Illuminate Literacy Program

Contents

Page

  1. Introduction 3
  2. Title
  3. Enquiry Question
  4. Executive Summary
  1. Overview and Link to Data 3
  2. Why this research project?
  3. Baseline Data
  4. School Improvement Agenda
  1. Description of Target Strategy 6
  2. Research Underpinning Our Strategy
  3. Overview of Our Strategy
  1. Implementation 9
  2. Methodology
  3. Staff Capability
  4. Adjustments Made During Implementation
  1. Investment and Scalability 11
  2. Investment
  3. Scalability
  1. Outcomes and Supporting Evidence 12
  2. Student Outcomes Overview
  3. Performance Measures and Resources Used
  4. Qualitative and Quantitative Data
  1. Conclusions and Future Planning 17
  2. Key Outcomes
  3. Key Findings – Looking Back
  4. Looking Forward
  1. Bibliography 19
  1. Acknowledgements 20
  1. Appendices 21

10.1 Literature Review

10.2 Strategy Overview

10.3 Assessment Protocols

10.4 Interview Questions

10.5 Outcome Graphs/Tables

  1. Endorsement 33

  1. Introduction

1.1Title

The Aldridge Illuminate Literacy Program

1.2 Inquiry Question

Will the implementation of a reading intervention initiative based on ensuring decoding automaticity lead to increased engagement and improved literacy for identified students at Aldridge SHS?

1.3 Executive Summary

This report provides an analysis and evaluation of Aldridge State High School’s Illuminate Literacy Program. Methods of analyses include the application of Christensen’s Decoding Assessment, the New Salford Sentence Reading Test and subject based assessment, as well as norm referenced assessment such as the PAT-R and NAPLAN. Supplementary data can be found in the appendices. The results of data analysed show that the Illuminate program has delivered significant improvement in students in the lower two bands in reading and spelling and in their school English assessments.
The report finds the prospects for the program very good given the support of administration in the light of continued positive outcomes for students and the fact that our partner Primary schools have chosen to adopt the program as part of their year 3-6 literacy intervention.The major areas of weakness that require further investigation and remedial action by the newly appointed SAC Literacy include the following recommendations:

  • That the program continues, largely in its current form, (especially in terms of timetabling, staffing and format).
  • That the remaining strategies continue to be embedded into upper junior English classes.
  • That a writing program be included in the program.
  • That staffing for lower level classes be consistent throughout the year.

The report also investigates the fact that the analysis conducted has limitations. Some of the limitations include:

  • Staffing changes causing disruption to student routines.
  • Considerable absenteeism on the part of a number of students.
  • The failure of a number of students to participate in NAPLAN and/or PAT-R testing or to seriously attempt same.

NOTE:

Due to the complexity of the program and the demands on teachers during the implementation period, this report will focus on outcomes for students identified as decoding/transition only.

2Overview and Link To Data

2.1 Why this Research Project?

  • Aldridge State High School is located in Maryborough, a community struggling with significant disadvantage. As of April 2015, our region was experiencing an unemployment rate of 15.3 percent. Only 5% of our population have a Bachelor qualification and mental health and disability statistics are at twice the state average. Our local high schools have the highest percentage of students in care in the state. High levels of transience are, increasingly, a feature of our community.
  • The Academic performance of our feeder schools, therefore, is below both state and national benchmarks. This has resulted in approximately 40% of recent cohorts entering high school with significant literacy issues, destined to continue the pattern of failure begun in Primary school.
  • According to Anita Archer (etal) 2003, what separates many of these students from their peers is their inability to read multisyllabic words and to read fluently. These students need instruction in decoding and reading practice. She also points out that significant gains in reading are more likely to occur when the program that is implemented is research validated and has a well-designed sequence, providing systematic instruction to students.
  • However, secondary teachers, trained to teach literature rather than literacy, feel ill-equipped to support students at this level.

