can action research reveal how to raise attainment levels in l2

Can action research reveal how to raise

attainment levels in L2 English Functional

Skills writing?

Lisa Williamson

19 June 2013

Declaration

I declare that this research article is the product of my own work and is available for

publication by the IFL or SCOPE.

Signed Date

L J Williamson 28 February 2013

Research Ethics Declaration

Approval for action research was given by the Director of Centre for Skills for Life. Senior

Management was supportive in allowing me to carry out the research with the students in my

classes.

I understand that in accordance with the principles of ethical research neither the subjects of

my research, or the place of my research, can be identified from this dissertation.

Signed Date

L J Williamson 28 February 2013 (Revised 16

May 2013)

Acknowledgements

I should like to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to Caryn Loftus, for guiding my

research article preparation. In particular, a special thank you to the students who

participated in my teaching episodes, without which, this action research would not be

possible, in order to inform future practice.

Abstract

The purpose of this research study was to investigate whether the achievement levels in L2

writing ability, for Functional Skills, can be raised. Following observation of Functional Skills

English practice, during the last year, students appeared to readily struggle with the

requirements of the writing curriculum following the introduction of the new qualification.

Overall attainment rates, in the college where I worked, reached only 28. This led me to

consider whether the poor success rate was as a result of:

1. Lack of engagement by students in the curriculum structured to promote

employability skills and future learning.

2. Inadequate teaching, as a result of the introduction of a new curriculum.

3. Inadequate teaching, by secondary schools, in the building blocks for writing skills.

4. Too high, the pass mark set by exam boards.

It would have been beneficial to have compared my college success rates against

national achievement levels for our awarding body, but such information was not

made available for inclusion within this research. This may have highlighted a

national issue and the need not to just improve L2 writing levels within the FE Sector.

The research was conducted in three groups of students within a Further Education setting

utilising diverse activities involving teacher-led and student-initiated experiences for

comparison, based on the principles of Social Constructivism to promote active learning

contexts. The three selected groups consisted of three males and two females, each will

similar social economic backgrounds and abilities. All were aged 17 years of age. One group

was a control group where the standard Functional Skills curriculum was taught for

comparison purposes. My research was conducted over six teaching sessions where

student behaviour, writing performances and behaviours were observed and following the

release of results by the exam board.

The Action Research methodology enabled systematic progression in my inquiries which

were enhanced further by use of Sociological Research methods. All research data was

collated using qualitative methods such as through observation, e.g. triangulation and also

discussion as shown in Appendix 6, p.41.

The main outcome of my research proposes there needs to be a new focus on developing

writing skills in adolescents. There is insufficient preparation for life skills, employability and

study at higher education levels by secondary school. A second finding is that students

actively involved in the delivery and planning of a writing curriculum achieve better results

where the principles of social constructivism are adopted. A unique insight is provided into a

student’s developing literacy world of writing.

The third finding suggests that there are potential benefits for Functional Skills practice in the

acceptance and promotion of an alternative teaching strategy by not purely embedding the

vocational interests of the students. A change is proposed to urge Functional Skills practice

away from the traditional teaching strategies and therefore accept that students require

inspirational, motivating and creative learning contexts to promote attainment of L2 writing

skills actively need to be involved in their education.

The conclusion of this research considers that a specific focus at national level, bridging the

life skills and employability gap between Key Stage 4 and further education, is now

necessary in order to place on track student writing ability; to be fully functional at L2.

Students had insufficient personal experiences of life skills and knowledge of employability

topics to respond fully to exam questions, despite a wealth of resources available. These

need to be taught and with the active curriculum involvement of students to embrace their

own ideas and resources, to support their learning and personal development, in line with

the principles of Social Constructivism. Why then should student creatively and self initiated

responses be curtailed as found within the recommended standard delivery of Functional

Skills for writing?

L J Williamson

Contents

Pages

Introduction

8

Section 1: The issue

8-10

Section 2: The literature review

10-13

Section 3: Intervention

13-21

Section 4: Results and analysis

21-23

Section 5: Discussion, conclusion and

ongoing research

23-26

Bibliography

26-32

Appendices

33-66

Research question and answer

67

Introduction

The organisation I work for is a college of Further Education who provides full and part-time

education from aged 14 years to adulthood. Courses are wide ranging and are diverse in

content and are available to both staff and students. Everyday skills to vocational courses

are taught, encompassing also GCSEs, A levels, Functional Skills as well as First Degrees.

