Raising Literacy Standards:

An Evaluation of the

Linguistic Phonics Approach

Conducted by Stranmillis University College on behalf of

The Belfast Education & Library Board

Raising Literacy Standards:

An Evaluation of the

Linguistic Phonics Approach

Full Report January 2006

A study commissioned by The Belfast Education & Library Board and

funded by The Belfast Regeneration Office

Stranmillis University College:

A College of Queen’s University Belfast

Dr Colette Gray

Miss Sarah Behan

Dr Carol Dunbar

Mrs Jill Dunn

Dr Jim Ferguson

Dr Denise Mitchell

First published for the Belfast Education and Library Board in 2006 by The Stranmillis Press (an imprint of Stranmillis University College, Belfast BT9 5DY) www.stran.ac.uk © The authors: Dr Colette Gray, Miss Sarah Behan, Dr Carol Dunbar, Mrs Jill Dunn, Dr Jim Ferguson & Dr Denise Mitchell The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily of the commissioning or funding bodies. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means, with the prior permission of the publisher, or, in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publisher. ISBN 0 903009 66 8 Printed by Stranmillis University College: A College of Queen’s University Belfast and the reprographics department at the Belfast Education and Library Board

Acknowledgements The authors of this report would like to express their gratitude to the teachers and pupils

who were kind enough to give of their time to conduct and complete the many

standardised tests and to those principals, teachers, learning support assistants and steering

group members who agreed to be interviewed.

We would also like to express our sincere thanks to those members of staff at the Belfast

Education and Library Board who provided the information we required. Thanks are also

given to Joanne Wilson who assisted in the data collection and analysis during the winter

term.

The support and encouragement of Professor Richard McMinn and Dr Les Caul, both at

Stranmillis University College, is gratefully acknowledged.

Executive Summary This report presents findings from a study commissioned by the Belfast Education and

Library Board and funded by the Belfast Regeneration Office. It was undertaken by a

team of senior lecturers and researchers at Stranmillis University College: A College of

Queen’s University Belfast.

The study sought to evaluate the impact of the Linguistic Phonics approach on primary

pupils’ reading and writing performance and on post-primary pupils’ reading, writing and

spelling performance. Quantitative (standardised psychometric tests, a writing frame and

questionnaire surveys) and qualitative (one to one, small group interviews and focus group

discussions) research tools were utilized in this study. Employing a quasi-experimental

design, each of the six primary and 5 post-primary schools involved in the Linguistic

Phonics pilot (LPA) was matched, using a range of socio-demographic indicators, with a

school not using this approach (nLPA). In total 916 pupils from 22 schools participated in

the study. Since quotients mask the full extent of the differences within and between low

ability pupils another measure was sought. To highlight progress over time, the analysis

was therefore based on the mean difference between each pupil’s reading age (RA) and

their chronological age (CA) calculated at each test interval; this involved inferential

(involving t-tests) and descriptive statistics.

Whilst a detailed account of the methods employed in the study is given in the body of the

report, results from the quantitative (pupils’ reading scores, results from the writing frame

and findings from the parental survey) and qualitative (interviews with school principals,

teachers, learning support assistants and trainers) dimensions of the study are summarised

here under the following headings. The impact of the Linguistic Phonics approach on:

– Year 2 & 3 pupils’ reading and writing performance;

– Year 8 pupils’ reading, spelling and writing performance;

– Parents’ perceptions;

– The impact of the learning support assistants on pupil performance;

– Training and support for teachers using the approach;

– The cost and sustainability of the approach.

i

Main Findings Year 2 & 3 pupils’ reading and writing performance

A three-stage, test/retest approach was employed to examine within and between group

differences in pupils’ reading and spelling performance.

Reading

– Baseline results from Word Recognition and Phonics Skills (WRaPS) tests collated

prior to the introduction of the Linguistic Phonics approach indicate that Yr 3 pupils

in nLPA significantly outperformed their LPA counterparts (t = 3.853, p < 0.001).

No significant difference was found in the performance of Yr 2 pupils at LPA and

nLPA schools (p > 0.05).

– To examine the progress made by pupils in LPA and nLPA schools, their reading

scores were collated approximately six months after the first set of results and after

the implementation of the Linguistic Phonics approach. As might be expected, the

findings indicate that, between tests 1 and 2, all Yr 2 and 3 pupils showed some

improvement. Whilst Yr 2 pupils at LPA schools (t = -9.384, p < 0.001) had

significantly improved on their earlier performance, the results for Yr 2 pupils in

nLPA schools were not significant (p > 0.05). Over the same period, both LPA and

nLPA Yr 3 pupils made highly significant gains (t = -10.938, p < 0.001; t = -3.541, p

< 0.001 for LPA and nLPA schools respectively).

– Worthy of note is the finding that the advantages demonstrated at test 1 by Yr 2 and

3 pupils at nLPA schools were not sustained. Results indicate that greater progress

was made by pupils in LPA schools with Yr 2 pupils at nLPA schools outperforming

their LPA peers at test 1, while the reverse was true at test 2. Similarly the large

gap, favouring the nLPA cohort, in the reading scores of the Yr 3 groups was

considerably reduced by test 2.

– Moreover, the findings reported here are robust. To determine the impact variables

other than the Linguistic Phonics approach might have on pupil performance, the

data were subject to extensive statistical interrogation. Reanalysis of the data

indicates that the inclusion or exclusion of: pupils with a statement of special needs,

the type of curriculum favoured by the school (a play based enriched curriculum or

traditional curriculum) or other reading approaches used by schools have no effect

ii

on the results. Equally reanalysis using reading quotient as a measure of ability had

no effect on the overall findings.

To examine the sustainability of the performance gains made by pupils across the school

year, they were retested after the summer holidays in September.

– As might be expected, the results indicate some regression on the part of pupils in

LPA and nLPA schools over the summer holidays. This is particularly evident in the

results obtained for nLPA Yr 2 pupils, whose performance on test 3 was lower than

on test 1. Despite starting with the lowest scores, pupils in LPA schools maintained

some of the gains made by test 2. Subject to inferential analysis the results reveal

the decline was significant for Yr 2 LPA pupils only (t = 6.358; p < 0.001).

Within group differences

Due to the heterogeneous nature of the primary schools sample, in the final stage of the

analysis each pupil’s reading performance was aggregated into an ability band. Using

reading quotients as standardised scores, pupils were ranked into ability bands based on

national averages. For consistency, quotients were converted into the mean difference

between reading age and chronological age: the score used throughout analysis.

– Findings reveal a marked difference in the scores of high ability Yr 2 nLPA and

LPA pupils, with LPA pupils outperforming their nLPA counterparts at tests 2 and 3.

For reasons which remain unclear, nLPA high ability students show a marked

decline in performance between tests 1 and 2 and between tests 2 and 3.

Examination of the data reveals this was not caused merely by the underperformance

of one or two pupils, but reflects the performance of that year group.

– In contrast to the results of Yr 2 pupils, low ability Yr 3 pupils showed the greatest

variation. Between tests 1 and 2 LPA low ability pupils improved, and, although

there was a slight decline between tests 2 and 3, the majority of gains were

sustained.

– Similarly pupils at nLPA schools showed improved performance between tests 1 and

2, but a marked decline was noted in their performance between tests 2 and 3 to the

extent that their results were below their test 1 scores. (For more information see the

full report).

iii

Writing

To assess pupils’ writing skills over time, samples of writing were collected from nLPA

and LPA schools at the beginning, during and at the end of the school year. Adopting a

case study approach, a sampling frame was created comprising 54 primary and 56 post-

primary school pupils, and a stratum for low, middle and high ability pupils was also

included. In the event, 42 post-primary and 54 primary writing samples were subject to

analysis involving the use of pupil profiles.

Criteria for analysing writing were developed using pilot samples of pupils’ work, results

of which were subject to inter-rater reliability among the research team. Once criteria

were agreed, analysis was conducted throughout the year.

− Between September, January and May, the majority of high an

ability pupils in both the LPA and nLPA schools made progres

greatest improvement was found in the increased word count of

ability group. They also used a greater range of complex words

than their nLPA counterparts.

− Similarly, between test 1 and 3, LPA pupils in lower ability readin

the greatest improvement in writing. For example, they were m

capital letters and full stops and showed greater story developme

nLPA schools.

Year 8 pupils’ reading, spelling and writing performance

Reading & spelling – In contrast to the results presented above, baseline results coll

introduction of the Linguistic Phonics approach using the Suffolk R

Vernon Graded Word Spelling showed no significant difference

pupils in LPA and nLPA (p > 0.05). Worthy of note is the find

Table 4.11 of the main report) that some pupils scored more than si

reading and five years below the spelling average expected of th

and 81 months behind their chronological age in reading; 72 and 6

their chronological age in spelling, for LPA and nLPA schools resp

iv

d middle reading

s. However, the

the LPA middle

more frequently

g groups showed

ore likely to use

nt than pupils in

ated prior to the

eading Scale and

in the scores of

ing (presented in

x years below the

eir age group (61

3 months behind

ectively).

– Test 2 results were collated approximately nine months after the first set of results

and after the implementation of the Linguistic Phonics approach. Findings show no

significant improvement in the reading scores of either group (p > 0.05). Although a

slight decline is evident in the reading performance of pupils at nLPA schools, there

was a very slight improvement in the performance of pupils at LPA schools.

Conversely, the spelling performance of nLPA pupils improved between tests 1 and

2, while LPA performance remained relatively stable (in all cases p > 0.05).

– While it might be supposed that the Linguistic Phonics approach has had little effect

on the reading performance of pupils in post-primary schools, given the severe levels

of underachievement calculated for these pupils, it may be unrealistic to expect

improvements in such a short time.

– Also worthy of mention is the difference in the way the approach is implemented in

primary and post-primary schools. In contrast to primary schools, where it can be

infused across the curriculum, in post-primary schools the approach is used only in

English classes. Reinforcement across subject areas may be warranted to improve

pupils’ reading ability through the Linguistic Phonics approach.

– To determine the effect the inclusion of pupils with a statement of special needs had

on the results, the data was recalculated with this group excluded. Whereas similar

numbers of pupils in LPA and nLPA schools have a SEN (n = 15 for both), a higher

number of pupils in LPA schools (n = 15) receive additional reading support than

pupils in nLPA schools (n = 8). A reanalysis of the results including those pupils

receiving additional reading support and/or with a SEN reveals a highly significant

improvement in the reading performance of pupils attending nLPA schools (t =

3.989, p <0.001), but no difference in spelling performance (p > 0.05).

– Consistent with the approach used in primary schools, the performance of post-

primary pupils was re-examined in September 2005. Findings revealed a slight

decline in the reading performance of LPA pupils but an increase in the performance

of nLPA pupils. Conversely, results for spelling over the same test period show an

increase in performance for pupils attending LPA schools; nLPA pupils' spelling

scores also increased. Inferential analysis revealed a significant improvement in

v

spelling for nLPA pupils between tests 2 and 3 (t = 3.994, p < 0.01). In all other

cases (p > 0.05).

Writing - The methods used for the collection of writing samples from primary pupils were

replicated here. Evaluated in relation to advances in spelling, in quantity, in

vocabulary use, in use of connectives (co-ordinating or subordinating conjunctions

and relative pronouns), and in stylistic methods, the results show that pupils at LPA

schools developed the greatest control over the writing process and developed

greater confidence in spelling. This was particularly noteworthy in the samples

obtained from higher ability reading groups.

- More than half of the pupils using LPA showed some discernible advance in the

quality and quantity of writing produced. Similarly, more than one-third of the

pupils attending nLPA schools showed some discernible advance in the quality and

quantity of writing produced. A number of these pupils in the higher reading ability

group were already competent writers at the outset, and clear progression was less

easy to detect.

- Most pupils in both groups have difficulty in spelling words of 3 or more syllables,

and few pupils showed confidence in constructing fluent complex sentences using a

variety of connectors.

Parents’ Perceptions To further inform the evaluation, parents’ views on Linguistic Phonics approach (LPA)

were sought using a questionnaire survey designed and distributed to several of the

schools participating in the evaluation. Although the response rate was low, 28% and

15% for primary and post-primary schools respectively, several key findings are

considered important to this evaluation. For example,

– Irrespective of the approach used, the majority of parents are satisfied with the way

their child is taught to read and write. Parents understand the approach used by the

school and are satisfied with the information they receive from the school. No

vi

significant difference was found in the views of LPA and nLPA parents (in all cases

p > 0.05).

– Parents of LPA and nLPA Yr 2 pupils are significantly more likely to believe the

approach used benefits their child’s writing (p < 0.01) than Yr 3 parents. There was

no significant difference in the views of LPA and nLPA parents (p > 0.05).

– Parents of primary school children at LPA were, however, significantly more likely

to report that their child enjoys reading (p < 0.01) and reads books other than school

books than parents of nLPA children (p< 0.001).

Impact of Learning Support Assistants Integral to the Linguistic Phonics approach (LPA) was the deployment of learning support

assistants (LSAs) to schools using the approach. Recruited by the school, LSAs were

employed for ten hours per week, their time allocated to work on a one-to-one basis with

pupils in the primary sector. Similarly employed in the post-primary sector, here the

working practice of individual LSAs was based on the needs of the school. To explore the

impact LSA support has on children’s reading, a subset (n = 74) of pupils in Yr 2 at LPA

schools was matched with a control group. The LSA group was withdrawn from class by

the LSA for 15 minutes every day for eight weeks. Results from the statistical data are

supported and extended by findings from interviews with classroom teachers and school

principals.

− Between tests 1 and 2, groups who did and did not receive learning support showed

significant improvements. However, there was no significant difference between

groups (p > 0.5). Compared to their nLPA counterparts, the results suggest that the

LPA does positively affect reading performance but provides no quantitative

evidence to suggest that LSA support does. Since the quantitative findings reported

here are based on a sub-sample of Yr 2 pupils some caution maybe warranted in the

interpretation of the data.

− In contrast to the statistical data, the majority of primary teachers believe that LSA

support is 'very effective.’ A number reported positive changes in pupils’

confidence after one-to-one sessions.

vii

− Teachers in the post-primary sector made similar comments describing their LSA as

‘very effective’. They also believe that one-to-one support improves pupil

performance and raises pupils’ self-confidence.

− These findings suggest that LSA support has a qualitative (improvements in self-

esteem, pupil confidence) rather than a quantitative effect on pupil performance.

Training & support for teachers − Principals felt that the implementation of the approach was a success and praised the

training and support provided to teachers.

− Describing their training as ‘excellent, very good and good,’ most teachers

appreciated the detailed and, often, hands on approach taken by the training team.

However many would prefer more time for practice, especially in the sounding out

of phonemes.

− Sample lessons given by BELB facilitators in schools were considered especially

helpful. Similarly, learning support assistance and teaching materials were rated

favourably.

− There was some confusion over follow-up training. Whereas some teachers believe

that organised cluster group meetings were training sessions, others said they were

discussion forums used to exchange ideas.

Cost & sustainability – Findings from the cost benefit analysis suggest that the Linguistic Phonics approach

is cost effective. Whilst the Belfast Regeneration Board met the initial costs of the

pilot, the unit cost per pupil is calculated at £98.02 and £342.80 per pupil in primary

and post-primary schools respectively.

– Since the greatest costs were incurred at the implementation stage of the pilot,

ongoing costs should prove minimal. Teachers and LSAs are trained in the use of

the LPA and have the resource materials to implement the approach. If funding for

viii

LSA support is withdrawn, a number of schools said that they will meet this cost

from the school budget.

– When asked about the advantages or disadvantages of the LPA, teachers felt that the

structured nature of the approach was an advantage. Others felt that the range of

activities contained within the LPA made lessons interesting and enjoyable for their

pupils. A few teachers felt that they did not have enough time to deliver the LPA in

its entirety and others, having been very positive about the LPA, volunteered a note

of caution regarding pupils’ future progress in spelling. When asked if there were

any disadvantages to the LPA, all of the principals said there were very few or none

at all.

In summary: - The results indicate that the Linguistics Phonics approach has been

particularly successful in raising reading standards among primary school pupils. Parents

of LPA primary pupils indicated that their children were significantly more likely to enjoy

reading and to read books other than their schoolbooks than nLPA parents. Having started

with low baseline scores, over a six-month period these pupils went on to outperform their

peers in schools using other approaches. Despite a break of two months over the summer

holidays, they retained some of this advantage. Similarly, between test 1 and 3, LPA

primary pupils in lower ability reading groups showed the greatest improvement in

writing. For example, they were more likely to use capital letters and full stops and

showed greater story development than pupils in nLPA schools. Although it failed to raise

the reading and spelling scores of pupils in post-primary schools, teachers believe it has

been effective in raising pupils’ confidence and self-esteem. It also appears to have had a

positive impact on pupils’ written work. The results show that pupils at LPA schools

developed the greatest control over the writing process and developed greater confidence

in spelling. This was particularly noteworthy in the samples obtained from higher ability

reading groups.

Whilst there was no significant difference in the performance of pupils taught using the

LPA who did and did not receive learning support assistance, some caution is warranted in

the interpretation of data based on small samples. In contrast to the statistical data, there

was a real sense in schools that individual learning support serves to improve pupils’ self-

confidence and self-esteem. These affective components may act as a springboard and

encourage previously failing pupils to engage in the reading process. The overall cost of

ix

the Linguistic Phonics approach is low, particularly in the primary school sector where it

appears to have had the greatest impact. To date the costs of the approach have been met

by funding from the Belfast Regeneration Office. Describing the running costs as

‘minimal’, if funding is removed, a number of principals said they would meet the cost of

employing a LSA from the school’s budget. This latter finding gives further testimony to

the perceived effectiveness of the approach.

Recommendations

• The results of this evaluation suggest that the Linguistic Phonics approach has

improved the reading performance of primary school pupils. It has also made a

significant qualitative difference to post-primary pupils, who now demonstrate greater

confidence in reading and writing. Therefore, the Belfast Education and Library

Board should continue to support schools already involved in the delivery of the

Linguistic Phonics approach.

• The Belfast Education and Library Board should promote the infusion of Linguistic

Phonics across the primary school curriculum. Using a whole school approach, skills

learnt in Key Stage 1 would be further developed in Key Stage 2.

• Since a considerable number of post-primary pupils are more than six years behind

their average reading age and more than five years behind their spelling age,

consideration should be given to infusing the Linguistic Phonics approach across

subject areas, rather than confining it to English. Worthy of mention is the fact that

the principal of one post-primary school intends to train a small number of teachers to

deliver the Key Stage 3 curriculum through the Linguistic Phonics approach to low

band pupils. This experience could prove useful to other schools.

• Schools using intervention strategies to improve pupils' reading should be made aware

that Linguistic Phonics, used in isolation or along side other approaches such as

Reading Recovery, has a positive affect on pupils’ reading ability. Moreover it is cost

effective.

x

• There is a need to ensure that other Education and Library Boards are aware of the

findings of this report. Dissemination of the results to other regions of Northern

Ireland will enable schools to choose the approach most suited to the needs of their

pupils.

• It is recommended that further research using a longitudinal approach is undertaken to

examine the longer term effects of the Linguistic Phonics approach. Since baseline

data exist from a group taught using the approach and a matched sample taught in

schools using other approaches, it should not prove expensive to retest these pupils

every year throughout their primary and into post-primary education.

• To ensure that all participants have a clear understanding of the purpose of training

sessions, follow-up and in-service training days must have clearly articulated aims and

objectives. Cluster group meetings may facilitate the sharing of information on an

informal basis and provide a valuable forum for debate.

xi

Contents Page

Acknowledgements Executive Summary Recommendations List of Tables List of Figures Chapter 1 Introduction……………………………………………………………...…................…....1 Chapter 2 Literature review………………………………………………...................................…....2 Chapter 3 Research design and methods…………………………………………..............................12 Chapter 4 An evaluation of pupil performance using standardised tests…………………………….17 Chapter 5 Primary Writing Analysis....................................................................................................37 Chapter 6 Post-primary Writing Analysis............................................................................................49 Chapter 7 Impact of Learning Support Assistants...............................................................................55

Chapter 8 Perceptions of the Linguistic Phonics Approach: The Primary Experience.......................60

Chapter 9 Perceptions of the Linguistic Phonics Approach: The Post-primary Experience ..............70

Chapter 10 Parents Opinions of Linguistic Phonics Approach..............................................................79 References…......………...........………………………......................…………………...87 Annex One Costs and Sustainability Appendices A – E

xii

List of Tables

Table No. Table Title Page No.

3.1 Primary pupil numbers, age range and mean age by class and school type

13

3.2 The total number of boys and girls in each class by school type. 13 3.3 The gender, age range and mean age of year 8 pupils by school type 13 3.4 Number of writing samples analysed in the primary and post-primary

sectors 14

4.1 The number and type of additional support given to year 2 & 3 pupils 19 4.2 The relationship between test 1 & 2 for boys & girls in LPA and nLPA

schools 22

4.3 Mean reading score (RA –CA) obtained for pupils at tests 1, 2 & 3 25 4.4 Standardised scores in relation to national norms 25 4.5 Reading ability bands ranked using national norms 26 4.6 The number and type of additional support given to year 8 pupils 31 7.1. The baseline results (in months) for primary pupils involved in the LSA

impact analysis 56

7.2. Reading scores (in months) from Test 2 for primary pupils involved in the LSA impact analysis

56

7.3. The relationship between test 1 & 2 reading scores for boys & girls involved in the LSA impact analysis

57

8.1 Perceived impact of the LPA on learning experiences of primary pupils. 65 9.1 Perceived impact of the LPA on learning experiences of post-primary

pupils. 75

10.1 The age range, mean and standard deviation of the respondent’s child. 80 10.2 Primary parents’ satisfaction with reading and writing. 82 10.3 Post-primary parents’ satisfaction with reading and writing. 82 10.4 Primary parents’ views on their child’s ability with reading and writing. 83 10.5 Post-primary parents’ views on their child’s ability with reading and

writing. 84

10.6 Primary responses 85 10.7 Post-primary responses 86

xiii

List of Figures

Figure No. Figure Title Page No.

4.1 Reading score distributions 18 4.2 Year 2 reading progress by LPA and nLPA schools 21 4.3 Year 3 reading progress by LPA and nLPA schools 21 4.4 Reading progress in LPA schools by additional reading support 23 4.5 Reading progress in nLPA schools by additional reading support 23 4.6 Reading scores for test 1, 2 & 3 24 4.7 Reading scores for test 1, 2 and 3 by school type and year 25 4.8 Year 2 reading progress (RA-CA) by LPA & nLPA schools at test 1, 2

& 3 26

4.9 Year 3 reading progress (RA-CA) by LPA & nLPA schools at test 1, 2 & 3

27

4.10 Reading and spelling score distributions for LPA and nLPA pupils 30 4.11 Year 8 reading progress by LPA and nLPA schools 32 4.12 Year 8 spelling progress by LPA and nLPA schools 33 4.13 Mean reading scores for test 1, 2 and 3 for LPA and nLPA schools 34 4.14 Mean spelling scores for test 1, 2 and 3 for LPA and nLPA schools 34 4.15 Mean reading and spelling scores for test 1, 2 and 3 for LPA and

nLPA schools 35

xiv

Chapter 1

Introduction This report presents findings from a study commissioned by the Belfast Education and

Library Board and undertaken by a team of researchers at Stranmillis University College:

A College of Queen’s University Belfast.

The overarching aim of the project was an evaluation of the impact of the

Linguistic Phonics approach on primary pupils’ reading and writing performance and

post-primary pupils’ reading, writing and spelling performance. Differences within and

between year groups were compared to identify changes in performance across time. To

identify the impact of the approach on pupil performance, each pupil was assessed three

times. First, test 1 involved the collation of baseline information for each pupil, and was

obtained, using standardised tests, prior to the introduction of the Linguistic Phonics

approach. In test 2 pupils’ performance was tested some nine months after the

implementation of the approach and compared with results from test 1. The final analysis

focused on the sustainability of the approach. After a two-month break from school over

the summer holidays, pupils’ reading performance was retested and the results compared

with those of test 1 and 2.

The school sample involved six primary schools, five post-primary schools and

one special school, recruited to the pilot programme of the Linguistic Phonics approach in

2004. It was agreed that the Linguistic Phonics approach would be implemented at Key

Stage 1 into second (Yr 2) and third year (Yr 3) primary classes and at Key Stage 3 into

year 8 (Yr 8) post-primary classes. Each of the 12 schools using the Linguistic Phonics

approach was matched with a school not implementing the Linguistic Phonics approach.

The criteria used to match schools included: the socio-economic status of the school,

calculated using free school meals as an indication, pedagogical approach to teaching

adopted (traditional or enriched curriculum), school type (single-sex or co-educational)

school size and school management (Controlled, Maintained and other).

Employing a multi-method approach, the research also involved writing sample

analysis, questionnaire surveys and structured one-to-one and small group interviews. To

ensure that the views of key stakeholders were addressed participants included: school

principals, teachers, learning support assistants and parents, together with Belfast

Education and Library Board (BELB) advisers.

1

Chapter 2

Literature Review It is not the purpose of this introductory review to return to the ‘great debate’ as it has

been known since the publication of Jeanne Chall’s Learning to Read: The Great Debate

in 1967. For Chall, the debate was about the most effective way of enabling children to

gain that complex set of skills which would let them become capable readers. At the time,

the alternative to early, systematic teaching of phonics was the look and say method in

which children were encouraged to learn words as wholes, and practise recognizing them

until they had acquired a reasonable sight vocabulary, which could then be supplemented

by some phonics instruction. Chall’s argument was that systematic phonics at the initial

stage of beginning to read was more effective than later, less systematic phonics. Chall’s

conclusion has been consistently reinforced by a whole series of research studies since that

time, (Ehri, 2001; Anderson et al, 1985; Balmuth, 1982; Dykstra, 1968), and most notably

by Marilyn Adams’s survey of the whole body of reading research, commissioned by the

U.S. Department of Education in the late 1980’s, summed up in her book, Beginning to

Read: Thinking and Learning about Print (Adams, 1990, p.416), as follows:

In summary, deep and thorough knowledge of letters, spelling patterns, and words, and of the phonological translations of all three, is of inescapable importance to both skilful reading and its acquisition… This is, of course, precisely what is intended of good phonic instruction.

