Illuminate - Web viewReading Links Decoding Workbook 1 - $19.99 . ... online as a Starter Pack for $247.90 . ... Ask each student to read each word beginning with List 1

Illuminate Literacy Program

ALDRIDGE STATE HIGH SCHOOL

Contents Page

1. Introduction 31.1 Title1.2 Enquiry Question1.3 Executive Summary

2. Overview and Link to Data 32.1 Why this research project?2.2 Baseline Data2.3 School Improvement Agenda

3. Description of Target Strategy 63.1 Research Underpinning Our Strategy3.2 Overview of Our Strategy

4. Implementation 94.1 Methodology4.2 Staff Capability4.3 Adjustments Made During Implementation

5. Investment and Scalability 115.1 Investment5.2 Scalability

6. Outcomes and Supporting Evidence 126.1 Student Outcomes Overview6.2 Performance Measures and Resources Used6.3 Qualitative and Quantitative Data

7. Conclusions and Future Planning 177.1 Key Outcomes7.2 Key Findings – Looking Back7.3 Looking Forward

8. Bibliography 19

9. Acknowledgements 20

10.Appendices 2110.1 Literature Review10.2 Strategy Overview10.3 Assessment Protocols10.4 Interview Questions10.5 Outcome Graphs/Tables

11.Endorsement 33

2

1. Introduction1.1 Title The Aldridge Illuminate Literacy Program1.2 Inquiry Question

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

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

That the program continues, largely in its current form, (especially in terms of timetabling, staffing and format).

That the remaining strategies continue to be embedded into upper junior English classes. That a writing program be included in the program. That staffing for lower level classes be consistent throughout the year.

The report also investigates the fact that the analysis conducted has limitations. Some of the limitations include: Staffing changes causing disruption to student routines. Considerable absenteeism on the part of a number of students. The failure of a number of students to participate in NAPLAN and/or PAT-R testing or to seriously attempt

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

2 Overview and Link To Data2.1 Why this Research Project?

Aldridge State High School is located in Maryborough, a community struggling with significant disadvantage. As of April 2015, our region was experiencing an unemployment rate of 15.3 percent. Only 5% of our population have a Bachelor qualification and mental health and disability statistics are at twice the state average. Our local high schools have the highest percentage of students in care in the state. High levels of transience are, increasingly, a feature of our community.

The Academic performance of our feeder schools, therefore, is below both state and national benchmarks. This has resulted in approximately 40% of recent cohorts entering high school with significant literacy issues, destined to continue the pattern of failure begun in Primary school.

According to Anita Archer (et al) 2003, what separates many of these students from their peers is their inability to read multisyllabic words and to read fluently. These students need instruction in decoding and reading practice. She also points out that significant gains in reading are more likely to occur when the program that is implemented is research validated and has a well-designed sequence, providing systematic instruction to students.

However, secondary teachers, trained to teach literature rather than literacy, feel ill-equipped to support students at this level.

2.1 Baseline DataQualitativeThrough a series of informal meetings and baseline interviews, the following information was gleaned:

3

Teachers at Aldridge SHS were increasingly concerned that new cohorts of students were unable to access the curriculum due to difficulties engaging with text. As a result, many students had become disengaged from learning and were disruptive in the classroom.

A number of parents had expressed specific concerns around their student’s ability to read homework questions and engage with set reading tasks (eg: short stories, novels, non-fiction text).

Some hypothesized that these concerns were caused by our assuming too much about the literacy levels amongst our incoming students, and that these literacy issues were impacting across the curriculum. For example, students were struggling to achieve in Maths due to an inability to decode word based questions. Further, they hypothesized that this was why our relative gains had declined in recent years.

At Aldridge SHS, English faculty staff are drawn from a number of generalist faculties and not all have been trained in teaching English. Those, and indeed many who were trained in Secondary English, were not trained in how to teach a child to read. As a rule, most were trained to teach Literature rather than Literacy. Even upper primary school teachers who had transitioned to high schools with the Year 7s felt inadequately trained to teach a child to read. Teacher aides were, likewise, concerned about taking on such a highly specialised task.

Quantitative While available NAPLAN data suggested that students were working at or just below level (many did not

complete NAPLAN testing in Year 6), school based data demonstrated that many students of concern had failed English consistently in Primary School. (Nb: 2015 saw both Year 6 and 7 students’ transition to high school).

Identified Students Primary School Results 2014

C D E N

Year 6Semester 1

25% 72.2% 2.8% 0.0%

Year 6Semester 2

33.3% 61.1% 2.8% 2.8%

Year 7Semester 1

17.6% 76.5% 0.0% 5.9%

Year 7Semester 2

17.6% 70.6% 5.9% 5.9%

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

Identified Students Primary School Results 2015

B/C D E N

Year 6Semester 1

44% 39% 5% 12%

Year 6Semester 2

37% 46% 5% 12%

There was a strong correlation between low student school based outcomes, poor decoding skills and the PAT-R data.

4

Testing on entry to Aldridge SHS in the areas of Reading Comprehension, Spelling and Grammar and punctuation demonstrated significant literacy issues. As had been practice for the school for a number of years, students sat the PAT-R for year 7 in Term 1 as a pre-test. Although the test is normed for September, a valid reading age was assessed. (Nb: From the beginning of 2016 this process has been modified to use the previous year’s Year 6 PAT-R testing data from partner Primary schools through new, mutually agreed, data sharing timelines and protocols. From the beginning of 2016, reading age has also been verified using the New Salford Sentence Reading Test).

Based on PAT outcomes, students whose reading comprehension results indicated that they were reading at a Year 3-4 level or below were tested for phonemic awareness and decoding automaticity.

In 2015, many students were found to have significant gaps in their decoding knowledge and automaticity (46.34% of the Year 7 cohort and 44.29% of the Year 8 cohort). Some had difficulty recognising rhyme.

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

In 2015:

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 COMP05

10152025303540

7 Term 1

In 2016:


10

20

30

40

50

7 Term 1

5


5

10

15

20

25

30

8 Term 1

Legend:Decoding StudentsPhase 1 – Gaps in initial letter sounds, consonant-vowel-consonant words, initial consonant blends, initial blends and final consonant digraphs.Phase 2 – Gaps in final consonant diagraphs, final consonant blends, long vowels and the silent ‘e’

Transition Students (Students continue to build decoding automaticity while beginning comprehension skills)Phase 3 – Gaps in long vowel digraphs, consonant-vowel and vowel diagraphs.Phase 4 – Gaps in Vowel and Consonant-Vowel Digraphs.

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

2.2 School Improvement AgendaIn 2014, the School Improvement Plan included a generalised literacy plan including the following: Year 8 English students pre & post tested on PAT-R Specific one lesson per week literacy program for Year 8 and Year 9 Specific & directed teaching of Reading & Writing skills Year 8 and 9 (Spelling/reading strategies targeted in

2014 Literacy Program) Class groupings in core areas according to student ability Years 8 - 10 Develop explicit curriculum in Year 8 and 9 English Utilise Great Results funding to continue employment of specifically trained Literacy teacher–aides.

However, data from the partner schools and on-entry assessment of the 2015 cohort (see above) necessitated the adoption of a specific sharp, narrow and deep improvement agenda focussed on the development of reading skills. Therefore, the 2015 School Improvement Plan called for the implementation of literacy specialist programs (specifically reading) to be embedded in the curriculum via prioritised & dedicated learning time.

3 Description of Target Strategy3.1 Research Underpinning Our Strategy

Our project is based on the work of Dr Carol Christensen; specifically her “Reading Links Program” and the following article:

o Christiansen C. and Wauchope E. (2009) “Whole School Literacy – Using Research to Create Programs that Build Universal High Levels of Literate Competence” in Berninger (et al) Eds, “Implementing Evidence-Based Academic Interventions in School Settings”, Oxford University Press, USA.

