Primary Literacy Programme - Reading (KS1)

Self- Evaluation Report of the Pilot Primary Literacy Programme - Reading (KS1)

4

© NET SECTION, CDI, EDB, HKSAR, 2009

Foreword


“When we are dreaming alone it is only a dream. When we are dreaming with others, it is the beginning of reality.” Dom Helder Camara Helping children in Hong Kong to embrace the love of reading has always been a dream of mine back in the days when I was working as a teacher trainer in the Colleges of Education. This dream, however, had to wait until I began working with the Advisory Teaching Team of the NET Section in 2002. A dreamer alone cannot bring about changes, but with help along the way, my dream was brought to realisation. What we wanted to achieve back in 2002 was to ensure that all our children would and could enjoy a good book in English and to do that we had to persuade a lot of people to our way of thinking. When we developed the PLP-R, we were always conscious to incorporate the five building blocks that underpin a reading programme – phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary building and comprehension. As second language learners, our children have to be explicitly and systematically taught to develop literacy in a second language. Before “reading to learn” can take place, children have to be empowered with the strategies to “learn to read”. We wrote this self-evaluation with the aim of highlighting the successes and challenges that we had encountered in the setting up and implementation of the PLP-R. We have been encouraged and heartened by many success stories that have taken place in schools but we have also empathised and worked with many others that found the Programme challenging. It has been and still is a steep learning curve for all of us. I am continuously amazed and impressed every time I step into a Reading Room or a language-rich classroom and the changes that are occurring among our children nowadays as compared to the time before the PLP-R, before the curriculum reform and before the Primary NET Scheme and I am very thankful. I must say thank you to the group of teachers who took up the challenge of being part of the pilot project, to the strong leadership of the principals, to the support of the parents and all my Advisory Teaching Team, without which this would have remained a dream. Of course this is only a beginning, and there is still a long way to go. But I am confident that with determination, a dream can bear fruit. Who says that dreams cannot come true?

Simon Tham Chief Curriculum Development Officer © NET SECTION, CDI, EDB, HKSAR, 2009

5


6



CHAPTER 1: SETTING THE CONTEXT 1.1 PREAMBLE The Primary Literacy Programme-Reading (KS1) or PLP-R (KS1) commenced as a two year pilot programme developed by the Advisory Teaching Team (ATT), Native-speaking English (NET) Section in the Curriculum Development Institute (CDI), under the umbrella of the then Education and Manpower Bureau Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (EMB HKSAR), cited as EMB within this document (now Education Bureau Hong Kong).

The pilot project of the PLP-R (KS1) was conducted from 2004 to 2006, with the aims to foster the English language proficiency of students through a sustainable literacy programme with a focus on reading, and the requisite professional development for key stakeholders. Specifically, the PLP-R (KS1) aimed to: •

The PLP-R (KS1) evolved in response to the curriculum reform initiatives of the Curriculum Development Institute. The programme focused on developing approaches, • concepts, strategies and policies described in the following CDI documents: • • Learning to Learn: The Way Forward in Curriculum Development (2001) •

Building on Strengths: Primary 1 to Secondary 3 – Basic Education Curriculum Guide (2002)

•

English Language Education: Key Learning Area Curriculum Guide Primary 1 – Secondary 3 (2002)

•

English Language Education KLA: English Language Curriculum Guide (Primary 1-6) (2004).

•

provide direction and guidance for the teaching of literacy with a focus on reading and the knowledge of how students read and learn to read; provide the tools necessary for the assessment of student learning needs; encourage the setting up of supportive language-rich classroom and whole school environments and establishment of classroom and resource management systems; and through intensive professional development, promote the use of the five teaching strategies for reading: Reading Aloud, Storytelling, Shared Reading, Supported (and Guided) Reading and Independent Reading, outlined in the English Language Curriculum Guide (2004).

Whilst the PLP-R (KS1) has continued in an evolving form since 2005 in Hong Kong primary schools, this report focuses on the internal or self-evaluation of the PLPR in its first two pilot years: 2004–05 to 2005–06. The evaluation of both teacher professional development and student reading achievement was conducted at the beginning, interim and final stages of the pilot project by the NET Section, CDI, EDB, HKSAR.


7


1.2 WHAT IS THE PLP-R (KS1)?

1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The PLP-R (KS1) is both a programme for teaching students and a programme for teacher professional development. A wide range of materials and programmes has been developed to support both aspects. Appendix 1 outlines the various components and materials of the Reading programme. Appendix 2 outlines the range of professional development activities and materials of the PLP-R.

The PLP-R (KS1) aims to provide professional development for key stakeholders and to foster the English language proficiency of students through a sustainable literacy programme with a focus on reading. Its specific objectives are to:

8


•

promote the use of innovative and appropriate learning and teaching practices and methods to support the learning of reading in English

•

foster students’ independence and motivation in learning to read and reading to learn

•

promote the use of appropriate English resources for the learning and teaching of reading in English

•

promote and support the creation and management of an environment that will encourage students to learn to read in English

•

support the development of school- based English literacy programmes

•

promote the involvement of parents in achieving the objectives of the PLP-R (KS1)

•

involve all relevant stakeholders, including principals, PSMCD, sponsoring bodies and EMB personnel, in the achievement of the objectives of the PLP-R (KS1).


1.4 CONTENT OF THE PLP-R (KS1) A typical PLP-R lesson entails a number of phases, with students starting in whole class activities, moving to Guided Reading and / or Reading activities. Kowloon Bay St John the Baptist Catholic Primary School illustrates a typical lesson in the following pictures:

1. WARM UP

Speaking and listening, establishing routines

Picture story contributed by Kowloon Bay St John the Baptist Catholic Primary School

Students read previously published work

2. SHARED READING

Teachers model reading skills and English intonation and seek student interaction with text

Tommy showing the title of the big book


9


3. GROUP WORK

Group activities work plan - Students are divided into four groups and rotate from one activity to another after they complete each task.

The LET teaches phonics (‘at’ sound) after the students finish Guided Reading

Independent Reading of commercial and student-made books

10


In Guided Reading, the NET teaches book procedures then checks individuals’ reading

Independent Reading of commercial and student-made books

The CA teaches the students how to ‘fish’ for high frequency words and match word pairs


The CA teaches the students how to ‘fish’ for high frequency words and match word pairs

The students do a writing and drawing activity based on the Shared Reading book

4. CONCLUSION

The LET teaches a song at the end of the lesson.


11


1.5 RATIONALE FOR THE PLP-R (KS1) Rationale for a Reading Programme in KS1 The PLP-R is founded on the belief that reading is a vital life skill, helping to develop thinking skills, enrich knowledge, enhance language proficiency, broaden life experiences and empower young citizens. Thus, when teaching reading, the emphasis is not only on decoding words, but on gaining meaning and the critical literacy skills to function as citizens in a challenging world. Teachers must motivate learners and provide them with proper guidance and opportunity to enhance their learning capacity through reading. Children in their early years of school are developing literacy in their first language. They need explicit and systematic teaching to ensure that this development occurs. This also applies to children learning literacy in their second language. Therefore, children’s understanding of concepts about print, which they have developed in their first language, should contribute to their reading development in their second language. They do, however, still need to adapt to a new set of sound/symbol correspondences, and for Hong Kong children, a new script, punctuation and directionality when they read in English. According to Braunger and Lewis (1998), “Learning to read in a first language...is critical to success in learning to read in a second language.” In Literacy Instruction for Teachers (LIFT) it is stated, “When learners are allowed to transfer their reading skills from their first language to the second language, their confidence is supported.” (Learning Media, 2003) Therefore, a literacy programme which is cognisant of the English-as-another-language nature of Hong Kong learners is essential to ensure that children learn these new skills and strategies effectively. 12


The designers of the PLP-R, the Advisory Teaching Team of the PNET Scheme, brought much practical and observational experience of teaching reading in English in Hong Kong schools. Whilst there was a strong commitment to teaching reading, many local teachers had not been specifically trained in teaching this specialist aspect of English. Systemic factors that encourage such English teaching practices as memorisation of words and text, and telling students unknown words, prevent these teachers from using the five teaching strategies and promoting the use of reading strategies, and inhibit students’ opportunities to apply phonics in a reading context and respond orally to texts. In particular, it was felt that learning to read in Hong Kong was inhibited by the practice of all students in a year level using the same reading book, often ones produced for first language readers of parallel age, and a limited selection of text types. This limits opportunities for students:

•

to learn to read with texts appropriate to their ability, interest and life experience

•

to develop foundational knowledge and skills required of reading

•

to receive appropriate intervention or enrichment experiences.

Another perceived inhibiting factor to successful reading habits and skills for many Hong Kong students is the lack of exposure to English print, texts and oral language.


The 2002 English Language Education Key Learning Area English Language Curriculum Guide (P1-S3) states: “Reading should be promoted in schools and integrated into regular English Language lessons with the other skills of listening, speaking and writing. It should also be promoted across all Key Learning Areas and in the whole-school curriculum. Further, schools should help learners develop the habit of reading by encouraging them to read outside class time, such as during morning assembly, recess and after school.” The 2001 and 2006 PIRLS Reports report that internationally, “students with the most positive attitudes towards reading had the highest reading achievement“ (2006, p.6). Yet, in the 2006 study, 32% of students internationally reported reading for fun only twice a month or less (p.6) and a global decrease in daily and weekly reading of literary and informational texts. In addition, the 2006 PIRLS Report states, “teachers reported that 17% of their students, on average across countries, were in need of remedial instruction” yet in nearly every country the percentage of students needing remedial reading instruction exceeded the percentage who received it” (p.8). Hong Kong has identified English as an essential language for its international city status. For many students, English is a second or possibly a foreign language. Given the need for remediation statistics and the low numbers of reading beyond the classroom for modern young people globally, teaching reading in English as a second or foreign language can indeed be challenging for Hong Kong teachers.

With such data in mind, the designers of the PLP-R aimed to develop a reading programme that immerses students in both oral and print English language in and beyond the classroom, motivates students, and caters for their diverse learning needs. “A widely held belief, supported by many researchers, is that reading activity leads to many other cumulative advantages. Good readers have many more opportunities to accumulate extensive vocabularies, which in turn, assist them to read more, learn more word meanings, and thereby read even better. Poorer readers, on the other hand, who may read slowly and without enjoyment, read less, resulting in slower vocabulary development, which may discourage further reading growth” (Ng, Seok M., 2000, p.8). “Mastery of English vocabulary is a key determinant of reading comprehension when English is the second language” (LIFT, 2003, p.13). Reading is fundamental to learning a language but it is best taught in relation to the spoken language. Too often we find students learning to read the vocabulary of a foreign language before they have had the experience of hearing it or enunciating it first. Children’s language acquisition can be enhanced when they are immersed in a literacy programme with a dual focus on speaking and reading. Much of the PLP-R is influenced by the work of Fountas and Pinnell, who write: “To become lifetime readers, students of all ages need role models who are readers. By getting excited about books, taking time to read to students, and sharing your interest in books, you inspire students by showing them the positive effects of reading. The discussions, memories, and time you spend reading with students can help them gain a desire to read for pure pleasure.” (in www.teachervision.fen.com, 2008). © NET SECTION, CDI, EDB, HKSAR, 2009

13


Rationale for an Intensive Professional Development Model Language teachers can help promote reading through encouraging students to read a wide range of materials with different subject content and text types. “A print-rich environment is important to success in learning both languages and authentic opportunities to read and write in both languages should be available in the classroom” (L.I.F.T., 2003, p.13). Teachers of reading should select or develop appropriate tasks or activities based on the reading, in which learners find meaning and pleasure, so that they will learn to appreciate the value of reading and become motivated to make reading a lifelong habit. The English Language Education KLA Curriculum Guide (P1-S3) asserts: “Reading involves the development of reading skills and attitudes to help the students ‘read with understanding’” (2002, p.93). In order to develop these attitudes and skills, young readers need to be taught to use reading skills and reading strategies, and to learn to take on various roles or ways of interacting with a text. The PLP-R promotes all five teaching strategies for reading, as outlined in the English Language Curriculum Guide (2004): • • • • •

Storytelling Reading Aloud Shared Reading Supported (via Guided) Reading Independent Reading (p.149)

Teachers require a deep understanding of these teaching strategies for reading and the philosophy behind them. The PLP-R is underpinned by a framework that clearly articulates desired attitudes and levelled reading skills, which are reflected in a wide range of teaching and learning resources, and developed through an intensive professional development. 14


The PNET Scheme was established in a time of intense systemic teacher training, development and certification, and a climate of pedagogical policy change in Hong Kong. One significant policy change was the recommendation that 40% of the School-based English Language Programme be committed to “Reading Workshop”, where “in addition to task-based approach to reading, reading skills are best developed in the context of reading real books and authentic materials” (ELCG, 2004, p.148-149). Too often, when there is much systemic change, teachers are asked to ‘graze’ through many programmes, minimising the opportunities for deep learning, and thus, are unable to sustain effective change. Indeed, in a recent significant study of the United Kingdom’s Literacy Strategy, it was found that there was a failure “to give teacher explanations as to why practices should be adopted. Without a deeper knowledge of the process of learning to read, teachers who follow prescriptions may be inflexible, unenthusiastic and uncreative. There is a danger that their teaching may become a kind of painting by numbers” (Hurry, Sylva & Riley, 1999, p.648). However, one of a number of literacy programmes, on which the National Literacy Strategy was based, was considered successful because “it was introduced not only through inservice training but though demonstration teaching, the opportunity for teachers to observe literacy programme classrooms and through consultation concerning literacy resources and their management at school and class level” (Hurry, Sylva & Riley, p.648).The PLP-R was conceived and developed not only to support policies such as the English Language Curriculum Guide (2004) with practical teaching materials, but as an intensive professional development programme to teach the philosophy, specific teaching skills and practices required to develop and teach reading workshops for students and create school-based literacy programmes.


Thus, the PLP-R aims to address the learning needs of both teachers and students. The programme involves four stages over four years: • • • •

Setting-up stage Implementation stage Integration stage Independence stage

Each stage is described in terms of exit descriptors, the skills and knowledge developed and demonstrated by both teachers and students.Central to the professional development model is the teachers’ application of new skills in the intended context of their learning – the classroom. Central and school-based workshops were followed by regular classroom coaching by Advisory Teachers. “Learning in context is key. Even the best professional development workshops represent only input for success. Actual success occurs in the context of daily learning” (Fullan, Hill and Crevola, 2006, p.88). As Advisory Teachers assist teachers to transfer new knowledge into professional practice in the classroom, they assume Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development”, the critical zone where learning can be supported, and “assisted development” (1978), where learning is optimized when a “more knowing other” (in this case, the advisory teacher) is able to structure learning so that the difficulty of the task aligns with the learner’s individual needs. The teacher scaffolds the learner (in this case the English teacher) in a new task, assisting the learner to see what he or she already knows and can do, in order to move to a higher level of performance. According to Fullan, Hill & Crevola (2006, p. 33-34), it is vita that “designing and organising instruction so that it is focused. Without focus, instruction is inefficient, and students spend too much time completing activities that are too easy and do not involve new learning or too little time on tasks that are too difficult and involve too much new learning or relearning…

In an ideal world, the teacher would have precise and current knowledge of each student’s starting points and also of what assistance each student requires to move to the next level. These Vygotskian concepts are also an aspect of the teaching of students in PLP-R and thus form some of the content of the teachers’ professional development and planning. Hong Kong’s textbook and assessment regime can implicitly promote a “one size fits all” approach. Contemporary policies acknowledge that new pedagogies are required to enhance all students’ learning potential. In the PLP-R, local teachers, NETs and school leaders are engaged in “daily learning on the part of teachers, both individually and collectively” (Fullan, Hill and Crevola, p. 21). In particular, there is an emphasis on focused teaching in the four PLPR components: language-rich environment, classroom management, teaching reading in English, and assessment of learning. Fullan, Hill and Crevola define focused teaching as a “structured approach to teaching and types of adaptive instruction that can be managed by teachers” (p.32). They view it as: 1.

