Assignment 3

EDN470 Action Learning for Reflective Practitioners Final Report~ ePortfolio

4000 words-50 marks Wednesday 24th June

Your Name: Andrea Doherty Student No: 31856586

1) Google Docs/Weebly Address (please type): http://www.weebly.com/weebly/main.php

2) Your email address (please type): Doherty.andrea@hotmail.com

Mentor Teacher’s Name and Email Address:

Kristy Innes: Kristy.Innes@education.wa.edu.au

Report Structure Rank

/10

Comment

The Report is well structured: - clear introduction- well justified rationale- clear aims, focus questions & strategies- adequate conclusion- professional presentation including

correct referencing in APA style.

0 | P a g e

Quality of Reflection Rank

/15

Comment

The reflective discussion: - considers ‘why’ you conducted your

research and also ‘how’ you used this approach

- makes links to own teaching philosophy and teaching experience

- demonstrates ability to act on reflections; - strongly related to the project’s aims and

linked to relevant literature- addresses research questions

Action Research Methodology Rank

/15

Comment

Teaching strategies are:

- implemented as part of Action Research

- strongly linked to the topic

- data collection is appropriate for the action

research cycle;

- data is analysed and critically evaluated;

- modification of teaching plans is based on

findings.

Provision of Evidence Rank /

10

Comment

The evidence provided:- Is authentic and varied- thoughtfully selected- explained in the report- respects confidentiality- permission forms - Appendices A-D are hyperlinked

1 | P a g e

General Comments: /50

Signature: Date:

2 | P a g e

Andrea Doherty: 31856586

Identifying and Catering for Differing Abilities within Year 2 Literacy

EDN470: Assignment 3

Andrea

6/27/2015

[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.]

3 | P a g e

Contents page

Introduction

Pg. 5

Rational

Pg. 6

Process

Pg. 8

Reflective Discussion

Pg. 12

Conclusion

Pg. 14

References

Pg. 15

Consent forms

Pg. 16

Hours signoff

Pg. 23

4 | P a g e

Introduction:

As demonstrated in my Professional learning plan, the outcome of my action reflection was to develop my assessment and teaching practice with regards to literacy. Furthermore, I focused on a group of students who were identified as ‘low literacy’ in the hope that that would develop my confidence in assisting such students, developing my confidence and being able to identify and support them myself. As suggested, I have worked with these 6 students for over thirty hours; during this time I have worked 1:1 1 with them following the school program for such students called ‘Multilit’. I have also collaborated with teachers with the outcome of developing strategies which can be implemented into the classroom and introduced during the 1:1 activities. I had discovered that the program used to help students, was ignorant of the EYLF even though, these students were still identified as ‘early child’ therefore I had the aim of also creating a more play-based space for these students as it supports my teaching practices – quote from EYLF.

I am undertaking the internship in a metro school, working twice a week in a kindergarten classroom. However for the purpose of the assignment I am working with year 2 students, to help develop my content knowledge. According to 2014 statistics (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2014) the school had a total of 494 students, roughly 50% were girls and vice versa for boys. Of those students only 2% were Indigenous, yet 21% had a “language background other than English” (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2014).

This project started when my mentor teacher highlighted that I should not use the letter names with kindergarten students, instead I should use the sounds that those letters make. From this experience I began to reflect; do I understand the content knowledge and sequence of learning in early childhood? When it comes to phonetics, do I know how teach students to ‘recognise most sound-letter matches’? (ACARA, 2014).  ‘Have I found effective approaches to facilitate student learning’? These questions allow me to become a reflective practitioner and thus acting upon them allows me to improve teaching/learning (Pine, 2009).

For privacy concerns, I will identify each student as a number, all six students are in the same year 2 classroom, three are female and three are male. These six students were identified by the teaching as having ‘language and literacy difficulties, and needed additional support outside of the classroom’, and are all

5 | P a g e

participants in the ‘school remedial program, Multilit’. Student 1 has behavioural issues and is on an IEP, this affects his involvement in the class as he is constantly distracted. Student 3 is from Malaysia and is ESL, she moved only a year ago and has broken English. Student 5 was born in England and moved to Australia aged 3.

