A Critical Review of a School’s Approach to Teaching ... · Chapter 2 – Literature Review...

A Critical Review of a School’s Approach to

Teaching Reading in Key Stage One, using

Read Write Inc.

Dissertation Supervisor:

24th May 2017

Presented as part of the requirement for an undergraduate award within the

Academic Regulations for Taught Provision at the University of

Gloucestershire

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjbqK2159nTAhWHRhQKHZPLAOoQjRwIBw&url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:University_of_Gloucestershire_logo.svg&psig=AFQjCNHlc5N5_Zl1SO3AP0gXjNWUAE1rgQ&ust=1494109796899642

Page | 2

Abstract

As you are reading this abstract, you are subconsciously blending phonemes

together to construct these very words in front of you. The method that teaches

children how to do just that is called phonics – or /ph/ /o/ /n/ /i/ /c/ /s/ - a topic that

has been at the heart of controversies regarding the teaching of reading for more

than 50 years. Additionally, proprietary reading schemes that advocate the

implementation of synthetic phonics in the classroom have faced great criticism.

This case study has focused upon a reading scheme – Read Write Inc – and how it

is implemented within a Key Stage One setting.

Read Write Inc lessons were observed, and interviews with relevant members of

staff were conducted. Four members of Key Stage One staff willingly participated in

the study, providing rich qualitative data to be thoroughly examined and analysed.

The children seemed to enjoy Read Write Inc, yet criticisms associated with reading

schemes were apparent in the results, such as teacher boredom, and phonics not

being suitable for children that lack phonemic awareness. Further issues arose,

such as the Read Write Inc scheme not being suitable for all abilities. Despite the

issues, the teachers believe that Read Write Inc is allowing the majority of pupils to

meet the reading expectations set forth in the Statutory Guidance within the National

Curriculum.

There is not a one-size-fits-all solution for teaching reading to beginners, but as a

future educator, there is a tremendous responsibility to provide children with the

reading provision they need to allow them to develop within all aspects of their

education.

s1400807 Catherine Flanigan

Page | 3

Declaration

This dissertation is the product of my own work and does not infringe the ethical

principles set out in the University’s Guidelines for Research Ethics. I agree that it

may be made available for reference and photocopying at the discretion of the

University.

Signed:

Name: Catherine Flanigan

Date: 24th May 2017

Word count: 10,252

Page | 4

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the whole of the Education Studies team for their knowledge

and their support over the last three years – especially Tim, for his on-going support

as a dissertation supervisor, and Sian for always being available to offer helpful

advice, and to stop me from worrying so much.

I would also like to thank my parents – my dad, for always proof reading, and my

mum, for always listening to me, even when I complain.

A special thank you also goes to all of the children and the teaching staff at my

placement school – the experience is one I will never forget, and has given me the

confidence I need to thrive on the PGCE course next year.

Lastly, these acknowledgements would not be complete without mentioning my best

friend, Lauren, and my boyfriend, Jordan – your encouragement, support and

company has made the hours spent in the library almost enjoyable!


Page | 5

Contents

Abstract ...................................................................................................................... 2

Declaration ................................................................................................................. 3

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... 4

Chapter 1 - Introduction .............................................................................................. 7

1.1 Background and Policy of Phonics .................................................................... 8

1.2 Read, Write, Inc. ............................................................................................... 9

1.3 Aim and Context of Study ................................................................................. 9

Chapter 2 – Literature Review .................................................................................. 11

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 11

2.1 What is phonics? ............................................................................................. 11

2.2 The Phonics Debate ....................................................................................... 12

2.3 Phonics vs Phonemic Awareness ................................................................... 14

2.4 Read, Write, Inc. ............................................................................................. 17

Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 19

Chapter 3 – Research Design .................................................................................. 21

3.1 Paradigm ......................................................................................................... 21

3.2 The Participating School ................................................................................. 22

3.3 Research Approach ........................................................................................ 22

3.4 Data Collection Tools ...................................................................................... 24

Observations...................................................................................................... 24

Interviews .......................................................................................................... 25

3.5 Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 27

3.6 Ethical Considerations .................................................................................... 27

Informed Consent .............................................................................................. 27

Right to Withdraw .............................................................................................. 28

Confidentiality .................................................................................................... 28

Chapter 4 – Presentation of Data, Analysis and Discussion .................................... 30

4.1 Enjoyment ....................................................................................................... 30

4.2 Lower Achieving Pupils (LAPs) ....................................................................... 31

Page | 6

4.3 Higher Achieving Pupils (HAPs) ...................................................................... 34

4.4 Staff................................................................................................................. 36

4.5 Repetitiveness ................................................................................................ 38

4.6 Expectations in the Statutory Guidance in the National Curriculum ................ 42

Chapter 5 - Conclusion ............................................................................................. 44

5.1 Key findings .................................................................................................... 44

5.2 Recommendations drawn from research ........................................................ 45

5.3 Critique of the research ................................................................................... 48

5.4 Further lines of enquiry ................................................................................... 49

5.5 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 50

References ............................................................................................................... 52

Appendices .............................................................................................................. 80

Appendix 1 – Statutory Guidance for reading in Key Stage One, set forth in the

National Curriculum .............................................................................................. 80

Appendix 2 – Drawing themes from the interview responses................................ 84

Appendix 3 – Example of the way in which the observations were recorded ........ 91

Appendix 4 (Gatekeeper Form) ............................................................................. 92

Appendix 5 (Consent Form) .................................................................................. 93

List of Figures

Page 30: Figure 1: Teacher’s opinions on the children’s enjoyment of Read Write Inc

Page 32: Figure 2: Diagram exemplifying the teacher-led nature of Read Write Inc

Page 33: Figure 3: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory

Page 34: Figure 4: Representation of a child’s microsystem

Page 37: Figure 5: Table of Read Write Inc expenses

Page 39: Figure 6: Table of teacher’s opinions of the repetitiveness of Read Write Inc


Page | 7

Chapter 1 - Introduction

The ability to read is one of the most important skills that children attain during their

early years, and is a necessary pre-requisite for children’s continuing education.

(Callinan and van der Zee, 2010)

Despite this, the Progress in International Reading Literacy found the reading

performance of children in England had fallen from 3rd to 19th in the world in 2007

(BBC, 2007). The same assessment has more recently highlighted that although

England have since improved, they are placed significantly lower than where they

used to be (Twist et al, 2012). Formal Liberal Democrat schools spokesman, David

Laws (2007, in BBC, 2007) states that these results suggest schools’ reading

strategies have been ineffective.

The most effective way of teaching reading has been contested for many years

(Jolliffe, 2004). Whole Language Theory and phonics have been two strategies

involved with this debate, and Goodman (1998) described these competing

pedagogies as ‘the reading wars’. Whole Language Theory supports that learning to

read is similar to learning to speak – a natural process, nurtured by unstructured

immersion (Lemann, 1997). Phonics, however, involves learning letter and sound

combinations that convey the 44 phonemes of the English language (Moats, 2007).

Learning to read is a fundamental aspect of children’s education. Correspondingly,

children who achieve a ‘good start’ during their first years of reading are likely to

have accelerated progress in their attainment throughout school (Papen, 2015). This

Page | 8

dissertation has explored whether a specific reading scheme is providing the Key

Stage 1 (KS1) children with the ‘good start’ they require.

1.1 Background and Policy of Phonics

Little effort was made to raise the reading standards in England during the first nine

years of the National Curriculum (1989-1998). Reports from Her Majesty’s Inspectors

detailed that phonics were a weak feature of teaching (Rose, 2006). However, the

National Literacy Strategy in 1998 changed this – engaging schools in developing a

structured literacy programme – which included phonic content and how it should be

taught. Subsequently, there was a rise in standards (Wyse, Andrews and Hoffman,

2010).

Following this was a government initiative named Progression in Phonics (PiP). This

recommended an approach to teaching phonics with a lively, enjoyable fast pace

(Chew, 2010; DfEE, 1999). Then, in 2004, the government produced ‘Playing with

Sounds’ as a supplement to PIP, offering advice about teaching phonics, whilst

placing emphasis on blending sounds (DfES, 2004).

In 2007, ‘Letters and Sounds’ was introduced to schools to replace PiP and Playing

with Sounds (Adonis and Hughes, 2007). The programmes had not been working

effectively enough, therefore a systematic synthetic phonics was required (Rose,

2006). He details, “speaking and listening, together with reading and writing, are

prime communication skills that are central to children’s intellectual, social and

emotional development” (p. 3). These skills are promoted by high quality, systematic

phonic work (Rose).


Page | 9

1.2 Read, Write, Inc.

Read Write Inc, developed by Ruth Miskin (2017), is designed to create “fluent

readers, confident speakers and willing writers”. Each Read Write Inc programme is

said to accelerate children’s progress, to prepare them for the National Curriculum

Tests (Oxford University Press, 2017). Further details will be outlined in Chapter 2.

1.3 Aim and Context of Study

The study is centred on Key Stage 1 in a mainstream community primary school,

which caters for children from a wide variety of cultural and social backgrounds, and

is situated in a rather deprived area. The school’s current approach to teaching

reading consists of Jolly Phonics in Reception, and Read Write Inc in Years 1 and 2.

A case study method gathered data from observations and teacher interviews. The

study examined the way in which the setting teach Read Write Inc (RWI) lessons in

KS1. Furthermore, if and how one scheme can effectively cater for a mixed ability

KS1 has been explored, whilst the views of the schoolteachers and teaching

assistants have been recorded, considered and analysed – with particular interest

into whether they believe certain children are being held back by the scheme, and

why so. The study also aimed to determine whether the RWI scheme is allowing the

children to reach the expectations set forth in the National Curriculum’s Statutory

Guidance, with regards to reading (see Appendix 1). Therefore, the research aims

were as followed:

Page | 10

1. Examine the way in which a school teach KS1 children how to read, using

Read Write Inc.

2. Explore whether this approach is suitable for all abilities in the KS1 in this

setting.

3. Determine whether Read Write Inc is enabling pupils to meet the expectations

outlined in the Statutory Guidance within the National Curriculum (Department

for Education, 2014).

A child’s reading ability has a major influence on their learning across other areas of

the curriculum (Medwell et al, 1998). It is argued that if children struggle to read, they

are likely to struggle in all curriculum subjects (Wasil and Thawani, 2014; Alexander,

2012; Geske and Ozola, 2008). Therefore, how children learn to read will always be

of fundamental importance.

All data collected has been thoroughly analysed and discussed, and the chosen

research methods have been justified and critiqued.

Page | 11

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

Introduction

Phonics has attracted debate for years, as a means of trying to increase reading

attainment (Conrad and Serlin, 2005). This chapter will discuss the research and

literature surrounding the topic of phonics, and Read Write Inc (RWI). It will dissect

the studies that have shaped the way in which phonics is taught – specifically

focusing upon a 7 year study in Clackmannanshire, and the debate surrounding the

two types of phonics – synthetic and analytic.

2.1 What is phonics?

To become literate in the English language, it is necessary to understand that

specific phonemes (sounds) are represented by graphemes (letters) in writing

(Bryne, 1998; Bryne and Fielding-Barnsley, 1989). Phonics is an approach to

teaching reading that involves linking letters, or groups of letters, to spoken sounds

(Waugh, Carter and Desmond, 2015). To exemplify this, when the word ‘dog’ is read

aloud, the constituent sounds are blended – /d/ /o/ /g/– and when ‘dog’ is written, the

word can be segmented, and these sounds represented with the appropriate letters

(Graham and Kelly, 2000). The linguist, David Crystal (1987) determines that phonic

approaches are centred on the principle of identifying sound-letter relationships in a

writing system, and teaching children how to use these to decode or construct

words. The theory behind phonics is that, if children can hear the sound ‘c’ at the

beginning of ‘cat’, then they will learn to relate that sound to the letter when they see

the ‘c’ letter in writing (Nyberg, 1998).

Page | 12

2.2 The Phonics Debate

Phonics is a much-debated area of literacy teaching (Papen, 2015). The National

Literacy Strategy (DfEE, 1998) recommended a mixed approach to teaching literacy

– including an element of phonics instruction. However, the argument is that such

an approach could lead to confusion, especially in young children, and subsequently,

phonics should be the predominant method of reading that children are taught

(Torgerson, Brooks and Hall, 2006). Yet, there is much debate surrounding which

method of phonics teaching is the most effective (Litt, Martin and Place, 2014).

In the debate on the teaching and role of phonics, advocates of a synthetic phonic

approach (e.g. Glazzard and Stokoe, 2013; Rose, 2006; Miskin, 2005; Chew, 1997)

argue that the results shown in synthetic phonics approaches are far in advance of

the results obtained by children using other programmes, such as mixed phonics

programmes (synthetic and analytic).

Synthetic phonics is the teaching of phonemes and their associated graphemes

(Neaum, 2017). Lewis and Ellis (2006) explain that children start by hearing

phonemes in speech, and blending the phonemes together orally. During reading,

phonemes are represented by the grapheme, pronounced, and then blended

together in order to create the word. For example: ‘hen’ – the child would sound out

the three phonemes /h/ /e/ /n/, and then blend them together, forming ‘hen’.