In the years following Chall’s book, whole language approaches became the main

contender to early, systematic phonics. Phonics was taught in a less than systematic way

in that it was seen as a method to be used incidentally, with the main focus on a print-rich

environment in which children would learn to recognize whole words, as they became

immersed in good texts. The assumption was that learning to read is similar to learning to

listen and talk, and should develop in a similarly natural fashion. Decoding skills can be

‘acquired naturally through immersion in a print-rich environment’ (Stanovich &

Stanovich, 1995, p.92). This has been strongly challenged on the basis that our writing

system is an alphabetic construct, and there is nothing ‘natural’ in learning how it is

constructed (Donaldson, 1993). Learning to read requires understanding that ‘print is a

code or a cipher representing speech sounds’ (Macmillan, 1997, p.21). One result of the

unsystematic approach to phonics in whole language approaches was that phonics tended

to be used mostly for learning the more easy consonant letter-sound recognition, and

vowel letter-sound correspondences tended to be ignored (Stahl, Duffy-Hester & Stahl,

2

1998). To sum up, the debate came to be centred on whether it was better for children to

begin with systematic teaching of letter-sound correspondences, or memorize whole

words, or work out the meaning with letter-sound correspondences taught in context when

they seemed to be needed.

Ways of recognising words

Much of the debate about using phonics to teach reading has revolved around the variety

of ways that beginning readers have available to them in recognizing words. One way is

by decoding the letters on the page and turning them into sounds which can be blended

together to form recognizable words. Thus, the four graphemes, s, t, o, p are sounded out

and blended to form the word stop. A second way of recognizing words is by analogy,

often using the approach of identifying onset and rime. Thus, if we know the word sing,

we can use the rime or shared ending ing by blending it with different onsets such as r, br,

or str to recognize words such as ring, bring and string. A third way is by predicting the

word we would expect, using whatever phonic knowledge we have alongside the context

in which the word is found. Thus, we could use our recognition of some of the letters, our

knowledge of real life and maybe a picture in the book to work out that ‘she went into the

city by train’. A difficulty with this method, however, is that it is obviously not always

very reliable, especially if it is much more common for the child to go into the city by taxi,

and it may well encourage the child to not feel the need to process all the letters in the

word to identify it. A fourth possibility is to recognize familiar words by sight from

memory, which used to be seen as involving recognizing the visible shapes of words.

Sight recognition now tends to be seen as a culmination of a process in which

words are committed to memory through recognizing the letter-sound correspondences

and the spelling pattern, connecting these to phonemes and securing them in memory

together with the word’s meaning, so that the word can be very quickly retrieved (Ehri,

1998; Perfetti, 1992).

Phonemic Awareness

All of these methods involve some use of phonics, in which children recognize letters or

combinations of letters (known as graphemes) and turn them into the individual sound

which each grapheme represents (known as a phoneme). Phonemic awareness, then, is the

ability to manipulate individual phonemes in a word for reading by breaking a word down

in order to sound it out and then blending the phonemes to identify the word (d, o, g is

dog) or by segmenting them in order to spell (cat is c, a, t). It has often been found that

3

phonemic awareness and alphabet knowledge are the two best predictors of success in

learning to read (Ericson & Juliebo, 1998, Griffith et al, 1992, Share et al, 1984).

However, the ability to hear, distinguish and manipulate the individual sounds that make

up words is not an easy task, and as Adams (1990) writes, ‘the challenge is to find ways to

get children to notice the phonemes, to discover their existence and separability.’ The

purpose of developing the skills of blending phonemes to make words and segmenting

words into phonemes, the skills of decoding and encoding, is, of course, not only to enable

children to learn to read but also to enable them to learn to write, and any good phonics

programme will be concerned to develop both of these abilities.

Systematic Phonics

The debate about the best way to teach reading has moved on from the polarized positions

which characterized the 1970’s and 1980’s. In his review of standards of attainment in

literacy and interventions for strugglers, Trying to Count the Evidence (Brooks, 2002),

Greg Brooks writes of how, since 1948, ‘levels of attainment in reading among school

pupils appear to have remained in general very stable’, with no inroads made on the 20%

who, since the 1930’s, have entered adulthood with poor literacy skills. Either the impact

of different teaching methods was ‘small or difficult to detect’, or else teachers generally

used such a mixture of methods (Cato et al, 1992), that there was, in fact, little change in

the teaching children experienced. Looking at research on specific teaching methods,

Brooks finds some evidence of benefit, ‘massively so in the case of phonemic awareness

and phonics’ (p.142). It is not surprising, then, that Brooks, in his report to the DES,

Sound Sense: The Phonics Element of the National Literacy Strategy (Brooks, 2003), is

able to write confidently that ‘there should no longer be any dispute that phonics is part of

the main highway to success in literacy learning’, because research has shown that

‘children taught using systematic phonics (of various forms) made better progress in

reading and spelling than children taught using unsystematic or no phonics.’ The

principles which now underpin the National Literacy Strategy (NLS) include systematic

teaching of phonics with direct, explicit teaching as soon as possible to identify, segment

and blend phonemes, and the teaching of these as a separate set of skills within the broader

structure of the Literacy Hour. Phonics is systematic when all the important grapheme-

phoneme correspondences are taught and introduced in a clearly defined sequence (Ehri,

2001). Clearly, the more difficulties a child has with acquiring the skills needed to learn

to read, the greater is the need for explicit and direct instruction in phonics (Rack,

Snowling & Olsen, 1992). The test of the NLS and any other strategy, however, remains

4

its impact on the 20% who have always struggled to learn to read. Enabling these children

to escape from the long tail of underachievement is the crucial goal.

Once we accept the overwhelming evidence for good teaching of phonics in

enabling children to learn to read, the key question, and the main subject of recent debate,

is which method of teaching systematic phonics is most effective. In reality, of course,

children often experience a hybrid of a number of methods, sometimes from different

teachers and sometimes from the same teacher, who would claim to be using a pragmatic

or eclectic approach, but the results of this have left us with the situation, outlined by

Brooks, of little or no change in effectiveness for those who experience difficulties in

learning to read. Some of the main methods of teaching systematic phonics, which claim

most effectiveness, are briefly described below.

Analogy Phonics

Analogy or onset and rime phonics encourages children to use parts of words which they

already know to identify new words. Leading proponent of this method, (Goswami 1994;

Goswami & Bryant 1990), suggests that in the early stages, onset and rime is an approach

appropriate to children’s phonological awareness at this stage, while matching letters to

individual phonemes is a more mature level of performance to which we want to bring

children later. In the light of a body of evidence which claims to demonstrate children’s

difficulties with recognizing, not to mention manipulating individual phonemes (Goswami

& Bryant, 1990; Liberman et al, 1989; Bradley & Bryant, 1985), this approach sees

rhyming as a key predictor of reading success and focuses on rime as the ‘intrasyllabic

speech unit’ between the phoneme and the syllable (Kirtley, 1989). Analogy phonics is

closely linked with what has come to be known as analytic phonics.

Analytic Phonics

Much of the current debate concerns the relative merits of what have come to be known as

analytic and synthetic phonics. Analytic phonics (Dombey, 1998; Goswami & Bryant,

1990) encourages children to look at whole words and identify the particular phonic

element being taught. Thus, children might be asked to identify what the words pen, park

and push have in common, in the context, for instance, of focusing on one letter-sound per

week, starting with initial letter sounds before moving on to the same letter sounds in the

middle and at the end of words. Clusters (e.g. br, sp), digraphs (e.g. ee, ch) and silent e

(bone, blue) follow. Such an approach is analytic because it takes whole words and

5

analyses them. The focus is on a ‘look and say’ approach to words initially, which then

moves on to investigating phonic aspects and spelling patterns.

Synthetic Phonics

Synthetic phonics is generally taught before children are introduced to reading, and the

focus is on teaching children individual letter-sound correspondences which they can then

blend together to form a word. Generally, the initial group of letters is introduced very

quickly and children are encouraged to see the large number of three letter words that can

be created. Thus, the group s, a, t, p, i, n (as suggested in Hickey’s Multi-sensory

Language Course) is often used because of the great number of three letter words

available. The method is synthetic because it asks children to take the word they see (sat),

identify the three sounds individually (s, a, t), and then blend or synthesize them to make

and pronounce the word. The opposite process takes place in writing. Children take the

parts of the word they can say, (t, i, n) and write a grapheme for each phoneme to make

the word tin. In both cases, the sounds are identified and heard in isolation before being

reconstituted into a word. These skills are often developed using magnetic letters which

children can move around to blend and segment. Words are not pronounced for the

children before they work with them so that they are encouraged to hear the sounds for

themselves (Johnson & Watson, 2003). Synthetic phonics advocates often see both

analytic and analogy phonics as methods which encourage children to stop short of

acquiring all the skills needed to be skilful and successful decoders of text.

The Clackmannanshire Study

A long term research project in Clackmannanshire, Scotland, led by Rhona Johnson and

Ruth Watson, has recently outlined the effectiveness of synthetic phonics in the teaching

of reading and spelling, and found it to be more effective than analytic approaches. In the

Scottish study (Johnson & Watson, 1998; Johnson & Watson, 2003), children taught using

the synthetic approach were reading and spelling 11 months ahead of chronological age at

the end of Yr 2, fewer children were underachieving, and boys in particular showed

significantly increased performance, 8 months ahead of girls in word reading at the end of

Yr 3, whereas they were 5 months behind in the groups taught using the analytic method.

The widely reported results of this study have led to an increasing demand for a fully

synthetic approach to the teaching of phonics in the National Literacy Strategy. A further

claim from the Clackmannanshire study is that phonic teaching can and should take place

6

much more quickly than the laborious and slow progress through one sound per week

which they found to be common in many schools.

Phono-Graphix

The Phono-Graphix method was introduced by McGuinness & McGuinness in 1998,

following on from Diane McGuinness’s influential book, Why Children Can’t Read

(McGuinness, 1997). It is a synthetic approach which reduces drastically the number of

items which children need to learn in order to master the alphabetic code. If we add

together individual phonemes with the whole range of possible blends and rimes in

English, we arrive at something close to 1500 items which children are being asked to

remember. McGuinness & McGuinness reduce this mass of confusing detail to 79 items

(McGuinness & McGuinness, 1998). Thus, instead of adding yet another rime such as

ent, if children already know the sounds e, n, and t, they can easily work out the sounds

for themselves. The same applies to adjacent consonants. If children already know f and r,

they don’t need to learn yet another symbol in the form of fr.

Phono-Graphix focuses on two basic needs: the need for phonemic awareness

(separating and blending sounds in words) and the need for code knowledge (the symbols

or pictures that represent the sounds). It starts from what children already know – the

sounds of the language, and aims to develop auditory discrimination and phonemic skills.

Letters are presented as pictures of sounds and letter names are avoided. Children are

taught to recognize the picture or pictures that represent any particular sound. The basic

code enables them to segment and blend three letter words, and to recognize that

sometimes a picture of a single sound can have two letters (e.g. sh). In the advanced code,

they learn that one sound can have a number of possible pictures (ee in feet, ea in seat, ie

in piece, e in he etc.) and that one picture can represent a number of sounds (ea in head,

seat, heart, steak etc.). They also learn to break multisyllable words into ‘chunks’ or

syllables, and learn a series of special endings (e.g. ious) and the 55 or so sight words

which are not susceptible to decoding.

In their study of the effectiveness of Phono-Graphix, Juniper and Dias concluded

that ‘this research supports synthetic rather than analytic phonics for early years learning.

The evidence demonstrates the ease with which children can be taught to identify

phonemes and use them effectively.’ They also concluded that ‘greater success is

achieved by not attempting to combine onset and rime with phoneme acquisition, and so

confusing syllables with single sounds’ (Juniper & Dias, 2002; p.38).

7

The National Literacy Strategy Model

In response to an Ofsted report (Ofsted, 1998) which found that ‘word level work caused

teachers the greatest difficulty, largely because many of them did not have a sufficient

knowledge and understanding of what the phonic component should be’, the National

Literacy Strategy in England and Wales adopted what has been called their searchlights

model, and provided teachers with a programme for teaching phonics, Progression in

Phonics (DfEE, 1999). There has been much debate recently over the searchlight

approach, in which children are encouraged to use a number of tools or searchlights in

order to identify words (DfEE, 1998, p.4). The first and most prominent is phonics, but

children also need to be able to use their understanding of the syntactic and semantic

context, together with visual clues, in order to arrive at meaning. There has been much

discussion over whether the phonics advocated in the Strategy is analytic, synthetic, or a

mix which includes phonics in context, encouraging children to continue to use the visual,

semantic and syntactic context in which they find the word, as well as letter-sound

correspondences. In her paper to the DfES Phonics Seminar, (2003), Morag Stuart

challenges the NLS model on the grounds that it confounds two separate dimensions of

reading, printed word recognition and language comprehension. Fast, automatic decoding

and knowledge of printed words relate to the dimension of word recognition, while use of

syntactic and semantic context relates to comprehension of the text. Her point is that such

a confusion of two distinct processes leads to the assumption that phonic decoding and

knowledge of printed words are optional searchlights in the quest for meaning, whereas, in

fact, they are the essential processes without which text comprehension cannot begin.

Children need a two-stage process which will enable them successfully to decode the

letters on the page, and efficiently assemble these into words and sentences that carry

meaning. Making meaning is always the whole point of both reading and writing, and all

that children do in developing their phonic skills needs put alongside opportunities to

apply them in meaningful contexts.

The National Literacy Strategy Progression in Phonics programme makes the

point that the basic focus of phonic work is ‘the fact that everything that is said or written

in contemporary English is encoded in approximately 44 sounds (phonemes) represented

by 26 letters in about 140 combinations.’ The focus is on four main skills that children

need to learn:

- to identify sounds in spoken words (phonological awareness) - to recognize the common spellings for each phoneme - to blend phonemes into words for reading - to segment words into phonemes for writing.

8

The focus on systematic phonics in the National Literacy Strategy is clearly based on the

belief that children are not going to learn the code simply by picking it up for themselves.

They need specific instruction in phonic skills in order to internalise and apply these skills

in their shared and guided reading and writing work. Some common words, of course, are

not phonemically regular and a small number will always need to be taught as sight words,

but this should not take away from the need for the child to be an active problem-solver

when it comes to the large majority of words that can be worked out phonemically.

Progression in Phonics also stresses the need for phonics to be taught early, fast and in the

context of enjoyment of words and sounds.

Key Questions

As we can see from the survey above, there are some key questions that recur for those

considering any phonics programme:

- when should phonics teaching begin? - how many letter-sound correspondences should be taught? - in what order should they be taught? - how quickly should they be taught? - should phonics or spelling rules be taught? - should onset and rime be used? - should children read only limited vocabulary texts that they can successfully

decode? - should phonics be always in the context of making meaning? - should teaching be instructional or problem solving in approach?

Linguistic Phonics

The subject of this particular research study is a further type of systematic phonics

programme called Linguistic Phonics, which draws from a number of the programmes

already mentioned, as well as the guidance for the National Literacy Strategy, and goes on

to develop a systematic and applied programme which tries to keep the skills children

need as simple as possible. It claims to be different from traditional phonics programmes

in a number of ways. Rather than asking children to look at letters and tell what sound the

letter makes, it begins from what children already bring with them to school, the sounds of

their oral language, and moves to learning what the sounds look like when they are written

down. In the early stages it does not teach letter names and overall avoids what it sees as

confusing elements such as phonic rules (to which there are usually many exceptions),

long and short vowels and silent letters. The underlying rationale is to let children see the

relationship between the spoken language which they already have, (the native speech

sounds which are already embedded from around the age of one), and the written language

9

which they are meeting. In this, it adopts the advice of the NLS Progression in Phonics,

which claims that ‘the most effective phonics instruction teaches children to identify

phonemes in spoken language first, and then to understand how these are represented by

letters and letter combinations (graphemes)’ (DfEE, 1999; p.6). The aim is for teachers

explicitly, quickly and accurately to teach the skills and knowledge needed to decode, and

then to provide learning experiences in which these skills can be applied in meaningful

contexts, through problem-solving, investigative activities, all of it in the context of a

rounded literacy experience. As with synthetic phonics programmes, the key phonological

skills are segmenting individual sounds, and blending the sounds together to form words,

but the emphasis is on children learning these basic skills in the context of working with

whole words, and then being able to manipulate phonemes by adding, omitting or

substituting a phoneme in order to make a new word. As with any good phonics

programme, the key for the children and for the teachers is enjoyment. Enjoyment of

sounds and of words and their meanings is an indispensable part of building confidence

and achieving success, as shown by the review of reading methods by Brooks et al.

(1999), where a combination of working on phonological skills as well as on self-esteem

showed the best potential for a successful reading model. The programme has 4 key

principles, which underlie the English writing system:

- sounds are represented by letters - sounds can be represented by more than one letter - some sounds can be represented in a variety of ways (e.g. go, snow, boat, cone) - some spellings can represent more than one sound (cow, snow)

The programme describes its aims in terms of a pyramid model, with oral language,

attention and listening as the foundation for developing phonological awareness and code

knowledge; which gradually merge with language comprehension skills. Consequently,

children start with whatever degree of mastery of oral language in both listening and

speaking they bring with them to school. With this, initial focus is on developing

awareness of syllables (beats in words); rhyme, alliteration and oral segmenting, blending

and manipulating phonemes. Children then learn how individual phonemes are

represented in writing. Alongside this, in modelled, shared and guided reading, they

develop their vocabulary, their awareness of syntax and their ability to understand key

language comprehension skills such as sequencing, predicting, inferring and making

connections. Subsequently, decoding and comprehending skills are developed together,

rather than as a sequence, where decoding is followed some time later with

comprehending. All of this is seen as particularly appropriate to the Revised Foundation

Stage which is in the process of being introduced throughout Northern Ireland. The

10

enriched curriculum, as it is known in the early years and at Key Stage 1, aims to build

much more on children’s oral and social skills, and provide more time for developing

phonological awareness, in order to lay a better foundation for learning to read and write.

The emphasis is on flexibility which will enable children to develop their individual

readiness, so that reading and writing can be more effectively achieved without the loss of

confidence and motivation caused by forcing the issue too soon for some children.

Linguistic Phonics, with its emphasis on oral language as the starting point, and on

phonological awareness alongside modelled and shared reading, sees itself as particularly

suited to the new curriculum arrangements.

Children are provided with opportunities to build their knowledge of the code in

learning how the 44 main sounds in English are represented. This takes place in the

context of meaningful work with words and texts, so that sounds and how they are

represented are learnt in the context of reading and writing. Children are taken through 6

stages:

1. Yellow stage: One letter one sound, in which children learn that one sound is represented by one letter for reading and writing.

2. Orange stage: Building longer words, using the one letter one sound correspondence.

3. Blue stage: Multi-syllable words, in which children understand that words can be made up of blocks of sound, called syllables.

4. Green stage: Sounds can be represented by more than one letter. 5. Red stage: Categorizing sounds, so that as well as seeing that a sound can be

represented in more than one way, they understand that some letters can represent more than one sound.

6. Purple stage: Multi-syllable words and orthographic tendencies, dealing with longer words, the schwa vowel sound, and prefixes and suffixes.

The effectiveness of this particular approach to teaching children to read is the subject of

this report.

11

Chapter 3

Research design and methods

To evaluate the impact of the Linguistic Phonics approach a multi-method approach was

adopted using standardised test scores, writing sample analysis, questionnaire surveys and

structured one-to-one and small group interviews. To ensure that the views of key

stakeholders were addressed several sources were drawn upon, including: school

principals, teachers, learning support assistants (LSAs), and parents, together with Belfast

Education and Library Board (BELB) advisers. Both quantitative and qualitative data

from this multi-method approach were collected with a view to triangulating results.

3.1 Participants

In the Year 2004, 12 schools, six primary, five post-primary and one special school agreed

to participate in a pilot programme for the teaching of phonics called the Linguistic

Phonics approach (LPA). Since it would be impossible to generalise or draw conclusions

from one institution, data for the special school that participated in this study are not

included in this report. It was agreed that the LPA would be implemented into second

(Yr2) and third year (Yr3) primary classes and into year 8 (Yr8) post-primary classes.

Referred to as the LPA schools, each was matched with a school which was not involved

with the LPA; referred to as non Linguistic Phonics approach schools (nLPA). The

criteria used to match schools included: the socio-economic status of the school,

calculated using free school meals as an indication (see Gallagher, Shuttleworth & Gray,

1998 for an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of this approach), pedagogical

approach to teaching adopted (traditional or enriched curriculum), school type (single-sex

or co-educational) school size and school management (Controlled, Maintained and

other). Using listings provided by the BELB and information from recent school

inspections, an approach was made to over fifteen schools. In the event twelve schools, six

primary, five post-primary and one special school agreed to participate in the study.

Again, since it would be impossible to generalise or draw conclusions from one

institution, data for this special school that participated as an nLPA school are not

included in this report

Exploratory data analysis revealed that the majority of LPA schools (n = 5) and

most of the nLPA schools (n = 3) use the play based Enriched Curriculum approach at

Key Stage 1. Whilst most of these schools employ this approach with Yrs 1, 2 and 3

12

pupils, one of the LPA schools and two of the nLPA return to traditional teaching

approaches in Yr 3. A profile of the pupils involved in the study is detailed below.

Table 3.1 Primary pupil numbers, age range and mean age by class and school type School Yr 2

pupil nos. Age

range Mean Age

Yr 3 pupil nos.

Age range

Mean Age Total

LPA 222 5.2 – 6.6 5.7 244 6.1 – 7.3 6.7 466 nLPA 144 5.1 – 6.8 5.7 135 6.1 – 7.3 6.7 279

Table 3.1 shows that the LPA group included the largest number of pupils, however, the

age profile indicates a close match between pupils in LPA and nLPA schools. Presented

in Table 3.2 the gender profile shows a higher number of girls in each year group.

Table 3.2. The total number of boys and girls in each class and by school type.

School Yr 2 Boys Yr 2 Girls Total Yr 3 Boys Yr 3 girls Total LPA 91 (41%) 131 (59%) 222 101 (41%) 143 (59%) 244 nLPA 55 (38%) 89 (62%) 144 48 (36%) 87 (64%) 135

In contrast to pupils in the primary sector, Table 3.3 indicates that a higher number of

boys are included in the Yr 8 sample. Compared to other groups, there is greater variation

in the age range of pupils in the Yr 8 nLPA group.

Table 3.3 The gender, age range and mean age of year 8 pupils by school type

School Boys Girls Age range Mean Age Total LPA 57 (65%) 31 (35%) 11.2 – 12.2 11.7 88 nLPA 60 (72%) 23 (28%) 11.0 – 13.3 11.8 83

To capture data on the many aspects involved in evaluating the impact of the programme

the research was designed on a number of levels.

3.2 Standardised testing

A pre-test - post-test control group design was used to assess pupils’ literacy skills before

and after programme implementation. Teachers from both the LPA and nLPA schools

were asked to administer whole class standardised tests to their pupils in September 2004

and again in June 2005. Word Recognition and Phonics Skills (WRaPS) were used with

Yr 2 and Yr 3 pupils, whilst Suffolk Reading Scale and Vernon Graded Word Spelling

Test were used with year 8 pupils. Using the quantitative software tool Software Package

13

for the Social Sciences (SPSS), reading scores were subject to inferential statistical

analysis including. Comparative analysis was then undertaken to explore differences in

the performance of those in the LPA and nLPA schools.

In addition, pupils from both groups were re-tested after the summer holidays in

September 2005 to assess whether any sustained gains were achieved. Scores deriving

from these tests were again subject to statistical analysis.

Using independent (between groups) and paired sample (within groups) t’tests

statistical analysis was conducted to determine whether any significant differences in

reading performance between LPA and nLPA schools arose at each test interval and

whether any significant differences in reading performance within LPA and nLPA schools

took place overtime.

3.3 Pupil Writing Samples

To assess pupils’ writing skills over time, samples of writing were collected from nLPA

and LPA schools at the beginning, during and at the end of the school year. Adopting a

case study approach, a sampling frame was created comprising 54 primary and 56 post-

primary school pupils; a stratum for low, middle and high ability pupils was also included.

In the event, 42 post-primary and 54 primary writing samples were subject to analysis

involving the use of pupil profiles; table 3.4 shows the breakdown of samples used.

Table 3.4 Number of writing samples analysed in the primary and post-primary sectors

Primary Post-primary Group LPA nLPA LPA nLPA

Low 6 6 4 10 Middle 12 11 5 8 High 10 9 2 13 Total 28 26 11 31

Criteria for analysing writing were developed using pilot samples of pupils’ work, with

Key Stage 1 criteria further extended by adapting the Education Department of Western

Australia, (1994) First Steps: Writing Developmental Continuum. Criteria developed

were subject to inter-rater reliability among the research team, (the resultant criteria for

Key Stage 1 and 3 are included in Appendix E). Once criteria were agreed analysis was

conducted throughout the year.

14

3.4 Interview Schedules

School-based initial interviews were conducted with a sample of principals, teachers, and

learning support assistants (LSAs) involved in the previous two cohorts of 2002/03 and

2003/04. Telephone contact was made to a random selection of schools and in the event

one-to-one semi-structured interviews were carried out in November 2004 in 12 schools.

Data from these initial interviews were used to inform the final interviews conducted with

those involved in the current evaluation. Interview schedules are included in Appendix B.

Questions included in the interview schedules, focused on the following:

• Introduction of programme into schools; • Training in the application of the reading approach employed; • The implementation process and support systems; • Impact on pupils' reading performance and literacy skills; • Compatibility with the existing curriculum; • Perceived benefits/unexpected gains.