Rationale:

Reflective questioning is an important tool when becoming a reflective practitioner. Reflective practice allows teachers to “…uncover and assess the problems” “Instead of guessing what works and does not work…” (Ginley, 2013, p.6). This was the main focus of my topic, I found that I was unaware of what was needed to assess and be ‘uncovered’. When I was told that my level of teaching was too difficult for my students to comprehend, I realised that I needed to develop more content knowledge. By doing this I thought it would be a great opportunity to test the content knowledge and begin to assess students and predict what level of learning they are at. I decided that in order to feel competent in assessing students literacy skills and being able to assist them in their learning was to gain more content knowledge; which is why I undertook the ‘school remedial program’: Multilit. Throughout cycle 1 I wrote reflective journals, to assist me in my research, as suggested by Diggins and O’Connor (2002) reflective journals allowed me to answer my own questions and develop my practice, which is evident throughout this project. A key example to this reflective practice is the modification of aims for the project; when reading my assignment feedback and critiquing my process I discovered that I had neglected the Early Years Learning Framework (DEEWR, 2009); therefore whilst the project has the main focus of ‘’how to cater for and identify differing abilities in literacy’ I will also aim to discover this with a play-based approach.

My first major learning experience in the internship was this particular lesson, which led to this project research. I am fortunate enough to work in a metropolitan school of just under one hundred students, with a class of twenty kindergarten students. I worked with groups of four students, practicing name recognition and fine motor development by stamping. Prior to students stamping their name, I would talk to them about what is in their name, the letters, length and how many letters. When talking about the letters in the name I found myself stating the letter name, for example Ayy for ‘A’, which at the time I thought was the correct response when modelling letters. It wasn’t until my mentor

6 | P a g e

suggested I use the sound of the letter instead what I realised. I had know that the students learn sounds before they can recognise print and then match it, however that knowledge had just not made the connection from theory to practice. Following this learning incident I reflected on my teaching and content knowledge, asking myself questions such as: do I really know the basics of literacy? Can I actually break down the learning of a story, paragraph, sentence, word, or letter? Do I have the ability to cater for all the children’s needs? Will I know where to begin? These reflection questions are a great tool to improve my educational practices as well as understand how they are carried out (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005).

During this project I have made modifications to the aims; as I have found that I did not included the early years learning framework enough. This was also reflected in the feedback from assignment one; as highlighted in assignment 2 the aims are modified to:

1. To effectively identify the different abilities in literacy, and assist those who do not reach the expected standards of their year level

2. Develop play-based strategies which will assist student learning (DEEWR, 2009)

3. Become more critical in my teaching approach; including critiquing current school programs

I have modified some of the aims of this project as I embarked upon it, as during my reflection journals I noticed I was focusing more on Multilit as a school program and less on my own practice. As a consequence I decided to reflect both Multilit and Letters & Sounds; focusing on how, as a practitioners they can be used on within the classroom, therefore I began researching more about both these programs.

When working with each child independently, I decided to also talk to them about how they felt about the Multilit program (items of evidence). This helped me gain more focus as the child and adapt a more holistic approach as I began to “…recognise the connectedness of mind, body and spirit” (Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva, 2004). As evident in my discussion I paid attention to the students as beings, considering the child as a whole; physical, personal, social, emotional and spiritual wellbeing as well as cognitive aspects of learning” (DEEWR, 2009).

7 | P a g e

Working on this project has given me the opportunity to become more engaged in the school community. This was not any part of my intention when working on this project, however it was great to see that when you do involve yourself in the school and show that you are willing to help and make a difference other staff members will support you; I have developed a positive rapport with the classroom teacher, I have developed a professional rapport with the Multilit organiser, I have admin staff ask how the project is coming along and if they can help out; as well as other staff members who are willing to share their resources. This was a really positive experience for me as it persisted me in pursing my project, and felt supported by numerous staff members, knowing if I was faced with a challenge I would have people to help me.