Teacher training is provided, for example, PGCE qualifications. My role is wide ranging,

flexible and diverse as I teach Maths, English and ICT Functional Skills within mixed ability

classes, from Entry Level to Level 2. I am also a staff mentor whereby I train and support

staff.

The issue

Introduction

1.1 Focus

This research study aims to investigate if the current level of L2 Functional Skills writing

ability can be raised as a result of conducting action research, to inform practice. It is

focused upon three groups of five students within English Functional Skills lessons. The

purpose is to ascertain what the issues

are preventing achievement and whether active student involvement within the delivery of

the curriculum holds meaning and value. Will the principles of Social Constructivism have an

impact on student ability? The focus specifically builds on previous research by LLUK

(Lifelong Learning UK, March 2010) and Embedding Functional Skills on vocational course

by the NRDC (National Research Development Centre, 2006) who ascertained the role of

the teacher and relevant qualifications together with embedding within vocational courses

boosted attainment levels of literacy and numeracy. This research focus highlights a need

for change in attitude and practice of curriculum delivery, by implementing key principles in

Social Constructivism, and a direct national focus in writing skills within the UK English

curriculum. This supports the views by Craft (2001b) who proposes teaching strategies

should be open to innovation and constant change in order to reflect the characteristics of

our culture.

My interest for this area of focus derived from teaching Functional Skills English and marking

initial assessments across college which revealed poor attainment of writing skills and the

absence of building blocks necessary to structure appropriate responses for different forms

of writing. The attainment level, for L2 Functional Skills writing, only achieved 28% as a

success rate during the academic year 2011-12 in my workplace.

1.2 Definitions

This research makes frequent reference to both meaning and value. Thompson (1996)

defines meaning as a significant idea whilst value is regarded as being something of worth. It

is important to define, as follows, what Functional Skills, L2 writing and Social Constructivism

terms mean in order to produce consistent clarity during the investigation and notably for

consideration of the conclusion having analysed qualitative data.

A) Functional Skills

Functional Skills (FS) are free standing qualifications covering English, Mathematics and

Information and Communication Technology (ICT). These were developed in response to

employer demands that identified these particular skills gaps when trying to recruit staff.

Following FS piloting during 2007-2010, national implementation occurred in September

2010. O’Grady and Frier (2010) advised Functional Skills were ‘initially a mandatory

component of 14-19 Diplomas: applied qualifications combining academic and practical

learning designed to meet the needs of employers and Higher Education, and introduced in

September 2008.’ Functional Skills have replaced both Key Skills qualifications and Skills for

Life qualifications (2011). The DfES defines Functional Skills as:

‘the core elements of English, mathematics and ICT that provide an individual with

the essential knowledge, skills, and understanding that will enable them to operate

confidently effectively and independently in life and at work.’ Appendix 1 defines the

levels within the FS curriculum for attainment.

B) English Functional Skills (Level 2)

Achievement of the qualification is as follows:

Speaking and Listening Assessment: two assessments (informal and formal) as well

as a formal presentation.

Reading paper and a writing paper (on-line and paper based).

The aim of the curriculum is to equip students with the essential practical skills and

knowledge for employability, life and further study. The DfES (2007, p.22) advises FS

English is necessary to:

‘to encourage learners to demonstrate their speaking and listening, reading and

writing skills in a range of contexts and for various purposes. They are essentially

concerned with developing and recognising the ability of learners to apply and

transfer skills in ways that are appropriate to their situation.’

The Functional Skills Support Programme (2007, p.92) considers ‘Functional writing is about

applying writing to real examples, situations and tasks.’ It believes that adolescents should

be adequately prepared with the necessary writing skills equip them in the workplace and for

further study. There needs to be clarity on who they are writing for, their audience and

purpose as well as familiarity of the different text types for writing e.g. instruction,

persuasion, recount and explanation e.g. reports and articles, discussion, informal and

formal letters, analysis, arguments, evaluation and information. The use of text type

influences the writing structure and the type of sentences needed. At Level 2, the concept of

register must be apparent. It is the way the audience is addressed by the writer; it is not

reliant on the use of vocabulary alone. Within the writing there must be a range of sentence

structures at Level 2, including complex sentences, accurate punctuation such as use of

commas, apostrophes and inverted commas and use of grammar. There must be a

consistent correct use of tense and familiarity of spelling of everyday words at L2. Appendix

3 details, according to Excellence Gateway (2013), the most commonly misspelt words.

