ACTION RESEARCH:
A PERSONAL INQUIRY INTO EARLY LITERACY

Janet Trull

I

How can I help "at risk" grade one students become independent readers and writers using Reading Recovery techniques?

Motivated by a concern for the failure of some children to demonstrate the ability to learn the basic skills that provide the foundation for reading and writing, I made a commitment to investigate the internationally acclaimed program, Reading Recovery. After years of implementing remedial language programs at the junior and intermediate levels, I became convinced that it was a difficult and frustrating task for an older student to internalize the reading and writing continuum. In many cases, it appears as if reading readiness is a window, open for the brief early primary years, and cruelly closed to those who don’t have access to an intensive early literacy program. By the time a child turns seven, the window seems to come slamming down.

Most parents instinctively provide opportunities for learning in the home, which sets the stage for their children’s formal education. Talking to children on a personal level challenges them to think and converse. Asking them questions that require thoughtful answers gives them confidence that their opinion matters and that their thoughts are of interest to an adult. In addition, children who are read to frequently, as preschoolers, have a distinct advantage over those who do not.

Without specific instruction, children who have been read to, will arrive on the kindergarten doorstep with several important concepts about print. They will be able to distinguish drawing from writing, pictures from print, and letters from words. They will differentiate the front from the back of a book, and be able to demonstrate directionality.

When I returned to teaching after several years at home, I had the opportunity to teach junior and senior kindergarten. With twenty-four children whose ages ranged from three to six years over the span of the school year, I was frustrated at the reality of implementing program that would meet the needs of such a varied group. It soon became obvious that some older children, and those who had literacy experiences to build on, were wasting their time on introductory activities that included tracing letters, learning letter names and sounds, and colouring matching pictures. They were ready to write.

According to Marie Clay (1991), "There are two important short cuts that are not recognized by some education systems or some individual teachers. The first short cut is to observe and find out what individual children can already do and use those strengths as their entry into reading and writing, allowing each child to go from where they are (rather than expecting every child to take the same steps into a standardized programme). This calls for a flexible program with opportunities to start anywhere in the learning sequence. It is clearly demonstrated in education systems which work this way (in New Zealand, Great Britain, and Australia) that both teachers and children can make this approach work. The second short-cut is to develop a programme that leads children towards independence in reading and writing because, as the more competent children become more independent, they are practicing highly appropriate strategies but at the same time are freeing the teacher to give more time to the children for whom assisted learning is necessary for a longer period." (p.111)

Reading Recovery plays a major role in this model. Children who reach the age of six without showing the skills necessary for grade one, spend twelve to twenty weeks, half an hour per day, with a Reading Recovery teacher in an intensive remedial program individualized to the child’s specific strengths and weaknesses. It is particularly geared toward independence of the child in the classroom, and includes a monitoring component for the weeks and months, even years, after the student has been "discontinued".

As I began my training, I was skeptical. Not everyone is sold on Reading Recovery, and I had listened to negative accounts from some primary teachers who concluded that the program did not deliver the long-term benefits that it promised. Personally, I believed that a student, given half an hour of individualized instruction in any program was likely to be successful. I wasn’t sure that Reading Recovery was the magic wand that its proponents claimed it to be, but I wanted to find out for myself.

And so the paperwork began; collecting data, organizing data, analyzing data. The main complaint of Reading Recovery trainees is the paperwork. Reading Recovery began in a university setting as early literacy research. Research demands records, and lots of them. And true to the research model, Reading Recovery teachers literally record every detail of every lesson on a daily basis. Teachers then use the evidence of what the child has demonstrated that he/she knows, and does not know, to set directions for the next lesson. Within this framework, I expected to accelerate eight grade one students over the course of the year.

I felt confident in my ability to assimilate the requirements of the Reading Recovery training and started initial assessments to determine candidates for the program in September. Working one-to-one with four children each morning seemed like one of Dave Nichol’s "Too Good to be True" products. How hard can this be? As it turns out, taking the lowest grade one students and transforming them into independent, above-average readers and writers did not have the fairy tale ending I had so eagerly anticipated. The lives of these children, predictably, are not so easily compartmentalized, and they brought with them many behaviours and limitations that interfered with their progress. Also, I had underestimated the complicated process of re-learning skills that I had internalized after years of teaching. I found that, in order to be successful as a Reading Recovery teacher, I would have to change many of my own behaviours that were actually having a negative impact on student independence.

II

"Hey, Teacher! Leave them kids alone. All in all, you’re just another brick in the wall."