Process:

The process of action research allows practitioners to inquire about how they can find ways to develop their practice, such as teaching, this can be done “individually and collectively, in particular social situations” (McNiff & Whitehead, 2009, p. 14). With regards to my situation, I will be individually collecting the data from 6 students who are all participants Multilit program; the data will be collected and refereed to later when discussing and analysing the report. Action research methodology refers to the theory of how things are done and the creative process of trial and error, working your way through and arriving at a ‘best for now’ position (McNiff & Whitehead, 2009). This is very much the case, as I do not feel that I have come to a succinct answer on how to cater for and identify differing abilities, yet I have developed my knowledge and awareness, I have demonstrated that the ideas and practices I have put into place were in fact effective, however even though the ‘report’ itself has come to an end, the learning process has most definitely not; it is ongoing. The process of this report was split into three cycles; cycle 1 I aimed to assess students and map them according to the expected learning outcomes, cycle 2 I aimed to plan and implement strategies which can cater for the lower abilities, cycle 3, I aim t re-assess and map students, continue to implement strategies, as well as observe and discuss the journey with

8 | P a g e

students and the teacher involved. There were a number of issues along the way, as times did clash and my expected Monday afternoons were cancelled when a number of public holidays landed on the same day.

The manner in which I create my report; what research I use, the data I collect, how I test for validity all refers to the methodology of the report (McNiff & Whitehead, 2009). Whilst the process I had planned (cycles) is the method I aim to take, the methodology how I use the data and strategies. When reading through my weekly reflections, it is evident that an immense amount of learning is constantly happening, as I am widening my eyes to more and more research, resources and stories from experienced practitioners. The assessment tasks which were collected demonstrate that the processes undertaken in this study were in fact effective as students learning had improved immensely. Following from feedback on assignment 1; I discovered that I had not incorporated play, or taken any consideration for the child as a being; which is very much a deep belief in my teaching pedagogy. After realising this I modified my goals to suit the students better, with the aim of making my implementation strategies more play-based, engaging and when possible interesting to the students.

The purpose of cycle one was for me to test my own skills and ability, as well as get an awareness of where student’s knowledge is (QUOTE FROM SOMEONE). There are various forms of assessment which will be undertaken during this process, however in cycle one I had a checklist, this checklist had a variety of letters; students were expected to correctly pronounce the sounds, it would start off at the simple sounds, progressing up to blends, progressing up to correctly sounding out words. I modelled my assessment task from the Multilit program, and also used the schools phonics program ‘Letters and Sounds’ and the Australian Curriculum when creating the benchmark for what a satisfactory student could achieve. The purpose of a checklist was to “collect information about [students]… literacy skills (Krause, Bochner & Duchesne, 2003, p.420). I sat down 1 on 1 with each student’s and recorded their results as they were reading out the sounds and words, marking each sound as they said it; so they were not aware of which words were correct or incorrect, as I aimed to make the test as accurate as possible. I would let the student keep reading until they had made, what I seemed a reasonable about, of mistakes; roughly 5 or 6, I would then stop them and quickly revise what the common mistake was, if any; students then returned to class. After assessing each students I examined the results and compared them to what I had said a above satisfactory, satisfactory and below

9 | P a g e

satisfactory (rubrics) which allowed me to assess my own knowledge as once I had assessed the students I had a discussion with the classroom teacher, to compare what my results had said and what her continually assessments had said. This process assist me in reaching aim 1, as I have been able to “effectively identify the different abilities in literacy” it is in cycle two that I begin to assist those students and “implement play-based strategies” (aim 2). Additional to individually assess each of the six students and discussing my results with the classroom teacher I also took a day to observe the students within the classroom. Once reflecting on feedback, and talking to other staff members I began to question the effectiveness of drawing students out of learning, to be tutor 1:1 for a specific learning skill (phonics). Therefore I spent a day in the classroom, monitoring student’s behaviour, engagement in class, and most importantly their reaction when being drawn out of class and then rejoin following the tutoring. The preliminary findings in cycle one were all ‘on-track’ in the sense that I have positively been working towards my aims. I noted that all six of the students I work with do in fact need additional support and they are below satisfactory; therefore I have already develop my skills and knowledge in being able to identify abilities. Other findings which were uncovered in this cycle were that being drawn from the classroom does have an influence on student behaviour and their engagement when going back into class.

I implemented a number of strategies during cycle 2 and 3 to assist students in their learning, with the aim of being able to cater for them within the classroom. “Identifying these students (low literacy) is relatively easy, but many teachers struggle to know how to help once they have identified the low-progress readers in their class” (Multilit, 2015). During cycle two I followed the strict routine set out by the program and worked individually with each student, along the way I continually collected items of evidence. I asked students how they felt about Multilit, if they could change anything about the program what would it be. Additional to student’s personal opinions, I had a meeting with the coordinator of the program; with the aim of modifying the program to make it more play-based and motivating. During this meeting I discovered that she too had the same aim; incorporate more games and packages for these students to take into the classroom and stay motivated during the 1:1 tutoring sessions. These interviews and constant tutoring concluded cycle 2; during which time I discovered that 1:1 tutoring is effective, as students are learning and developing their skills, checklist are a great tool to use when recoding data consistently.