C) Social Constructivism Principles

Social Constructivism highlights the importance of culture and context in learning and

constructing understanding. It is associated with contemporary developmental theories

notably connected with Vygotsky, Bruner and Bandura for child development. It promotes

inclusive learning. Vygotsky, cited by Brooks (2002, p.1) considers life experiences influence

development and learning. The key principles (p.26) encourage movement away from

standard models of teaching, development and learning. Learning is socially mediated and

the teacher has a limited role. The curriculum is contextually relevant and problem based.

Differing forms of assessment are authentic and meaningful. It is based on specific

assumptions reality (constructed through activity); knowledge (culturally structured through

meaningful actions when engaged in activities) and learning (engaged though a social

process). The opinions of Kukla (2000), Gredler (1997) and McMahon (1997) refer.

The Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

To provide the conceptual framework for my research, it was necessary to read an extensive

list of reference materials as reflected in my bibliography. Not only did I have to consider the

appropriate manner to undertake my research, but generally understand how to promote

active learning within the social context of Social Constructivism. I needed to understand

how students creatively think and best learn as well as reviewing prior research connected

with writing skills. This was deemed necessary to accurately reflect upon my teaching and

student responses during research activities.

2.2 Previous research and influential theory

The origins of Functional Skills lie in the Tomlinson Report (DfES, 2007), in the call for 14-19

education reform and the need for employability as recommended within the Leitch Report

(2006). I was astonished to learn that it was possible to pass a GCSE in English and Maths

without having a satisfactory standard of literacy and numeracy. Only 45% of students

nationally achieve A*- grade C GCSE English or Maths.

The NRDC (National research Development Centre) by Casey et al. considers achievement

of both literacy and numeracy are promoted when the concept of ‘embedding’ is employed.

This is defined as ‘bringing together the vocational or subject teaching (2006, p.8). There are

differing models of delivery, as explored by Eldred (2005), such as two teachers being

timetabled to teach at the same time or being able to teach more than one subject. Learners

were found to achieve a 42% higher level of achievement for literacy as a result of

embedding. However, this would mean there would be a requirement for teaching staff to

plan together and a willingness by vocational tutors to develop their own writing ability,

integrating L2 writing diagnostic results or initial assessment into their vocational teaching.

The research conducted by the Functional Skills Support Programme (2007) clearly defines

the English ‘vision’ and offers teaching and learning strategies to support learners in their

development of English writing skills. This report cites employer’s expectation of a potential

employee’s writing ability. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Report (August 2006)

concluded that many people fell short of the standard required for employment as they were

not considered to be functionally literate for employability.

Previous key research therefore identifies weaknesses in the GCSE English Language

curriculum and lack of skills for employability. It offers, by way of the introduction of

Functional Skills, ‘a solution’ to a national problem supported by a wealth of teaching and

learning strategies and support materials for all subjects. So, to understand further why L2

writing results are so low, if it is not a result of lack of resources surely the reason was to do

with inadequate teaching and learning? Thornton (2006, p.11) considers it is the students,

failing in the first instance, to understand the rudiments of grammar and building blocks of

writing. Once key elements such as verbs, adjectives, pronouns, adverbs, subjects and

objects, using the right form of verb, pronouns and the ability to form complete sentences is

achieved, basic writing errors can be eradicated.

Bonwell and Eisen (1991) highlighted the need for change from traditional methods of

conducting lectures. They proposed that to create ‘excitement’ and motivation in learning,

interactional instructional techniques were needed. Their analysis of the research literature

(Chickering and Gamson, 1987) suggested that students ‘must do more than just listen:

They must read, write, discuss, or be engaged in solving problems’ and be actively involved,

engaged in such higher-order thinking tasks as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Students

needed to be involved in lessons and think about what they are doing. (1991, p. 1). Such

teaching and learning strategies mirrored concepts of ‘active learning’ within social contexts

linked with the principles of Social Constructivism. Such as the view by Au (1998) who

considers that use of a diverse ‘social constructivist perspective’ can boost literacy

attainment in students of diverse backgrounds. Aspects of class management, teaching and

learning and use of resources need to be addressed by educators. She argues that any gap

in achievement is a direct result of cultural and linguistic differences (as personal values are

not followed), discrimination, inferior education and rationales for schooling. Cummins

(1986) proposed

a theoretical framework for empowering students of diverse backgrounds, linking learning

events and the wider society. Appendix 4 shows Au’s (1998) proposed framework for

promoting all aspects of literacy as a result of adopting the principles of Social

Constructivism.

