1
2
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...1
1.MAIN FINDINGS ...3
2. CONTEXT AND PURPOSES OF THE STUDY ...6
3. THE RESEARCH APPROACH...8
4. THE PROJECT SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS ...13
5.THE LITERACY PROGRAMS...19
6.SCHOOL SITE VISITS AND OBSERVATIONS ...27
7.THE DART ASSESSMENTS ...35
8. TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES: THE LOGBOOKS...53
9.THE STUDENT CASE STUDIES ...57
10. SUMMER SCHOOLS...63
11. SUCCESSFUL INTERVENTIONS: MAIN FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ...66
REFERENCES ...74
1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many people contributed to the work of the Successful Interventions Literacy Research Project.
Most importantly, special thanks is due to the students, teachers and principals in the 44 project schools listed below. Throughout 1999 they willingly provided a wide range of data on the literacy programs and strategies in their schools. The teachers, in many cases the literacy coordinator, who took on the role of school coordinator for the project, and facilitated the data collection and all liaison with ACER, played a key role in the project, and their work is acknowledge with many thanks.
The research team visited 20 of the schools on at least two occasions; we particularly wish to thank these schools for their welcome, and the opportunity to spend time observing in classrooms.
Bairnsdale Secondary College, Bayview College Portland, Beechworth Secondary College, Broadmeadows Secondary College, Brunswick Secondary College, Catholic Ladies College Eltham, Catholic Regional College Melton, Collingwood College, Covenant College, Deer Park Secondary College, Dromana Secondary College, Eaglehawk Secondary College, Epping Secondary College, Essendon Keilor District Secondary College, Eumemmerring Secondary College (Fountain Gate Campus), FJC College Benalla, Frankston High School, Heatherhill Secondary College, Highview College Maryborough, Kurnai College (Morwell Campus), Lyndale Secondary College, MacKillop College, Marian College Sunshine, McGuire College, Monbulk College, Murtoa Secondary College, Newcomb Secondary College, Oakleigh Greek Orthodox College, Orbost Secondary College, Ovens Secondary College, Padua College Mornington, Presentation College Moe, Princes Hill Secondary College, Robinvale Secondary College, Simonds College West Melbourne, St John's Regional College Dandenong, St Paul's College Altona, Tallangatta Secondary College, Tyrrell College, Upper Yarra Secondary College, Werribee Secondary College, Wheelers Hill Secondary College , Wodonga West Secondary College.
Other people who contributed a great deal to this project, and whose work is acknowledged with appreciation include:
• Sally Milburn, who in 1998-9 was Literacy Officer, Years 5 – 10, Department of Education, managed the project and worked closely with the ACER research team. She organised the opening and closing conferences for the project, and contributed extensively to the whole project.
• Susan Dennett, Manager, Curriculum Development, Curriculum Development and Learning Technologies Branch, Department of Education, provided support and advice to the project.
• Members of the Successful Interventions Secondary Literacy and Numeracy Initiative Steering Committee, which included all partners in the project: Department of Education, Victoria; the Catholic Education Commission of Victoria, and the Association of Independent Schools of Victoria. The Steering Committee met regularly throughout the project, and provided practical advice and encouragement.
• Caroline Stanistreet and Nina Bromberg, Literacy Section, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra.
2
• At ACER, Andrew Stephanou, Margaret Forster, John Ainley, Ken Rowe, Prue Anderson, Lynne Darkin, Wendy Bodey, Colin Crawford, and staff in Project Services made significant contributions during the course of the project.
Finally, acknowledgment is made of the funding provided by the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra, through the Commonwealth’s Secondary School Literacy and Numeracy Initiative. This initiative established cross-sectoral projects focused on improving the development of literacy and numeracy for low-achieving secondary school students, and enabled this important study to be undertaken.
Note: The quotations at the beginning of each chapter have been drawn from the teachers’
logbooks.
3 1. MAIN FINDINGS
…. it must be more beneficial to have students taught, and to be developing reading and comprehension skills within the curriculum context. It must make it easier for students to apply and develop skills if they are constantly focussed upon in a consistent manner across
the curriculum.
Current practices directed to the improvement of literacy learning in Victorian secondary schools include a wide variety of literacy intervention programs and strategies implemented at Year 7. These programs vary according to the school context, but a number of key principles underpin those strategies and programs which appear to achieve successful outcomes for students.
Analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data collected in the Successful Interventions Literacy Research Project indicates that some intervention programs and targeted literacy teaching strategies do make a difference to literacy achievement.
The overall context for teaching and learning is a decisive factor in the effectiveness of particular programs or strategies. Careful targeting of the intervention program and strategies to address individual students’ literacy learning needs is of major importance. Other critical factors include teachers’ professional knowledge, and school leadership in all aspects of literacy education.
The multilevel analysis of the data in this project indicated that schools achieved better than expected student performance when school policies and teaching practices operated within the following framework.
