ACTION RESEARCH AS A STRATEGY FOR IMPROVING LITERACY LEVELS IN THE PRIMARY DIVISION
Jennifer Webster
Hiking: An Analogy
Being involved in action research is similar to taking a hike through the woods. There are paths to follow and a destination to reach, but the experiences along those paths are as varied as the people travelling them. Both as a hiker and as a classroom teacher, I need to do several things in order to gain the most from my experiences: I need to be willing to take risks at forks in the road and venture into new territory; to look back thoughtfully at where I have come from because that always gives a different perspective of the path; to stop at lookout points to see the big picture so I don’t lose sight of where I am headed; and to talk to others on the path to see things from their points of view. These actions allow me to take responsibility for my own learning, growth and progress along the path I have chosen. One aspect of the hike—stopping to explore and share with others—takes me from a personal journey to a more public venture. As I reflect on and write about my action research, I am telling a story that could be of use to other teachers and researchers of literacy as they compare and contrast their understanding and knowledge of teaching and learning.
Qualitative Inquiry: Leaving The Straight And Narrow Path
There has been much discussion in the literature about the place of qualitative research and its contribution to general knowledge in the field of education. Lampert (2000, p. 86) investigates "the benefits and dangers of inserting the self into social science, and the challenges of presenting the problems of a practice from inside that practice." In telling a story, there are inevitably parts left out because "they are constructed by the author with certain intentions in mind." (Lampert, 2000, p.94). However, no social science researcher is free from context and biases. As soon as people are involved, beliefs, assumptions and opinions colour the lens through which the world is viewed (Melrose, 1996). There is never true objectivity, although striving for that goal meets with varying degrees of success depending on the topic studied and the methods used.
Shedding light on the complexity of learners, researchers and research settings, requires a variety of research approaches (Dillon, O’Brien & Heilman, 2000). One of those approaches is action research and one goal of an action researcher is to expose as much as possible his or her beliefs, assumptions and perspectives that affect the telling of the story. This allows the reader to judge the implications and relevancy the story may have in relation to their experiences and work (McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, 1996). This is not always an easy task since it means stepping outside of one’s self in order to uncover biases and taken-for-granted notions about how things work. Regardless of these difficulties, qualitative inquiries hold great appeal to me because they put a human face on teaching and learning as they look at people situated in real places at particular times. Although I value and seek out the research findings of quantitative studies to further understand issues in terms of generalities, telling and hearing about purposeful experiences at a personal level invites everybody into the research process.
Improvement Of Literacy Levels: A Winding Path
As I tell a story about a group of primary teachers who are concerned with improving their practice, I acknowledge that my particular biases and interests limit the story I am telling. I invite readers to join me on the first part of a journey that has as its goal the improvement of literacy instruction in the primary grades, using results from the Grade 3 provincial reading test as well as other means of assessment.
A major focus of teachers in Ontario, and throughout Canada, the United States (Villaume, 2000), the United Kingdom (Fisher, 2000) and Australia (Crevola & Hill, 1998; Luke, 1998), is improving literacy levels of young children. The results of Grade 3 provincial testing have had a particular impact on the examination of the teaching of reading and writing in Ontario classrooms. Because initial results indicated that students in Ontario were on average working below the standards set in the Ontario Curriculum, educators responded by looking at approaches to literacy being used in classrooms. Although there are many issues surrounding the use of assessment tools and standards to bring about change and reform to a system (Resnick & Resnick, 1992; Fuch et al., 1999; Linn, 2000), we as a group of primary teachers felt the requirements of the curriculum and the test were indicative of many important goals we strive for in our language arts programs. We need to keep in mind, however, that:
‘what can be tested’ has become the major driving force in determining what gets counted as literacy in classrooms and communities. Where this is the case, benchmarks and affiliated assessment practices could narrow and limit the capacity of teachers and school communities to adjust to the challenges of new workplaces, new technologies, new literate practices and institutions
(Luke & van Kraayenoord , 1998)
Literacy involves so much more than being able to respond to paper-and-pencil tests in a contrived situation where communication with others is prohibited.