Wink and Putney (2002), cited by Brooks (2002, p. 4), link Vygotskian theories, on the

importance of culture and social context for cognitive development, with more contemporary

views of social construction for specific application in the classroom. Such views have

influenced the preparation of my research intervention. The outcomes of which are

discussed in section 3 that follows. The table in Appendix 10 shows key elements of their

theories.

2.3 Examiner Reports

All Edexcel examiner reports available for on-screen testing and paper based were

reviewed in order to understand further the weaknesses of students. The writing paper

requires students to complete two writing tasks for which marks are awarded for form,

communication and purpose and spelling, punctuation and grammar use. 40% of marks are

for spelling, punctuation and grammar. In the Chair of Examiners Report (2011-2012), on-

line testing, unsuccessful learners were found to have a lack, in their answers, of:

a) Development

b) Clarity and accuracy.

c) Sequencing of ideas, yet bullet points in exam questions to aid learners to structure

their responses were not used.

d) Inner logic.

e) Correct structure for letter layouts and omission of key details.

f) Paragraphs.

g) Correct spelling: common errors included missing possessive apostrophes and those

used in plural nouns. In e-mail responses i was used instead of a capital letter for the

pronoun.

Such findings mirror paper based tests by examiners. Generally, it seems, that work

produced in exams is not fit for purpose, learners fail to read the question and attention

is required to address spelling, grammar and punctuation to achieve the pass mark

percentage of 70%.

2.4 Conclusion

My review of literature has enabled me to formulate ideas and opinions to prepare for my

intervention. There is agreement amongst Social Constructivist theorists that learners can be

actively engaged in cognitive learning. The model of Brooks (2002) will therefore play a

significant role in promoting understanding, development and achievement of L2 writing

skills amongst my selected three groups of students. The new study programme proposed

by the government (DfES, 2012) will have big implications for the FE sector. Of key

importance, is that Maths and English are at the centre of the proposals, which will increase

Skills for Life/ Functional Skills provision owing to the rise in numbers of learners taking

qualifications. Raising achievement levels in literacy is even more paramount.

The intervention

3.1 Introduction

This section addresses the relevance, purpose, actual implementation and outcomes of

each teaching episode in relation to my research aims. The table in Appendix 6, p.41

conveys the data collection methods utilised for each teaching episode. A systematic and

consistent approach was therefore adopted throughout the research program as shown in

Appendix 5. Each of the episodes, for simplistic purposes, have been summarised and

highlight my main findings.

3.2 Teaching Episodes

Teaching Episode 1 (Adult-led activity for elicitation)

Aims

To elicit student opinion towards Functional Skills.

To elicit how writing skills could be improved to achieve L2 writing.

Analysis and assessment

Analysis of student responses on audio-tape.

Comparison of triangulation data.

Completion of a questionnaire on Functional Skills.

Observation of general student responses.

Relevance and context

This activity was selected to elicit student’s thoughts towards Functional Skills and their

thoughts on student writing ability and how they could improve existing skills. To carry out

the discussion activity, each group of students were sat at one table in the classroom. The

teaching episode was concluded following completion of the survey. To prevent a distortion

of data, students were then asked to sit separately within the classroom.

Main findings

The findings from this activity suggest that students feel restricted and negative towards

Functional Skills English. All forms of writing are generally disliked and they prefer to rely on

technology ‘to get them by.’ My journal entry extract for discussion and survey results are

contained within Appendix 6.

Reflection

I was surprised at the level of enthusiasm to participate in the study. This was a common

factor amongst all three groups of students. In addition, each group arrived at the same

question, unaware of the responses of other groups in the research- How can written skills

be improved without a recent assessment and at what level? Initial assessments had been

made during the start of the academic year, together with weekly feedback on work on how

to progress grammar, punctuation and spelling. Each group felt it was still important to have

an interim writing assessment to see any evident progression. It was therefore agreed that I

would incorporate a current assessment in the next lesson.

Teaching Episode 2 (student-led activity for planning and assessment)

Aims

To elicit student ideas for teaching topics or embedded interests to promote writing

achievement.

Assess current writing ability and Functional Skills Level.

To plan together the next teaching session, following completion of a second

questionnaire.