Further school-based interviews were conducted in LPA schools using this approach in the

year 2004/05. This aspect of the data collection sought to inform the impact and quality

analysis of LPA in schools. Using one-to-one and small group interviews, qualitative data

was collected from principals, teachers, LSAs and BELB facilitators. In the event,

interviews were carried out with 11 principals and 18 teachers in May/June 2005 in all 12

LPA schools. Small group interviews were conducted with four primary and four post-

primary LSAs and with the BELB facilitators.

In addition, some of the data collected from interviews sought to inform the

sustainability aspects of the evaluation with supplementary questions focusing on:

• Availability of staff required (e.g. learning support assistants); • Perceived value for money and sustainability; • Respondent endorsement.

Each interview session lasted between 45 and 60 minutes. Sessions were tape-recorded,

transcribed and analysed using the qualitative research software package QSR N6.

3.5 Parental Questionnaire

Distributed by teachers, questionnaire packs containing a letter of explanation (a copy of

letters are included in Appendix D), the questionnaire and a pre-paid reply envelope were

sent to parents of pupils’ from LPA and nLPA schools (n = 4 and n = 2, respectively).

The questionnaires were sent out in May with a two week period for return. In a bid to

boost the response rate parents were offered the chance to enter a draw for a £30 shopping

voucher. Similarly, a follow-up to the parent questionnaire was conducted which involved

15

the redistribution of questionnaire packs to the sample schools. To further raise the

response rate, two additional nLPAs schools were included in the follow-up. This took

place one week after the closing date of the first distribution and allowed a further two

weeks for replies.

Demographic information was sought in the first part of the questionnaire to include

respondents’ child’s: class, sex, age, if they are the first child in the family to attend the

school and number and age of other children in the family. The main body of the survey

was designed to explore parents’ views on the following areas:

• Understanding – These questions sought information concerning the level of satisfaction with and understanding of the way reading and writing is taught at the school.

• Support Received – This group of questions examined the type and suitability of the reading and writing support offered to pupils.

• Child’s Behaviour and Performance – The questions in this section explored aspects of the child’s reading and writing ability, for example: enthusiasm for reading, reading fluency and spontaneous use of reading materials.

• Perceived Benefits of Approach – This final section focused on parents’ knowledge of whether or not an particular approach to reading and writing is used in the school and any perceived benefits resulting from it.

Prior to distribution the questionnaire was subject to extensive piloting. The pilot sample

comprised a number of students taking a masters course in research methods at Stranmillis

University College (n = 45), the BELB steering committee and a convenience sample of

academics from Stranmillis. Based on feedback from the pilot, several amendments were

made to the questionnaire. The amended version of the questionnaire is included in

Appendix A.

A total of 100 (28.4%) primary school parent questionnaires were completed and

returned; 76 (76%) from LPA schools and 24 (24%) from nLPA and 51 (51%) from Yr 2

parents and 49 (49%) from Yr 3 parents. Only 12 (15.6%) of the post-primary school

questionnaires were completed and returned; 8 (66.7%) from LPA schools and 4 (33.3%)

from nLPA. More detailed information on the design and analysis of the parent

questionnaire is provided in Chapter 10 of this report.

3.6 Desk review

Together with data collected from interviews, a review of the sustainability and value for

money of the programme was undertaken. Using information gathered from the BELB

the costs of rollout to all schools, including training and learning support costs was

estimated and used in the sustainability and value for money analysis included in Annex

One.

16

Chapter 4

An evaluation of pupil performance using standardised tests

4.1 Research design and methods

This chapter outlines the results of three test batteries administered over a twelve-month

period to pupils in Yrs 2, 3 and 8 attending a sample of schools using the Linguistic

Phonics approach (LPA) and schools using non-Linguistic Phonics approaches (nLPA).

The group-administered Word Recognition and Phonics Skills (WRaPS) test was used

with Yr 2 and Yr 3 pupils, and the Suffolk Reading Scale and Vernon Graded Word

Spelling Test administered to Yr 8 pupils. Presented separately the results for primary and

post-primary groups begin by comparing baseline data with national norms before

detailing the number of pupils receiving additional support, other than the LPA in schools

and/or identified as having Special Educational Needs1. It continues with an examination

of differences in pupil performance at test 1 and test 2, within and between groups, and a

comparison of the results obtained by groups between tests 1, 2 and 3.

Even the most cursory examination of the results indicates that a large number of

pupils scored well below their predicted reading age (see Figure 4.1 below). Since

quotients mask the full extent of the differences within and between low ability pupils

another measure was sought. To highlight progress over time, the analysis was therefore

based on the mean difference between each pupil’s reading age (RA) and their

chronological age (CA) calculated at each test interval; this involved inferential (involving

t-tests) and descriptive statistics.

4.2 Results for years 2 & 3

Sample population

As an indicator of pupils' baseline reading ability the distribution of LPA and nLPA

aggregate scores for Yrs 2 and 3 were compared with the normal distribution of the whole

population. Whilst national averages approximate a bell shaped curve, Figure 4.1

indicates that the results for LPA and nLPA pupils show a positive skew - to the left. This

reveals that more of these pupils are at the lower end of the distribution scale. Also worthy

of note is the finding that more LPA pupils score below the national average than nLPA

1 For the purpose of this research those pupils identified as having Special Educational Needs (SEN) are either in receipt of a SEN statement or have been assessed and allocated a position on the SEN graduated scale outlined in the Code of Practice.

17

pupils. This suggests that, in baseline tests, this latter group outperformed their LPA

counterparts.

Figure 4.1 Reading score distributions

National Norm

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

60-65

70-75

80-85

90-95

100-105

110-115

120-125

130-135

Standardised Scores

Perc

enta

ge

LPA at test 1

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

60-65

70-75

80-85

90-95

100-105

110-115

120-125

130-135

Quotient range

Perc

enta

ge

nLPA at test 1

0.0%2.0%

4.0%6.0%8.0%

10.0%

12.0%14.0%16.0%

18.0%20.0%

60-65

70-75

80-85

90-95

100-105

110-115

120-125

130-135

Quotient range

Perc

enta

ge

18

During each test period teachers provided details of pupils with Special Educational Needs

(SEN) and/or those receiving additional reading support and the nature of that support.

Table 4.1 The number and type of additional support given to year 2 & 3 pupils

Support LPA schools nLPA schools Year 2 Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Reading recovery 5 15 5 19 IEP for literacy 5 7 0 0 TEFL 2 4 0 0 Reading partnership 1 3 0 0 Outreach 1 5 0 2 SEN 11 17 2 7 Total 25 51 7 28

The results presented in Table 4.1 above indicate that more pupils in LPA schools have a

SEN and/or receive additional reading support than pupils in nLPA schools; however, this

number represents less than 5% of the total number of pupils involved in the study. While

it might be assumed that pupils with a SEN might also receive additional support, an

examination of the results shows no relationship between these factors.

Test 1: Baseline tests

Analysis of the results followed a two-stage approach. First, to prevent skewing of the

results, the reading scores of pupils in receipt of additional reading support and/or with a

SEN were excluded from an examination of the data. A separate analysis of the results for

these groups is included in the latter part of this section.

The first phase of the study involved the collection of base line data on the reading scores

of Yr 2 and 3 pupils in schools selected to participate in the LPA and those not selected to

participate (nLPA). Included in Table 1 of Appendix D, the results show similarities in the

chronological age, reading age and raw score recorded for LPA and nLPA pupils.

Furthermore, the large standard deviation scores noted for pupils indicates a considerable

degree of variance within and between groups; with mean reading ages ranging from 30

months behind to 30 months ahead of pupils' chronological. The results also indicate that

more pupils in LPA schools scored below their counterparts in nLPA schools, which may

explain why these schools became involved in this pilot. When subject to inferential

analysis the results show no significant difference between the reading scores of Yr 2

pupils in LPA and nLPA schools (p > 0.05), but a highly significant difference in the

results for Yr 3 pupils with pupils in nLPA schools outperforming their LPA counterparts

during baseline assessment (t = 3.853, p < 0.001).

19

Disaggregated by gender the baseline results are presented in Tables 2 and 3 of

Appendix D. On closer inspection it can be seen that the mean reading scores of Yr 2 girls

in LPA and nLPA schools is higher than Yr 2 boys, however this small advantage is not

statistically significant, nor is there a significant difference in the performance of Yr 3

boys and girls at nLPA schools (in all cases p > 0.05), but there is a significant difference

favouring Yr 3 girls at LPA schools (t = 3.497, p < 0.001).

Test 2

To examine the progress made by pupils in LPA and nLPA schools, their reading scores

were collated approximately nine months after the first set of results and after the

implementation of the LPA. To ensure the results for each group at test 2 were not

skewed by the inclusion of pupils with SEN or those receiving additional reading support,

scores for both groups were removed from the data prior to analysis.

Presented in Table 4 of Appendix D, the results show an improvement in pupils’

reading scores at test 2. Similar to test 1, however, there is considerable variability in

pupils’ scores (demonstrated in the standard deviations reported); with mean reading ages

ranging from 33 months behind to 30 months ahead of pupils' chronological ages. This

suggests that some pupils continue to experience reading difficulties in both LPA and

nLPA schools. Nevertheless, a comparison of performance by group shows that Yr 2

pupils in LPA schools outperformed their nLPA counterparts at test 2 (t = 2.893, p < 0.01).

In contrast, a comparison of Yr 3 mean scores revealed no significant difference between

LPA and nLPA pupils (p > 0.05).

Results were examined further to compare the degree of improvement in pupil

performance between test 1 and 2 in LPA and nLPA schools. The findings indicate the

slight improvement noted in the performance of Yr 2 pupils in nLPA schools was not

significant (p > 0.05). In contrast, a highly significant improvement was found in the

results of Yr 3 pupils in nLPA schools (t = 3.525, p < 0.001) and in the performance of Yr

2 (t = 9.384, p < 0.001) and Yr 3 pupils in LPA schools (t = 10.938, p < 0.001).

To further highlight the improvement noted in the results of each group and to

illustrate the differences between LPA and nLPA schools, findings are presented in

graphical form below (see Figures 4.2 and 4.3).

20

Figure 4.2 Year 2 reading progress by LPA and nLPA schools

-10

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0 Test 1 Test 2

Test Period

Mea

n D

iffer

ence

Bet

wee

n R

A &

CA

nLPALPA

Figure 4.3 Year 3 reading progress by LPA and nLPA schools

-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-10

Test 1 Test 2

Test Period

Mea

n di

ffere

nce

betw

een

RA

& C

A

nLPALPA

Here it can be seen in Figure 4.2 above that Yr 2 pupils in both groups started with similar

mean values. While both groups showed improvement, LPA pupils made the greatest

gains. The range of ability in each of the Yr 3 groups showed greater variability, with

LPA pupils yielding a much lower mean score at test 1. However over approximately

nine months both groups show a clear improvement; this is particularly evident in the

results of the LPA group.

Differences in reading performance by gender

Differences between boys and girls mean reading scores at test 2 were examined. Results

(see Tables 5 and 6 included in Appendix D) show no significant difference between Yr 2

boys and girls attending LPA and nLPA schools, nor is there a significant difference in the

performance of Yr 3 boys and girls at nLPA schools (in all cases p > 0.05), but there is a

significant difference favouring Yr 3 girls at LPA schools (t = 4.598, p < 0.001).

21

The performance of boys and girls in each group in tests 1 and 2 were also

examined to identify improvements in performance over time. Between test 1 and 2 there

was no significant difference in the performance of boys and girls in Yr 2 and 3 at nLPA

schools (p > 0.05), but a highly significant (p < 0.01) improvement for girls and boys at

LPA schools in each year group (results for this analysis are presented in Table 4.2

below).

Table 4.2 The relationship between test 1 & 2 for boys & girls in LPA and nLPA schools

Degrees of freedom

t’ value Probability level

Significant

LPA Schools Boys Year 2 75 6.733 0.01 Significant Girls Year 2 104 6.804 0.01 Significant Boys Year 3 71 6.000 0.01 Significant Girls Year 3 96 9.333 0.01 Significant nLPA Schools Boys Year 2 49 2.108 0.05 Not Significant Girls Year 2 72 1.053 0.05 Not Significant Boys Year 3 36 2.630 0.05 Not Significant Girls Year 3 62 2.415 0.05 Not Significant

Enriched Curriculum

Since several teachers were concerned that pupils in schools using the Enriched

Curriculum would perform below their counterparts in schools using traditional teaching

approaches, a reanalysis of the results excluding these schools was undertaken. As the

overall numbers were small, data for Yr 2 and 3 pupils was aggregated and examined by

school type (LPA or nLPA). In the event, this showed no significant difference in the

results for schools using either traditional teaching methods or the Enriched Curriculum (p

> 0.05). This finding is considered important since it suggests that the LPA is robust and

unaffected by the pedagogical approach of the school.

Additional reading support & SEN

The number of pupils receiving additional reading support was considerably higher in

LPA schools than nLPA schools; however for both, reading recovery and outreach support

were used most. Since the overall numbers were small, data for Yr 2 and 3 pupils was

aggregated and examined by school type (LPA or nLPA). As demonstrated in Figures 4.4

and 4.5 below, the results show an improvement for pupils in LPA schools but not for

pupils in nLPA schools. Although some caution is required in the interpretation of results

based on small numbers, these findings indicate that the performance of pupils taught in

schools using reading recovery but not the LPA appears to have deteriorated, whilst those

22

taught using outreach remained stable over time. In essence these results suggest that used

alone or with other approaches the LPA has a positive effect on pupils’ reading

performance.

Figure 4.4 Reading progress in LPA schools by additional reading support

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0Test 1 Test 2

Test period

Mea

n di

ffere

nce

betw

een

RA

& C

A

Reading Recovery Outreach

Figure 4.5 Reading progress in nLPA schools by additional reading support

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0Test 1 Test 2

Test period

Mea

n di

ffere

nce

betw

een

RA

&

CA

Reading Recovery Outreach

The impact of the LPA on the reading performance of pupils with a SEN was also

examined. As indicated above, whilst a caveat is warranted in the interpretation of results

which include small numbers, a significant improvement between tests 1 and 2 (t = 3.175,

p < 0.001) was found for pupils with a SEN in LPA schools but not for pupils attending

nLPA schools (p > 0.05).

23

Sustainability of progress

To determine if the gains made by pupils taught in LPA schools would be sustained over

the summer holidays, their reading scores were collated in early September 2005. An

approach to each of the nLPA schools involved in tests 1 and 2, solicited responses from 2

schools. As might be expected, analysis of the results for these and the LPA schools show

a decline in pupils’ reading performance over the summer holidays. The results were

examined in several ways, first at the aggregate level for each school and second by year

group.

Figure 4.6 Reading scores for test 1, 2 & 3

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0

Mean difference between RA & CA

Test1

Test2

Test3

nLPALPA

When graphed (Figure 4.6 above), results at the aggregate level show that at test 1 pupils

in LPA schools scored well below their counterparts in nLPA schools. By test 2 both

nLPA and LPA pupils showed progress. Despite scoring below their nLPA counterparts

in test 1, by test 2, approximately nine months later, pupils in LPA schools were making

the greatest progress. The results for test 3 indicate some regression on the part of both

groups over the summer holidays. Whereas the reading scores of pupils at nLPA schools

regressed to the extent that their performance was below their original scores at test 1,

LPA pupils retained some of their original gains.

The results for each year group reflect a similar pattern. Presented in both tabular

(Table 4.3) and illustrative (Figure 4.7) form below, the results show the advantage gained

by pupils in Yrs 2 and 3 in LPA and nLPA schools over time. In particular, Yr 3 LPA

pupils were the least affected by the summer break. When subject to inferential analysis

24

the results revealed the decline in performance noted for all groups was significant only

for LPA pupils in Yr 2 (t = 6.358, p < 0.001).

Table 4.3 Mean reading score (RA –CA) obtained for pupils at tests 1, 2 & 3

Reading scores LPA Year 2

LPA Year 3

nLPA Year 2

nLPA Year 3

Test1 -9.47 -9.62 -9.21 -4.57 Test 2 -3.89 -3.22 -7.19 -1.29 Test 3 -7.01 -4.61 -10.81 -5.68

NB: Excluding pupils with SEN and/or receiving additional reading support

Figure 4.7 Reading scores for test 1, 2 and 3 by school type and year

-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0

Mean difference between RA & CA

LPA Year 2

LPA Year 3

nLPA Year 2

nLPA Year 3

Test 3Test 2Test1

Differences in reading performance by ability band

Due to the heterogeneous nature of the primary school samples a final examination of the

reading performance by ability at tests 1, 2 and 3 was also conducted. In order to rank

reading ability into low, middle and high bands, pupils' performance at test 1 was

compared with national norms. Table 4.4 below displays standardised scores in relation to

national norms.

Table 4.4. Standardised scores in relation to national norms Standardised Score

Range National average indicators

of pupils’ ability Percentiles of whole

population Below 75 Far below average Bottom 5%

76 - 87 Well below average 5% - 20% 88 - 95 Below average 20% - 40%

96 - 104 Average 40% - 60% 105 - 112 Above average 60% - 80% 113 - 124 Well above average 80% - 95%

125+ Far above average Top 5%

25

Using quotients as standardised scores, reading bands were set against the national

average of pupils’ ability. For continuity, quotients were substituted by the mean

difference between reading age and chronological age; the score used throughout analysis.

Table 4.5 shows the resultant banding.

Table 4.5 Reading ability bands ranked using national norms

Band Standardised Score range

RA-CA range in months

Pupils’ ability – national norms

Percentiles of whole population

LOW 87 of below -12 or below Well and far below average Bottom – 20%

MIDDLE 88-104 between -12 and 0

Below Average to average 20% - 60%

HIGH 105 - 125+ 1 or above Above, well above and far above average 60%-top 5

The mean difference between reading age and chorological age, calculated at each test

interval, for the above bands are included in Tables 7 and 8 of Appendix D. However, to

highlight the trend in performance over time and to illustrate the differences between LPA

and nLPA schools, these scores are presented in graphical form below (see Figures 4.8

and 4.9).

Figure 4.8 Year 2 reading progress (RA-CA) by LPA & nLPA schools at test 1, 2 & 3

-20.00

-15.00

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

LPA nLPA

HIGH

MIDDLE

LOW

26

Figure 4.8 displays some interesting findings. As expected the majority of groups

improved between tests 1 and 2 and showed a slight decline in performance, over the

summer holidays, between tests 2 and 3. Whilst results for high, middle and low band

LPA pupils demonstrate similar trends, the results for nLPA pupils are of some concern.

Having started with similar results to their LPA counterparts at tests 1, by test 2 nLPA

middle and low band pupils were making fewer gains. Although by test 3 nLPA lower

band pupils retained some of their gains, middle band nLPA pupils had regressed to the

extent that their performance was below their original scores at test 1. Of equal concern

are the results of high ability nLPA pupils whose performance appears to have regressed

throughout the year. Whilst beyond the scope of this investigation, an examination of the

practices used in nLPA schools for pupils in high ability bands is warranted to explain

these results.

Figure 4.9 Year 3 reading progress (RA-CA) by LPA & nLPA schools at test 1, 2 & 3

-25.00

-20.00

-15.00

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

LPA nLPA

HIGH

MIDDLE

LOW

An examination of Figure 4.9 reveals high ability pupils' performance over time in both

LPA and nLPA schools was similar; however while nLPA pupils in this band maintained

their performance between tests 1 and 2 their LPA counterparts made some gains.

27

Nevertheless both groups exhibit some regression by test 3 to the extent that their

performance was below their original test 1 score. Middle band Yr 3 pupils in both LPA

and nLPA schools perform similarly at each test interval; both exhibit a steady upward

progression across time. There is however a notable difference in the performance of Yr 3

low ability pupils between groups. While low band nLPA Yr 3 pupils made similar gains

to their LPA counterparts between tests 1 and 2, by test 3 they regressed to the extent that

their performance was below their original test 1 scores. In contrast, their LPA

counterparts made greater gains between tests 1 and 2 and by test 3 retained the majority

of their gains.

Conclusions

– At the aggregate level, pupils attending schools using the LPA showed significantly

greater progress between tests 1 and 2 than pupils at nLPA schools.

– Within group differences were also noted. Specifically, between tests 1 and 2, pupils

in Yr 2 and Yr 3 at LPA schools showed a significant improvement in their reading

performance.

– Despite their higher scores at test 1, Yr 2 pupils at nLPA schools did not sustain their

original advantage. Whilst some improvement in the reading performance of Yr 2

pupils at nLPA schools was found, it was not statistically significant.

– In contrast, between tests 1 and 2 a highly significant improvement was found in the

results of Yr 3 pupils in LPA and nLPA schools.

– Gender differences in reading performance were also examined. The results show a

significant improvement for boys and girls in Yr 2 and 3 at LPA schools, but no

significant difference in the performance of boys and girls in either year at nLPA

schools.

– A reanalysis of the results excluding the reading scores of pupils taught in schools

using the Enriched Curriculum revealed no effect on the reading scores of pupils at

LPA or nLPA schools. This suggests that the LPA is robust and unaffected by

pedagogical approach.

– Similarly, used alone or in conjunction with other interventions the LPA appears to

improve pupils’ reading performance.

– The impact the LPA has on the reading performance of pupils with a SEN was also

examined. The results show a significant improvement between tests 1 and 2 for

pupils with a SEN in LPA but not in nLPA schools.

28

– Findings reveal a marked difference in the scores of high ability Yr 2 nLPA and LPA

pupils, with LPA pupils outperforming their nLPA counterparts at tests 2 and 3. For

reasons which remain unclear, nLPA high ability students show a marked decline in

performance between tests 1 and 2 and between tests 2 and 3. This finding requires

further examination.

– In contrast to the results of Yr 2 pupils, greater variation is seen in the results of low

ability Yr 3 pupils at LPA and nLPA schools. Both groups improved between tests 1

and 2, with LPA pupils sustaining the majority of their gains at test 3. However by

test 3 nLPA pupils had regressed to the extent that their results were below their

original test 1 scores.

29

4.3 Results for Year 8 pupils

The Suffolk Reading Scale and Vernon Graded Word Spelling Test were used with Yr 8

pupils. Similar to Yr 2 and 3 results, as an indicator of pupils' baseline reading ability the

distribution of LPA and nLPA aggregate scores were graphed (see Figure 4.10). Due to

the low level of ability, indicative of bottom band Yr 8 classes, standardised quotients

were not appropriate here. Therefore the difference between reading/spelling age and

chronological was used instead.

Figure 4.10 Reading and spelling score distributions for LPA and nLPA pupils

LPA-Reading

nLPA-Reading

0-10-20-30-40-50-60-70

Reading age minusChronological Age at t1

25

20

15

10

5

0

Fre

qu

en

cy

0-20-40-60-80-100

Reading age minusChronological Age at t1

15

10

5

0

Fre

qu

ency

LPA - Spelling nLPA - Spelling

200-20-40-60-80

Spelling age minusChronological age at t1

20

15

10

5

0

Fre

qu

ency

200-20-40-60-80

Spelling age minusChronological age at t1

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Fre

qu

ency

30

An examination of the results shows that the distribution of LPA reading scores

approximates a normal distribution. However on closer inspection all scored below their

chronological ages; in some cases by almost six years. Although nLPA reading scores

exhibit a wider range with greater variation, all of the pupils in this group performed

below their chronological age. In contrast, some pupils in both LPA and nLPA schools

achieved scores above their chronological age in spelling. Nevertheless, the majority of

pupils in both groups performed well below their chronological age.

As with the primary sector, teachers were asked to provide details of any pupil

receiving additional reading support and/or a SEN, and to identify the nature of the

additional support. When compared with Table 4.1, the results in Table 4.6 indicate that a

higher number of Yr 8 pupils receive additional reading support or/and have a SEN than

Yr 2 and 3 pupils. Also noteworthy is the finding that a higher percentage of Yr 8 pupils

in LPA schools require additional reading support (17%) or have a SEN (17%) than in

schools not using the LPA (9% and 8% respectively).

Table 4.6 The number and type of additional support given to year 8 pupils

Support Year 8

LPA schools Year 8

nLPA schools

Success maker 15 7 Outreach 0 1 SEN 15 15 Total 30 23

Test 1 Baseline

Consistent with the analysis of the results obtained for primary school pupils, this analysis

followed a two-stage approach. First, to prevent skewing of the results, the reading and

spelling scores of pupils in receipt of additional reading support or with a SEN were

excluded from an examination of the data. Second, the results for all pupils were subject

to analysis and are reported in latter part of this section.

Baseline reading and spelling scores were collected for each pupil using the

Suffolk Reading Scale and Vernon Graded Word Spelling Tests. A cursory examination

of the results, included in Table 9 of Appendix D, reveals considerable variability in

pupils’ results (demonstrated in the standard deviation with reading and spelling ages for

the majority of pupils well below their chronological age at test 1, [61 and 81 months

behind their chronological age in reading; 72 and 63 months behind their chronological

age in spelling] for LPA and nLPA schools respectively). Although mean scores for

pupils in nLPA schools appear higher than those of their LPA peers the differences noted

31

are not statistically significant (p > 0.05, for both reading and spelling). Disaggregated by

gender, the baseline results showed no significant difference in performance between boys

and girls in either LPA or nLPA schools (p > 0.05, for both reading and spelling).

Test 2

Approximately nine months after the baseline evidence was collected, pupils’ reading and

spelling performance were retested. The results presented in Table 10 of Appendix D

reveal large standard deviation values which indicate a wide breadth of ability amongst

pupils. Pupils scored well below their chronological age and continue to have difficulty

with reading and spelling. As with test 1 scores, at test 2 the mean scores for pupils in

nLPA schools were higher than their LPA peers; however differences noted were not

statistically significant (p > 0.05, for both reading and spelling).

In contrast to primary school pupils, between tests 1 and 2 few post-primary pupils

made performance gains. Figures 4.11 and 4.12 serve to highlight school differences in

reading and spelling scores. While there was a slight increase in the reading performance

of LPA pupils between tests 1 and 2, nLPA results demonstrate a slight decline.

