign language classroom. Bristol, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.
Norton, E. S., & Wolf, M. (2012). Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) and reading fluency: Implications for understanding and treatment of reading disabilities. The Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 427-252. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100431
New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2008). About dyslexia: Teacher resource. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Ortiz, M., Folsom, J. S., Al Otaiba, S., Greulich, L., Thomas-Tate, S., & Connor, C. M. (2012). The componential model of reading: Predicting first grade reading performance of culturally diverse students from ecological, psychological, and cognitive factors assessed at kindergarten entry. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(5), 406-417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411431242
Petersen, D. B., & Gillam, R. B. (2015). Predicting reading ability for bilingual Latino children using dynamic assessment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413486930
Tunmer, W., & Greaney, K. (2010). Defining dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), 229-243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409345009
Tunmer, W. E., Chapman, J. W., Greaney, K. T., Prochnow, J. E., & Arrow, A. W. (2013). Why the New Zealand National Literacy Strategy has failed and what can be done about it. Evidence from the Progress in International Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2011 and Reading Recovery monitoring reports. Massey University Institute of Education. Auckland: Massey University Institute of Education. Retrieved from http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Massey%20News/2013/8/docs/Report-National-Literacy-Strategy-2013.pdf
Wilson, S. B., & Lonigan, C. J. (2010). Identifying preschool children at risk of later reading difficulties: Evaluation of two emergent literacy screening tools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(1), 62-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409345007