IMPROVING THE THINKING AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS OF JUNIOR STUDENTS WITH EMPHASIS ON PRACTICING ORAL TECHNIQUES AND BETTER HABITS

Anda Kett

Will The Thinking/Language/Communication/Writing Skills Of My Grade 4 Students Improve With More Deliberate Emphasis On Oral Patterns And Habits?

Focus Question

How can I effectively improve the language skills of my (weakest) Grade 4 students to meet grade level standards?

The five students in question are currently working at Level 1 and 2 on the Ontario Achievement levels, and three of them are identified as special needs students. I would like to improve their performance so that they are able to produce material that is at least a more consistent Level 2, and perhaps in the long term the occasional Level 3. Because of their current language skills, they are having difficulty in other areas of school, and are therefore in dire need of some confidence enhancement. I feel that focusing on the oral habits and patterns of these students will improve their language awareness, and then hopefully their ability to communicate ideas more effectively. Throughout the year I’ve noted that flaws in written work are also often reflected in the way these children speak. Their hearing has been discussed, and it has been confirmed that there are no physical or auditory problems.

Why Is This Issue Important?

Let me explain my rationale. When we are unable to communicate a thought clearly, we are at a serious disadvantage. This applies to all aspects of life. Speech problems in the primary years are addressed with more enthusiasm, but once a child hits the junior years, the errors are more subtle and are often overlooked as something “he’ll grow out of in time, as he gets more exposure to proper language.” However, our students are not always exposed to proper language use throughout their daily lives, and consequently they develop sloppy habits that continue to reflect negatively on them.

Our society has exposed the younger generation to massive doses of slang, incorrect grammar, and poor spelling in advertising and the media in general. Children are entertained by characters who babble on in incoherent, disconnected or rambling thoughts. The child’s amusement often leads to the desire to emulate those behaviors and, though they may go through phases, these ideas eventually become bad habits. Awareness and appreciation of good language and good values needs to be brought back to the students.

In making the connection between oral and written language for the students, I hope to bring them to a higher level of functioning where they will be more comfortable with language and function at a more independent level when they are promoted to the next grade. If this group does not show significant improvement in their language skills soon, their future will include many struggles, one of them being the Grade 10 literacy test. They also happen to be students who will likely be in my class again next year and who will be unable to cope with the demands and material of the Grade 5 program.

The Process That Was Followed

With the assistance of consultative staff, I analyzed the Grade 3 EQAO Language test results for my students. The results were then compared with the level of work that they were demonstrating this year in their classroom work. The same test was then given in the second term (in their Grade 4 year), and those results were compared with last year’s. In addition to the testing and anecdotal observations, emphasis in the classroom has been put on oral communication as much as written skills. Language has been practiced through various methods such as: discussions, book talks, informal oral reports, formal speeches, listening to stories, story telling and responding to stories, rehearsing of stories before writing, and daily log book writing.

The focus in written work was on sentence structure, grammar, vocabulary/wording, and spelling. Then, as ideas began to develop and become more complex, the focus was extended to idea development, sequencing of ideas, and paragraph structure.

Data Collection and Analysis

As time went on, it became clear that my expectations were progressing faster than the students’ skills and that the levels of achievement were beginning to decline. When I found that they were unable to develop a complete paragraph, we went back to the concept that thoughts can be extended and developed to reveal more detail and to answer more questions. Relationships between ideas were explored. As their awareness of this improved slightly, they were occasionally able to explain more orally; however, getting it down on paper was still too challenging for them. The data that were gathered to reveal this were taken from formative evaluation on various activities stemming from a novel that was read to the class. This ensured that the results were reflecting the students’ ability to think and communicate their thoughts, not solely on their ability to read, or write. Transcripts of oral, one-on-one questioning revealed that some of them were able to answer some questions more clearly after all! However, their responses were still very brief and simple, and would be assessed at Level 1 or 2. This was, however, definitely an improvement over a blank piece of paper, which is what some of them handed in at first.

The novel in question was “Hatchet,” by Gary Paulsen, a story about a boy’s survival in the wilderness of northern Canada. I read the story to the students. It fit in well with the habitat component of the curriculum and is an inspiring novel which hooked many of the more advanced students on the author. Many aspects were discussed in class and reinforced during the reading of the novel to ensure the continuous understanding of the many inter-related themes.

I found that class discussions did not help in the formative assessment of the students in question because they were reluctant to participate and the more vocal students dominated the entire experience. After hearing some of the others' ideas however, I wondered how their ideas might have affected the responses of those students involved in the study. As it turned out, there was no sign of any long term carry over of ideas. Is this due to lack of listening or understanding?

Some examples of the oral questions/responses:

Case #1

Teacher: If you were lost in the woods, what would you do (the same as Brian)?

Student #1: Build a shelter, wall, big sticks. Hit hatchet on something, learned how to kill food, make spears.