“knowing in a precise way the strengths and weaknesses of each student at the point of instruction through accurate formative assessment

2.

knowing the appropriate instructional response and in particular when and how to use which instructional strategies and matched resources

3.

having the classroom structures, routines and tools to deliver differentiated instruction and focused teaching on a daily basis.” (p.33)


15


Supporting focused instruction is the feedback approach, “among the top three interventions… good formative assessment can generate feedback for teachers to guide their teaching and feedback for students to guide their learning” (Fullan, Hill & Crevola, 2006, p.10). Feedback through coaching by advisory teachers, and through teachers observing students feedback, has become a large focus of the PLP-R. Further, in his practical manuals on “learning organisations”, Senge describes the importance of communities of commitment, personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision, team learning, professional dialogue, and systems thinking (2000). By taking this “learning” approach to the PLP-R, the term “professional development” as it is generally used becomes narrow. “Professional learning” is more appropriate — the PLP-R capitalises on the PNET Scheme’s emphasis on teacher collaboration and existing in-school advisory teacher support. PLP-R schools become learning communities where teachers are engaged in a range of deep and broad learning activities. These include two to three days’ preliminary training, regular centralised and school-based workshops, teaching focused units of work, modeling by the NET, in-class coaching by advisory teachers, peercoaching and review, co-planning, localised materials adaptation, cluster meetings, print and electronic materials for professional development, and celebratory-best practice publications and events (see Appendix 2).

Overall, the PLP-R: •

provides a phased and localised approach to master various teaching skills and knowledge according to teacher readiness

•

has a unique focus on teaching skills through regular in-class coaching by advisory teachers, with a focus on teacher roles and how students learn

• capitalises on co-planning meetings to ensure teachers collaboratively plan and reflect on their teaching practice, professional development and students’ learning •

exemplifies successful practices in PLP-R schools in professional development materials to build a vision for Hong Kong classrooms, promote professional dialogue and self-reflection, and enhance stakeholder involvement

•

provides a framework for systemic planning and management.

The PLP-R also models how one aspect of the curriculum — reading in English — can provide a context for applying many aspects of other curriculum policies in most practical ways (for example, learning to learn, cooperative learning, self-management, self-access learning, lifewide learning); and provides much support for the Education Bureau’s vision for fully implemented school-based curriculum development by 2011. In 2006, the Teacher Competencies Framework was published by the Advisory Committee on Teacher Education and Qualifications, HKSAR. Appendix 3 provides an overview. The nature of the PLP-R professional development model ensured easy alignment with these standards.

16



1.6 SELF- EVALUATION OF THE PLP-R(KS1) In 2002, the EMB implemented a policy of school-self evaluation (SSE). Schools in the PNET scheme were provided with professional development so as to conduct an SSE of an aspect of their PNET programme. In keeping with the spirit of SSE, the NET Section initiated an internal or self-evaluation of the pilot of the PLP-R in 2004. This self-evaluation report of the PLP-R pilot includes examples of school SSE findings in Chapter 6.

The PNET Scheme Territory-Wide Evaluation (TWE)

In 2004, an international conglomerate consisting of the University of Melbourne and the Hong Kong Institute of Education was contracted to conduct an external evaluation of the Primary NET Scheme. Appendix 4 provides a summary of this evaluation. Griffin states, “by the third year of the evaluation almost half of the students participating in the PNET Scheme evaluation were in schools that were piloting the PLPR (KS1) and some informal comparisons can be made between outcomes for students who were or were not involved in the Programme.” (2007, p.174) Griffin continues, “Although the current study [TWE] was not designed to evaluate the PLP-R (KS1), there were indications that participation in the programme was linked to student progress in reading proficiency in English, and to changed teaching practices by the LETs.” (p. 180) The TWE findings describe a number of trends, conclusions and recommendations that relate to the PLP-R self-evaluation. Some are cited in this report.


17


18



CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY 2.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

2.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The significance of the PLP-R KS1 pilot project is its potential to provide a framework which other primary schools can adopt to implement a systematic and effective approach to the teaching of Reading in English in local primary schools. A self-evaluation of the PLP-R (KS1) set out to study the following questions:

2.2a The Professional Development Model

1.

2.

3.

How effectively has the professional development model of the PLP-R enabled teachers to develop sustainable skills and knowledge for teaching Reading in English? How has the PLP-R affected the reading ability of P1 and P2 students over two years of the pilot Programme?

“

Question: How effectively has the professional development model of the PLP-R enabled teachers to develop sustainable skills and knowledge for teaching Reading in English?

”

All schools in the pilot stage of the PLP-R committed to a range of mandatory professional development activities over the two years. The professional development model aimed to develop teacher knowledge and skills in the following areas:

What factors may have affected student reading ability?

•

Developing a Language-rich Environment

•

Classroom Management

It was anticipated that the intensive professional development model would see evident change in teachers’ knowledge, skills and practice in the teaching of Reading in English. During the life of the study, it was anticipated that the Territory-wide Evaluation (TWE) would reveal supportive data in its wider scope of comparison to non-PLP-R schools.

•

Teaching Reading in English

•

Assessment of Reading

It was unclear whether gains in student learning would evidently be better than that of non-PLP-R students in the given timeframe, because the PLP-R aimed to establish very solid foundations for learning to read which may not manifest as deeper learning until later years. However, as this form of teaching and learning had not been widely practised, nor highly resourced and supported, it was decided to study student results and the contextual factors of each school to understand the potential of the PLP-R for student learning in Reading in English.

•

usefulness of each type of professional development activity

•

impact of PLP-R on teacher knowledge and skills for teaching Reading

•

transferability of teacher knowledge and skills for teaching Reading

•

sustainability of teacher knowledge and skills for teaching Reading

The evaluation aimed to understand the effectiveness of the PLP-R professional development activities to develop these knowledge and skills, by studying:


19


Appendix 2 provides details of the professional development programme. In summary, these included: •

Preliminary training (3 days)

•

Co-planning meetings

•

Catch-up preliminary training for new teachers (2 days)

•

NET modelling

•

NET input at co-planning meetings

•

Personal networks with PLP-R teachers

•

AT modelling lessons

•

AT lesson support / coaching teachers in class

•

AT Co-planning meeting input

•

Developing resources with AT

•

Cluster meetings / network events

•

Others

•

Central workshops for PLP-R

•

School-based workshops by AT

•

Teaching the Units of Work

•

PLP-R publications e.g. Teachers’ Manual, Professional development packs, Units of Work

2.2.b The Reading Ability of Students

2.2.c Factors Effecting Reading Ability of Students

“ Question: What factors may have affected student reading ability? ”

“ Question:

How has the PLP-R affected the reading ability of P1 and P2 students over two years of the Programme?

”

“Reading ability” in the PLP-R reflects the definition in the Factors that might affect Reading ability were determined English Language Curriculum Guide (2004): the ability to as: understand written information in English, specifically, the • school factors — teacher skills, teacher attitude, ability to: leadership support, level of integration with other English lessons, collaboration among teachers, • understand the basic conventions of written English continuity of teaching team • construct meaning from texts •

20

locate information from ideas


•

student factors — access to books beyond school, reading habits, reading attitudes, learner diversity

•

home factors — parent involvement, parent support, parent level of English


2.3 METHODOLOGY

2.3.a Evaluating the Professional Development Model

104 Government and EDB-subsidised primary schools participated in the pilot phase of the PLP-R. A control group of four schools was randomly selected. Fifteen (15) PLP-R schools were randomly selected to participate in the evaluation, slightly more than 14% of 104 schools. Each evaluation school represented one school in the portfolio of PLP-R schools of the respective Advisory Teachers. The evaluation was scoped over two years in three stages: •

baseline stage – December 2004 (four months after the school year and teaching commenced)

•

interim stage – June 2005 (10 months after the school year and teaching commenced)

•

final stage – May 2006 (21 months after the school year and teaching commenced)

The PLP-R aims to develop teachers’ ability to teach students reading strategies that will help them to ‘scan texts, sound out letters, analyse structures and interpret the sentences into meaningful messages’ English Language Education Key Learning Area Curriculum Guide (P1-S3), 2002, A2-A3. Population: The population for this study is defined as all local teachers and NETs who were teaching the PLP-R during the pilot phase. Over the two years, this totalled 780 teachers. Instrumentation: A teacher survey (Appendix 5) was designed, with structured answer items for quantitative analysis. Surveys were sent to all participating PLP-R teachers in the pilot schools. Surveys were confidential but carried a school code for later correlation. Timing: Surveys were issued at the interim and final stages of the evaluation and returned within the month.

The evaluation team was comprised of between five and six Local and NET Advisory Teachers under the supervision of an Assistant Project Manager. The team trained and managed further Advisory Teaching personnel for data collection of student reading ability and PLP-R school profiling.


21


2.3.b Evaluating The Reading Ability of Students Students are taught reading strategies explicitly at Instrumentation: Students’ reading ability was assessed graphophonic, syntactic and semantic levels during in two parts: PLP-R sessions. At the end of the two-year pilot, students would have been exposed and hopefully acquired many 1. Reading accuracy and comprehension tests: of these skills and strategies, particularly graphophonic. Students read books which were levelled The design of the test instruments focused on whether according to Reading Recovery levels the content of the literacy sessions is able to teach (see Appendix 6 for sample page) primary school students the above reading strategies effectively. 2. Phonological awareness tests (see Appendix 7): Population: The population for this study is defined as: Students in the fifteen (15) “PLP-R schools” that were identified for evaluation: • six P1 and six P2 students from each school • randomly selected from school class lists of above average, average and below average reading ability • P1 (54 girls + 36 boys) and P2 (56 girls + 34 boys) • a total of 180 students tested (90 P1s and 90 P2s)

Students in the four (4) “Control schools”: • six P1 and six P2 students from each school • randomly selected from school class lists of above average, average and below average reading ability • a total of 48 students tested

22


• • • •

letter names beginning, middle, final sounds onset and rime high frequency words

Timing: Reading tests were administered at baseline, interim and final stages of the evaluation. Testing conditions: Testing was conducted in the students’ schools. Each student spent a minimum of 30 minutes with two data collectors, one of whom spoke Chinese.


Procedure: The testing procedure was divided into two As part of the Running Records, students were asked to parts. For the first part of the test, students were asked to answer questions to check their comprehension. Students who read at the Independent Level were asked to go to take the phonological awareness tests. a book of higher level until their reading level reached In the second part of the testing, students were asked Instructional Level. Reading Levels were defined by the to read aloud books starting from a Level I book. Their following: reading was taped and Running Records (page 1 of Appendix 6) taken during the reading.

Reading Level

Word Accuracy

Comprehension

Independent

≥ 96%

100%

Instructional

90% - 95%

≥ 75%

Frustration

< 90%

no need to measure

Frustration

≥ 90%

< 75%

After the data collection phase, the evaluation team members checked the Running Records against the audio-recorded reading; and conducted a miscue analysis of random Running Records.


23


2.4 ANALYSIS PLAN 2.3.c Evaluating Factors Effecting Reading Ability of Students

School variables, which may effect the reading ability acquisition of students, were taken into account through a school profile. This document required information on such factors as class and school size, teacher skills and attitude, school support, school leadership support, and level of integration of the programme into General English lessons. Population: All fifteen (15) evaluation schools were profiled by the respective advisory teachers Instrumentation: 1.

A school profile (Appendix 9) form was completed by the advisory teacher, with three (3) school profiles forming the basis of a comparative case study

2.

The TWE was studied for comparative data and findings

Timing: 1.

School Profiles were completed at the end of the first and second years of the pilot then analysed by the evaluation team

2.

The TWE report was finalised in 2007 after the PLP-R data collection and analysis were completed

24


The evaluation was designed to generate information to assist schools and the Bureau with future planning for professional development and programming. The analysis plan is presented in table 2.1.

2.5 ASSUMPTIONS The sample groups of students, teachers and parents are representative of the total population of students undergoing the PLP-R in the 104 schools. The instruments developed are able to measure the degree to which teachers have experienced and practised change. The final assumption is that the respondents to the survey and questionnaires have given truthful and unbiased answers.


2.6 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

The evaluation team acknowledges that this pilot study had various limitations including those associated with bias in a self-evaluation and those inherent in any cross-cultural and language-focused project. These include: •

lack of access to a larger sample of research subjects and attrition of student participants

•

the culturally-biased nature of reading and reading assessment materials designed in Western-Anglo countries for first language speakers of that culture

•

student psychology such as their comfort when working with unknown adults, and possibly Western adults, in an ESL or EFL context, and in a one-onone situation

•

assumptions about learning, teaching and reading that are implicit in one cultural group (e.g. Hong Kong local teachers) and unknown to another (e.g. NET advisors and teachers) and vice versa, which impact on interpretations, translations and analyses of vocabulary, knowledge, instructions, etc

•

some incontinuity of personnel on the evaluation team over four years

•

human resources required of intensive student testing, requiring a large group of data collectors, producing potential inconsistencies in knowledge and procedure

•

the use of digital recordings — as a way of checking the data collectors’ print recordings of student readings, can distort actual sound as schools are noisy and not all recordings worked

•

the quantity of data received that required analysis

•

crowded school schedules impacting on evaluation plans and timing

•

the inherently changing nature of the pilot, requiring some adjustment of original evaluation plans


25


Table 2.1 PLP-R Evaluation Analysis Plan

Evaluation Instrument Teacher professional development survey

Reading accuracy and comprehension test

Concepts, Fields and /or Correlations Sought •

Degree of change in teacher perception of knowledge and skills development (usefulness and impact)

•

Transferability and sustainability of teacher knowledge and skills

•

Degree of progress between baseline and final Book Levels of each student

•

Degree of overall progress between baseline / interim and final Book Levels of students in each school

Analysis Procedure All answer items numbered and responses entered into a corresponding Excel document, analysed using SPSS software

Data presented on Excel: • •

team analysis SPSS software analysis

• Degree of overall progress between baseline / interim and final Book Levels of students in each school according to demo graphic factors

26

•

Comparison of overall progress in Book Levels between PLP-R and control schools

•

Where there was most progress between stages e.g. baseline to final evaluation stages, baseline to interim stages, or interim to final stages

•

Nature of reading miscues

•

Nature of self-corrections

•

Use of graphophonic, syntactic and semantic cues


Miscue analysis of Running Records by evaluation team members


Evaluation Instrument

Concepts, Fields and /or Correlations Sought

Analysis Procedure

Student phonological awareness tests •

Degree of change in phonological SPSS software analysis awareness over time between control / experimental groups

School profiles and comparative case • studies

Correlation between change (+ve/-ve) with school variables

•

Seeking common factors across schools

Group schools by outcomes (e.g. high degree of change) and variables (e.g. socio-economic) Identify groups for case study → analyse respective school profiles for patterns


27


28



C HAPTER 3:

EVALUATING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT — TEACHER SURVEY 3.1 DATA COLLECTION

3.2 DATA ANALYSIS

As detailed in Chapter 2.3.a, a Teacher Survey was designed to study the question - How effectively has the professional development model of the PLPR enabled teachers to develop sustainable skills and knowledge for teaching Reading in English?

In the Teacher Survey (Appendix 5) all items were numbered and answers entered into a corresponding Excel document, which was analysed using SPSS. Most specific to the research question are the following survey items.

The Teacher Survey was sent to all PLP-R teachers in the 15 sample schools. 140 out of a possible 146 teachers (or 95.9%) of valid surveys were returned.

Table 3.1 Survey item 10 – Usefulness of professional development activities


29


Table 3.2 Survey item 10 – Usefulness of professional development activities – AT Support

Table 3.3 Survey item 11 – Impact of PLP-R on teacher reading knowledge and skills

30



Table 3.4 Survey item 12 – Transferability of teacher reading knowledge and skills

“ Question: Have you applied any aspects of

the ‘Teaching Reading’ component of the PLPR to your GE lessons and / or other English programmes? Please tick relevant aspects

”


31


Table 3.5 Survey item 13 – Transferability of teacher reading knowledge and skills

“ Question: Have you applied any aspects of the following [other three components of the PLP-R] in your GE lessons and / or other English programmes?

”

32



Table 3.6 Survey item 14 – Sustainability of teacher reading knowledge and skills

“

Question: What is / are the most valuable thing/s you have learned in the PLP-R?