Analytic phonics, on the other hand, teaches children to identify phonemes in the

whole words, rather than the individual graphemes (Lewis and Ellis, 2006). Children

analyse the common phoneme in a set of words, and each of these words will

Page | 13

contain the phoneme being studied (National Literacy Trust, 2017). For example,

teacher and pupils may discuss what the following words have in common: tent, tree,

tool and tip.

A 7-year longitudinal study, conducted by Johnston and Watson (2005), in

Clackmannanshire, Scotland, compared analytic and synthetic approaches. The

study involved dividing around 300 primary school children into three groups. One

group was taught using analytic phonics, another with synthetic phonics, and the last

by an analytic programme, which included teaching without reference to print

(Pearson, 2017). This study was actively promoted by the media (Wyse and Styles,

2007), resulting in a recommendation from England’s Education Select Committee,

that there should be a governmental enquiry into the teaching of reading (House of

Commons Educations and Skills Committee, 2005). In fact, this study was hailed by

Burkard (1999) as the ‘Holy Grail’ of teaching reading. In June 2005, the

government announced that there would be a review of the teaching of reading in the

early years to be headed by education consultant, Jim Rose (Rose, 2006).

The final report of the Clackmannanshire study concluded that the synthetic phonics

approach is more effective than the analytic approach (Johnston and Watson,

2005). Nick Gibb (2012), the secretary for schools, claimed that on average, the

children that were taught synthetic phonics were a reading age of 14 by the age of

11. However, when cited in the Rose Report, there is bias towards the work from this

study that advocated synthetic phonics. Firstly, the study had been designed to

compare the effectiveness of synthetic and analytic phonics used to teach children to

read - yet, the group being taught analytic phonics were taught far fewer letters than

Page | 14

those in the synthetic phonics group (Wyse and Styles, 2007), and therefore did not

allow for valid comparison. Secondly, Johnston and Watson do not provide

information regarding the compliance or teacher effectiveness in the experiment, and

the programmes were implemented by “one of the authors”, yet it is not clear which

author this was. Therefore, perhaps a priori views on synthetic phonics may have

had a beneficial impact on the delivery of the synthetic phonic lessons, or a negative

impact on the delivery of the analytic phonic lessons.

Lastly, the socio-economic backgrounds of the children were not outlined adequately

in the study, and very little information was given regarding the schools involved

(Wyse and Styles, 2007). With these limitations in mind, it may be difficult to

comprehend why this study, as opposed to other studies covered in the two meta-

analyses, was highlighted by the Rose Review, other than due to its strong media

attention or as it was ‘politically expedient’ to do so (Wyse and Goswami,

2008). Nonetheless, the media advocated Clackmannanshire’s conclusions.

2.3 Phonics vs Phonemic Awareness

Fitzpatrick (2008) explains that pupils must acquire a strong understanding of

spoken language before they can start to comprehend written language. This

knowledge of how language works is referred to as phonemic awareness. In other

words, phonemic awareness refers to the ability to notice, think about, and

manipulate phonemes in spoken words (Ehri et al, 2001). Reviews from authors

such as Hurford et al, (1993) and Mann (1993) support the idea that phonemic

awareness is a highly important factor in teaching reading. It may be surprising that

phonemic awareness is related to reading, as it is a skill that does not involve any

Page | 15

print – just spoken language. However, phonemic awareness becomes important

when children start to learn to read – when they are confronted with the problem of

associating letters with the phonemes that represent them (Thompson and

Nicholson, 1999).

Thorough reading has highlighted that the relationship between phonemic

awareness and phonics has the tendency to be misunderstood. Although phonemic

awareness is a listening skill that exists with no contact to print - until contact with the

written words, there is no kind of communicative value in developing such a skill, and

many children simply cannot develop this capacity naturally (Hempenstall, 1997). To

understand how phonemes are represented by graphemes, children must require

some phonemic awareness (Adams, 1990).

Similarly, Robbins, Robbins and Kenny (2007) explain that, when it comes to

decoding simple words, the skill of phonemic awareness is essential. Without the

ability to decode simple words, the pupils have limited options for identifying the

word they are trying to learn – they would have to ask someone what the word is,

and then memorize it (Robbins, Robbins and Kenny). However, McGuinness (2004)

emphasizes that this is not a good long-term option, as there is a natural limit to the

capacity of a human’s brain to memorize ‘arbitrary visual symbols’, and since there

are nearly 2 million words within the English lexicon – this option is simply

unrealistic.

With this in mind, it may not be surprising to discover that gaining instruction from

phonics is difficult when children are lacking in phonemic awareness (Harrison,

Page | 16

2004; Adams et al. 1998). A study, conducted by Palmer and Reason (2000), that

involved using phonics to teach sounds to children in Years 1 and 2, concluded that

the volume and frequency of many of the words were too great for half of the

children, because their phonemic awareness was not sophisticated enough to

absorb them all.

Interestingly, (Muñoz et al, 2017; Fletcher-Flinn and Johnston, 1999; Fazio, 1997)

found that children from lower-income families are a lot more likely to experience a

lack of phonemic awareness than children from higher-income families.

Correspondingly, Hart and Risley (1995) estimate that at the age of three, children

from low-income families have heard ten-million words, those in middle-income

families - twenty-million words, and those from higher-income families could have

heard nearly thirty-million words. Therefore, given that Palmer and Reason’s (2000)

study was conducted with children from varying-income families, the results of the

study are hardly surprising.

This concept is further detailed by Thompson and Nicholson (1999), who state that

children from low-income backgrounds generally start school with lower levels of

phonemic awareness than their classmates from higher-income

backgrounds. Studies from Wallach and Wallach (1976) and Dickenson and Snow

(1987) found that children from lower-income backgrounds had great difficulty when

completing phonics related tests, such as pointing to a picture that begins with a

specific phoneme, and experienced great difficulty with rime awareness tasks, such

as whether the word ‘cat’ rhymes with ‘fat’ or foot’. Although dated, these studies’

Page | 17

results are support by more recent research from Leyva, Sparks and Reese (2012)

and Gillon (2012).

With these studies in mind, academics, such as (Pennington, 2009; Huata, 2006;

Smith, 1999), state that phonics simply should not be taught to children prior to

significant development in their phonemic awareness. This is, of course, difficult,

with mixed-income and mixed-ability classes – yet, the posed literature suggests that

teaching phonics to children with no phonemic awareness is merely a waste of time.

2.4 Read, Write, Inc.

Read Write Inc is a proprietary reading scheme, developed by Ruth Miskin, which

provides a ‘structured and systematic’ approach to the teaching of phonics in early

years (Oxford University Press, 2017). The scheme promises a “fun way” for all

children to learn the letters and the sounds that blend together to make words (Ruth

Miskin Training, 2017). RWI is claimed to adhere to the key aims of the National

Curriculum through its ‘systematic teaching approach’ and ‘inspiring resources’. As

an advocate of synthetic phonics, Miskin’s scheme is used to teach children the

individual phonemes, before blending them together to make whole words (Waugh,

Carter and Desmond, 2015). In Key Stage 1, children are introduced to the concept

of blending phonemes together using CVC (consonant-vowel-consonant) words, and

the early letter-sound correspondences make it possible to create many CVC words,

for example: sat, map, pat and so forth (Rosen, 2016). Devine (2015) explains that

in RWI, the individual sounds are referred to as ‘speed sounds’. A different speed

sound is the focus of each individual Read Write Inc lesson – the sound will be learnt

Page | 18

through a repetitive flashcard activity. The speed sound will then be the emphasis

within a short story, which will be read to and repeated by the children (Oxford

University Press, 2016).

Although Miskin is now deemed the ‘phonics queen’ by Wilby (2008), in an interview

with The Guardian, she admits that when it comes to phonics, she was once a

‘sinner’. When she originally started teaching, she believed that phonics ‘bored

children witless’ and put them off reading, but when she scrapped all phonics

resources, the children’s literacy results dropped at the end of the year. This led her

to believe that rather than rejecting phonics, they should just be taught in a more

interesting way – hence the development of RWI (Wilby).

Miskin (2008, in Wilby, 2008) developed RWI with children from low-income families

in mind – claiming that the children who lack certain ‘home advantages’ are in

desperate need of the phonics instruction that RWI aims to provide. However, this

concept is in complete contrast with the above studies, conducted by (Pennington,

2009; Huata, 2006; Smith, 1999), who deem phonics instruction as pointless if a

child lacks phonemic awareness, and, as already established, they are more likely to

lack this phonemic awareness if they are from a low-income family.

Although taught in over 5000 schools in the UK (Gunter and Mills, 2017), RWI has

received some criticisms over the years. Miskin’s approach has been deemed simply

inadequate, as more than half of the most common words in English are not

accessible using a purely synthetic phonics approach (Dombey, 2010). It is also

Page | 19

suggested by John Bangs, head of education at the NUT, that systematic phonics

approaches, such as RWI, are making the assumption that all children learn in the

same way (Scott, 2010). He believes that there is no one-size-fits-all, two-

dimensional solution to teaching reading.

There is also concern that proprietary reading schemes undermine the skills of the

individual teachers (Lefstein, 2005; Apple, 1981). With very clear step-by-step

instructions on the first page of each RWI book, little skill is needed to provide a RWI

lesson. The repetitive nature of RWI is also a cause for concern for Goodwyn and

Fuller (2012), who conducted interviews with teachers, and found that many of them

believe that the repetitive structure eventually leads to teacher boredom. Bentham

and Hutchins (2012) draw a link between teacher boredom and pupil motivation,

claiming that young children can pick up on teacher boredom, and subsequently, this

has a damaging effect on their motivation to partake in lessons.

Conclusion

To conclude, this literature review has presented the concept of phonics, the

difference between synthetic and analytic phonics and how studies have compared

them. The difficulties faced by children learning phonics who acquire a lack of

phonemic awareness has also been discussed, along with a discussion on Read

Write Inc, and its criticisms. Based upon the research outlined in this literature

review, this research project aims to provide readers with a deeper understanding of

RWI, and how a particular school implements this scheme, along with whether

Page | 20

teachers believe this way of teaching systematic phonics is suitable for a mixed-

ability KS1.

Page | 21

Chapter 3 – Research Design

Never has so much attention been focused on the findings of educational

research, and never has the need for critical evaluation of that research been

so strong

(Suter, 2011, p. 1)

Clear thinking about the process of educational research enables one to critically

evaluate the research, and construct educational studies by collecting the answers to

researchable questions. This chapter will outline how the research was conducted,

the methods chosen, and the ethical considerations that were adhered

to. Furthermore, it will explain the reasoning behind the decisions and use the

research gathered to comply with the need for critical evaluation, outlined by

Suter. Subsequently, if this study was to be repeated, this chapter should be a guide

in doing so.

3.1 Paradigm

A paradigm is a “cluster of beliefs and dictates” (D’Cruz and Jones, 2004, p. 29),

which influence what should be studied, how research should be done, and how

results should be interpreted. An interpretive paradigm has been identified as

appropriate for this study. The interpretive paradigm is underpinned by observations

– collecting certain information about events, and interpretations – generating

meaning from information (Aikenhead, 1997; Deetz, 1996). The school’s approach

Page | 22

to teaching reading, using RWI, is being reviewed. Therefore the personal

experiences, thoughts and opinions of the teaching staff are fundamental aspects of

the research. Acknowledging and understanding the importance of said aspects is

the key to success (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2011). Robert-Holmes (2014)

claims that this interpretivist approach does not allow for generalisations and

absolute truths. However, this research is only reviewing one school, and therefore

does not aim to make generalisations.

3.2 The Participating School

In order to gather good quality research, whilst allowing for time restraints, KS1 in a

placement school was the research focus. Conducting research in a familiar setting

means that during teacher interviews, the honesty and accuracy of the responses

can be more easily gauged by the researcher, and having similar experiences as the

teacher avoids any unnecessary questions being asked (Hockey, 2006; Riemer,

1977). Furthermore, limiting the research to one school allows in-depth research to

be conducted, as opposed to gaining a general overview that will not enable the

collection of such rich qualitative data.

3.3 Research Approach

In the early planning stages, it was apparent that devising research aims would allow

the study to be more focused. Research aims must be interesting, ethical, relevant,

manageable and simple (Hulley et al. 2011; Farrugia et al. 2010; English,

2002). Therefore, the aims of the research, set forth in Chapter 1, were in line with

these recommendations.

Page | 23

There is no straightforward way to ‘mechanically convert’ research aims into

methods, and methods are the means to reaching the research aims, rather than a

logical transformation of the latter (Phillips, 1987). The selection of the research

methods depends on which methods will work most effectively in the situation to

provide the data sought (Maxwell, 2005). Therefore, a case study method, including

observations and teacher interviews, would be the most effective and appropriate

method for this study.

Case studies, in their true essence, explore and investigate contemporary

real-life phenomenon through detailed contextual analysis of a limited number

of events or conditions and their relationships

(Zainal, 2007, p. 1)

Case studies allow close examination of data collected within the specific school

context, and allows for the understanding and exploration of complex issues

(Bryman, 2016; Gulsecen and Kubat, 2006). Furthermore, if this study had been

limited to quantitative methods, some important data may possibly have been

obscured (Tellis, 1997).

An exploratory case study was conducted, as this type of study is more unstructured,

and aims to generate hypotheses for future research (Bergh and Ketchen,

2009). The research collected was inductive, drawing conclusions and building

theory from primary research (Lichy, 2015; Yin, 1994).

