TENITTC, 2010/2011 - Assignment 1 - Glenn Billingham.

The East NorthamptonshireInitial Teacher Training College

Assignment One2010/2011

Submission: 15/10/2010

Glenn Billingham

1 of 12

TENITTC, 2010/2011 - Assignment 1 - Glenn Billingham.

“Acquiring literacy is an empowering process, enabling millions to enjoy access to knowledge and information which

broadens horizons, increases opportunities and creates alternatives for building a better life”- Kofi Annan

Assignment Title:

Demonstrate an understanding of the teaching of phonics, word recognition and reading through the primary school in relation to; the Rose Review, the Revised Primary Framework, the Simple View of Reading, the teaching of phonics in Foundation (i.e Letters & Sounds), intervention programmes (i.e Reading Recovery, Catch-Up, Early Literacy Support, Further Literacy Support, Read Write Inc, Big Writing), Guided Reading, Shared Reading & paired work, and data related to the teaching of reading (i.e reading profiles and success of intervention programmes).

Assignment:

The ability to understand the relationship between a letter (in it’s written form, a

grapheme) and it’s sound (in it’s audible form, a phoneme), and the process of language

comprehension (words in relation to pictures, emotions, context etc) are the commonly

accepted pre-requisites of reading and becoming literate. Due to extensive research

highlighted by Hall (1988) there have been many different approaches, practices and

theories developed to teach these skills. This assignment aims to demonstrate an

understanding of how this occurs in relation to the UK National Curriculum and it’s

Primary School classrooms. First though, we must clarify some key phrases and

concepts.

2 of 12

TENITTC, 2010/2011 - Assignment 1 - Glenn Billingham.

The first key question is why literacy teaching is so important? This question and

assumed response may be considered too obvious and simple, but a response is worth

considering because it serves as a reminder of what exactly is at stake here. Wray,

Bloom & Hall (1989) suggest that achieving literacy gives us ‘the ability to decide for

ourselves what our purposes for reading will be, and the ability to evaluate what we

read and write’. Skills, which via literacy, are essential to almost every facet of life and

human interaction.

Literacy and system of learning to read are a combination of a highly complex set

of processes. “Reading is a skill that requires a combination of skills” (Cohen, 2002). The

good news is that children are developing and practising these skills as soon as they’re

gargling their first noises. Research and studies by Soderbergh (1977) have shown

children as young as two-years-old have been able to master the skills required in order

to read. “Children can learn much younger if they are helped sympathetically”

Soderbergh (1977). The study defines the notion of ‘sympathetic’ help as supporting the

child in his/her own direction of learning and pace of progression. However, at such a

young age this process requires time and attention similar to that of 1:1 support.

Therefore more suited to the supervision of parents rather than teachers.

Knowing now the importance of literacy and what children are capable of, we

need to consider how the learning process is nurtured in the classroom.

The key challenge for educators is to know how children are best supported at

school, and how to build upon the children’s own skills and knowledge, rather than

teaching a whole new set of processes. This is a challenge well supported by Hall (1988),

“Gifted teachers have always known that children are much better at constructing their

own knowledge than we are at teaching them, but it’s only the past fifteen years that

research has focused upon understanding how children develop their own knowledge of

literacy”.

While the extensive research is relatively new, the concept is not. Hall (1988) also

highlights the following quote from an article written in 1898 by Miss Harriet Iredell;

“We never cease to wonder at the extent and amount of knowledge accumulated during

the first three years of life, nor at the rate of development of the little creature. We say

‘let him go on through the first years of school life and say what may not be done’, but

something happens along the way. We are told that ‘he must learn to read and write’. As

3 of 12

TENITTC, 2010/2011 - Assignment 1 - Glenn Billingham.

if he had not already taken the first steps, and of his volition, his efforts un-recognised

for what they are”.

Research has suggested that in the classroom, it is the presentation of the

‘purpose’ for learning these skills that is problematic. “The vast majority of adult literacy

and reading is purposeful and this purpose generally falls into one of two categories;

functional or recreational. However, too often in the classroom, the purpose of a child’s

literacy learning resides only in the mind of the teacher, rather than in the mind of the

child. Thus discouraging the child” (Wray et al 1989).