”

In this open-ended question, teachers listed up to three things. Like responses were clustered as follows: Most valuable thing/s learned in PLP-R described by teachers

No. of like responses

Phonics (taught in-context) Reading strategies How to teach reading / teaching strategies Shared Reading Assessment / matching students to book levels Classroom Management Collaboration, co-planning Guided Reading Activities for reading and language Storytelling Motivating students Reading skills for planning and assessment High Frequency Words NET modelling Catering for learner diversity Integrating songs and rhymes Teaching small groups Reading Aloud Language-rich environment Grammar-in-context How Reading can be taught with the G.E programme

23 15 9 8 8 8 7 7 6 5 5 4 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1


33



“ Question: If the PLP-R support (e.g. NET, AT,

CA, Reading Room) was removed tomorrow, would you continue with some form of the PLP-R approach? Please describe which aspects.

”

34




“ Question: If the PLP-R support (e.g. NET, AT,

CA, Reading Room) was removed tomorrow, would you continue with some form of the PLP-R approach? Please describe which aspects.

”

(If yes to Survey Item 15) Please describe which aspects. In this open-ended question, teachers listed up to three things. Like responses were clustered as follows: Would you continue with some form of the PLP-R approach? If so, which aspects?

No. of like responses

Phonics-in-context Shared Reading Reading strategies Storytelling Guided Reading (introduced just before final data collection) High frequency words Adapted / similar programme, some of PLP-R, units of work Songs, rhymes, roleplay Home Reading programme Post reading / follow-up activities Reading Aloud Group work Language-rich environment Comprehension skills Describing pictures Writing related to reading All of the programme Most teaching strategies Zero Noise Signal Reading buddies

27 22 13 13 13 8 8 5 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


35


3.3 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Survey Item 10 – usefulness of professional development activities

Co-planning, scaffolded by the NET, AT (advisory teacher), various resources and reflection tools, enabled teachers to take new knowledge into the domain of real practice.

An analysis of Survey Item 10 clearly shows that each of the range of professional development opportunities Survey Item 10 specifically investigated advisory were equally valued by teachers, appealing perhaps teacher support, provided through diverse, pre-planned to a range of learning styles and / or each professional professional development (workshops, resources and development strategy complementing the others. more) and localised strategies. The value of workshops for preliminary or catch-up professional development presented varied responses Intense localised AT support aimed to serve the unique according to the duration. The three day workshops needs of each school. The Reading classroom served received the same regard as other professional as context for much of the professional development, ‘development strategies. However, the two day workshops for example, trialling units of work and resources, were seen by fewer participants to be of high value. in-class coaching by the AT and school-based Perhaps the condensed nature of many topics is workshops. This supports the underpinning notion of overwhelming and there is less time to process, share PLP-R that professional development becomes authentic and reflect on what is ahead. There are, however, “learning” when it is applied in real life contexts (Senge, concerns from school management in releasing a 1994, 2000). number of teachers for extended periods of time in the beginning of the school term. Obviously there are Advisory Teaching Team (ATT)-developed resources staffing constraints for each school to release a number were the most valued form of AT-provided professional of teachers from duties for three days, and the ATT in development. These came in a wide range of forms: CD, deploying staff for that period. In any case, if two days DVD-video, print, photographic, and other forms (see are least valued, new ways to conceive this introduction Appendix 2). ATs and schools were able to use have been considered. resources differently, according to the unique needs and The usefulness of the professional development in PLP- wants of each school, and it is believed that this ‘fit’ enabled R was linked strongly to the guidance of a NET and learner-centred professional development. The high effective co-planning. The work of the NETs was valued value given to the PLP-R materials supports the by schools for their role in both modelling new ideas and intensive input of human and other resources in their their contribution to the planning and organisational development. aspects of the PLP-R, whilst co-planning meetings Yet, it also highlights that teachers place a high value were listed as most useful for professional development. on prepared supporting resources (as opposed to having The basis of the PLP-R was intensive professional to prepare their own resources) when beginning a new development for a repertoire of teaching skills informed project. by deep understandings. © NET SECTION, CDI, EDB, HKSAR, 2009 36


Ideally, teachers develop the skills to create their own appropriate resources. In the last two stages of the PLPR — Integration and Independence — the goal is for teachers to progressively achieve the skills of school-based curriculum development. However, this study ended before teachers started the final two stages of PLP-R, where they would learn and practise these skills. Whether this goal is achievable or not, the success of the resources in creating a take-up of new ideas suggests that PLP-R resources may have value for teachers in non-PLP-R schools.

Survey Item 11 – The impact of PLP-R on teacher reading knowledge and skills The impact of professional development on teacher knowledge and skills was marked over time. The implementation and consequent professional development for the PLP-R was divided into four components: • • • •

Developing a language-rich environment Classroom Management Teaching Reading in English Assessment of Reading

Unique to the PLP-R model was the regular presence of the AT in the classrooms, providing site-specific As shown in Table 3.3, teachers rated an increase in information that informed localised development of all four components of the PLP-R: an 18% increase in resources for those schools and centralised publications. knowledge and skills relating to teaching and learning reading in English; a 21% increase in knowledge and However, resources were valued only slightly higher than skills relating to assessing reading; an 8% increase in other forms of AT support. It can be concluded that the knowledge and skills relating to Classroom Management; resources and role of the AT led to successful and a 15% increase in knowledge and skills relating to professional development of teachers in the PLP-R. developing a language-rich environment. At the time the PLP-R commenced, the programme components of Teaching Reading and Assessment for Reading were the most complex and least professionally developed. These received the highest rating for impact. In relation to developing a language-rich environment, many schools started the PLP-R by decorating classrooms in words and graphics not related to learning. The PLP-R encouraged the creation of evolving environmental language (print and oral) related to teaching units and student interaction with the classroom print materials. This shift in teacher perception about the role of environmental language is evident in the increase in knowledge and skills in developing a languagerich environment: 94% of teachers report transferring their new knowledge and skills into other teaching contexts (“sometimes” or “a lot”). © NET SECTION, CDI, EDB, HKSAR, 2009 37


Survey Items 12 and 13 – Transferability of PLP-R At the time of the evaluation, classroom infrastructure and routines had not been set up systematically for the teacher reading knowledge and skills Specifically, Survey Item 12 sought to understand the level of impact of professional development by seeking to explore which aspects of teaching Reading in English were learned and transferred by teachers into other English (nonPLP-R) lessons and programmes.Nearly 79% of teachers (84 out of a total of 106 respondents) applied Storytelling, Reading Aloud, Phonics Strategies and Reading Strategies in other lessons. More than 64% (68 out of a total of 106 teachers) applied the teaching of high frequency words and Shared Reading in other contexts. This aligns with the PLPR focus on creating teacher value for the building blocks for learning to read (e.g. Phonics-in-context, Reading Strategies). It could be concluded that PLP-R has ensured teachers are focused on the range of teaching strategies for reading and the building blocks of learning to read and this is impacting on other lessons to some degree. Aspects of more complex skills promoted in the PLP-R — such as ‘purchasing student readers, textbooks, big books or reading materials according to student instructional and independent level’, ‘teaching writing related to reading’, ‘catering to learner diversity’ and ‘using the Reading Skills Framework’ — were the least applied in other teaching contexts. However, it is important to note that the above skills were more systematically promoted in the final two stages of the PLP-R. Schools in the PLP-R would usually go through the Integration and Independence Stages in the third year of their involvement of the Programme.

38


observation of the above. At the time of the final teacher survey, teachers had only begun to engage with the final two stages of the PLP-R. Further study of schools continuing with PLP-R into their third and fourth years would be useful to gauge whether the requisite more complex knowledge and skills had been implemented in a valued and sustained way. (Anecdotally, ATs since report that schools now in their fourth year are asking for more professional development in these aspects and implementing these teaching aspects to some degree. For example, ‘matching students to book levels’ is reported in the survey as not well applied in other lessons. The logistics of this process initially made the process prohibitive. As schools have trialled this process and received further professional development, many are initiating more realistic ways to use it meaningfully). Survey Item 13 sought to understand the level of impact of the other three PLP-R components by seeking to explore their transference to other teaching contexts. Survey Item 11 reveals only 8% of teachers increased teacher knowledge and skills in Classroom Management. However, of this 8%, growth was powerful: Survey Item 13 (Table 3.5) shows that 91% report they have transferred this new knowledge into other teaching contexts (sometimes or a lot). Formative assessment is a particularly difficult concept to implement in the textbook-and exam-driven context of Hong Kong schooling.Yet, 70% of teachers report transferring their new knowledge and skills into other teaching contexts (sometimes or a lot). This was similar for language-rich environment.


Survey Item 14 and 15 – The sustainability of teacher Significantly, the Shared Reading and Guided Reading, reading knowledge and skills which do involve practical change to use of time, classrooms, staff deployment and resources, rated high to very high in Of most value to teacher learning in PLP-R (Survey Item both Survey Item 14 and 15. 14), teachers reported phonics-in-context, reading strategies and teaching strategies as the most valued According to teacher responses, survey Item 14 also (3.6). Specific teaching strategies such as Shared Reading, revealed teachers’ desire to “motivate students” and Guided Reading and Storytelling also listed in the higher make reading “enjoyable”. Noteworthy in Survey Item 14 is range. Whilst this can validate the PLP-R, true value of teachers’ moderately high value for formative assessment professional development lies in teachers’ capacity to apply techniques. It was anticipated that teachers may not new knowledge in context without external support. Thus, value formative assessment due to cultural differences, Survey Item 15 (3.8) sought to understand what aspects of being an individualistically-based practice and inhibited PLP-R teachers would continue without the programme’s by examinations, time limitations and systemic pressure support. Again, teachers highly valued teaching phonicsfor scores and marking. Whilst no teachers reported that in-context and three of the five teaching strategies. It was they would transfer these techniques without the support predicted that teachers would choose to sustain aspects of of the PLP-R (Survey Item 15), teachers did report a value teaching that involve little change or at least little disruption for it (Table 3.6), and did report transferring practices to school structures and systems. This seems partly true: to other contexts whilst supported by the PLP-R. It is teaching high frequency words, phonics-in-context and commonly stated that despite its value to these teachers, storytelling, for example, rated high for Survey Item 15. Yet, formative assessment is inhibited by factors such as for those used to teaching phonics as an isolated aspect of existing environment of examinations, time limitations and English (e.g. phonics lessons, phonics workbook), teaching systemic pressure for scores and marking. phonics-in-context involves a lateral leap in teacher language Survey Item 15 affirms the PLP-R as an effective and thinking, linking phonics to the real-life application of professional development programme: 92% of reading in English, and teaching ‘in the moment’. teachers report that they would continue some form of PLP-R when the programme ceased. Table 3.8 shows Similarly, it was initially assumed that Storytelling, perceived Guided Reading rated higher than in the previous question by teachers as an extension or extra-curricular activity, is a “What aspect of PLP-R do you value”. This is interesting powerful strategy to encourage immersion in the language, because not many schools had fully implemented Guided develop strong listening skills for the sound and meaning Reading at the time of the final survey. It appears that of language before reading it, view the process of reading, where Guided Reading had commenced, the experience develop the concept of story structure, and more. It was was highly valued by those teachers. (As an after note, the proposed that the motivation to sustain these aspects widely and sustained implementation of Guided Reading of teaching may have been the ease of application, the since the pilot in KS1 and KS2 begs further research.) reported value for these strategies in Survey Item 14 suggests a realisation of their educational worth. © NET SECTION, CDI, EDB, HKSAR, 2009

39


3.4 CONCLUSIONS As schools have continued with PLP-R for another two years of further professional development and implementation refinement, caution would be wise in basing recommendations on the responses to this question at that early stage of the PLP-R.

The limitation of any teacher survey is that it is based on how teachers “perceive” their learning. There may be incongruence between what teachers say they have done and what they have actually done. To triangulate this study, further studies were made into student Reading proficiency; contextual factors related to student reading progress; the TWE; and anecdotal data from advisory teachers, teachers, principals and students, reported in the chapters ahead. What is noteworthy in these findings is the strength of increase in and value for knowledge and skills reported by the teachers over the 20-month duration from the start of the pilot to the end of the evaluation. It was expected that teacher “perception” of their knowledge and skills would regress as they took risks in applying unfamiliar ideas, experienced challenges and doubted their abilities. Such predicted loss of confidence after application is explained by Fullan as the ‘implementation dip’: “One of our most consistent findings and understandings about the change process in education is that all successful schools experience ‘implementation dips’ as they move forward. The implementation dip is literally a dip in performance and confidence as one encounters innovation that requires new skills and new understandings. All innovations worth their salt call upon people to question and in some respects to change their behaviour and beliefs — even in cases where innovations are pursued voluntarily…This kind of experience is classic change material. People feel anxious, fearful, confused, overwhelmed, deskilled, cautious, and - if they have moral purpose - deeply disturbed…” (2001, p.40)

40



A similar and older explanation is the “Conscious/ Competence Model” (attributed to Thomas Gordon, Maslow and others): learners move from Unconscious Incompetence (I don’t know what I don’t know) to Conscious Incompetence (I know what I don’t know) to Conscious Competence (I apply new knowledge in a conscious way) to Unconscious Competence (I do it without thinking about it). As teachers start to apply new knowledge and skills in the Conscious Competence stage, they can experience challenge, risk, failure and self-doubt. It is at this point that teachers perceive their professional identity poorly, feel judged by superiors, and are tempted to revert to former familiar practice. The lack of a medium-term implementation dip in the PLP-R, and the reported value for new teaching strategies, suggests that teachers felt confident to take risks and experienced positive outcomes.

The results of the PLP-R professional development study strongly suggest that teachers have started to develop a sustainable repertoire of knowledge and skills and positive attitudes to curriculum change due to the intensive contextual nature of the professional development. This particularly includes the role of the NET, collaboration of the PLP-R teaching team, and the range of professional development opportunities, including the localised nature of professional development, led by the NET, Advisory Teacher and Advisory Teaching Team. The PLP-R professional development model is supported by Goleman’s assertion (2000) that:

“It should be obvious that leaders need affiliative and coaching styles in these [change] situations. The affiliative leader pays attention to people, focuses on building emotional bonds, builds relationships, and heals rifts. The leader as coach helps people develop and invests in their This accords with the clearly articulated and active roles for capacity building …” (in Fullan, 2001, p.41). both NETs and LETs, and the intensive support of the ATs being strongly valued features of the PLP-R.


41


3.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The PLP-R Evaluation found: • There was no implementation dip in teacher confidence or implementation of new skills and knowledge • • • •

• Foundation aspects of learning to read (phonics-incontext, teaching strategies, reading strategies) promoted in the PLP-R were reported by teachers to be the most valued aspects of English teaching they All modes of professional development were valued by had learned teachers The role of the NET was pivotal to professional • Professional development in Teaching of reading, development in the PLP-R Assessment of reading and Classroom Management including small group learning were most highly valued LETs and NETs valued clearly articulated teacher roles by teachers Collaboration was significantly enhanced in PLP-R schools and reported to be the second most effective • More than 70% of teachers reported transferring new form of learning knowledge and skills to other English teaching contexts

•

PLP-R resources for professional development were most highly valued by teachers

•

Structured and intensive school-based and classroombased professional development was strongly linked to teacher receptivity and implementation of new knowledge and skills

•

The collaborative relationship between ATs and schools enabled teachers to apply what they learned in the classroom

•

The school-based nature of professional development enabled the ATT to develop materials and workshops that responded to different needs in schools

• Teachers reported significant increase in their knowledge and skills in Teaching of reading, Assessment of reading and Classroom Management, and the predicted medium-term ‘implementation dip’ did not occur 42


sometimes or a lot, in the areas of Teaching of reading, Assessment of reading and Classroom Management •

92% of teachers report that they would continue some form of PLP-R when the programme ceased.


3.5.a The Territory-wide Evaluation (TWE) The TWE was an evaluation of the overall PNET Scheme. In the TWE report, Griffin explains: “Although the current study was not designed to evaluate the PLP-R (KS1), there were indications that participation in the programme was linked to student progress in reading proficiency in English, and to changed teaching practices by the LETs. The PLP-R seemed to provide structured oportunities for LETs and NETs to collaborate andsupport each other in the classroom.” (p.180)

Of relevance to the PLP-R study were the TWE findings on the frequency of use of teaching strategies and resources promoted by the AT. The advantage of the TWE is its comparison of PLP-R and non-PLP-R schools, as the following tables illustrate.