1.1 A framework for improving literacy learning
The following elements constitute a framework for improvement of literacy learning outcomes for students in Year 7:
• Professional leadership;
• Strong professional knowledge and understanding of literacy learning and effective teaching and learning strategies;
• Monitoring and assessment to identify students who need additional support;
• Targeted support for the individual students requiring additional assistance, drawing from a wide repertoire of strategies;
• Communication between teachers across all Key Learning Areas, and recognition of the role of literacy learning in all Key Learning Areas.
• Close connections between the additional support and the mainstream curriculum.
• Clear communication between home and school.
This framework spans three zones of school practice relating to improving literacy learning: whole school policies and practices; classroom practices and strategies in
4
all key learning areas; and policies and practices for specific interventions. Within each of these zones, the evidence from the Successful Interventions Literacy Research project indicates the importance of a number of features of effective policies and practices.
1.2 Whole school policies and practices
The whole school policies and practices that supported successful literacy interventions included:
• the identification, early in Year 7, of students with low levels of literacy achievement, using transition information from primary schools, formal testing and teacher observation and judgement;
• targeting and monitoring individual students identified as requiring literacy support;
• for individual students, providing, in appropriate contexts, support which explicitly addresses their particular literacy learning needs;
• explicit and on-going professional development providing knowledge of literacy and language development and a broad repertoire of literacy teaching strategies for teachers in all key learning areas;
• leadership, professional support and coordination provided by a school literacy coordinator with significant experience and knowledge of literacy education;
• strong support for the literacy program from the school leadership team;
• staffing, organisational structures and timetabling which allow for flexible and varied groupings of students;
• effective use of human resources, budget allocations, and teaching spaces.
1.2 Classroom practices and strategies in all key learning areas
Classroom practices and policies which effectively supported students’ literacy learning included:
• sustained teaching of the full range of reading and writing skills specified in the English Curriculum and Standards Framework;
• explicit teaching of the curriculum literacies of each key learning area;
• support, in appropriate contexts, provided to individual students through programs and strategies which address their particular literacy learning needs;
• classroom practices inclusive of all students;
• opportunities for students to receive one-to-one support from teachers and teaching aides in the classroom context;
• selection of reading materials and purposeful writing activities which engage students’ interests;
• regular, planned opportunities for students to engage in sustained reading and writing activities, in a variety of contexts;
5
• consistent and detailed monitoring of students’ progress in literacy, using a variety of observation and assessment strategies, and the provision of regular and frequent feedback to students;
• establishing and maintaining clear lines of communication between all key learning area teachers of each class at the year level;
• using information communication technologies to provide students with fresh opportunities to develop and demonstrate literacy skills;
• acknowledging and responding to the diversity of interests and literacy practices which engage students at home and in other settings beyond the school;
• giving students opportunities to work in a variety of whole class and small group settings, in teaching spaces appropriate to the activities.
1.3 Policies and practices for specific interventions
Students with particular literacy learning difficulties benefitted from intensive and focused teaching and support provided through specific interventions on a short or longer term basis. Key features of those interventions which enabled students to improve their achievement levels in literacy included:
• identifying the specific literacy learning needs of students with low levels of literacy achievement, and drawing on a wide repertoire of teaching strategies to provide support matched specifically to those needs;
• providing structured, sequenced sessions in one to one or small group settings which give students regular opportunities over time to work on specific literacy needs;
• maximising opportunities, in individual or small group contexts, for students to practice reading a range of texts silently and aloud, and to write both short and sustained texts;
• creating opportunities for students to work regularly and over time with a teacher or tutor with whom they can establish an effective working relationship;
• recognising the importance of fostering confidence and self-esteem for students with previous experience of low literacy achievement;
• assisting students to develop more effective organisational skills;
• linking the support provided in out-of-class settings with the work of the regular classroom;
• acknowledging and celebrating students’ progress in literacy;
• constant monitoring of students in intervention programs and in regular classes, adjusting the intervention program and strategies to target identified needs;
• providing intensive support for a short period, or sustained support over a longer period as required;
• where intervention programs involve withdrawal from regular classes, ensuring that all the teachers of a particular student are aware of the purpose and nature of the intervention program, and that they are frequently consulted regarding observed improvements or changes in the quality of the student’s work;
• establishing effective links between home and school, and maintaining regular communication with parents of low achieving students.
6
2. CONTEXT AND PURPOSES OF THE STUDY
Having been involved in this research project has been very useful. It has given me a chance to reflect and consider more systematically the progress of our program. Writing in the journals has been beneficial too. I have taken photocopies and will use my notes to help with
planning for 2000 and beyond.