To counter-balance these issues, Primary schools employ a number of strategies

and initiatives. They are mostly centered on making the learning environments at home

and school more aligned, Hayes (2006). Schools will often provide every student with a

home/school reading record to promote 2-way communication between home & school,

and lay the foundation for parents and teachers to be ‘reading from the same page’ by

providing parent education workshops. Many schools will also make provision for

‘parent reading afternoons’ and special ‘book week’ celebrations. Lesson planning is also

crucial to presenting a purpose for literacy learning, long term and ‘bigger picture’

planning particularly.

Traditionally, UK classrooms have used an alphabetic approach. Barratt-Pugh &

Rohl (2000) note such an approach picks up on the systematic correspondences

between the graphemes and phonemes of language. Teaching knowledge of the letters of

the alphabet, referred to as graphemes, paves the way for acquiring the next steps of

understanding of phonemes – the smallest units of spoken language of which there are

forty-four in English (e.g. /k/ in kit & skill). Specific and full knowledge of phonics

(letters and sounds combined) should then follow. Once a child is fully aware of this, the

next step is the understanding of syllables – units of speech that are heard as one sound

(Barratt-Pugh & Rohl, 2000).

This route to literacy, though regarded as the most beneficial and logical, holds

many challenges. Additionally, the genetics of the English language add their set of

curiosities. This complexity is reflected in the history of the language. So it is worth

taking a brief look at where our language has come from.

The English alphabet is derived from the Roman alphabet, which was in turn

derived from Greek alphabet. The Greeks based their own system on the Egyptian

4 of 12

TENITTC, 2010/2011 - Assignment 1 - Glenn Billingham.

hieroglyphic system, though refined this to use ‘letters’ rather than symbols and to

include vowels and consonants, (Barratt-Pugh & Rohl, 2000). Therefore our language

can be said to be well travelled and have picked up further idiosyncrasies as a result of

conquests by The British Empire and invasions of Romans, Saxons, Vikings etc. This goes

a long way to explain why many irregularities in spelling; i.e. ‘cat’ & ‘yacht’, ‘met’ &

‘debt’, ‘wait’ & ‘weight’ and ‘there’, ‘their’ and ‘they’re’, and phonetic make-up occur; i.e.

how the ‘o’ sounds in ‘one’, ‘home’ and ‘women’.

Hutchcroft (1981) argues that highlighting these irregularities can be detrimental

to the child’s learning. She suggests that through implementing an ‘open discussion of

phonetic near misses, a wider view of language in the classroom and a ‘non-mechanical’

approach, the child absorbs and internalises many rules without the need to make them

explicit’.

The combination of learning these irregularities within a model for teaching

literacy is something the National Curriculum is responsible for in the UK. Since it’s

introduction, the National Curriculum has experienced many various reviews. However,

few have been so extensive and paved the way for such widespread shifts in thought and

practice as the Rose Review (2006).

After the implementation of the National Literacy Strategy, as part of the National

Curriculum, in 1998, an independent review was commissioned in 2006 and carried out

by Sir Jim Rose. The Rose Review aimed to re-evaluate the National Literacy Strategy

and apply knowledge from new and relevant research.

One of the key aspects of the Rose Review was the application of this new

research leading towards the adoption of the Simple View of Reading, a formula that is

discussed later within this assignment. This research centered on speaking and listening

in the home environment and how that affected the child’s learning. Rose highlighted

this area as a cause for concern. ‘More children were entering school with impoverished

language and poor social development.’ The report continued, ‘terms such as ‘word

poverty’ and ‘language delay’ have been coined to describe the impact on children’s

language development of unfavourable background conditions’ (Rose Review 2006).

Rose summerises these points with the following quote by Professor Maryanne Wolf;

“Unbeknownst to them or their families, children who grow up in environments with

few or no literacy experiences are already playing catch-up when they enter

5 of 12

TENITTC, 2010/2011 - Assignment 1 - Glenn Billingham.

kindergarten and the primary grades… When words are not heard, concepts are not

learned. When syntactic forms are never encountered, there is less knowledge about the

relationship of events in a story. When story forms are never known, there is less ability

to infer and to predict. When cultural traditions and the feelings of others are never

experienced, there is less understanding of what other people feel”.