Table 3.9 Frequency of use of teaching strategies learned from the AT by the LETs in PLP-R (KS1) and non PLP-R (KS1) schools

(Source: Figure 6.15, Evaluation of the Native-speaking English Teacher Scheme for Primary Schools in Hong Kong 2004-2006, TWE, p.177)


43


Table 3.10 Frequency of use of teaching materials recommended by ATs by the LETs in PLP-R (KS1) and non PLP-R (KS1) schools

(Source: Figure 6.16, Evaluation of the Native-speaking English Teacher Scheme for Primary Schools in Hong Kong 2004-2006, TWE, p.177)

Griffin asserts that NETs became empowered through the clear role articulated for them in the PLP-R. The role matched their Western philosophy of teaching and their professional perception of themselves as a curriculum leader and an active director of learning. In the TWE, Griffin reports, “It was often the case that the introduction of PLP-R more closely matched the skills and experience of NETs and created a fortuitous combination” (p.179). In many non-PLP-R settings, the NETs’ roles had little flexibility to be responsive to the needs of students, to shape a vision for English teaching on a wider scale, and enact it through strategic planning and resourcing.

44


In PLP-R, NETs became valued as curriculum leaders. However, PLP-R also aimed to enhance the knowledge of local teachers and this appears to have occurred. Through co-planning for genuine co-teaching, including co-reflection, NETs and LETs became better empowered to deliver the 2004 English Language Curriculum through authentic collaboration. Griffin elaborates: ‘In visits to PLP-R schools during the qualitative investigation, there was a clear impression of NET and LETs working towards a common goal. There were numerous examples of schools where the NET was providing invaluable contributions relating to Shared Reading and Phonics … Co-planning for the first two modes [for textbook and extra-curricular] was generally a one-sided affair, “whereas with PLP-R it’s more of a partnership….“


The adoption of PLP-R seemed to give greater direction The report specifically states, “Access to the support, and purpose to NET-LET collaboration… In LETs’ training and materials provided as part of the PLP-R clearly description of typical PLP-R activities in another school, improved students’ achievement in reading and writing in the impression of purposeful collaboration was palpable: English, but the question is why? The PLP-R is a resource For the PLP-R lesson, we need to do a lot of assessment programme and may be associated with increased levels of by observation. So when the NET is teaching, then we professional development.” (p.179) also have the LET, that is the local teacher, and a CA, a classroom assistant in the classroom. So, two of us, that The TWE graphs (tables 3.9 and 3.10) illustrate the is, the LET and the CA, will be very busy with doing the enhanced results of the effect of the resources and teaching observation, marking down all…. all the performance. So strategies promoted by the ATs in PLP-R schools: even if the LET, the local teacher is teaching, then the “The patterns illustrated in the [TWE graphs] suggest a link NET will also help to do the assessment by observation, between participation in the PLP-R (KS1) and increased grading them on certain behaviours according to a incorporation of shared and supported reading strategies scale. We have so many descriptors describing their in classroom teaching, and also increased receptivity to performance.” (p.179-180) the PNET Scheme. Teachers at schools participating in the Griffin also reports, “In discussing NET impact, the LET gave the impression that it was a fortuitous combination of the introduction of PLP-R and the recruitment of a NET with a specialisation in literacy which has energised teachers in the school and impacted on the curriculum and on language development.” (p.82) Griffin’s study reported a noteworthy comparison of value for centralised and school-based professional development in both PLP-R and non-PLPR teacher groups. Of the teachers who attended school-based training courses (mainly PLP-R): •

97% of NETs and almost 98% of LETs found the courses effective in terms of improving their own English teaching

•

93% of NETs and 94% of LETs had been able to use the ideas and materials presented in courses delivered in their schools (p.171)

PLP-R (KS1) were more likely to team teach with the NET in reading lessons, and to be using ideas and materials suggested by the AT, for the teaching of English.” (Griffin, p.179) On the importance of the Advisory Teacher role in professional development in PLP-R schools, Griffin found that: “School participation in the PLP-R (KS1) could also be related to changed practices in the classroom teaching of reading in English…Teachers at schools participating in the PLP-R (KS1) were more likely than other teachers to be incorporating Shared Reading of English materials, shared teaching of reading lessons with the NET, teaching strategies and materials from the AT, and


45


supported reading of English texts in their teaching” (p.175)… “there is a link between participation in the PLP-R (KS1) and increased incorporation of shared and supported reading strategies in classroom teaching, and also increased receptivity to the PNET Scheme. Teachers at schools participating in the PLP-R (KS1) were more likely to team teach with the NET in reading lessons, and to be using ideas and materials suggested by the AT, for the teaching of English.” (p.179)

Finally, “In other schools, LETs felt that adopting PLP-R gave them greater opportunities to enhance the teaching of English by having greater focus on enjoyment: [referring to the objectives of the PNET scheme] Especially the fourth point – ‘develop children’s interest in learning English’ through the PLP-R.” (p.179)

Griffin concludes that the PLP-R has “illustrated the dual impact of an experienced native-speaking English teacher and a structured curriculum innovation”. (p.82) “It appears from the data that the NET combined with the Further, Griffin states, “Where they [local teachers] did PLP-R enhances literacy gains above and beyond the attend centralised professional development, however, effect of the PNET Scheme alone. How this is achieved, the impact in terms of their teaching and outcomes for however, is unclear. What is persistent through the data, their students was marked.” (p.197). Significantly, “The however, is that the NET effect is always moderated link between professional development and student through the LET, and hence the relationship of the NET achievement was especially noteworthy. It is rare to see to the LET and the effect of interactions with the AT are such direct evidence of the effect of professional crucial to the success of the Scheme” (p.196). development on teacher behaviour and changes in student achievement …more local teachers need to be given the opportunity to take part in professional development… The importance of professional development cannot be overestimated. More LETs must have the opportunity to access training and support, and to build upon their confidence and competence as teachers of English and to develop their own language skills.” (p.197)

46



CHAPTER 4:

EVALUATING THE READING ABILITY OF STUDENTS — READING TESTS

4.1 BACKGROUND

4.2 DATA COLLECTION

The timing of an evaluation can influence the reliability of results. It was anticipated that the timing of the teacher professional development surveys would reveal fresh and reliable information. Conversely, it was anticipated that evaluating early readers for their achievement in reading over a short period of time may not reveal robust results from which to make conclusions about the PLP-R study, and this was the case. However, some trends emerged which could direct future studies of students over a longer period of time.

The evaluation of student reading ability aimed to study the question — How has the PLP-R affected the reading ability of P1 and P2 students over two years of the Programme?

Ideally, a study of student achievement would involve a control group of students for comparison. At the time, finding schools to participate in a comparative evaluation was difficult so the cohort of control schools was small.

Data was collected and analysed using: •

Reading accuracy and comprehension instrument (Appendix 6)

•

Phonological awareness tests (Appendix 7)

A total of 180 P1 and P2 students were tested in the PLP-R schools and 48 in the control schools. Over the period of the evaluation, there was an attrition of 12.2% of students in the PLP-R schools and 16.6% in the control schools. Advisory teachers were trained as data collectors. The tests were administered in a one-on-one situation between student and Cantonese-speaking data collector or NET data collector with a Cantonese-speaking assistant. The phonological awareness tests were first administered, followed by the reading accuracy and comprehension test. The students’ reading was recorded on a Running Record sheet and was simultaneously digitally recorded. (Details of the data collection process are provided in Chapter 2, section 2.3.b.)


47


4.3 DATA ANALYSIS

4.4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 4.4.a Student Book Level Progress Over Time

Data was analysed in a number of ways: 1.

Reading accuracy and comprehension test (Appendix 6) ─ student Book Level progress over time – analysis of tabulated data

2.

Book Levels are those defined in the international “Reading Recovery” scale. “Reading at a Book Level” is the final book level a student can read at Instructional Level (approximately 90-95% word accuracy and ≥75% comprehension). Reading ability progress between Book Levels was analysed according to the following factors:

─ Miscue analysis of students’ reading in randomly selected PLP-R and control schools

•

progress between baseline and final Book Levels of each student

Phonological awareness tests (Appendix 7)

•

overall progress between baseline / interim and final Book Levels of students in each school

•

overall progress between baseline / interim and final Book Levels of students in each school according to demographic factors

•

comparison of overall progress in Book Levels between PLP-R and control schools

•

where there was most progress between stages e.g. baseline to final evaluation stages, baseline to interim stages, or interim to final stages

─ analysis of phonological awareness test scores – SPSS analysis of scores Non-parametric tests were conducted on the synthesised data and on compared fields of data for example, comparing data between socio-economic groups.

As anticipated, no significant results emerged that could enable conclusions about student achievement and the programme in a period of eighteen months. PLP-R schools showed some slight gains in reading level progress over control schools. However, the sample size inhibits reliable conclusions.

48



4.4.b Miscue Analysis of Student Reading Ability An analysis of students’ reading was conducted on a random sample of PLP-R and control school students. The procedure of miscue analysis or Running Records (as developed by Marie Clay, 1987) was used to analyse students’ reading skills and strategies. “Analysis of running records involves examining each attempt and self-correction and deciding which sources of information the reader was using at the point of error or self-correction. This is done by circling the initial letter of the cues used…[semantic, syntactic and graphophonic]… for both errors and self-corrections. When analyzing [sic] their records of a student’s reading, teachers should ask themselves these questions: •

Is the student trying to make sense of what is being read? [semantic information]

•

Is knowledge of language patterns being used? [syntactic information]

•

Is knowledge of the letter-sound relationships being used? [phonological information]

•

Are confirmation and self-correcting strategies being used?”

Emergent and early readers may read a high rate of words incorrectly. Yet this is not evidence that a student is not applying reading skills and strategies nor learning to read. The miscue analysis procedure assists the teacher or researcher to understand the thinking behind a student’s reading. The coded analysis of the miscues is recorded on a Running Record (see Appendix 10 for a sample). To create consistency, all Running Records of students’ reading for the reading accuracy test were checked by the evaluation team using the digital recordings. For the miscue analysis of the reading accuracy tests, a random sample of students from four PLP-R and two control schools was selected and an analysis of Running Records at Levels 1 and 2 was conducted. The focus was on the number of errors made over the time of the evaluation – baseline, interim and final stages. Results are presented on Tables 4.5 and 4.6.

(Learning Media, 1997, p.59)


49


Table 4.5 Miscue analysis: number of errors made on Level 1 book over the three evaluation stages

Table 4.6 Miscue analysis: number of errors made on Level 2 book over the three evaluation stages

50



The graphophonic, syntactic and semantic reading strategies taught in the PLP-R were initially modelled by teachers in Shared Reading and practised by students in whole and small group activities. From the late second year of the PLP-R, phonemic awareness was emphasised, particularly through “reading strategies”, which students were taught to apply in Guided Reading. Guided Reading commenced only some months before the final data collection.

Teacher modelling of reading strategies, especially decoding strategies, during Shared Reading may also have contributed to students developing awareness and some application of graphophonic strategies that would aid them in solving problems when decoding text.

Table 4.6 shows the declining number of errors for both PLPR and control groups over the interim and final evaluation stages as increasing numbers of students from PLP-R and control schools achieved Level 2. Again, there was a It was evident from a collation of the miscue analyses of marked drop in the number of errors made by students in this limited sample of students’ reading that there was a the PLP-R group over the time period when compared to marked drop in the number of errors made by students in the control group. the PLP-R group over the period of the evaluation when compared to the control group. This is seen in Table 4.5 The data collected from the analyses of the students’ which shows the number of errors made on Level 1 text reading records gives support to the strength of teacher by students over the three data collection stages. modelling reading strategies during Shared and Guided Reading and the importance of embedding phonics into the It appears from a further analysis of these errors that the reading programme. emphasis on phonemic awareness promoted in the PLPR encouraged the students to use graphophonic cues to refine their decoding strategies. This led not only to a decrease in errors but also a closer match to the text when an error was made. This aligns with PLP-R teachers most valuing the phonics component of the PLP-R (as discussed in Chapter 3).


51


4.4.c Phonological Awareness Test Scores Appendix 7 presents the four phonological awareness tests for letter names; beginning, medial and final sounds; onset and rime; and high frequency words. The scores of the phonological awareness tests were analysed using SPSS.

4.5 CONCLUSIONS

A range of assumptions influenced the development of the PLP-R pilot programme and thus study:

•

The PLP-R uses 25% to 33% of the General English programme time. While PLP-R was able to deliver the EMB policy of 40% Reading Workshop, other GE lessons continued using textbooks and practices that may not align with the principles underpinning the PLP-R. At the least, many GE lessons did not continue practices of the PLP-R such as reviewing high frequency words each day, emphasising oral responses to reading, or using levelled books and formative assessment. In light of the isolated nature of the PLP-R experience in the wider curriculum, any gain in reading proficiency results over control schools would be positive indeed.

•

The PLP-R uses a 100% English-speaking classroom policy, based on the principle that phonemic awareness and vocabulary development are best developed through immersion in the sound and oral expression of language before reading and writing are formally emphasised. When students come to PLP-R lessons, all oral and print language is in English, supported by pictures and other scaffolds, and consistent instructional and functional language by the teachers, so that students’ comprehension and language is maximised. It is expected that reading proficiency is better supported by a stronger immersion in received English than regular textbook driven reading programmes.

As in the student reading level progression analysis, the phonological tests revealed tentative results, albeit in favour of the PLP-R cohort, due to the short time frame for deep learning to occur, and of the limited sample size. What did appear strongly (again, under limiting conditions) was the PLP-R students’ knowledge of high frequency words, which can constitute 30 to 80% of words on a page. The PLP-R offered a systematic approach to teaching and learning these words for reading. The miscue analysis of actual reading revealed stronger phonics achievement than the out-of-context phonological tests. These tentative results suggest students may have increasingly used graphophonic cues over time to refine their decoding strategies, making fewer errors and making closer matches to the text when an error was made. Rather than merely demonstrating results for out-ofcontext phonics tests, these students demonstrated one of the ultimate goals of learning phonics — to directly apply phonics when reading, an authentic purpose of language. This would also reinforce the value of formative assessment for reading as opposed to formal written comprehension and stand-alone phonics tests to measure students’ actual reading ability (see Section 4.4). However, these remain assumptions, worthy of further and rigorous study.

52



•

Memorisation is an important strategy used by students to learn the Chinese language. This could be helpful for students in developing a repertoire of English high frequency words (sight words). However, it can be an impediment in learning to deal with unknown words in English, where students may be likely to see words as characters rather than as an assembly of phonic symbols and combinations. Yet many students are taught to read English in this way. Even where LETs are implementing a range of teaching strategies for reading, early and emergent reading books are inherently predictive. So, at certain Book Levels students can appear proficient then progress no further. The aim is to move students to higher Book Levels, through Guided Reading, allowing them to practise the wider range of reading strategies and be exposed to more sophisticated books, having first successfully practised reading strategies on appropriate starting level books (which is not usually done in the GE programme). It is assumed that PLP-R students will progress further and faster than non-Guided Reading students in the long term.

•

Students in the PLP-R are exposed to a range of appropriately levelled books and text types. Guided Reading (in similar ability groups) using an appropriate level book enables students to read a new book each week.

Students also experience books through Shared Reading and Reading Aloud. The PLP-R offers a highly supported Home Reading programme which enables students to read appropriately levelled books at home, which also trains parents to support students’ reading habits and assist teachers to identify appropriate books and manage such a system. The effects of exposure to books beyond the classroom and Home Reading were studied in the TWE and revealed positive outcomes.


53


•

54

The PLP-R strongly emphasises formative assessment in the form of observation, formative feedback and specific questioning, for the purposes of understanding student learning and informing planning and curriculum adaptation. As Chapter 3 describes, teachers valued formative assessment, including matching students to Book Levels. The case studies in Chapter 5 highlight the link between schools with achieving students/satisfied teachers and using formative assessment systematically and for the desired purposes. The TWE offers a LET’s description of formative assessment implementation in PLP-R: “For the PLP-R lesson, we need to do a lot of assessment by observation. So when the NET is teaching, then we also have the LET, that is the local teacher, and a CA, a classroom assistant in the classroom. So, two of us, that is, the LET and the CA, will be very busy with doing the observation, marking down all…all the performance. So even if the LET, the local teachers is teaching, then the NET will also help to do the assessment by observation, grading them on certain behaviours according to a scale. We have so many descriptors describing their performance”(p.180). It was anticipated that effective formative assessment would be linked to student reading proficiency.


•

Clearly articulated teaching roles and collaborative structures in PLP-R would ensure maximum professional development for teachers and maximise opportunities to cater for student learner diversity.