Other research indicated the importance of: o FREQUENCY OF CONTACTS - Students who need literacy help will experience success if they are

EXPLICITLY taught at their own level at least once per day, preferably in the morning. Scammacca et al (2007), Lingard (2005), Solity et al (2000), Rose (2009).

o LENGTH OF CONTACT – Students will engage most successfully with explicit literacy support if that support is for no more that 20-25mins per contact. Rose (2009), Vaughn et al (2000), Brooks (2007).

o AUTOMATICITY – Students need to have full automaticity in decoding before they can move successfully onto comprehension activities. Christensen (2005), Hook et al (2002).

o CLASS SIZE – Students who need the most support need smaller classes to manage social concerns and behavior as well as to optimize participation. Anderson (2013), Bruhwiler et al (2011), Zyngier (2014) and Christensen (2005).

We also considered:o Current English Junior Work Program – Aldridge SHS and Partner School Literacy Program and

Intervention overviews.o A Whole School Approach to Teaching Reading – DET 2014

6

o School Improvement Unit Interim Report – Semester 1, 2015 – DET 2015 See literature review (appendix 1) and bibliography for more detail.

3.2 Overview of the StrategyThe goal of this project was to meet the needs of incoming cohorts of Year 7 and 8 students who were struggling with reading comprehension across the curriculum, and who were testing at a much lower level of literacy competence than our secondary staff were trained to support.At the end of 2014 and the beginning of 2015, student data was collected on this cohort and analysed against both the North Coast Regional Benchmarks and previous Year 8 cohorts. The data demonstrated a gradual decline in NAPLAN literacy outcomes, particularly in reading. More data was then sourced from our Primary partner schools and the PAT-R test. This data was analysed and students experiencing difficulty with reading were identified.Initially we assessed identified students using the Christensen Decoding Test to understand just how many students required decoding intervention. We then presented this information to the school leadership team, the teaching staff and the regional Primary ARD and Literacy PEAACs. The Master Teacher was then tasked to look at alternative interventions which were subsequently presented to the Leadership Team. Carol Christensen’s Reading Links Program was chosen as it met the criteria required in that it:

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

The School Leadership Team confirmed their decision to have the decoding intervention occur in English classes to ensure that the process was being led by English teachers. They also manipulated the timetable to place what had been the extra Literacy lesson on the day when English classes were not running, so that students could participate in the decoding component of the course for 15-20mins per school day.Teachers and Teacher aides participated in two professional development days with Dr Carol Christensen and were given a term to watch it being modelled by others, practice delivery with each other and in their classrooms and share ideas with other teachers and teacher aides. A Literacy Leadership team was developed.Students were ability grouped into classes with those who were decoding placed in classes of no more than ten students. Students who were transitioning were placed in classes of around 15-20. Trained teachers and teacher aides were allocated to classes to ensure a 1:5 ratio. The Master Teacher then created a data wall to help teachers, teacher aides and students make visual connections around individual students and their literacy progress. Due to change fatigue and on-going concerns from the teaching staff about how they could successfully implement this program, the Literacy leadership team took the decision to introduce one aspect of the program at a time, embed it, then move on to the next. It was decided to begin with the most confronting aspect – the explicit decoding skills program. We then moved on to reading activities (including reciprocal teaching), oral language activities, mental modelling and initial comprehension exercises. All were resourced, modelled, practiced, embedded and subject to walk throughs.At this point, one teacher of one of the decoding classes decided not to participate in the program, but to teach the class as she had originally intended. Her class became our control class for one term to see if there were any differences in outcome.

Strand Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5

Decoding Decoding Skills;Teacher Read Out Loud

Decoding Skills; Student Oral Reading from Readers

Decoding Skills; Oral Language

Decoding Skills;Teacher Read out Loud


Transition Decoding Reciprocal Decoding Engagement in Decoding

7

Skills; Silent Reading

Reading; Teacher Read Out Loud

Skills; Oral Language

Ideas; Student Oral Reading from Readers

Skills, Teacher Read Out Loud

Comprehension Reciprocal Teaching; Silent Reading

Engagement in Ideas; Teacher Read Out Loud

Mental Models; Silent Reading

Oral Language; Teacher Read Out Loud

Writing

Strategy Reciprocal Teaching

Cognitive Strategies

Critical Literacy

Engagement in New Ideas; Mental Models

Writing

Specific Strategies Implemented(a) Oral Language Strategies (Effect size 0.82 – Hattie)

Oral language is the foundation stone for literacy. Children who lag behind their peers in language development are at-risk for later reading difficulties (Catts, Fey, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2002). Furthermore, vocabulary knowledge is strongly related to reading proficiency and overall academic success (Beck, McKeown & Kucan, 2002). Therefore this program includes the development of phonological, morphemic, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic oral skills through structured exercises and practice. These may include a variety of activities, used at the teacher’s discretion, each lesson.

(b) Decoding (Effect size 0.6 – Hattie)“Automaticity refers to the ability to perform complex skills with minimal attention and conscious effort. Automaticity is essential for higher‐order thinking, such as skilled reading and writing, because important sub‐skills must be performed accurately, quickly, and effortlessly. If reading sub‐skills are performed automatically, then higher‐order aspects of the task, such as comprehension or metacognitive functions, can be performed effectively at the same time” (Samuels & Flor, 1997). Consequently, the program includes the development of decoding skills to automaticity through explicit instruction and practice, preferably at the beginning of each lesson for 15-20 minutes. The process used is the six-step process outlined in Dr Carol Christensen’s commercially available Reading Links Program.

(c) Reciprocal Teaching (Effect size 0.74 – Hattie)In his book “Visible Learning”, John Hattie recognised the strong correlation between knowledge retention and reciprocal teaching. Hattie ranked reciprocal teaching as number three in the top 49 most effective teaching strategies. This strategy describes the explicit teaching and practice of a methodology for decoding inconsiderate text by predicting, clarifying summarising and asking questions. His research also demonstrates that it is important that students work together in small groups through the various steps to achieve the best outcomes. This strategy is offered at the teacher’s discretion, at least once per week.

(d) Engagement in Ideas (Similar Strategy Effect size 0.6 – Hattie)This entails the explicit teaching and practice of reading comprehension activities, offered at the teacher’s discretion, at least once per week. Activities may vary from answering literal questions, completing three level guides, making inferences and identifying relevant information to Socratic questioning, evaluating and drawing conclusions. Our Primary partner schools were largely committed to the work of Sheena Cameron in Reading Comprehension, so we sought to include her model and language where possible.

(e) Mental Modelling (Similar Strategy Effect size 0.55 – 0.64 – Hattie)In order for readers to learn and remember information from text, they must construct an internal mental representation (Christensen & Wauchope, 2009). In fact, working with junior high school students who were above and below grade level in reading, Peters and Levin (1986) found that a group of students using mnemonic imagery achieved higher outcomes than those who didn’t, regardless of level. This strategy entails using a structured sequence of activities to explicitly teach and practice the creation of mental images which correspond to the information found in text. It is offered, at the teacher’s discretion, at least once per week.

8

(f) Cognitive Strategies (Similar Strategy Effect size 0.87 – Hattie)A key feature of this program is that students in strategy classes are encouraged to invent and use sophisticated cognitive and metacognitive processes. These may include:a) Metacognitive strategies – thinking about their thinking processes.b) Rehearsal strategies – underlining, highlighting, written and oral repetition, verbatim notes.c) Organisational strategies – outlining key points, designing a hierarchy.d) Elaborative strategies - paraphrasing and creating images, rhymes, stories, analogies, metaphors,

models, and diagrams (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986).The explicit teaching and practice of these cognitive strategies are offered at the teacher’s discretion at least once per week.

(g)Critical Literacy (Effect size 0.87 – Hattie)“Critical Literacy teaches students to scrutinize text for political and ideological content. Political analyses are essentially about the exercise of power—the ways in which individuals or groups of individuals seek to exercise influence over others. Thus, critical literacy examines the ways in which texts are used to influence the reader. Issues of social justice and equity become central to this analysis.” (Christensen & Wauchope, 2009).The explicit teaching and practice of critical literacy is offered at the teacher’s discretion at least once per week.