Conversely, while LPA maintain their spelling performance between tests 1 and 2 pupils

attending nLPA schools improved their test 1 spelling scores. However, when subject to

inferential analysis, the results showed no significant difference in the reading and spelling

performance of pupils at LPA or nLPA schools between tests 1 and 2 (p > 0.05).

Figure 4.11 Year 8 reading progress by LPA and nLPA schools

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10Test 1 Test 2

Test Period

Mea

n di

ffere

nce

betw

een

RA

& C

A

LPAnLPA

32

Figure 4.12 Year 8 spelling progress by LPA and nLPA schools

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10Test 1 Test 2

Test Period

Mea

n di

ffere

nce

betw

een

SA

& C

A

LPAnLPA

Differences in reading performance by ability band

In contrast to primary schools which include a heterogeneous sample, the post-primary

pupils involved in this study could be considered a homogeneous group. In essence they

have a shared difficulty with reading and spelling. Therefore, when grouped into bands,

using the methods outlined in the primary schools section, it quickly became evident that

few pupils could be classified as high or medium ability, most were of low ability within

lower bands. For that reason, an examination of the results by band was not considered

appropriate here.

Differences in reading performance by gender

At test 2 no significant differences were found in the reading and spelling scores of boys

and girls at LPA and nLPA schools (p > 0.05). The performance of boys and girls

between tests 1 and 2 was also examined to identify differences over time. Again no

significant difference was obtained (in all cases p > 0.05).

Additional reading support & SEN

Whereas similar numbers of pupils in LPA and nLPA schools have a SEN (n = 15 for

both), a higher number of pupils in LPA schools (n = 15) receive additional reading

support than pupils in nLPA schools (n = 8). A reanalysis of the results including those

pupils reveals a significant but modest improvement in the reading performance of pupils

attending nLPA schools (t = 3.989, p < 0.05), but no difference in their spelling

performance (p > 0.05). Similarly no significant difference was found in the reading or

spelling scores of pupils at LPA schools (p > 0.05).

33

Sustainability of progress

To determine if the performance of pupils taught in LPA schools would be affected over

the summer holidays, their reading scores were collated in early September 2005. An

approach to each of the nLPA schools involved in tests 1 and 2, solicited responses from 3

schools. While results for tests 2 and 3, displayed in Figures 4.13 and 4.14, show a slight

decline in the reading performance of LPA pupils, nLPA pupils improved. However,

neither was statistically significant (p > 0.05). In contrast, the spelling performance of

pupils at LPA and nLPA schools improved. Whilst the results were not significant for

pupils at LPA schools (p > 0.05); the increase in nLPA pupils' spelling performance was

highly significant (t = 3.994, p < 0.001).

Figure 4.13 Mean reading scores for test 1, 2 and 3 for LPA and nLPA schools

-40 -30 -20 -10 0

Mean difference between RA and CA

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

nLPALPA

Figure 4.14 Mean spelling scores for test 1, 2 and 3 for LPA and nLPA schools

-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0

Mean difference between SA & CA

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

nLPALPA

34

Further analysis of results for test 3 revealed the two nLPA schools who failed to return

tests booklets in September 2005 had the lowest marks at tests 1 and 2. For purposes of

consistency, a reanalysis of test 3 scores was undertaken excluding 2 LPA schools with

the lowest scores at tests 1 and 2. In contrast to the findings above, when all five LPA

schools were included, the results of pupils attending the three remaining LPA schools

reveal similar gains in reading performance to nLPA pupils between test 2 and 3 (see

Figure 4.15). Furthermore, while LPA pupils' scores decline between test 1 and 2 by test 3

they have made greater gains in their spelling performance than their nLPA counterparts.

However, when subject to inferential statistical analysis the results revealed the

improvement in both reading and spelling performance between test 2 and 3 of pupils

attending the remaining three LPA schools was not significant (p > 0.05).

Figure 4.15 Mean reading and spelling scores for test 1, 2 and 3 for LPA and nLPA schools

-40 -30 -20 -10

Mean difference between RA & CA

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

LPA nLPA

-30 -20 -10 0

Mean difference between SA & CA

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

LPA nLPA

N.B. Results, displayed in Figure 4.11 above, exclude scores from the two weakest LPA schools.

Conclusions

– Whilst the reading performance of some pupils at primary school is almost two years

behind their chronological age, by post-primary school some pupils reading has

declined to the extent that they are now 6 years behind.

– Even the most cursory examination of the results presented above would indicate that

a number of pupils are performing well below their chronological age.

– At the aggregate level, excluding pupils receiving additional reading support and/or

who have SEN, the results show no significant gains in pupils’ reading or spelling

performance at LPA or nLPA schools.

– When results were disaggregated by gender no differences were revealed between

boys and girls at tests 1 and 2 or between tests 1 and 2 in both reading and spelling

performance.

35

– A reanalysis of the results including pupils with SEN and/or receiving additional

reading support showed a significant improvement in the reading performance of

pupils at nLPA schools but no difference in their spelling performance. Similarly no

difference was found in the results previously reported for pupils at LPA schools.

– Whilst numbers are small and conclusions tentative, these findings suggest that pupils

with SEN or who receive additional reading support in nLPA schools are making

progress in their reading.

– A comparison of test 2 and 3 results revealed a slight decline in LPA pupils and an

increase in LPA pupils' reading performance over the summer holidays.

– In contrast, results for spelling over the same test period show an increase in

performance for pupils attending LPA schools; nLPA pupils' spelling scores also

increased.

– A reanalysis of results excluding the two weakest LPA schools revealed that, in

contrast to pervious findings, the results of pupils attending LPA schools made similar

gains in reading performance to nLPA pupils between tests 2 and 3.

– Furthermore, while LPA pupils' scores decline between test 1 and 2 by test 3 they have

made greater gains in their spelling performance than their nLPA counterparts

– In summary the results suggest the LPA does not significantly affect the performance

of lower ability post-primary pupils. However, given these pupils are some 6 years

behind their predicted reading age, a longitudinal study is required to determine

whether this approach might improve performance in the longer term.

36

Chapter 5

Primary Writing Analysis

5.1 Background

Writing samples were produced in September, January and May of the same school year.

Pupils were divided according to reading ability (higher, medium and lower), determined

by the gap, in months, between their reading age and chronological age. Analysis using

the agreed criteria, included in Appendix E, was conducted throughout the year.

5.2 Pupils not using the Linguistic Phonics approach (nLPA)

5.2.1 Higher reading ability pupils

This was a sample of 9 pupils (5 girls and 4 boys). Four of the pupils were in year 2 (Yr

2) (1 girl and 3 boys) and 5 were in year 3 (Yr 3) (4 girls and 1 boy).

Concepts and conventions

This group of pupils had well developed concepts and conventions of writing such as

using left to right and top to bottom orientation of print and leaving spaces between words.

These concepts were in evidence from the first writing sample. For example, in the first

sample all of the pupils (n=9) were writing recognisable words, all of the pupils were

using the correct orientation of print and 8 pupils were leaving spaces between words.

However, there was an increase in the use of full stops over the three writing

samples from 6 pupils using full stops in the first writing sample to 7 pupils in the third.

The use of capital letters at the beginning of sentences and for names also improved from

the first to the final writing sample.

Content, Organisation and Vocabulary

In relation to the content and organisation of the pupils' writing, there was some evidence

of improvement over time. In the first writing sample 5 pupils were generating writing by

repeating the same beginning patterns such as ‘I like...’, ‘I like...’ or ‘I have…’, ‘I have…’

By the third writing sample, all of the pupils were using variety in structuring a sentence.

There was progression in the pupils' writing demonstrating story development throughout

the second and third writing samples. In the first writing sample only 1 child was

beginning to use some relevant detail in her writing. By the third writing sample this had

increased to 6 pupils. There was no evidence of simple sentences being joined in the first

writing sample but by the third writing sample 6 pupils were using words such as and and

37

then to join sentences. There was also a dramatic increase in the length of the pupils'

writing over the three samples. Six of the pupils' writing had at least doubled in word

count from the first to the third writing sample and 4 of the pupils' writing was at least

three times longer in the third sample than the first writing sample.

For example, child 1 in school D wrote 68 words in the first writing sample, 73

words in the second writing sample and 272 words in the third writing sample. Child 4 in

school D wrote 24, 132 and 216 words respectively.

There was evidence of an increased ability in the variety and use of vocabulary

over the three writing samples. Many of the pupils were using more complex and multi-

syllable words by the third writing sample. There was also a greater range of vocabulary

being used by the pupils over time, and adjectives and adverbs were being used by the

pupils to provide interest. In the first writing sample none of the pupils was using

adjectives or adverbs, but by the third writing sample 6 of the pupils were using them in

their writing. For example, Child 4 in school D included thick books, nice principal and

tiny blossom tree in her writing.

Spelling

There appeared to be a consistent ability with spelling amongst the high reading ability

pupils over the three samples of writing throughout the year. All of the pupils appeared

willing to have a go at spelling their own words in the first writing sample and this

continued throughout the three samples. There was good general accuracy in spelling and

there was also some reliance on the most obvious sounds which led to phonetic spelling of

words but not necessarily the correct spelling. For example, child 1 in school D used the

words crnching (crunching) and novls (novels).

There was some evidence of an increased attempt to spell more complex words in

the second and third writing samples compared to the first writing sample. For example,

child 7 in school A was spelling single syllable words such as have, big, name in the first

writing sample and multi-syllable words such as tomorrow, training, sister in the third

writing sample. Child 4 in school E was spelling words such as five, cats, good in the first

writing sample and words such as friends, lollipops, afternoon in the third writing sample.

5.2.2 Middle reading ability pupils

This group was comprised of 11 pupils (6 girls and 5 boys). There were 6 Yr 2 pupils (3

girls and 3 boys) and 5 Yr 3 pupils (3 girls and 2 boys).

Concepts and conventions

38

There were some discernible improvements in concepts and conventions of writing with

this group of pupils. Two pupils in this group were writing random strings of letters in the

first sample but by the third sample all of the pupils were writing recognisable words.

There was some reversal of letters and indiscriminate use of upper and lower case letters

persisting throughout the three samples but there was some improvement in the use of

capital letters and full stops with time.

Content, Organisation and Vocabulary

There was less improvement in the pupils' content and organisation over the three writing

samples than with the higher reading ability pupils. Four of the pupils were still

generating writing by repeating the same beginning patterns such as ‘I like…’, ‘I like…’

and ‘I got…’, ‘I got…’ by the third writing sample. The pupils were using simplified

language structures with only some evidence of more complex language structures being

used by 5 of the pupils by sample three. Four of the pupils had no sense of sentence in the

first writing sample but all of the pupils did have this understanding by the third sample.

There was evidence of some improvement in story development, the use of relevant detail

and the joining of simple sentences within some of the samples over time but to a lesser

degree than with the higher reading ability pupils. Word length improved over the three

samples with 7 of the pupils having at least doubled the word length by sample three and 4

of the pupils having at least three times the word length by sample three. For example,

child 5 in school D wrote 8 words for the first sample, 29 words for the second sample and

46 words for the final sample. Child 7 in school E increased her word count from 14 to 30

to 43 over the three writing samples.

There was evidence of an improved use of vocabulary beyond the simple spelling

structures by the third writing sample with a greater range of written vocabulary being

used. Five of the pupils were using vocabulary beyond simple spelling structures in the

first sample compared to 9 pupils in the final sample. Also 5 of the pupils were using

adjectives or adverbs to provide interest in their third sample of writing compared to none

in the first writing sample. For example, child 2 in school B wrote about good teachers

and child 3 in school A wrote about a hot day.

Spelling

These pupils showed an improvement in their willingness to have a go at spelling their

own words from the first writing sample to the third writing sample and there was also an

improvement in their attempt to spell more complex words. Only 5 of the pupils were

39

attempting to spell more complex words in the first sample and this rose to 9 pupils in the

third sample. However, there was less accurate spelling by these middle reading ability

pupils and they relied on the sounds which were the most obvious without any real change

over the three writing samples. For example, child 6 in school E used brders (brothers)

and seter (sister) in the first writing sample and chican (chicken) and strips (stripes) in the

third writing sample.

5.2.3 Lower reading ability pupils

This group was made up of 6 pupils (3 girls and 3 boys). All of them were in Yr 3.

Concepts and conventions

The use of full stops and capital letters was not a well understood concept by these pupils

generally and only showed slight change over time. However, 5 of the pupils were able to

write recognisable words, leave spaces and use the correct orientation of print in the first

writing sample. This increased to all of the pupils by the third writing sample.

Content, Organisation and Vocabulary

There was also no evidence of any real improvement over time of these pupils' content and

organisation of their writing. Half (n=3) of the pupils were repeating the same beginning

patterns in their writing in the first sample and the same number were writing in this way

by the final sample. For example, child 1 in school E wrote I like my mummy I like benr

(dinner) and bsrt (dessert) I like wajing sowwat (watching Snow White). Child 1 in school

C wrote I like my friends I like my to (two) teachers I like to do miths (maths).Sentences

were simple with little story development, sparse detail in the writing and little joining of

simple sentences. This did not change throughout the three samples.

There was some improvement in the length of writing with half (n=3) of the pupils

doubling their word count from the first to the third samples. For example, child 1 in

school C increased her word count from 16 to 20 to 34 words from the first to the third

writing sample. There was some limited improvement with time in the use and range of

written vocabulary. These low reading ability pupils generally used a very limited range

of vocabulary in their writing. There was no evidence of a range of vocabulary in the first

writing sample but there was some evidence of a range of vocabulary being used in 2 of

the third writing samples. For example, child 2 in school D wrote I like are school. We

have a grtin it is butefl I like lrning (I like our school. We have a garden. It is beautiful).

40

There was no use of adjectives or adverbs in the first writing sample and some

evidence of their use in 2 of the third writing samples. For example, child 1 in school C

wrote about hard sums and child 2 in school D described the girls as good.

Spelling

These pupils did show a willingness to have a go at spelling their own words and there

was some improvement in spelling more complex words with time. There was evidence

of 1 child attempting to spell some complex words in the first writing sample and this rose

to 4 pupils in the final writing sample. There was also evidence of the pupils relying on

the sounds which were the most obvious. For example, child 2 in school D wrote graneee

(granny), lori (lorry) and blloond (blonde). She also attempted to spell some more

complex words and wrote butefl (beautiful) and grtin (garden).

5.3 Pupils using the Linguistic Phonics approach (LPA)

5.3.1 Higher Reading Ability Pupils

This was a sample of 10 pupils, 6 (3 boys and 3 girls) were Yr 3 pupils and 4 (3 girls and 1

boy) were in Yr 2.

Concepts and conventions

In September the entire sample wrote recognisable words, left a space between words

(with one exception), and their directionality was sound. In September 6 pupils used

punctuation in terms of full stops and this had increased to 7 in January and by May only

one pupil in the sample was not using full stops. In January girl D used the apostrophe

sometimes correctly, for example didn’t, friend’s house, but also incorrectly in using it for

plurals, for example snack’s. This shows an awareness of this form of punctuation but not

knowledge of the rules of its application. Girl F used commas and semi colons in her

January and May samples correctly as did girl G in her use of an exclamation mark in

May. The majority of pupils used capital letters for names correctly and there was

evidence in May that these were used at the start of sentences by 9 pupils.

Content, Organisation and Vocabulary

The word length increased in all samples from an average of 25 words per sample in

September to an average of 106 words in May, but these averages hide individual

progress. The best examples of growth in quantity were Girl F (Yr 3) who went from 44

41

words in her September sample to 114 words in January to 199 words in May, and also

girl A, a Yr 2 child, whose stories increased in words from 12 in September to 58 in

January to 152 in May. However, at the other end of the scale, girl E (Yr 2) showed rather

more limited progress with 11 words in September to 18 in January to 30 words in May.

Nevertheless, it would appear that 5 girls were producing samples of writing of 100+

words by May and only 1 boy was doing so. In September 6 of the pupils were using

vocabulary which went beyond simple spelling structures and this had increased to all of

the pupils in May. At the outset few pupils (n=2) had a varied range of vocabulary but

again by May all the sample were demonstrating an increase in written vocabulary albeit

some more than others. In September, 3 of the pupils' writing samples showed some

indication that adjectives were being used and this had doubled to 6 of the samples by

May. Seven of the pupils were using simple connectives to join sentences by May.

Spelling

From the beginning the entire sample was showing signs of having a go at spelling and

many of the words were complex in structure. For example, blone hair (blond, girl D,

September); I like scooll (school, girl B, September); braet gren (bright green, girl C,

September). In September, around half (n=5) of the pupils were attempting to spell

complex words and several pupils were doing so very successfully. For example, butterfly

(girl D); holiday and spaghetti (girl F) cool, football (boy A). By May, the entire sample

was having a go at spelling quite difficult words. For example, becuas (boy D); astrala,

imogen, nrator (Australia, imagine, narrator, girl A); anamels (animals, girl C). The

pupils, however, in doing so often substituted incorrect letters for those with a similar

pronunciation. For example, favorout (favourite, girl B, May) pepol (people, boy A, May)

live (life, girl D, May). There was some confusion at times with vowels. For example,

opan (open, girl A, May) weent (went, girl C, May); narrater (narrator, girl F, May).

Sometimes graphemes were written in the wrong order. For example, palying (playing,

boy B, January); freinds (friends, girl B May). There is evidence that some of the pupils

were confusing homophones. For example, write brothers (Wright brothers, girl B, May);

their, meats (there, meets, girl A, May); hole (whole, girl D, May). Boy A and all of the

girls, except girl E who is in Yr 2, were using a wide and varied range of complex spelling

structures within their writing.

42

5.3.2 Middle Reading Ability Pupils

This was a sample of 12 pupils, 7 (3 girls and 4 boys) were Yr 3 pupils and 5 (3 boys and

2 girls) were Yr 2 pupils

Concepts and conventions

With the exception of 3 pupils, pupils were able to write recognisable words mainly in

lower case. They had knowledge of the conventions of print such as directionality and

spacing. Throughout the year several pupils reversed letters in their writing, usually b/d.

Additionally several of the pupils used upper and lower case indiscriminately in

September and January but by May this no longer featured in most pupils' writing. In

September there was evidence of the full stop being used in 2 of the pupils' work and this

had risen to 10 of the pupils using this type of punctuation by May. Where names

occurred in the sample, capital letters tended to be used. There was a growth in the use of

capitals at the beginning of sentences throughout the year and by May, 9 of the pupils

were using capitals for this purpose consistently. However, it should be noted that in the

September, January and May samples, many sentences began with I which was classified

as a capital.

Content, Organisation and Vocabulary

Word length ranged from an average of 19 words in September to 52 words in May with

all the pupils writing more content by the end of the year. There do not appear to be

gender differences in the amount written. Boy B was the most prolific writer in May with

138 words in his sample, followed by girl B with 91 words in her sample. The rest of the

samples analysed for May from both girls and boys were quite similar in length of story.

By May, the stories from 8 of the pupils were showing vocabulary beyond simple spelling

structures, and a wider range of vocabulary was evident within the writing. There was

also improvement in the development of the stories. Adjectives were evident in 2 of the

pupils' writing in January, for example big prit (big present, boy B); good stuff (boy E);

frged dinr (fried dinner ?, girl C) and by May half the pupils (n=6) were attempting to use

adjectives.

Spelling

In September, 8 of the pupils were having a go at spelling, and these words could be

clearly understood. For example, I hav a bog (I have a dog, girl B, September); I licke

skooll it is nis (I like school it is nice, boy B, September). By January, 10 of the pupils

43

were attempting to spell their own words and this number remained constant in May. This

included girl A whose earlier work appeared to be a random string of letters and

impossible to decipher but in May she wrote l llc plain wth (I like playing with). This

would suggest that she was making a good attempt at trying to spell her own words. All

the Yr 3 pupils were attempting to spell more complex words in January and doing so

consistently by May. For example, snyeck (snake, girl B); boren, favrit (boring, favourite,

boy E); loning, tecre (learning, teacher, boy B). Two of the Yr 2 pupils had started to

spell a few complex words by May, for example fiame (frame, boy A); tecches (teacher is,

girl E). It would appear that overall the pupils relied on sounds which are the most

obvious and often whole words are represented with a word of 3/4 letters, for example

mas (maths, boy D, May); pudn (pudding, boy B, January).

There was also evidence that in attempting to spell complex words incorrect letters

were substituted for those which sound similar, for example I lic dooeun werc (I like

doing work, girl C, May ); niver, lafe (never, laugh, boy C, May). Vowel sounds were

often confused, for example heire (hair, girl D, May); pitatoes (potatoes, boy E, January).

There does not appear to be a gender difference in attempts to spell or use complex words.

5.3.3 Lower Reading Ability Pupils

This group was made up of 6 pupils, 2 girls and 4 boys and they were all Yr 3 pupils.

Concepts and conventions

Four of the pupils started writing some recognisable words from the outset but it was not

until May that these pupils were producing samples which could easily be read. The May

samples were missing for the 2 pupils who were not writing recognisable words in

September and there was limited evidence from their writing that they were starting to do

so in January. In September five pupils had a good awareness of directionality and

spacing, but only one child was using punctuation whereas, by May, four pupils were

using full stops correctly. There was evidence that capital letters were being used for

names when these occurred in their stories. Capital letters occurred at the start of

sentences but it is unclear if pupils were showing an understanding of the application of

full stops (except 2 pupils) as many of these sentences either started with I or a capital

appeared at the beginning of the first word on each new line.

44

Content, Organisation and Vocabulary

It was difficult to get a word count for some pupils' writing in September as many words

were often a group of letters written vertically, for example:

Iaitta el

Iay tota PE

Catma yd pe

Kappt

(girl A) (boy A)

The word count for the 3 pupils who wrote decipherable words was: 4 (girl B); 12 (boy C)

and 7 (boy D) in September and this had progressed to 30 (girl B); 39 (boy C) and 42 (boy

D) by May. Girl A’s January sample indicated that she was making an attempt to spell

some words within her story but boy A had shown no progress by January.

There is evidence from the May samples that all pupils were using a wider range of

vocabulary than before but little use was made of adjectives except the word ‘new’ which

2 of the pupils referred to in relation to their new playground. There was limited detail in

their stories and no use made of connectives except by boy D in January who joined every

sentence with the word and. However, there was an organisational framework and sense

of sentence present in both the January and May samples for all pupils.

Spelling

In September three of the pupils were having a go at spelling their own simple words and

also some words with complex spelling patterns, for example I lik my dad (girl B); I go to

school (boy C). It is interesting to note that boy B drew lines when he could not spell a

word, for example I am a d--- I am K----- Donald I h----. By January all pupils were

‘having a go’ at spelling quite complex words, for example I ple on my meorbec and sum

tis I plewethmybox (I play on my motorbike and sometimes I play with my box, boy D);

wif a fon (with a phone, girl B).

This ability to relate phonemes to graphemes continued within the May samples of

writing. However, within the May sample it appears that the pupils were not attempting a

varied range of complex words. The words ‘friends’, ‘school’, ‘teacher’ and ‘playground’

feature within all the boys’ samples, for example frinds, tecer, (boy D); frinds, playgrown

(boy C); frind, pleygrnds (boy B).

45

The above examples indicate how the pupils were confusing vowel sounds, but it

was clear the pupils were actively processing the spoken language into written forms and

using phonic knowledge to do so.

5.4. In Summary - The key points that emerged from this analysis are summarised below:

− The higher reading ability pupils in both the Linguistic Phonics approach (LPA)

schools and the schools not using Linguistic Phonics (nLPA) had well developed

concepts and conventions of writing from the outset. There was some improvement

in the use of capital letters and full stops over the period of the study by all of the

pupils, with the majority of pupils using these conventions by the final writing

sample.

− There was improvement in story development, the use of relevant detail and

connectives for the majority of higher reading ability pupils in both the LPA and

nLPA schools

− From the first writing sample, the higher reading ability pupils from both the LPA

and the nLPA schools showed a good capacity for spelling their own words and

many were having a go at spelling more complex words. As their confidence and

ability increased by May, all of the pupils were attempting to spell a varied range of

complex words.

− The majority of the middle reading ability pupils in both the LPA schools and the

nLPA schools were writing recognisable words and had knowledge of directionality

and spacing and there was some improvement over the three writing samples. There

was also improvement in the use of capital letters and full stops over time with the

pupils in both sets of schools.

− As with higher ability readers, there was also improvement in story development, the

use of relevant detail and connectives for the majority of middle reading ability

pupils in both LPA and nLPA schools.

− However, there was a greater increase in word count from the first to the third

writing samples for the middle reading ability pupils in the LPA schools compared to

the nLPA schools.

− Nevertheless, with the middle reading ability pupils in both the LPA and nLPA

schools, there was an improvement in their willingness to have a go at spelling their

46

own words and there was also an improvement in their attempt to spell more

complex words.

− Even so, middle reading ability pupils in the LPA schools used a much greater

variety of complex words and this difference was evident in both the second and

third writing samples.

− Within the lower reading ability pupils in both the LPA and the nLPA schools there

were some pupils who were not able to write recognisable words, leave spaces and

use the correct orientation of print in the first writing sample. However, by May all

of the pupils were able to do so. The pupils in the LPA schools had greater

improvement in the use of capital letters and full stops over time than the pupils in

the nLPA schools.

− Nonetheless, the lower reading ability pupils in both the LPA schools and nLPA

schools showed an increased word count from the first to the third writing samples.

The word count was very similar in the final writing sample for both sets of schools.

− In spite of this, within the lower reading ability pupils, there was evidence of more

story development, the use of more detail and a wider range of vocabulary in the

writing of the pupils from the LPA schools compared to those from the nLPA

schools.

− Furthermore, by the second writing sample the lower reading ability pupils in the

LPA schools were attempting to spell more complex words and a greater variety of

words than the pupils in the nLPA schools; this difference was also evident in the

May samples.

− Within the LPA schools there appears to be a gender difference, as girls showed an

ability to write longer, more complex stories, use punctuation other than the full stop,

and use a wider range and complexity of words. This gender difference occurred

only in the higher reading ability group.

− However, across all three ability groups within the nLPA schools, girls were writing

longer stories and were more proficient in their organisation and in the use of

connectives.