Page | 24

3.4 Data Collection Tools

Observations

As its name implies, observations are a method of gathering data through observing

(Dudovskiy, 2016; Good, 1986) – aiming to develop a more detailed understanding

of what is being studied, to describe it in detail (Gomez-Galan, 2016; Waxman and

Huang, 1999; Brophy and Waxman, 1995). When collecting data through

observations, it was acknowledged that the observational data must provide readers

with the same level of understanding achieved by the researcher (Scott and

Morrison, 2007).

Observations allowed RWI to be observed in its naturalistic setting – the

classroom, providing a richer understanding of the scheme (Voogt and Knezek,

2008; Brain, 2000). Observations serve as a valuable tool to review and evaluate

the effectiveness of a school programme (Dirr, 2003), which is highly appropriate for

this study.

Simple, non-participant, unstructured observation was conducted. Simple

observation refers to the observer having no influence on the situation (Webb et al.

1966), and non-participant observations involve the researcher observing, yet not

participating in what is occurring (Bryman, 2016). Accordingly, in this study, there

was no researcher participation in the activities. In fact, in agreement with Zaare

(2013), the observer sat at the back of the classroom to ensure no distraction was

caused. The aim of an unstructured observation is to record as much detail as

possible, to develop a detailed narrative account of what is happening

Page | 25

(Bryman). Conforming to this, ‘continuous recording’ occurred – continuous

recording throughout the observations, not watching for specific behaviours (Martin

and Bateson, 2007).

However, issues could have arisen when conducting observations, regarding validity

- referring to the believability or credibility of the research (Ary et al. 2013).

Observations can be limited by reactivity. Also referred to as the Hawthorne Effect

(McCambridge et al. 2014), reactivity refers to the phenomenon in which the subject

changes their behaviour when they are aware they are being observed (Kazdin,

1981). This could have potentially affected the study’s results and, subsequently, the

interpretation of the observational data (Reynolds and Kamphaus, 2013). To

counteract this, being present in the setting over multiple periods allows teachers to

become used to an observer’s presence (Keller, 1986). Therefore, adhering to this,

a suitable amount of time was spent with both classes before the observations.

Although observations were beneficial to the research, they did not fully answer the

research questions. Therefore, interviews with the teachers and teaching assistants

were conducted when each observation was complete.

Interviews

Interviewing is the most commonly used data collection tool in qualitative research

(King and Horrocks, 2010). Interviewing involves encouraging the interviewee to

open up, and expand upon any knowledge they are willing to provide (Brenner,

2006; Gillham, 2000). Throughout, interviewers must convey their interest in what

Page | 26

the interviewee contributes, whilst encouraging them to speak expansively about a

topic (Howe and Dougherty, 1993).

Unstructured interviews were deemed appropriate for this research - allowing

flexibility (Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle, 2010). The interviewer set the direction of

the interview, and listened and responded to the answers given in a conversational

manner. The interviewees were encouraged to speak more than the interviewer, as

this is a characteristic of a ‘good interview’ - a feature that differentiates an interview

from an everyday conversation (Kvale, 1996; Spradley, 1979).

Various topic areas were written down to discuss, that aimed to provide the

researcher with a deeper understanding of the RWI scheme. To allow for as much

information as possible to be recorded, the questions and teachers’ answers were

typed out during the interview.

However, there were potential limitations. Firstly, participants may feel discomfort

and a sense if unwillingness to share information (Gates, 2007). Therefore, in line

with Marshall and Rossman (1995), participants were briefed on the topics they

would be asked about, and it was made clear that they could refuse to answer any

questions with no repercussions. Furthermore, Newman and Newman (2008)

explain the concept of self-presentation bias – when participants present themselves

in the way that they wish for the interviewer to see them. This could have impacted

the results of the study. Therefore, it was made clear that the dissertation is a review

of the scheme – not the teachers, reducing the risk that self-presentation bias

occurring.

Page | 27

3.5 Data Analysis

The observations were hand written and prominent themes to touch upon during

interviews were highlighted (see Appendix 2), and although the interview data was

typed, it was then processed into one document, and different colours were used to

format the data, highlighting the common themes (see Appendix 3). Bernard (2000)

refers to this process as the ‘ocular scan method’, which entails hunting for patterns

within qualitative data, allowing the researcher to easily search for common themes

(Ryan and Bernard, 2000; Dey, 1993).

3.6 Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations can be specified as one of the most important aspects of

research (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Ethics pertains to acting morally and avoiding

harm, and harm can be avoided through applying ethical principles (Palaologou,

2012; Orb, Eisenhauer and Wynaden, 2000). Therefore, in line with the British

Education Research Association (BERA, 2012), the following ethical considerations

were analysed thoroughly, before conducting the research.

Informed Consent

Informed consent is not just a signed form – but is a process, during which the

participant gains an understanding of the research and any risks involved (Office for

the Protection of Research Subjects, 2013). Therefore, prior to conducting any

research, the operational head teacher was provided with a gatekeeper consent

Page | 28

form, detailing the aims and details of the study, inviting any questions - in line with

the University’s Research Ethics Committee (University of Gloucestershire,

2017). Once this form was returned, the participants were issued with a similar form,

detailing the aims and the nature of the study. All forms enforced that participation in

the study was voluntary, in line with the ESRC Framework for Research Ethics

(2017, p. 1), who claim that, ‘research participants must participate in a voluntary

way, free from any coercion’. Each form explained that although the gatekeeper’s

permission had been received, the researcher wanted permission from individual

participants. It was also thought that seeking individual consent from the teachers

would lead to them being more cooperative during the interviews. (See Appendices

4 and 5)

Right to Withdraw

Research participants should always have the right to withdraw from the study, and

this should be made clear to all participants before signing any consent forms

(Seidman, 2015; Collins and Kneale, 2014). Therefore, participants were informed

that if they wished to withdraw at any time, they could make contact before the

study’s completion date, and any data could be removed.

Confidentiality

Confidentiality refers to an understanding between the participant and the

researcher, concerning how the data will be used (Anderson, 1998). Confidentiality

can also be viewed similarly to the principle of privacy (Gregory, 2003; Oliver,

2003). Adhering to the University of Gloucestershire’s (2017) ethical guidelines, the

Page | 29

consent forms stated that data would be kept private, with no possibility that any data

would make it possible to identify the participants (Boudah, 2010).

The next chapter will present, analyse and discuss the data gathered from the

research process outlined in this chapter.

Page | 30

Chapter 4 – Presentation of Data, Analysis and Discussion

This chapter aims to present and analyse the data collected. The research

consisted of observations of the RWI lessons, followed by unstructured interviews

with each member of staff in KS1. The data will be presented under the prominent

themes that arose, and these themes will be explored and analysed. A transcript of

the interview data, showing how it was organised for analysis, is available in

Appendix 2. This chapter will draw upon links with literature outlined in Chapters 2

and 3, in order to gain a deeper understanding of the topic, and the data collected.

4.1 Enjoyment

The question, “do the children seem to enjoy the Read Write Inc lessons?” was one

that was asked to each participant, and the responses were as shown:

Figure 1:

Year 1 Teacher “Yes”

Year 1 Teaching Assistant “Yes, they definitely enjoy them”

Year 2 Teacher “Usually”

Year 2 Teaching Assistant “Yes, they do like them”

These answers reflect the observational data, which highlighted that, exceptions

aside, the children generally seemed engaged and motivated during the RWI

lessons, which Hyson (2008) regards as a sign that the children are enjoying the

lesson. As outlined in the literature review, the scheme promises a “fun way” for

children to learn phonics (Ruth Miskin Training, 2017) – which, with regards to the

data collected, did seem apparent in the lessons at this setting. Interestingly, John

(1996) asserts that if children enjoy lessons, they become more motivated, and

Ferlazzo (2015) explains that when pupils feel more motivated, their academic

performance improves.

Page | 31

The theme of enjoyment became apparent upon adhering to the first research aim –

to examine the way in which a school teach KS1 children how to read, using Read

Write Inc. Upon reflection, although one-to-one unstructured interviews appear to

have the highest reliability (Conway et al, 1995), it is possible that the teachers may

have exaggerated how much the children enjoyed the lessons – perhaps being

concerned that disclosing that they did not enjoy the lessons would cause the

researcher to develop a negative perception of their teaching ability (Grinnell and

Unrau, 2010). Therefore, perhaps a more open question would have been

appropriate here, such as “What do you believe to be the children’s opinions of the

RWI lessons?”. This open question would have allowed the teachers to answer more

honestly (Glenn, 2011).

4.2 Lower Achieving Pupils (LAPs)

Presented as a significant theme within the literature review, acquiring poor

phonemic awareness skills makes it very difficult for children to learn to read through

the use of phonics. Although none of the participants specifically referred to any

children lacking in phonemic awareness, some responses indicated that this was the

case. When discussing the progression of the LAPs with the Year 1 teacher, she

claimed:

“they just have trouble matching the written letters with the actual sounds”

This is almost a word-for-word definition of phonemic awareness, presented in the

literature review:

Page | 32

The problem of associating letters with the phonemes [sounds] that represent them

(Thompson and Nicholson, 1999).

Further research into this topic highlighted that children from low-income

backgrounds are more likely to experience a lack of phonemic awareness in the

early years of school. Interestingly, this setting’s most recent Ofsted report stated

that in KS1, over two thirds of the pupils are eligible for the pupil premium – which is

additional funding to raise the attainment of learning for disadvantaged children,

generally from low-income backgrounds (DfE, 2014). This is well above the national

average (Ofsted, 2014). Therefore, if poor phonemic awareness is common in

children from low-income families, and phonemic awareness is so strongly linked

with phonics instruction, then one may question the school’s choice to implement a

scheme that is purely based on phonics – if over two thirds of the children are likely

to experience difficulties, due to a lack of phonemic awareness.

Furthermore, it was evident that the RWI scheme is very teacher-led. A diagram has

been devised to explain this concept more clearly:

Figure 2:

Read Write Inc

Training Providers

Year 1 Teacher

Group of children

Year 1 TA

Group of children

Training Providers

Year 2 Teacher

Group of children

Year 2 TA

Group of children

Page | 33

However, it is evident from research that a strong teacher-led style of teaching

reading is not suited to all children (Curtis and O-Hagan, 2014). Perhaps it could be

suggested that RWI does not take the child’s whole microsystem (Bronfenbrenner,

1979) into account, so it could therefore be suggested that the scheme is not

suitable for their needs. Bronfenbrenner’s ‘microsystem’ refers to the interactions

that occur within a child’s immediate surroundings, and for KS1 children, their

microsystem (see below) is likely to be limited to the family (Shaffer, 2008).

Figure 3

Donnelly (2016)

A child’s microsystem can have an impact on all aspects of the child’s life – including

education (Landon, 2014). The data collected shows that some of the LAPs receive

little-to-no parental reading guidance at home. The Year 1 teacher claimed that a

child’s father had reading difficulties, and therefore could not read with him.

Whatever the reasons may be, the idea is that reading at home with a parent is an

effective means of fostering reading comprehension and fluency (Baker, Dreher and

Guthrie, 2000). As shown in Figure 2, the knowledge starts with the reading

Page | 34

scheme, and ends with the child. Yet, in reality, it does not simply end with the child.

Therefore, Figure 4 is a more accurate representation of how a child should appear

in this reading scheme.

Figure 4

4.3 Higher Achieving Pupils (HAPs)

During the observation in the Year 1 class, a factor that immediately provoked

interest was that fact that there were a small group of children that were not joining in

with the RWI lesson. When asked about this, the teacher claimed that:

“they do so much extra work at home that they are well above the level that they are

meant to be, so I try to set them harder things”

In fact, the participants all agreed that the HAPs need to be pushed harder – the

Year 2 teacher even disclosed that a HAP’s mother has requested that her daughter

The Child

Parents

Older sibling

Grandparents

Wider Family

Page | 35

partake in more difficult reading activities, but the teacher claimed that this request is

not possible, as they “don’t have the staff”.

Again, this concept can be related back to the child’s microsystem, and how the RWI

scheme does not take this factor into account. As considered in Figure 4, the child’s

reading ability can be influenced by all of the people in their immediate environment

(microsystem). Although the LAPs may fall behind due to a lack of support from their

microsystem, it is possible that the RWI scheme is not suitable for HAPs, as they

become ‘too advanced’ from so much support from their microsystem. The National

Child Development Study (in Carnie, 2011) discovered that children with parents that

show a high level of interest in their reading ability generally acquire more advanced

reading skills. Yet, one could question if it is fair that children that are encouraged so

much at home cannot fully partake in RWI lessons because they are so ahead of

their lesser-able peers. However, it seems as though this is not a problem subject to

just this setting, as many parents of higher achieving children often show concern

that their children are being ‘held back’ due to the lesson content being at a level to

meet the needs of the lower ability pupils (First, 1991).

Although associating this particular issue with Bronfenbrenner’s microsystem derived

from the research results, it may have been beneficial to discuss this concept with

the teachers involved, to explore the idea that RWI does not take the children’s

microsystem into consideration.