Re- assessmentStudents were reassessed each term to determine improvement in decoding ability and automaticity. Their NAPLAN and PAT-R results were used as a secondary reference but were really only useful for measuring the improvement of students in top transition classes or above. Decoding and lower transition classes were still developing pre-requisite skill sets.The Literacy Leadership Team took the decision to corroborate Decoding Testing results with the New Salford Sentence Reading Test on the recommendation of Dr Carol Christensen. See appendix 2 for a detailed strategy timeline overview.

4 Implementation

4.1 Methodology

Quantitative

Baseline Data on incoming Year 7 and 8 cohorts was accessed from:

(a) A variety of diagnostic and standardised tests. These included: Year 6 and 7 English subject results from Primary Schools Year 5 and 7 NAPLAN results PAT-R Test results from February, 2015 (Reading Age Only) Christensen Decoding Skills Assessment - (See Appendix 10.3 for Testing Protocols) Christensen Phonological Awareness Assessment (for identified students) – (See Appendix 10.3 for Testing

Protocols) New Salford Sentence Reading Test (Reading and Comprehension) – (See Appendix 10.3 for Testing

Protocols)(b) Records of student attendance, engagement and behaviour and/or special circumstances. These included: One School records Feedback from partner school teachers Enrolment interviews

This data was used to stream the new cohorts into ability based English classes. Students who were assessed as decoding were placed in classes of no more than ten (10) students with a teacher and a teacher aide – creating a 1:5 ratio. Students identified as transitioning were placed in classes of fifteen to twenty (15-20) students with a teacher and two or three teacher aides (for the decoding component) – maintaining the same 1:5 ratio.

9

The Control class (a class of decoding level students) was then self-nominated. They remained our Control class for one term only before joining the program with the rest of the cohort.

Students were then re-assessed at the end of each term using Christensen’s Decoding Skills Assessment to ascertain their level of improvement. They were further assessed by the NAPLAN test in Year 8 and PAT-R testing at the end of September. Results were recorded in an online database and displayed on the Literacy Data Wall.

Qualitative

Qualitative data was collected via informal interviews with teachers, teacher aides and students before, during and after the prototyping period. (See Interview questions at Appendix 10.4)

4.2 Staff CapabilityEnglish teachers and teacher aides were informally interviewed with regard to their interest and level of confidence in participating in the program. There was strong resistance. Many felt that they were ill-equipped and did not want to teach reading, others were interested but concerned. Primary school teachers who had transitioned to our high school also felt that they were not able to teach decoding and some postulated that Sheena Cameron’s comprehension approach (which they were familiar with because it had been a major drive in local primary schools recently) was a better alternative. Also, many teacher aides were concerned about taking on a more specialised task in the classroom and about the changes to their timetables that would result from a sharp and narrow focus on literacy. However, the data presented to the staff demonstrated that three years focusing on Reading to Learn had yielded three years of failure for identified students who were still Learning to Read, and so, as a faculty, we decided to prototype something new, to see if it made a difference. To support staff capability we:

Invited Dr Carol Christensen to describe and explain her process to the staff across two days of professional development at Aldridge SHS for both teachers and teacher aides. She went into considerable detail about the research behind her program and gave practical demonstrations to the staff around implementation of her specific techniques.

Organised for key staff to visit Gympie SHS to view classes and speak to teachers who had already embedded Reading Links into their English classes.

Decided, as a leadership team, that each of the strategies listed above would be integrated into the classroom one by one to allow teachers time to fully understand the strategy, practice it and make it an authentic part of their own classroom practice.

Gave teachers and teacher aides the remainder of second term to ‘practice’ the teaching of decoding before full implementation in Term 3.

Teachers and teacher aide leaders were identified and encouraged to take on a mentoring role with their peers and to take on more formal leadership roles within the program, including timetabling teacher aides’ teams and inducting new teachers and teacher aides into the program.

4.3 Adjustments Made During Implementation

From the beginning of 2016 the process for implementing the PAT-R has been modified so that our baseline data consists of the previous year’s Year 6 PAT-R testing data from Primary partner schools through new, mutually agreed, data timelines and protocols.

Also, from the beginning of 2016, reading age has also been verified using the New Salford Sentence Reading Test.

Year 7 students, who initially participated in the program eight times per week had their program altered to five times per week. We found that, in practice, there was a decided diminishing marginal utility beyond more than one contact per day. The nature of the program is one of rote learning and student focus and

10

participation in the secondary school declined sharply when they were offered the program twice on alternate days (eight sessions per week).

The control class became part of the program cohort in the second term of implementation.

5 Investment and Scalability

5.1 Investment

The resources to participate in this program include the following texts and manipulatives:

Reading Links Decoding Teachers Manual - $39.99 Reading Links Decoding Assessment Handbook – Teacher’s Guide - $39.99 Reading Links Decoding Assessment of Phonological Awareness and

Decoding - Student Material - $39.99 Reading Links Decoding Workbook 1 - $19.99 Reading Links Decoding Workbook 2 - $19.99 Reading Links Decoding Workbook 3 - $19.99 Reading Links Decoding Workbook 4 - $19.99 Decoding Letter Cards Workbooks 1-2 - $21.99 Decoding Blend and Rime Cards Workbooks 1-2 - $21.99 Decoding Letter and Rime Cards Workbooks 3-4 - $21.99 Decoding Word Cards Exceptional and Sight Workbooks 1-2 - $21.99 Decoding Word Cards Exceptional and Sight

Workbooks 3-4 - $21.99

OR the Reading Links materials may be purchased together

online as a Starter Pack for $247.90

Basic Timers - $2.50 New Salford Sentence Reading Test Kit $113.80 PAT – R Testing Suite High Interest - Low Ability Texts Oral Literacy tools (eg: Rory’s Story Cubes, ‘Art of Conversation’ Cards)

5.1 Scalability Which workbooks and how many are needed will depend on your cohort. However,

we recommend a Teacher’s Manual for each teacher and teacher aide delivering the program. Assessment resources and handbooks are only needed for those who will be assessing the students. As for the cards, many of our staff found them too big and cumbersome and made their own. Many of our partner primary schools have found more age appropriate methods. (For example, one of our partner primary schools uses magnetic letters that they keep attached to a biscuit tray – they are more easily manipulated, colourful and fun for their students).

The largest expense, however, is in teacher aide hours. Because it was decided to offer this program in English classes, to offer this program to two cohorts (Year 7 and 8) required the use of eight teacher aides across two lines that did not always follow one another. Local partner primary schools were able to re-task or employ one or two teacher aides to work full time with identified students one on one throughout the school day.

6. Outcomes and Supporting Evidence

11

6.1 Student Outcomes Overview Significantly improved outcomes in decoding assessment. Significantly improved outcomes in English subject based assessment for students in the lower two bands. Improved outcomes for students identified in the lower two bands in PAT-R and NAPLAN. Significantly improved student engagement and attitude to reading tasks. Significantly improved confidence in students re their ability to read and use a variety of texts.

6.2 Resources and Performance Measures Used Dr Carol Christensen’s Reading Links Phonemic Awareness Test Dr Carol Christensen’s Reading Links Decoding Test Salford Sentence Reading Test PAT – R NAPLAN Staff and student Pre, During and Post informal Interview based survey

6.3 Quantitative and Qualitative Data

Student Gain For Year 7 Decoders Control Vs ProgramCONTROL

CLASSPrep - W1M1

Yr 1 - W1M2

Yr 2 - W1M3

Yr 3 - W2M1

Yr 3 – W2M2

Yr 3 – W2M3

BEGAN TERM 3

4 2 7 1

ENDED TERM 3

1 3 3 3 4

PROGRAMCLASS

Prep - W1M1

Yr 1 - W1M2

Yr 2 - W1M3

Yr 3 - W2M1

Yr 3 – W2M2

Yr 3 – W2M3

BEGAN TERM 3

4 5 2

ENDED TERM 3

1 3 1 6

\

Quantitative data would suggest that the Year 7 Decoding Control class actually went backward in their decoding knowledge and automaticity during the term. According to Dr Christensen, this is not unusual. If students do not have automaticity in decoding and do not revisit it regularly, they will forget what they have learned. Qualitative feedback suggests that students, themselves, recognised that they were often disengaged and found the work “too hard” because they “couldn’t read it”. By comparison, the Year 7 and 8 Decoding Program classes made considerable gains in their decoding knowledge and automaticity and both teachers and students remarked on improved engagement and student confidence in tackling reading tasks.The results were so profound, it was decided to roll the Control class into the program for the following term.

