home index by author index by subject

Talk; Good Practice - Inf/Junior

Wednesday stream 4 Session 14.00 - 15.40 Length 25 minutes

Pupils with literacy difficulties: a research response to a national need

Mike Johnson, Sylvia Phillips, Lindsay Peer

Mike Johnson - Manchester Metropolitan University M.C.Johnson@mmu.ac.uk

Abstract

A teaching package for use in conjunction with the UK Literacy Hour to enable mainstream teachers (or teaching assistants) to use multi-sensory methods with pupils who have not begun to read was developed with the help of a research grant from the DfEE. The final version is based on a combination of direct, scripted teaching and synthetic phonics. The paper will describe the development of the package and its adoption by schools and services in the UK and Ireland. The initial and trials and subsequent evaluations including a questionnaire to users, monitoring of progress by a north-west LEA and a comparison with 'Reading Recovery' in Ireland will be reported. The results demonstrate both significant pupil progress, ease of use for both pupils and teachers and, most pleasingly, recognition by parents of children's increased interest in and enjoyment of reading. The overall findings will be set in the context of a 'snapshot-study' of pupils with SEN in the Literacy Hour and the implications for the National Literacy Strategy discussed.

Introduction

This paper reports the search for a methodology for developing literacy skills in pupils with mild to moderate dyslexia in mainstream schools. The project was partly funded by the UK Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (Ministry of Education) and partly by the University itself. It was a collaborative project at several levels: with the British Dyslexia Association (BDA) whom the DfEE approached in the first instance, with the schools in which the research activities took place and transatlantic co-operation with Margaret Smith. Her articulation of the work of Orton, Gillingham and Stillman, Cox, Enfield, Greene and others in the US became the final focus of the work and the main focus of the follow-up production project, again in collaboration with the BDA and financed by the DfEE.

Dilemmas and their resolution

At the start of our work a cautionary note came from Riddell, Brown and Duffield (1995) who worked in the same area for the Scottish Office Education Department. They were seeking to describe and evaluate current practices in teaching pupils with dyslexia. They discovered very early on that there were clear conflicts between those who felt that dyslexia was a within-child condition in many cases constitutional in origin (Scottish Dyslexia Association) and those who followed the implications of the Warnock Commission (DES, 1975) and placed much greater emphasis on inappropriate teaching and curricula. The Special Educational Needs Centre at MMU is fully committed to the latter position, we were in partnership with the BDA. However, the dilemma was resolvable.

From my own teaching experience I had come to the same conclusions as Cox (1983, et. seq.):

Eighty percent of all normal children can successfully learn to read by any method of teaching. ... The remaining 20% who are physically and intellectually normal but who have difficulty in auditory, visual and / or kinaesthetic recognition or memory, must learn all of the language skills through a logically structured, multi-sensory presentation'.

We were dealing with a mixed group of 'instructional causalities' and 'true' dyslexics. Two implications followed. Any method proposed must not stigmatise pupils. Therefore it must work quickly, be applicable to all pupils and not require lengthy specialist training. It must fit comfortably into a normal classroom routine and be within the capabilities of the staff in that classroom. I am not arguing against specialist training but for a 'grassroots' model of it. If, as a result of undertaking the work the staff are motivated to seek further training this is a bonus. However, implementation of the scheme must not be predicated on such training. In the UK we already tried 'Reading Recovery' (Clay, 1979) which had produced excellent results but at the cost of 400 hours of training per teacher. In any case teachers have found that the method makes too many demands on the working memory of pupils with dyslexia. Another instance of where widespread implementation of a successful pilot scheme which failed because the pilot conditions were too expensive to replicate is in Tizard (1991).

Secondly, the method itself must indicate clearly and quickly the pupils for whom it was not applicable. (We were applying Cox's '80%-rule' again, our methods would probably work with 80% of the 20% failing with normal methods.) Such pupils clearly needed a multi-professional assessment to determining how they could best attain literacy. Their response to the new methods would be evidence far superior to any screening system. There should be few enough of them for assessment and support systems to be able to cope.

We thus felt that if mainstream teachers were to use correctly multi-sensory methods the techniques must be captured in the workbooks themselves. There were already excellent practical texts available but these required the teacher to read and understand them and then to construct her own lessons and materials. By definition, they were not seen as accessible by teachers as they were not in widespread use. They were seen as relating to a specialist rather than a mainstream role. Our best hope therefore lay in the application of direct teaching to multi-sensory methodology. A seminal reference is Engelmann and Carmine's (1982) 'A Theory of Instruction, Principles and Applications'. Rupley and Blair (1983) applied the method to reading instruction calling it 'Diagnostic-Based Instruction'. I have reported on this aspect more fully elsewhere (Johnson and Bryan, 1998, in press)

The Project

The project itself was composed of two interwoven strands. One related to examining the current position regarding support for pupils having difficulty attaining literacy with current methods. The other related to the selection and trialling of potential new materials. Under the constraints of time and finance there was no way that yet another scheme could be devised from scratch.