− Girls, in all three groups by May, were also using a greater range of vocabulary than

boys, including good use of adjectives and adverbs. For example, in the lower

47

reading ability group, 2 out of 3 girls were using a range of vocabulary in their

writing in the final writing sample and none of the 3 boys in the sample were deemed

to be demonstrating this in their writing.

5.5 In Conclusion

There was no apparent difference between the writing samples of the higher reading

ability pupils from the LPA schools and the nLPA schools. These pupils all appeared to

be quite competent with the concepts and conventions of writing, their organisation of

their writing and their use of vocabulary and spelling.

With the middle reading ability pupils, there was no apparent difference between

the LPA and the nLPA schools in terms of concepts and conventions such as

directionality, spacing and punctuation and in the organisation of writing, such as story

development and the use of detail and connectives. However, the pupils in the LPA

schools showed a greater increase in word length from the first to the third writing sample

and these pupils also used a greater variety of complex words in their writing.

There were more differences apparent between the LPA and the nLPA schools

with the lower reading ability pupils. These pupils in the LPA schools had a greater

improvement in the use of capital letters and full stops, more story development, more use

of detail and a wider range of vocabulary in their writing than the pupils in the nLPA

schools.

48

Chapter 6

Post-primary Writing Analysis 6.1 Background

Writing samples were produced in September, January and May of the same school year.

Pupils were from the lower reading ability band in general, but for the purposes of this

analysis, were divided into higher, middle and lower ability groups according to reading

ability determined by the gap, in months, between their reading age and chronological age.

Due to the variability in the range of scores for each group, some groups had a smaller

number of samples than others when the sampling frame was applied: a caveat is therefore

warranted in the interpretation of results which in some cases include small numbers.

Analysis using the agreed criteria, included in Appendix E, was conducted throughout the

year.

6.2 Pupils not using the Linguistic Phonics approach (nLPA)

6.2.1 Higher reading ability pupils:

In schools A and B, standards remained reasonably consistent throughout, with some

advances in confidence and control over the writing process. Spelling of words of 3 or

more syllables remained a consistent difficulty and some problems with 1 or 2 syllable

words remained. Any move beyond simple sentences revealed some confusion about

punctuation and there were few clausal connectors used, apart from co-ordinating

conjunctions. School A showed considerable enthusiasm in the quantity of work

produced, but, as a significant number of the pupils were competent writers from the

outset, noticeable advances were less easy to detect. School B showed some clear

advances in confidence and in competence, but less evidence of risk-taking or

adventurousness. Overall, it was possible to see some clear progression in a third of the

samples of work.

6.2.2 Middle and lower reading ability pupils:

In schools A, B, C and D, spelling difficulties with words of 2 or more syllables were

persistent. There was continuing confusion about homophones (are/our, to/too, there/their

etc.), and little confidence about using connectors or about punctuation. In the middle

group, some progression in confidence, in spelling and in ability to structure a piece of

writing was evident, but pupils with severe literacy difficulties or chronic spelling

problems showed very little discernible advance in any area of writing skills. Of the third

49

who showed the most progression, the majority were from the middle reading ability

group.

Child 1 and child 2 below represent the difficulties pupils with severe literacy

problems face in making any progression over the course of a year. Child 1 is clearly

attempting tasks far beyond his capacity and needs an intervention that provides

specifically targeted help:

Child 2 wants to express himself, but also needs to begin with the fundamentals of

literacy, if we compare September 2004 with May 2005:

50

6.3 Pupils using the Linguistic Phonics approach (LPA)

6.3.1 Higher reading ability pupils:

In schools E, F and G, there was some growth in confidence, in ability to organise and

develop a piece of writing and in the use of methods to make an impact on a reader.

Evidence for these advances was shown in increased quantity of writing, some use of

complex sentences with subordinating conjunctions, and in paragraph structure. There

was some advance in spelling and in control over the writing process, but difficulties with

spelling words of 3 or more syllables remained. All of the pupils in this group showed

some discernible progression in their writing.

Child 3 below represents this advance in overall control. She/he shows progression

in the spelling, in sentence structure and in overall control and confidence needed to

attempt to express personal ideas, if September 2004 and January 2005 samples are

compared:

51

6.3.2 Middle and lower reading ability pupils: In schools E, F, G and H, some advances in fluency and control were evident, and there

was growth in confidence and in the quantity of writing produced in several cases.

Difficulties with spelling of 2 or more syllable words remained, and while there may be

some advance in quantity, pupils with severe literacy difficulties or chronic spelling

problems showed little discernible progress. Almost half of the writing samples showed

evidence of progression over the year

Child 4 and child 5 below represent the progression in fluency and in control that

could be seen in pupils from the middle reading ability. Child 4 shows clear progression

in spelling, in sentence structure, and in overall fluency and confidence, if September

2004 and June 2005 samples are compared:

.

52

It is more difficult to illustrate a growing sense of overall structure by using a small

extract, but child 5 shows a growth in control and in confidence, while spelling difficulties

persist, if September 2004 and May 2005 samples are compared:

6.4 In Summary - The key points that emerged from this analysis are summarised below:

- At secondary level, pupils' writing was evaluated in relation to advances in

spelling, in quantity, in vocabulary use, in use of connectives (co-ordinating or

subordinating conjunctions and relative pronouns), and in stylistic methods.

53

- Evidence from the writing sample analysis showed that pupils at LPA schools

developed greater control over the writing process and developed greater

confidence in spelling. This was particularly noteworthy in the samples obtained

from higher and middle ability reading groups.

- More than half of the pupils using LPA (c.58%) showed some discernible advance

in the quality and quantity of writing produced.

- More than one-third of the pupils attending nLPA schools (c.39%) showed some

discernible advance in the quality and quantity of writing produced. A number of

these pupils in the higher reading ability group had some competence in writing at

the outset, and clear progression was less easy to detect.

- Most pupils in both groups still faced difficulties with spelling words of 3 or more

syllables, and demonstrated the need for techniques to manage multisyllable

words. Few pupils showed confidence in constructing fluent complex sentences

using a variety of connectors.

6.5 In Conclusion – A higher proportion of pupils using the Linguistic Phonics approach

showed evidence of developing greater control over the writing process and greater

confidence in spelling. As all the pupils were lower achieving in general, the gains made

with the Linguistic Phonics approach are certainly noteworthy. However, pupils with

severe literacy difficulties or chronic spelling problems showed very little advance in

writing ability in both groups. At secondary level, it may be that pupils at the lowest

ability levels need more time and more individual attention in order to make any

significant progress. Further investigation of the use of Linguistic Phonics for these pupils

is needed before any reliable conclusions can be reached for this group with severe

difficulties, particularly using Linguistic Phonics in a way that is specifically targeted

towards the individual needs of each child.

54

Chapter 7

Impact of Learning Support Assistants

Integral to the pilot of the Linguistic Phonics approach (LPA) was the deployment of a

learning support assistant (LSAs) to all schools involved in the approach. Recruited by

the school, in the primary sector, each LSA was employed for ten hours a week to work on

a one-to-one basis with individual pupils. Similarly employed, in the post-primary sector

the working practice of individual LSAs was based on the needs of the school. All LSAs

were trained in September 2004. Due to the differing deployment strategies of the primary

and post-primary sector, the analysis of LSA impact focused on a subset of pupils in the

primary sector.

7.1 Research design and methods

In total 74 Yr 2 pupils in schools using the LPA participated in this aspect of the study.

This number represents 10% of the overall primary sample. In each school a sample of

approximately six pupils were given additional LSA support, whilst a matched sample of

approximately six pupils received no additional support.2 Throughout the second school

term, on a daily basis, each of the children receiving support was taken out of class by the

LSA for approximately 15 minutes over eight weeks. Each of these sessions was

conducted on a one-to-one basis. Test results from both groups were analysed to assess

whether the LSA support had a quantifiable effect on pupils reading scores. Findings

from the qualitative data collected from primary and post-primary interviewees involved

in the delivery of the LPA are provided to expand the quantitative dimensions of the

study.

7.2 Primary Results Test Scores

Included in Table 7.1, as expected, the results show similarities in the chronological age,

reading age, raw score and quotients recorded for those pupils who received LSA support

and those who did not. In both groups, the minimum score and mean value included in the

last line of the table indicate that a number of pupils have a reading age far below their

chronological age. When subject to inferential analysis, the results for test 1 show no

significant difference in the reading scores of pupils who received LSA support and those

who did not (p > 0.05). 2 Pupils involved in the quantitative aspect of the LSA impact analysis did not receive any other reading support other than LPA in a whole class environment.

55

Table 7.1. The baseline results (in months) for primary pupils involved in the LSA impact analysis

Yr2 Pupils receiving LSA (n=37)

Yr2 Pupils not receiving LSA (n=37) Reading Scores

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Chronological Age (CA) 63 84 70.57 63 85 71.41 Raw Score 1 35 13.00 1 36 13.05 Reading age (RA) 54 80 58.95 54 105 86.51 Reading Quotient 69 105 86.51 65 99 86.57 RA - CA -20 3 -11.62 -25 -3 -11.70

Reading scores were collated approximately nine months after the first set of results and

after half the pupils in this analysis had received eight weeks of LSA support. Presented

in Table 7.2, test results show an improvement in pupil performance over time for both

groups. Irrespective of the LSA support given, the minimum scores for each group

suggest that some pupils continue to experience reading difficulties.

Table 7.2. Reading scores (in months) from Test 2 for primary pupils involved in the LSA impact analysis

Yr2 Pupils receiving LSA (n=37)

Yr2 Pupils not receiving LSA (n=37) Reading Scores

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Chronological Age (CA) 71 92 78.94 71 93 80.00 Raw Score 5 40 24.14 2 48 26.50 Reading age (RA) 54 84 70.69 54 94 72.83 Reading Quotient 67 120 91.53 69 109 91.89 RA - CA -27 9 -7.11 -28. 13 -8.19

Further examination shows no significant difference in the reading scores of pupils who

received LSA support and those who did not (p > 0.5). Results were also examined to

identify improvements in pupil performance between tests 1 and 2 in both groups. The

results show that those pupils receiving LSA support made slightly greater gains than

those who did not receive support. However, inferential statistical analysis indicates the

improvement noted in the performance of both pupils receiving and not receiving LSA

support was similarly significant (for those pupils receiving LSA support (t = -2.827, p <

0.01), and for those not receiving LSA support (t = -2.928, p < 0.01)).

The performance of boys and girls in each year group on tests 1 and 2 was also

examined to identify improvements in performance over time. Results, displayed in Table

7.3 below, show a significant improvement for girls not receiving LSA support (t = -

4.281, p < 0.01), but not boys. Similarly, no significant improvement was found in the

performance of boys and girls receiving LSA support (in all cases p > 0.05).

56

Table 7.3. The relationship between test 1 & 2 (using RA-CA) for boys & girls

Degrees of freedom

t’ value Probability level

Significant

Yr2 Pupils receiving LSA Boys (n=17) 16 -2.579 0.05 Not Significant Girls (n=20) 19 -1.459 0.05 Not Significant Yr2 Pupils not receiving LSA Boys (n=19) 18 -.865 0.05 Not Significant Girls (n=18) 17 -4.281 0.01 Significant

Using the criteria outlined in Chapter 4 pupils in both groups were identified as 'low'

'middle' and 'high' ability and their results subject to inferential statistical analysis.

Examination of the results showed no significant difference in reading performance for

middle or high ability readers, irrespective of whether they received LSA support or not (p

> 0.05). Conversely, in the low ability band pupils who did (t = 3.074, p < 0.01) and did

not receive LSA support (t = 3.028, p < 0.01) made significant gains.

Interviews

Asked their thoughts on LSA support, the majority of teachers described it as ‘very

effective’ or ‘effective’ with a few undecided. Expanding on their answers, several

explained that:

‘She is very effective and I find that it makes a difference to the children that she takes. I find it very helpful.’ (Year 2 Teacher)

‘She knows how to talk to children and she makes them listen.’ (Yr 2 Teacher) When commenting on pupils' progress teachers were both positive and negative about the

impact of LSAs. A number thought that one-to-one work with LSAs had improved

pupils’ reading performance, for example:

‘Some children in the class, I think, just needed that little extra and that was very, very good indeed now; just that wee bit of extra work with her [LSA] really brought them on, it was excellent’. (Yr 3 Teacher)

‘When I look at the children who had been to her [LSA] I know they have made a lot better progress because they’ve had one-to-one work everyday…so she’s been fantastic.’ (Yr 2 Teacher)

In contrast a few teachers felt it was ‘hard to tell’ whether the LSA had made an impact

on pupils’ performance:

57

‘We have had a block of about eight weeks of one-to-one sessions with children and then we have had a different set of children and again we haven’t really seen any great results from that so far.’ (Yr 2 Teacher)

Nonetheless, most hoped to keep their LSA.

7.3. Post-primary results

Since teachers in this sector were given more flexibility in the use of their LSA’s time

some deployed their assistant solely in the classroom, whilst others were employed to

work on a one-to-one basis with pupils and others worked with both methods.

When asked to rate their LSAs all3 post-primary teachers described their assistants

as ‘very effective’. Expanding on her response, a teacher explained:

‘I think having a LSA has been a lifesaver because it keeps us on track and kept us right. It means too that when we have been unsure, especially at the beginning when the approach was new, I had another head and someone to talk to, which was great.’ (Yr 8 Teacher)

Others praised the work of the LSAs with pupils; one describing her LSA as ‘excellent

with the pupils’. A few teachers also noted the progress made by pupils who had one-to-

one sessions with the LSA. However, one teacher remarked that although progress was

made by some pupils this was not always the case:

‘After going to the LSA for one-to-one some of them made progress, there’s some who have made no progress…and confidence is still really low no matter what we have done, even with the one-to-one.’ (Yr 8 Teacher)

Nevertheless, the same teacher noted the LSA had improved pupils’ confidence:

‘Generally they were more confident coming back after working with the learning support assistant.’ (Yr 8 Teacher)

Most post-primary principal did not mention the work of the LSA in their schools but

those who did were generally positive and believed they ‘worked well’ with the pupils:

‘I think the fact that they have [an LSA] intervening made them [the pupils] feel somewhat special because they knew nobody else in the year group was having intervention like that.’ (Post-primary Principal)

3 Due to recruitment difficulties within a post-primary school one teacher received no learning support assistance

58

The same principals felt that it would be a ‘shame’ to loose the LSA due to the absence of

further funding and stated that if did they have funds they would continue their

employment.

7. 4 In Summary – Since the quantitative findings reported in this chapter are based

on a sub-sample of Yr 2 pupils (n = 74) some caution maybe warranted in the

interpretation of the data. The key points that emerged from this analysis are

summarised below:

− No significant difference was found in the reading ability of pupils receiving and not

receiving support at test 1 (p > 0.05), confirming they were of equal ability. Although

both groups showed a significant improvement over time, at test 2 there remained no

significant difference between these groups (p > 0.05).

− Examination of the results by gender shows the greatest improvement was made by

girls who did not receive additional support (p < 0.01), no difference was found for

girls and boys receiving support or boys without support (p > 0.05).

− Similarly few differences were obtained between bands, though pupils in low ability

bands who did and did not receive support both made significant progress (p < 0.01).

− In contrast, results from interviewees suggest that the majority of primary teachers

believe that LSAs are 'very effective', with some reporting positive changes in

pupils’ confidence after these individual sessions.

− Even so, while many primary teachers believe that better progress was made by

pupils given one-to-one support, a few felt it was hard to tell what impact the LSA

had in terms of pupils' progress.

− Consistent with the primary school results, in the post-primary sector, LSAs were

described as ‘very effective’. Similarly, many believe that one-to-one support

improves pupil performance, is beneficial and raises pupils’ self-confidence.

− Principals who mentioned LSAs described them as a positive addition to whole class

teaching of the LPA. They also felt that losing their LSA because of a lack of

funding would be a drawback.

− In essence the quantitative findings suggest that, whilst the LPA does have a positive

impact on pupils’ reading scores, LSA does not improve pupils’ performance.

Conversely, teachers and principals believe LSA support serves to improve pupils’

self-confidence and self-esteem, self-concepts essential for success.

59

Chapter 8

Perceptions of the Linguistic Phonics Approach:

The Primary School Experience

8.1 Introduction

To gain an insight into the experiences of those involved in delivering the Linguistic

Phonics approach (LPA) in primary schools, views of principals, teachers and learning

support assistants (LSAs) were sought. Each interview session lasted between 45 and 60

minutes. Sessions were tape-recorded, transcribed and analysed using the qualitative

research software package QSR N6.

8.2. Results Section

The results presented below are organised under the following six headings:

• Introduction of approach • Initial Implementation • Training and Support • Delivery of LPA- in schools • Impact on pupils • Advantages and Disadvantages

Introduction of approach When asked how their school became involved with the LPA, a number of principals

explained how involvement in the Literacy Strategy in 2004/05 gave them eligibility to the

LPA. Typically, a member of the Belfast Education and Library Board (BELB)

approached the school principal asking if he/she would be interested in participating in the

LPA. In a few cases the school’s Special Needs Co-ordinator (SENCO) approached the

BELB asking if their school could be included in the pilot. The majority of principals said

the decision to participate in the LPA was taken in consultation with the teaching staff. In

taking an inclusive approach, principals sought to dispel any notions that the approach was

enforced, a view captured in the following exemplar:

‘rather than me force something through because I happened to like it the teachers had full discretion and decided as a team that it was worth going through with it.’ (Primary Principal)

60

Whilst most teachers were said to welcome the approach, principals recalled some

teachers having concerns about the work involved, the changes required to accommodate

the LPA into their timetables and with the longevity of the approach. For example:

‘It's like anything that would come in, it means change and there’s always a bit of caution and rightly so, you shouldn’t just jump into something because you get a circular from the board to do that’ (Primary Principal)

They realised that… it wasn’t something that you could take on board easily …there was a lot of work involved and they were sceptical to begin with.’ (Primary Principal)

Support for these views comes from teachers; however, in interview sessions teachers

recalled being impressed with the amount of support offered by the BELB to assist

schools during the implementation process. Similarly, the gains made by pupils taught

through the LPA in other schools encouraged teachers to ‘give it a go.’ Teachers and

principals picked up this latter point:

‘We just spoke to different teachers we knew who were using the programme [LPA] and they had said it was very beneficial so we thought right ok we’ll try it.’ (Yr 3 teacher)

‘If you know there’s someone out there coming in to give you support and help you with materials then I think teachers are happy to progress with it.’ (Primary Principal)

Initial Implementation Asked if there were any difficulties with the implementation of the approach, a few

principals recalled problems producing resource materials for classroom work:

‘There were concerns in terms of getting materials together…there is work involved in it and there’s the practical thing of…who’s going to produce the materials.’ (Primary Principal)

Another explained how they adapted the approach to meet the needs of their school:

‘We were going to hold on to what we felt was good about what we were doing and we tried to implement this (LPA) along side it. Ok it meant that maybe we wouldn’t make the progress that they (BELB) would expect …but that’s fine’. (Primary Principal)

61

On the whole however, principals were positive about the initial implementation and

praised the training and support provided for teachers:

‘The training was excellent …so people were happy to implement it’ (Primary Principal)

‘They (teachers) got tremendous support from the Board and they were taken step by step through the process.’ (Primary Principal)

Training and Support The majority of questions regarding training and support were addressed to teachers. All

were positive about the initial training with a few rating it ‘excellent’, the majority as

‘very good’ and one ‘good’. Two teachers expanded on their answers by noting the

detailed and hands on approach taken by the training team:

‘They gave us all the resources we needed at the start and showed us how to use them ... I practised teaching the lesson to other adults a number of times during the training, so we knew exactly how to use them.’ (Yr 2 Teacher)

‘We were all given little tasks to do and they (the facilitators) went through things in a very detailed way, so we were all very clear about what we had to do.’ (Yr 3 Teacher)

When asked about follow-up training, teachers were less decisive. Whilst the majority

said they did receive follow-up training a few said they had not. According to the BELB

facilitators, the follow-up training available was in the form of cluster groups with the

release of teachers to attend these sessions sought in advance from principals. However,

those teachers who said they had not received follow-up support did not view the cluster

groups in this way. One teacher remarked:

‘There were cluster meetings rather than follow-up training.’ (Yr 3 Teacher)

There was also some confusion as to the purpose of these meetings. While some thought

they were provided to receive further training on stage five of the LPA, others said they

were discussion forums organised to work through problems. According to one teacher:

‘It was just to talk, for example, if you did not understand something or if something wasn’t working.’ (Yr 2 Teacher)

62

With regard to the support available, all teachers said they received help in the classroom

from the BELB facilitators. When asked how they rated this support a few said it was

‘excellent’; the majority regarded it as ‘very good’ with one rating it as ‘good’. Those

who expanded their responses were similarly positive, with most commenting on the fact

that when a board member came in they provided example lessons and offered advice

which reinforced the positive aspects of the work they were doing in class. Some of the

comments included:

‘They [the facilitator] came in and actually took sessions themselves so it was easy to see how well we had been through it all in the training.’ (Yr 3 Teacher)

‘It was very helpful, very good; it reinforced what we were doing really.’ (Yr 3 Teacher)

Although LSAs felt they were given support, this was dependent on whether they were

present in the classroom at the same time as the facilitator. Often this was not the case as

the LSA’s time was taken up with one-to-one sessions with pupils.

‘They [facilitator] did sample lessons with the class teachers in the class but it was during my time when I was teaching pupils’ (Primary LSA)

Teachers were also asked to rate the support systems in terms of the teaching materials

and LSAs. With regard to the effectiveness of LSAs the majority described them as ‘very

effective’, one said they were ‘effective’ and two remained undecided; further analysis of

LSA impact is included in Chapter 7. Similarly, teaching resource materials were

described as ‘very effective’ or ‘effective’. Whilst most teachers were generally positive

about the teaching materials, a couple reported having to adapt them to suit their needs:

‘You have to adapt some of the materials to suit your own class, but they did give me some ideas on what to use.’ (Yr 3 Teacher)

When asked if they received follow-up support, all teachers said they had and were able to

contact the BELB and the facilitators whenever they needed help or advice.

Delivery of LPA in schools Both principals and teachers were asked how the LPA was used in schools. In particular,

teachers were asked how easy it was to use, how they used it in the classroom and how

63

many frequently they used it. Just over half found it easy to teach; although one teacher

said that while it was easy to teach ‘it was hard for pupils in the initial stages’. Whilst a

small number of teachers said they found it hard to teach, a few were undecided. A

teacher who found it hard to teach explained:

‘It's time consuming... you just have to be very committed so you’ve got to slot it in every day. It's harder to teach initially but you get use to it.’ (Yr 3 Teacher)

There was a similar lack of consensus among teachers on the use of the LPA in the

classroom. Whilst just over half used the LPA on a one-to-one, small group and whole

class basis, others continued with whole class only, with one teacher using small group

work in conjunction with whole class teaching. When asked how often they used it, the

majority of teachers said they used it every day with a couple stating they used it more

than once a week. A teacher who used it more than once a week expanded on this by

commenting:

‘I wouldn’t actually do a structured lesson every day but ... it falls in during Science. You write a word on the board and you ask them to sound it across, or if you’re reading books it connects with them all the time so it fits.’ (Yr 3 Teacher)

In contrast, another teacher who used it every day found it difficult to find the time to

work through it consistently and held the many demands on their time responsible;

however through trial and error they managed to fit it in:

‘I sort of integrate mine through the reading hour activity time in the morning so I would have had an afternoon for the ten minute session.’ (Yr 3 Teacher)

All of the schools involved in the delivery of the LPA use other reading approaches.

Whilst most principals were non-specific about other approaches used, they inclined to

state that there is no definitive way to teach reading and spelling to primary school pupils;

as one principal reasoned:

‘Well my view is that, while I would be a proponent of the phonetic approach, there is no one way of teaching because if there was I think we would all be doing it and would be years ago.’ (Primary Principal)

In contrast, one principal explained:

64

‘There are certain things that the children need to know for the transfer tests …had it not been for the transfer test, well I assume at Key Stage two certainly, we wouldn’t have deviated from that (LPA).’ (Primary Principal)

Another principal took the opportunity to raise concerns about the incompatibility of the

LPA with established pedagogies. In particular, they noted that:

‘Adopting Linguistic Phonics meant following a certain order …which didn’t coincide with our spelling lists. So this meant that the spellings that each year group was supposed to do they couldn’t very well do…’ (Primary Principal)

When asked which approach had proven most effective, principals were also reluctant to

choose any one method, as the following exemplar demonstrates:

‘I don’t think there is going to be any one approach. I genuinely believe after all of this time working for so long within literacy that there isn’t because every child’s needs are different.’ (Primary Principal)

Impact on pupils Principals and teachers were asked to rate the impact of the LPA on pupil performance.

Specifically, teachers and LSAs were given a list of 10 learning experiences and asked to

rate impact on a polarity four point scale (Very effective, Effective, No effect,

Deteriorated); results are included in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1 Perceived impact of the LPA on learning experiences of primary pupils.

Number of responses Learning Experience Highly Effective Effective No Effect Deteriorated

Over all reading performance 7 7 1 0 Word identification skills 11 4 0 0 Spelling 9 6 0 0 Confidence in reading 10 4 1 0 Enjoyment of reading 9 6 0 0 Self-esteem 10 5 0 0 Communication skills 5 9 1 0 Independent writing 10 5 0 0 Enjoyment of independent writing 9 6 0 0 Reading fluency 2 12 1 0 TOTAL 82 64 4 0

The results suggest that performance on all of the learning experiences listed was

positively affected by the LPA. With the exception of ‘overall reading performance’,

‘communication skills’ and ‘reading fluency,’ the majority of teachers and principals

65

ranked the impact of the LPA as ‘highly effective.’ Two thirds felt that the impact of the

LPA on pupils’ ‘word identification skills’, ‘confidence in reading’, ‘self-esteem’ and

‘independent writing’ was highly effective. In terms of reading fluency, the majority

thought it was ‘effective’ and a few ‘very effective’. One teacher described the

development of reading fluency as a slow process:

‘At first, I thought the transfer of skills to reading wasn’t just as effective as it was in the writing …it’s really since Easter I’ve only started to see changes in their reading now.’ (Yr 2 Teacher)

Another took the opportunity to point out that better performing pupils ‘will do well no

matter what approach is used’ and could not attribute improvements in reading

performance exclusively to the LPA.