Working As A Team
The incentive that brought the primary teachers together to form an action research team was a grant from the government that allowed us to take time during our working day to plan how to use the results from the provincial test to improve our practice and ultimately improve students’ performance on the test. During our initial meeting one afternoon among the kindergarten to Grade 3 teachers, we discussed our common goals as teachers and our current practices, and we examined the Grade 3 tests and considered the results of our students. We met again to begin planning. Following is an overview of the results of our first 2 meetings. At this point, I begin to use the term ‘we’, because I am attempting to speak for the group. However, I once again acknowledge that my biases and interests determine the particular story told.
Goals
We are teachers whose shared goal is to provide for children an educational climate in which they can develop basic skills in language and mathematics. This involves developing critical, independent, and creative thinking, as well as reasoning, organisational and problem solving skills. Our students need to know what to do when they are "stuck." We believe that our teaching and learning experiences have provided us with the knowledge to make informed decisions about our practice, in an atmosphere of sharing and critical analysis. Because we have confidence in ourselves and in our students, our desire is to keep the test in perspective, and keep in mind the whole child as we act, reflect and revise. You and Your Action Research Project (McNiff, Lomax and Whitehead, 1996) is our main guide for the project.
With our goals in mind, we turned to the Grade 3 test from 1998 and examined the questions and activities the children were expected to do. We were concerned that the skills being tested fit with our vision of education, our values. The teachers of younger students had not previously looked at the test but after discussing the questions, we all agreed that the skills required to answer the questions were skills we valued. We would have no difficulty using the test to guide some of our practices in order to help students be successful on the test.
Results From The 1999 Grade 3 Test
Thirty-four of the 37 Grade 3 students participated in the testing in 1999. The students were either in a grade 2/3 class or a Grade 3/4 class. Data from the results of the students who participated include the following:
- Percentage of students obtaining a level 3 or 4 in the overall level of achievement:
Reading: 50%
Writing: 56%
Breaking the results down by class provided some interesting data in the area of reading.
- Percentage of students obtaining a level 3 or 4 in the overall level of reading achievement:
Grade 2/3: 33%
Grade 3/4: 69%
- Mean score on reading multiple choice (and mean percent score):
Grade 2/3: 20.6 (71%)
Grade 3/4: 21.9 (75.5%)
Possible Explanations
The students in both classes were able to read and answer multiple-choice questions with similar ability. However, there was a great difference in their ability to respond with written answers. It would seem from these particular results that the Grade 3/4 students had higher incidents of valuable learning opportunities in the area of written responses to reading material that were similar to those on the Grade 3 test. The materials used in the Grade 3/4 class were examined and found to contain activities that involved answering comprehension and inference questions in writing, often using older reading programs that emphasised such work. The grade 2/3 class used a new reading series and had discussions regarding comprehension, inference and conventions, but the written responses emphasised creative writing. The test results indicate the need in the grade 2/3 class for more written question and answer assignments in response to reading.
Past Actions: Looking Back Along The Path
The programming and actions that were implemented in 1999-2000 for the Grade 3 students include the following:
Reading
After reading from a variety of texts, students are being required to respond in writing to questions involving reasoning, communication and organisation, as defined by the Ontario curriculum, using the expected conventions of written material.
‘Collections’ (Prentice Hall Ginn, 1999) is the main source of reading material for Grade 3, supplemented by other reading programs that have multiple choice and open-ended questions.
Students are being asked to spend 15 minutes reading a book of their choice for two evenings a week and responding in a reading log to suggested questions.
Writing
Teachers are providing models of well-organised, clearly written text to demonstrate the use of language conventions.
In response to a variety of experiences and for different audiences, students are being provided with writing opportunities (e.g., journals written for parents, stories written for peers, informative text written for younger students, poetry, letters etc.) and they are being given appropriate feedback for improvement.
Teachers are meeting as a primary team to analyse students’ work and decide on further instructional strategies
For our action research project, the decision was made to focus on reading skills, because those skills are so basic to education. We agreed that we needed to develop a plan that was consistent, beginning in kindergarten and following through in the primary division to the point where the student was a relatively independent and critical reader. We really felt the need for structure in our reading programs for those students who struggle with print. Reading Recovery is available for a few of the at-risk grade one students but we acknowledged that when they left the program, they needed to have continued support from the classroom teacher to maintain their progress.
When we met again, our focus was on assessment. We wanted to sort out how and when we would assess throughout the year, and how we would use the results to inform our actions. Some of the materials we examined were provincially produced exemplars, assessment tools provided by publishers of language arts programs, and standardised tests. We discussed the possibility of sharing work that our students produce for evaluation in order to have a common understanding of the levels of achievement laid out in the Ontario Curriculum.