•

All five Teaching Strategies for reading (English Language Curriculum Guide (2004) are promoted in the PLP-R to maximise student reading development. Chapter 3 reports that teachers in the PLPR embraced all five Teaching Strategies for reading with a focus on reading strategies.

The evaluation was conducted during the pilot phase of the PLP-R. Particular aspects of the programme, such as reading strategies, were not as strongly emphasised in professional development and teaching units in the first year. Guided Reading did not start until the second year. Thus, strong growth in student reading ability was not predicted in the PLP-R’s two-year study. This study was completed too early to verify these assumptions. However, anecdotal data continues to reinforce their value. Further and more rigorous studies are recommended. The Primary Literacy Programme - Reading and Writing (PLP-R/W) Evaluation could provide some answers to these queries.


4.6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 4.6.a The Territory-wide Evaluation (TWE) •

PLP-R students’ had a greater knowledge of high frequency (sight) words, which may reflect the PLP-R systematic approach to planning, teaching and learning high frequency words.

As PLP-R commenced during the TWE evaluation, the TWE data was graphed to enable researchers to seek the impact of the PLP-R (KS1) on development of reading proficiency. In the TWE report, Griffin states:

•

In a small random sample, there was a marked drop in the number of errors made by a randomly selected sample of students in the PLP-R group when compared to the control group

•

“Although the current study [TWE] was not designed to evaluate the PLP-R (KS1), there were indications that participation in the programme was linked to student progress in reading proficiency in English, and to changed teaching practices by the LETs” (p.180)

•

In a small random sample, PLP-R students used more graphophonic cues when reading.

•

“It appears from the data that the NET combined with the PLP-R enhances literacy gains above and beyond the effect of the PNET Scheme alone” (p,196).

•

“Participation in the PLP-R (KS1) was specifically related to the development of student proficiency in reading and writing in English as seen in the following table” (p.174-5) as highlighted in the following report graph:

•

The time between baseline and final data collection of an evaluation of student reading achievement and the development of specific cognitive processes for reading may require some years for comparative results to emerge.


55


Table 4.12 Relationships between PLP-R and average improvement for the students who were tracked from P1 in 2004 to P3 in 2006

(Source: Figure 6.12 Relationships between participation in PLP-R and average improvement for the students who were tracked from P1 in 2004 to P3 in 2006, TWE, p.175)

The TWE study found that Shared Reading was related to student reading growth over three years, supporting the notion that strong foundational learning can lead to faster and deeper learning later on. This supports the PLP-R study recommendation that evaluation of student proficiency occurs over a longer period of time.

Griffin reported that “Students who had opportunities to speak English outside school with family, friends or English-speaking domestic helpers had higher average levels of achievement across all measures of English language proficiency, compared with students who never or very rarely spoke English outside the school context” (p.74). He reports that 31% of parents in his broad study Griffin describes how LETs linked student achievement indicated that they had no books in any language at home to motivation and new teaching ideas, citing one local (p.73). He continues: “Students from less enriched home teacher: “I think they are more willing to guess and predict backgrounds (in terms of access to books) who were also and also try hard to speak in English. That is the impact. taking part in the PLP-R(KS1) showed a much stronger And I think pupils like English, especially in reading since we rate of growth in reading proficiency than their counterparts start the PLP-R programme. They read more story books who were not taking part in the PLP-R (KS1)…The PLPR written in English.” (p. 83) (KS1) was linked to most difference for those students who were most in need of support for their reading, and who did not have access to books in any other context than the school and classroom” (p.82). A future study of the impact of PLP-R on students from lower socio-economic backgrounds could contribute worthwhile information to English literacy programme development. 56



CHAPTER 5:

EVALUATING FACTORS EFFECTING READING ABILITY OF STUDENTS - THREE SCHOOL CASE STUDIES

5.1 DATA COLLECTION

5.2 DATA ANALYSIS

To answer the question — “How has the PLP-R affected the reading ability of P1 and P2 students over two years of the Programme? What factors may have affected this?” — school variables such as class and school size, teacher skills and attitude, continuity of teachers in second year of PLP-R, school leadership support, and level of integration of the programme into general English lessons were studied. This data was collected through a School Profile (Appendix 9).

To select School Profiles for analysis, student reading ability data was ranked according to most and least overall progress between initial and final Reading Levels of students in all schools. Schools at the top and low end of this ranking were then studied for possible common supportive and/or inhibiting factors, using the respective School Profiles.

Three schools which revealed positive results in the teacher professional development survey and average to positive results in student reading ability were chosen for All 15 evaluation schools were profiled by their respective an analysis. Headings in the School Profile were used to advisory teachers in collaboration with the schools at the thematically compare and contrast factors that contributed to success in these schools. end of the first and second years of the pilot.


57


5.3 RESULTS AND FINDINGS Context The three schools studied have been pseudo-named by colour: Yellow School, Green School and Blue School. The schools had many factors in common, particularly in the areas of co-planning, co-teaching, formative assessment, level of school-based curriculum adaptation, teaching reading with a variety of reading strategies, positive classroom management and the provision of a print-rich environment. Yet these schools had differences, such as different demographic backgrounds and diverse NET qualifications.

The three schools hosted students from differing backgrounds. Green School was in a low socio-economic area with Nepalese and Chinese immigrants. There had been money available for ongoing costs but co-planning meetings had to be held after school hours. Yellow School was a well-resourced school with strong support from the sponsoring body. Most students were exposed to English outside school, through many after-school activities and in general life. Blue School was a mix of low-middle to middle socio-economic demographics. It was considered to have good community relations and to be a ‘lovely environment for students and parents’. The NET was shared between the AM and PM schools. The Reading Room, the resources and the planning were shared across both schools effectively.

Attitude to Change A strong culture of change appeared common to all three schools. In Green School, the school culture was changing to reflect the importance of reading. Students and teachers were described as enjoying the PLP-R. Teachers could see the benefit of the PLP-R and all of them had changed to varying degrees in ways that were appropriate to the Programme. Teachers at Yellow School had been exposed to some of the strategies featured in the PLP-R prior to joining the programme. The LETs were described as being ‘accustomed to innovation’ and being ‘open-minded about the changes that were asked of them’. In Blue School, the teachers were open to change for effectiveness rather than for just the sake of change. In all three schools, there was an enthusiasm for the PLP-R and openness to innovation. 58



Leadership Support In each school there appeared to be strong commitment and support. In Green School the Principal, the LETs, NET, English Panel Chair, Classroom Assistants and the advisory teacher were all described as being ‘very supportive’ of the PLP-R. Yellow School had a principal who had a very clear vision of the direction for the school in English. She took a strong interest in the programme, attending meetings, easing the PLP-R teachers’ workloads and even taking the role of the classroom assistant (CA) when they were absent. Similarly in Blue School, there was ‘exceptional support from all levels in the school. The principals, English Panel Chairs and Literacy Coordinators in both the AM and PM schools worked efficiently to manage the programme, streamline processes and share resources. With a strong support base, the three schools could move forward in terms of change as teachers gained confidence within the PLP-R.

Griffin, in the TWE, reports, “students at schools where the school head placed particular importance upon supporting the leadership role of the NET in the school English programme tended, on average, to demonstrate more growth in English proficiency than students in schools where this was not the case.” (p.157) Chapter 6, Section 6.2 explores this research further.

Collaboration – Co-planning

The schools shared a commitment to consistent, regular, well-planned co-planning and co-teaching as part of the Programme. Co-planning meetings for the three schools were characterized by a high degree of participation, with ideas and contributions made by the LETs. The teachers of Green School showed a ‘willing’ attitude: they shared the planning and became even more willing in the second year to volunteer opinions, according to the advisory In all three schools, English Panel Chairs and Literacy teacher. Although co-planning meetings had to be held Coordinators actively engaged in planning for resources, outside school hours they were ‘well attended’. Good budgeting, staffing and aligning PLP-R to other school leadership was shown by some in the group. At the programmes. All professional development, whether beginning of each co-planning meeting there were school-based or central, was supported. Thus all teachers opportunities for reflection, supplemented by a reflection had a shared professional development experience that diary with space for entries regarding issues and planning. could be translated into action at co-planning meetings. Similarly in Blue School, co-planning meetings were This ensured continuity of the programme and the quality described as being fully attended and well-planned. of teaching. The level of collaboration was described as ‘high’. The co-planning meetings of Yellow School were also regular, focused and well-organised, with good time management, as with Green School. There was time for reflection during the meetings, which usually occurred at the beginning of their planning. © NET SECTION, CDI, EDB, HKSAR, 2009

59


Collaboration – Co-teaching

Reading Strategies

One of the most significant indicators of success was the high degree of collaboration between the NET, LETS and CA in all three schools. LETs took active roles in the teaching of whole class and small groups. Along with strong and consistent Classroom Management, success was achieved in reading strategies and effective assessment within that framework. In Green School, very strong classroom collaboration between the NET, LETs and the classroom assistant was in evidence through taking equal roles to the extent that collaboration was described as ‘superb’. The involvement of all three is also true in Yellow School. If one adult was leading an activity then the other two played an active role. When they moved from one role to another, the transition was said to be ‘seamless’. Similarly in Blue School collaboration in the classroom was well maintained by all three adults and described as ‘exceptional’. Part of the success was attributed to good planning. It can be said that collaboration in all three schools reflects a shared approach to teaching in the classroom.

PLP-R teachers in all three schools mentioned reading strategies as being one of the most valuable aspects of the PLP-R in the teacher professional development survey. In response to an open-ended question as to the valuable aspects of the PLP-R, teachers volunteered that reading strategies were a central aspect of successful teaching in the Programme (Tables 3.7 and 3.9). Students enjoyed these reading strategies and indeed most parts of the reading lessons. Teachers at the Green School showed excellent skills in Storytelling and very good skills in teaching Shared Reading. Yellow School and Blue School demonstrated particular success with Guided Reading, where teachers gained an understanding of small group work, ability grouping and how to target specific learning needs. The AT for Blue School invited ‘many ATs and teachers from other schools to visit the lessons to observe aspects of the PLP-R’.

60



Classroom Management

Assessment

Classroom management was strongly identified as being a successful aspect of the PLP-R in all three schools, and there was evidence of clear commitment to positive classroom management. Routines were understood to be most important and exceptionally well-implemented. Green School was a school where the NET felt the teachers were struggling with behaviour management. As in Blue School, teachers there gave a focus to discussing behaviour management as an aspect of co-planning meetings. Teachers encouraged and gave rewards for positive behaviour. Yellow School was considered by the Advisory Teacher to be exemplary in its classroom management. The NET at Blue School highlighted classroom management for the LETs by demonstrating and modelling classroom management strategies to teachers and students, and implementing a student self-reflection routine at the end of every lesson.

Successful assessment was planned and carried out in all three schools. The NET at Green School provided a model for teachers in the PLP-R by providing graphs of assessment results in High Frequency Words, Phonics and other related areas for each class after six months and twelve months. This guided teachers in the establishment of ability groups and in gaining a picture of learning. Assessment was completed by all teachers. The NET was of the opinion that it could become more streamlined in the future. In Yellow School a strong aspect of assessment was classroom observation, which ‘gave clear evidence of learning’. The teachers also successfully kept student assessment records to reflect continuous progress. The teachers at Blue School also used student assessment information to plan ahead, used checklists to guide observation, and kept portfolios which students took home as a form of parent reporting. The school kept student records to inform on-going planning.


61


Curriculum Adaptation and Catering for Diversity Teachers in all three schools engaged in successful curriculum adaptation, whether at the level of resource modification or in writing units of work at school level. For Blue School, during the first year, the NET would bring a unit of work, resources and suggestions for adaptation to the co-planning meetings. The LETs adapted activities which were described as being ‘very appropriate’ for the students. There were teaching strategies, resources and games to cater for learner diversity and to assist in self-paced learning. The LETs took high frequency words into General English classes. In the second year, the LETs consulted the NET about integrating reading assessment into their General English. In Green School, the teachers were ‘always modifying worksheets, resources … adding their own ideas’. They were ‘not at all scared’ to try out new ideas. In the second year, they all participated enthusiastically in school-based curriculum development. While they may not have completed tasks due to time constraints and left these to the NET to complete, the LETs took the teaching of high frequency words into General English lessons. In Yellow School there was consistent monitoring of whether resources suited the needs of their students. Teachers also wrote units of work, using books they had selected, with guidance from the advisory teacher.

62


As with the two other schools, teachers applied some elements of the teaching of phonics and incorporated high frequency words into General English. The teachers at Yellow School were already accustomed to innovation, which might explain their advanced level of school-based curriculum adaptation. In summary, all three schools showed a level of curriculum adaptation of elements of the PLP-R before other schools had started to adapt, and all adaptations were based on the needs of students.

English-rich Environment There are many related successful factors in the three schools, despite conditions not being ideal. These include the way in which the schools managed the physical environment of the Reading Room. Green School and Blue School had created a language-rich environment, despite being restricted by limited storage facilities and furniture that was too large. The Reading Room was however language–rich. Blue School had a small classroom that was shared between the AM and the PM school. The room was well equipped with resources and games. Yellow School had a Reading Room in the library. Student displays were therefore set up outside the room. The tables were set up for work and all resources were well organised and accessible. All three schools established a well-organised Home Reading programme and positive routines within the classroom to manage it. Each school was committed to an English-rich environment despite challenging physical facilities.


Teacher Attitudes to the PLP-R Acceptance of and readiness for change is a significant indicator of success in all three schools. The extent to which the administrative staff and teachers were committed to the PLP-R is an important factor. One indicator of commitment was evident in the teacher professional development surveys of these three schools: after two years of the PLP-R all participants responded affirmatively that they would continue aspects of the PLPR if they could do so, whilst only one respondent across all three schools would not retain the PLP-R. A second significant question concerned the identification of aspects of the PLP-R that were valuable. The answers to this open-ended question are wide-ranging but consistent. Responses from the three Profile schools were consistent with the trends of the full cohort and strongly consistent across the three schools, the top responses being teaching strategies for reading, phonics, and reading strategies. Supporting the notion of these schools as highly effective are teacher comments such as : “working as a team”; “exchanging ideas in co-planning”, “different methods to stimulate children to read”, “the importance of skills in establishing classroom routines”, “how to manage a challenging class”, and interestingly, “You can’t stop. You need this to do 40% reading in your English teaching”.

“Teachers can see the benefit”, “children’s enthusiasm”, “coping well with English only [environment]”, “willing attitude of LETs”, “are ‘ready’ for real change”, “LETs feel positive about it”, teachers “have ideas”, “open to change for effectiveness not for change’s sake”, “teachers are open to the programme and teaching their best”, principal and panel chair have “clear vision…strong interest…and are proactive”, and LETS have “embraced this new methodology [Guided Reading] enthusiastically”.

The School Profiles of these three schools resonate the perceptions of the advisory teachers: © NET SECTION, CDI, EDB, HKSAR, 2009

63


The NET

LETs

The extent of the NETs’ commitment and way of working appears to be a strong factor in the success of PLP-R. The NET in Green School was very conscious of the need to take change slowly. What is also significant at the school is ‘mutual respect’. The LETs’ respected the NET’s role while the NET understood the demands upon the LETs general time. This resulted in ‘give and take’. While ideas and suggestions were planned at meetings, the NET tended to complete activities. In Yellow School the NET was not a trained teacher. Her manner was described as being cooperative and warm. By comparison the LETs were all subject trained with many years of experience except one. It seems that they may have offset the lack of teacher training of the NET. The structure of the PLP-R and its professional development input also scaffolded and trained the NET. In Blue School the NET was described as taking a leadership role and she applied many new ideas as she was doing part-time study in TESOL. The NET was described as ‘having a vocation’ for teaching and her outlook described as ‘visionary’. The NET was well supported by all staff members operating as a team. In all schools, the LETs were not simply passive. They contributed many valuable ideas for immediate and long term gains.

School leaders followed the PLP-R deployment guidelines and advice of the ATT when planning staffing for each PLPR year. In particular, there was little change in the LET team in the second year of the programme. As a result, there was a continuity of teacher knowledge, skills and confidence in all aspects of the PLP-R, and continuity in collaborative style, team knowledge and routines. Teachers were learning more ‘deeply’ each year, rather than revolving new teachers gaining preliminary skills only. It can be concluded that this contributed highly to the success of PLP-R in all schools.