This report describes the conduct and outcomes of an observational, analytical study of literacy intervention strategies and programs currently used in Victorian secondary schools in Year 7. The investigation was undertaken within the three phase major project, Successful Interventions: A Secondary Literacy and Numeracy Initiative, conducted by the Victorian Department of Education Employment and Training (formerly the Department of Education) and its partners, the Catholic Education Commission of Victoria and the Association of Independent Schools of Victoria. Funding was provided by the Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
The overall aim of the project was to make comparative observations of a range of literacy intervention programs and strategies in order to provide a research basis for providing advice on existing literacy intervention programs and making recommendations for the further development of literacy intervention strategies at the secondary school level. This is consistent with the national commitment to improved literacy and numeracy learning in the National Literacy and Numeracy Plan, as detailed in Literacy for All, (DEETYA, 1998)
Specific aims of the project identified in the project brief were to:
1. investigate a range of literacy intervention programs and strategies with students in Year 7 in 1999;
2. monitor the progress of individuals and groups identified at Year 7 as being at educational risk because of low literacy achievement;
3. analyse the performance of all participating students on a common assessment instrument in the early and concluding phases of the study;
4. analyse both quantitative and qualitative data relating to literacy intervention programs and strategies;
5. evaluate the effectiveness of the literacy intervention programs;
6. make appropriate recommendations about a number of intervention approaches against a set of agreed criteria.
A broad view of what constitutes "literacy interventions" was deliberately used within the project, which focused on programs and strategies based on the expectation that all students can be successful, given appropriate teaching and opportunities to learn. The programs and strategies investigated included those designed to provide specific support to students to help overcome literacy difficulties, as well as those strategies, policies and programs intended to improve literacy learning for all students.
7 The outcomes of this research continue the work commenced in Phase 1 of Successful Interventions, an environmental scan of literacy programs and strategies conducted in 1998 by the Victorian Association for the Teaching of English.
The research in Phase 2, the Successful Interventions Literacy Research Project, was conducted in 44 Victorian schools, including government, Catholic and independent schools in rural and urban locations, and including both large and small schools. The selection was made on the basis of information derived from the VATE environmental scan, and from additional information provided by education systems. All programs and strategies were already planned or in place in the schools selected, and schools were provided with small research grants to enable them to implement the programs and strategies as planned. The allocation of these grants was managed by the Department of Education. The selection of schools was such that a wide range of programs and strategies was included in the project. The selection of schools also made it possible to investigate the operation of some of the same programs in different contexts.
Specific selection criteria for participating schools included:
• the current use of an intervention program or programs in the school;
• the currency of a literacy policy and the position of a literacy coordinator in a school; and
• a school population including one or more of the groups identified in the 1996 National School English Literacy Survey (Masters and Forster, 1997) based on socio- economic background, gender, Indigenous students, and students from non- English speaking backgrounds.
8
3. THE RESEARCH APPROACH
The fact that we are a part of this project has certainly raised the profile of literacy in our school. Teachers have asked questions about the project.
In order to obtain the richest possible information on the programs and their educational impact, the research methodology was designed to collect a range of qualitative and quantitative data on the literacy intervention strategies and programs implemented at Year 7 in the 44 government, Catholic and independent schools selected for the study.
The research practice underpinning this design combined quantitative and qualitative data, thus providing a broad base for evaluating the effectiveness of the range of literacy intervention programs and strategies. The project brief drew attention to the observation of Year 7 students in diverse literacy teaching contexts.
The qualitative data was derived from a number of perspectives, including teachers’
reports and reflections, site visits and observations of the enacted curriculum of the literacy programs and strategies, and individual student case studies. Additional observations were made of two professional development summer schools.
A rigorous literacy assessment process using the ACER Developmental Assessment Resource for Teachers (DART) (Forster et al, 1994) materials provided quantitative data on background variables and growth in literacy across a whole school year for students involved in a special intervention program. Other quantitative data included information about schools and student background variables.
The quantitative data from the DART assessments provided clear information about students’ levels of performance in the context of the various literacy programs and strategies.
3.1 Quantitative and qualitative data Two sets of quantitative data were collected:
1. background variable data on all participating Year 7 students, including gender, whether or not language is the first or later language; Indigenous background;
parents’ occupation.
2. literacy achievement data, in DART reading and writing, from all participating Year 7 students collected at the beginning of Year 7, and at the end of Year 7. The DART assessment in reading was also conducted at the beginning and end of the Monash summer school with the students involved in intensive tutorial sessions incorporated in the course for teachers.
Three sets of qualitative data were collected:
9 1. observations and anecdotal comments from all teachers involved, collected in
logbooks kept in Semester 1 and Semester 2;
2. observations of the intervention program as enacted in 20 of the school sites, focusing on the operation of the intervention program within the structures and resources of the school curriculum and organisational structures;
3. fine-grained case studies of a Year 7 student in each of 10 of the participating schools.
The range of qualitative data provided insights from a range of key perspectives, and also reflected attitudinal changes in students’ approaches to literacy which would not have been evident in the achievement data.
