Chapter 4.2 Literacy outcomes
Standardised testing
NT Curriculum Framework: ESL - Reading
Multilevel Assessment Program (MAP)
ACER: Progressive Achievement Test in Reading
Waddington: Diagnostic Reading Test
Waddington: Diagnostic Spelling Test
Schonell: Spelling Age Test
Arts-infused learning
Chapter 4.2 Literacy outcomes
Standardised testing
NT Curriculum Framework: ESL - Reading
Participating students were profiled by the ESL and classroom teachers at the commencement of Term 3 and at the close of Term 4, 2003. Students were identified as Phase 1 and Phase 2 learners of English as a Second language.
Phase 1 Learners are students who “are acquiring the basic Standard Australian English (SAE) language skills needed to communicate in the classroom, school and community” (p100, NT DEET, 2002).The teaching focus is building confidence and learning how to learn in English in the classroom. A key point is that this takes precedence over mainstream subject content learning.
Phase 2 Learners are students who “are confident in socially communicating in English and respond to some reading and writing tasks of classroom activities, but have difficulties using English for learning” (p101, NT DEET, 2002). These students are described as being dependent on explicit teaching, needing scaffolded support and extra time to complete language based learning tasks in the classroom.
On a scale that describes Standard Australian English language skills at each level within a phase as emerging, solid, or comprehensive, the range in ability for target students in the research project was from Phase 1: Beginning Level One-Emerging (BL1-E) to Phase 2: Level 3-Emerging (L3-E). Most students improved by almost one step, e.g. Beginning Level 3 -Emerging, to Beginning Level 3-Comprehensive.
Multilevel Assessment Program (MAP)
At School A, five of the targeted students participated in Territory-wide literacy benchmarking. At Year 5 level, four of the five students achieved benchmark for both reading and writing. Eight students participated in MAP testing for reading and writing at Year 7 level. In School B, only two of the targeted students participated in MAP testing at Year 5 level. One of these students achieved benchmark for reading. Five students participated at Year 7 level. None of these students achieved benchmark for reading or spelling.
ACER: Progressive Achievement Test in Reading [1]
RANGE OF READING AGES
In Term 1 the median reading age for targeted 10-12 year old students was 7 years. In Term 4, the median reading age increased to 8 years, 8 1/2 months, but with consideration of the passage of time this reduced to almost 8 years.
The Wilcoxin Signed Ranks Test was used to compare two related samples of the numerical data for reading outcomes from the Progressive Achievement Tests in Reading - Revised (ACER, 2001). Students’ reading ages in Term 1 were compared with their reading age in Term 4, 2003. When the data were corrected for the passing of time between testing (nine months) a result was achieved at z = -1.67, p = 0.095 level of significance. This means that the participating students, overall, did not achieve statistically significant higher reading ages in Term 4 compared with Term 1. There was also no statistically significant difference between results for male and female students. However, many targeted students’ reading ages improved.
RANGE OF IMPROVEMENT IN READING AGES
The intervention occurred over 9 months from Term 1 to Term 4, 2003. The minimum reading age in Term 1 was 3 years 1 month, and the maximum was 10 years 4 months. In Term 4 the minimum reading age was 5 years 1 month and the maximum 12 years 9 months. The targeted students achieved a mean improvement of 20 months (1 year 8 months) and a median improvement of 15 months in their score for Term 4 compared with Term 1, 2003. Four students recorded reading ages of less than five years old in Term 1. Each of these students’ reading ages improved by at least two years.
As well as the Indigenous ESL students in the cohort, the results of five ESL students from diverse backgrounds were highlighted in the initial scan of the data. One ESL student demonstrated the maximum improvement in reading age of 5 years 9 months.
Waddington: Diagnostic Reading Test [2]
The targeted students’ chronological ages were 10-12 years. They achieved an average reading age of 7.7 years in Term 4, 2003. This was an improvement of almost 7 months in their score compared with Term 1, 2003. Since 7-8 months had elapsed between testing improvement matched the passing of time. Without the arts-focused intervention students may or may not have kept pace with the passage of time.
Waddington: Diagnostic Spelling Test [3]
The students targeted for data collection averaged an improvement of 6 months in their score for Term 4 compared with Term 1, 2003. The target students, whose chronological ages were 10-12 years, achieved an average spelling age of 7.8 years in Term 4, compared with 7.0 years in term 1, 2003. Since 7-8 months had elapsed between testing, improvement matched the passing of time. Without the arts-focused intervention students may or may not have kept pace with the passage of time.
Schonell: Spelling Age Test [4]
The minimum spelling age for the target students in Term 1 was 5 years, 6 months and the maximum was 13 years, 2 months. The maximum improvement achieved by Term 4 was 1 year, 7 months. The Wilcoxin Signed Ranks Test was used to compare two related samples of the numerical data for spelling outcomes. Students’ spelling ages in Term 1 were compared with their spelling age in Term 4, 2003. Results were achieved at z = -2.447, p = 0.014 level of significance. However, when the data were corrected for the passing of time between testing (nine months) results were achieved at z = -.874, p = 0.382. This means that there was no statistically significant difference between Term 1 and Term 4 results, although there were indeed positive differences.
Arts-infused learning
A school principal noted that in the state-wide testing, students had attempted to answer an increased number of test items in 2003, and that
“Previously they would not have even gone there; not had the confidence to take a risk and put pen to paper” (25/2/04).
Indigenous staff reported that this approach
“supports Indigenous students, away from text book learning. Benchmarks achieved by students. Can’t say it is only due to the music ...but part of it, and an important part” (28/4/04).
A teacher in School B describes the working classroom:
“in that hour the children don’t write very much … there’s no writing in that time … a big change for the children … [they think] we’re not doing anything if we’re not writing. There’s that focus on oral … the oral is very important … if our kids aren’t confident with the way they speak, the way they think, the writing is not going to happen” (3/3/04).
The photos below illustrate three arts-infused teaching-learning practices designed for students with low Standard Australian English and numeracy skills.
Creating words from the musical alphabet.
4.2.1
Creating sentences from words made up from the musical alphabet.
4.2.2
Sourcing materials for the Thongaphone: students reported that they had not previously applied a daily language task of putting a spelling list into alphabetical order to a real-life purpose. They learnt how to look up suppliers in the telephone book under the headings of hardware and plumbing supplies.
4.2.3
For students with more advanced skills in spoken and written Standard Australian English literacy outcomes using arts-based materials were at a different level. Below is a learning task that illustrates this:
Song title / Artist/s / Date / Main event/Key issueListen to the selected track and answer the following questions:
- Who is the intended audience?
- How can you tell?
- What event prompted it to be written?
- How does the song make you feel, think and act?
- What do you know about that helps you understand the song?
- What is the purpose of this song? (PLEASE TICK ONE OR MORE)
- Entertainment
- Tell us what to do
- Provide factual information
- Describe an event
- Provide an opinion
- Explain reasons
1
[1] ACER Press (2001). Progressive Achievement Tests in Reading (PAT-R) Revised.
[2] Waddington. Neil J. (2000). Diagnostic Reading and Spelling Tests 1 & 2 (Second Edition). Strathalbyn, S.A: Waddington Educational
[3]ibid
[4]Schonell, F.J. and Schonell, F.E. (1952) Diagnostic and Attainment Testing. second edition. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.