CHRISTENSEN DECODING ASSESSMENT The quantitative data from the Term 2 to Term 4 Christensen Decoding Assessments demonstrated clear forward movement as student decoding capacity improved.

By the end of 2015, the 63 students who began the Illuminate Program’s Reading Links in Term 2, 2015 achieved the following:

YEAR 7 and 8 DECODERS – Movement after one semester of Illuminate.

12

Where Students Began at the end of Term 2, 2015

Where students arrived at the end of Term 4, 2015

Total Number of Students

W1M1

W1M2 W1M3 W2M1 W2M2

W2M3 W2M4 TRANS COMP

LEFT SCHOOL

Phase 1W1M1 7 1 1 2 1 1 1W1M2 22 1 9 3 6 3W1M3 6 2 3 1Phase 2W2M1 20 14 4 2W2M2 6 3 3W2M3 1 1W2M4 1 1

Nb: Highlighted students –


10152025303540

2015 Term 2 to 4 - Year 7 Progression

7 Term 2 7 Term 4


101520253035

2015 Term 2 to 4 - Year 8 Progression

8 Term 2 8 Term 4

Legend:Decoding StudentsPhase 1 – Gaps in initial letter sounds, consonant-vowel-consonant words, initial consonant blends, initial blends and final consonant digraphs.Phase 2 – Gaps in final consonant diagraphs, final consonant blends, long vowels and the silent ‘e’

Transition Students (Students continue to build decoding automaticity while beginning comprehension skills)Phase 3 – Gaps in long vowel digraphs, consonant-vowel and vowel diagraphs.Phase 4 – Gaps in Vowel and Consonant-Vowel Digraphs.

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

YEAR 7 and 8 TRANSITION STUDENTS – Movement after one semester of Illuminate.13

Where Students Began at the end of Term 2, 2015

Where students arrived at the end of Term 4, 2015

Total Number of Students

W3M1

W3M2 W3M3 W3M4 W4M1

W4M2 W4M3 W4M4 COMP

LEFT SCHOOL

Phase 3W3M1 2 1 1W3M2W3M3W3M4 1 1Phase 4W4M1 20 1 3 1 1 16W4M2 5 1 4W4M3 8W4M4 7 1COMP

PAT – R

PAT-R testing focuses on a student’s reading comprehension. So, over such a short term, we were not expecting significant outcomes as our focus students were still learning to Decode. Nevertheless the PAT-R test conducted in Term 4, 2015 demonstrated the following:

61.1% of students showed improvement. 16.7% improved but remained within their original Stanine. 44.5% moved up one or more Stanines (22.2% moved up one Stanine; 16.7% moved up 2 Stanines; and 5.6%

moved up 4 Stanines). 11.1% showed no movement at all. 27.8% went backward, mostly within their original Stanine.

Teachers report that student engagement with the PAT-R assessment was varied, possibly due to the timing at the end of term. Student feedback also indicated a lack of interest in the assessment or the outcome in some classes.

NAPLAN

NAPLAN testing could only be applied to the 2015 Year 8 cohort in 2016. Despite its popularity as an indicator of student improvement, it was never going to demonstrate significant movement in the abilities of the students we were working with. This is because NAPLAN assesses reading comprehension and the students who were our focus were still learning to decode. We were, however, hoping to see some improvement in both reading and spelling.

Of the 63 students who began the Illuminate Program in Year 8 in 2015, only some 28.6% percent (18 students) have completed both Year 7 (2014) and Year 9 (2016) NAPLAN testing. This represents a limited sample and its statistical relevance is therefore very limited.

Nevertheless, of the 18 students in that cohort who did complete both NAPLAN tests:

14

Movement Up Within Band

One Band

Two Bands

Three Bands

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

NAPLAN Year 8, 2015 Cohort

NAPLAN Year 7 to Year 9 Gains Spelling NAPLAN Year 7 to Year 9 Gains Reading

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT

Teachers and Teacher Aides

Initial Interviews

Teachers and teacher aide experience in teaching varied widely, from beginning teachers to 20 years +. The majority were secondary trained. The teacher of the control class is a primary teacher who has moved to secondary. All teachers involved in the program initially were specialist English teachers, however, throughout the year there was significant turnover and some teachers were teaching outside their area. These teachers were inducted and supported by the Master Teacher and the Teacher Aide team which remained relatively constant.

None of the secondary teachers claimed a knowledge of teaching basic literacy. One of the primary teachers did, while the others had been teaching senior primary for so long, they felt they did not have the requisite knowledge or skills. Most teacher aides felt that they had some knowledge and skill in teaching literacy skills one on one, but most had limited confidence. Common phrases being “I just do what the teacher tells me to do” or “I’m just there to help ‘X’”.

All teachers and teacher aides claimed that literacy, or the increasing lack of it, was a big concern and that they were unsure how to breach the gap. They also believed that lack of literacy had limited the ability of students to engage in lessons leading to a poor attitude to school and poor behaviour choices. The acknowledged the data but some were surprised at just how low the students were with respect to their reading capacity.

Though all teachers acknowledged that something needed to be done, some did not want to participate as they felt they already had high workload issues. Some primary teachers said that they had moved to high school to teach more able students. Enough teachers, however, were content to trial the program and two or three were genuinely excited about it.

Teacher aides were initially worried about the changes this program would bring about with respect to their routines. Many had developed vested interests in the development of students with learning difficulties and/or special needs across the wider school and were reluctant to move to other duties. Others were a little fearful of change and being able to meet expectations.

Mid Roll-Out Interviews

Teachers and teacher aides acknowledged the data around their student’s relative gain and expressed their surprise at the success of the program. Many offered anecdotes about how students, though initially reluctant, had engaged

15

in the process and how poor behaviour in many students had moderated. Some were concerned about the ongoing behaviour, attendance and lack of progress of some students, however most of those students have long term issues that are beyond the scope of this program. It is important to remember that, at this point, we had only implemented the Decoding portion of the program. Further PD was required to support the implementation of the remainder of the program. Many teachers felt that they were familiar with the other aspects of the program and felt comfortable applying same.

End of Year Interviews

Staff turnover impacted on outcomes here. Staff who had been part of the program from the beginning felt very confident in their ability to lead it. Others less so, depending on their time in the program. The absence of the HOD English for a term also impacted significantly on some teachers as they needed her assurance that, apart from the decoding practice, the remainder of the program consisted of changes to pedagogy rather than content. The teacher aides were similarly effected though, because there were fewer staff changes, and more support from other aides they generally felt more confident. All teachers and teacher aides were impressed with the outcomes for their students. Some felt, however, that more needed to be done re comprehension. Significantly, those teachers had only worked on the decoding portion and had not yet embedded the remainder of the program.

Teachers and teacher aides felt that the program was having a positive effect on student engagement, with many reporting on the development of inconsequential competition between the students to beat one another in the time trials and to be the first to get to the top of the data wall. They felt, too, that attendance for many students had improved and that students would come to class asking when they could do their decoding practice.

Some teachers chose to take their class on for the following year (which often meant a shift from teaching at Decoding level to Transition level, or from Transition to Comprehension), whilst others wanted to remain at level and build their expertise. Most were happy to recommend the program to their peers.

Things identified by staff to work on included finding workable spaces around the school for the decoding groups. Many teachers found that having three or more groups of five in one classroom, working at different levels, was too noisy. Some had taken the initiative of locating nearby spaces for groups to move to.