The first action step was to devise a checklist for the selection of suitable pupils in collaboration with teachers taking our dyslexia training courses. Secondly, a questionnaire was sent to all 200+ previous course members asking where they were now working and what methods they were using. The majority was not employed in mainstream classrooms but in specialist units or services. They worked mainly with pupils having a Statement of SEN. Interviews with the heads of support services in local LEA confirmed these findings. They would have liked to be involved at an early Code of Practice Stage and to give both assessment and intervention support without the necessity for multi-professional assessment and consequent formalisation of a pupil's difficulties. However pressures of both finance and lack of trained staff meant that they worked almost exclusively with pupils with Statements.

The survey also emphasised that if materials were to be used by mainstream teachers they must be published and easy to use and not require:

• teachers to make/prepare their own materials
• a lot of training or specialist courses
• children to be withdrawn from a class to be taught by another teacher and which, therefore,
• could be used by classroom teachers without an increase in demands on their time.

The specialist teachers were asked about the materials they used and found most effective and easy to use

There was strong agreement that Multi-sensory (MS) methods were most effective and in particular were cited the schemes Hickey, Kingston and Alpha to Omega. However the difficulties mainstream teachers found in using them were length of training required, difficulty in understanding the concepts involved and the need for 1 to 1 or very small group teaching
They also mentioned the use of other published materials - in particular "Beat Dyslexia", which many used to supplement their use of other MS Teaching schemes.

Teacher-friendly materials

Therefore if teachers were to become confident that they could help pupils with mild to moderate dyslexia any methods used must be self-contained, require no elaborate preparation of materials, need only a short introduction or training programme and take a minimal amount of time during the day so as not to disrupt normal teaching. To be effective they must be based on sequential, structured, multi-sensory methods. They must also give the pupils an insight into the processes of reading and learning to read at the same time as developing their reading skills. Pupils who had more significant difficulties with the pre-requisites for learning - memory, language, perception, concentration, sequencing, organisation etc. would clearly need more support than these methods can offer. But equally, the fact that they did not benefit from them would give a clear and early indication that 'fast-tracking' to later stages of the Code of Practice was essential. From the start of the project we were very conscious that teaches were feeling under pressure from the requirements of the National Curriculum, 'League tables' and OFSTED. We also recognised that there was a proposal that an hour each day be devoted to the National Literacy Strategy and so our methods must be compatible with this structure. Approaches should also take into account research on phonological awareness (although recent research indicated less 'transfer' to reading attainments than might have been expected). As a result of this preliminary work we decided to trial 3 approaches.

Phonological Awareness Training (Wilson, 1993) a series of three work books that are designed to improve reading, spelling and writing of words that are spelt as they sound. It takes account of the fact that children are able to split words into beginning and end sounds (b - at) before they are able to split them fully into component sounds (b - a - t). Pupils generate their own words for reading and spelling and therefore have an active role in their learning. The programme is designed to be used with groups in mainstream schools for 10 minutes daily.

Beat Dyslexia (BDX) (Stone, Franks and Nicholson, 1993) a series of 4 workbooks with accompanying tapes that again take a sequential, structured approach to teaching reading, spelling and handwriting skills. The programme is designed to be taught by non-specialists (so parents and learning support assistants can use it). It has fully scripted tapes explaining each exercise and the authors suggest that pupils can use it independently with a teacher offering reinforcement and checking completed exercises. The books provide sound and spelling cards that are intended to be used daily to drill the pupils on the sounds/spellings they have previously learnt, encouraging reinforcement and so mastery. The short exercises make it ideal for pupils with short concentration spans. No previous knowledge is assumed and pupils can quickly move through the exercises that cover areas they already know. The books also fit in with the objectives of the English National Curriculum.

The Multi-Sensory Teaching System (MTS) (Smith, 1993) an American multi-sensory programme for mainstream pupils. The programme focuses on reading (although a spelling element is under development) and gives direct instruction in letter/sound relationships and concepts which underlie the reading process. It also teaches pupils the correct terms to describe parts of speech, the ways words are built up from sound and how those sounds are formed. The programme is broken into short fully scripted lessons and pupils learn by a process of 'guided discovery'. Evaluations of the scheme have been good. As well as clear increases in reading proficiency they show that teachers being to learn alongside the pupils, become interested in the concepts and terms being used that either had not been part of their professional development to date or forgotten because of lack of use. Such interest then results in them seeking further training often through the setting up of either formal or informal support groups.