Most teachers discussed pupils’ progress with independent writing at some length. For

some, assisting the increase in pupils' independence required innovation and creativity on

the part of teacher, as noted in the following exemplar:

‘Before we always had the word books and we’d have a queue of children at the desk looking for words and now we’ve done away with that completely’ (Yr 2 Teacher)

When asked to rate the enjoyment of independent writing, the same teacher added:

‘Before I would have dreaded writing day whereas now it’s much more enjoyable for everybody’ (Yr 2 Teacher)

Many principals attributed this increased enjoyment of writing to the improved confidence

the LPA had given their pupils. One principal gave this example:

‘children are more confident, they’re more readily going to lift up a pencil and do a piece of writing independently over break-time; wet break-times they will voluntarily lift a pencil and think I can do this; I’ve seen that.’ (Primary Principal)

Principals also noted the increased self-esteem exhibited by their pupils. Some felt this

was due to the ‘method of correction’ inherent in the LPA; with one interviewee

explaining:

66

‘It’s not a question of right and wrong …if children do spellings normally they are right or wrong but now with more information being transmitted…they are more right than they are wrong’ (Primary Principal)

Advantages and Disadvantages Principals and teachers were asked whether there were any advantages or disadvantages to

the LPA. Teachers took this opportunity to comment on the practicalities involved in

using the LPA. Some teachers noted that it was ‘a very structured’ approach and believed

this to be an advantage. Others felt that the white boards and markers provided by the

Board were ‘very successful’, as pupils were able to correct mistakes easily. Furthermore,

teachers felt that the range of activities contained within the LPA, including the ‘hands on’

quality of the white boards, made lessons ‘interesting’ and ‘enjoyable’ for their pupils.

A few teachers felt that they did not have time to teach all of the LPA content and

believed these time constraints to be a disadvantage. More specifically, some teachers felt

that the LPA ‘took over their literacy work’ and thought this was at the expense of other

tasks like ‘pupils' comprehension or writing’. Another teacher, who had a particularly

weak class, also believed the fast pace of the LPA put weaker pupils at a disadvantage and

suggested:

‘I think they need to know all their sounds before they start; I just don’t think everybody grasps it. You can go through it but you’re still talking over the heads of some of them’ (Yr 3 Teacher)

Having been very positive about the LPA, another teacher volunteered a note of caution

regarding the spelling:

‘I need to see how it’s going to work with children’s spellings. At the moment they are willing to try and they are aware of strategies but it’s how it’s going to develop so that they are actually using the right one [grapheme] to spell.’ (Yr 3 Teacher)

When asked if there were any disadvantages to LPA, all principals felt that there were

very few or no disadvantages in using the LPA, especially with regard to the impact it had

on pupils. Furthermore, the majority of positive comments from teachers were focused on

the impact LPA had on pupils, with all teachers finding the impact on writing skills as a

great advantage:

‘It really does give them the tools for independent writing’ (Yr 2 Teacher)

67

‘There have been a lot of advantages; I would say independent writing has probably been the most noticeable of all’ (Yr 3 Teacher)

Teachers also took this opportunity to reiterate the impact the LPA had on enjoyment of

reading and writing with one teacher observing:

It’s just the enjoyment of words; whenever we are doing phonics or even if we are doing something totally different the children are saying “oh I found a word with the ‘i’ sound in it” and they are looking out for sounds all the time’ (Yr 3 Teacher)

8.3. In Summary – Findings from the qualitative data analysis suggest that the primary

school experience of the Linguistic Phonics approach is generally very positive. Below

are some of the key points that emerged:

− Principals felt that the implementation of the approach was successful and praised

the training and support provided to teachers. While teachers had some concerns

with the approach, they saw it as an opportunity to raise literacy standards in the

school.

− Training was generally described as ‘very good, ’with most appreciating the detailed,

hands-on approach of the training team. In contrast, opinion on the quality of

follow-up training was divided. This seems largely due to the fact that some teachers

thought cluster groups were forums for debate rather than follow-up training

sessions.

− Classroom support was rated highly. Sample lessons given by BELB facilitators in

schools were considered especially helpful. Similarly, learning support assistance

and teaching materials were rated favourably; however there was some concern with

the amount of time and effort required to tailor the resource materials to lesson plans.

− While many found the LPA easier to teach, there is considerable variability in the

delivery of the LPA. For example, some teachers use it on a whole class basis with

small group and one-to-one work, whereas others use a mixture of approaches.

Frequency of use also varies, with some teachers using it every day and others less

often across the year. Similarly, some schools use only the LPA, whilst others use a

variety of approaches. Qualifying their preference for a range of approaches, several

68

principals said they are reluctant to opt for one method until it has been proven to be

effective.

− The LPA has had a very positive impact on a range of learning outcomes. Moreover,

teachers believe it has improved pupils’ confidence and enjoyment of writing.

Principals also noted an increase in pupils’ self-esteem, which some felt was due to

the ‘method of correction’ inherent in the LPA.

− When asked about the advantages or disadvantages of the LPA, teachers felt that the

structured nature of the approach was an advantage. Others felt that the range of

activities contained within the LPA made lessons interesting and enjoyable for their

pupils. A few teachers felt that they did not have enough time to deliver the LPA in

its entirety and others, having been very positive about the LPA, volunteered a note

of caution regarding pupils’ future progress in spelling. When asked if there were

any disadvantages to the LPA, all of the principals said there were very few or none

at all.

69

Chapter 9

Perceptions of the Linguistic Phonics Approach:

The Post-primary Experience

9.1 Introduction

To gain insight into the experiences of those involved in delivering the Linguistic Phonics

approach (LPA) in post-primary schools, the views of principals, teachers and learning

support assistants (LSAs) were sought. Each interview session lasted between 45 and 60

minutes. Sessions were tape-recorded, transcribed and analysed using the qualitative

research software package QSR N6.

9.2. Results Section

The results presented below are organised under the following six headings:

• Introduction of approach • Initial Implementation • Training and Support • Delivery of LPA- in schools • Impact on pupils • Advantages and Disadvantages

Introduction of approach Consistent with the primary school experience, principals in the post-primary sector were

approached by a member of the Belfast Education and Library Board (BELB) who asked

if they would be interested in participating in the LPA. Impressed with this new initiative

and believing it complemented the other literacy approaches used in the school, principals

were keen to become involved. Some principals felt the LPA was a welcome opportunity

to build and extend on the literacy approaches used in the school:

‘We have one teacher who has been using THRASS which is very similar to the Phonics system… then we saw this [LPA] as really building on that and formalising it, and an opportunity to broaden it beyond just the one special needs teacher.’ (Post-primary Principal)

‘We’d done Reading Buddies… and we had taken advantage of all the things the Board was offering so this [LPA] was like a progression … a seamless progression.’ (Post-primary Principal)

70

Others saw the LPA as ‘a chance to raise literacy standards in the school’. To avoid

‘putting all our eggs in one basket,’ one school agreed to participate only if they could

continue to run other initiatives alongside the LPA:

‘Originally it was to be mutually exclusive and we couldn’t accept that because, if the Linguistic Phonics Programme hadn’t worked then those children would have been deprived doubly right through their learning programme.’ (Post-primary Principal)

Asked if teachers welcomed the introduction of the LPA, all principals thought they had.

Several attributed teachers’ enthusiasm for the approach to their concern with falling

literacy standards, particularly among lower ability pupils. However, one principal noted

that their teachers, ‘whilst welcoming the support offered by the Board, were not

convinced that it [LPA] would work’. Having been informed of the approach by their

special educational needs co-ordinator (SENCO) many teachers themselves stated that it

might be ‘interesting to get involved.’

Initial Implementation None of the principals recalled having difficulty with the implementation of the approach,

as the following comments demonstrate:

‘They [teachers] found it very easy; I mean they have no difficulties whatsoever with it, it seemed to be fairly straightforward.’ (Post-primary Principal)

‘I have to say it wasn’t difficult because we had some timetabled time that we could use for Linguistic Phonics.’ (Post-primary Principal)

Principals highlighted the role teachers played in ensuring that the introduction of the

approach was problem free, with some noting how teachers using the LPA were ‘ keen to

embrace this new approach’ and were ‘very pleased to be involved.’

Training and Support Questions regarding training and support were mainly addressed to teachers. In the main,

teachers were positive about the initial training, rating it ‘excellent’ or ‘very good,’ with

one teacher describing it as ‘good’. Teachers who expanded on this issue said the training

was ‘very professional’ and followed a ‘very tightly run schedule’. For a few, information

was covered too quickly, with sessions ‘rushed’. Others recalled covering a lot of

71

information in a short time. Consequently, they felt they had no time to familiarise

themselves with one aspect of the approach before moving on to another one. Reflecting

on their experiences with the approach, a teacher thought there was a need for more

practice in future sessions:

‘I think maybe a little bit more time dedicated to the actual sounds would have made it less daunting for people who are not entirely familiar with it.’ (Yr 8 Teacher)

Learning Support Assistants (LSAs) expressed similar views and described the training as

‘very, very fast.’ They also thought the speed of each session meant they had few

opportunities to practise and familiarise themselves with concepts before moving on; as

noted by one:

‘We needed to practise sounding out words and other parts of the training. But there just weren’t enough practice periods.’ (Learning Support Assistant)

Responses to questions about follow-up training were almost evenly divided between

those who claimed there was no follow-up training, and those who said there was.

Prompted about cluster group meetings, the former were quick to argue that cluster groups

were not training:

‘We had clusters but I wouldn’t call it training…I would see it more as support rather than training.’ (Yr 8 Teacher)

‘Well we weren’t given any extra training but there were cluster meetings throughout the year.’ (Yr 8 Teacher)

There was a sense that a ‘refresher’ course was warranted; most especially for those

trained just before the summer holidays and who would introduce the LPA in September.

For others, cluster group meetings were a welcome opportunity to meet others using the

approach, to work through problems and to exchange ideas; as one teacher noted:

‘They reinforced what was going on and we swapped ideas …I learnt more because we swapped ideas at those meetings.’ (Yr 8 Teacher)

All of the teachers were given classroom support to implement the approach and described

it as ‘excellent’. Praising the classroom support given by the BELB throughout the year, a

number of teachers were particularly enthusiastic about the sample lessons given by

72

members of the BELB team during visits to the school. Variously described as

‘innovative’ and ‘cleverly pitched at the post-primary level’, having observed the lesson

one teacher noted how:

‘My boys can be very, very challenging, and she [the facilitator] was able to control them in a very positive way; because they actually did feel very much that this was baby stuff.’ (Yr 8 Teacher)

In contrast to teachers’ experiences, since the majority of LSAs are employed on a part-

time basis, they received in-classroom support only when their hours in class matched a

visit from a member of the BELB team. Consequently, most received information

‘filtered down’ from class teachers. Similar to teachers, however, they were able to access

support from the BELB team as and when needed.

Asked to rate the quality of the support systems available to them, the majority of

teachers described LSAs as ‘very effective.’ Due to recruitment difficulties in the school,

one teacher was implementing the LPA without learning support assistance (further

analysis of LSA impact is included in Chapter 7). Teaching resource materials given in

support of the LPA were also described as ‘extremely effective,’ ‘very effective’ or

‘effective’. The ‘diversity of the materials’ provided was considered especially beneficial

for boys, as one teacher noted:

‘When you’re doing the same sort of thing over and over again, it can be difficult to engage boys. But the resources gave lots of different examples, which meant I didn’t have a lot of preparation work; I could simply draw from the materials. For instance, I was able to put together a few homeworks and find six words that are CVC words or find six words that have three syllables…In giving variation I could keep the boys engaged.’ (Yr 8 Teacher)

Delivery of LPA in schools As with primary school interviewees, principals and teachers were asked how the LPA

was utilised in schools. In particular, teachers were asked how easy it was to use, how

they used it in their classrooms and how many times they used it. Differences were

apparent in teachers’ perceptions of the level of difficulty involved in the delivery of the

LPA. While a few said it was easy to teach, others claimed it was harder than other

approaches as explained in the following exemplar:

‘I think it’s harder to teach because it is so pedantic ... I mean the teaching materials are so structured’ (Yr 8 Teacher)

73

In contrast, having prepared resource materials available made it easy for another teacher

to implement:

‘I felt that it was easy enough to teach because the resources were there’ (Yr 8 Teacher)

Teachers also differed in the application of LPA, with the majority using it on a whole

class basis only, one using it with small groups only and another using both approaches

together with a one-to-one approach. Teachers who favoured a whole class or mixed

methods approach said one-to-one sessions were taken by an LSA who would take

individual pupils out of class for short sessions.

Frequency of use also varied, with some teachers using the LPA every day, one

using it once a week, another more than once a week and a few varying the frequency with

which they used the approach across the year ‘depending on other demands.’ A teacher

from the latter group explained how:

‘Timetabling constraints dictate how much time can be spent delivering the LPA over the year.’ (Yr 8 Teacher)

To ensure pupils were fully familiar with the LPA before moving on to more challenging

work, one teacher changed the timetable to incorporate it:

‘Our terms for novels run from September to January so we start a new novel in February. I didn’t actually do a novel with them until February because we wanted to get a good grounding in the Linguistic Phonics.’ (Yr 8 Teacher)

English departments in post-primary schools currently have responsibility for delivering

the LPA in schools; as a consequence, it does not permeate other subject areas of the

curriculum. Asked if they would consider introducing it into other subjects, several

principals said they were considering it and thought it ‘had the potential’ to branch into

other subjects. According to one principal:

‘The next stage will be to roll the [LPA] out with a group of target teachers in each department ... we’ve already planned the training sessions for the coming year.’ (Post -primary Principal)

All of the schools involved in the delivery of the LPA use other reading approaches. In

the main, principals believe that in using a range of approaches they can raise literacy

74

standards in the school and reach a wider range of pupils. At this time, they are reluctant

to advocate one method over others and would like more evidence before opting for a

single approach.

Impact on pupils Principals, teachers and LSAs were asked to rate the impact of the LPA on pupil

performance. Specifically, teachers and LSAs were given a list of 10 learning experiences

and asked to rate impact on a polarity four-point scale (Very effective, Effective, No

effect, Deteriorated). The results in Table 9.1 suggest that the majority of the learning

experiences listed was positively affected by the LPA.

Table 9.1 Perceived impact of LPA on learning experiences of post-primary pupils. Number of responses Learning experience

Highly Effective Effective No Effect Deteriorated Over all reading performance 2 7 0 0 Word identification skills 4 5 0 0 Spelling 4 5 0 0 Confidence in reading 8 1 0 0 Enjoyment of reading 3 6 0 0 Self-esteem 5 4 0 0 Communication skills 2 5 2 0 Independent writing 2 7 0 0 Enjoyment of independent writing 1 5 3 0 Reading fluency 2 7 0 0 TOTAL 33 52 5 0

Commenting on ‘overall reading performance’ one teacher qualified her answer

explaining:

‘In terms of overall reading performance it has been effective, but I don’t know whether that is solely due to Linguistic Phonics because we don’t use it in isolation.’ (Yr 8 Teacher)

Nevertheless, the majority of interviewees believe the LPA has positively affected pupils'

‘confidence with reading’ and ‘self-esteem’ and rated the approach ‘very effective’ and as

‘effective’ on these learning experiences; examples of the views expressed are captured

below:

‘It really has affected their self-esteem. When they came here in September their attitude was “I can’t do this” and there was a lot of grumping and sighing, but now I can’t stop them, they’re like coiled springs’ (Yr 8 Teacher)

75

‘Those exposed to this approach are more confident, I think particularly in reading. And then self-esteem is a by product of that because they feel they’re special because they are involved in the project.’ (Post-primary Principal)

According to another principal, the LPA had a positive impact on pupil behaviour:

‘Well one unexpected gain is the improvement found in children’s behaviour in the classroom; their attention span has increased, as has their willingness to keep working where they were switched off before.’ (Post-primary Principal)

Advantages and Disadvantages Principals and teachers were asked whether there were any advantages or disadvantages in

using the LPA. Consistent with points raised in previous sections, responses to this

section highlighted the impact the LPA had on pupils’ self-confidence and self-esteem. A

number of teachers pointed to the ‘fun element’ of the LPA:

‘Pupils were learning without really realising it because of the fun element; that was a real advantage of the approach for me and them’ (Yr 8 Teacher)

Another remarked on the fast pace of the approach:

‘Because it’s fast moving as well you’re never bogged down with things, that’s another advantage… they find it fun and they enjoy the time with it so it’s not like extra work.’ (Yr 8 Teacher)

While all mentioned the improved confidence and increase in reading and writing skills,

when describing advantages to the approach, one teacher attributed the positive changes in

classroom dynamics to the LPA:

‘At the start of the year they were really, really tough. Now there are so many teachers who’ve said “they’re a really lovely class and they’re happy”. You wouldn’t expect it in the bottom band and I would attribute that to the Phonics’ (Yr 8 Teacher)

Among the difficulties identified was the size of the class, with larger classes proving

more difficult to ‘keep on board’. Other disadvantages included the lack of appropriate

reading materials, difficulties in teaching the LPA to post-primary pupils who have not

been exposed to a structured phonics programme at either Key Stages 1 or 2 and the

problems in getting older pupils to sound out words. Moreover, the LPA was thought to

pose some difficulty for teachers who have a curriculum to deliver:

76

‘I feel it slows English teachers down a bit in terms of coverage and so forth.’ (Post-primary Principal)

Nevertheless:

‘Although teachers found it slowed their teaching, learning showed greater gains and that’s really what’s important.’ (Post-primary Principal)

Others recalled some reticence on the part of a few teachers who were asked to take

training:

‘We had some staff who were reluctant at first, mainly because they felt that the first stages of the approach were pitched too low for post-primary school pupils. But you’ve got to get them to see that it actually works.’ (Post-primary Principal)

Despite some drawbacks, all thought the ‘advantages far outweighed the disadvantages’.

9.3. In Summary - Findings from the qualitative data analysis suggest that the post-

primary school experience of the Linguistic Phonics approach is generally very positive.

Below are some of the key points that emerged:

− To raise standards, principals and teachers were keen to extend the literacy

programmes used in their school. No problems were noted with the implementation

of the approach and the initial training was described as ‘very good.’ However,

some teachers and Learning Support Assistants felt it was rushed and would have

preferred more time for practical tasks.

− Analogous with primary teachers, due to the unstructured nature of the follow-up

training many teachers felt they had not received any, and there was a sense that a

‘refresher’ course was warranted.

− In contrast, all teachers rated classroom support as excellent. Many commented on

the effectiveness of the example lessons offered by the facilitator, which were

particularly helpful in demonstrating how to deliver LPA to a post-primary audience.

77

− Similarly, the learning support assistance and teaching material were rated

favourably, with the majority commenting on the diversity of the material resources,

which some considered especially useful for boys.

− Opinion was divided on whether the LPA was easier or harder to teach than other

approaches. As with primary schools, all the post-primary schools involved in the

delivery of the LPA use other reading approaches. In using a range of approaches

principals believe this can raise literacy standards in the school and reach a wider

range of pupils. Principals were reluctant to advocate one method over others and

would like more evidence before opting for a single approach.

− Consistent with the findings reported in Chapter 8, the approach is taught in a variety

of ways including: on a whole class basis and/or on a one-to-one and/or with small

groups.

− Although none of the schools have implemented the approach on a cross-curricular

basis, all of the principals in this study said they have considered it and believe the

LPA has the potential to branch into other subjects.

− There was also a sense that the LPA has had a positive impact on pupils’ learning

experiences. The greatest impact was said to be on pupils’ confidence in reading and

on their self-esteem.

− When asked for any advantages and disadvantages in using the LPA, a few felt the

fast pace and fun element of the LPA were advantageous. A number of

disadvantages were identified including: the time required for training, the disruption

the implementation had on the delivery of the curriculum and the lack of appropriate

reading materials designed to engage pupils in post-primary schools. Nevertheless,

there was a general sense that the ‘advantages outweighed the disadvantages’.

78

Chapter 10

Parent Opinions of Linguistic Phonics Approach

To further inform the evaluation and to explore parents’ views a questionnaire survey was

designed and distributed to a sample of LPA and nLPA schools participating in the

evaluation.

10.1 Response Rate

Despite measures taken to encourage returns (see Chapter 3) the response rate from the

primary sector remained low (28.4%). An examination of the 100 responses received

indicated that 76 (76%) were from LPA schools and 24 (24%) from nLPA schools. Of

those replies, 51 (51%) were from Yr 2 parents and 49 (49%) from Yr 3 parents. Only 12

(15.6%) of the post-primary school questionnaires were completed and returned; 8

(66.7%) from parents with children attending LPA schools and 4 (33.3%) from nLPA

schools.

10.2. Results of Parental Questionnaire

The data were entered into an SPSS database and subject to statistical analysis. Where

numbers allowed, inferential analysis was used to identify differences in the responses

received from parents with children at schools using the LPA and parents of children in

nLPA schools. Presented separately for primary and post-primary schools, the results are

organised under five key headings:

• Demographic information • Information for parents on the way reading and writing is taught • Satisfaction of approach employed and support received • Child’s Behaviour and Performance • Perceived Benefits of the Approach

Please note that due to selectivity on the part of the respondents, in a few tables, the results

do not always sum to 100 – indicating some questions were not answered by all 100

respondents. In light of the small number of returns received, some caution is warranted,

particularly, in the interpretation of the post-primary results.

79

10.2.1 Demographic information

The number of responses received from the parents of boys and girls in the primary sector

was almost equal (25 boys and 26 girls in Yr 2, and 27 boys and 22 girls in Yr 3). Very

few responses were received from parents of post-primary pupils (n = 12, 11 boys and 1

girl). The age range of the pupils involved is included in Table 10.1 below.

Table 10.1 The age range, mean and standard deviation of the respondent’s child.

Year group Frequency Age range Mean Standard Deviation (Sd)

Year 2 51 5.9 – 6.9 6.42 3.328 Year 3 49 6.08 – 7.9 7.3 3.889 Year 8 12 11.91 – 12.83 12.46 4.010

Almost equal numbers of parents of children in Yrs 2 and 3 indicated that their child was

(55% and 47% respectively) or was not (45% and 53% for both) the first in the family to

attend the primary school. Of the 12 post-primary respondents, 7 indicated their child was

not the first to attend the school. Although there was some variation in the number of

children in each family, the mean number for pupils in Yr 2 was 2.29 (range 1 – 5), 2.40

for Yr 3 pupils (range 1 – 6) and 4.33 for Yr 8 pupils (range 2 – 11). Across all groups,

the age range of siblings showed marked variation and ranged from 2 months to 21 years

of age.

10.2.2. Information for parents on the way reading and writing is taught

This section included two questions and focused on parents’ satisfaction with the way

reading and writing is taught in the school.

Primary Parents' Responses

In the main parents believe they were told how reading and writing was taught in the

school either before (44%) or after (66%) their child started school. Whilst slightly more

than a third (35%) said they were not informed before their child started school, after

starting school this number dropped to 12%. Although the vast majority (87%) found the

information easy to understand, a small percentage had problems understanding it (3%).

Further examination of the results using the independent t’test revealed no significant

difference in the amount and nature of information received by LPA parents and nLPA

parents (p > 0.05 in all cases).

80

Post-Primary Parents Responses

Given the low response rate from parents in the post-primary sector, the responses are

reported as frequency values rather than as percentages. An examination of the results

showed that almost equal numbers of parents believe that they were (n = 6) or were not (n

= 5) told how reading and writing were taught before their child started school. While

most (n = 7) said they were not told how it was taught after their child started school, a

number of parents found the information they received difficult to understand (n = 6).

10.2.3. Satisfaction of Approach Employed and Support Received

This section explored parents’ awareness of the support their child receives with reading

and/or writing and whether the approach used by the school suits the child’s needs. It

included four questions.

Primary Parents' Responses

Although more than half (52%) said their child receives reading support, they were mostly

satisfied with their child’s progress describing it as very good (55%), good (25%) or quite

good (16%). Less than a third claim their child receives writing support (30%), which

may explain why the majority of parents (90%) believe the way writing is taught in the

school suits their child. They were also positive about their child’s progress in writing and

consider it to be very good (47%), good (32%) or quite good (17%); these results are

presented below in Table 10.2. A significant association was calculated between parents'

satisfaction with their child’s reading and writing (χ2 = 20.078; p < 0.001 for Yr 2 parents

and χ2 = 27.816; p < 0.001 for Yr 3 parents). This suggests that parents who were satisfied

with their child’s progress in reading are almost equally satisfied with their progress in

writing. Only a small proportion believed their child is making poor progress with their

reading (4%) and writing (4%). Further analysis revealed no significant difference in the

amount of support reported by parents of LPA and nLPA pupils (p > 0.05). Examination

of the results by class indicates a modest though significant association between year

group and reading assistance, with older Yr 3 pupils more likely to receive support than

younger pupils (χ2 = 3.463; p < 0.05).

81

Table 10.2 Primary parents’ satisfaction with reading and writing.

Response (%) Survey Question

Very Good Good Quite Good Poor

My child’s progress in reading is: 55.0 25.0 16.0 4.0 My child’s progress in writing is: 47.0 32.0 17.0 4.0

Post-primary Parents' Responses

Whilst most (n = 8) of the post-primary parents said their child receives help with reading,

half of that number (n = 4) receive help with their writing. In contrast to the primary

school parents, a sizeable number of this small group (n = 5) do not believe the way

writing is taught in the school suits their child. The results presented in Table 10.3 below,

also show that these parents are more satisfied with their child’s progress with reading

than writing.

Table 10.3 Post-primary parents’ satisfaction with reading and writing.