2.1Baseline Data

Qualitative

Through a series of informal meetings and baseline interviews, the following information was gleaned:

  • TeachersatAldridge SHS were increasingly concerned that new cohorts of students were unable to access the curriculum due to difficulties engaging with text.As a result, many students had become disengaged from learning and were disruptive in the classroom.
  • A number of parents had expressed specific concerns around their student’s ability to read homework questions and engage with set reading tasks (eg: short stories, novels, non-fiction text).
  • Some hypothesized that these concerns were caused by our assuming too much about the literacy levels amongst our incoming students, and that these literacy issues were impacting across the curriculum. For example, students were struggling to achieve in Maths due to an inability to decode word based questions. Further, they hypothesized that this was why our relative gains had declined in recent years.
  • At Aldridge SHS, English faculty staff are drawn from a number of generalist faculties and not all have been trained in teaching English. Those, and indeed many who were trained in Secondary English, were not trained in how to teach a child to read. As a rule, most were trained to teach Literature rather than Literacy. Even upper primary school teachers who had transitioned to high schools with the Year 7s felt inadequately trained to teach a child to read. Teacher aides were, likewise, concerned about taking on such a highly specialised task.

Quantitative

  • While available NAPLAN data suggested that students were working at or just below level (many did not complete NAPLAN testing in Year 6), school based data demonstrated that many students of concern had failed English consistently in Primary School.(Nb: 2015 saw both Year 6 and 7 students’ transition to high school).

Identified Students Primary School Results 2014 / C / D / E / N
Year 6
Semester 1 / 25% / 72.2% / 2.8% / 0.0%
Year 6
Semester 2 / 33.3% / 61.1% / 2.8% / 2.8%
Year 7
Semester 1 / 17.6% / 76.5% / 0.0% / 5.9%
Year 7
Semester 2 / 17.6% / 70.6% / 5.9% / 5.9%

Nb: These figures were reviewed with the local ARD Primary and our reading program was adopted by many local primary schools as an intervention from Year 3 to Year 6. Perhaps consequently, in 2016 Primary school-based outcomes varied from the previous year.

Identified Students Primary School Results 2015 / B/C / D / E / N
Year 6
Semester 1 / 44% / 39% / 5% / 12%
Year 6
Semester 2 / 37% / 46% / 5% / 12%
  • There was a strong correlation between low student school based outcomes, poor decoding skills and the PAT-R data.
  • Testing on entry to Aldridge SHS in the areas of Reading Comprehension, Spelling and Grammar and punctuation demonstrated significant literacy issues. As had been practice for the school for a number of years, students sat the PAT-R for year 7 in Term 1 as a pre-test. Although the test is normed for September, a valid reading age was assessed. (Nb: From the beginning of 2016 this process has been modified to use the previous year’s Year 6 PAT-R testing data from partner Primary schools through new, mutually agreed, data sharing timelines and protocols. From the beginning of 2016, reading age has also been verified using the New Salford Sentence Reading Test).
  • Based on PAT outcomes, students whose reading comprehension results indicated that they were reading at a Year 3-4 level or below were tested for phonemic awareness and decoding automaticity.
  • In 2015, many students were found to have significant gaps in their decoding knowledge and automaticity (46.34% of the Year 7 cohort and 44.29% of the Year 8 cohort). Some had difficulty recognising rhyme.

Decoding Testing Results (Using Christensen’s Reading Links Assessment)

  • In 2015:

  • In 2016:

Legend:

Decoding Students

Phase 1 – Gaps in initial letter sounds, consonant-vowel-consonant words, initial consonant blends, initial blends and final consonant digraphs.

Phase 2 – Gaps in final consonant diagraphs, final consonant blends, long vowels and the silent ‘e’

Transition Students (Students continue to build decoding automaticity while beginning comprehension skills)

Phase 3 – Gaps in long vowel digraphs, consonant-vowel and vowel diagraphs.

Phase 4 – Gaps inVowel and Consonant-Vowel Digraphs.

Comprehension Students

COMP – Students have automatized their decoding and are now focusing on building their comprehension skills using strategies such as reciprocal teaching, three level guides and mental modelling.