Exploring whether this approach is suitable for all abilities in the KS1 in this setting

was in line with the second research aim, and questions in the interview were

Page | 36

designed specifically to meet this aim. All participants were asked to elaborate upon

whether they believed this scheme was suitable for all abilities in KS1. The

responses revealed that the teachers believe the scheme is not suitable for the very

low achieving pupils, and some of the high achieving pupils, therefore indicating that

it is only suitable for the children meeting the average, or MAPs (middle achieving

pupils). As analysed in the literature review, teaching reading is not a one-size-fits-

all process (Whitney, 2010). However, teaching children how to read should be multi-

dimensional and child-centered (Rose and Rogers, 2012; Tzuo, 2007). Therefore,

the idea that the setting is implementing a scheme that is not suitable for every

single child could be flagged as a cause for concern.

The research aim was met, as the data did explore whether or not the scheme was

suitable for all abilities, and this was achieved by providing the teachers to reflect

upon a possible aspect of RWI that they may not have considered before.

4.4 Staff

All of the participants claimed that the lessons would be more effective if they had

more members of staff, so that the groups of children would be smaller. When the

Year 2 class teacher was asked what she would ask the extra staff to do, she

claimed:

“I think I’d ask them to go and find even more members of staff to bring with them”

When teachers work with smaller groups of children, they are able to provide

individualised instruction (Hassel and Hassel, 2004). Therefore, the logic behind the

teachers believing that extra staff would make the scheme more effective was

Page | 37

apparent in each observation, especially in Year 1 – where a few children were ‘too

advanced’ to join in, and the rest of the class were split into two groups, with around

13 children in each. The class size is 30 children, 13 children per group (minus the

few that were not partaking), therefore, this may already sound like a small group of

children. However, groups of up to four children can be as effective as one-to-one

(Blatchford, 2003). Therefore, their desire to have more staff involved with delivering

the RWI lessons can be seen as justified.

However, the teachers unanimously acknowledged that the idea of more teaching

assistants being hired to teach RWI is unrealistic, or to quote one participant, ‘not do-

able’. The National Careers Service (2017) state that the salary of an experienced

teaching assistant is, on average, around £15,000 per annum. If this setting was to

hire two more TAs (one for each KS1 class), then this would cost the school £30,000

– even two part time TAs (assuming it is half the salary) would cost them £15,000.

Considering the cheapest training package for RWI is £2,500 + VAT (see Figure 6)

before purchasing the books (Ruth Miskin Training, 2017) – the scheme is already

costing the school a significant amount of money, without this additional expense.

Figure 5:

Package Price

Phonics Package £2,750 + VAT

Fresh Start Package £2,750 + VAT

Literacy and Language Package £2,500 + VAT

Advanced Training Package 1 £2,700 + VAT

Advanced Training Package 2 £3,850 + VAT

Development Day Bundle £3,000 + VAT

Furthermore, even if the cost could be justified, this would still not address the issue

regarding the children’s microsystems. Although each child would be able to receive

Page | 38

more individualised instruction in smaller groups (Hassel and Hassel, 2004) – if the

LAPs are still receiving little reading support from those within their microsystem,

learning to read with RWI could remain challenging for them.

This theme was not preconceived prior to the interviews being conducted. On

reflection, although unstructured interviews should not reflect any preconceived

ideas (Polit and Beck, 2010; Gill et al. 2008; Morse, 1990), it would have been

beneficial in this case to have thoroughly considered and analysed as many potential

ideas that may have arisen in the teacher interviews. This would have allowed

certain areas, such as the idea of more staff, to have been explored in more depth,

rather than questions to probe further detail being constructed on the spot.

4.5 Repetitiveness

It was evident in the observations that the children knew what was expected of them.

For example, when the Year 2 teacher instructed the children to ‘quickly go through

the speed sounds’ this needed no further instruction, and the children all instantly

knew what was expected from them. Perhaps this is because the RWI scheme is

very repetitive – each week follows the same structure, just with a different set of

phonics to learn and practice. The teachers unanimously agreed that the

repetitiveness of the scheme was good for the children, and that the children enjoyed

this aspect of it, because they “like to know what’s coming next”. However, it is

interesting to note the differing responses of the teachers, when they were asked

their thoughts regarding the repetitiveness of the scheme:

Page | 39

Figure 6:

Year 1 Teacher “We always mix it up a bit, so as long as it helps them I don’t mind it being repetitive”

Year 1 Teaching Assistant “We mix it up in this class so they don’t get bored of what they’re doing, so I think it is fine”

Year 2 Teacher “I don’t like it, personally. I think it is quite boring and that’s not what learning should be about”

Year 2 Teacher Assistant “That’s the thing I don’t like about it – I know it’s different stories but the red books are about 30 words per book – not very exciting”

Notice that the Year 1 staff claim that they “mix it up”, and do not mind the repetitive

nature of the reading scheme, whilst the Year 2 staff do not disclose any information

about mixing up the lessons, and both the Year 2 staff claim to dislike the

repetitiveness. Perhaps the Year 1 teachers do not find it boring, as they, to quote

“mix it up”. Yet, just how effective are the lessons that are not following the precise

structure of RWI?

When asked to extend upon how she mixed the lessons up, the Year 1 teacher

claimed that as the group “loves drawing”, she sometimes provides them with

drawing activities, and justifies this by stating that this activity “gets the chatting

about what they’re drawing, which will be related to the speed sounds they’re

learning”. There are numerous criticisms brought to light here:

1. The teacher simply cannot control conversations between multiple children.

“Chatting” about what they are drawing, and using the new speed sounds

could very well occur, yet the teacher would face difficulties listening in to the

Page | 40

conversations of 6/7 pairs of children, ensuring they are practising the new

phonic.

2. Although art has come under curriculum and political pressure over the years

(Jolley, 2013) and this is by no means undermining its importance – Read

Write Inc is a reading scheme, not an art scheme.

3. The same teacher also claims that the parents all appear to be happy with the

progress their children are making. This is, of course, positive – yet, it could

be questioned whether they would remain happy with their progress if they

knew that a teacher was not quite following the precise structure.

4. As outlined in the literature review, phonics is a reading approach that

involves linking letters to spoken sounds (Waugh, Carter and Desmond,

2015). This drawing activity, however, holds no consideration to this type of

phonics instruction, as the children are not learning to link the letters with the

spoken sounds – they are merely completing an activity that relies on them to

practise the spoken sounds. In line with McNee (2012), this is a slow-paced

activity, which can be completed without noting the words/phonemes that are

being taught. The statutory guidance within the National Curriculum for

reading in KS1 contains a detailed list of what teachers can do to help

children learn to read with phonics, and not one of these points includes any

activities that do not involve children having contact with written

words/graphemes.

Page | 41

5. Lastly, a lesson-consistency problem may occur when the Year 1 children

transition into Year 2. If the Year 1 teachers provide more variety in their

Read Write Inc lessons (effectivity aside), it is possible that the children may

deem the RWI lessons ‘boring’ when in Year 2, compared to their experience

with the scheme in Year 1. If children regard the lessons as boring, this could

have a negative impact on their lesson engagement (Wiggins, 2014), having a

negative impact on their reading improvement and attainment (Wagner et al.

2012).

Criticisms aside – perhaps the factor worth analysing at this point is why some staff

members felt the need to stray from the RWI structure in the first place. As detailed

in the literature review, a study that conducted interviews with teachers found that

many believe that the repetitive structure that is required of propriety reading

schemes eventually leads to teacher boredom. At this point, it is important to note

that the Year 1 teacher and TA have been working within KS1 for around 4 years

longer than the Year 2 teacher and TA. Therefore, perhaps the explanation for this

is that, having more experience with propriety reading schemes, the teachers have

grown to become bored of teaching in this structured way, and have tried to vary the

lessons, but this variation, with no guidance from the RWI scheme, can be

considered ineffective.

However, the knowledge that the participants all had a varying number of years of

experience within KS1 was known prior to the conduction of the research.

Therefore, if this study was to be repeated in a different setting, a question regarding

Page | 42

how long each participant had worked within KS1 would be important to include, as

otherwise, a similar link (if present) would not be able to be explored.

4.6 Expectations in the Statutory Guidance in the National Curriculum

The third research aim was to discover whether teachers believed that RWI was

enabling children to meet the expectations outlined in the Statutory Guidance within

the National Curriculum. Therefore, all of the participants were asked to elaborate

on this, and the general consensus was that it is allowing the majority of the children

to meet the expectations outlined, but not the lowest of the low achieving pupils. Yet,

one of the main responsibilities of a school is to follow the statutory guidance that is

provided in the National Curriculum (Hornby, 2014), and it has been highlighted that

RWI is not catering for all abilities in KS1 in this setting. Also set forth in the

literature review, Ruth Miskin (2017) claims that RWI adheres to the aims within the

National Curriculum, and although ‘the majority’ of the children are meeting these

expectations – this is not the case for all children.

The observations highlighted that some of the children in both KS1 classes lacked in

phonemic awareness – having great difficulty matching the phonemes with their

associated graphemes, and this could explain why the teachers do not believe that

RWI is enabling all of the children to meet these expectations. As presented in the

literature review, in order to understand how phonemes are represented by

graphemes, children must require some phonemic awareness. In fact, by Year 2,

the children should “be able to read all common graphemes”. As highlighted, this is

very difficult for children that lack phonemic awareness. Perhaps it could be

Page | 43

suggested that the statutory guidance within the national curriculum, along with RWI,

do not take phonemic awareness issues into much consideration.

However, when constructing the research aims, the assumption was made that the

participants would be familiar with the statutory guidance under consideration – yet,

it may have been the case that the participants were aware of the guidance, but

were not overly familiar with it. Therefore, the answers for the question regarding the

statutory guidance in the National Curriculum may be slightly unreliable, as it is not

unusual for participants to still give an answer to a question that they do not

understand, rather than state that they do not have a full understanding of the

question (Holder, 2016; Wallace, 2013; Mitchell and Jolley, 2012). Perhaps as they

were qualified members of staff, and therefore they presumably wanted to set a good

example to the researcher, they did not wish to disclose that their answer may not be

fully reliable, not having an extensive understanding of the guidance in question

(O’Hara, et al 2011; Grieg, Taylor and Mackay, 2007). However, questioning

whether the teachers had knowledge regarding the statutory guidance may have

caused them to feel patronised, and this could have developed a poor rapport,

perhaps implementing the quality and the answers provided (Clark et al. 2014).

Therefore, the question could have been worded in a way in which asked the

question, and provided the significant parts of the guidance that the researcher was

asking about. For example:

“I have been doing research regarding the statutory guidance for reading in the

National Curriculum, and found it interesting that at this stage, the children should be

able to […] – do you believe RWI is enabling them to meet this aim?”

Page | 44

Chapter 5 - Conclusion

This chapter aims to summarise the key findings that arose when trying to achieve

the research aims, whilst critically reflecting upon the research process – and will

make recommendations based upon the research findings. Additionally, this chapter

will draw upon possible areas for future research, and will end with a brief conclusion

of the entire research project.

5.1 Key findings

When trying to achieve the first research aim - examine the way in which a school

teach KS1 children how to read, using Read Write Inc – it was found that the children

generally show signs of enjoying the RWI lessons, which is said to have a positive

impact on their motivation, and therefore their reading attainment. Furthermore, the

scheme is very repetitive, and the teachers’ opinions on this were divided.

However, when meeting the second research aim - explore whether Read Write Inc

is a suitable teaching approach for all abilities in the Key Stage 1 in this setting – it

was evident that RWI is not a suitable approach for the some of the LAPs and HAPs.

Deeper analysis highlighted that this could be due to the support these children are

receiving from their microsystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), and as the scheme does

not take this idea into account – it is insufficient for the reading needs of these

children. Each interview also highlighted that more staff involved in teaching the

scheme would be ideal, but unrealistic, due to cost factors. Upon further analysis,

even if cost was not an issue – the idea regarding the children’s microsystems is still

Page | 45

not considered. Therefore, although this was a prominent theme – it seems rather

irrelevant to the research process.

Lastly, with regards to the last research aim - determine whether Read Write Inc is

enabling pupils to meet the expectations outlined in the Statutory Guidance within

the National Curriculum – this question was directly asked to each of the

participants, and despite the varying opinions of the scheme, the teachers all

claimed that they believed the scheme was enabling most of the pupils to meet these

expectations, but not all.

It is important at this point to reaffirm that no generalisations have been made from

the results of this study, as the sample is not statistically representative of the whole

KS1 population, as it is subject to this setting. Therefore, should this research be

carried out in another setting, varying results would be expected (Falk and Guenther,

2006).

5.2 Recommendations drawn from research

Devising recommendations drawn from research results is an important aspect on

any case study research (Polonsky and Waller, 2010). Therefore, upon deeper

analysis of the results, the recommendations are as followed.

Utilise the Library’s Resources

With regards to learning to read, in order for children to transition from ‘accuracy’ to

‘automaticity’ – they need to read frequently (Dougherty-Stahl and McKenna, 2006).

In fact, children that read at home show rapid reading improvement in the early years

of schooling (Lawrence, 2004). However, there is a rather large number of children

Page | 46

in KS1 in this setting that are from low-income backgrounds – indicating that they are

likely to have fewer books in their home due to cost factors (Kreider and

Westmoreland, 2011).

The school has an extensive library, which could be utilised more effectively.