Why include an American method for UK teachers?

• lack of evidence of in-class teaching elsewhere
• adherence to a M-S method
• scripting - no other materials required.

What the research involved

Fourteen classes from 8 schools for 8 weeks, Year 2 and Year 5, 6 pupils in each selected by the research team and school, based on:

• teacher selection using our identification checklists
• discrepancy between non-verbal/verbal ability and scores on reading, spelling and phonic test.
• a self-esteem inventory

We do not suggest that the pupils selected are 'dyslexic'. However, pupils selected are all at risk of having difficulties acquiring literacy and some show 'dyslexic tendencies'. We believed they would benefit from 'dyslexia friendly' forms of teaching specifically the use of sequential, structured, multi-sensory programmes. Teachers were given a short introductory 'training' session of 1 - 1.5 hours that included a rationale for the research. They were assured that they could seek support from a University tutor 'on request'. Teaching sessions lasted from 10 - 20 minutes per day by 4 days a week.

Results

One Year 5 teacher found that the method was not compatible with her teaching and discontinued it. In another Year 5 class there was a change of teacher after 4 weeks. These 2 classes showed no gains. In all other classes the methods showed improvement.

Table I. Year 2 Performance

The most "successful" of the 3 approaches was MTS in terms of

• improved Reading Ages
• improved Spelling Ages
• improved self-esteem
• acceptance by teachers/LSAs as a suitable method.

Interviews with both pupils and teachers after the programme showed impact on the "success-flow" and feeling of enskillment by teachers, NTAs and children. Here are a selection of quotations from the interviews with staff and children:

1. The NTA especially felt she had gained a lot from conducting the lessons particularly getting to follow the progress of individual pupils. She felt happy conducting the lessons from the book alone without any additional training. The 'scripted' nature of the programme was seen as a positive thing particularly as it meant it was useable with only basic training. It had given her more confidence as an 'educator', "A lot of the time you don't actually get to sit and teach". (NTA interview report)

2. "They're breaking things down now, especially the work on syllables, they really enjoyed that and it has done a lot for their spellings and they're able to see patterns now." (Teacher)

3. They all felt they had learnt something new from the work particularly that they had increased their vocabulary and were able to talk confidently about concepts such as vowels, consonants, initial medial and final sounds in words, open and closed, 'breves' and macrons, long and short vowels and able to provide definitions for them. They explained how the vocal chords, tongue and mouth move differently in different sounds and how symbols could be used to express how certain sounds should be pronounced. (Teacher's report)

4. Another example they gave of how the pupils knowledge had changed was CO's reaction when she came to a contraction in her reading book. The NTA described CO's reactions, "she said .... that's one of those things we've done isn't it, that means that's two words, so what are the two words?" and they worked it out together. (Researcher's record)

5. Significantly they learnt there are 'lots of reasons why you can't read some things' referring to the different rules of pronouncing letters in different positions in words. They were learning the 'RULES" of reading and how to apply them rather than just improving their reading ability. (Teacher's report)

6. The children talked about their new knowledge and would find examples in their class work, even if they could not remember the 'label' they were able to correctly describe the concept. The teacher was surprised at the new level of knowledge they had and how they were able to cope with some concepts she didn't think they'd be able to cope with, "they have amazed me". (Researcher's report)

7. They retained the concepts they were taught and made strongly the distinction between the number of letters in the alphabet (26), "not listening sounds, I mean in the alphabet", and the number of speech sounds they could form (44). (Pupil interview report)

Reflection

We believe that this is successful collaborative research. Teachers and pupils were fully involved at all stages, their responses set the direction for the work. We avoided criticising current methods but suggested viable alternatives. Pupils reported feeling special, not as having special needs. They felt that they now not only were on the way to reading but also knew how reading 'works'. In short, our materials made directly available to mainstream teachers a method known to help pupils who do not readily acquire literacy, learn to read. Thus they provide not only a direct intervention but also an effective early screening device for those for whom specialised assessment is essential if they are to succeed. However, this was where politics took over again. The research was commissioned under the Conservative government. In May 1997 the 'New Labour' under Tony Blair gained power. They set up a National Literacy Strategy Group and a School Effectiveness Unit. Mindful of the need to produce results quickly to maintain the impetus of the new party in power they developed their own structures and methodologies. Our work not seen as part of that process as it was initiated by those seen to have a different ideology. It has to be openly admitted that the process of working towards acceptance by those groups had intellectual, ethical and political elements. Because of the collaborative nature of the work we were confident that mainstream literacy teaching could be improved by the use of our materials. We were also convinced that there would be a 'spin-off' into the personal and professional development of the staff involved. The numbers of pupils labelled as 'special' as the price of appropriate teaching would be reduced. Thus papers were written showing clearly how what we were proposing could be seen as congruent with what had already been written about the literacy strategy. They were considered seriously by the leaders of those developments partly because of the force of their arguments and partly because of the credibility of the BDA and the University.