64



5.4 CONCLUSIONS The three schools have all shown success in carrying out the PLP-R. Although they represent varying socio-economic backgrounds and NET qualifications, they have many features in common, leading to success in both teacher and student learning.

5.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The three schools: wanted change for effectiveness rather than for ‘cosmetic’ value and were open to change

•

enabled teachers to take on a range of active roles and work as a team in the classroom

• showed a strong commitment to the PLP-R during implementation

•

had a teaching focus on teaching strategies, phonics and reading strategies

• had principals who ensured the PLP-R was managed as a valid programme within the whole school context – with planning at a broad strategic level through to local classroom level

•

adapted resources or developed units of work to cater for the unique needs of their students

•

systematically planned formative assessment using student assessment data

•

overcome facility limitations to create a language-rich environment and effective Classroom Management systems.

•

•

had principals who participated in aspects of the programme

•

maintained continuity of teachers each year

•

held structured, regular co-planning meetings that enabled authentic collaboration

•

planned how to apply new knowledge and skills from professional development at co-planning meetings © NET SECTION, CDI, EDB, HKSAR, 2009

65


66



CHAPTER 6:

EVALUATING FACTORS EFFECTING READING ABILITY OF STUDENTS — OTHER STUDIES

INTRODUCTION

6.1 TWE STUDY OF HOME READING

Throughout the time of the self-evaluation of the pilot PLPR, a range of formal and informal information emerged — school self-evaluations of their PNET programmes, the TWE and advisory teacher observations — which is highlighted in this chapter.

Home Reading is a significant aspect of the PLP-R. Students in the PLP-R are exposed to a range of appropriately levelled books and text types. Guided Reading enables students to read a new book each week. Students also experience books through Shared Reading and Reading Aloud. Given Griffin’s finding that 31% of parents studied indicated that they had no books in any language at home (p.73), the PLP-R’s Home Reading programme seemed timely. The programme offers a highly supported Home Reading programme which enables students to read appropriately levelled books at home, trains parents to support students’ reading habits and trains teachers to identify appropriate books and manage such a system. In his study, Griffin states, “The study and sampling designs of the current evaluation were not established to permit a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of the PLP-R (KS1) on student learning to be conducted. However, by the third year of the evaluation almost half of the students participating in the PNET Scheme evaluation were in schools that were also piloting the PLP-R (KS1), and some informal comparisons could be made between outcomes for students who were or were not involved in the Programme.” (p.174)


67


In relation to students’ access to English beyond the school, especially to books, Griffin continues: “Students who had opportunities to speak English outside school with family, friends or English-speaking domestic helpers had higher average levels of achievement across all measures of English language proficiency, compared with students who never or very rarely spoke English outside the school context.” (p.74) “Students with access to many books (in any language) in the home tended to achieve higher average levels of proficiency in English than students with restricted access to books. These relationships were constant across age levels and domains of English efficiency…” (p.78) However, when related to ‘growth’ in English proficiency over the three years of the TWE evaluation, results differed across age groups and domains of proficiency (e.g. writing, reading), Griffin continues:

68


“The observation that student access to relatively few books at home was related to higher rates of growth in reading proficiency for P1 to P3 students (Figure 3.12) seemed counterintuitive. It was possible the impact of the PNET Scheme, with its particular emphasis upon reading, could be seen at work here, as students with limited access to books at home were given opportunities to overcome this deficit through access to books at school. To explore this possibility, average rates of growth in reading proficiency for students from different home backgrounds and tracked from P1 to P3 were compared with students who were or were not currently engaged in the [PLP-R]. This comparison is illustrated in Figure 3.14…” (p.81)


Table 6.1 Figure 3.14 of TWE

Source: Griffin, P., Woods, K. et al. (2007). Evaluation of the Native-speaking English Teacher Scheme for Primary Schools in Hong Kong 2004-2006. The University of Melbourne. Australia (p.81)

Further, “The relationships graphed in Figure 3.14 offer support to the argument that a structured and soundly supported reading programme such as the PLP-R(KS1), embedded within the PNET Scheme, can be used to overcome the negative impact of a lack of books at home on students’ development of reading proficiency.“ (Griffin, p.82)

Griffin concludes, “Students from less enriched home backgrounds (in terms of access to books) who were also taking part in the PLP-R(KS1) showed a much stronger rate of growth in reading proficiency than their counterparts who were not taking part in the PLPR(KS1)“ (p.82) and, “In particular, involvement with the PLP-R (KS1) seemed to help overcome the negative impact of students’ progress in reading associated with homes in which there were few or no books.” (p. 100)


69


6.2 TWE STUDY OF PRINCIPAL SUPPORT As described in Chapter 5, the leadership support in the three case study schools was high. This support included following the PLP-R guidelines, aligning school programmes to support the PLP-R, inclusive budgeting, appropriate staffing and participation in aspects of the programme. Griffin’s report in the TWE provides narratives that support the link between schools with supportive leadership and satisfied teachers and solid student growth in reading, as exemplified:

“School Heads were asked about the value they placed upon various aspects of their role in the promotion of English at their school and provision of support for the PNET Scheme. Most School Heads responded that all aspects of their role were important. However, students at schools where the School Head placed particular importance upon supporting the leadership role of the NET in the school English programme [as promoted in the PLP-R] tended on average, to demonstrate more growth in English proficiency than students in schools where this was not the case. These trends are illustrated in Figures 5.9 and 5.10 [below]” (p.157):


Figure 5.9 Relationship between students’ development in English proficiency from P1 in 2004 to P3 in 2006 and value placed by School Heads on supporting the leadership role of the NET in the school English programme

70




Source: Griffin, P., Woods, K. et al. (2007). Evaluation of the Native-speaking English Teacher Scheme for Primary Schools in Hong Kong 2004-2006. The University of Melbourne. Australia (p.158)

Figure 5.10 Relationship between students’ development in English proficiency from P2 in 2004 to P4 in 2006 and value placed by School Heads on supporting the leadership role of the NET in the school English programme.


71


6.3 TWE TEACHER INTERVIEW ON LEARNING TO LEARN

The PLP-R incorporated many wider aspects of the English Curriculum Guide such as learning to learn, cooperative learning, self-management skills, self-access learning and school self-evaluation. Griffin, in his study of a PLP-R school, reports: “LETs acknowledge the value of the NET’s teaching approaches in terms of learning to learn, which has also impacted on them in the form of newly learned techniques and approaches in the context of PLP-R: “I think the NET can introduce some very simple but also very useful strategies for students to learn English. For example, she designed that work board. I think it is very efficient and very interesting for students because they can have different work to do. And she introduced some very well organised ways for us to teach English. Maybe you can see the activities, for example, reading around.

72


That means they can use the magic stick and students can walk around and point to the word they know and then read. This is very simple but for them that is very interesting and to encourage them to read out the words. Yeah. But for the local teachers, we may not think of this simple but interesting activity for them. Yeah. She introduced some good methods to us…for example. In the past, err, when students answered wrongly, I just gave them the correct answer. But now, for this year, for the PLP-R programme, I find that I can ask other students to help the less able students to learn so that the others can have more interaction. And for the less able student, they can also gain from this kind of learning activities.” (p.83-84)

Source: Griffin, P., Woods, K. et al. (2007). Evaluation of the Native-speaking English Teacher Scheme for Primary Schools in Hong Kong 20042006. Australia: The University of Melbourne.


6.4 ADVISORY TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS ON PLP-R CLASSROOMS 6.4.a One Success Story As some students are choosing books for Home Reading they appear happy and engaged in picking a book that interests them. One of the teachers comes over to briefly discuss a book to make sure it is at their recommended reading level and if the student needs A visit to the P2 classroom would reveal students engaged any additional support reading it on their own. The in many reading tasks. In this typical PLP-R classroom what Classroom Assistant is recording the books chosen would the observer notice? The classroom organisation by the student on a record sheet. After students have would be strikingly different from many non-PLP-R schools: finished selecting a book they return to their desk and students would be sitting in small groups for most of the write the book information on their Home Reading Booklet lesson or seated on a mat for a whole group Storytelling which they will bring home for their parents to check. or Shared Reading activity. The walls and boards of the classroom would be covered with language that students Another group of students are intensely engaged in reading would be learning. There would be posters of songs and books that they have chosen for Independent Reading. chants and displays of stories the students have been Two of them are reading a Big Book together, taking turns learning. No textbooks would be evident, rather students to read aloud to each other. One student is reading to the would be reading from real books and other authentic texts. Advisory Teacher who happens to be supporting the class on that day. Students are used to reading individually to To begin the lesson students would be engaged in a whole adults during lessons but they are still eager to please class activity like a weather chart discussion and reading. an adult that will listen to them read. They smile with Students would then take part in a quick ‘look and say’ drill confidence and accomplishment when the Advisory of the ten High Frequency Words being studied that week Teacher praises them for their application of word attack followed by an activity that requires the students to use skills. The following is a success story from Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School as told by the school’s advisory teacher, Dan Hannah. He explains that this is a typical PLPR lesson on any given day:

the words and say a sentence. A brief phonics instruction and activity would follow. Next, the teachers would lead a Shared Reading with a high level of student participation. A brief discussion of the independent working assignment would be followed by students quickly and efficiently moving back to their small groups. © NET SECTION, CDI, EDB, HKSAR, 2009

73


Another group of students are engaged with a teacher in a Guided Reading session. The teacher and small group are purposefully talking, thinking and reading their way through a book that has been matched to their instructional reading level. The teacher builds confidence in students and reinforces skills by modelling reading and then leading a Shared Reading. Then each of the students reads a page of the book to the group. When one comes across an unknown word, the teacher recommends them to use a skill they have been learning that can help them read the word. Students beam with confidence and pride after their individual reading success. ‘The students are more confident than in the past’, comments their teacher.

74


Other students are finishing their worksheets and they seem to appreciate the flexible use of time that is required for them to finish a task more slowly than their classmates. The observer is struck by the atmosphere of the classroom. Students are enjoying what they are engaged in and at the same time they appear to be serious about their learning. The class size is large but individual needs are catered for. Classroom Management is smooth and almost unnoticeable with very few disruptions to teaching and learning. Students work independently, or with peers, while the teachers are engaged with small groups. The observer might not be far off the mark if they thought that the PLP-R programme has launched successful readers by encouraging them to love reading while teaching them how to read.


6.4.b Success Quotations from PLP-R schools In their time in PLP-R schools, Advisory teachers receive • I have noticed that most of my students feel more positive stories, anecdotes and feedback on aspects of the confident in reading English books. They have no programme. The following quotes were made by teachers, hesitation to apply the things they learned from the students and/or parents from these schools: CCC Heep PLPR when they are having GE lessons. Even for Wo Primary School, Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary the less able ones, they feel free to try some School, Christian Alliance H C Chan AM and PM PS open-ended questions. Primary Schools, Kowloon Bay St John the Baptist Catholic Primary School, LST Lau Tak Primary School, • I have noticed that most of the students are able to PLK Riverain Primary School, SKH Tsing Yi Estate Ho decode words by splitting bigger words into little Chak Wan Primary School and Tin Shiu Wai words. They tried to apply the skills that they have Methodist primary School. learnt to pronounce words. Student success in reading includes good reading habits, • positive reading attitudes, and improvement in reading skills. Quantitative data is not always able to capture what an observer in a classroom would notice or what a teacher • or parent has noticed over time, particularly in regards to attitudes towards reading. The following are a collection of comments about ‘learning successes in reading’ made by LETs, parents, students and NETs from some of the PLP-R evaluation schools that volunteered comments. •

Teachers: • •

Some of my students have started to use their phonic skills learnt to pronounce new words.

•

Some of the students have started to use their phonic skills in unseen dictation and showed a great • improvement when compared to P1.

I have seen a tremendous improvement in their ability to use the phonic skills that we have been teaching. I have noticed that the students would like to see the cover first and predict the story that they are going to read.

I have seen a great improvement in students’ phonic skills which do a great help in the spelling. I have noticed that those less able girls have made progress on their reading skills. After the last two years programme, reading English books has become their habit. I was amazed by the students creativity and ability to express themselves in English when predicting the story and giving an ending to the story. © NET SECTION, CDI, EDB, HKSAR, 2009

75


Parents:

Students:

•

•

I can read now because I can break the words down and try pronouncing the word.

•

I can read now because I can break the complicated words down into little words.

•

I can read now because I am just 8 and I already know many words.

•

I like reading lessons because the games are interesting.

•

I can read difficult words because I have learnt the phonic skills.

•

I enjoy reading lessons very much because I can read with my teacher.

•

I can read now because I have read more English books than before.

•

•

•

•

76

Under the reading programme my daughter has the initiative to read story books independently. In addition her reading ability as well as her vocabulary and understanding has improved a lot. I’m sure this reading programme can really help her to build up a reading habit in her life. Storytelling by the teacher and asking questions after helps her understand the content of the story more and strengthens her listening and pronunciation. My daughter loves reading very much. She likes Reading Aloud and shows that she is capable to use phonics in pronouncing unfamiliar words. My daughter has benefited from this reading programme. Her vocabulary has improved and there is an overall improvement in her level of English. I’m glad that the school has implemented this reading programme for the benefit of all students. At the very beginning she requested me to read the book with her and explain the contents. Now, she prefers to choose the books she likes to read, even by herself. When I communicate with her in English, she is eager to talk to me in complete sentences.



NETs: •

The levelling results (matching students to book levels) from June have shown that 94% of students have improved by between one (1) to six (6) Book Levels during the year. The most pleasing aspect of these results is not so much that of the level increases but the improvement of reading strategies that the students are using in their reading.

•

The P1 students are now using beginning letter sounds and the pictures to help them with a new word. Their understanding of information on the cover of a book and stories read has shown a marked improvement and they are starting to answer more than recall questions and make predictions more freely. These skills will continue to develop in their second year of the programme.

• The P2 students have been in the programme for two years and their skills and strategies are well developed. Many are thinking in English when reading as they are able to self-correct and reread to confirm meaning. Their fluency and comprehension is generally well developed. They are more willing to attempt higher-order questioning.


77


6.5 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK ABOUT READING PORTFOLIOS Portfolios were introduced in many schools by the second year of the PLP-R. Some schools used the portfolios as a form of student reporting to parents, and of these schools, some sought parent and student feedback.

•

Learning English through games is a good idea. My son, Roy, finds it difficult to follow people who speak English too fast. It’s OK for him to follow those who speak slower. He enjoys Steve’s English lessons very much. Thank you very much.

Examples of parent comments about the Reading • Thank you teacher for helping my child learn English Portfolios At Faith Lutheran Primary School, students took their Reading portfolios home to ‘report’ to their parents about their developing reading skills. The teachers asked for parent feedback on this approach: •

•

I think that what you are teaching is very suitable for my daughter to learn English. I hope she will gradually develop interest in learning English. I hope teachers will assist her more. Thank you!

•

[My child] shows slight progress and I hope my child can build up confidence and interest in reading.

•

Very good! Reading helps my child develop interest in learning English. Besides, he has learnt a lot of vocab.

•

I think my boy has difficulties in completing the worksheet but he likes it.

The world of the children is beautiful! There are very colourful pictures in the Portfolio. This arouses their interest in learning English. Perhaps you can • My girl is fond of drawing. When she gets positive feedback from the teacher, she couldn’t help telling consider adding more crafts and stickers which help me how happy she was. develop children’s imagination.

• After reading the English Portfolio of my daughter, I’ve found that your school adopts a variety of teaching strategies. I hope there will be more so that our children have a wider exposure to English so as to raise their interest in learning and improving their English 78

through reading. She has learned a lot of vocabulary. This is really unexpected. I hope she will enjoy reading English books in the future. Thank you very much!!



6.6 CONCLUSION Student comments about their Reading Portfolios

The findings of the evaluation of the PLP-R from 20042006 were complemented by those of the TWE and other sources of information.

At PLK Riverain Primary School, the NET offered the following student comments about their new Reading Portfolio Books:

6.7 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

•

I like keeping a Portfolio because it helps me to remember the words and sentences that I should know.

•

The PLP-R was linked to those students who were most in need of support for their reading, and who did not have access to books in any other context than the school and classroom.

•

I like keeping a Portfolio because it reminds me of the words that I have learned.

•

The PLP-R has launched successful readers by encouraging them to love reading while teaching them how to read.