Another issue was finding sufficient low level, high interest readers for students that did not look like primary school readers. Students, although aware of their reading issues, did not like to appear, even to others at the same level, to be in any way deficient. The hunt for more resources continues.

Students

Initial Interviews

Students identified for the program universally acknowledged that they struggled at school. Many stated that they ‘hated’ school and didn’t really want to be there. They ‘hated’ reading in particular and writing almost as much. When asked why, many said that reading was ‘stupid’. A few acknowledged that they could not read or had difficulty reading. Many had had no previous support with reading. Those who had, had been supported in class by a teacher aide or had been withdrawn for special reading lessons.

Students were highly suspicious of being part of a reading program as they did not want to be the ‘dumb kid in the class’. Nor did they want to be put into streamed classes. They were concerned about being identified by their peers as somehow ‘less’.

They felt that they wanted classes to be ‘fun’ and wanted to have more ‘choice’ in what they did. They did not want to read.

16

Mid-rollout Interviews

Most students were very happy with their improvement, particularly in relation to their peers. Many said that watching peers move to higher level groups, and even classes, throughout the program had given them something ‘real’ to aim for; something tangible to ‘prove’ their hard work/ability to their parents and their peers. A small handful were concerned that they hadn’t moved, which gave me an opportunity to explain the importance of attendance to both them and their parents.

Some students felt that they were able to participate in class more because they understood more of what was happening. Some still didn’t like reading but only one or two still claimed to ‘hate’ it. Most students thought that the program had helped them but they wanted to read ‘real books’ not ‘baby books’. Students also wanted more time trials and opportunities for competition with their peers.

End of Year Interviews

Most students were very happy with their improved reading levels and were happy to ‘show me’. Many said the ‘best part’ was watching me move their tile up the data wall. Others were more concerned with the positives they got at home or from their peers.Students acknowledged that the program had helped them participate in class and that they ‘put their hand up more in class’ to give answers. They also noticed that their grades in English and other subjects had also improved and that they appeared to get along with their teachers better.

Students continued to call for more competitions, group work and choice.

Most were happy to recommend the program to their peers.

7. Conclusions and Future Planning

7.1 Key Outcomes Improved reading capacity of students, especially in the lower two bands.

Reading Links program initiated in Term 2 with 92% upward movement in Years 7-8 by end term 4 with over 50% achieving competency at appropriate level.

Reduction of Ds and Es in English in one year cohort from 17% to 5%. Increased engagement in class and increased student confidence in tackling text across the curriculum. Increased staff capability and depth in meeting students’ literacy needs. The establishment of school Literacy team with leadership opportunities for both teachers and teacher aides. Improved and focused relationships with parents, Primary partner schools, USC and regional office staff.

7.2 Key Learnings - Looking Back Since PAT assessment is normed to September of the given year, we dispensed with the practice, begun during

our time as a National Partnerships school, of using the PAT-R as a pre (Feb) and post (Sept) test for students. This practice was helpful for us to track relative gain, but saw some react to our baseline data with scepticism. We have now negotiated an arrangement with our feeder schools that their September PAT data will be available to us on One School, and in a timely manner. Use of this data has been our practice since January 2016.

The literature would suggest that multiple contacts, of short duration, around decoding training are ideal. The more, the better. However, in our context, Reading Links sessions have been more successful ONCE per day. We found that, in practice, there was a decided diminishing marginal utility beyond more than one contact per day. The nature of the program is one of rote learning and student focus and participation in the secondary school declined sharply when they were offered the program twice on alternate days (eight sessions per week).

It is important to have this program working as early as possible to maximize the time some students need to achieve automaticity.

17

7.3 Looking Forward Reading Links Decoding practice is now an integrated part of Year 7, 8 and 9 English and is offered to students

who self-refer from Years 10, 11 and 12. Other strategies listed above are still being embedded into middle and upper banded English classes and are subject to walk throughs and classroom visits by the HOD English.

A Literacy Subject Area Coordinator (SAC) has been appointed to oversee the identification of students from future cohorts, the maintenance of the program, ongoing training of teachers and teacher aides and the school’s Literacy program evolution over time.

A CIF grant has enabled Aldridge SHS to share this program with Primary partner schools who, for the most part, have taken it on as an intervention program for students in Years 3 to 6. Student placement in the program on exit from that school now forms part of their One School academic documentation so that a student’s progress can monitored and their participation continue should they change primary schools in the local area, or progress to secondary school.

18

8 Bibliography

Anderson, D. (2013) The Great Australian Divide: Public and Private Schooling, Achieving Quality Education for All, Springer.

Archer, A., Gleason, M. and Vachon, V. (2003) “Decoding and Fluency: Foundation Skills for Struggling Older Readers” in Learning Disability Quarterly, 26/2, May, 89-101.

Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Kucan, L. (2002) “Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction”. New York: The Guilford Press.

Brooks, G. (2007). What Works for Children with Literacy Difficulties? The effectiveness of intervention schemes. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.

Brühwiler, C. and Blatchford, P. (2011) “Effects of class size and adaptive teaching competency on classroom processes and academic outcome” in Learning and Instruction, 21(1): 95–108.

Canady, C. and Canady, R. (2012) “Catching Readers Up Before They Fall” in Educational Leadership 69, June, 1-4.

Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Tomblin, J. B., & Zhang, X. (2002) “A longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairments” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 1142-1157.

Christensen, C. (2005). Reading LINK-decoding. Brisbane, Knowledge Books and Software.

Christensen, C., (2006) “Reading Link Decoding Assessment of Phonological Awareness and Decoding”, Knowledge Books and Software, Sandgate, Qld.

Christensen, C. and Bowey, J. (2005) “The efficacy of grapheme-phoneme correspondence, rime and whole language approaches to teaching decoding skills” in Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 327–349.

Christiansen C. and Wauchope E. (2009) “Whole School Literacy – Using Research to Create Programs that Build Universal High Levels of Literate Competence” in Berninger (et al) Eds, Implementing Evidence-Based Academic Interventions in School Settings, Oxford University Press, USA.

Hook, P. and Jones, S. (2002) “The Importance of Automaticity and Fluency For Efficient Reading Comprehension” in International Dyslexia Association Quarterly Newsletter, Perspectives, Winter, 2002, vol. 28, no. 1, pages 9-14.

LaBerge, D. and Samuels, S. (1974). “Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading” in Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.

Lingard, T. (2005) “Literacy Acceleration and the Key Stage3 English Strategy – comparing two approaches for secondary-age pupils with literacy difficulties” in British Journal of Special Education. Vol 32 (2) 67-77.

McCarty, C. and Lallaway, M (201?) “New Salford Sentence Reading Test”, London, Hodder Education.

National Educational Psychological Service of Ireland, (2012) “Effective Interventions for Struggling Readers” published online at http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Education-Reports/Effective-Interventions-for-Struggling-Readers-A-Good-Practice-Guide-for-Teachers.pdf Accessed 12/06/15.

Peters, E. E., & Levin, J. R. (1986) “Effects of a mnemonic imagery strategy on good and poor readers’ prose recall” in Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 179–192.

Rose, J. (2009) “Identifying and Teaching Children and Young People with Dyslexia and Literacy Difficulties” Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). Nottingham.

19

http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Education-Reports/Effective-Interventions-for-Struggling-Readers-A-Good-Practice-Guide-for-Teachers.pdf

http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Education-Reports/Effective-Interventions-for-Struggling-Readers-A-Good-Practice-Guide-for-Teachers.pdf

Samuels, S.J. & Flor, R (1997) “The Importance of Automaticity for Developing Expertise in Reading” in Reading and Writing Quarterly – Overcoming Learning Difficulties. Vol 13 (2) 107-121.

Scammacca, N., Vaughn, S. Roberts, G., Wanzek, J. and Torgesen, J. K. (2007) “Extensive reading interventions in grades K-3: From research to practice” Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Centre on Instruction.

