 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Improving
outcomes in Literacy: Deadly Writin', Readin' and Talkin'
at Salisbury North R-7 School
Scaffolded
approaches
The
context
Salisbury North R-7 School was established in 1996 through
an amalgamation of the Junior Primary and Primary Schools.
There is a staff of over 40 altogether, with 13 mainstream
classes, all of which are composite (two year levels working
together).
The
student population of approximately 400 is diverse.
- 16%
are Indigenous students, a number which has doubled since
1997.
-
17% of students are English as a Second Language learners.
- 15%
of students have Negotiated Curriculum Plans (ie, are identified
as having a learning disability).
-
5% of students are part of the New Arrivals Program, for
new migrants.
-
60% transience rate throughout the year.
-
65 -70% are School Card holders who qualify for government
assistance.
The
school is in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, in an emergency
Housing Trust area. Several blocks around the school have
recently become an area of urban renewal, with house demolition
and vacant blocks. This is very unsettling for students.
The
Deadly Writin', Readin' and Talkin' (DWRAT) Project began
in 1998 when the school received Commonwealth funding as a
Strategic Initiatives Project (SRP), part of IESIP (Indigenous
Education Strategic Initiatives Program). DWRAT Coordinator,
Bronwyn Parkin, met Dr Brian Gray of the University of Canberra,
who agreed to support the school during the period of the
SRP in using the 'Scaffolding Literacy Program' he had developed
with his colleague Wendy Cowey.
Since
the end of the SRP, the school has managed to continue with
scaffolded approaches, using small grants and a great deal
of commitment from staff.
More
about the school context…
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
The
pedagogy
DWRAT
Coordinator, Bronwyn Parkin contributes the following notes
about the scaffolded literacy approach at Salisbury North:
Bronwyn and students
It
consists of the careful study of one quality written text
per term, using that text as the basis for reading, sight
words, spelling and writing. Using functional grammar as a
tool, teachers and students pay close attention to the text,
and the strategies that writers have used to achieve their
purposes. Gradually, as the students become knowledgeable
about the text, they are able to appropriate these strategies,
as well as the spelling, and use the original author's resources
to produce their own quality texts.
Each
DWRAT class has a 50 minute scaffolded literacy lesson four
days a week. In addition, the functional grammar teacher gives
a focused grammar lesson in some classes once a week. The
scaffolded literacy lessons are team taught in various ways,
often including AEWs. There are almost always at least two
adults in each classroom, although the older classes have
demonstrated that it is possible to teach some aspects of
scaffolding effectively without this extra support.
There are many other features worthy of note in the pedagogy:
Repetition:
The study of one text has typically covered 10 weeks of a
term. A first reaction by many teachers is that students will
get bored. They don't get bored, they become successful.
Choice
of texts is crucial to the process. Rich texts
with literate, rather than 'spoken' grammatical structures
that will assist students in accessing more complex texts
are selected at a level of literary complexity commensurate
with the child's age.
Language
for talking about texts:
Functional grammar is used as a rich resource for talking
about texts. Comprehensive notes are provided to assist teachers.
Pre-formulated
questions: We
try to ensure that all students have the chance to respond
successfully to questions. We preface each question with an
introduction to the question, a preformulation which tells
the students the purpose and scope of the question so that
all students know what is in the teacher's head.
Spelling:
Words are not taught as spelling words until students are
able to read them out of context, and then students are encouraged
to use their visual skills to learn groups of letters, rather
than only 'sounding it out'. This simple development in teaching
spelling has had remarkable results in the DWRAT classrooms
for some Aboriginal students and some English as a Second
Language students who have had little success previously in
mastering English spelling.
Potential
for critical literacy:
The depth at which we study a text provides many opportunities
for students and teachers to develop critical analytic skills.
Student
behaviour management:
Time spent on controlling minor behaviour issues is time not
spent on literacy. Therefore we focus on the learning at hand,
rather than on minor behaviour issues. We have seen some encouraging
changes in student behaviour as students become successful
and begin to make sense of their learning. However, behaviour
management is sometimes still a struggle in our context.
Committed
and skilled teaching teams:
While some parts of scaffolding can be taught in a whole class,
our experience is that many aspects are best taught in smaller
groups, so one extra adult is often needed for literacy lessons.
Schools with a high proportion of Aboriginal students will
in any case have an Aboriginal Resource Teacher who can assist.
Our school has also coordinated the support of the ESL teacher
to assist Scaffolded Literacy. This pedagogy is not just for
Special Education students. We have been using it successfully
in composite classes, with ability skills ranging from Profile
level 2 to Profile level 6 in the one class.
One
on one reading instruction:
In addition to scaffolded approaches in the classroom, our
Aboriginal Education Workers and School Service Officers have
been trained in one to one scaffolding in reading. This support
supplements the learning in the classroom.
Assessment
and monitoring:
Of course, assessment is not exclusive to scaffolding. It
is, however, fundamental to our project. If we are not sure
that our pedagogy is making a difference, then there is no
point in continuing. |
| |
|
|
|
|
Frequently
asked questions
The work at Salisbury North has created considerable interest
and people ask questions about the choice of literature, inclusiveness,
cultural appropriateness and many other things. The school
is grappling with many of these questions as core issues.