Successful school libraries are well-used, and use innovate approaches to engage

children in reading (Greenwood, Creaser and Maynard, 2008). Therefore, a potential

recommendation could be to organise the school’s library in a way that means

children can find books to read that match up with the new sounds that they have

been learning throughout the week in the RWI lessons. Each child could take a book

home, allowing them to practice and develop their newly learnt phonics. Perhaps

extra reading practice would help to bridge the gap between the LAPs and their

higher achieving peers, allowing them to progress more quickly through the RWI

books and develop phonemic awareness.

Based on this, a further recommendation would be to incorporate the children’s

chosen books into the RWI lessons at least once a week, perhaps allowing each

child to read a page of their book to the class, or participating in quiet reading, and

the teacher could aim to spend a few minutes listening to each child read within the

half an hour session. This may reduce the likelihood of teacher boredom – along

with the negative impacts that this brings – and further practice could enable the

LAPs to develop their phonemic awareness.

Although this seems to be tailored around the children from low-income

backgrounds, even for children from higher income backgrounds can benefit from

this, as phonics, like any other skill, improves with practice (Hiskes, 2010; Blevins,

1998).

Page | 47

Peer Tutoring

Another recommendation drawn from the results gathered is the idea of peer tutoring

– when the more advanced learners adopt a tutor role in order to assist a lesser-

abled peer (Jarvis, 2005). In this case, the recommendation would be that the higher

achieving pupils are paired with one of the lower achieving pupils. This

implementation would require thorough consideration, as the Department of

Education and Skills (2011) claim that peer tutoring has the opportunity to be a

powerful agent, for reading.

With regards to peer tutoring, Topping and Maloney (2004) explain that low

achievers often benefit from the individualised instruction that is provided by their

higher-achieving peers, and this is extended upon by Nardiello (2009), who claims

that peer tutoring is a highly effective way to improve the phonemic awareness of

such low achieving pupils. A study by Lancy (1994) highlighted that when pupils

received support from a peer, their phonemic awareness showed much

development.

Vygotsky (1987) claimed that learning occurs most effectively when it a child is

learning within their zone of proximal development (ZPD). The ZPD consists of

activities that a child could not complete alone, but could complete with the

assistance of a higher ability peer – which is in line with the recommendation of peer

tutoring in the setting, as it would allow the LAPs to learn within their ZPD.

Page | 48

Moreover, further analysis of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) eco-systems theory

highlighted that, along with parents, peers are also a component of the microsystem.

Therefore, it could be beneficial for a low achieving child to receive reading support

from a higher achieving pupil, especially if they are not receiving any type of reading

support from their parents (Brain and Mukherji, 2005).

Similarly to the former recommendation, variety of the RWI lessons may reduce the

risk of the teachers, and more importantly, the pupils, becoming bored with the

scheme.

5.3 Critique of the research

Upon planning, unstructured interviews were deemed the most appropriate for this

research, due to the flexibility that they allow (Kumar, 2010). Yet, upon reflection, it

seems as though semi-structured interviews may have been more appropriate for

this study, as they still allow for flexibility, yet they portray the interviewer as being

more prepared, and therefore more competent (Shapiro and Kratochwill, 2000).

Furthermore, preparing questions beforehand generally results in more comparable

qualitative data, as asking the participants similar questions would be ensured (Nezu

and Nezu, 2007). However, as a novice researcher, this weakness will not have any

impact on the school involved (Ellis and Levy, 2009). In future practice, more

thorough scrutiny of each data collection tool will occur prior to the conduction of the

research, to ensure the most appropriate method is selected.

Page | 49

For over 50 years, the topic of phonics has been at the heart of controversies

regarding the teaching of reading (Au, Carroll and Scheu, 1997). Subsequently, the

readings and studies based upon phonics are innumerable. Therefore, critically

reading the literature was essential, to prioritise the most prominent studies and

literature to review, analyse and relate to the study (Barnard, 2010).

McCuan (1996) emphasises the importance of time management skills during the

research process – they are essential skills, needed to ensure the completion of

specific tasks by their required deadlines. Time management only became an issue

in this process when it came to organising the times and dates to carry out the

observations and interviews, as often, when the Year 1 class had their RWI session,

commitments had already been made with the Year 2 class. However, enough time

had been dedicated to the research process to ensure that this was not a major

issue – merely a minor setback. Furthermore, the time constraints of the study

meant motivation and discipline were essential throughout the research process

(Kumar, 2014; Meerah, Johar and Ahmad, 2011).

5.4 Further lines of enquiry

If the opportunity to repeat this research arose, an aspect to explore could be how

the progression, implicit in RWI, is tested and tracked. This way, the qualitative data

already collected could be strengthened by quantitative data, such as test scores

and rates of improvement (Flick, 2013).

Page | 50

Furthermore, Conner (2003) draws a direct link between assessment results to the

quality of learning and teaching, suggesting that the better the teaching, the better

the results. To investigate this further, a comparison of two school’s approaches to

RWI would be appropriate. Observations and interviews would be used as the data

collection tools, and to deepen the analysis, quantitative data, such as test results,

would also be gathered. This type of mixed research methods approach places

emphasis on the integration of alternative approaches, and would encourage an

explicit account of how the scheme is implemented in two different settings

(Denscombe, 2014). Prominent themes would be highlighted in both sets of data,

and the quantitative data would be examined, to draw upon any conclusions made,

and make comparisons between the two schools’ approaches (Cunningham, 2011).

Highlighting strengths and weaknesses in both schools’ approaches may be

beneficial to practice of delivering RWI lessons (Johnson et al. 2009). Furthermore,

the comparative aspect would explore whether the issues highlighted in this setting

(e.g. the idea that RWI is not suitable for all abilities) were subject to just this setting,

or could draw upon a generalisation for the Read Write Inc scheme as a whole

(Tashakkori and Teddie, 2010).

5.5 Conclusion

To conclude, the aims of the research project were met, but room was left for further

analysis. The school’s approach to teaching reading with Read Write Inc was

examined thoroughly, along with an exploration into whether the scheme was suited

to meet the needs of all abilities in KS1, and if teachers believed RWI was allowing

the children to meet the expectations set forth in the statutory guidance in the

Page | 51

National Curriculum. However, if the time frame had not been restricted, a similar

study would have been carried out within another KS1 setting, in order to cross-

examine the data collected, and draw conclusions from the comparisons. This way,

all of the issue that arose in the data could either be deemed as a generalisation for

Read Write Inc as a scheme, or deemed subject to this particular setting.

Page | 52

References

Adams, M. (1990) Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.

Cambridge: MIT Press.

Adams, M., Foorman, I., Lundberg, I., Beeler, T. (1998) Phonemic Awareness in

Young Children: A Classroom Curriculum. Cambridge: Paul Brookes Publishing.

Adonic, A. and Hughes, B. (2007) Letters and Sounds: Principles and Practice of

High Quality Phonics. Available at:

http://www.schoolslinks.co.uk/LettersAndSounds.pdf (Accessed 12 April 2017).

Aikenhead, G. (1997) ‘Toward a First Nations cross-cultural science and

technology curriculum’, Science and Education. 81(1), pp. 217-238.

Alexander, R. (2012) Policy and Practice in Primary Education. London:

Routledge.

Anderson, G. (1998) Fundamentals of Educational Research. London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Apple, M. (1981) ‘Curricular Form and the Logic of Technical Control’, Economic

and Industrial Democracy. 2(3), pp. 293-319.

Page | 53

Ary, D. Jacobs, L., Sorensen, C., Walker, D. (2013) Introduction to Research in

Education. UK: Cengage Learning.

Au, K., Carroll, J., Scheu, J. (1997) Balanced literacy instruction: A Teacher’s

resource book. MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Baker, L., Dreher, M., Guthrie, J. (2000) Engaging Young Readers: Promoting

Achievement and Motivation. London: The Guilford Press.

Barnard, A. (2010) Key Themes in Health and Social Care: A Companion to

Learning. London: Routledge.

BBC (2007) England falls in reading league. Available at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7117230.stm (Accessed 12 April 2017).

Bentham, S., Hutchins, R. (2012) Improving Pupil Motivation Together: Teachers

and Teaching Assistants Working Collaboratively. London: Routledge.

Bergh, D., Ketchen, D. (2009) Research Methodology in Strategy and

Management. USA: Emerald Group Publishing.

Bernard, R. (2000) Social Research methods: Quantitative and Qualitative

Research Approaches: London: Sage.

Blatchford, P. (2003) The Class Size Debate: Is Small Better?. Maidenhead:

Open University Press.

Page | 54

Blevins, W. (1998) Phonics from A to Z. A Practical Guide. London: Scholastics

Professional Books.

Boudah, D. (2010) Conducting Educational Research: Guide to Completing a

Major Project. London: SAGE.

Brain, C. (2000) Advanced Subsidary Psychology: Approaches and Methods.

Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.

Brain, C., Mukherji, P. (2005) Understanding Child Psychology. Cheltenham:

Nelson Thornes.

Brenner, M. (2006) ‘Interviewing in Educational Research’, Handbook of

Complementary Methods in Education. Pp. 357-370.

British Educational Research Association (2011) Ethical Guidelines for

Educational Research. London: BERA.

Burkard, T. (1999) The End of Illiteracy? The Holy Grail of Clackmannanshire.

London: Centre for Policy Studies.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by

Nature and Design. London: Harvard University Press.

Page | 55

Brophy, J., Good, T. (1986) Handbook of research on teaching. New York:

Macmillan.

Bryrman, A. (2016) Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007) Business Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Byrne, B. (1998) The foundation of literacy: The child’s acquisition of the

alphabetic principle. UK: Psychology Press.

Byrne, B., Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1989) ‘Phonemic awareness and letter

knowledge in the child’s acquisition of the alphabetic principle’. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 81(1), pp. 313–321.

Callinan, C. and van der Zee, E. (2010) ‘A comparative study of two methods of

synthetic phonics instruction for learning how to read: Jolly phonics and

THRASS’, The Psychology of Education Review. 34(1), pp. 21-31.

Carnie, F. (2011) Parent Participation Handbook. Kent: Optimus Education.

Chew, J. (1997) ‘Traditional Phonics: What it is and what it is not’, Journal of

Research in Reading. 20(3), pp. 171-183.

Page | 56

Chew, J. (2010) The recent history of government initiatives in the early teaching

of reading. Available at:

http://www.rrf.org.uk/pdf/History%20of%20Govt%20initiatives%20J%20Chew.pdf

(Accessed 10 April 2017).

Clark, A., Flewitt, R., Hammersley, M., Robb, M. (2014) Understanding research

with children and young people. London: Sage.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2011) Research Methods in Education.

London: Routledge.

Collins, S., Kneale, P. (2017) Study Skills for Psychology Students: A Practical

Guide. London: Routledge.

Conner, C. (2003) Assessment in Action in the Primary School. London:

Routledge.

Conrad, C., Serlin, R. (2005) The SAGE Handbook for Research in Education:

Engaging Ideas and Enriching Inquiry. London: Sage.

Conwey, J., Jako, R., Goodman, D. (1995) ‘A meta-analysis of interrater and

internal consistency reliability of selection interviews’, Journal of Applied

Psychology. 80(1), pp. 565-579.

Page | 57

Cunningham, D. (2011) Improving Teaching with Collaborative Action Research:

An ASCD Action Tool. VA: ASCD.

Crystal, D. (1987) Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Curtis, A., O’Hagan, M. (2014) Care and Education in Early Childhood: A

Student’s Guide to Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.

D’Cruz, H. and Jones, M. (2004) Social Work Research: Ethical and Political

Contexts. London: SAGE.

Deetz, S. (1996) ‘Crossroads – Describing Differences in Approaches to

Organization Science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and Their Legacy’,

Organization Science. 7(2), pp. 191-207.

Denscombe, M. (2014) The Good Research Guide: For Small-sclae Social

Research. McGraw-Hill Education.

Department for Education (2014) Pupil premium: funding and accountability for

schools. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pupil-premium-information-

for-schools-and-alternative-provision-settings(Accessed 16 May 2017)

Department for Education (2014) Statutory Guidance: National curriculum in

England: English programmes of study. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pupil-premium-information-for-schools-and-alternative-provision-settings(Accessed

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pupil-premium-information-for-schools-and-alternative-provision-settings(Accessed

Page | 58

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-

english-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-english-

programmes-of-study#key-stage-1---year-2 (Accessed 11 March 2017).

Department for Education and Employment (1998) The National Literacy

Strategy: Framework for Teaching. London: DfEE.

Department for Education and Employment (1999) Progression in Phonics.

London: DfEE.

Department for Education and Skills (2004) Playing with Sounds: A Supplement

to Progression in Phonics. London: DfES.

Department of Education and Skills (2011) Literacy and Numeracy for Learning

and Life: The National Plan to Improve Literacy and Numeracy among Children

and Young People. Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Devine, A. (2015) Literacy for Visual Learners: Teaching Children with Learning

Difficulties to Communicate and Create. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Dey, I. (1993) Qualitative Data Analysis: a User Friendly Guide for Social

Scientists. London: Routledge.

Dickinson, D., Snow, C. (1987) ‘Interrelationships among prereading and oral

language skills from two social classes’ Early Childhood Research Quarterly.

2(1), pp. 1-25.

Page | 59

Dirr, P. (2003) Classroom observation protocols: Potential tools for measuring the

impact of technology in the classroom. Vancouver: ATEC.

Dombey, H. (2010) Teaching Reading: What the evidence says. UK: United

Kingdom Literacy Association.