•

Students’ motivation is increased when they are actively engaged in their learning.

•

•

It [Portfolio] tells me what I have learned in the PLP-R and the level I have gained. I am happy because I can see the good work I have done in previous years.


79


80



CHAPTER 7:

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS Professional development 1.

There was no implementation dip in teacher confidence or implementation of new skills and knowledge

2.

All modes of professional development were valued by teachers

3.

The role of the NET was pivotal to professional development in the PLP-R

4.

LETs and NETs valued clearly articulated teacher roles

5.

Collaboration was significantly enhanced in PLP-R schools and reported to be the second most effective form of learning

6.

PLP-R resources for professional development were most highly valued by teachers

7.

Structured and intensive school-based and classroom-based professional development was strongly linked to teacher receptivity and implementation of new knowledge and skills

8.

The collaborative relationship between ATs and schools enabled teachers to apply what they learned in the classroom

9.

The school-based nature of professional development enabled the ATT to develop materials and workshops that responded to different needs in schools

10. Teachers reported significant increase in their knowledge and skills in Teaching of Reading, Assessment of Reading and Classroom Management, and the predicted medium-term ‘implementation dip’ did not occur 11. Foundation aspects of learning to read (phonics-incontext, teaching strategies, reading strategies) promoted in the PLP-R were reported by teachers to be the most valued aspects of English teaching they had learned 12. Professional development in Teaching of Reading, Assessment of Reading and Classroom Management including small group learning was most highly valued by teachers 13. More than 70% of teachers reported transferring new knowledge and skills to other English teaching contexts sometimes or a lot, in the areas of Teaching of reading, Assessment of reading and Classroom Management 14. 92% of teachers report that they would continue some form of PLP-R when the programme ceased. © NET SECTION, CDI, EDB, HKSAR, 2009

81


FINDINGS Student reading achievement

Schools and leadership

15.

19.

The most effective schools want change for effectiveness rather than for ‘marketing’ value and their staff were open-minded to change

20.

Principals of the most effective PLP-R schools ensured the PLP-R was supported as a valid programme within the whole school context e.g. budgets, teacher release for workshops, resourcing, future planning

PLP-R students’ had a greater knowledge of high frequency (sight) words, which may reflect the PLP-R systematic approach to planning, teaching and learning high frequency words.

16.

In a small random sample, there was a marked drop in the number of errors made by a randomly selected sample of students in the PLP-R group when compared to the control group

17.

In a small random sample, PLP-R students used more graphophonic cues when reading.

21.

Principals of highly effective PLP-R schools participated in aspects of the programme

18.

The time between baseline and final data collection of an evaluation of student reading achievement and the development of specific cognitive processes for reading may require some years for comparative results to emerge.

22.

Continuity of teachers each year was linked to enhanced teacher skills, student achievement and school satisfaction with change

23.

Schools with positive results adapted resources or developed units of work to cater for the unique needs of their students

24.

Schools with positive results had overcome facility limitations to create a language-rich environment and effective Classroom Management systems.

General 25. 82


All teacher-reported information about effective and/ or valued aspects of the PLP-R was supported in case studies of exemplary schools.


RECOMMENDATIONS Programme development

•

─

Continue to develop English teaching and professional development programmes that are complementary and that: ─

─

─

─

─

─

─

offer a wide range of resources specifically developed for Hong Kong teachers and classrooms provide a wide range of sequential and interrelated professional development activities and materials are founded on in-class coaching by Advisory Teachers are holistic and comprehensive, integrating aspects of English: speaking, listening, reading and writing emphasise reading strategies - teaching through shared (modelled) reading and applied by students through Guided Reading

• •

•

emphasise all five teaching strategies for reading – Storytelling, Reading Aloud, Shared Reading, supported (through) Guided Reading and Independent Reading

─

promote and support Home Reading programmes

─

clearly articulate active roles for LETs and NETs Continue to offer “catch-up” professional development for new teachers to intensive English programmes Continuity of teachers as per the deployment guidelines for PLP-R to ensure teachers go beyond ‘awareness’ and move to expertise to ensure knowledge within the PLP-R team Consider how to support KS1 students and teachers as they move to KS2

are founded on development of phonemic awareness model how to plan and teach phonics-in-context and grammar-in-context


83


Evaluation design

School support

•

•

•

• •

•

84

Research the impact of Guided Reading as a teaching strategy for effective development of reading proficiency and other effects e.g. oral language development.

Systematically support principals, EPCs and PSMCDs to support programme implementation in ways that enable sustainable practices and long term results, for example, guided observations for principals, support with holistic and strategic plans, budgets and resources, informative deployment guidelines.

Ensure evaluation of student reading achievement is designed over a number of years to understand how more effectively students learn to read through a methodical foundational programme such as PLP-R.

•

Use running records and miscue analysis, as opposed to pen and paper reading comprehension tests, to understand how effectively students are reading.

•

Ensure deployment guidelines for teachers involved in programmes such as PLP-R are appropriately implemented. Continue conditions for school participation including: ─

Use student progression through Reading Recovery book levels over a number of years to understand how students learn through levelled books and to compare students with non-PLP-R type programmes. Investigate the long-term extent of integration of PLP-R teaching skills and knowledge and independence (school-based curriculum development) and the effect of these skills on student reading achievement.


─

deployment of teachers for a number of years, to develop expert reading teachers as opposed to many novice reading teachers regular co-planning and school-based professional development


APPENDIX 1

OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY LITERACY PROGRAMME – READING (KS1) PROGRAMME OVERVIEW The diagram below provides a synopsis of how all the elements of the Programme fit together. At the heart of the PLP-R (KS1) is the student’s Reading and English Language development. The programme consists of four components, which are: Teaching reading, Assessment of reading, Classroom Management and Whole School and Classroom Environment.

The implementation of the programme must be supported by commitment from and collaboration between all the stakeholders as well as the school-home connection. The PLP-R incorporates recommendations provided by the EDB curriculum documents. Its implementation is supported by professional development sessions for stakeholders and the provision of materials to schools.

The PLP-R is divided into four stages. These stages relate to school, teacher and student readiness to progress through the programme. The programme supports, through the stages, a beginning phase of setting up the whole school and classroom environment, Classroom Management routines and systems.

The programme provides guidance for implementing a balanced approach to the teaching of reading. The programme involves the use of the five teaching strategies for reading; Storytelling, Reading Aloud, Shared Reading, Independent Reading and Guided Reading. The programme involves the setting up and use of formative and summative assessment that are part of the learning and teaching. © NET SECTION, CDI, EDB, HKSAR, 2009

85


It provides scaffolding for the eventual integration of language/literacy skills into the rest of the school’s English Language Programme.

The ultimate aim is the development of a school-based language/literacy programme.

Stage 1 Setting Up — is the foundation phase in which Stage 3 Integration — is the integration phase in which the classroom environment, management and assessment routines and systems are established in order to facilitate the successful operation of the programme. ‘Learning to read’ cultures are created and a balanced teaching of reading approach is introduced and implemented. The Home Reading programme is also introduced. Teachers may decide to adapt different aspects of the Programme to cater more for student and school needs.

PLP-R learning and teaching content and strategies are applied in other GE lessons. This may occur quite early on in Stage 1 and may involve something as simple as applying the ‘zero noise signal’ in the other lessons. Integration could involve the PLP-R literacy sessions becoming the 40% Reading Workshop allocation of the English Language Programme recommended by EMB. This would be achieved by the review, extension or consolidation of aspects of the PLP-R.

Stage 2 Implementation — is the implementation phase Stage 4 Independence — is the independent phase in in which students work more collaboratively. Continuous assessment helps with the formation of ability groups and enables Guided Reading to be established. Further adaptation and links to other General English (GE) continues. Teachers will need to plan their own Guided Reading activities to suit their students’ needs.

86


which teachers plan their own English language/literacy development programmes. It is recommended that schools complete Stage 1 and at least one Stage 2 Unit of Work before considering beginning their own school-based curriculum development. The PLP-R recommends that teachers begin by choosing an appropriate Shared Reading text and using a Unit of Work framework to develop their own unit of work. Then teachers can consider including more GE and language skills content. Eventually teachers should be able to produce and implement their own language/literacy programmes. Progression through the stages will vary according to the school, teacher and/or student readiness.


Components and Component Objectives The four components of the PLP-R are: • • • •

Teaching Reading Assessment Classroom Management Whole School and Classroom Environment

Component objectives provide descriptions of what teachers will do to teach reading, assess their students, establish Classroom Management systems and set up a school and classroom environment that will support the teaching of reading in English.

These objectives support teachers progressing through the Setting Up and Implementation Stages of the programme. Implementation Stage objectives build on what is established in the Setting Up Stage. It is expected that teachers will use the objectives to help develop their own reading programmes that are integrated with the rest of their English language programmes.

(Source: Adapted from “Primary Literacy Programme – Reading (KS1) Teacher Manual”, 2004


87


STAGE EXIT DESCRIPTORS Exit Descriptors for both stages will let teachers know when they have fulfilled enough requirements of a stage to enable them to move on. They may find it useful to discuss the Exit Descriptors at a planning meeting and make decisions about their readiness to move on. The Exit Descriptors are written in terms of students and teachers.

The Stages of the PLP-R have been designed to provide teachers with direction for the eventual setting up and establishing of their school-based reading programmes. Teachers will find the Units of Work provide the support to progress through Setting Up and Implementation Stages.

Setting Up Stage

Implementation Stage

Integration Stage

Students will have:

Students will have:

Students will have:

•

Placed work samples in their Portfolio

•

•

•

Maintained Home Reading record book

Maintained a Portfolio and used it to explain their progress to parents

•

Used Home Reading records to consider own reading interests and needs (self-assessment)

Teachers will have:

Teachers will have: •

•

•

Observed and questioned students to see what they know and can do in-class Provided verbal formative feedback to students about their learning Reported assessment information to stakeholders


•

Assessed students during Guided Reading Reviewed students’ Reading levels for Guided Reading groupings

•

•

Independence Stage

Students will have:

Used Student Record • Sheets and Portfolios to reflect on their learning in various English skills

Applied formative assessment techniques to other English skills Created formative assessment opportunities (Classroom Management) in other areas of English.

Accepted that formative assessment is part of their learning process and have confidence to attempt new skills and strategies


Used the Reading Skills Framework to identify skills to be developed in Units of Work

•

Designed appropriate assessment techniques and tasks for Units of Work

(Source: Adapted from the “Primary Literacy Programme – Reading (KS1) Teacher Manual”, 2004

88



APPENDIX 2

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND RESOURCES All schools in the pilot stage of the PLP-R (2004/05– the PLP-R (Setting Up and Implementation Stages). These 2005/06) committed to a range of mandatory pro- were supported by a wide range of supplied materials. fessional development activities over the first two years of

•

Workshop topics (1.5 hours to half day each) Overview of the PLP-R

•

Teacher Manual – book and CD

Catch-up preliminary training for new teachers (2 days)

•

Hear We Go

•

Units of Work – books and CD

•

Centralised workshops for PLP-R •

Reading Aloud and Storytelling

•

Units of Work Reading Games – CD

•

School-based workshops by AT (see 2nd column)

•

Shared Reading

•

Matching Students to Book Levels – starter kit

•

Unlevelled Readers: First Batch – booklets

•

Resource Package Section A: Environment – CD

Levelling Books

•

Matching Students to Book Levels

Resource Package Section B: Reading – CD

•

•

Assessment 1 – Collecting and Recording Assessment Information

Classroom Management, Achieving Exit Descriptors – booklets and game

•

•

Assessment 2 – Using Portfolios • for Assessing Reading

Classroom Management, Group Management – booklets and activity

• •

•

• •

Professional development activities Preliminary training (3 days)

• PLP-R publications e.g. Teachers’ Manual, Professional • development packs, Units of Work etc (see 3rd column) • Briefings • Principal/ English Panel Chairs Briefing X 2 •

Environment Units of Work Classroom Management

Resources

•

Literacy Coordinator’s Briefing X2

•

NET’s Briefing X 2

•

Classroom Assistants’ Briefing X1

•

Teaching the Units of Work

•

Co-planning meetings

•

NET modelling

•

•

NET input at co-planning meetings

Planning and Teaching of Reading Strategies

•

Home Reading Booklets – one per child in every PLP-R class

•

Personal networks with PLP-R teachers

•

Phonics 1 – Phonics for Teachers

•

Home Reading and Independent Reading – CD and notes

•

AT modelling lessons

•

Phonics 2 – Teaching Phonics

•

•

AT lesson support / coaching teachers in class

•

Guided Reading 1

PLP-R Audio Recordings (reading books) – CD

•

•

AT co-planning meeting input

•

Parent Support Package 1

Assessment Package 1: Collecting and Recording Assessment Information – book and CD

•

Developing resources with AT

•

•

Cluster meetings / network events

Assessment Package 2: Profiles and Portfolios – book and CD

•

Others

•

Professional Development Phonics Package – CD and notes

Resources for Supporting a Reading Programme – CD


89


90



APPENDIX 3

PLP-R LINKS TO TEACHER COMPETENCIES FRAMEWORK, HONG KONG 2006 The following framework of teacher competencies can be The ticks represent those competencies being explicitly found in more detail in Towards a Learning Profession, developed in this professional development of the Primary published by the Advisory Committee on Teacher Literacy Programme - Reading (KS1) Education and Qualifications (2006).

An overview of the Generic Teacher Competencies Framework Teaching and Learning Domain

Student Development Domain

School Development Domain

Professional Relationships and Services Domain Collaborative relationships within the school

√

Subject matter knowledge

√

Students’ diverse needs in schools

√

School’s vision and mission

√

Curriculum and pedagogical content matter

√

Rapport with students

√

Policies, procedures and practices

√

Teachers’ professional development

Home-school collaboration

√

Involvement in policies related to education

√

Education-related community services and voluntary work

√

√

Teaching strategies and skills, use of language and multi-media Assessment and evaluation

√

√

Pastoral care for students Students’ different learning experiences

√

√

Responsiveness to social values and changes

√


91


Six Core Values that Underpin the Whole Framework Belief that all students can learn √

Love and care for students √

Respect for diversity √

Commitment and dedication to the profession √

Collaboration sharing and team spirit √

Passion for continuous learning and excellence √

BASIC PREMISE: THE PERSONAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF TEACHERS

(Source: Advisory Committee on Teacher Education and Qualifications. (2006). Towards a Learning Profession. Hong Kong SAR.)

92



APPENDIX 4

TERRITORY-WIDE EVALUATION OF THE PRIMARY NET SCHEME UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA Commissioned by:

Study sample of Stakeholders

NET Section Curriculum Development Institute Education and Manpower Bureau Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

•

5914 Key Stage 1 students

•

140 schools

•

Principals

•

665 Local English Teachers (LETs)

•

100 Native-speaking English Teachers (NETs)

•

parents of 4060 students

Conducted by: •

•

•

Patrick Griffin and Kerry Woods Assessment Research Centre The University of Melbourne Peter Storey School of Education and Languages The Open University of Hong Kong Edwin King Por Wong and Wally Y. W. Fung School of Continuing Professional Education The Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIEd) (Peter Storey left the HKIEd on 31 August 2005, but was involved in the Evaluation to its completion.)

Study Period – 2004-2006

The PNET Scheme Evaluation considered •

The effectiveness of the Primary NET Scheme in meeting its objectives

•

The cognitive and affective learning of Hong Kong primary students in English

•

Changes in student proficiency and attitudes to English over time


93


Findings

Conditions for an effective PNET programme

•

The greatest gains are achieved in schools where:

Increased student proficiency and development of English was directly linked to the positive collaboration between LETs and the NET.

• Different teaching strategies suggested by the advisory teachers (ATs) and the NETs were linked with growth in language proficiency.

•

The NET and LETs work closely with an AT.

•

The NET’s responsibilities include planning and coplanning, supporting change, introducing additional exercises in the classroom, collaborating with local teachers to encourage students in using English in class.

• Positive, constructive, working relationships between LETs and NETs do have a direct impact on students’ attitudes toward English. • •

Principals are crucial to the success of the PNET Scheme.

•

The largest impact of the Scheme was at the Primary 1 level.

•

There is indication of positive trends in students’ reading and writing proficiency as well as changes to classroom teaching practices in the Primary • Literacy Programme - Reading (Key Stage 1) [PLP-R (KS 1)] schools.