3.2 Literacy achievement data
All students in the study were assessed at the beginning and at the end of Year 7 using the ACER Developmental Assessment Resource for Teachers (DART) English for Upper Primary/Junior Secondary (Forster et al, 1994).
These materials provided a means of mapping student growth in reading and writing over the life of the study. The design of the DART makes it possible to assess a range of achievement levels.
DART provides thematically integrated assessment activities which link sound teaching practices with sound assessment practices, and thus offers a model of good practice.
The DART materials include tasks for use with students from middle primary to lower secondary levels of schooling. The five strands of reading, writing, viewing, speaking, and listening can be assessed. In this project, two strands, reading and writing, were used. In each strand, all tasks are linked onto a single common scale.
This scale allows for student achievement to be reported against CSF levels.
By using one set of DART materials at the beginning of the study and another at the end, it was possible to map student growth in Year 7 and identify the changes in literacy achievement.
3.3 Background variable data
A range of information was collected in order to investigate some of the factors which may be associated with differences in achievement of students participating in a variety of literacy intervention programs.
Student questionnaires and information sheets developed for 1996 National School English Literacy Survey (NSELS) were used as a basis for the development of a student questionnaire for this study. Information about variables such as gender, socio-economic background, language background, school attendance, disabilities which may require support, exposure to special programs in English literacy,
10
literacy activities and their frequency, and enjoyment of literacy activities was gathered.
Survey instruments, in the form of three written questionnaires, were developed for the 44 participating schools, focusing on the operation of the literacy program within the structures and resources of the whole school curriculum.
The first questionnaire, the School Background Questionnaire, focused on the implementation of the literacy program and strategies in terms of: general characteristics of the school population; percentage of students from a language background other than English, and from a Koorie background; special programs and resources; approaches used to identify Year 7 students at educational risk.
The second questionnaire, the Student Information Sheet, collected information on:
• Country of origin/ethnic background;
• Language background;
• Student disability;
• Student school learning and/or behavioural difficulties;
• Student achievement in English literacy;
• School attendance;
• Parents’ occupations.
The third questionnaire, the Student Questionnaire, was designed to collect information on how often English was spoken at home; a self-assessment of achievement in English and Mathematics; time spent on homework, watching television or videos, using computers; the range of texts read at home, and the range of literacy activities practised at home; use of libraries; attitudes to reading and writing in school.
3.4 Teachers’ observations and reflections
An important source of data on the implementation and effectiveness of the intervention programs were the observations and reflections made by the participating teachers during the whole period of the research.
Teachers directly involved in and responsible for literacy intervention programs are in the best position to observe the day to day responses and progress of students participating in the program, in the context of the classroom. They also have access to a wide range of additional information including students’ interactions with other teachers and students, students’ broader interests and achievements, their home literacy practices, and their general behaviours.
Two logbooks, one for semester 1 and one for semester 2, were provided to all teachers to complete at regular intervals. The logbooks were constructed as working documents, allowing for teachers to develop their own areas of focus, depending on their perspectives and philosophies, different school contexts, and the particular intervention program. This information was valuable in understanding the actual operation of the program or strategies, and enabled teachers to report trends and particular insights, as well as the evidence of student development.
11 3.5 Site visits and observations of intervention programs
Twenty school sites were selected, representative of the full range of intervention strategies and programs being investigated. These included:
• withdrawal intervention programs in groups and in one-to-one settings;
• whole group literacy strategies used in mixed ability classrooms;
• whole school literacy policies and organisational structures.
Two full-day visits were made to each of these 20 schools, covering the diversity of intervention strategies and programs. The visits gave access to whole school data, and classroom data. The collection of observational data within classrooms of the sample schools provided insights into both the intended and enacted operation of the range of intervention programs.
In addition, observations were made of Summer School programs at Monash and Deakin Universities.
3.6 Case studies of individual students
Fine-grained case studies were conducted with 10 Year 7 students in 10 of the participating schools.
Data collected for these case studies included
• teachers’ anecdotal records;
• field notes from researchers’ classroom observations, of both the focus students, and the literacy experiences and activities made available to the students;
• samples of students’ writing; and
• tape recorded interviews with the teachers, students and their parents.
The data was used to develop detailed case studies of the students, including their responses to the intervention program, the nature of their classroom behaviours, and evidence of progress. These case studies were compared with individual achievement data from the DART literacy assessments.
3.7 Evaluative criteria
The following criteria provided a framework for evaluating the whole body of data relating to the intervention programs. They were used as prompts in the teacher logbooks, and in discussions during site visits to schools.
• effectiveness for the target group (What progress do students make while involved in the intervention program?)
• suitability for the target group (To what extent does the program engage particular groups of students, such as NESB, boys, Koorie students?)
• CSF compatability (Is the overall approach and pedagogy of the program consistent with CSF planning, programming and assessment?)