Response (N) Survey Question

Very Good Good Quite Good Poor

5. My child’s progress in reading is: 5 3 3 1 6. My child’s progress in writing is: 3 4 2 3

10.2.4. Child’s Behaviour and Performance

This section explores parents' perceptions of their child’s enthusiasm, ability, reading and

writing practice, reading fluency and spontaneous use of reading materials. Presented as a

grid with answers arranged on a 5-point scale (from Always through to Never), parents

were asked to circle the answer that most represented their views on their child’s ability

with reading and writing.

Primary Parents' Responses

Table 10.4 below displays the results of the parents of children in primary school.

82

Table 10.4 Primary parents’ views on their child’s ability with reading and writing.

Response (%) Survey Question

Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never

Reading My child likes reading

48.0

22.0

24.0

2.0

2.0

My child needs help to read 7.0 11.0 40.0 29.0 10.0 My child likes me to read to him/her 28.0 29.0 28.0 9.0 3.0 My child reads without stopping 15.0 23.0 38.0 13.0 6.0 My child reads books other than school books 30.0 27.0 26.0 9.0 5.0 My child is a confident reader 43.0 12.0 29.0 6.0 6.0 Writing My child writes with confidence

42.0

29.0

20.0

4.0

2.0

My child enjoys writing 39.0 28.0 25.0 3.0 2.0 My child needs help to write 1.0 5.0 40.0 22.0 26.0 My child is a good speller 25.0 26.0 36.0 6.0 4.0

Reading

From Table 10.4 it can be seen that the majority of parents (48%) believe their child

‘always’ likes reading, whilst the remainder think their child ‘often’ (22%) and sometimes

(24%) likes reading. Whereas most pupils either ‘sometimes’ (29%) or (40%) ‘seldom’

require help from their parents, a small number ‘always’ (7%), ‘often’ (11%) or ‘never’

(10%) need help. Most parents believe their child likes them to read to him/her either

‘often’ (29%), ‘always’ (28%) or ‘sometimes’ (28%). Whilst 15% of parents believe that

their child ‘always’ reads without stopping, most believe that their child reads without

stopping ‘sometimes’ (38%) or ‘often’ (23%); few think their child ‘seldom’ or ‘never

(6%) reads without stopping. When asked if their child reads books other than

schoolbooks, the majority of parents believe they do so ‘always’ (30%), ‘often’ (27%) or

‘sometimes’ (26%). Only a few (5%) said that their child ‘never’ or ‘seldom’ (9%) reads

another book. In the main, parents view their child as a confident reader. While the

majority said they are ‘always’ (43%) confident, others thought they were ‘often’ (12%)

or ‘sometimes’ (29%) confident.

Writing

The majority of parents believe their child ‘always’ writes with confidence (42%) and

enjoys writing (39%), with the remainder divided between believing that their child

‘often’ and ‘sometimes’ writes with confidence (29% and 20%, respectively) and enjoys

writing (28% and 25%, respectively). Although some parents believe (26% and 22%

83

respectively) their child ‘never’ or ‘seldom’ needs help with their writing, the majority

(40%) said that their child ‘sometimes’ needs help. Whilst the majority of parents report

that their child is ‘sometimes’ (36%) a good speller, a quarter (25%) said that their child is

‘always’ a good speller and another quarter (26%) that their child is ‘often’ a good speller.

Examination of the results indicated a significant association between LPA and

nLPA schools and pupils' enjoyment of reading (χ2 = 6.988; p < 0.01) and the likelihood

that they will read books other than their schoolbooks (χ2 = 11.401; p< 0.001).

Specifically, pupils taught using the LPA were seen to enjoy reading and reading materials

other than their schoolbooks more than nLPA pupils. No evidence of an association was

observed between LPA and nLPA schools and pupils': confidence with reading, reading

fluency, confidence with writing, enjoyment of writing, need for help or spelling ability

(in all cases p > 0.05). An examination of the results by class indicated that more pupils in

Yr 2 enjoy reading than pupils in Yr 3 (χ2 = .336; p < 0.01). No other significant

differences were found in the responses of parents of Yr 2 and Yr 3 children (in all cases p

> 0.05).

Post-primary Parents' Responses

Table 10.5 below displays the results of the parents of children in post-primary school.

Table 10.5 Post-primary parents’ views on their child’s ability with reading and writing.

Response (%) Survey Question

Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never

Reading My child likes reading

2

3

6

1

0

My child needs help to read 1 0 8 1 2 My child likes me to read to him/her 0 0 5 6 1 My child reads without stopping 2 1 4 3 2 My child reads books other than school books 2 4 3 3 0 My child is a confident reader 2 2 7 0 1 Writing My child writes with confidence

5

1

2

3

1

My child enjoys writing 3 2 2 3 2 My child needs help to write 1 3 2 1 4 My child is a good speller 2 3 5 2 0

As seen in Table 10.5, the majority of parents think their child likes reading but needs help

with reading ‘sometimes’ (n = 6 and n = 8, respectively). When asked if their child likes

84

them to read to him/her, parents’ opinions were divided between ‘sometimes’ (n = 5) and

‘seldom’ (n = 6). Parents believe that their child reads without stopping ‘sometimes’ (n =

4) and ‘seldom’ (n = 3), with 2 indicating that this was the case ‘always’ and 2 ‘never’.

Only 2 parents think their child ‘always’ read books other than schoolbooks. Others said

they read other materials ‘often’ (n = 4), ‘sometimes’ (n = 3) or ‘seldom’ (n = 3). The

majority of parents describe their child as confident a reader (n = 7), say they write with

confidence (n = 5) and are good spellers (n = 5). Opinion was more divided over pupils'

enjoyment of writing. According to 3 parents, their child ‘always’ enjoys writing, 2 think

they ‘often’ enjoy it, whereas 4 believe their child ‘seldom’ or ‘sometimes’ (for both n =

2) enjoy writing. Similarly, the question asking if the child required help with writing

showed considerable variation with the responses split between ‘often’ (n = 3) and

‘never’ (n = 4).

10.2.5. Perceived Benefits of Approach

This final section of the questionnaire focused on parents’ knowledge of the approach to

reading and writing used in the school and its perceived benefits; it comprised two

questions.

Primary Parents' Reponses

Table 10.6 below displays the results of the parents of children in primary school.

Table 10.6 Primary responses

Response (%) Survey Question

Yes No

8. Does the school use a particular approach to reading and writing? 84.0 7.0 9. Has this benefited your child’s: Reading performance 80.0 9.0 Writing performance 74.0 10.0

The majority (84%) of parents report that their child’s school does use a particular

approach to reading and writing and that this approach has benefited their reading (80%)

and writing (74%) performance. No significant difference was found in the information or

benefits of the reading and writing approach used by LPA or nLPA schools (in all cases p

> 0.05). Whilst no significant difference was noted in knowledge of the school’s reading

and writing approach (p > 0.05) or the perceived benefits the approach has for reading (p >

85

0.05), a significant association was observed in the perceived benefits the approach has on

pupils’ writing performance (χ2 = 2.967; p < 0.01), with greater benefits reported for

younger Yr 2 pupils.

Post-primary Parents' Responses

Table 10.7 below displays the results of the parents of children in post-primary school.

Table 10.7 Post-primary responses

Response (%) Survey Question

Yes No

8. Does the school use a particular approach to reading and writing? 6 4 9. Has this benefited your child’s: Reading performance 5 3 Writing performance 4 3

The results in Table 10.7 show that whilst 6 parents believe their child’s school has a

particular approach to reading and writing, 4 do not. Parents are also divided in their

belief as to whether or not any approach has benefited their child’s reading (5 = ‘yes’, 3 =

‘no’) or writing (4 = ‘yes’, 3 = ‘no’) performance.

10.3 In conclusion – the result of the parents' questionnaire suggests that the majority of

parents are satisfied with their child’s progress in reading and writing. Most parents of

children in schools using the LPA and nLPA understand and have knowledge of the

approach used by their school and believe it benefits their child. Particularly worthy of

note is the finding that parents report that pupils in LPA schools enjoy reading and read

books other than schoolbooks significantly more often than their peers taught using other

approaches.

86

References

Adams, M.J. (1990), Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Anderson, R.C. et al. (1985), Being a Nation of Readers: The Report to the Commission on Reading, Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. Augur, J. and Briggs, S. (1992), Hickey Multi-Sensory Language Course, London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.

Balmuth, M. (1982), The Roots of Phonics: A Historical Introduction, NY: Teachers College Press.

BELB (2004), Linguistic Phonics: Investigating Words Teaching Manual, Belfast.

Bradley, L. & Bryant, P. (1985), Rhyme and Reason in Reading and Spelling, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Brooks, G. et al. (1999), What Works for Slow Readers? NFER, Slough.

Brooks, G. (2002), 'Trying to count the evidence’, in Fisher, R., Brooks, G. and Lewis, M. (eds), Raising Standards in Literacy. London: Routledge Falmer, 136-50.

Brooks, G. (2003), Sound Sense: the Phonics Element of the National Literacy Strategy, A Report to the Department for Education and Skills. Published on DfES website, 20/8/03. Cato, V., Fernandes, C., Gorman, T., Kispal, A. with White, J. (1992), The Teaching of Initial Literacy: How do Teachers Do it? NFER, Slough. Chall, J.S. (1967), Learning to Read: The Great Debate, New York: McGraw-Hill. DfEE (1998), The National Literacy Strategy: Framework for Teaching, London: Department for Education and Employment. DfEE (1999), Progression in Phonics, London: DfEE.

Education Department of Western Australia, (1994) First Steps: Writing Developmental Continuum, Melbourne, Australia: Longman.

Dombey, H., Moustafa M. et al (1998), Whole to Part Phonics, CLPE.

Donaldson, M. (1993), 'Sense and sensibility: some thoughts on the teaching of literacy', in Beard, R. (ed.) Teaching Literacy: Balancing Perspectives, London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Dykstra, R. (1968), ‘Summary of the second-grade phase of the cooperative research program in primary reading instruction’, Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 49-70.

87

Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp.3-40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Willows, D.M., Schuster, B., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001), ‘Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis’, Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250–287. Ericson, L., & Juliebo, M. F. (1998), The Phonological Awareness Handbook for Kindergarten and Primary Teachers, Newark, DE: International Reading Association

Goswami, U. & Bryant, P. (1990), Phonological Skills and Learning to Read, Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Goswami, U. (1994), ‘Reading by analogy: theoretical and practical perspectives’, in Hulme, C. & Snowling, M. (eds.), Reading Development and Dyslexia, London: Whurr, 18-30.

Griffith, Priscilla, et al. (1992), ‘The effect of phonemic awareness on the literacy development of first grade children in a traditional or a whole language classroom’, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 6(2), 85-92.

Johnston, R. & Watson, I. (1998), ‘Accelerating reading attainment: the effectiveness of synthetic phonics’, Interchange 57, The Scottish Office Education and Industry Department.

Johnston, R. & Watson, J (2003), ‘Accelerating reading and spelling with synthetic phonics: a five year follow up’, Insight 4, Scottish Executive Education Department: Edinburgh.

Juniper, L. and Dias, K. (2002), ‘Phono-Graphix - who needs additional literacy support? An outline of research in Bristol schools’, Support for Learning, vol. 17, no. 1, 34-38.

Kirtley, C., Bryant, P., MacLean, M., & Bradley, L. (1989), ‘Rhyme, rime, and the onset of reading’, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 224-245.

Liberman, I.Y., Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, A.M. (1989), ‘The alphabetic principle and learning to read’, in Shankweiler D. & Liberman I.Y. (eds.), Phonology and Reading Disability: Solving the Reading Puzzle, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1-33.

Macmillan, B. (1997), Why Schoolchildren Can’t Read, London: The Institute of Economic Affairs.

McGuinness D. (1997), Why Children Can’t Read, Penguin, London.

McGuinness C, McGuinness G. (1998), Reading Reflex, Penguin, London.

Ofsted, 1998, The National Literacy Project: An HMI Evaluation, London.

Perfetti, C. A. (1992), ‘The representation problem in reading acquisition’, in Gough P.B., Ehri L.C. & Treiman R. (eds.), Reading Acquisition, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 145-174.

88

Rack, J.P., Snowling, M.J., & Olson, R.K. (1992), ‘The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: a review’, Reading Research Quarterly, 27(1), 28-53.

Share, D., Jorm, A., Maclean, R. & Matthews, R. (1984), ‘Sources of individual difference in reading acquisition’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1309-1324.

Stahl, S. A,, Duffy-Hester, A. M. & Stahl, K. A. (1998), ‘Everything you wanted to know about phonics (but were afraid to ask)’, Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 338-355.

Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (1995), ‘How research might inform the debate about early reading acquisition’, Journal of Research in Reading, 18, 87-105.

Stuart, M., (2003), ‘Fine tuning the National Literacy Strategy to ensure continuing progress in improving standards of reading in the UK: Some suggestions for change.’ Published on DfES website at http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/publications/literacy/686807/nls_phonics0303mstuart.pdf.

89

Annex One

Cost & Sustainability Analysis of the Linguistic Phonics Approach

This section presents an analysis of the costs incurred in implementing the Linguistic

Phonics approach (LPA) in the year 2004/2005.

1. Research design and methods

Cost analysis

A desktop review of costs incurred by introducing the LPA into 6 primary and 5 post-

primary schools in 2004-05 was conducted using information provided by the BELB.

Estimated costs of reading materials, salaries of learning support assistants, initial training

and in-service training and support were compiled for each participating school.

Sustainability

Data from interviews with teachers, principals and learning support assistants (LSAs)

were used to extend and inform the analysis, findings focus on the:

• Ongoing running costs; • Perceived value for money; • Support for the approach.

2. Cost Analysis

Table 1 includes a detailed breakdown of the costs incurred in implementing the approach

in primary schools.

Table 1. Costs incurred in implementing the LPA in primary schools

Individual costs per unit

Total cost per unit

No. of Units

Total Cost 2004/05

No. of Pupils Unit cost per pupil

LSA Salary 2,800 Materials 20 Lunch 15

£2,835 6 £17,010 500 £34.02

Teachers Sub cover 450 Materials 160 Lunch 15

£625 24 £15,000 500 £30.00

BELB Officer / Facilitator

Salary 35,000 Travel £240 £35,240 1.5 £44,050 1280

(500 Yr2 & Yr3 pupils) £34.41

Totals £38,700 £38,700 31.5 £76,060 500 £98.43

The results show that one LSA per school (n = 6), the literacy co-ordinator and three

classroom teachers (n = 4) per school were costed to work with 500 pupils in Yrs 2 and 3.

Whilst the BELB officer and a half time BELB facilitator (n = 1.5) was costed to work

with a larger group of 1280 pupils, this number was expected to include other classes in

schools using the LPA. Figures in the last column indicate that the overall cost of the

approach across the year was low and amounted to £98.43 per pupil. A reanalysis of the

data excluding pupils assisted by the BELB officer/facilitator who are not in the Yr 2 and

3 pilot changes the overall cost per pupil to £152.12.

Table 2 below presents a detailed breakdown of costs for post-primary schools. The

number of pupils (n = 200) involved in the post-primary pilot were smaller than the

number in primary schools (n = 500). Consequently the unit cost of LSAs (n = 6),

teachers (n = 12) and BELB (n = 1.5) support per pupil in post-primary schools tend to be

higher than in primary schools and was costed at £342.80.

Table 2. Costs incurred in implementing the LPA in post-primary schools

Individual costs per unit

Total cost per unit

No. of Units

Total Cost 2004/05

No. of Pupils Unit cost per pupil

LSA Salary 2,800 Materials 20 Lunch 15

£2,835 6 £17,010 200 £85.05

Teachers Sub cover 450 Materials 160 Lunch 15

£625 12 £7,500 200 £37.50

BELB Officer / Facilitator

Salary 35,000 Travel £240 £35,240 1.5 £44,050 200 £220.25

Totals £38,700 £38,700 19.5 £68,560 200 £342.80

Since the BELB provided the teaching materials, training, substitute cover for teachers

attending training, follow-up support and met the cost of the LSA salaries, minimal costs

were incurred by schools. Principals reported spending ‘very little’ or ‘nothing’ on the

approach for the year 2004/05. Furthermore, principals noted that, to date, the BELB via

the Belfast Regeneration Office was covering the cost of the approach.

3. Sustainability

Commenting on future spending, the majority of principals said that schools would

eventually have to meet the cost of the approach. As the research progressed the BELB,

amongst others, declared it had overspent and intended to make radical savings. In light

of the proposed cutbacks, principals and teachers were asked whether they would retain

the approach. All said they would, though a few qualified their answer explaining that:

‘We would retain it [the LPA] ... maybe not to the optimum capacity of what it was set out to do which was small group therapy, but have it bedded down into whole class work. And it should simply be the best methodology for helping children with word attack skills for reading’ (Post-primary Principal)

The majority of principals believe the LPA is ‘too valuable to let go’ and even though

budgets may be tight ‘there are ways and means round everything’. According to one

principal it ‘raises standards’ and ‘the future impact it has on pupil performance justifies

any running costs’. Another claimed they would only retain the approach because of the

goodwill of their teachers. The principal explained:

‘We can’t afford the training costs, we couldn’t afford the substitute cover costs and we certainly couldn’t afford a classroom assistant [LSA] so we are carrying it on but only because the teachers are willing to do it without resources’ (Post-primary Principal)

Similar sentiments were echoed by teachers, however most thought the LPA would not

prove costly as they have the teaching materials and are trained to deliver the LPA:

‘Well I mean we’ve already got the materials and been trained so there’s no extra money, it doesn’t need any more to run really’ (Yr 2 Teacher)

A few expressed concern with the affordability of their LSA, for example:

‘If you continue it [LPA] in the classroom, you need an LSA even if it costs extra money, she actually is very good value for money’ (Yr 2 Teacher).

Teachers and principals were also asked whether the LPA represented value for money.

The majority agreed that they did, as exemplified below:

'Yes definitely its value for money because the effect has been so great, we've all been very pleased with it and it would be a shame to loose it now.' (Yr 3 Teacher)

'They [BELB] haven't given us anything that's been a waste of money, for example the LSA. She is working with the children the whole time she is in school and if you compare that to the cost of reading recovery, reading recovery would be much more expensive.' (Yr 3 Teacher)

Others were more cautious and pointed out that the full impact would not become clear for

some time:

'We have found that it can take two to three years before you can really make a valued judgement.' (Post-primary Principal)

Finally principals and teachers were asked whether they would recommend the LPA to

other schools. Many were adamant that they would: 'most definitely' and 'unreservedly.'

However, a small number preferred to wait until they had sufficient evidence to suggest

the approach has been a success.

4. In Conclusion - In essence, the findings from the cost analysis suggest that the LPA is

cost effective. Together with the low unit costs calculated per pupil (£98.02 and £342.80

per pupil in primary and post-primary schools respectively), the true sustainability of the

approach lies in the low cost of maintaining the approach in schools and in the positive

impact it is purported to have had on pupils’ reading and writing ability and on their

confidence and self-esteem. The majority of principals and teachers believe it represents

value for money, hope to continue the approach in the coming years and would

recommend it to other schools.

Appendix A

Classroom Reading and Writing

We are interested in your views on classroom reading and writing in your child’s school. We would ask you to complete the short questionnaire below. Names are not necessary here. All information will be treated in the strictest confidence, with questionnaires seen by the research team only.

My child is in class: ……… My child is a: Boy ٱ Girl ٱ My child’s age is: …… years …… months This is my first child at the school YES / NO How many children are in your family: …….. Please give their ages: …………………………….. 1. I was told how reading and writing are taught in my child’s class:

Before they started school YES / NO After they started school YES / NO

2. This information was easy to understand: YES / NO 3. My child receives support with his/her: Reading YES / NO Writing YES / NO

If yes, please explain (e.g. Reading Recovery): _______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

4. How writing is taught in the school suits my child: YES / NO

(Please give details) _______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

5. My child’s progress in reading is: (please tick appropriate box)

Very Good Good Quite Good Poor

If poor please tell us your concerns: _______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

6. My child’s progress in writing is: (please tick appropriate box) Very Good Good Quite Good Poor

If poor please tell us your concerns:

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Please tick the appropriate box for each statement. Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never

Reading

My child likes reading

My child needs help to read

My child likes me to read to him/her

My child reads without stopping

My child reads books other than school books

My child is a confident reader

Writing

My child writes with confidence

My child enjoys writing

My child needs help to write

My child is a good speller

8. Does the school use a particular approach to reading and writing? YES /

NO 9. Has this benefited your child’s:

a. Reading performance YES / NO b. Writing performance YES / NO

(Please give details) _______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Any other comments:

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire

Appendix B

Primary Principal’s Interview Questions

(2004/05)

At this stage of the evaluation we hope to gain some insight into the experience of school’s working with the Linguistic Phonics approach. For that reason we aim to speak to a large number of school principals, teachers and learning support assistants working with the approach. With your permission I would like to record this interview, but can assure you that everything you tell me will be treated in confidence with names and identifiers removed prior to reporting. 1. Perhaps you would begin by telling me a little about how you and your school first became

involved with the Linguistic Phonics approach?

2. Was the introduction of the approach welcomed by teachers? 3. How easy did you find it to implement the approach? 4. Does the school use other approaches?

If yes, which has proven most effective? 5. Thinking specifically of the Linguistic Phonics approach, do you believe that it has had a

positive impact on children’s performance?

If yes - In particular, which areas have been affected? e.g. reading/spelling/self-esteem

If no – please explain? Can you think of any other advantages or unexpected gains? 6. Are there any disadvantages to this approach? - Please explain. 7. Would you like the approach to continue?

If yes - Would you like to see the Linguistic Phonics approach adopted on a whole school basis?

8. In your opinion does the Linguistic Phonics approach represent value for money? 9. Approximately how much does the approach cost the school? 10. What does this cost cover? (e.g. teaching materials, teacher cover for training days) 11. In light of current difficulties with educational expenditure, if cut backs were necessary in the

school would you retain the Linguistic Phonics approach? 12. Would you recommend it to other schools? 13. Any other comments.

Secondary Principal’s Interview Questions

(2004/05) At this stage of the evaluation we hope to gain some insight into the experience of school’s working with the Linguistic Phonics approach. For that reason we aim to speak to a large number of school principals, teachers and learning support assistants working with the approach. With your permission I would like to record this interview, but can assure you that everything you tell me will be treated in confidence with names and identifiers removed prior to reporting.

1. Perhaps you would begin by telling me a little about how you and your school first became involved with the Linguistic Phonics approach?

2. Was the introduction of the approach welcomed by teachers? 3. How easy did you find it to implement the approach? 4. Does it transfer into other curricular areas? - Please explain. 5. Does the school use other approaches?

If yes, which has proven most effective? 6. Thinking specifically of the Linguistic Phonics approach, do you believe that it has had a

positive impact on children’s performance?

If yes - In particular, which areas have been affected? e.g. reading/spelling/self-esteem

If no – please explain? Can you think of any other advantages or unexpected gains? 7. Are there any disadvantages to this approach? - Please explain. 8. Would you like the approach to continue?

If yes - Would you like to see the Linguistic Phonics approach adopted into other curricular areas?

9. In your opinion does the Linguistic Phonics approach represent value for money? 10. Approximately how much does the approach cost the school? 11. What does this cost cover? (e.g. teaching materials, teacher cover for training days) 12. In light of current difficulties with educational expenditure, if cut backs were necessary in the

school would you retain the Linguistic Phonics approach? 13. Would you recommend it to other schools? 14. Any other comments.

Teachers’ Structured Interview Questions

(2004/05)

At this stage of the evaluation we hope to gain some insight into the experience of teachers who have been involved in the delivery of Linguistic Phonics approach. With your permission I would like to record this interview, but can assure you that everything you tell me will be treated in confidence with names and identifiers removed prior to reporting. 1. Perhaps you would begin by telling me a little about how you and your school first

became involved with the Linguistic Phonics approach?

2. From the following, how would you rate the initial training you received in the Linguistic Phonics approach?

Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Poor Very Poor

3. As you implemented the approach, did the trainers give you support in the classroom?

Yes No Was offered but did not take it up

If Yes, How would you rate that support?

Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Poor Very Poor

4. Was follow-up training available to you? Yes/ No

5. Was follow-up support available to you? Yes/ No

6. In contrast to other approaches has Linguistic Phonics been:

Easier to teach No different Harder to teach

Please ask interviewee to expand

7. Do you use the approach on a one to one basis, with small groups or the whole class?

8. How often do you use it?

Once a week More than once a week Every Day

Less than once a week Don’t use it

9. How effective do you find the support systems offered in terms of:

Leaning support assistance:

Very effective Effective Not very effective

Teaching Materials:

Very effective Effective Not very effective

10. I am interested in the areas affected by the Phono-Graphix / Linguistic Phonics approach. In terms of impact how would you rate the following:

Highly

Effective

Effective No Effect Deteriorated

Overall reading performance

Word identification skills

Spelling

Confidence in reading

Enjoyment of reading

Self-esteem

Communication skills

Independent writing

Enjoyment of independent writing

Reading fluency

11. Perhaps you could highlight for me some of advantages and disadvantages that you

have noted with the Linguistic Phonics approach?

12. Has there been any feedback from parents in terms of changes in children’s enjoyment of reading, which you might attribute to the Linguistic Phonics approach?

13. Similarly, have parents reported any changes in terms of the child’s self-esteem? 14. Would you like to see Linguistic Phonics adopted in your school as a whole school

approach to the teaching of reading? Is there another approach that you prefer to use in your school?

15. In your opinion does the Linguistic Phonic approach represent value for money? 16. In light of current difficulties with educational expenditure, if cut backs were

necessary in the school would you retain the Linguistic Phonics approach? 17. Would you recommend this approach to other schools? 18. Any other comments.