Donnelly, A. (2006) Family Problems: one of the biggest issues for our young

people. Available at: https://www.jigsaw.ie/news-and-events/post/family-

problems-one-of-the-biggest-issues-for-our-young-people (Accessed 18 May

2017).

Dougherty-Stahl, K., McKenna, M. (2006) Reading Research at Work:

Foundations of Effective Practice. London: Guilford Press.

Dudovskiy, J. (2016) Observation: Research Methodology. Available at:

http://research-methodology.net/research-methods/qualitative-

research/observation/ (Accessed 16 April 2017).

Ehri, L., Nunes, S., Stahl, S., Willows, D. (2001) ‘Systematic phonics instruction

helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-

analysis.’ Review of Educational Research. 71(1), pp. 393-447.

Ellis, T., Levy, Y. (2009) Towards a Guide for Novice Researchers on Research

Methodology: Review and Proposed Methods. Available at:

http://iisit.org/Vol6/IISITv6p323-337Ellis663.pdf (Accessed 16 May 2017).

Page | 60

English, L. (2002) Handbook of International Research in Mathematics

Education. London: Routledge.

ESRC (2017) Research Ethics. Available at:

http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics/ (Accessed

25 April 2017).

Falk, I., Guenther, J. (2006) Generalising from Qualitative Research: Case

studies from VET in Contexts. Queensland.

Farrugia, P., Petrisor, B., Farrokhyar, F., Bhandari, M. (2010) ‘Research

questions, hypotheses and objectives’, Canadian Journal of Surgery. 53(4), pp.

278-281.

Fazio, B. (1997) ‘Learning a new poem: Memory for connected speech and

phonological awareness in low-income children with and without specific

language impairment’, Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research.

40(1), pp. 1285-1297.

Ferlazzo, L. (2015) Building a Community of Self-Motivated Learners: Strategies

to Help Students Thrive in School and Beyond. London: Routledge.

First, J. (1991) The Good Common School: Making the Vision Work for All

Children. Texas: The Coalition.

Page | 61

Fitzpatrick, J. (2008) Phonemic Awareness: Playing with Sounds to Strengthen

Beginning Reading Skills. California: Creative Teaching Press.

Fletcher-Flinn, C., Johnston, R. (1999) Do poor readers have a deficit in

phonological awareness? Melbourne: AARE.

Flick, U. (2013) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. London:

Sage.

Gates, G. (2007) Emergin Thought and Research on Student, Teacher, and

Administrator Stress and Coping. USA: IAP.

Geske, A., Ozola, A. (2008) ‘Factors influencing reading literacy at the Primary

School Level’, Problems of Education in the 21st Century. 6(1), pp. 71-77.

Gibb, N. (2012) Reading at an early age the key to success. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/reading-at-an-early-age-the-key-to-success

(Accessed 12 May 2017)

Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., Chadwick, B. (2008) ‘Methods of data

collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups’, British Dental

Journal. 1(1) pp. 291-295.

Gillham, B. (2000) Research Interview. London: Continuum.

Page | 62

Gillon, G. (2012) Phonological Awareness: From Research to Practice. London:

Guilford Press.

Glazzard, J., Stokoe, J. (2013) Teaching Systematic Synthetic Phonics and Early

English. Northwich: Critical Publishing.

Glenn, C. (2011) The Harbrace Guide to Writing. USA: Cengage Learning.

Goodwyn, A., Fuller, C. (2012) The Great Literacy Debate: A Critical Reponse to

the Literacy Strategy and the Framework for English. London: Routledge.

Gomez-Galan, J. (2016) Educational Research in Higher Education. USA: River

Publishers.

Goodman, K. (1998) In defense of good teaching: what teachers need to know

about reading wars. York: Stenhouse Publishers.

Graham, J., Kelly, A. (2000) Reading Under Control: Teaching reading in the

primary school. Abingdon: Routledge.

Greenwood, H., Creaser, C., Maynard, S. (2008) Successful primary school

libraries: Case studies of good practice. Loughborough: LISU.

Gregory, I. (2003) Ethics in Research. London: Continuum.

Page | 63

Greig, A., Taylor, J., Mackay, T. (2007) Doing research with children: a practical

guide. London: Sage.

Grinnell, R., Unrau, Y. (2010) Social Work Research and Evaluation: Foundations

of Evidence-Based Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gulsecen, S. and Kubat, A. (2006) ‘Teaching ICT to teacher candidates using

PBL: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation’, Educational Technology &

Society, 9 (2), pp. 96-106.

Gunter, H., Mills, C. (2017) Consultants and Consultancy: the Case of Education.

Manchester: Springer.

Harrison, C. (2004) Understanding Reading Development. London: Sage.

Hart, B., Risley, T. (1995) Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of

young American children. Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing.

Hassel, B., Hassel, E. (2004) Picky Parent Guide: Choose Your Child’s School

with Confidence: The Elementary Years. Ross: Armchair Press.

Hempenstall, K. (1997) The Effects on the Phonological Processing Skills of

Disabled Readers of Participating in Direct Instruction Reading Programmes.

Available at: https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:9531/Hempenstall.pdf

(Accessed 15 May 2017).

Page | 64

Hiskes, D. (2010) Phonics Pathways: Clear Steps to Easy Reading and Perfect

Spelling. London: John Wiley and Sons.

Hockey, J. (2006) ‘Research Methods – researching peers and familiar settings’,

Research Papers in Education. 8(2), pp. 199-225.

Holder, S. (2016) Sociology: Research Methods and Theories. UK: S.K. Holder.

Hornby, G. (2014) Inclusive Special Education: Evidence-Based Practices for

Children with Special Needs and Disabilities. London: Springer.

House of Commons Educations and Skills Committee (2005) Teaching Children

to Read: Eigth Report of Session 2004-2005. Report, Together with Formal

Minutes, Oral and Written Evidence. London: The Stationery Office Limited.

Howe, K., Dougherty, K. (1993) ‘Ethics, institutional review boards, and the

changing face of educational research’, Educational Researcher. 22(9), pp. 16-

21.

Huata, D. (2006) The Reading Race: How Every Child Can Learn to Read. New

Zealand: Huia Publishers.

Hulley, S., Cummings, S., Browner, W., Grady, D., Newman, T. (2011) Designing

Clinical Research. London: Wolters Kluwer.

Page | 65

Hurford, D., Darrow, L., Edwards, T., Howerton, C., Mote, C., Schauf, J., Coffey,

P. (1993) ‘An examination of phonemic processing abilities in children during their

first-grade year’, Journal of Learning Disabilities. 26(3), pp. 167-177.

Hyson, M. (2008) Enthusiastic and Engaged Learners: Approaches to Learning in

the Early Childhood Classroom. New York: Teachers College.

Jarvis, M. (2005) The Psychology of Effective Learning and Teaching.

Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.

John, M. (1996) Children in Charge: The Child’s Right to a Fair Hearing. London:

Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Johnston, R., Watson, J. (2005) The effects of synthetic phonics teaching of

reading and spelling attainment: A seven year longitudinal study: UK: The

Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.

Johnson, M., Crown, W., Martin, B., Dormuth, C., Siebert, U. (2009) ‘Good

Research Practices for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Analytic Methods

to Improve Casual Inference from Nonrandomized Studies of Treatment Effects

Using Secondary Data Sources: The ISPOR Good Research Practices for

Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report’, Value in Health. 12(8), pp.

1062-1073.

Page | 66

Jolley, R. (2013) The importance of an art education. Available at:

https://cerp.aqa.org.uk/perspectives/importance-art-education (Accessed 19 May

2017)

Jolliffe, W. (2004) Paper presented at the British Educational Research

Association Annual Conference, University of Manchester, 16-18 September

2004.

Kazdin, A. (1981) Behavioural Observation. New York: Pergamon Press.

Keller, H. (1986) Behavioural Observation approaches to personality

assessment. New York: Guildford Press.

King, N., Horrocks, C. (2010) Interviews in Qualitative Research. London: SAGE.

Kreider, H., Westmoreland, H. (2011) Promising Practices for Family

Engagement in Out-of-school Time. North Carolina: IAP.

Kumar, R. (2010) Research Methodology: a step by step guide for beginners.

London: Sage.

Kumar, R. (2014) Research Methodology: a step by step guide for beginners. 4th

edn. London: Sage.

Kvale, S. (1996) Interviews. London: SAGE.

Page | 67

Lancy, D. (1994) The conditions that support emergent literacy. Westport:

Praeger.

Landon, K. (2014) Impact of parent involvement on child development. Available

at: https://hubbli.com/impact-of-parent-involvement/ (Accessed 15 May 2017).

Lawrence, C. (2004) Literacy for All Children: A Formula for Leaving No Child

Behind. Oxford: Scarecrow Education.

Lefstein, A. (2005) ‘Thinking about the technical and the personal in teaching’,

Cambridge Journal of Education. 35(3), pp. 333-356.

Lemman, N. (1997) ‘The Reading Wars’, The Atlantic Monthly Company. 250(5),

pp. 128-134.

Lewis, M., Ellis, S. (2006) Phonics: Practice, Research and Policy. London: Paul

Chapman Publishing.

Leyva, D., Sparks, A., Reese, E. (2012) ‘The Link Between Preschoolers’

Phonological Awareness and Mothers’ Book-Reading and Reminiscing Practices

in Low-Income Families’, Journal of Literacy Research. 44(4), pp. 426-447.

Lichy, J. (2015) Advanced Business Models in International Higher Education.

Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

s1400807

Page | 68

Litt, D., Martin, S., Place, N. (2014) Literacy Teacher Education: Principles and

Effective Practices. New York: Guilford Press.

Lodico, M., Spaulding, D., Voegtle, K. (2010) Methods in Educational Research:

From Theory to Practice. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.

Mann, V. (1993) ‘Phonemic Awareness and Future Reading Ability’, Journal of

Learning Disabilities. 26(4), pp. 259-269.

Marshall. C., Rossman, G. (1995) Designing qualitative research. London:

SAGE.

Martin, P. and Bateson, P. (2007) Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maxwell, J. (2005) Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach.

London: SAGE.

McCambridge, J., Witton, J., Elbourne, D. (2014) ‘Systematic review of the

Hawthorne effect: New concepts are needed to study research participation

effects’, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 67(3), pp. 267-277.

McCuen, R. (1996) The Elements of Academic Research. USA: ASCE Press.

Page | 69

McGuinness, D. (2004) Early Reading Instruction: What Science Really Tells Us

about How to Teach Reading. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

McNee, M. (2012) The Great Reading Disaster: Reclaiming Our Educational

Birthright. UK: Andrews UK Limited.

Medwell, J., Wray, D., Poulson, L., Fox, R. (1998) Effective Teachers of Literacy.

UK: Education Line.

Meerah, T., Johar, A., Ahmad, J. (2001) What motivates teachers to conduct

research? Available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001772.htm


Miskin, R. (2005) Just Phonics Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mitchell, M., Jolley, J. (2012) Research Design Explained. USA: Cengage

Learning.

Moats, L. (2007) Whole Language Hi Jinks: How to Tell When Scientifically-

Based Reading Instruction Isn’t. Ohio: Thomas B Fordham Institute.

Morse, J. (1990) Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue.

London: Sage.

Page | 70

Muñoz, K., Valenzuela, F., Orellana, P. (2017) ‘Phonological awareness

instruction: A program training design for low-income children’, International

Journal of Educational Research. pp. 1-12.

Nardiello, S. (2009) Classwide Peer Tutoring. Cadwell College.

National Careers Service (2017) Teaching Assistant. Available at:

https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/job-profiles/teaching-assistant#


National Literacy Trust (2017) Phonics – methods of teaching. Available at:

http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/resources/practical_resources_info/1035_phonics-

methods_of_teaching (Accessed

Neaum, S. (2017) What Comes Before Phonics? London: SAGE.

Newman, B., Newman, P. (2008) Development Through Life: A Psychosocial

Approach. USA: Cengage Learning.

Nezu, A., Nezu, C. (2007) Evidence-Based Outcome Research: A Practical

Guide to Conducting Randomized Controlled Trials for Psychosocial

Interventions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nyberg, J. (1998) Storybook Phonics. New Jersey: Good Year Books.

Page | 71

Office for the Protection of Research Subjects (2013) Informed Consent in

Human Subjects Research. California: University of Southern California.

Ofsted (2014) Pupil premium: update on schools’ progress. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-pupil-premium-an-update


O’Hara, M., Carter, C., Dewis, P., Kay, J., Wainwright, J. (2011) Successful

dissertations: the complete guide for education, childhood and early childhood

studies students. London: Bloomsbury.

Oliver, P. (2003) The Student’s Guide to Research Ethics. Maidenhead: Open

University Press.

Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., Wynaden, D. (2000) ‘Ethics in Qualitative Research’,

Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 33(1), pp. 93-96.

Oxford University Press (2016) Read Write Inc. Phonics: Speed Sounds.

Available at: https://global.oup.com/education/content/primary/tech_support/read-

write-inc.-phonics-speed-sounds-?region=uk (Accessed 14 May 2017)

Oxford University Press. (2017) Read Write Inc Phonics. Available at:

https://www.oxfordowl.co.uk/for-home/reading-owl/find-a-book/read-write-inc-

phonics--1 (Accessed 14 April 2017).