However, Rose recognises this need not be the end of the world, ‘many factors

that children bring to the table in the early years cannot be changed. Language

development is not one of them’ (Rose Review, 2006). The report then explains how

these challenges can be overcome by ‘exploiting’ every area of the curriculum to provide

the opportunity for children to express themselves ‘intelligibly through well-formed

speech and to listen attentively so as to understand what is said to them’ (Rose Review,

2006). Rose advises that the needed improvements in literacy could only come into

fruition by teaching an ‘intensive enrichment of all four strands of language’ (i.e.

speaking, listening, reading and writing). Thus providing a foundation for literacy

development and a chance for children who have requirements to ‘catch up’.

Responsibility for practically applying the recommendations of the Rose Review

essentially lay with the Revised Primary Framework. The Revised Primary Framework

provides clear guidance of classroom application for an increased twelve strands of

language development; speaking, listening & responding, group discussion &

responding, drama, word recognition: coding & encoding, word structure & spelling,

understanding & interpreting texts, engaging & responding to texts, text structure &

organisation, sentence structure & punctuation, and presentation. Considering the range

of these twelve strands, it is clear to see how the Revised Primary Strategy is making

headway in implementing the Rose Review’s recommendation of ‘exploiting’ as many

curriculum areas as possible.

The Simple View of Reading (SVR) is a model introduced in the Revised Primary

Framework to replace the Searchlights model. The SVR is a formula that deciphers

reading comprehension level as a product of listening comprehension (language

comprehension) and decoding (word recognition processes).

Adopted by the Rose Review (2006) The SVR was first suggested as an

educational model in the 1980’s. It was seen as an ideal bridge for the two opposing

literacy teaching models at the time; a whole language ‘real books’ approach or a

6 of 12

TENITTC, 2010/2011 - Assignment 1 - Glenn Billingham.

phonics based focus. Educational researchers and theorists generally accepted the SVR

incorporated the ‘whole language’ approach by defining a large part of literacy as a

linguistic activity, but also placing an important role on phonics. However, critics of the

SVR have noted that while the whole language and phonics focuses are both highlighted,

the SVR doesn’t do an adequate job of showing the complex relationship between the

two (Dombey, 2008). Regardless of these criticisms, the SVR has been used to frame a

mandatory approach to the teaching of reading in England’s primary schools (DfES,

2006).

So what does the SVR mean to classroom practice? Published a short time after

the Rose Review, ‘Letters & Sounds’ is a government document essentially aimed to

answer exactly that question.

The crucial school stage for the learning of literacy is the Foundation stage, which

consists of a Nursery year and a ‘pre Key Stage 1’ reception year. Although the Early

Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) and Primary National Strategy documents highlight

various approaches to the teaching of literacy, the introduction of ‘Letters & Sounds’

aimed to align with the EYFS and Primary National Strategy and specifically help

practitioners teach children how the alphabet works in terms of reading and spelling. It

is one of the few documents to systematically detail how practitioners should apply the

Rose Review recommendations, the SVR and the practical teaching of phonics, word

recognition and reading. At reception level (Foundation 2)

The aspirations of the Letters & Sounds document were to “teach good quality

phonic work beginning before/around the age of 5-years and to equip children with

phonetic knowledge and skills to enable them to become fluent readers by the age of 7-

years” (Letters & Sounds, 2007). As noted, the Letters & Sounds document is heavily

founded on the recommendations of the Rose Review (2006); high quality phonetic

work and a higher importance placed upon speaking and listening skills from birth in

the home environment, as-per the previously highlighted SVR.

In the classroom Letters & Sounds provides a clarity and very specific level of

detail for practitioners. The document is broken down into six phases and it is noted

that pace and progression through these phases will depend upon the children. The

elements of pace and progression are not prescribed.

7 of 12

TENITTC, 2010/2011 - Assignment 1 - Glenn Billingham.