•

•

94


There is frequent and positive interaction between the NET and LETs during professional development activities, developing teaching materials and organising extra-curricular activities. Both the NET and LETs attend the NET Section’s Centralised Professional Development courses, incorporating the ideas in English learning and teaching. The NET uses existing local materials and methods and incorporates these with new ideas, social interactions and professional development activities. Local teachers have access to and use resources, materials and implement the NET’s advice and teaching strategies.


Recommendations to enhance effectiveness •

The NET participates in English Panel meetings, • conducted in English, which focus on improving the learning and teaching of English.

•

A NET is welcomed and supported by school personnel, enjoys his/her work more and spending additional time with students and staff.

•

•

There are proper induction programmes for the NET.

•

There is frequent cooperation and interaction between • the NET and LETs, irrespective of their ages.

•

Students are willing to speak English outside of school, have access to English books at home, and positive support from parents.

Schools should set out clearly the deployment of the NET to meet the needs of the English programme in the school, the reasons for such deployment as well as document how the deployment will be evaluated. The NET should be responsible for collaboration with the local English teachers where his/her role involves co-teaching, co-planning, mentoring, planning professional development, as well as the dissemination of teaching strategies and materials. The NET should attend all English panel meetings to report on activities, address the needs of the English curriculum and explore new learning and teaching English strategies.

•

Resources available in English classes should be evaluated by the NET and the English panel.

•

Assessment strategies need to be competency-based.

• The LETs act as the channel for mediation of the impact of the NET, the AT and the Scheme on learning and teaching.


95


Conclusion • Timetabled space should be allocated for both the NET and LETs to undertake school-based and centralised professional development.

The four key aspects of school practices in the PNET Scheme should be addressed.

•

•

•

Professional development should be provided to the ATs and the NETs on how targeted English intervention can be implemented and evaluated.

The curriculum: The implementation of curriculum reform should be supported by the NET and the infrastructure provided by the NET Section.

School Heads need strategic professional development in managing and supporting the PNET • Scheme.

•

Learning and teaching practices: The focus should be on skills development and learning.

Ongoing assessment and reporting: The assessment should focus on proficiency, rather than test scores.

•

Infrastructure: Infrastructure impacts on curriculum, assessment and learning and teaching. This includes school policy and resource allocation, e.g. time and professional development.

96



APPENDIX 5

TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SURVEY


97


98



APPENDIX 6

SAMPLE READING ACCURACY AND COMPREHENSION TEST (LEVEL 1 BOOK)


99


100



APPENDIX 7

PHONOLOGICAL TESTS LETTER NAMES

(data collector record sheet)

Student Name: _______________________________________________ School: _____________________________________________________

Class: ____________________________ Date: ____________________________

Instruction: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Ask the student to attempt all letters. Point to the letters as the student reads them. Allow 3 seconds for each. Put √ when the student correctly identifies the letter in 3 seconds. If an error is made, record what is said. If nothing is said, put an R for refusal. Circle the letters when pronunciation is influenced by accent or other factors.

h __ z __ B __ e __ v __ Y i __ C __ A __ p __ O __ w

__ __

t

__

Q

__

s

__

d

__

n

__

x

__

J

__

L

__

r

__

U

__

F

__

K

__

G

__

M

__

Number of circled correct responses: Number of refusals: Total no. of correct responses:

… out of possible 26


101


HIGH FREQUENCY WORDS



Class: ____________________________ Date: ____________________________

Instruction: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Point to the words as the student reads them. Move left to right. Do Set 1, then Set 2 then Set 3. Allow 5 seconds for each word. Do not offer help. Ask students to attempt all words. Put √ when the student correctly identifies the word in 5 seconds. If an error is made, record what is said. If nothing is said, put an R for refusal. Count and record the correct number of responses.

Set 1 is ____ can of ____ to he ____ and Set 2 have ____ you where ____ are make ____ this Set 3 your ____ some must ____ want by ____ then

____ in ____ the ____ back ____ it ____

____ ____

____ new ____ big ____ his ____ old ____

____ ____

____ them ____ well ____ ____ little ____ all ____ ____

Set1 Number of errors: Number of refusals: Total no. of correct responses: 102


Set2

Set3


BEGINNING, MIDDLE & FINAL SOUNDS Student Name: _______________________________________________ School: _____________________________________________________

(data collector record sheet) Class: ____________________________ Date: ____________________________

Instruction: 1.

Present student with two sample words “dog” and “bed” i.e. d-o-g and b-e-d

2.

Ask student to listen to the words, then the three sounds.

3.

Allow student to practise with you.

4.

Ask student to provide beginning, middle and final sounds. Do not offer help.

5.

Record the student’s answer in the correct column.

6.

Add a ? symbol when a ‘schwa’ is added to the sound e.g. /t?/

1. cat Correct sound

Letter name

Others

No response

Correct sound

Letter name

Others

No response

Correct sound

Letter name

Others

No response

Correct sound

Letter name

Others

No response

Correct sound

Letter name

Others

No response

Correct sound

Letter name

Others

No response

c a t

2. pen p e n

3. bus b u s

4. not n o t

5. sit s i t

Total: © NET SECTION, CDI, EDB, HKSAR, 2009

103


ONSET AND RIME



Class: ____________________________ Date: ____________________________

Instruction: 1.

Tell student “We are going to make some words from the cards. The words rhyme with this word. (say sample word). Read the new words for me”.

2.

Demonstrate and practise first.

3.

Put √ if the student can read the word in 5 seconds.

4.

If an error is made, record what is said.

5.

If nothing is said, put an R for refusal.

6.

Do not offer help.

7.

Stop test if student cannot do the first three words

1. cat Words Generated

bat

fat

mat

pot

hot

dot

hug

rug

bug

red

ted

shed

can read the word

2. not Words Generated can read the word

3. mug Words Generated can read the word

4. bed Words Generated

Total no. of correct responses:

can read the word

5. ship Words Generated

lip

can read the word 104


tip

snip


APPENDIX 8

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION FOR THE COMPARISON OF STUDENTS’ PROGRESS ON BOOK LEVELS Non Parametric Tests 1 – Difference between Experimental (PLP-R) and Control Groups (from baseline to interim) To systematically compare the performance of students on the first stage (from baseline to interim), students’ progress on Book Levels was analysed by SPSS. First, data from both experimental group and control group were input to SPSS.

Table A

Table A below shows the descriptive statistics of the main variable ‘progress on Book Levels’, as represented by the name, Rank_Imp. Another variable, Group indicates if Rank_Imp belongs to the experimental or control group. Second, a Mann-Whitney Test was performed to determine if the difference between two groups is significant. Table B1 and B2 demonstrate the results as follows:

Descriptive Statistics N 194 194

Rank_Imp* Group

Mean .71 1.76

Mann-Whitney Test Table B1

Std. Deviation 1.806 .426

Minimum -1 1

Maximum 11 2

Ranks

Rank_Imp*

Group Control PLP-R Total

N 46 148 194

Mean Rank 83.10 101.98

Sum of Ranks 3822.50 15092.50

Table B2

Test Statisticsa Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

Rank_Imp* 2741.500 3822.500 -2.343 .019

a. Grouping Variable: Group

*Rank_Imp is the variable regarding the Improvement in Book Level. Since the absolute Z score > 1.96 (@95% CI), it is concluded that the medians of experimental and control group are not equal. In short, the out performance of PLP-R schools was statistically significant as compared to control schools from baseline to interim. © NET SECTION, CDI, EDB, HKSAR, 2009

105


Non Parametric Tests 2 – Difference between Experimental (PLP-R) and Control Groups – Focus on Low Socio-Economic Status (SES) Group (from baseline to interim)

Table C

A second statistical procedure was performed with a particular focus on the low SES students. Similarly, data were entered into SPSS, but this time data from a total of four high socio-economic schools were taken out. Again, Rank_Imp represents the progress of Book Levels and Group indicates whether it is experimental or control data. The results are as follows:

Descriptive Statistics N 154 154

Rank_Imp* Group

Mean .53 1.81

Mann-Whitney Test Table D1

Std. Deviation 1.349 .397

Minimum -1 1

Maximum 11 2

Ranks Group Control PLP-R Total

Rank_Imp*

N 30 124 154

Mean Rank 74.53 78.22

Sum of Ranks 2236.00 9699.00

Table D2

Test Statisticsa Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

Rank_Imp* 1771.000 2236.000 -.476 .634

a. Grouping Variable: Group

106


*Since the absolute Z score < 1.96 (@95% CI), it is concluded that the difference of two medians is not significant. In short, both PLP-R and control schools did not out-perform each other significantly.


APPENDIX 9

SCHOOL PROFILE / CASE STUDY REPORT Interim Observations and Note-Keeping File School: __________________________________________________________________ Date: _____________________ Advisory Teacher: ______________________________

Instruction: •

Complete all of number one and develop notes for each of the remaining numbered headings. Below the headings are suggestions and ideas as prompts, which may be addressed if relevant. Try to include information about good practice, problems, continuities and change. Final report will be required in electronic form. If unsure if something is worthwhile, please include. Note form is acceptable. Write as much as you need to cover the topic.

• • •

1. School Details (a) Average Class size

(f) Period with no NET

(b) No. of PLP-R classes

(g) Change of PLP-R LETs / attrition of initially trained LETs (h) Change of AT

(c) No. of PLP-R teachers (d) Fulltime NET / part time NET (e) Change of NET

2. Reading classroom a)

English rich

b)

Displays

c)

Effectiveness of learning

(i) Socio-economic demographics:

Notes

spaces d) • •

Equipment and materials Storage Filing

e)

Supports student and teacher routines © NET SECTION, CDI, EDB, HKSAR, 2009

107


3. School Support a)

Who is involved?

• • • • • •

Principal English Panel Chair Literacy coordinator Classroom assistant PSMCD AT

Notes

b) What kind of support is provided to: • • • •

Teachers Students Parents PLP-R

4. Teachers skills and attitudes

Notes

(a) LETs Describe the range of • skills, experience, attitudes e.g. teaching, reading, SBCD / adaptation, assessment, Classroom Management • readiness for change • attendance / impact of professional development e.g. school-based, district, central, other (b) NET Describe the range of • skills, experience, qualifications, attitudes e.g. teaching, reading, SBCD / adaptation, assessment, Classroom Management • readiness for change • attendance / impact of professional development e.g. school-based, district, central, other (c) Classroom assistant effectiveness 108



5. Teaching and learning

Notes

(a) Planning • • • • • • •

Regular timetabled meetings with reflection Collaboration / level of participation Classroom Management considered Appropriate resource choices Adaptation appropriate / relevant to student needs/reading Level of integration with other English lessons School-based curriculum development – relevant to reading development, appropriate to students, flexible, comprehensive

(b) In the classroom • • •

• • • •

Collaboration Classroom Management Teaching reading - Storytelling, Reading Aloud, Shared Reading, Guided Reading Use of resources Effectiveness of strategies Evidence of learning Assessment gathers assessment information, records assessment information, uses assessment information

6. School Culture: Are teachers changing to meet requirements of PLP-R?

7. Other notes


109


110



APPENDIX 10

SAMPLE RUNNING RECORD


111


112



APPENDIX 11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you The NET Section wishes to extend its gratitude to the 15 PLP-R schools and four control schools who participated in the PLP-R evaluation between 2004 and 2006.

Photographs, quotes and citations Bishop Walsh Primary School Canossa Primary School Wong Tai Sin Primary School CCC Heep Wo Primary School Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School Christian Alliance H C Chan AM and PM PS Primary Schools Faith Lutheran Primary School Kowloon Bay St John the Baptist Catholic Primary School Lai Chi Kok Catholic Primary School Lee Chi Tat Memorial Primary School LST Lau Tak Primary School, PLK PLK Riverain Primary School SKH Holy Spirit Primary School St Andrews Catholic Primary School St. Bonaventure Primary School SKH Tsing Yi Estate Ho Chak Wan Primary School Tin Shiu Wai Methodist primary School Buddhist Wing Yan School AM & PM

Evaluation teams 2007/2008 Christina Suen (Manager) Michele Davis (Coordinator) Dan Hannah Terry Martin Carmen Liddane Isabella So Bernard Poon (research officer)

2006/2007 Christina Suen (Manager) Michele Davis (Coordinator) Dan Hannah Terry Martin Sue Davis Carmen Liddane

2005/2006 Christina Suen (Manager) Michele Davis (Coordinator) Dan Hannah Terry Martin Sue Davis

2004/ 2005 Sandy Shum (Manager) Loretta Dunphy (Coordinator) Michele Davis Eileen Colkin Dan Hannah Garry Tsang


113


114



APPENDIX 12

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS APM

Assistant Project Manager

ASP

Advisory Support Plan

AT

Advisory Teacher

ATT

Advisory Teaching Team

CDI

Curriculum Development Institute

CPD

Centralised Professional Development

EDB

Education Bureau

ELCG

English Language Curriculum Guide (2004)

EMI

English as the Medium of Instruction

EPC

English Panel Chair

ESL

English as a Second Language

GE

General English

KS1, KS2

Key Stage 1, Key Stage 2

LET

Local English Teacher

NET

Native-speaking English Teacher

PLP-R

Primary Literacy Programme – Reading (KS1)

PLP-R/W

Primary Literacy Programme – Reading/Writing (KS1)

PM

Project Manager

PNET

Primary Native-speaking English Teacher

HKSAR

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

SBCD

School-based Curriculum Development

SBW

School-based Workshop

SCOLAR

Standing Committee on Language Education and Research

SET

School English Teacher

TSA

Territory-wide System Assessment

TWE

Territory-wide Evaluation


115


116



REFERENCES

Advisory Committee on Teacher Education and Qualifications. (2006). Towards a Learning Profession. Hong Kong SAR. Braunger, J & Lewis, J. (1998). Building a Knowledge Base in Reading. Portland, USA: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory’s Curriculum and Instruction Services. Clay, M. (1987). The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties. New Zealand: Heinemann. Curriculum Development Institute. (2001). Learning to Learn: The Way Forward in Curriculum Development. Hong Kong SAR: Education and Manpower Bureau. Curriculum Development Institute. (2002). The English Language Education Key Learning Area English Language Curriculum Guide Primary 1 – Secondary 3. Hong Kong SAR: Education and Manpower Bureau. Curriculum Development Institute. (2002). Building on Strengths; Primary 1 to Secondary 3 – Basic Education Curriculum Guide. Hong Kong SAR: .Education and Manpower Bureau. Curriculum Development Institute. (2004). English Language Education KLA: English Language Curriculum Guide (Primary 1-6). Hong Kong SAR: Education and Manpower Bureau. Fountas, I.C. & Pinnell, G.S. (1999). Matching Books to Readers: Using Leveled Books in Guided Reading, K-3. NH, USA: Heinemann. Fountas, I.C. & Pinnell, G.S. (2002). Leveled Books for Readers: Graces 3-6. NH, USA: Heinemann. Fountas, I.C. & Pinnell, G.S. (accessed 22January 2008): http://www.teachervision.fen.com/skill-builder/read-aloud/48715.html Fullan, M., Hill, P. ands Crevola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. CA, USA: .Corwin Press Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass. Griffin, P., Woods, K. et al. (2007). Evaluation of the Native-speaking English Teacher Scheme for Primary Schools in Hong Kong 2004-2006. Australia: The University of Melbourne. Hurry, J., Sylva, K. & Riley, J. (Dec. 1999). Evaluation of a Focused Literacy Teaching Programme in Reception and Year 1 Classes: Child Outcomes. British Educational Research Journal, 25(5), pp. 637-649. Learning Media, (1997). Reading for Life: The Learner as a Reader. New Zealand. Learning Media. (2003). LIFT: Literacy Instruction for Teachers. New Zealand. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Kennedy, A.M. & Foy, P. (2007). PIRLS 2006 International Report: Progress in International Reading Literacy Study in Primary Schools in 40 countries”. Boston, USA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Centre. Ng. Seok M. (2000) in CECES (2001). Parents and Children: Reading and Learning Together. Hong Kong SAR: Curriculum Development Institute. Senge, P. et al. (1994). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P., et al. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P. et al. (2000). Schools That Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares About Education. New York: Doubleday. State Government Victoria. (2005). Reading Recovery Text Level Guide. Australia. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. © NET SECTION, CDI, EDB, HKSAR, 2009

117


118