Pink Floyd, "The Wall"

The most intriguing aspect of action research to me is the permission it has granted me to examine my daily work as a reflection of my personal values. This has been a discovery of the two roads, diverging in a wood; one, well-trodden and one, an adventure of discovery. It is not, as some may believe, a more difficult road, unless perhaps you are a difficult task-master for yourself. I found that I have the capacity to be quite patient and generous with myself, and I was pleased to receive guidance from my intuition during intervals of frustration and negative outcomes. Although the Reading Recovery training is very strict in its expectations, I tried to focus on the needs of individual students as children first, and as students second. I reminded myself that, even if I didn’t succeed in accomplishing all of the Reading Recovery goals this year, I would not ruin the lives of my students, but, at the very least, leave them with my love for literature, a passion for recording my thoughts, and a relationship of concern and support that will give them a basis for the confidence they need to be life-long learners. My goal of fostering independence would stand a better chance of accomplishment, I reasoned, by building self-esteem.

The grade one teacher (I’ll call her Diana.) welcomed the introduction of Reading Recovery, and, eventually, I asked her to act as my critical friend for the duration of my research. With twelve years of experience as a grade one teacher, and a healthy dose of skepticism, she brought a questioning mind to our ongoing dialogue. The strict nature of the selection criteria was Diana’s first concern:

"Why select the lowest? Two of the boys you have selected have older siblings in special education. One child shows a severe delay due to extensive hospitalization while he was treated for cancer. Another child has a history of being removed from the home by the Children’s Aid Society over issues of neglect. If you are counting on any support from the parents for this program, you will not likely receive it."

The histories Diana provided posed the first of many struggles I have had concerning the stringent rules for Reading Recovery. Why not select a child who is an achiever over one who appears to be unmotivated to read? Why not select a child whose parents have demonstrated a commitment to a home reading program over one whose parents are unwilling or unable to provide this type of support? An examination of my personal values soon reconciled me with this first of many questions that Diana and I talked through. My original concern for literacy arose out of the needs of older, functionally illiterate children. And, looking back to those grade seven and eight children who stumbled over primary readers, I realized that many of these students represented a marginalized portion of society. Issues such as poverty, genetics, and mental health were the real priorities in these households. Reading Recovery, by demanding strict selection criteria, has universalized the program in a way that a well-meaning teacher may not.

III

"Work is love made visible. And if you cannot work with love but only with distaste, it is better that you should leave your work and sit at the gate of the temple and take alms of those who work with joy. For if you bake bread with indifference, you bake a bitter bread that feeds but half man’s hunger."

- Kahlil Gibran

The cycle implicit in action research presented an excellent framework for my training year in Reading Recovery. Planning leads to action (daily lessons), which leads to observation (Specific records are kept on the daily running record, in which the teacher is expected to record the strategies that the student is using or neglecting.), which leads to reflection (Why is the student ignoring the strategy of "meaning" and relying more on "visual clues." Why are the student’s cross-checking behaviours changing? Why is the student stopping when he/she comes to an unfamiliar word?), and back to planning for the next day, based on these reflections.

My introduction to action research was a session in October of 1998 led by action research expert, Jack Whitehead. I was impressed with the intrinsic value of a format that validates an individual’s commitment to improve his/her teaching within a support system that includes a critical friend, a support team, and full endorsement at the top level of the Grand Erie Board’s administration. On January 20, 1999, I participated in the initial meeting of CAR (Cayuga Action Research). Cheryl Black initiated us by offering gifts of empty journals, and encouraged us to write about a time, over the past week, when we had experienced joy or anger. We then shared our entry with a team member. My partner had written about her recent engagement to a man she had met over the Internet - a modern day Cinderella story - and I shared my experience of cross-country skiing on a moonlit night. Although it may seem rather self-indulgent to write about and share something personal, Cheryl was quick to reassure us that Lesson Number One in Action Research is to be true to your personal values. Indeed, the key to passion and commitment in any career, hobby or volunteer work is to find the connection between work and self, and then exploit it.

During this session, I was able to identify my issue: How can I help "at-risk" grade one students become independent readers and writers using Reading Recovery techniques? Not only could I imagine a solution, but also I was already reviewing current practice on a daily basis. Gathering evidence is an ongoing, daily process in Reading Recovery, and so I left the day’s introductory session with the decision, since I already seemed to be halfway through the cycle, that I may as well give this action research thing a try. From that day on, data collection became an evaluation of my research question, rather than simply a method of tracking daily outcomes.

Throughout the year, I had four opportunities to teach a reading recovery lesson behind two-way glass observed by the Teacher-Leader, other teachers-in-training, parents of the student, and various other curious onlookers. After each lesson, I was treated to a full evaluation of my practice. Positive comments were balanced with constructive criticism, and ultimately led to modifications. Although intimidating at first, this is probably the most helpful way in which to monitor progress, as it forces recognition of the strict time lines, specific vocabulary, and prescriptive strategies Reading Recovery demands.