Sharratt, L. and Fullan, M (2012) “Putting Faces on the Data – What Great Leaders Do”, Melbourne, Hawker-Brownlow.

Solity, J., Deavers, R., Kerfoot, S., Crane, G. & Cannon, K. (2000) “The Early Reading Research: the impact of instructional psychology” in Educational Psychology in Practice, 16, 2, 109-129.

Torgesen, J. K. (2005) “The urgent need to improve reading instruction and outcomes for our K-12 students” Retrieved from http://www.fcrr.org/science/pdf/torgesen/Serve-lunch.pdf

Vaughn, S., Gerten, R. and Chard, D.J. (2000) “The Underlying Message in Learning Disabilities Intervention Research: Findings from research Synthesis” in Exceptional Children, 67, 1, 99-114.

Whithear, J (2009) “Slipping Through The Cracks: Why too many adolescents still struggle to read” in Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 17(2), 30-45.

Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986) “The teaching of learning strategies” in M. Wittrock (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.,pp. 315–327). NY, Macmillan.

Zyngier, D. (2014) “Class size and academic results, with a focus on children from culturally, linguistically and economically disenfranchised communities” published online at https://journal.anzsog.edu.au/publications/9/EvidenceBase2014Issue1.pdf Accessed 18/4/16.

9 Acknowledgements

Aldridge State High School would like to acknowledge the driving passion for improved student achievement in literacy of Dr Carol Christensen and her support, guidance and expertise in helping our students succeed.

Aldridge SHS would also like to acknowledge the support and encouragement of Emma Palm (HOD English) at Gympie SHS and her staff, in allowing our staff to see the program in action and helping to ‘iron out’ some implementation issues.

20

https://journal.anzsog.edu.au/publications/9/EvidenceBase2014Issue1.pdf

10 Appendices

10.1 Literature ReviewGeneral Questions to Consider

What does the literature say about the issue of literacy development in adolescents? What ideas can be gathered from literature or other practices?

Underlying Assumptions Students must have automaticity in decoding before they can successfully read and comprehend text. Success is the key to learning. Both pedagogy and curriculum need to be adapted to allow students to experience success. Engaging feeder schools, regional PEA-ACs and local Universities in the process will help build a program

comprehensive enough to close the literacy gaps.

Key Texts:Whole School Literacy – Using Research to Create Programs that Build Universal High Levels of Literate Competence(Christiansen C. and Wauchope E. (2009) “Whole School Literacy – Using Research to Create Programs that Build Universal High Levels of Literate Competence” in Berninger (et al) Eds, “Implementing Evidence-Based Academic Interventions in School Settings”, Oxford University Press, USA.)

Key Findings: Literacy deficits in secondary school are not uncommon but all students can achieve high levels of literate

competence – some just need more time than others. Domain specific knowledge is central to the development of expertise. Oral language skills are the foundation on which reading is built. Prior knowledge as well as vocabulary can predict high school students’ ability to recall details of story

elements from a passage of text. Attention is a scarce cognitive resource. Processing that is automatic does not require attention. Therefore, if

low level skills are automated, more attentional resources are available for higher order, comprehension and thinking tasks. Automaticity of basic skills is key.

Practice is the path to automaticity. All students must experience continual success in learning. Curriculum and instructional activities must have demonstrated efficacy in published research that includes

control groups. Both lower level skills, such as accuracy and speed of decoding, and higher level capabilities, such as

sensitivity to anomalies, inference making and awareness of text structure, contributed separate and unique variance to children’s reading comprehension.

Students who have metacognitive strategies are aware of their thinking processes and can exert deliberate control to regulate those processes and, consequently, have much higher levels of learning.

Students should be encouraged to invent and use sophisticated cognitive and metacognitive strategies.

Recommendations: The program should be developed taking into account the specific context of the school. Students should be streamed into learning groups where he/she can experience continual success.

Timetables will need to be restructured to accommodate this. Lower levels require very small class groups (eg: a maximum of eight for decoding, twelve for transition, fifteen for comprehension and twenty-eight for strategy). Lower levels also require five contacts per week. Short, frequent contacts demonstrate better long term outcomes.

Students must have prerequisite skills: oral language, phonological awareness and letter knowledge before decoding is introduced.

21

Students must have automaticity in decoding first. If students can decode the text proficiently, they go into a program that focuses on their ability to

comprehend the text. Comprehension activities include reciprocal teaching, mental modelling, engaging in new ideas (including

inferential questioning), cognitive and metacognitive activities and critical literacy. Professional development should be provided for teachers around:

- Teaching decoding to beginning readers;- Teaching reading comprehension;- Teaching students to invent and use sophisticated strategies to learn from text; - Critical literacy; and- Teaching writing.

Students are assigned to strands according to their test results, as follows:- Students who are reading a lower elementary level (K-Yr2) are assigned to a strand that focuses on

building decoding skills (Decoding Strand).- Students who are reading at mid-elementary level (Yr3-4) are assigned to Transition Strand.- Students who are reading a upper-elementary levels (Yr5-6) are assigned to a program that focuses on

developing comprehension, (Comprehension Strand).- Students reading at secondary level are assigned to a program that focuses on invention and use of

cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and critical analysis of text (Strategy Strand). Students in each strand are then divided into classes, within which smaller, even more homogenous groups

are formed. Each group participates in a program including the following strategies each week (note that each strategy

listed has a fully researched and very high effect size):

Illustrative Schedule of Activities for Program with Five Lessons per Week (Each 35mins)

Strand Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5

Decoding Decoding Skills;Teacher Read Out Loud



Decoding Skills;Teacher Read out Loud


Transition Decoding Skills; Silent Reading

Reciprocal Reading; Teacher Read Out Loud


Engagement in Ideas; Student Oral Reading from Readers

Decoding Skills, Teacher Read Out Loud

Comprehension Reciprocal Teaching; Silent Reading

Engagement in Ideas; Teacher Read Out Loud

Mental Models; Silent Reading

Oral Language; Teacher Read Out Loud

Writing

Strategy Reciprocal Teaching

Cognitive Strategies

Critical Literacy

Engagement in New Ideas; Mental Models

Writing

22

Key Texts:DETE Qld - Whole School Approach to Teaching Reading

Key Findings: High expectations for learning to read and reading to learn, and clear valuing of reading for enjoyment are

evident in the school’s ethos. The agreed approach to teaching reading throughout the school is based on an understanding that

improvements in student learning are dependent on ongoing improvements in pedagogy. Teaching of reading is embedded across the curriculum. Contexts are authentic, socially and culturally

appropriate and engaging. Students select texts to read for pleasure. Teachers model reading for pleasure. Effective reading instruction is demonstrated through:

- Ongoing attention to oral language development.- Authentic literacy experiences that are both task oriented and for enjoyment. - Use of a range of high quality, strand appropriate, texts.- Frequent, ongoing monitoring of student progress in reading and oral language to ensure timely and

appropriate interventions.- Use of ongoing monitoring and quality assessment techniques to inform instruction.- Evidence of links made to writing.- Use of student data to determine and inform differentiation.- Balanced instruction.

Decoders- Systematic, explicit and targeted instruction in the context of meaningful, challenging language work.- Ongoing monitoring and formalised diagnostic assessment.

Transitioners- Systematic, explicit and targeted instruction in the context of meaningful, challenging language work.- Ongoing monitoring and formalised diagnostic assessment. - Increasing emphasis on independent reading while maintaining modelled, shared and guided reading for

new and more complex text types and/or subject matter.- Gradual shift from ‘learning to read’ to ‘reading to learn’.

Comprehenders- Increasing emphasis on independent reading while maintaining modelled, shared and guided reading for

new and more complex text types and/or subject matter.- Emphasis on ‘reading to learn’ with increasing focus on reading in learning areas other than English,

including explicit attention to vocabulary, sentence and text structure and connecting ideas with and across texts.