12
• resource effectiveness (What demands does the program make on school budgets and human resources?)
• systemic viability (To what extent can the program be incorporated into Department of Education structures?)
• transferability (To what extent does the program facilitate full participation by intervention targeted students in mainstream classes?)
13 4. THE PROJECT SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS
The classroom is both a dynamic and social microcosm which provides an enjoyable and caring environment for learning to evolve. Our many helpers maintain the consistency so
necessary for school to become a meaningful experience for students.
The set of three questionnaires provided background information about the schools and students in the study.
39 schools returned the school background questionnaire and 1030 students completed the student information sheets.
44 schools participated in the project – 30 government, 10 Catholic, and 4 Independent. Four of these schools were single sex, 2 boys only, 2 girls only. Forty of the schools were co-educational.
52% of students were male, and 45.7% female.
89% of students in the study were born in Australia.
4.1 Funding levels
• 82% received funding for students with Special Learning Needs
• 20.5% of schools had 20% or fewer students who received the Educational Maintenance Allowance
• 79.5% of schools had between 20% and 60% of students receiving the Educational Maintenance Allowance.
This information indicates the extent to which the sample of schools matched the required criteria for selection for the project.
4.2 Language background other than English and Koorie background
Percentage of students in school in the category
none 1 – 5% 6 – 10% 11 –
20% 21 –
40% 41 –
60% 61%+
Language
background other than English
7.7% 41.0% 10.3% 5.1% 7.7% 7.7% 17.9%
Koorie background 41% 41% 5.1% 2.6%
48.7% of project schools reported having 5% or fewer students from language backgrounds other than English, and 71.8% reported 40% or fewer in this category.
These figures suggest that students from language backgrounds other than English
14
needing literacy support would be receiving it through programs for learners of English as a second language rather than through literacy intervention programs.
Of those students in the project not born in Australia, very few had been in Australia for four years or less (3.6%). The language needs of these students would be met through ESL learners’ programs. The small number of recent arrivals in the project were not involved in specific interventions, but in some of the whole class approaches and strategies.
The main language spoken at home was English in 79.4% of the reported cases; a language other than English was spoken at home in 15.1% of reported cases. 59.3%
of students were reported to speak no languages than English at home; 22% were reported to speak other languages than English at home. 10.6% of students were reported as being able to speak but not read and write in another language. 1.7% of students were reported as identifying themselves as being from a Koorie background. 82% of schools reported having 5% or fewer students of Koorie background.
The small number of students from language backgrounds other than English is confirmed by information provided in the student questionnaire, where 73.8% of students reported that they always spoke English at home. A further 13% reported that they almost always spoke English at home.
4.3 Disabilities and learning difficulties
5% of in the whole group were reported to have a physical, intellectual, hearing, visual or behavioural disability that entitled them to special education support services and/or additional curriculum support.
In response to a question relating to student school learning and behavioural difficulties, 65.4 % of students were described as having no difficulties at school, 9%
as having a general learning difficulty, 8.7 % as having a specific learning difficulty in English literacy. 3.2% were described as having a behavioural difficulty.
4.4 Identification of literacy achievement at Year 7
The questionnaire sought information on the main approaches to the identification of students entering Year 7 whose low literacy achievement places them at risk of not making adequate progress at secondary school
Transition information from primary school 97.4%
Test administered at the end of Year 6 23.1%
Tests administered at the beginning of Year 7 56.4%
Teacher observation 94.9%
The transition information provided by primary schools, together with teacher observation of students in Year 7 appear to be the major ways in which schools identify students who might need additional support in literacy. It is also interesting
15 to note that over 50% of the schools reported the use of additional testing at the beginning of year 7 to identify students at risk.
4.5 Perceptions of students’ achievement in literacy
Teachers’ estimation of the students’ achievement in English literacy indicated the following range:
Strands in the English CSF: Very well Quite well Not very well
Reading 26.4% 43.3% 26.2%
Writing 20.9% 41.9% 33%
Speaking and listening 29.2% 47.9% 19%
The higher estimates of students who appeared not to be performing very well in Reading and Writing in comparison with Speaking and listening perhaps reflects the emphasis of the literacy intervention programs on the identification of students requiring additional support in reading and writing.
These estimates were supported by teachers’ overall rating of students as demonstrating low achievement in English literacy
Teachers’ rating of the level of English literacy achieved by individual students
Low (among the lowest 5 per cent of the class) 13.6%
Below average (in the next 20%) 21.8%
Average (in the middle 50 per cent of the class) 32.9%
Above average (in the next 20% of the class) 16.3%
High (in the top 5 per cent of the class) 11.7%
The teachers’ estimates against CSF strands and general achievement in English clearly identify the wide range of ability of students involved in the literacy programs identified for the project. The significant proportion of low and below average achievers includes those students requiring support in a specific intervention program; the above average and high achievers includes students in those classes involved in whole class programs.