Teacher: Did Brian change in the story?

Student: Yes.

Teacher: How?

Student: First he didn’t know what to do and later he did. He didn’t give up.

Case #2

Teacher: How did he learn to find the fool birds before they flew away?

Student #2: Camouflage. (They would “blow up” in his face many times before he was able to identify their shape, not just their colour. Then he was able to hunt them.)

Case #3

Teacher: How did the eating of the fish change Brian?

Student #3: He never ate fish before.

Teacher: Do you think that catching the fish had something to do with a change in him?

Student: Yes.

In order to build on responses from the students, I made an effort to make sure the questions and the expectations were clear and would often rephrase and repeat them. I provided corrective feedback to any response received, and I encouraged further thinking. Ideas were classified according to levels of evaluation, and improvements were added to demonstrate higher level thinking. Thus, corrective action and formative assessment were continuously used in classroom modeling and in personal evaluation.

Findings

The following table gives a brief overview of the levels of achievement of selected students in the EQAO tests, (the official test given in Grade 3, and the repeated experience in the second term of Grade 4), and a summative evaluation of their overall achievement in Language Arts.

Students #1, 4 and 5 are identified as special needs students with modified programs.

Levels of Achievement in Reading

	Provincial Gr. 3 test	Provincial Gr. 4 test	Overall Classroom Evaluation
Student #1	1	1-2	1
Student #2	2	2	2
Student #3	3*	1-2	1-2
Student #4	1	1	1
Student #5	1	1	1

*This student was accommodated at another school the previous year. He was given extra time, and answers were scribed for him.

Levels of Achievement in Writing

	Provincial Gr. 3 test	Provincial Gr. 4 test	Overall Classroom Evaluation
Student #1	2	1	2
Student #2	3	3	2
Student #3	3*	2	2`
Student #4	2	1-2	2
Student #5	1	1	1

Both the examples of the oral responses and the provincial assessments demonstrate that the levels of thinking skills are quite basic. These students have difficulty retelling parts of the story. Relating and reflecting skills need significant assistance and prompting. The overall evaluation is based on an average of the combination of skills reflecting reasoning, communication, organization, and use of language conventions on the Grade 3 Provincial Test.

I find that the levels of responses in classroom assessments in Grade 4 are fairly consistent with their performance in the EQAO tests. Under the conditions of the test, 4 out of 5 students were not accommodated at all, and thus scored pretty consistently at Levels 1 and 2, which is comparable to the level of the work produced in class, when done independently. Even with oral prompting from the teacher, the responses continue to be brief and simplistic.

I find that all of the students studied in the research are hesitant to participate orally in class, and need encouragement and prompting to do so. Even personal discussions with them are very one sided, with the teacher/ adult always leading the train of thought. It seems that these children have had little practice expressing their ideas up to this point in their lives and that little encouragement has been provided in the area of relating ideas to each other. Things are accepted at face value for these children.

Conclusions and Next Steps

It seems to me that for them, asking the questions, (who, what, when, where, why, how) will need a lot of modeling, encouragement, and practice. Unfortunately, these skills are needed in many areas of school in the junior years and these students are just beginning to be aware of them. Questioning and thinking skills need to be started earlier by primary teachers and by parents, in order to prepare the child for the increased demands of the curriculum.

Once the thinking skills of the students start producing more detailed ideas, the reasoning, organization skills, and language conventions will have more meaning to them and they will have something more concrete with which to work. So far their communication skills appear to be weak because they have so little to share and therefore have not had enough experience practising these skills.

Changes in evaluation practices need to be made to accommodate those students whose thinking cannot be clearly communicated. Summative evaluation needs to be supported with numerous and various formative assessments. Anecdotal records are a valuable tool in identifying the progress of the student. Modeling of the process and of expectations needs to be consistently practiced by the teacher to establish better understanding of the concepts. This gives students a more concrete view of where they fit in, and what they need to do to improve.

I attempted different communication techniques throughout the research and found some more successful than others. However it is important to continue to work on the strengths of those that worked, and to improve those that didn’t work so well. The students need to have a variety of purposes, goals, and audiences to give their words meaning. Whole class discussions should be combined with small group and one-on-one conversations. The sharing and recording of ideas can be accomplished in many ways by the students and by the teacher. Through these experiences, I hoped that the weaker students would build an awareness of better communication skills, and start to improve their own.

One year is a short time to expect dramatic change. I now have a better understanding of my students' performance levels and of what teaching strategies worked better than others.

Bibiographical Note:

Name: Anda Kett
Current Position: Grade 5/6 Teacher, Bloomsburg Public School in the Grand Erie District School Board
Has been teaching in the Junior level for the last 11 years
Academic Background: Honours BA, Fine Art major, McMaster University B.Ed., Primary to Secondary levels, University of Toronto