At Nursery level (Foundation1) the focus consists of the ‘sound’ –

‘comprehension’ relationship. Examples are often drawn from the immediate

environment (i.e. traffic sounds, animal noises, instruments etc) and center on forming

‘talk’ and speaking & listening skills with reference to the subject. At reception level

(Foundation 2) ‘Letters & Sounds’ concentrates on synthetic phonics before moving on

to ‘chunking’ and ‘sounding out’ small combinations of words.

‘Letters & Sounds’ could be described as an intervention programme provided by

the Department for Education. However, in following a familiar pattern, once a piece of

hastily arranged government legislation comes out (i.e. ‘Letters & Sounds’ released just

months after the Rose Report) outside researchers and organisations realise the

potential for an alternative. These alternative interventions can afford greater freedom

of budget & constraints, and are often published after a period of more extensive

research. These non-government interventions often prove to be more popular and

provide higher up-take and achievement (Woodhead, 2009).

“Interventions have been plentiful and it can be debated whether they assist or

further confuse the teaching of literacy in the primary classroom. However, their

intention is firmly to assist and provide practical and ‘hands on’ guidance for

practitioners” (Arthur, Grainger & Wray, 2006).

‘Read, Write Inc.’ is a popular example of an intervention programme. Picking up

on a key recommendation of the Rose Review, ‘Read, Write, Inc’ is based upon a

synthetic phonics approach and meets the criteria of the SVR via four key strands;

phonics, comprehension, spelling and a fresh start. The latter offers any late developing

children to re-cover the basics if and when needed. Widespread praise of ‘Read, Write

inc.’ has centered on it’s “dynamic approach, practical guides for teachers and it’s all-

inclusive nature” (Oxford University Press, 2010).

For a less comprehensive but equally popular intervention programme, ‘Big

Writing’ puts the focus on developing writing as a means to literacy. “Developed by Ros

Wilson and Andrell Education, ‘Big Writing’ is the product of three years of extensive

research into primary school writing” (Andrell Education, 2010).

Wilson identified four main aspects of writing; vocabulary, connectives, openers

and punctuation, and the programme teaches writing via these four strands. At

foundation stage the focus is on orally developing words for writing. ‘Big Writing’ is a

8 of 12

TENITTC, 2010/2011 - Assignment 1 - Glenn Billingham.

popular intervention but not without it’s critics. Hayes (2004) observes “although the

framework has helped to concentrate teachers’ minds on the fundamental skills that

children need to be literate, some practitioners have found the highly structured and

objective-driven nature has not allowed for spontaneity and exploration of

unanticipated areas of learning.” These notions are backed up by Arthur et al (2006)

“Writing activities that allowed pupils more flexibility in their responses were more

beneficial and led to more interesting discussions than those that demanded more

structured responses”. However, practitioners are aware of this and overcome these

shortfalls via a number of strategies. The Creative Curriculum and the ethos behind it

challenged practitioners to base their teaching ‘loosely’ upon curriculum and

interventions, thus encouraging creativity, notions of child enquiry and open-ended

questioning (Lowry, 2008).

As additions to the Primary National Strategy, both the Early Literacy Support

(ELS) and Further Literacy Support (FLS) are tempory interventions aimed at

supporting struggling children. The ELS is a sixteen-week programme aimed at year one

and the FLS is a similar type of programme aimed at year five and the early stages of

year 6. However, both the ELS and FLS have drawn criticism for “lacking depth and any

practical guidelines” (Woodhead, 2009).

Part of the practical content within many of the interventions mentioned above

are particular methods of teaching reading. The most common methods being; guided

reading, shared reading and paired reading. They were also represented within the

original National Literacy Strategy.

Guided reading consists of reading groups of primarily up to six children led and

initiated by the teacher. The aims of a guided reading session are precise and therefore

involve a lot of planning and preparation by the teacher. This is crucial, as each child will

typically have different ability and needs. The responsibility for the teacher is to choose

a ‘just right’ book that will perfectly match the session aims and child ability.

This small focus group work is also crucial to the teacher in terms of medium and

longer term plans. By implementing principles of Assessment for Learning, practitioners

can pick up on findings from these small focus groups to form an excellent knowledge of

their children. This knowledge can then be used for strategic planning, meeting the

9 of 12

TENITTC, 2010/2011 - Assignment 1 - Glenn Billingham.

needs of individual children. “Assessment for Learning is a wonderful tool for teachers”

Hayes (2006).