Students’ self-assessments in response to the question “Compared to most of the students in Year 7, how well do you think you’re doing in English and maths?”
yielded the following information:
Very well Better than
average About
average Not very
well Very
poorly
English 16.2% 30.9% 42.7% 6.9% 0.6%
Maths 21.5% 26.5% 36.9% 10.5% 1.2%
It is interesting to note that only a very small number of students see themselves as doing ‘not very well’ or ‘poorly’, compared to other students in Year 7. This contrasts with the teachers’ estimates, but perhaps indicates the difficulties students may have in comparing their own achievement with that of others, and a general tendency to see themselves as ‘about average’.
16
4.6 Attendance
Information about attendance patterns indicated that 16% per cent of students had missed no days of school up to the time of completing the questionnaire; 55.8% had missed between one and five days. Overall, 86.8% of students had missed between one and ten days of school. A small number of students were reported as having missed more than ten days. Information supplied in the site visits suggested that illness was often the reason for such absences, which is supported by the questionnaire data that illness was the most usual reason for school absences for 56.2% of students in the cohort.
The information provided about primary schools attended by the students indicated that most had attended one or two schools.
Primary schools attended
Only one school 56%
One other school 19.5%
Two other schools 7.5%
Three or more other schools 8.8%
4.7 Attitudes to reading and writing
How much do you like
reading things in class? How much do you like writing things in class?
I enjoy reading a lot 30.9% I like writing a lot 28.1%
I like reading most things 27.7% I like writing most times 33.9%
I like reading short things 22.9% I like writing short pieces 18.6%
I like the teacher reading
aloud 7.1% I like writing some things 10.1%
I don’t like reading at all 7.8% I don’t like writing at all 5.4%
These responses indicate only moderate enjoyment of reading and writing in school.
This suggests a need to review classroom literacy practices in order to engage students’ interests more effectively.
4.8 Students’ general literacy practices
The questionnaire provided an opportunity to gain a broad picture of some of students’ general literacy practices. These included the range of text types read at home, everyday literacy activities, time spent watching television, use of computers, use of libraries, and purposes for reading. In the context of this project, this is very generalised information, but nevertheless extends understanding of the diversity of students’ experiences of literacy.
17 Text types read at home
Text type Almost every day About once a week About once a month Never or hardly ever
Magazines 21.5% 34.2% 24.2% 15.7%
Books 34.7% 30.6% 21.5% 9.2%
Newspapers 20.6% 29.8% 18% 26.1%
Comics 10% 14.1% 18.4% 51.5%
Everyday literacy activities
Literacy activity Almost every day About once a
week About once a
month Never or hardly ever
Listen to things told or read to you by family or friends
37.4% 26.1% 13.2% 19.1%
Read things to your
family or friends 14% 29.7% 23.9% 29.1%
Talk to family members about things you do at school
63.6% 19.7% 6.8% 6.8%
Talk with family members about things happening in the world beyond home and school
27.9% 32.5% 17% 18.8%
Translate things for
family members 10.3% 12.9% 11.8% 60.2%
Do shopping from a
written list 6.6% 24% 21.3% 44.6%
Write down
telephone messages 35.2% 27.6% 13.3% 20.1%
Hours spent watching television and videos
Hours watching TV or videos
outside school hours Each week day Saturdays and Sundays
More than 5 hours 15.6% 26.6%
Between 4 and 5 hours 11% 12.6%
Between 3 and 4 hours 16.3% 12.4%
Between 2 and 3 hours 19.9% 14.6%
Between 1 and 2 hours 17% 10.9%
Up to one hour 9% 5.4%
I do not watch TV or videos 0.9% 2.6%
Using computers
This question was worded as follows: “If you use a computer at home or at school, or at some other place, how often do you use the computer for doing the following kinds of things?”
18
Computer activity Almost every day About once a
week About once a
month Never or hardly ever
Playing computer
games 28.1% 36.7% 15.5% 15.6%
Writing or word
processing 23.8% 45.3% 17.5% 8.9%
Sending and reading
email 7.7% 11.3% 13.2% 62.6%
Accessing the Internet 14.8% 25% 14.4% 40.3%
Using CD ROMs 26.1% 31.4% 16.4% 21.2%
Writing computer
programs 5.4% 11.3% 12.3% 65.5%
Borrowing books from the library
Frequency of borrowing From school library From public library
More than once a week 14.2% 5.8%
About once a week 31.6% 10.4%
About once a month 24% 22.5%
Hardly ever 17.5% 24.9%
Never 7.4% 21.7%
The relatively limited amounts of library usage reported by students suggest the need for increased collaboration between teacher librarians, class teachers, and literacy support teachers.
Reading for different purposes
Students were asked, ”About how often do you read for the following purposes?”