Appendix C

Letter 1: Recruitment of nLPA schools

«PRINCIPAL» «SCHOOL_NAME» «ADDRESS_1» «ADDRESS_2» «ADDRESS_3» «ADDRESS_4» «POSTCODE»

Thursday 10th June 2004 Dear Principal

EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff tthhee BBeellffaasstt EEdduuccaattiioonn aanndd LLiibbrraarryy BBooaarrdd’’ss LLiinngguuiissttiicc PPhhoonniiccss PPrroojjeecctt

As you may be aware the Belfast Education and Library Board are currently piloting a Linguistic Phonics programme in a number of primary (Year 2 & 3) and post-primary schools (Year 8) in the Belfast area. A team of academics at Stranmillis University College with an interest in Linguistic Phonics have been commissioned to evaluate the impact of the programme on children’s reading ability. The evaluation will begin in September 2004 and end in October 2005. During that time children will be assessed at the beginning of the new school year in September 2004 and again in June 2005 and September 2005. Data gathered from whole class tests will be subject to statistical analysis, this will facilitate a comparison of pupil’s pre intervention reading level with their post intervention level and also determine whether the changes noted in reading attainment are sustained over the summer period.

At this stage of the project, it is considered essential to match the experimental schools in the programme with similar schools outside the programme. After careful examination of the key features of the schools involved, i.e. single sex/co-ed, size and management type (Maintained, Controlled, Integrated or other), your school has been identified as a possible match for a school in the experimental group. I am therefore writing to ask if you would consider allowing your school to be involved in this evaluation. Schools who agree to participate (control schools) will receive personalised, individual feedback on the performance of their pupils in relation to the aggregate patterns of the experimental and control schools, plus a copy of the final report. Collated by the principal investigator, Dr Colette Gray, and the research assistant, Ms Sarah Behan, your results will only be available to you the school principal to disseminate if you wish to your teaching staff. No one else will have access to your school’s information. To maintain anonymity, schools and pupils involved with the project will be allocated a code at the beginning of the project. All information will be held in strictest confidence and presented as aggregates in the final report, with all identifying features of the experimental and control schools removed to ensure anonymity.

If you agree to participate, I can assure you that there will be minimum disruption to the classes involved. A member of the research team will administer whole class Caver WRAPS tests to Year 2 and Year 3, together with a collection of writing samples. If you agree to participate in the evaluation and/or if you require further information, please fill in the reply slip enclosed and return using the freepost envelop. Alternatively, you can contact me by phone on 0289038445; c.gray@stran.ac.uk or Sarah Behan on 028 9038 4355 e-mail at s.behan@stran.ac.uk. Yours faithfully Dr Colette Gray Senior Lecturer Team members: Dr Colette Gray, Dr Carol Dunbar, Mrs Jill Dunne, Dr Denise Mitchell, Dr Jim Ferguson and Miss Sarah Behan.

Letter 2: Welcome letter for nLPA schools «PRINCIPAL» «SCHOOL_NAME» «ADDRESS_1» «ADDRESS_2» «ADDRESS_3» «ADDRESS_4» «POSTCODE»

Thursday 26th August 2004

Dear Principal

EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff tthhee BBeellffaasstt EEdduuccaattiioonn aanndd LLiibbrraarryy BBooaarrdd’’ss LLiinngguuiissttiicc PPhhoonniiccss PPrroojjeecctt

On behalf of the research team commissioned to evaluate a Linguistic Phonics project in schools in the BELB, I am writing to thank you for agreeing to join the control sample.

The first phase of the evaluation will involve a representative from BELB supplying your school with the Caver WRAPS tests. These should be with you by Monday 20th September and may be administered to Year 2 & 3 pupils by their own class teachers during a class session. On completion, scripts should be placed in sealed envelopes. A member of BELB will collect them by Friday 24th September and pass them to the research team for data coding and entry.

As previously indicated, at the same time we would like to collect writing samples from all your Year 2 and 3 pupils. For this your school will also receive a pro-forma, which should be used when collecting writing samples. On return these should be sealed in the envelope provided and will be forward to the Stranmillis team along with the Suffolk Reading Scale and Vernon Spelling Tests. As you may recall from our previous correspondence, each participating school will receive personalised, individual feedback on the performance of its pupils in relation to the aggregate patterns of the experimental and control schools, plus a copy of the final report. Only the principal investigator, Dr Colette Gray, the research assistant, Ms Sarah Behan, and each school principal who may wish to disseminate them to the teaching staff will know results for individual schools. All information will be held in strictest confidence and presented as aggregates in the final report, with all identifying features of the experimental and control schools removed to ensure anonymity. Please let me know if these arrangements for the first round of tests are agreeable by contacting our research assistant, Sarah Behan, on 028 9038 4355 or by e-mail at s.behan@stran.ac.uk. If you require further information on any aspect of the research please do not hesitate to contact me by phone on 0289038445, by e-mail at c.gray@stran.ac.uk or you can contact Sarah. Yours faithfully Dr Colette Gray Senior Lecturer Team members: Dr Colette Gray, Dr Carol Dunbar, Mrs Jill Dunne, Dr Denise Mitchell, Dr Jim Ferguson and Miss Sarah Behan

Letter 3: Test 1 letter for LPA schools «LINGUISTIC PHONICS COORDINATOR» «SCHOOL_NAME» «ADDRESS_1» «ADDRESS_2» «ADDRESS_3» «ADDRESS_4» «POSTCODE»

Friday 17th September 2004 Dear Coordinator

EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff tthhee BBeellffaasstt EEdduuccaattiioonn aanndd LLiibbrraarryy BBooaarrdd’’ss LLiinngguuiissttiicc PPhhoonniiccss PPrroojjeecctt As you will be aware, recently your school agreed to participate in a research evaluation of the Linguistic Phonics Project. Acting as a control school, your P2 and P3 pupils will engage in the WRAPS group administered class test and provide a sample of their writing for analysis. We have enclosed a booklet detailing what is involved, included are examples of work that may prove useful for your pupils. This booklet should be used by the teacher(s) administering the tests. A WRAPS test manual, test booklets for pupils and writing sheets are also included. If possible we would like your P2 & P3 teachers to provide a complete class list indicating those pupils receiving additional support, such as reading recovery assistance. This will enable us to identify extenuating variables that may have an affect on a pupil’s progress. As always, only the Principal Investigator and Research Assistant at Stranmillis will have access to this information with identifying features removed prior to reporting. If you prefer, the class name list can be sent separately to the Research Assistant Ms Sarah Behan at Stranmillis College. A representative from the research team will visit your school to collect the completed test battery on the Friday October 1st 2004. If you have any queries regarding any aspect of this project then please don’t hesitate to contact Ms Sarah Behan on 028 90384 355 or Dr Colette Gray on 028 9038 4449. Yours sincerely, Dr Colette Gray Senior Lecturer & Principal Investigator. Team members: Dr Colette Gray, Dr Carol Dunbar, Mrs Jill Dunne, Dr Denise Mitchell, Dr Jim Ferguson and Miss Sarah Behan

Letter 4: Pupil List request «LINGUISTIC PHONICS COORDINATOR» «SCHOOL_NAME» «ADDRESS_1» «ADDRESS_2» «ADDRESS_3» «ADDRESS_4» «POSTCODE»

Tuesday 14th December 2004 Dear Coordinator

EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff tthhee BBeellffaasstt EEdduuccaattiioonn aanndd LLiibbrraarryy BBooaarrdd’’ss LLiinngguuiissttiicc PPhhoonniiccss PPrroojjeecctt Thank you for completing the test booklets and writing samples, the time taken to administer these test is greatly appreciated. However, to ensure accuracy when reporting our findings we require information regarding those pupils receiving additional support, such as outreach assistance or reading recovery. This will enable us to identify extenuating variables that may have an affect on a pupil’s progress. As requested in our previous letter, could you provide a class list of names identifying those pupils who have additional assistance and/or special educational needs. Additionally, in order to score tests we need an accurate date of birth for each pupil. As some test booklets do not have a date of birth inserted it would be extremely useful if the class list(s) provided could include a date of birth for each pupil as well. As always, only the Principal Investigator and Research Assistant at Stranmillis will have access to this information with all identifying features removed prior to reporting. If you are willing to send the information requested please use the freepost envelope provided or if you have further queries please contact the project’s research assistant, Ms Sarah Behan on 028 90384 355 or Dr Colette Gray on 028 9038 4449. Yours sincerely, Dr Colette Gray Senior Lecturer & Principal Investigator. Team members: Dr Colette Gray, Dr Carol Dunbar, Mrs Jill Dunne, Dr Denise Mitchell, Dr Jim Ferguson and Miss Sarah Behan.

Letter 5: Third test battery request sent to nLPA schools «PRINCIPAL» «SCHOOL_NAME» «ADDRESS_1» «ADDRESS_2» «ADDRESS_3» «ADDRESS_4» «POSTCODE»

Wednesday 31st August 2005 Dear Principal

AAnn EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff tthhee LLiinngguuiissttiicc PPhhoonniiccss AApppprrooaacchh Please find enclosed an analysis of the reading performance of P2 and P3 pupils in your school in the academic year 2004/2005. Reported first are key findings from an analysis of schools using the Linguistic Phonics approach and schools using other approaches. In the last section of the report, an analysis of the results for your school are included and compared with the overall performance of others in the study. Although this information may prove useful, a third and final test would indicate how much information is retained over time by pupils taught using a variety of reading approaches. With this in mind, I have taken the liberty of enclosing a list of pupils involved in test 1 and 2 and test booklets (WRaPS) with their accompanying instructions. I sincerely hope that you will agree to this final round of testing which I believe will provide important information on the long term value of the reading approaches used in schools. Please note that results for your school are available only to you. In the final report, to preserve the anonymity of schools, the analysis will include aggregated data only. If you have questions regarding any aspect of the study then please don’t hesitate to contact Sarah Behan on 028 9038 4355 or by e-mail at s.behan@stran.ac.uk. Yours sincerely Dr Colette Gray Senior Lecturer Team members: Dr Colette Gray, Dr Carol Dunbar, Mrs Jill Dunne, Dr Denise Mitchell, Dr Jim Ferguson and Miss Sarah Behan.

Letter 6: Third test battery reminder sent to LPA schools «PRINCIPAL» «SCHOOL_NAME» «ADDRESS_1» «ADDRESS_2» «ADDRESS_3» «ADDRESS_4» «POSTCODE»

Wednesday 31st August, 2005 Dear Principal

AAnn EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff tthhee LLiinngguuiissttiicc PPhhoonniiccss AApppprrooaacchh

As part of your school’s continuing participation in a research evaluation of the Linguistic Phonics approach we are now sending you the last set of Suffolk Reading Scale booklets and Vernon Spelling Test sheets for the final round of testing. I have also enclosed a list of pupils who took part in test 1 and 2 to aid you in identifying those pupils involved. This final round of testing is being carried out to ensure we fully reflect the ability of pupils across time. On the collection and analysis of all tests an individual set of results will then be sent to your school along with the aggregate results of other schools and those schools that adopted the Linguistic Phonics approach last year. Please note that results for your school are available only to you. In the final report, to preserve the anonymity of schools, the analysis will include aggregated data only. Would you please return completed tests by the 16th September 2005; enclosed is a free post envelope for this purpose. If you have any queries regarding any aspect of this project then please don’t hesitate to contact Sarah Behan on 028 90384 355, or by e- mail at s.behan@stran.ac.uk. Yours sincerely, Dr Colette Gray Senior Lecturer & Principal Investigator. Team members: Dr Colette Gray, Dr Carol Dunbar, Mrs Jill Dunne, Dr Denise Mitchell, Dr Jim Ferguson, Miss Sarah Behan and Jo Wilson.

Letter 7: Questionnaire distribution request for principals «PRINCIPAL» «SCHOOL_NAME» «ADDRESS_1» «ADDRESS_2» «ADDRESS_3» «ADDRESS_4» «POSTCODE»

11th May, 2005 Dear Principal

Linguistic Phonics Project

At this stage of the evaluation, we would like to survey a sample of parents to gain some insight into their views and experiences of the approach. With this in mind, please find enclosed a copy of the questionnaire, a letter of explanation and a SAE for each of the parents of Year 2 and 3 pupils. To speed the distribution of the questionnaire, they have been sorted into packs by class. A copy of the full questionnaire pack is enclosed for your perusal. Rather than have parents respond through the school, we have asked them to use an included SAE, returning the completed questionnaire to the research team here at Stranmillis. Should you have any queries regarding this aspect of the evaluation, please contact me at 90 384 343 or j.wilson@stran.ac.uk. or Dr Colette Gray at 02890384449. Yours sincerely, Jo Wilson Research assistant

Letter 8: Questionnaire completion request for parents «TO THE PARENT OF» «PUPIL NAME » «ADDRESS_1» «ADDRESS_2» «ADDRESS_3» «ADDRESS_4» «POSTCODE» Dear Parent, I write to inform you that we are currently undertaking an evaluation into the effectiveness of approaches to reading in your child’s school. With this in mind, we are currently surveying parents to gain some insight into the level of satisfaction parents have with the reading approaches used in their child’s school. For that reason we enclose a short questionnaire, which we would ask you to complete and return to us ASAP. All responses are confidential and names are not required. Please return completed forms by 25th May, 2005, using the prepaid envelope included. A stamp is not required. Again, I would take this opportunity to assure you that your responses are confidential and will be seen only by the research team. If you have any questions regarding any aspect of this research then please don’t hesitate to contact Jo Wilson (research assistant) on 90384358 or Dr Colette Gray (principal investigator) on 90384449. Yours faithfully Dr Colette Gray Senior lecturer: Stranmillis University College

Appendix D

Table 1. The baseline reading scores (in months) of pupils in LPA and nLPA schools

LPA Year 2

LPA Year 3

nLPA Year 2

nLPA Year 3

Reading scores Test 1

n mean sd n mean sd n mean sd n mean sdChronological age (CA) 196 69.2 3.583 188 80.19 3.382 136 68.55 3.657 106 80.86 3.702

Reading age (RA) 196 59.72 7.946 188 70.7 10.836 136 59.33 7.225 106 76.21 12.066

Raw Score 196 12.22 9.098 188 24.24 10.426 136 13.57 7.133 106 29.85 11.799

Reading Quotient 196 87.57 13.495 188 90.19 10.99 136 90.18 11.64 106 95.96 12.396

RA-CA 196 -9.47 8.519 188 -9.62 10.277 136 -9.21 7.722 106 -4.57 11.655

NB: Excluding pupils with SEN and/or receiving additional reading support

Table 2. Baseline reading scores (in months) for years 2 and 3 in LPA schools by gender LPA

Boys Year 2 LPA

Girls Year 2 LPA

Boys Year 3 LPA

Girls Year 3 Reading scores

Test 1 n mean sd n mean sd n mean sd n mean sd

Chronological age (CA) 83 68.86 3.623 113 69.46 3.548 80 80.51 3.383 108 79.94 3.376

Reading age (RA) 83 59.39 8.079 113 59.96 7.874 80 68.34 10.645 108 72.44 10.691

Raw Score 83 11.53 9.521 113 12.73 8.782 80 22.28 10.169 108 25.7 10.42

Reading Quotient 83 86.64 14.196 113 88.25 12.978 80 87.45 10.773 108 92.21 10.754

RA-CA 83 -9.45 8.617 113 -9.5 8.485 80 -12.58 9.983 108 -7.43 9.981

NB: Excluding pupils with SEN and/or receiving additional reading support

Table 3. Baseline reading scores (in months) for years 2 and 3 in nLPA schools by gender

nLPA Boys Year 2

nLPA Girls Year 2

nLPA Boys Year 3

nLPA Girls Year 3

Reading scores Test 1

n mean sd n mean sd n mean sd n mean sdChronological age (CA) 52 68.56 3.621 84 68.55 3.701 37 82.24 3.752 69 80.12 3.479

Reading age (RA) 52 58.4 7.298 84 59.9 7.162 37 77.51 13.882 69 29.26 11.017

Raw Score 52 12.37 7.436 84 14.32 6.878 37 30.95 13.302 69 75.51 10.967

Reading Quotient 52 89.21 13.341 84 90.77 10.492 37 95.32 14.087 69 95.88 11.494

RA-CA 52 -10.17 6.813 84 -8.62 8.218 37 -4.49 13.01 69 -4.61 10.96

NB: Excluding pupils with SEN and/or receiving additional reading support

Table 4. The reading scores (in months) of pupils in test 2

LPA Year 2

LPA Year 3

nLPA Year 2

nLPA Year 3

Reading scores Test 2

n mean sd n mean sd n mean sd n mean sdChronological age (CA) 181 77.72 3.526 171 88.99 3.335 121 77.26 3.87 100 88.86 3.709

Reading age (RA) 181 73.86 9.786 171 85.78 11.067 121 69.75 8.477 100 87.76 11.822

Raw Score 181 27.24 10.271 171 39.15 10.357 121 23.21 8.567 100 40.91 10.703

Reading Quotient 181 69.06 9.786 171 96.32 12.598 121 92.02 12.627 100 99.37 13.279

RA-CA 181 -3.39 12.368 171 -3.22 11287 121 -7.19 8.558 100 -1.41 11.693

NB: Excluding pupils with SEN and/or receiving additional reading support

Table 5. Test 2 reading scores (in months) for years 2 and 3 in LPA schools by gender

LPA Boys Year 2

LPA Girls Year 2

LPA Boys Year 3

LPA Girls Year 3

Reading scores Test 2

n mean sd n mean sd n mean sd n mean sdChronological age (CA) 75 77.4 3.514 106 77.95 3.533 71 89.35 3.203 100 88.74 3.419

Reading age (RA) 75 73.31 10.525 106 74.25 9.259 71 81.58 10.739 100 88.77 10.336

Raw Score 75 26.91 11.025 106 27.47 9.728 71 34.96 10.327 100 42.13 9.338

Reading Quotient 75 95.71 12.973 106 96.31 11.979 71 91.18 12.087 100 99.97 11.699

RA-CA 75 -3.99 10.875 106 -3.82 10.13 71 -7.68 11.546 100 -0.06 10.009

NB: Excluding pupils with SEN and/or receiving additional reading support

Table 6. Test 2 reading scores (in months) for years 2 and 3 in nLPA schools by gender nLPA

Boys Year 2 nLPA

Girls Year 2 nLPA

Boys Year 3 nLPA

Girls Year 3 Reading scores

Test 2 n mean sd n mean sd n mean sd n mean sd

Chronological age (CA) 49 77.2 3.747 72 77.31 3.978 37 90 3.719 63 88.19 3.564

Reading age (RA) 49 69.18 7.918 72 70.14 8.87 37 89.03 11.164 63 40.1 12.218

Raw Score 49 22.51 7.89 72 23.69 9.021 37 89.03 10.091 63 87.02 11.043

Reading Quotient 49 90.35 14.233 72 93.15 11.37 37 100.3 13.331 63 98.83 13.325

RA-CA 49 -7.82 8.041 72 -6.76 8.923 37 -0.97 11.092 63 -1.67 12.112

NB: Excluding pupils with SEN and/or receiving additional reading support

Table 7 Mean reading score (RA –CA) for LPA pupils at tests 1 and 2 by ability band

LPA Schools Year 2 Year 3 Reading Scores

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 1 Test 2 Test 3Low Band -16.21 -8.52 -11.31 -18.69 -10.84 -11.66

Middle Band -7.20 -2.82 -6.44 -5.28 -0.75 -0.13

High Band 6.85 9.09 7.09 7.23 9.77 6.55

NB: Excluding pupils with SEN and/or receiving additional reading support

Table 8. Mean reading score (RA –CA) for nLPA pupils at tests 1 and 2 by ability band

nLPA Schools Year 2 Year 3 Reading Scores

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 1 Test 2 Test 3Low Band -15.76 -11.98 -12.33 -17.06 -12.07 -19.41

Middle Band -6.77 -4.52 -9.00 -4.64 -1.28 -0.44

High Band 6.71 -3.08 -8.83 9.70 10.00 7.5

NB: Excluding pupils with SEN and/or receiving additional reading support

Table 9. Baseline scores for pupils in LPA and nLPA schools

LPA Test 1 nLPA Test 1

Suffolk Reading Tests n mean sd n mean sd

Chronological age (CA) 55 140.11 3.665 55 141.33 5.203

Raw Score 55 54.07 7.488 55 55.44 10.030

Reading Age (RA) 55 102.91 10.868 55 106.63 16.104

RA-CA 55 -37.05 11.066 55 -34.36 17.517

Vernon Spelling Test n mean sd n mean Sd

Chronological age (CA) 51 140.11 3.485 54 141.33 4.204

Raw Score 51 27.67 7.312 54 28.25 11.019

Spelling Age (SA) 51 113.96 15.154 54 115.89 22.518

Spelling Quotient 51 84.86 7.582 54 86.44 11.070

SA-CA 51 -27.80 15.585 54 -24.87 22.974

NB: Excluding pupils with SEN and/or receiving additional reading support

Table 10. Year 8 reading and spelling scores (in months) at test 2.

LPA Test 2 nLPA Test 2

Suffolk Reading Tests n mean sd n mean sd

Chronological age (CA) 45 148.47 3.533 50 148.56 3.818

Raw Score 45 51.36 6.773 50 49.98 10.899

Reading Age (RA) 45 112.53 11.321 50 11.72 17.429

RA-CA 45 -36 11.869 50 -36.84 18.283

Vernon Spelling Test n mean sd n mean sd

Chronological age (CA) 44 148.47 3.572 46 148.56 3.769

Raw Score 44 31.86 11.095 46 35.07 9.2

Spelling Age (SA) 44 120.36 14.257 46 129.85 19.984

Spelling Quotient 44 84.57 7.053 46 89.57 10.275

SA-CA 44 -28.07 14.669 46 -18.72 20.439

NB: Excluding pupils with SEN and/or receiving additional reading support

Appendix E

Criteria for Evaluating Children’s Writing at Key Stage 1

Key Indicators Concepts and Conventions October 2004 January 2005 May 2005 Draws symbols consisting of straight, curved or intersecting lines that simulate letters

Makes random marks on paper Makes linear scribbles with some breaks Places letters randomly on page Writes random strings of letters Uses a combination of pictorial and letter representation Mixes letters, numerals and invented letter shapes Writes random letters incorporating letters from their own name Writes recognisable words Reverses letters Uses upper and lower case letters indiscriminately Leaves a space between word like clusters of letters Uses left to right and top to bottom orientation of print Attempts to use some punctuation e.g. full stops, question marks, exclamation marks, commas

Uses capital letters for names Uses capital letters at the start of a sentence Over generalises use of print conventions e.g. overuse of full stops, commas etc

Maintains consistent tense Content and Organisation October 2004 January 2005 May 2005 Generates writing by repeating the same beginning patterns e.g. ‘I like…’,’I like….’

Repeats familiar words when writing e.g. cat, cat, cat Writes using simplified oral language structures Beginning to use some complex language structures Has a sense of sentence Beginning to use an organisational framework e.g. shows story development Includes irrelevant information Begins to use relevant detail Joins simple sentences e.g. and, then Length (word count)

Vocabulary October 2004 January 2005 May 2005 Uses vocabulary beyond simple spelling structures Uses adjectives/adverbs to provide interest Uses range of written vocabulary Spelling October 2004 January 2005 May 2005 Writes the first one or two letters of word correctly and may finish with random string of letters

Is willing to have a go at spelling own words Attempts to spell some more complex words Relies on the sounds which are the most obvious (initial/initial-final/initial-medial-final)

Represents a whole word with one, two or three letters e.g. kgr (kangaroo) Substitutes incorrect letters for those with similar pronunciation e.g. consurt (concert), tuched (touched)

Represents past tense according to sounds heard e.g. stopt (stopped), livd (lived)

Does not use double letters e.g. tel (tell), wil (will) Confuses short vowel sounds e.g. pan (pen), yallow (yellow)

Sometimes omits one letter of a two letter blend or digraph, e.g. fog (frog), mik (milk)

Sometimes writes graphemes in wrong order e.g. wnet (went) Is beginning to use syllabification for longer words e.g. telefon (telephone), butefl (beautiful)

Is beginning to use simple homonyms and homophones correctly e.g. wind, read, their/there, one/won, too/to

yes (evidence within the piece of writing) X no (no evidence within the piece of writing) S some (some evidence within the piece of writing) N/A not applicable to this piece of writing

Criteria for Evaluating Children’s Writing at Key Stage 3 Key Indicators Vocabulary

a) uses basic vocabulary only b) shows some variety to avoid repeating familiar words

uses vocabulary beyond simple spelling structures c) uses specific vocabulary to explain or describe

varies vocabulary to create interest d) uses wide and varied vocabulary

Spelling a) relies heavily on most obvious sounds of a word (initial/initial-final/initial-medial-

final) represents a whole word by a few letters adds random letters to complete words uses a small bank of known familiar words

b) spells commonly used sight words correctly uses some knowledge of sound-symbol correspondence

represents all sounds in a word may confuse short vowels

substitutes incorrect letters for similar sounds c) uses knowledge of common letter sequences

places a vowel in every syllable represents all syllables in a word uses letters to represent all sounds in a word

d) spells prefixes, suffixes and inflections correctly uses double consonants correctly spells multisyllable words correctly uses conventional spelling effectively

Detail a) makes comments very bluntly b) adds words to clarify meaning

includes detail to elaborate or develop c) able to develop ideas

includes explanatory or personal comment d) fluent in adding detail

Secondary Indicators

Structure a) uses some basic written structures (a sense of sentence) b) shows some variety to avoid repeating the same sentence pattern c) uses variety in sentence forms d) able to use complex sentences confidently

Organization a) little evidence of organization b) evidence of some form of organizational development c) has imposed some organizational structure d) well organized

Connectors a) no connectors or ‘and’ only b) uses some connectors in addition to ‘and’ c) uses some variety in connecting words d) uses subordinating and linking connectors confidently

Punctuation a) little or no punctuation b) uses basic punctuation c) uses punctuation with awareness of language structures d) uses correct punctuation consistently

Awareness a) little sense of awareness of needs of reader b) shows some awareness of needs of reader c) has a clear awareness of needs of reader d) adapts writing to meet needs of reader consistently

ISBN 0 903009 66 8

A study commissioned by The Belfast Education & Library Board (BELB)

and funded by The Belfast Regeneration Office (BRO)