The result was a 'production contract'. By January 1999 we had deliver to the DfEE enough packs of materials to place one with each LEA Literacy Centre and with each LEA Adviser for SEN. They will make primary schools aware of them and the MMU are publishing the packages in collaboration with Margaret Smith.

It is somewhat ironic to note that the latest Literacy Strategy materials follow exactly our structure. They even offer scripting. They do, however, relate to sentence and text as well as to word level work. MTSR is recognised as appropriate for pupils not making progress with those materials.

Bibliography

Clough, P. and Barton, L. (1995) Making Difficulties: Research and the construction of SEN. London: Paul Chapman Publishing

Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) (1981) Unpopular Education: Schooling and social democracy in England since 1944. Chapter 10: The Great Debate and after. Pp. 208-227 London: Hutchinson

Clay, M.M. (1979) The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties. London: Heinemann

Cooper, N. and Stevenson, C. (1998) 'New science' and psychology. The Psychologist, Vol.11, No.10, pp.484-5

Cox, A.R. (1983) Programming for teachers of dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia, 33, 221-233

Department of Education and Science (DES) (1975) Special Educational Needs (Warnock Report). London: HMSO

Englemann, S. and Carmine, D. (1982) A Theory of instruction, Principles and Applications. New York: Irvington

Gray D.E & Denicolo P. (1998) Research in special needs education: objectivity or ideology? British Journal of Special Education, Vol.25, No. 3, pp.140-145

Henwood, K.L. and Nicholson, N.F. (Ed.) (1995) Qualitative research. The Psychologist, Vol.8, No.3 (Special Issue)

Heron, J. (1996) Co-operative Inquiry :Research into the human condition. London: Sage

Johnson, M. and Bryan, K. (1999) Pupils with mild to moderate dyslexia in mainstream schools. Reading (submitted)

Johnson, M. and Robertson, J (1999) Hemispheric Stimulation by Computer for pupils with Dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities. (Submitted)

Morgan, M. (1998a) Qualitative research … Science or pseudo-science? The Psychologist, Vol.11, No.10, pp. 481-3

Morgan, M. (1998b) Postscript. The Psychologist, Vol.11, No.10, p.488

Riddell, S., Brown, S. and Duffield, J. (1995) The Ethics of Policy-focussed research in Special Educational Needs in Clough, P. and Barton, L. Making Difficulties: Research and the construction of SEN. London: Paul Chapman Publishing

Rupley, W.H. and Blair, T.R. (1983) Reading Diagnosis and Direct Instruction: a guide for the classroom. London: Houghton Mifflin

Schindele, R.A. Research methodology in special education, in Hegarty, S. and Evans, P. (Ed.) (1985) Research and evaluation methods in special education.Windsor: NFER-Nelson

Sherrard, C. (1998) Social dimensions of research. The Psychologist, Vol.11, No.10, pp. 486-7

Smith, M. (1993) Multisensory Teaching System. Forney, Texas: Edmar Publishers

Stoker, R. and Figg, J. (1998) Action research: redefining the term 'scientist practitioner'. Educational and Child Psychology. Vol.15, No.3, pp.55-64

Stoane, C., Franks, E. and Nicholson, J. (1993) Beat Dyslexia (Bk. 1-4). Wisbech: LDA

Strand, S. (1998) A 'value-added' analysis of the 1996 primary school performance tables. Educational Research, Vol.40, No.2, pp.123-137

Tizard, B. (1991) Educational research and educational policy: Is there a link? In Gray, P. and Lindsay, G. (Ed.) Research and its relation to policy. Educational and Child Psychology, Vol.8, No.1

Wilson, J. (1994) Phonological Awareness Training. London: Educational Supply Publishers

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992) Professional Development in Higher Education: A theoretical framework for action. London: Kogan Page

Note: Whilst the work referred to above was commissioned and financed by the DfEE the opinions expressed in this report at the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of the DfEE.