Strategists- Increasing emphasis on independent reading while maintaining modelled, shared and guided reading for

new and more complex text types and/or subject matter.- Explicit attention to the increasingly complex nature of vocabulary, sentence and text structure and

connective ideas with and across texts.Recommendations:

Budget allocations, staffing and timetabling in place to support teaching reading in response to the needs identified in the data.

Reading instruction should integrate oral language, vocabulary, grammar, decoding, reading fluency, comprehension and literacies of new technologies for all learners.

Reading instruction should reflect a balance of explicit teaching and guided and independent student activity.

Staff should have expertise in the teaching of reading. Staff should know their students and their planning should be informed by data. Staff should create positive environments that promote reading excellence.

23

Purchase and use of strand appropriate, high interest, readers. Research based reading strategies should be understood and demonstrated by all staff. This will require on-

going professional development. Parents should be encouraged to see themselves as a vital, continuing part of their child’s reading journey.

This should include ongoing engagement about the teaching of reading. Schools should have a repertoire of tools and methods for monitoring and collecting data so that data can be

triangulated to monitor performance and inform practice. Collaborative processes should be in place in interrogate the data. Reading related targets should be negotiated and put in place for each student.

10.2 Strategy Timeline Overview

Stage

Actions/Deliverables/Data Collection Officer/s End Date

Meet with School Leadership Team for review of Literacy outcomes and concerns and broader issues around declining

Principal, Deputy Principals, HOD English, Master Teacher

Jan 2015

Establish data sets around incoming cohort – Analyse data sets to demonstrate trends and support/or not anecdotal concerns.

Master Teacher Term 1

Diagnostic testing administered to identify students with decoding issues.


Present data sets to: School Leadership Team School Council ARD Primary, PEA-ACs, Partner School Principals


DECISION - Create Criteria for Intervention Prototype Principal, Master Teacher, English HOD

Term 1

Research potential Prototypes – feed back recommendation to School Leadership Team


DECISION – Prototype to be used School Leadership Team, English HOD

Term 1

Professional Development for Teachers and existing Teacher Aides (led by Dr Carol Christensen).

Master Teacher, Consultant

Term 2

First allocation of resources/materials. Master Teacher Term 2 Establish Literacy Leadership Team Master Teacher, A/HOD

English, Lead Teacher AidesTerm 2

Initial overview of program in Newsletter Master Teacher Term 2 Change timetable to accommodate decoding every day Deputy Principal Term 2 Redistribute classes according to data, organise staffing (teachers and teacher aides)

A/HOD English, Master Teacher

Term 2

Establish project data tracking system and tools. Populate with historical data (enrolments, LOAs, etc).


Encourage Teachers to practice implementation of Reading Links in the classroom

Master Teacher, A/HOD English, Decoding teachers

Term 2

Update Data based (end of term data) Master Teacher End Term 2

Feedback outcomes to School Leadership Team and School Council, Primary Partner Schools meeting and Staff

Master Teacher End Term 2

Celebratory Lunch with English Staff HOD English, Master Teacher, Principal

End Term 2

24

Semester 1, 2015

Stage Actions/Deliverables/Data Collection Officer/s End DateBegin implementation of the program HOD English, Master

Teacher, English TeachersTerm 3

Walk throughs HOD English, Master Teacher

Term 3

Regular meetings of teachers and teacher aides HOD English Continuous Regular PD and in-class modelling around other program strategies – oral language activities, mental modelling, reciprocal teaching, reading strategies

Master Teacher Continuous

Program monitored and checked. Individual student progress monitored via database and/or data wall.

Master Teacher Continuous

Newsletter items re progress and how parents can help Master Teacher, HOD English

Monthly

Retest student decoding Master Teacher, Lead Teacher Aides

End Term 3

Reallocate aberrational students HOD English, Master Teacher

End Term 3

Program data review and update with teachers Master Teacher End Term 3 Feedback outcomes to School Leadership Team and School Council, Primary Partner Schools meeting and Staff



End Term 3

Hire and train any extra Teacher Aides required to deliver the program in feeders.

Literacy Leadership Team Term 4

Second allocation of resources and texts. Master Teacher Term 4 Continue implementation of the program HOD English, Master

Teacher, English TeachersTerm 4

Walk throughs HOD English, Master Teacher

Term 4

Retest student decoding Master Teacher, Lead Teacher Aides

End Term 4

Reallocate aberrational students HOD English, Master Teacher

End Term 4

Program data review and update with teachers HOD English, Master Teacher

End Term 4




End Term 2

25

Semester 2, 2015

Stage Actions/Deliverables/Data Collection Officer/s End DatePopulate classes according to data, organise staffing (teachers and teacher aides)

HOD English, Master Teacher, Lead Teacher Aide

Term 1

Data collection and review – student engagement, behaviour management, LOAs, student forum, teacher/teacher aide forums, surveys. Student records.

Master Teacher handover to Lead Teacher Aide

Term 1

Begin transition responsibility for program from Master Teacher to newly appointed SAC Literacy

Master Teacher, SAC Literacy

Term 1

Begin implementation of the program HOD English, Master Teacher, SAC Literacy English Teachers

Term 1

Walk throughs HOD English, Master Teacher, SAC Literacy

Term 3 1

Regular meetings of teachers and teacher aides HOD English, SAC Literacy Continuous Program monitored and checked. Individual student progress monitored via database and/or data wall.

Master Teacher, Lead Teacher Aide

Continuous

Newsletter items re progress and how parents can help Master Teacher, HOD English

Monthly

Retest student decoding Master Teacher, Lead Teacher Aides, SAC Literacy

End Term 1

Reallocate aberrational students HOD English, Master Teacher, SAC Literacy

End Term 1

Program review and update HOD English, SAC Literacy End Term 1 Hire and train any extra Teacher Aides required to deliver the program in feeders.

Literacy Leadership Team Term 2

Second allocation of resources and texts. SAC Literacy Term 2 Continue implementation of the program HOD English, Master

Teacher, English TeachersSAC Literacy

Term 2

Walk throughs HOD English, SAC Literacy Term 2 Retest student decoding Master Teacher, Lead

Teacher Aides, SAC Literacy

End Term 2

Reallocate aberrational students HOD English, SAC Literacy End Term 2 Program data review and update with teachers Master Teacher, SAC

LiteracyEnd Term 2




End Term 2

Complete Master Teacher Transition out of Literacy and into Numeracy.

Master Teacher, SAC Literacy

End Term 2

26

Semester 1, 2016

10.3 Testing Protocols

General Testing Protocols

- All assessors are to have successfully completed Assessor Training with the SAC Literacy.- All assessments are to be completed prior to engagement in the program and at the end of each term to

demonstrate progress. - If student progress is aberrational or if the teacher has any concerns about a student’s placement, the

student is to be referred to the SAC Literacy for interim testing.- All assessment masters are to be kept in the SAC Literacy’s locked filing cabinet.- All student results must be uploaded to the Aldridge Illuminate Program database immediately following

testing.- All student assessment items are then to be filed in each student’s personal Literacy file in the SAC Literacy’s

locked filing cabinet. - Significant changes or concerns are to be brought the attention of the SAC Literacy as soon as possible.- SAC Literacy has responsibility for maintenance of the Online Literacy Database and Literacy Data Wall.

Christensen Phonemic Awareness Assessment (Christensen, C., (2006), ‘Reading Link Decoding Assessment of Phonological

Awareness and Decoding’, Knowledge Books and Software, Sandgate, Qld., pp 3-6).