The simple action of coming together as a team, and taking responsibility for and control of the direction we would take regarding our teaching was a major first step towards becoming action researchers. Working as a team provides the opportunity for different perspectives and critical analysis of our actions, as well as professional support as we share materials and stories from our everyday experiences. Our aim was to have an action plan to put in place for September 2000.
Current Actions: A Lookout Point
Just as a walk through a forest takes a hiker on a winding journey with stops to view the wider world at lookout points, the primary team had the opportunity to go beyond the walls of our school. Through our principal, we were introduced to a group of teachers, principals and consultants in our Board who were beginning an Early Literacy Initiative. The idea for this began when a Reading Recovery teacher attended a conference and heard about the work of Peter Hill (Crevola & Hill, 1998) in Australia. She was impressed with the approach being taken to language arts in primary schools, using techniques and ideas from the Reading Recovery Program initiated by Marie Clay (1983) in New Zealand. We attended a meeting to find out more about this initiative and became intrigued with the concept of blocks of time devoted exclusively to language arts, using such techniques as guided reading and running records and using levelled books to provide a structured program. These ideas were concrete and practical.
A Balanced Literacy Approach
The idea of a balanced literacy program is not new. Strech (1995) describes it as basically the same as whole language with the added component of guided reading, in which students are placed in homogeneous ability groups. Explicit skill instruction and authentic texts are used, as well as several other components such as daily read aloud, shared book/poetry experiences, repeated readings, modelled/interactive writing, rich oral discourse experiences, and a home reading and writing program (Wiencek, Vazzano & Reizian, 1999). Two recommended resources we have purchased are Guided Reading: Good first teaching for all children (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996) and Teaching Children to Read and Write (Toronto District School Board, 2000).
A Field Trip For Teachers
To help us get a feel for how such a program would work, we travelled to a school in Scarborough that had implemented a balanced literacy program based on the results from the Early Literacy Research Project conducted by Hill (Hill & Rowe, 1998). This program uses a variety of approaches to reading and writing instruction, including ability grouping, continuous use of running records to assess the progress of the students, and a formal assessment twice a year using the Developmental Reading Assessment (Beaver et al., 1997). A literacy co-ordinator organised a literacy room to allow teachers easy access to materials, including baskets of levelled books, assessment records and professional reading resources. Each classroom is also equipped with essential literacy materials such as levelled reading materials, classroom libraries, pocket charts, magnetic boards, word walls and computers.
After a morning of listening to, observing and interacting with the staff and students, we left with a sense of direction. We were made aware of the time consuming nature of individualised assessment and the need for a highly organised system, co-ordinated preferably by a designated staff member. We were also reminded that children’s ability to read words does not necessarily mean comprehension of the text. Keeping these things in mind, we know we have to develop a program in our school that will address the particular needs of our students, using available resources, and being aware of time and energy limitations. We have already started to level the books we have, more books have been ordered that fit within the guided reading philosophy, and the teachers are using the summer months to plan the organisation of their classrooms and instruction time. We have attended workshops on using running records, and the Developmental Reading Assessment (Beaver et al., 1997) has been purchased and will be used as an indicator of children’s reading progress.
Guiding principles
It is at this point that we must not lose sight of our role as an action research team. We need to continue to examine our practices and identify areas in need of improvement, set goals, plan an action, implement our ideas, and reflect on the results. Part of sharing and growing as a team is using feedback not only from assessments and each other, but also from students, parents, other colleagues, and the larger community of educators and researchers who provide us with a variety of view points. All of these sources of information cause us to critically reflect and act in more knowledgeable ways, keeping in mind the emotional, mental and spiritual well-being and growth of the individual students in our classrooms.
Using feedback from provincial tests
The results from the year 2000 provincial test will be available in the 2000-2001 school year. These statistics will provide us again with a general idea of the strengths and weaknesses of our students in that context. This information will help us reflect on the changes we made to our practice last year in order to prepare the students for the kind of thinking and strategies required for formal tests. Although this is only one resource that informs our actions, the holistic nature of the test does provide an interesting profile of the students. Used in conjunction with classroom observation and assessment, it gives us as teachers a sense of the level of skill our students are attaining in the different areas tested. Each year’s Grade 3 class is made up of a different combination of students with varying levels of innate ability and home support, but we are hoping that a structured, balanced program beginning in kindergarten will give all students an equal opportunity to succeed in the world of print. The results of the 2001 provincial test will be one indicator of our success in improving our practice.