An example of reading work that is more child-led is paired reading. This is often

implemented as a means of peer reinforcement once a particular skill/text/genre has

been taught and mastered. Shared reading offers something between guided and paired

reading. As highlighted by Parkes (2000), shared reading is only teacher initiated and a

collaborative learning experience that draws on the childs previous experiences of bed

time stories etc. “It is a regrettable trend that the majority of child-led/shared

interventions are cast aside due to time restraints” (Woodhead, 2009).

Despite the existing plethora of frameworks and interventions, the most recent

data related to the teaching of literacy is alarming. Published within the past week, The

UK National Literacy Trust reports one in six children aged 7-11 are falling behind

national standards. 18% of boys and 14% of girls failed to achieve the two levels of

desired progress. Differences between girls and boys attainment is also increasing, with

boys falling behind for the second consecutive year (National Literacy Trust, 2010).

To conclude, the past fifteen years have seen a constant succession of curriculum

changes, interventions and reforms. In a perfect world practitioners could implement all

the frameworks and make sure all individual children were well supported in their

literacy learning by using appropriate intervention programmes. The reality is that time

constraints, teacher:pupil ratio and budget constraints mean this reality isn’t entirely

feasible. Hayes (2006) recognises the benefit of having a plethora of interventions to

choose from, as practitioners are able to match childrens learning styles to the most

suitable interventions. Local Education Authorities (LEA’s) and individual schools are

able to pick out pieces of various intervention programmes to supplement their

frameworks and curriculum. However for this to be a success, it requires a teacher to be

thoroughly supported by their school, have an in-depth knowledge of their children and

to be confident in Assessment for Learning. As Woodhead (2009) highlights, sadly this

isn’t always the case.

10 of 12

TENITTC, 2010/2011 - Assignment 1 - Glenn Billingham.

Bibliography and References:

Andrell Education Ltd. (2010) Big Writing: raising standards in education (Online) http://www.andrelleducation.co.uk/home/ [accessed 01/10/2010]

Arthur, J., Grainger, T. & Wray, D. (2006) Learning to Teach in the Primary School, London: Routledge Press.

Barratt-Pugh, C. & Rohl, M. (2000) Literacy Learning in the Early Years, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Cohen, D. (2002) How the Child’s Mind Develops, New York: Routledge.

Department for Education (2010) The National Strategies - Primary (Online) http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/ [accessed 31/08/2010)

Dombey, H. (2008) The simple view of reading – explained, London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Hall, N. (1987) The emergence of literacy, London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Hayes, D. (2004) Foundations of Primary Teaching, London: David Fulton Publishers.

Hutchcroft, D.M.R. (1981) Making Language Work, London: McGraw Hill.

Letters & Sounds: Principles of High Quality Phonics, (2007). Primary National Strategy, DfES.

Lowry, B. (2008) Juicy Writing, Melbourne: Allen & Unwin Publishers.

National Literacy Trust, UK (2010) One in six pupils falling behind in ‘basics’ (Online) http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/news/2585_one_in_six_primary_school_pupils_falling_behind_in_basics [accessed 08/10/2010]

Oxford University Press (2010) Read, Write, Inc. – a dynamic literacy programme rooted in phonics! (Online) http://www.oup.com/oxed/primary/rwi/ [accessed 29/09/2010]

Parkes, B (2000) Read It Again! United States: Stenhouse Publishers.

Phonics and early reading: an overview for headteachers, literacy leaders and teachers in schools, and managers and practitioners in Early Years settings, (2006). Primary National Strategy.

Soderbergh, R. (1977) Reading in early childhood: A linguistic study of a preschool Child's gradual acquisition of reading ability. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

11 of 12

TENITTC, 2010/2011 - Assignment 1 - Glenn Billingham.

Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage, (2008). Primary National Strategy, DfES.

Woodhead, C. (2009) A Desolation of Learning: is this the education our children deserve? London: Pencil-Sharp Publishing.

Wray, D., Bloom,W. & Hall, N. (1989) Literacy in Action: The development of literacy in the primary years, New York: Falmer Press.

12 of 12