Page | 72

Oxford University Press (2017) Read Write Inc: Raising standards in literacy for

every child. Available at:

https://global.oup.com/education/content/primary/series/rwi/?region=uk


Palaiologou, I. (2012) Ethical Practice in Early Childhood. London: SAGE.

Palmer, S., Reason, R. (2000) Checking Individual Progress in Phonics. London:

NFER Nelson.

Papen, U. (2015) Literacy and Education: Policy, Practice and Public Opinion.

London: Routledge.

Paton, G. (2014) Children taught to read using phonics ‘two years ahead’ by age

7. Available at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10901099/Children-taught-

to-read-using-phonics-two-years-ahead-by-age-seven.html (Accessed 16 April

2017).

Pearson (2017) Clackmannanshire Report: The effects of synthetic phonics

teaching on reading and spelling attainment. Available at:

https://www.pearson.com/uk/educators/primary-educators/making-an-

impact/research-summaries/clackmannanshire-report.html (Accessed 11 May

2017).

Page | 73

Pennington, M. (2009) Phonemic Awareness and Phonics Toolkit. California:

Pennington Publishing.

Phillips, D. (1987) Philosophy, science and social inquiry. Oxford: Pergamon.

Polit, D., Beck, C. (2010) Essentials of Nursing Research: Appraising Evidence

for Nursing Practice. USA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

Polonsky, M., Waller, D. (2010) Designing and Managing a Research Project.

London: Sage.

Reynolds, C., Kamphaus, R. (2003) Handbook of Psychological and Educational

Assessment of Children: Personality, Behaviour and Context. London: The

Guilford Press.

Riemer, J. (1977) ‘Varieties of Opportunistic Research’, Urban Life. 5(4), pp. 467-

477.

Robbins, L., Robbins, L., Kenny, H. (2007) Sounds Approach: Using Phonemic

Awareness to Teach Reading and Spelling. Canada: Portage and Main Press.

Robert-Holmes, G. (2014) Doing your Early Years Research Project: A Step-by-

step Guide. London: SAGE.

Page | 74

Rose, J. (2006) Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading. London:

DFES.

Rose, J., Rogers, S. (2012) The role of the teacher in early years settings.

Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Rosen, M. (2016) Does Read, Write, Inc instruction include giving ‘real books’ to

Year 1s to read for themselves?. Available at:

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/does-readwriteinc-instruction-

include.html (Accessed 10 May 2017).

Ruth Miskin Training (2017) Ruth Miskin. Available at:

http;//www.ruthmiskin.com/en/our-team/ (Accessed 12 May 2017)

Ryan, G., Bernard, H. (2000) Techniques to identify themes in common data.

Available at: http://www.analytictech.com/mb870/readings/ryan-

bernard_techniques_to_identify_themes_in.htm (Accessed 16 May 2017).

Seidman, I. (2015) Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for

Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. London: Teachers College

Press.

Scott, D. and Morrison, M. (2007) Key Ideas in Educational Research. London:

A&C Black.

Page | 75

Scott, K. (2010) Phonics: lost in translation. Available at:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/jan/19/phonics-child-literacy


Shaffer, D. (2008) Social and Personality Development. USA: Cengage Learning.

Shapiro, E., Kratochwill, T. (2000) Conducting School-Based Assessments of

Child and Adolescent Behaviour. London: Guilford Press.

Smith, F. (1999) ‘Why Systematic Phonics and Phonemic Awareness Instruction

Constitute an Educational Hazard’, Language Arts. 77(2), pp. 150-155.

Spradley, J. (1979) The ethnographic interview. Texas: Harcourt Brace.

Suter, W. (2011) Introduction to Educational Research: A Critical Thinking

Approach. London: SAGE.

Tashakkori, A., Teddie, C. (2010) SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social

and Behavioural Research. London: Sage.

Tellis, W. (1997) ‘Introduction to Case Study’, The Qualitative Report. 3(2), pp. 1-

14.

Thompson, G., Nicholson, T. (1999) Learning to Read. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Page | 76

Topping, K., Maloney, S. (2005) The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in inclusive

Education. London: Routledge.

Torgerson, C., Brooks, G., Hall, J. (2006) A Systematic Review of the Research

Literature on the Use of Phonics in the Teaching of Reading and Spelling.

Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/http://www.education

.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RB711.pdf (Accessed 11 May 2017).

Twist, l., Sizmur, J., Bartlett, S., Lynn, L. (2012) PIRLS: Reading Achievement in

England. Slough: NFER.

Tzuo, P. (2007) ‘The tension between teacher control and children’s freedom in a

child-centred classroom: resolving the practical dilemma through a closer look at

the related theories’, Early Childhood Education Journal. 35(1), pp. 33-39.

University of Gloucestershire (2017) Research Ethics. Available at:

https://infonet.glos.ac.uk/departments/registry/researchadmin/pages/researchethi

cs.aspx (Accessed 25 April 2017).

Voogt, J., Knezek, G. (2008) International Handbook of Information Technology

in Primary and Secondary Education. New York: Springer.

Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Page | 77

Wagner, T., Kegan, R., Lahey, L., Lemons, R., Garnier, J., Helsing, D., Howell,

A., Rasmussen, T. (2012) Change Leadership: A Practical Guide to Transforming

Our Schools. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.

Wallace, S. (2013) Doing Research in Further Education and Training. London:

Sage.

Wallach, M., Wllach, L. (1976) Teaching all children to read. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

Wasil, F. and Thawani, H. (2014) Pedagogy. New Dehli: VK Global Publications.

Waugh, D., Carter, J., Desmond, C. (2015) Lessons in Teaching Phonics in

Primary Schools. London: SAGE.

Waxman, H. (1995) Classroom observations of effective teaching.

Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.

Waxman, H., Huang, S. (1999) ‘Differences by level of technology use on

students’ motivation, anxiety, and classroom leaning environment in

mathematics’, Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 25(1), pp. 67-77.

Weale, S. (2016) Phonics method helps close attainment gap, study finds.

Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/25/phonics-

method-helps-close-attainment-gap-study-finds (Accessed 15 April 2017).

Page | 78

Webb, E., Campbell, D., Schwartz, R., Sechrest, L. (1966) Unobtrusive

Measures: Nonreactive Measures in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand

McNally.

Whitney, S. (2010) Reading is “NOT” “One Size Fits All”. Available at:

http://www.wrightslaw.com/blog/reading-is-not-one-size-fits-all/ (Accessed 18

May 2017).

Wiggins, G. (2014) Attention, Teachers! Why Students Are Bored. Available at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/grant-wiggins/why-students-are-

bored_b_4274474.html (Accessed 3 May 2017).

Wilby, P. (2008) A Tonic for the phonics queen. Available at:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2008/apr/01/schools.uk2 (Accessed 15

May 2017)

Wyse, D., Andrews, R. and Hoffman, J. (2010) The Routledge International

Handbook of English, Language and Literacy Teaching. London: Routledge.

Wyse, D., Goswami, U. (2008) ‘Synthetic Phonics and the teaching of reading’,

British Educational Research Journal. 34(6), pp. 691-710.

Wyse, D., Styles, M. (2007) ‘Synthetic phonics and the teaching of reading: the

debate surrounding England’s ‘Rose Report’’, Literacy. 41(1), pp. 35-42.

Page | 79

Yin, R. (1994) Case study research: Design and methods. London: SAGE.

Zaare, M. (2013) ‘An Investigation into the Effect of Classroom Observation on

Teaching Methodology’, Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences. 70(1), pp.

605-614.

Zainal, Z. (2007) Case Study as a research method. Available at:

http://psyking.net/htmlobj-3837/case_study_as_a_research_method.pdf

(Accessed 19 April 2017).

Page | 80

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Statutory Guidance for reading in Key Stage One, set forth in the

National Curriculum

Taken directly from Department for Education (2014)

Key Stage One – Year One

During year 1, teachers should build on work from the early years foundation stage,

making sure that pupils can sound and blend unfamiliar printed words quickly and

accurately using the phonic knowledge and skills that they have already learnt.

Teachers should also ensure that pupils continue to learn new grapheme-phoneme

correspondences (GPCs) and revise and consolidate those learnt earlier. The

understanding that the letter(s) on the page represent the sounds in spoken words

should underpin pupils’ reading and spelling of all words. This includes common

words containing unusual GPCs. The term ‘common exception words’ is used

throughout the programmes of study for such words.

Alongside this knowledge of GPCs, pupils need to develop the skill of blending the

sounds into words for reading and establish the habit of applying this skill whenever

they encounter new words. This will be supported by practice in reading books

consistent with their developing phonic knowledge and skill and their knowledge of

common exception words. At the same time they will need to hear, share and

discuss a wide range of high-quality books to develop a love of reading and broaden

their vocabulary.

Pupils should be helped to read words without overt sounding and blending after a

few encounters. Those who are slow to develop this skill should have extra practice.

Page | 81

Pupils’ writing during year 1 will generally develop at a slower pace than their

reading. This is because they need to encode the sounds they hear in words

(spelling skills), develop the physical skill needed for handwriting, and learn how to

organise their ideas in writing.

Pupils entering year 1 who have not yet met the early learning goals for literacy

should continue to follow their school’s curriculum for the Early Years Foundation

Stage to develop their word reading, spelling and language skills. However, these

pupils should follow the year 1 programme of study in terms of the books they listen

to and discuss, so that they develop their vocabulary and understanding of grammar,

as well as their knowledge more generally across the curriculum. If they are still

struggling to decode and spell, they need to be taught to do this urgently through a

rigorous and systematic phonics programme so that they catch up rapidly

Key Stage One – Year Two

By the beginning of year 2, pupils should be able to read all common graphemes.

They should be able to read unfamiliar words containing these graphemes,

accurately and without undue hesitation, by sounding them out in books that are

matched closely to each pupil’s level of word-reading knowledge. They should also

be able to read many common words containing GPCs taught so far [for example,

shout, hand, stop, or dream], without needing to blend the sounds out loud first.

Pupils’ reading of common exception words [for example, you, could, many, or

people], should be secure. Pupils will increase their fluency by being able to read

these words easily and automatically. Finally, pupils should be able to retell some

Page | 82

familiar stories that have been read to and discussed with them or that they have

acted out during year 1.

During year 2, teachers should continue to focus on establishing pupils’ accurate and

speedy word-reading skills. They should also make sure that pupils listen to and

discuss a wide range of stories, poems, plays and information books; this should

include whole books. The sooner that pupils can read well and do so frequently, the

sooner they will be able to increase their vocabulary, comprehension and their

knowledge across the wider curriculum.

In writing, pupils at the beginning of year 2 should be able to compose individual

sentences orally and then write them down. They should be able to spell many of the

words covered in year 1 correctly - see English appendix 1. They should also be able

to make phonically plausible attempts to spell words they have not yet learnt. Finally,

they should be able to form individual letters correctly, establishing good handwriting

habits from the beginning.

It is important to recognise that pupils begin to meet extra challenges in terms of

spelling during year 2. Increasingly, they should learn that there is not always an

obvious connection between the way a word is said and the way it is spelt. Variations

include different ways of spelling the same sound, the use of so-called silent letters

and groups of letters in some words and, sometimes, spelling that has become

separated from the way that words are now pronounced, such as the ‘le’ ending in

table. Pupils’ motor skills also need to be sufficiently advanced for them to write

down ideas that they may be able to compose orally. In addition, writing is

intrinsically harder than reading: pupils are likely to be able to read and understand

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239784/English_Appendix_1_-_Spelling.pdf

Page | 83

more complex writing (in terms of its vocabulary and structure) than they are capable

of producing themselves.

For pupils who do not have the phonic knowledge and skills they need for year 2,

teachers should use the year 1 programmes of study for word reading and spelling

so that pupils’ word-reading skills catch up. However, teachers should use the year 2

programme of study for comprehension so that these pupils hear and talk about new

books, poems, other writing, and vocabulary with the rest of the class.

Page | 84

Appendix 2 – Drawing themes from the interview responses

Key More staff Not suitable for LAPS Not suitable for HAPS Are children reaching the expectations outlined in the statutory guidelines? Children enjoy the lessons Repetitiveness

Interview – Year 1 Teacher Are the Read, Write, Inc lessons taught every day in this class? Yes, unless we have a trip or a theme day then it’s everyday, usually in the morning

How are the groups split? The LAPS go with me, and the HAPS go with [teaching assistant] in the teaching room. Our very advanced ones are getting on with writing their own stories based on their favourite Read Write Inc books

So they [the children at the back] don’t join in with Read Write Inc? They join in with the story at the start of the week, and they do a few of the activities, but they do so much extra work at home that they are well above the level that they are meant to be, so I try to set them harder things.

Do the children seem to enjoy the lessons? Yes

What do you think they enjoy about the lessons? They like doing their speed sounds in pairs too.

Do you think the repetitiveness of the sessions helps them to learn? I do, yes.

How do you feel about the repetitiveness of the sessions? We always mix it up a bit, so as long as it helps them I don’t mind it being repetitive

What do you do when you mix it up a bit? Sometimes I give them some drawing activities – this group loves drawing, and it gets them chatting about what they're drawing, which will be related to the speed sounds they're learning.

What do you think about the scheme? Do you like it? I like it. I think the books could be a bit longer though. Some of the red books can be only 20-25 words long – I’ve read it to them in under a minute, and when they’ve done all of the activities we can be left with quite a lot of time on our hands, but we find ways to fill the time.