2.2School Improvement Agenda

In 2014, the School Improvement Plan included a generalised literacy plan including the following:

  • Year 8 English students pre & post tested on PAT-R
  • Specific one lesson per week literacy program for Year 8 and Year 9
  • Specific & directed teaching of Reading & Writing skills Year 8 and 9 (Spelling/reading strategies targeted in 2014 Literacy Program)
  • Class groupings in core areas according to student ability Years 8 - 10
  • Develop explicit curriculum in Year 8 and 9 English
  • Utilise GreatResults funding to continue employment of specifically trained Literacy teacher–aides.

However, data from the partner schools and on-entry assessment of the 2015 cohort (see above) necessitated the adoption of a specific sharp, narrow and deep improvement agenda focussed on the development of reading skills.

Therefore, the 2015 School Improvement Plan called for the implementation of literacy specialist programs (specifically reading) to be embedded in the curriculum via prioritised & dedicated learning time.

3Description of Target Strategy

3.1 Research Underpinning Our Strategy

  • Our project is based on the work of Dr Carol Christensen; specifically her “Reading Links Program” and the following article:
  • Christiansen C. and Wauchope E. (2009) “Whole School Literacy – Using Research to Create Programs that Build Universal High Levels of Literate Competence” in Berninger (et al) Eds, “Implementing Evidence-Based Academic Interventions in School Settings”, Oxford University Press, USA.
  • Other research indicated the importance of:
  • FREQUENCY OF CONTACTS - Students who need literacy help will experience success if they are EXPLICITLY taught at their own level at least once per day, preferably in the morning. Scammacca et al (2007), Lingard (2005), Solity et al (2000), Rose (2009).
  • LENGTH OF CONTACT – Students will engage most successfully with explicit literacy support if that support is for no more that 20-25mins per contact. Rose (2009), Vaughn et al (2000), Brooks (2007).
  • AUTOMATICITY – Students need to have full automaticity in decoding before they can move successfully onto comprehension activities. Christensen (2005), Hook et al (2002).
  • CLASS SIZE – Students who need the most support need smaller classes to manage social concerns and behavior as well as to optimize participation. Anderson (2013), Bruhwiler et al (2011), Zyngier (2014) and Christensen (2005).
  • We also considered:
  • Current English Junior Work Program – Aldridge SHS and Partner School Literacy Program and Intervention overviews.
  • A Whole School Approach to Teaching Reading – DET 2014
  • School Improvement Unit Interim Report – Semester 1, 2015 – DET 2015
  • See literature review(appendix 1)and bibliography for more detail.

3.2 Overview of the Strategy

The goal of this project was to meet the needs of incoming cohorts of Year 7 and 8 students who were struggling with reading comprehension across the curriculum, and who were testing at a much lower level of literacy competence than our secondary staff were trained to support.

At the end of 2014 and the beginning of 2015, student data was collected on this cohort and analysed against both the North Coast Regional Benchmarks and previous Year 8 cohorts. The data demonstrated agradual decline in NAPLAN literacy outcomes, particularly in reading. More data was then sourced from our Primary partner schools and the PAT-R test. This data was analysed and students experiencing difficulty with reading were identified.

Initially we assessed identified students using the Christensen Decoding Test to understand just how many students required decoding intervention. We then presented this information to the school leadership team, the teaching staff and the regional Primary ARD and Literacy PEAACs. The Master Teacher was then tasked to look at alternative interventions which were subsequently presented to the Leadership Team. Carol Christensen’s Reading Links Program was chosen as it met the criteria required in that it:

  • Caters for decoders as well as students who need to develop their comprehension skills
  • Has some documented success in secondary schools
  • Was able to be modified
  • Had no set reading texts, allowing teachers to substitute text that was contextual to ACARA units
  • Had secondary-friendly implementation potential.

The School Leadership Team confirmed their decision to have the decoding intervention occur in English classes to ensure that the process was being led by English teachers. They also manipulated the timetable to place what had been the extra Literacy lesson on the day when English classes were not running, so that students could participate in the decoding component of the course for 15-20mins per school day.

Teachers and Teacher aides participated in two professional development days with Dr Carol Christensen and were given a term to watch it being modelled by others, practice delivery with each other and in their classrooms and share ideas with other teachers and teacher aides. A Literacy Leadership team was developed.