Purpose for reading Almost every
day About once a
week About once a
month Hardly ever or never
For pleasure 36.8% 30.7% 16.1% 10.3%
To obtain information 21.8% 44.7% 21.2% 4.6%
To follow instructions or
directions 28.2% 30.7% 22.1% 10%
The diversity of students’ literacy practices reported in the above responses to the questionnaires, information about reading practices gleaned from the individual student case studies, and the researchers’ observations during site visits suggest the need for schools to investigate ways of acknowledging and utilising this diversity of practices in classroom teaching programs, and in literacy intervention programs.
19 5. THE LITERACY PROGRAMS
The program has been operating for four years now and each year I have increased my expectations and demands significantly. Each year I think I must have reached the limits of what I can demand and expect, but the following year I find myself demanding and expecting
even more.
5.1 Schools and literacy programs
The following list indicates the main focus of the literacy programs and strategies in the project schools. For the purposes of this study, in most schools one aspect of a school’s program became the main focus of the study, even though other programs or strategies might have been operating. In some cases, the data provided by schools referred to combined programs.
It should be noted that the intention of the research was not to undertake evaluations of particular programs, but to investigate and report on the underpinning principles and contextual factors which improved students’ literacy learning. Some programs and strategies were investigated in more than one school;
however, the context was different in each case. For example, some schools conducted the Bridging the Gap program with volunteer tutors, but one school used trained teacher aides to implement the program. One school implemented phases 1 and 2 of Making a Difference, whereas other schools implemented phase 1 in association with other strategies. The lists of programs and strategies, and the varied combinations of programs and strategies, highlights the significance of school contextual factors in the commitment to a particular program
Laptop computers and PEEL strategies Corrective Reading and First Steps strategies Spalding program
Reading workshop Bridging the Gap
Small group literacy classes; Making a Difference Heather Harvey’s Intensive Reading
Bridging the Gap; whole school strategies Individual learning plans; whole school strategies Corrective Reading
Making a Difference
Sound Ways to Spelling, Reading and Writing Whole school strategies
THRASS and Intensive Reading Program Learning centres
Laptop computers; Modelled Reading; literacy tutors Whole school strategies; literacy support program; THRASS Spalding and small group tutoring
Bridging the Gap
Small withdrawal group; PEEL strategies Bridging the Gap
Making a Difference
Intensive whole class program with aides Bridging the Gap; home teacher for 60% of time
20
Sound Ways to Spelling, Reading and Writing Making a Difference
Corrective Reading Spalding; laptop computers Small table teams
PEEL strategies; whole school literacy program Cooperative learning and First Steps
Corrective Reading
Wide Reading; cross age tutoring Spalding
Shared Guided Reading
First Steps; Making a Difference; reading circles Modelled Reading
Bridging the Gap Modelled Reading Spalding
First Steps Parent tutors
Intensive small group activities
Whole school strategies, including flexible groupings
The literacy programs investigated can be grouped into two broad categories. The first category includes specific interventions for students identified as requiring additional support in order to enable them to deal with the literacy demands of the school curriculum. The second category includes whole class or school programs and strategies designed to enhance literacy learning for all students, including those students requiring support.
Specific interventions Improving literacy learning for all students
Individual learning support Team planning and teaching, including structures allowing for flexible groupings and individual support within the classroom
Making a Difference Using laptop computers Bridging the Gap WA First Steps strategies Direct Instruction (Corrective
Reading) Spalding (“The Writing Road to Reading”)
Modelled Reading Guided reading, reciprocal teaching and other targetted strategies
Small table teams PEEL strategies
A third strand running across the school programs included involvement in professional development programs, such as ESL in the Mainstream; Writing in the Subject Areas (WISA); Julia Aitken; WA First Steps, and the implementation of strategies gleaned form these programs. Many of the intervention programs, for example, Making a Difference and the Spalding program include professional development activities specific to the program.
21 Another major difference which distinguished the programs was whether the support was provided by withdrawing students from the normal timetable to work in one-to-one or small group situations, or whether the support was provided in the context of the normal classroom. Within the classroom, support was provided from various combinations of the following:
• one-to-one
• small group
• team small groups
• flexible groupings
• team teaching
• aides, including both trained teacher aides, and parent volunteers.
A range of personnel was involved in the programs, including English teachers;
teachers in various Key Learning Areas; teacher librarians; literacy coordinators;
teaching teams; aides; volunteer tutors; peer tutors; parents and other adults;
specialist support staff - eg, speech pathologists.
It was interesting to observe the variety of spaces in which literacy classes and literacy tutoring operated: classrooms; small offices, rooms or other spaces; school libraries; learning support centres. The more appropriate spaces allowed ready access to resources and were appropriate for teaching in different groupings, including one-to-one and small groups.
The operation of a number of programs was dependent on particular timetabling arrangements, to accommodate withdrawal for one-to-one work; flexible groupings and teaching teams; integrated programs where, for example, English and SOSE were taught by the same teacher; and streaming. In one case, extra learning time was provided in an after school program linked to the English/SOSE program.