10 | P a g e

During cycle 3 I discovered that play-based learning activities do increase motivation and behaviour; I created strategies for these students to be able to implement in the classroom as well as at home, with the aim of being able to assist these students in their learning. When these play-based activities were introduced there was a larger increase in students learning as well; which supports the idea. In cycle 3 I also noted that multilit is an effect program to use in the school, as long as it is supported by the whole-staff and volunteers, there is room for improvement as teachers need to become aware of how the learning development differs from program to program.

11 | P a g e

Reflective discussion:

To effectively identify the different abilities in literacy, and assist those who do not reach the expected standards of their year levelAs mentioned above I have undertaken a number of checklist assessments to moderate student learning. The assessments are conducted weekly when students are participating in the Multilit program, as their progress in marked in a provided book. Additional to that, I created my own assessment tasks to ensure that I was able to effectively identify students who needed learning difficulties. At the beginning of this research project I had to use the multilit program, and the school learning program ‘Letters & Sounds’ largely to help me identify what it is that a child is learning. I found it very difficult to scale student’s assessment tasks for ‘below satisfactory to above satisfactory’ as I was completely unaware of the learning development that has needs to be undertaken. I found myself asking ‘What do they need to know before they can blend? What if they can’t identify the sound?’ As useful as it may have been to mark on paper what they can and cannot do; I initially had no clue where to go next. When comparing my first assessment checklist to my last, I feel it is evident that I am more aware of what I expect of students; simply by the expectations and annotations on assessment 2.By working with these six students weekly I began to learn with them, some of these students were still stuck on basic sounds such as ‘i’ and ‘e’ where as other students I was working with could not identify the difference between a ‘d’ and a ‘b’. These were challenges along the way as I needed to quickly develop my skills and knowledge if I wanted to assist these students; hence why I had numerous discussions with the classroom teacher, multilit coordinator and other staff members. They were able to constantly give me advice, research, maps, plans and so forth which allowed me to develop an understanding of the sequence of learning. As I progressed into cycle 2 and 3 I felt very competent in the content knowledge of literacy, and so it seemed natural to begin to manipulate the current lessons provided to incorporate a more play based strategy.

Develop play-based strategies which will assist student learning (DEEWR, 2009) In my first draft of this project, I had aimed to implement different strategies to assist students with learning difficulties, with examples which were unauthentic, unengaging and had no consideration for the child as a being. It wasn’t until I reviewed my assessment feedback and reflected on my own teaching practice that I realised, I was

12 | P a g e

not following what I believe to be an effective teaching pedagogy, and so I decided to adapt my aims and strategies to allow for opportunities for the students to “engage actively with people, objects and representations” (DEEWR, 2009, p.6). I found it rather difficult to create games which gave opportunity for students to independently practice sounding out words, however I did decided that I would narrow it down and focus on sight words. I discussed the idea of modifying multilit with the program coordinator, and discovered that she too had the same idea in mind. Like me she felt that “Multilit is a great program, you can see such wonderful results from the students, but I would love if we could make it a bit more ‘fun’ and give it a ‘less structured feel’ to it”. She had suggested that I use a flyswatter with the students, with the aim of making them say the sight words faster; after revising the words, I would say a word and students would have to swat it as quickly as possible. Another game I played with the students was snap, having two sets of the ‘sight words’ the student and I would read out the word and put it on top of the other cards, like snap, when a match came up first person to call snap would win. I myself enjoyed playing these games with the students, they were fun, engaging and there was so much learning going on! I completed these games with students every week, at the beginning of cycle 3 I asked students how they felt about the games, all of which responded with a positive response. These games allowed me to understand personally what a great tool play can be. Working in kindergarten there is a lot of open-ended play, as students are still learning social skills. I had honestly forgotten that students in year two are still able to have as much fun and learn at the same time. I am very grateful to have explored this topic, and attempted to include the EYLF as it has assisted me in confirming that I do believe that effective learning can be done through play.