No more than two assessors per year permitted for purposes of moderation.This assessment must be administered individually.Materials required:

- One copy of the Assessment of Phonological Awareness: Ability to Identify Rhyme Student Assessment Cards

- One copy of the Assessment of Phonological Awareness: Ability to Identify Initial Sounds Student Assessment Cards

- One copy per student of Ability to Identify Rhyme Student Record Sheet- One copy per student of Ability to Identify Initial Sounds Student Record Sheet- One pen or pencil

Complete TWO practice examples with each student as per p.3 of Assessment book using the Ability to Identify Rhyme Student Assessment Cards.When the task has been explained clearly to the student, continue with the items on the assessment. The students do not need to be able to answer the questions accurately, but they should understand what they need to do.When giving the assessment, use the same dialogue as the practice examples with the exception that you do not give them any answers, clues or assistance.Write the students’ answers on the Ability to Identify Rhyme Student Record Sheet and congratulate them, regardless of whether they are correct or not.If students score less than 8 out of 10, they do not have good awareness of rhyme and should not begin the Reading Link Decoding Program. They should be referred to the SAC Literacy for a class grouping where they can work on developing an awareness of rhyme.

Christensen Decoding Assessment (Christensen, C., (2006), ‘Reading Link Decoding Assessment of Phonological Awareness and Decoding’, Knowledge Books and Software, Sandgate, Qld., pp 25-32).

No more than three assessors per year permitted for purposes of moderation.This assessment must be administered individually.Materials required:

- One copy of the Decoding Skills Assessment Student Assessment Cards- One copy per student of the Decoding Skills Assessment Student Record Sheet- One pen or pencil- One stopwatch

If you need to conduct a specific diagnostic analysis on the student’s performance, refer the student to the SAC literacy. The SAC Literacy will need:

27

- One copy per student of the Letter Analysis Form- One copy per student of the Error Diagnostic Table

Ask each student to read each word beginning with List 1. Explain that they should keep reading until you ask them to stop. Start the stop watch when they begin to say the first word. While they are reading, annotate the Student Record Sheet as per the list below.

Symbol MeaningN No attempt to read the word.X Error where the student has made a ‘guess’ at the work without attempting to work out

what the word says./ Error, however the student has attempted to work out the word.C Error, however the student spontaneously self-corrected the error.H Hesitation. The student eventually read the word correctly, however he or she hesitated

before reading the word and appeared unsure.S Accurate but slow. The student could read the word accurately, however was very slow in

working out what the word said.

When they have completed List 1, record their time on the Student Record Sheet before moving on to List 2 and 3 etc.Whilst you need to be encouraging, it is important that the students complete the assessment without assistance and without feedback on their performance (ie: whether they are correct or not). This test will be assessed by the SAC Literacy for placement in the program using the Guide to Placement p30 of the text listed above.

Salford Sentence Reading Test (Bookbinder G.E., et al, (2012), ‘New Salford Sentence Reading Test Manual’, Hodder Education, London, U.K. pp 8-9).

No more than three assessors per year permitted for purposes of moderation.This assessment must be administered individually.Materials required:

- One copy of the New Salford Sentence Reading Test Manual- One copy of the Student Record Sheet.- One of the Reading Test Cards (A, B or C) as selected by the SAC Literacy.- The appropriate list of Comprehension Question (A, B or C)

It is important that the student first reads the sentences without discussion, collaboration or help.All students are to begin by reading the first sentence.Inform students that they are to read each sentence and that you will be asking two comprehension questions after each sentence.Begin reading and continue to the sentence in which the sixth (6th) error is made.Record each error by circling it on the Student Record Sheet.Note comprehension performance by ticking correct and crossing incorrect answers, (NB: one question will be literal whilst the other will be inferential in nature).Note number of the 6th reading error and record reading age.Transfer information to the front of the Student Record Sheet.Using the manual, refer to tables for Comprehension age and standardised scores.

28

10.4 Informal Interview Questions

TEACHER/TEACHER AIDEInitial Informal Teacher/Teacher Aide Interview Questions

1. How many years have you been teaching/working as a teacher aide?2. Primary or Secondary?3. Are you a specialist English teacher/teacher aide?4. Do you have any particular skills or experience in teaching basic literacy?5. What have you noticed about student engagement and behaviour in your Year 7/8 English class?6. What have you noticed about your Year 7/Year 8 students’ reading ability?7. What does the data say about your student’s needs?8. Do you feel comfortable that you have the skills needed to meet your student’s reading needs? Explain.9. In what ways could we help you meet the reading needs of your students?10. Would you be interesting in participating in a program to help your student’s improve their basic reading

skills? Why/Why not?

Mid Roll-Out Informal Teacher/Teacher Aide Interview Questions

1. What are your thoughts about the program now? (PMI)2. What does the data demonstrate about your students’ relative gain?3. How do you feel the students are responding to the program?4. How can we support you further to deliver this program in your classroom?

End of Year Informal Teacher/Teacher Aide Interview Questions

1. What are your thoughts about the program now?2. What has the data demonstrated about your students’ relative gain?3. How do you feel your students responded to the program?4. Describe and explain any change you saw in terms of engagement or behaviour, if any.5. How confident do you feel in implementing the reading program now? Explain.6. How could we have improved the implementation of this program?7. Would you be interested in taking your class on again next year?8. Would you be interested in taking a different class, at the same level (ie: Decoding), next year?9. How can we support your further to deliver this program in your classroom?10. Would you recommend this program to others? Why/Why not?

STUDENTInitial Informal Student Interview Questions

1. What sort of grades do you get at school?2. Why do you think you get those grades?3. Do you like reading? Why/Why not?4. Has anyone tried to help you improve your reading in the past? Did it help? Why/Why not?5. How do you feel about doing some basic reading lessons in your English class?6. What could we do to make the program more student-friendly?

Mid Roll-Out Informal Student Interview Questions

1. What has happened to your reading level since we last spoke?

29

2. How do you feel about that?3. Do you think the program has helped you? How do you know?4. What could you do to make the program more successful for you?5. What could we do to make the program more successful for you?

End of Year Informal Student Interview Questions

1. What has happened to your reading level since we last spoke? 2. How do you feel about that?3. Do you think the program has helped you? How do you know?4. What could you do to make the program more successful for you?5. What could we do to make the program more successful for you?6. Would you recommend this program to your friends? Why/why not?

30

10.5 Outcome Graphs/Tables

Aldridge SHS – Year 7 - Illuminate Program 2015 Achievement (77 Students)76 •54 •3 • ••••••2 •••• ••••••••

•• ••••••• •••••••

Up to 1

Year

•• •• •••••• •• ••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••

Instructional Level

Prep - W1M1 Yr 1 - W1M2 Yr 2 - W1M3 Yr 3 - W2 Yr 4 - W3 Yr 5 - W4 Yr 6/7 Yr 8Decoders Transition Comprehension Strategy

Colour Code - GEN071E GEN071D GEN071C GEN071B GEN071A – Each dot represents a student.Please note: The Illuminate program has only been up and running for 2 ½ terms.

Student Gain For Year 7 Demonstrated By Placements From 2015 to 2016Term 2, 2015 •••••• ••••••••

••••••• ••••••••

••••••••••

• ••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••

Term 1, 2016 •• • •••••••••••••••••

••• •••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••

Instructional Level


Please note: Movement to Strategy from Comprehension – Minimum B in General English for Sem 2 2015.

Reading Gain

(Improvement) in Years

Aldridge SHS – Year 8 - Illuminate Program 2015 Achievement (63 Students)7654 •••3 • •• • •••2 ••••• ••••••••

•Up to

1 Year

• •••• • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••

Instructional Level


Colour Code - GEN081D GEN081C GEN081B GEN081A – Each dot represents a student.Please note: The Illuminate program has only been up and running for 2 ½ terms.

Student Gain for Year 8 Demonstrated By Placements From 2015 to 2016Term 2, 2015 • ••••••••

•••• ••••••••

••••••••• ••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••

•••

Term 1, 2016 •••••••• ••••••• ••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••

Instructional Level


Please note: Movement to Strategy from Comprehension – Minimum B in General English for Sem 2 2015.

32

Reading Gain

(Improvement) in Years

11 Endorsement

Alota Lima Jackson DoddMaster Teacher A/Principal(see attached signature sheet – scanned copy).

Documents

Illuminate - Web viewReading Links Decoding Workbook 1 - $19.99 . ... online as a Starter Pack for $247.90 . ... Ask each student to read each word beginning with List 1