Bronwyn
answers some frequently asked questions…
What do parents say?
AEW,
Muriel O'Loughlin (at left), with
ASSPA Chair, Debbie Moyle
Debbie:
 …for
a kid to get up and talk in front of thirty or forty parents
about their reading, or read from a book or from a piece of
work that they've written is absolutely amazing. It gives
me goose bumps…
Read
on…
What
about scaffolding in secondary schools?
Brian Gray and Wendy Cowey of the University of Canberra are
working with a number of secondary schools, such as the Wiltja
annexe of Woodville High School in Adelaide, on Scaffolding
Literacy.
Read
about scaffolding at Wiltja…
Brian
Gray and Wendy Cowey on Scaffolded Literacy…
Teachers
from Wulungarra Community School in the Kimberley talk about
scaffolding... |
| |
|
|
|
|
The
outcomes
Performance targets
1.
The
primary aim was that the literacy skills in Viewing, Reading
and Writing of all Aboriginal students in DWRAT classrooms
would match the national median for their year levels, using
the national Profiles as the measure.
2. When the project began, however, the literacy levels
of some students were so low that there was little hope
of them catching up and matching the national levels within
the two years the project has been in operation. The secondary
aim, therefore, is that students' rate of development in
18 months at least match the national rate of development
over two years. This rate of development could be seen as
a hopeful sign that students might one day, with continued
support, catch up to the national levels.
As
well, as Bronwyn Parkin puts it, We
had already determined that, unless the students educationally
at risk showed improvement, we would not count our project
as successful.
Read
Bronwyn's case studies of four particular students…
Assessment
tools
All
students at Salisbury North take part in an annual reading
and writing assessment. So that data can be obtained about
the Performance Targets, Aboriginal students in DWRAT have
also been assessed using the following tools:
For
Junior Primary students (up to and including Year 2), the
tool was the Marie Clay Observation Survey of Early Literacy
Achievement. Year 3 students who were not sufficiently literate
for the Middle Primary test also completed the Marie Clay
tests.
More
about the Marie Clay Survey…
The Developmental Assessment Resource for
Teachers (DART), published by ACER, was the tool used for
older students.
More
about the DART…
All Aboriginal students in DWRAT classes also record a sample
of their reading at the end of most terms, and this data provides
us with information on what they are able to read when scaffolded.
Why
were these assessment tools chosen?
Results
Bronwyn Parkin discusses the results:
At
the beginning, we used scaffolded approaches in classes
for 18 weeks before we had to make our first report. The
results were very exciting. Some students had made leaps
of an entire Profile level in Viewing and Reading in that
time, and many, although not all, students at risk had shown
significant gains. It took longer for improvements in writing
to show.
The
Marie Clay cohort of Reception, Year 1 and Year 2 classes
score at Stanine levels 4-6 and the Year 3 cohort at Stanine
levels 7-9. Our first target was to match these levels.
After three years of testing, we are able identify some
patterns in the skills of our Junior Primary students:
- They
tend to demonstrate advanced knowledge about Concepts of
Print when compared to Marie Clay's cohort.
- They
also tend to be able to identify letters of the alphabet
out of context very well.
- Many
of our students also perform well in the Dictation test
where they show that they can hear and record the sounds
in words.
- At
these year levels, their text and letter knowledge does
not seem to transfer to the Writing test where they are
required to spell words 100% accurately to score.
- Our
students do not perform well when tested on a random list
of sight words, which they have not studied during Scaffolded
Literacy time.
Of serious current concern are the boys in the Year 3 cohort.
None is scoring near the target in most tests and their
performance raises issues about their engagement and interest
in school learning. If we have not managed to keep them
focused on school learning at this age, what will we do
when they get older and have not caught up? This time is
crucial for them and we are determining now how we can make
a difference.
In
terms of the first Performance Target for Years 4-7, many
students have not yet achieved the goal of matching the
national median at their year level. Nevertheless, many
came close to that goal, and several students exceeded it.
In
terms of the second Performance Target, however, the most
encouraging sign is that in most cases the rates of progress
of our students are at least as good as the progress shown
by national data. Because our time span was eighteen months
between tests, rather than two years for the national levels,
this rate of development can therefore be seen as a hopeful
sign that our students might, with continued support, catch
up to the national levels. With the exception of two scores,
all cohorts managed to achieve this secondary target. The
fact that we can see significant growth is what makes us
want to continue.
This
table illustrates the progress made…
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Resources
For information about the Scaffolding Literacy Program developed
at the University of Canberra:
Rose,
D., Gray, B. and Cowey, W. (1999). 'Scaffolding Reading and
Writing for Indigenous Students in School'. In P. Wignell
(ed). Double Power: English Literacy in Indigenous Schooling.
Melbourne: Languages Australia.
Clay,
M. (1997) An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement,
Auckland: Heinemann.
ACER
(1997) Development Assessment Resource for Teachers (DART).
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