Some programs were based on particular organisational structures within the school, allowing for team teaching, in-class support, small group or individual withdrawal.
This was characteristic of many of the whole class approaches. By contrast, other programs were designed to provide a particular format and sequence for literacy teaching sessions. Programs such as Making a Difference, Bridging the Gap, and Corrective Reading fit into this category. Another basis for the design of literacy programs included a focus on content, or particular strategies, such as shared guided reading, and the Spalding approach, with its strong emphasis on phonemes and knowledge about language.
Withdrawal of students from class for extra support was involved in a number of programs. This often involved one-to-one work with a tutor, as in Bridging the Gap, Making a Difference, and other tutoring arrangements. In some cases, mostly in country schools, tutors were volunteer parents, or other volunteer community members. In other cases, withdrawal was organised for small groups of students, as in Corrective Reading. Where withdrawal programs were organised, consideration was usually given to making sure that the students did not regularly miss classes in
22
the same Key Learning Area, or classes in a learning area which the student particularly enjoyed. In some cases, arrangements were made with the class teacher for work requirements in the KLA to be modified for students in the withdrawal program.
Issues relation to withdrawal identified in discussions in schools include students’
sometimes negative perceptions of being involved in special circumstances; reduced opportunities for students to participate in learning activities in the classes missed;
the need to monitor attendance and punctuality at tutoring sessions, especially where volunteer tutors are involved. Teachers generally reported that students who had been involved in withdrawal programs tended to benefit from the working relationship with one teacher over time, and to show increased confidence and motivation.
Other arrangements observed included the provision of additional support for some students in the context of the classroom. This was organised in a variety of ways, including special timetabling arrangements; cooperative planning amongst teachers;
team teaching; flexible groupings of students; deployment of teaching aides;
involvement of volunteer helpers. These arrangements allowed for support to be provided on a one-to-one basis where necessary, and for the support to occur within the context of the teaching and learning program.
Coordinated approaches to highlighting literacy teaching in all curriculum areas were observed in a number of schools. Several factors appear to be critical for the effective establishment and maintenance of these approaches, including:
• strong support from the school leadership team;
• extensive professional development for teachers in all learning areas;
• a coordinating role for a teacher with considerable expertise in literacy;
• time for planning; team teaching;
• consideration given to literacy in course planning;
• use of common strategies in different KLAs.
The tables which follow in sections 5.2 and 5.3 identify the main features of the programs and strategies for interventions out of class (5.2) and for whole class literacy programs(5.3). The notes on the reported strengths and weaknesses of the various programs are drawn from teacher logbooks and field notes from the site visits.
23 5.2 Interventions out of class
Program Features Reported strengths Reported weaknesses
Making a Difference Directorate of School
Education, Victoria, 1993
Intensive instruction in literacy in a one-to-one teaching/learning situation;
Phase 2: Making a Difference teacher supports a Year 7 subject teacher to plan for and teach the student back in the regular classroom Variations: teaching in pairs
• One-to-one interaction, rapport with tutor
• Six different
components of program provide variety
• Students can read high interest texts
• Cooperative approach
• Increases confidence
• Phase 2 learning strategies/activities enriched the class program; meant that progress made by students is noticed by more people
• Regular record keeping to track progress
• Withdrawal – but mostly caused no difficulties
• Difficult to ensure that reading was being done at home
• Difficult for students when they are tired
• Timetabling: time of day
for sessions;
interruptions; covering absences of MAD tutors
• Possibly don’t need to complete the lesson format every lesson – can become repetitive
• High costs for small number of students
• Absenteeism
• Communication between staff involved with withdrawal group and larger school picture – needed time Bridging the
Gap
Department of Education, Goulburn North-Eastern Region
A ten week, one-to-one literacy intervention program designed for students in Years 5-8 who are experiencing difficulty in reading and writing; aims at minimum of three sessions per week; school facilitator;
community volunteers Variations: paid aides instead of community volunteers; two sessions per week; include more comprehension; use of novels from English program
• Impact of individual attention one-to-one on students’ self-esteem and confidence; gives sense of achievement
• Flexibility – can be adapted to target students’ needs
• Diagnostic – tutor can identify more specific weaknesses
• High interest – students can choose some books read
• Most benefit to students who do not have serious learning difficulties, and who are not too far behind their peers
• Gives students confidence to use the skills in the normal classroom
• Finding suitable volunteers; trained tutors have limited repertoire of strategies
• Time for training volunteers
• Continuity of volunteers
• Timetabling
• Concerns over
withdrawal
• Time intensive for program facilitator - complex coordination –
with student
coordinators, class teachers, students, parents, principal, and tutors
• Finding appropriate spaces
• Following up on students who don’t come to session
• Cut-up sentence loses impact