Page | 85

What do you usually do if you have time left after the activities have been completed? Normally a little group discussion about what we have been reading

So the book today was about camping. If you had had time left over, you would have discussed camping? Yes, has anyone been camping? Was it fun? Who did you go with? It helps them to practice some of the new words and sounds that they have learnt

You take the LAPs for Read Write Inc lessons. Do they all seem to be making good progress? They are making progress, but some slower than others. A lot of them do well during the week, but when we revise some of the sounds we have already done, it is as if they have never heard them before

Why do you think that is? I’m not sure. It is generally the same few children. They don’t have any kind of speech problem, they just have trouble matching the written letters with the actual sounds.

I’ve seen from their books that some of them really struggle with their writing. How do you feel this affects their progress in reading with Read Write Inc? It makes it difficult, because every few weeks we ask the children to take their writing books home, so their parents can see the sounds they have been working on and practice them with them at home, but when their writing is illegible, we have to write above it what they believe we were trying to say, which of course takes a lot of time which we don’t really have.

When we spoke before the lesson, you mentioned that a few of the children had particularly bad attendance in this class. Do you feel as though this has a negative impact on their progression through Read Write Inc? It can be difficult – especially if they miss the Monday session because that’s when we start working on a new sound – if they miss the actual learning of the sound, then we don’t have the time to give them the individual attention to catch them up with the others

In your opinion, would you say that the progression in Read Write Inc is suitable for all abilities in this class? Most of them but not all of them. I think the very high achievers find it a bit too easy, but we don’t have the staff to work with them to do the higher level books – they’re on year 2 level easily but the scheme is teacher led so we can’t just leave them to their own devices to learn new sounds

What about the very low achievers? That’s a hard one. They do really struggle with Read Write Inc but I think they would struggle with anything reading related to be honest. If some of them had an extra push at home then I think that would help a lot but there is only so much you can do as a teacher to encourage parents to read with their children

Page | 86

So you think if their parents read more with them at home then they would make better progress in Read Write Inc? Definitely, or even if their parents read to them

If their parents read to them, you think they would make better progress in Read Write Inc? I think so – they’d be hearing new words and new language and that’s what children’s books are designed to do, even just bedtime stories would help I think

Do you know why some of the parents don’t read with the children at home? Well a few reasons really. Take [child] for example, her parents speak don’t speak English at home and [child] lives with his dad, who really struggles with his reading too

So if you had another member of staff in the classroom when you were teaching Read Write Inc sessions, what would you ask them to do? That’s a hard one as well – I think I’d ask them to go and find even more members of staff to bring with them! But if it was just one, I would either ask them to do some additionally work with the high achievers, or go back to basics with the very low achievers

What do you mean by back to basics? Honestly things as simple as holding a pen and recognising letters. I don’t know how they’re expected to be able to learn all of the sounds when they can’t even recognise letters on paper

Finally, do you believe that Read Write Inc allows you to progress all students to their meet the expectations outlined in the statutory guidance in the National Curriculum? Most of them yes – the higher group especially, they're ready to start on the year 2 material. Most of the lower achievers have come on a lot too, so I definitely think the scheme has helped them.

Interview – Year 1 Teaching Assistant

Do you teach with the Read Write Inc scheme everyday? Yes – I take the HAPS

Do you think the children enjoy the lessons? Yes – they definitely enjoy them, they can actually get a bit overexcited sometimes

Is there something in particular that always gets them excited? I say a line of the story and get them to repeat it the way I say it. First I say it normally, then I whisper it, then I’ll say it in a funny voice, then I’ll shout it, and when they shout it – they scream it!

So you think that is something they enjoy in the lessons? Definitely – its nice to see them all get so excited about something so small

Page | 87

What else do you think they enjoy about the lessons? I think they like that they know what’s coming

Because it is repetitive? Yes, I think it keeps them motivated because they are always looking forward to the next thing they’re doing

What do you think about the repetitiveness of the sessions? We mix it up in this class so they don’t get bored of what they're doing, so I think it is fine. Plus I think they like to know what's coming – it seems to help them.

What do you do to mix it up? A couple of weeks ago, we did a book about the circus, and during break time I turned the little teaching room into a mini-circus, and set up little stations for bubble-blowing, hula-hoops and face painting and stuff like that – we made it a bit of a longer session, and I just made sure that as we were all doing the activities, we were discussing what was happening, like ‘blowing bubbles’ and hula-hoops, which was helping them with their stretch sounds like ‘ow’ and ‘oo’.

Did they seem to enjoy it? They loved it

Do you like the Read Write Inc scheme? Personally I wouldn’t have chosen it if I was in charge, but it is what we use in year one, so I make the most out of it

Why wouldn’t you have chosen it? Its not anything personal to the scheme, I just don’t think there was anything wrong with what was being used before and I don’t think it needed changing.

Do you think that the group you normally take are making good progress? I think so

Could you tell me more about how the scheme is tested? Yes, but its not so much the scheme that is tested, it is just their phonics ability in general. They have 50 sounds, and we take them one by one to read the sounds, and they get marked out of 50, it is as simple as that

And what happens with those scores? Well when we get their scores in June, we will pass them to [teacher] so she knows how to group them for next year

How well do you expect this group to do? Alright I think, I hope anyway!

Is there anything about the scheme that you do not agree with, or that you think could be improved? I think the scheme is fine, but some of these [children] could do with a but more pushing, but I can only teach what I am meant to be teaching, I can’t realistically be

Page | 88

teaching ¾ different lessons in one. Its great when we have someone extra in the class to help out but it doesn’t happen much

You think an extra helper in the classroom would benefit the children? Definitely, but its obviously not realistic

So overall, do you believe that the progress in Read Write Inc is suitable for all abilities? For this group yes, but not some of the one’s in [teacher]’s group – they’re too low ability, some of them are still working at reception level at a push

What about the higher achievers, the one’s that don’t fully participate in the lessons? Its done its job to get them to that stage, but again, if there were more staff then maybe someone could be with them doing harder things

With regards to reading do you think all of the children are working at the level that the national curriculum expect of them? The majority of them yes, it's just the same few in [teacher]'s group that are struggling, but they're struggling in all areas and aren't really meeting the expected requirements for other areas either

Interview – Year 2 Teacher

Is Read Write Inc taught everyday in this class? Yes, for half an hour

How are the groups split? Red group with [teaching assistant] next door, and the rest of the class in here with me.

How did you decide this? Although the class is mixed ability, red group in this class are very very low ability – they’re still on books that some of the HAPS in reception can read

So are they taught with Read Write Inc differently? No – same process, just slower and with much easier books and sounds

Do the children seem to enjoy the lessons? Usually

Are you seeing progress being made from the children? Generally yes

Are you pleased with the progress that they are making? Some of them have come on so much this year, but even then, in the SATS in July, not even half of the class are expected to meet the average. I don’t know if that can be blamed on the scheme or the way it is taught though, as it is the same case for maths

Page | 89

How do you feel about the repetitive nature of the scheme? I don’t like it, personally. I think it is quite boring and that’s not what learning should be about. It doesn’t allow for variety apart from the books

So would you say that the progress in Read Write Inc is suitable for all abilities? It’s hard to tell, because it is difficult to track their progress. I think some of the HAPS find it boring though and they need something to push them more but we can’t put them in different groups.

Would you say that more staff in the classroom would be beneficial then? Yes, but not just for Read Write Inc, for everything! Its such a shame that children like [child] and [child] cant use their reading time to read their books from home that they actually want to read. [child] is far too advanced for this, her mum has actually asked for her to do harder reading tasks whilst we are doing Read write Inc. I would love to say yes but its not do-able – we don’t have the staff.

Do you feel as though Read Write Inc is pushing the children to meet what is expected of them by this age, in the national curriculum? Its definitely pushing them in the right direction. Obviously [child[ and [child] are no where near, but it's helped the rest of them I think.

So if it were up to you, what would be done to make this scheme more effective? More staff, smaller groups and better ways of testing their progress. I hate testing, but we thought their reading progress was going really well, until a mock SATS test which showed not as much improvement as we hoped.

Interview – Year 2 Teaching Assistant

You take red group for Read Write Inc, do they seem to enjoy the lessons? Yes, they do like them

What makes you think they enjoy the lessons? They always tell me they look forward to them and they always laugh at the stories

Do you think they are making good progress with the Read Write Inc scheme? Possibly. I have moved some of them up to [teacher]’s group because they started to find what we were doing quite easy. But [child] really struggles to match sounds with letters, he does something different to the rest of the group

What does he do? I’m teaching him one letter at a time whilst the rest of his group are set to start writing their sentence out, but he really needs one-on-one attention, not just five minutes a day.

So you don’t think Read Write Inc is suitable for his ability? No, but I’m not really sure what is, he can’t even hold a pencil. We have someone coming into to assess his needs next week so hopefully that will give us an insight

Page | 90

into what he needs, but I don’t think it will be Read Write Inc – he is working at preschool level and these books are for Key Stage One

Do you think the children are working at the expected level that is outlined in the national curriculum? Yes, but red group need a bit more work, like you saw today – blending is so difficult for them.

How do you feel about how repetitive the scheme is? That’s the thing I don’t like about it – I know its different stories but the red books are about 30 words per book – not very exciting

Do you feel that the children benefit from the repetitiveness of it? I’m not sure – because they struggle they find it boring, but I don’t know whether that is because they struggle or because it is the same thing every week.

Is there anything that you can think of that would improve the scheme? Smaller groups would be better but we don’t have that option, so no.

Page | 91

Appendix 3 – Example of the way in which the observations were recorded

Page | 92

Appendix 4 (Gatekeeper Form) GATEKEEPER FORM

Catherine Flanigan’s Dissertation Observation Study

Please read this form carefully, and ask any questions you might have before agreeing to be a part of

this study.

Background Information:

My name is Catherine Flanigan and I am a third year student, studying Education Studies at the

University of Gloucestershire. I have been on placement in this setting since November 4th 2016.

Purpose and Procedures:

The purpose of my study is to gain a better insight into phonics, and why Key Stage One follow the

synthetic phonics approach in this setting, with particular interest in the Read Write Inc. scheme.

If you agree to be a part of this study, this will allow me to observe a taught lesson and allow me to

ask the teachers / teaching assistants some questions regarding certain methods, and why they are

used.

Voluntary Nature of the Study:

Allowing the school’s participation in this study is completely voluntary. If you do decide to

participate, then you still have until May 2017 to withdraw – May being the hand-in date for my

dissertation project. Should you wish to withdraw from the study, you can contact me personally at

[my e-mail address] or [my phone number].

Risks of Being in the Study:

There are no risks associated with the school or the participants being a part of this study. If the

teachers, however, experience feelings of stress or anxiety during the observations at any point – the

observation can be terminated. All participants hold the right to refuse answers to any questions

asked.

Confidentiality:

The records included in my study will be kept completely private at all times. The only readers of my

study will be the first and second marker of my dissertation. I will ensure not to include any

information in my study that would make it at all possible to identify you, the school, the participants,

and the children. Research records will be kept on my personal laptop, and only I will have access to

these records.

Statement of Consent:

I have read the information above, and have a full understanding of the process that I have

agreed for the school to be a part of. I consent to the school’s participation in the study.

Printed name of participant _________________________________________________________

Participant Signature _______________________________________Date____________________

Researcher Signature_______________________________________________________________

Page | 93

Appendix 5 (Consent Form) CONSENT FORM

Dissertation Observation Study

Please read this form carefully, and ask any questions you might have before agreeing to be a part of

this study.

Background Information:

My name is ....... and I am a third year Education Studies student at the University of Gloucestershire.

I have been on placement in this setting since November 4th 2016.

Purpose and Procedures:

The purpose of my study is to gain a better insight into phonics, and why Key Stage One follow the

synthetic phonics approach in this setting, with a particular interest in the Read Write Inc. scheme.

If you agree to be a part of this study, this will allow me to observe a taught lesson and allow me to

ask some questions regarding certain methods, and why they are used.

Voluntary Nature of the Study:

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. If you do decide to participate, then you still

have until May 2017 to withdraw – May being the hand-in date for my dissertation project. Should

you wish to withdraw from the study, you can contact me personally at [my e-mail address] or [my

phone number].

Although I have received permission to carry out these observations by Operational Head,

[gatekeeper’s name], I felt it appropriate to receive further permission from each individual involved

in the study.

Risks of Being in the Study:

There are no risks associated with being a part of this study. If you do, however, experience feelings

of stress or anxiety during your participation in the observation at any point – the observation can be

terminated. You also hold the right to refuse answers to any questions asked.

Confidentiality:

The records included in my study will be kept completely private at all times. The only readers of my

study will be the first and second marker of my dissertation. I will ensure not to include any

information in my study that would make it at all possible to identify you. Research records will be

kept on my personal laptop, and only I will have access to these records.

Statement of Consent:

I have read the information above, and have a full understanding of the process that I have

agreed to be a part of. I consent to my participation in the study.

Printed name of participant _________________________________________________________

Participant Signature ____________________________________Date_______________________

Researcher Signature_______________________________________________________________

Date post:	12-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

A Critical Review of a School’s Approach to Teaching ... · Chapter 2 – Literature Review...

Documents