Students were ability grouped into classes with those who were decoding placed in classes of no more than ten students. Students who were transitioning were placed in classes of around 15-20. Trained teachers and teacher aides were allocated to classes to ensure a 1:5 ratio. The Master Teacher then created a data wall to help teachers, teacher aides and students make visual connections around individual students and their literacy progress.

Due to change fatigue and on-going concerns from the teaching staff about how they could successfully implement this program, the Literacy leadership team took the decision to introduce one aspect of the program at a time, embed it, then move on to the next. It was decided to begin with the most confronting aspect – the explicit decoding skills program. We then moved on to reading activities (including reciprocal teaching), oral language activities, mental modelling and initial comprehension exercises. All were resourced, modelled, practiced, embedded and subject to walk throughs.

At this point, one teacher of one of the decoding classes decided not to participate in the program, but to teach the class as she had originally intended. Her class became our control class for one term to see if there were any differences in outcome.

Strand / Day 1 / Day 2 / Day 3 / Day 4 / Day 5
Decoding / Decoding Skills;
Teacher Read Out Loud / Decoding Skills; Student Oral Reading from Readers / Decoding Skills; Oral Language / Decoding Skills;
Teacher Read out Loud / Decoding Skills; Student Oral Reading from Readers
Transition / Decoding Skills; Silent Reading / Reciprocal Reading; Teacher Read Out Loud / Decoding Skills; Oral Language / Engagement in Ideas; Student Oral Reading from Readers / Decoding Skills, Teacher Read Out Loud
Comprehension / Reciprocal Teaching; Silent Reading / Engagement in Ideas; Teacher Read Out Loud / Mental Models; Silent Reading / Oral Language; Teacher Read Out Loud / Writing
Strategy / Reciprocal Teaching / Cognitive Strategies / Critical Literacy / Engagement in New Ideas; Mental Models / Writing

Specific Strategies Implemented

(a)Oral LanguageStrategies (Effect size 0.82 – Hattie)

Oral language is the foundation stone for literacy. Children who lag behind their peers in language development are at-risk for later reading difficulties (Catts, Fey, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2002).

Furthermore, vocabulary knowledge is strongly related to reading proficiency and overall academic success (Beck, McKeown & Kucan, 2002). Therefore this program includes the development of phonological, morphemic, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic oral skills through structured exercises and practice. These may include a variety ofactivities, used at the teacher’s discretion, each lesson.

(b)Decoding (Effect size 0.6 – Hattie)

“Automaticity refers to the ability to perform complex skills with minimal attention and conscious effort. Automaticity is essential for higher‐order thinking, such as skilled reading and writing, because important sub‐skills must be performed accurately, quickly, and effortlessly. If reading sub‐skills are performed automatically, then higher‐order aspects of the task, such as comprehension or metacognitive functions, can be performed effectively at the same time” (Samuels & Flor, 1997). Consequently, the program includes the development of decoding skills to automaticity through explicit instruction and practice, preferably at the beginning of each lesson for 15-20 minutes. The process used is the six-step process outlined in Dr Carol Christensen’s commercially available Reading Links Program.

(c)Reciprocal Teaching (Effect size 0.74 – Hattie)

In his book “Visible Learning”, John Hattie recognised the strong correlation between knowledge retention and reciprocal teaching. Hattie ranked reciprocal teaching as number three in the top 49 most effective teaching strategies. This strategy describes the explicit teaching and practice of a methodology for decoding inconsiderate text by predicting, clarifying summarising and asking questions. His research also demonstrates that it is important that students work together in small groups through the various steps to achieve the best outcomes. This strategy is offered at the teacher’s discretion, at least once per week.

(d)Engagement in Ideas (Similar Strategy Effect size 0.6 – Hattie)

This entails the explicit teaching and practice of reading comprehension activities, offered at the teacher’s discretion, at least once per week. Activities may vary from answering literal questions, completing three level guides, making inferences and identifying relevant information to Socratic questioning, evaluating and drawing conclusions.Our Primary partner schools were largely committed to the work of Sheena Cameron in Reading Comprehension, so we sought to include her model and language where possible.