Conclusion
As we strive to provide rich and varied language opportunities for our students within a balanced literacy environment, referring to the standards set by The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1-8: Language (1997) and tested by the Education Quality Accountability Office, our action research approach helps us keep a balanced perspective on teaching and learning. "Substantive and lasting language arts reform is inescapably linked to the abilities and the willingness of teachers to embrace and act upon the uncertainties that emerge as they teach students with many diverse needs" (Villaume, 2000, p. 18). The individual child is our ultimate concern. Acknowledging and appreciating differences in interests and abilities, encouraging independent, critical thinking and responsibility for one’s own learning, and instilling in the student a sense of direction and the importance of goal setting are all crucial aspects of teaching. Luke and van Kraayenoord (1998) point out the need to prepare students for new workplaces, technologies and literate practices, in which case we too need a sense of direction, one that is very much in tune with today’s fast-paced changes in technology and communication. Is our balanced literacy approach really balanced? Are we visiting lookout points often enough? As we continue with our act-reflect-and-revise cycles, using feedback from many sources, our winding path through the world of teaching and learning in the language arts increases our understanding and knowledge of what is required to be literate and to be teachers of literacy.
References
Beaver, J. 1997. Developmental reading assessment. Upper Arlington, OH: Upper Arlington Public Schools.
Clay, M. (1983). Reading: The patterning of a complex behaviour. Auckland: Heinemann.
Collections (1999). Scarborough: Prentice Hall Ginn Canada.
Crevola, C. & Hill, P. (1998). Children’s literacy success strategy: An overview. Melbourne: Catholic Education Office.
Dillon, D., O’Brien, D. & Heilman, E. (2000). Literacy research in the next millennium: From paradigms to pragmatism and practicality. eading Research Quarterly, 35(1), 10-26.
Education Quality and Accountability Office. Information available on their web site at http://www.eqao.com/
Fisher, R. (2000). Developmentally appropriate practice and a national literacy strategy. British Journal of Educational Studies, 48(1), 58-69.
Fountas, I. & Pinnell, G. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C, & Katzaroff, M. (1999). Mathematics performance assessment in the classroom: Effects of teacher planning and student problem solving. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 609-646.
Hill, P. & Rowe, K. (1998). Modelling student progress in studies of educational effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(3), 310-333.
Lampert, M. (2000). Knowing teaching: The intersection of research on teaching and qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 70(1), 86-99.
Linn, R. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.
Luke, A. (1998). Getting over method: Literacy teaching as work in new times. Language Arts. http://www.schools.ash.org.au/litweb/page401.html
Luke, A. & van Kraayenoord, C. (1998). Babies, bathwaters and benchmarks: Literacy assessment and curriculum reform. Curriculum Issues. http://www.schools.ash.org.au/litweb/page400.html
McNiff, J., Lomax, P. & Whitehead, J. (1996). You and your action research project. London: Routledge.
Melrose, M. (1996). Got a philosophical match? Does it matter? In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.), New directions in action research (pp. 49-64). London: Falmer Press.
Resnick, L. & Resnick, D. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In B. R. Gifford & M .C. O’Connor (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 37-75). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Strech, L. (1995). Ability grouping for elementary reading instruction and its relationship to the balanced literacy approach. Unpublished M.Ed. Project, California State University, Long Beach.
Villaume, S. (2000). The necessity of uncertainty: A case study of language arts reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 18-25.
The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1-8: Language Arts, 1997. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/curr97l.html
Teaching children to read and write (2000). Toronto: Toronto District School Board.
Wiencek, B., Vazzano, J. & Reizian, S. (1999, December). Balanced literacy in a first grade classroom: Practices, tensions and potentials. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Orlando, FL.
Bibiographical Note:
Name: Jennifer Webster, Elementary Teacher, Upper Canada District School Board
E-mail address: dwebster@recorder.ca
Academic background: BA, University of Waterloo, B. Ed., Ontario Education Teachers College at McMaster University
Areas of current interest: action research, beginning reading
Mailing address: 202 Fulford Pt. Rd., Elizabethtown, On. K6V 7E1