Become more critical in my teaching approach; including critiquing current school programs It was quite a scary thought when I came to the realisation that I did not think to include play in a year two classroom. My reflective journals highlight that I felt there was a large emphasis on the idea that these students need work 3x a week on the same words, with the goal of being able to automate the skill, I also thought the most effective way to do this was to follow the exact Multilit routine of reading the words and writing them. The reason for this belief was because ‘everyone else was doing it’. I had not thought to critique the current school programs as a tool for learning; I assumed that they were the best, considering they were implemented into the school.

13 | P a g e

I will emphasise that I am not saying multilit is bad, and should not be implement; but I as a practitioner should learn to not take everything as it is, instead; learn to manipulate it to suit my own teaching pedagogy. Through other discussions with teachers, I slowly learned that many of them do not use just one program for any learning, instead use a number of them; Dianna Rigg, Letters and sounds, Mutlilit and so on to help them develop lessons, create plans and assess student’s capabilities.

In cycle 2 and 3 I would take out six students individually and work with them following the multilit structure, which basically was to read and write out words and sounds, with the aim of making such skill becoming automated. When observing students in the classroom, I noticed in particular that student 1 and 3 were not on task very often; student 1 would ‘give-up’ and begin to disobey the class rules, and student 3 would stare at a blank page, for a very long time. However when I would take these students out, they were on task, following instructions, and eager to participate; simply because the attention was 100% on them (Flick, 2010). These classroom observations allowed me to see the simple behaviours that a teacher with a full-workload my not be able to, I took note that I do not to check in on all students; which can be done through various assessment forms.

14 | P a g e

Conclusion:

The aims of this project put simply were to: identify different abilities and cater for below satisfactory students, develop play-based strategies to cater for those students, and become more critical in my teaching approach and style. I believe that I have effectively reached each of those aims, I do not feel that I have discover the most effective techniques; much like any project report (McNiff & Whitehead, 2009) but instead have reflected on my experiences and better myself as a professional. I have identified students who are assessed as ‘below satisfactory’; I have created engaging play-based games, such as fly swatting sight words, and I have reflected on my practice, becoming more aware of the importance of research and enforcing your pedagogy in your teaching.

A range of strategies were implemented throughout the project, when reflecting on the items of evidence this can be clear. I have discussed activities with various staff members, brainstorming ideas on how I can incorporate a play-based approach to assist low literacy skilled students. I talked to the students involved, asking them if there was any difference between the structured format and the play-based approach. I observed the students in the classroom, to understand more about them; but to also broaden my understand of teaching, watching another teacher cater for these differing abilities allowed me critique my own pedagogy and reflect on what I believe is the best teaching practice.

15 | P a g e

References1. Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice

in early childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

2. DEEWR. Australian Government Department of Education, Employment

and Workplace Relations (2009) Belonging, Being and Becoming: the Early

Years Learning Framework for Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth

Australia. Retrieved from:

http://www.deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/Policy_Agenda/Quality/

Documents/Final%20Framework%20Report%20-%20WEB.pdf

3. Diggins., C. and O’Connor., A ( 2002).,  On Reflection: Reflective Practice for Early Childhood Educators., Aoteroa New Zealand., Open mind Publishing 

4. Flick, G. (2010) Managing ADHD in the K-8 Classroom: A Teacher’s guide. California: SAGE: Corwin.

5. Ginley, E. (2014). Observe-Reflect-Act: The cycle of reflective practice on questioning in STEM education. Hampstead, NY: School of Education, Hofstra University.

6. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Communicative action and the public sphere. Denzin, NK & Lincoln, YS (red.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3, 559-603.

7. Krause, K.L., Bochner, S., & Duchesne, S. (2003). Educational Psychology for learning and teaching. Victoria, Australia: Cengage Learning.

8. McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2009). Doing and Writing Action Research. California: SAGE.

9. Multilit. (2015) Multilit: Multilit for teachers and other Educational practitioners. MULTILIT.

10. Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Sylva, K. (2004). Researching pedagogy in English pre-schools. British

Educational Research Journal, 30(5), 712-730.

16 | P a g e

17 | P a g e

18 | P a g e

19 | P a g e

20 | P a g e

21 | P a g e

22 | P a g e