It was during these sessions that I recognized that some of the techniques I was in the habit of using were fostering dependence. I was often too quick to tell a word, rather than use an appropriate prompt, like, "Read right to the period: then come back to that word and try something that would make sense." At errors, rather than correcting the student, I learned to ask, "Does that make sense? Does it look right?" When a child paused at an unfamiliar word, a simple, "Try it," often elicited the correct response. The written observations of my Teacher-Leader demonstrate the ways in which modifications evolved over the course of the year, culminating in a final "Lesson Behind the Glass" for which she noted success in several specific areas. Most meaningful to me, was the indication that, "Parental support was obvious from their comments about what you had helped them to understand." I felt that this justified the time I had spend interviewing parents, providing training for their home support, and developing relationships.

Although I did modify my practice significantly, I did not reach the high energy, push, push, push level of intensive teaching/learning that seems to be the expectation in Reading Recovery. I discovered that my Special Education background had left me too well ingrained with a sensitivity to the individual child’s emotional well-being, and I frequently modified that pace of the lesson to accommodate mood, energy level, and other variables.

IV

IN THE DESERT

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial.
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said, "Is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter - bitter," he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

- Stephen Crane

Conclusion

I have followed several evaluation procedures. Throughout the year, on a weekly basis, I recorded the current instructional reading level of each student on a line graph. It provides visual proof of significant progress for all five students. I was also pleased with the results of the June assessment, which compared favorably with the initial assessments in areas such as letter identification, concepts about print, sight vocabulary, writing vocabulary, and the ability to hear sounds in words.

I invited my Teacher Leader to write a summary of the final outcomes reflected in my data. She used her own observation records from teacher visits to track strengths and weaknesses in my performance over the course of the year, and concluded, "You can definitely say you’ve changed over time for the betterment of the students in both reading and writing independently."

My critical friend, "Diana", is disappointed that Reading Recovery will not be available next year. She was pleased with the support that the program gave to her lowest students, and she felt she was able to give more attention to the low-average students who need regular, but less intensive, help in their daily activities. She would like to withhold a final conclusion about the overall success of Reading Recovery until some tracking at the grade two level is available. The true test of the students’ independence will come in the fall of 1999, as they face the challenge of increasing reading levels and higher expectations for written work.

In reflection, I am confident that I have attained a better understanding about how children learn to read and write, and how the process differs in many basic ways for each child. The initial testing package in Reading Recovery, and the ongoing assessment of behaviours and strategies, makes this program truly individualized and therefore more likely to be successful than a group or classroom program.

I feel a little disappointed that I was not able to take on more students in the course of the year. Originally hoping to accelerate eight students, I discontinued only three. I realize that my expectations may have been too high, considering the breadth of the training program, and it is evident that a Reading Recovery teacher would be required to make a long term commitment in order to become an expert. Considering my assignment for 1999/2000 (early literacy itinerant teacher for fourteen schools), I appreciate the fact that action research helped me to view Reading Recovery, not as an isolated program, but in a wider context in which it can be applied to the promotion of early literacy in primary classrooms board-wide.

In a recent radio broadcast on CBC, there was a discussion about the horizontal nature of modern society. In the past, a vertical society always assured that there was someone "above you" who would dictate your values. The advice of the church was an absolute, a teacher’s decision was never second-guessed, and parents had the last word in the home. Not anymore.

The notion that, "goals need to be treated as emergent and negotiable rather than being unilaterally imposed," (Wells, 1998) reflects my understanding of action research as it applied to my experience with Reading Recovery, and as it can apply to any educational or personal inquiry.

Bibliography

Clay, M. (1991). Becoming literate. Auckland, New Zealand: Reed Publishing.

Clay, M. (1993). An observation survey. Auckland, New Zealand: Reed Publishing.

Clay, M. (1993). Reading recovery - A guidebook for teachers in training; Auckland, New Zealand: Reed Publishing.

McNiff, J. Lomax, P. & Whitehead, J. (1996). You and your action research project. London and New York: Routledge.

Wells, G. (1998). Working together to understand and improve practice. Orbit. 29(3).

Bibiographical Note:

Name: Janet Trull
Current Position: Early Literacy Itinerant Teacher - new position - Grand-Erie Board of Education, 1999
Academic Background:
McMaster University Honours English B.A. ,
O.T.E.C. Hamilton Board of Education,
Specialist - Visual Arts - Brock University,
Specialist - Special Education - York University,
Reading Recovery Training
Current Research Interests: early literacy; early identification and early intervention; the CANSTART program, a Canadian non-profit organization promoting a teacher-empowering program for pre-school and kindergarten teachers;
First Steps: an Australian language program for reading, writing, oral language and spelling; sign language
Mailing Address: 197 Big Creek Road, Onondaga, ON N3W 2G9