Completion of initial assessment.



This activity was selected to build on student requests from the first teaching episode. I had

to change my original planning for the control group to accommodate their desire to be

assessed too. A free piece of writing was used, a standard type question for L2 exams by

Edexcel. It was to write a letter of complaint about unsatisfactory venue facilities and the

poor experience following an evening out with friends or family. The assessment was carried

out under exam conditions. Students agreed to produce their ‘best piece of work.’ Letter

writing had not been taught previously so students could demonstrate prior knowledge.

Discussions then took place within groups A and B to ascertain interests and topics to

promote writing skills, following completion of the second questionnaire. For the control

group, they asked what topics they would be covering within the standard English scheme of

work. This was shared.

Main findings

Following assessment of writing skills, interim assessment revealed:

Group Results:

Control Group Only 1 would achieve L2. 4 were currently at

L1.

Group A Only 1 would achieve L2. 4 were at L1.

Group B Only 1 would achieve L2. 4 were at L1.

In each group, attention was needed to letter structure, sequence of logical ideas, use of

formal language and spelling. This mirrored the findings of the Chief Examiner’s report in

2011-12. There were apparent gaps in their prior knowledge.

Main topics for promoting interest in writing skills were found to be Facebook (currently

forbidden within class), hobbies and personal interests and creating imaginative resources

by incorporating humour. This was as a result of group interviews and student feedback

through completed second questionnaires. I was surprised to learn that each group did not

wish the embedding of writing skills, within their vocational course of study, as

recommended by the NRDC report (2006). This was asked following completion of the

questionnaire. Groups A and B independently asked if the questionnaire completed in

teaching episode 1 could be re-completed in the final teaching episode to see if use of Social

Constructivism key principles had any effect on their learning and development. This

surprised me; I had planned to complete a more general review. Teaching episode 6

therefore had to accommodate student requests.

Reflection

The interim results confirmed that I had correctly formed the groups to conduct my research.

Each were of the same ability for writing skills. Interestingly, students from each group were

surprised at their levels of ability, despite consistent feedback given in class and previously

marked work. They thought they had progressed further than they had. This led me to

consider how I could rectify this. I would need to address this in the next teaching episode.

Teaching Episode 3 (student-led activity for promotion of writing an argument)

Aims

To ask students how to inform further their relevant writing skills level.

To share tutor experience on how to raise standards when writing sentences.

To promote the development of a balanced argument, should Facebook be banned

in lessons?




Completion of writing task, incorporating tutor feedback from marked work.



This activity was selected to develop the construction of a balanced argument (a previously

untaught topic) on a popular interest of students. Planning, drafting and proofreading, prior to

handing in the work was required.

Main findings

The control group feedback revealed they liked the idea of writing about a familiar topic.

However, generally observations showed that the students struggled to place thoughts down

on paper. I also observed that they lacked the motivation of groups A and B who were

animated. Both these groups self-initiated a discussion on how best to write the article and

asked for the sharing of my expertise for structuring, notably use of sub-headings. Group B

even had an impromptu debate on the arguments for and against Facebook to promote

balanced peer thoughts when writing. A main finding of this session was that students in

groups A and B were unaware of what a good piece of L2 writing looked like. They

independently asked me to model, on the Activ Board, an example offered by one student by

grading the level (in both cases, Level 1) then writing a sentence at L2 to compare the

difference. The skills needed for writing sentences were then discussed at each level.

Appendix 2 refers. For the control group, standard direct teaching was used for sentence

construction work.

Reflection

The student responses confirmed my emerging hypothesis that students need to write on

topics of interest. For teaching episode 4, groups A and B were asked how they could

promote writing skills further. Both, independently, asked for a current affairs style lesson

incorporating writing skills by writing an article, in line with the planned scheme of work. As a

result of the Activ-Board sentence construction levels for groups A and B; I will alter my

future practice to show such examples in future English lessons for all my students. Group A

said collectively that each were unaware of the standard needed to achieve L2. Responses

collectively from group B were similar.

Teaching Episode 4 (student –led activity for the promotion of writing an article)

Aims

To promote development of writing an article (previously untaught), independently

researched from current affairs. The focus was ‘what is in the news today?’

To consolidate prior learning by revising how to structure paragraphs and logically

sequence ideas to formulate an article.


Analysis of student responses on video recording.





This article supported the independent requests of Groups A and B from the prior teaching

episode. It promoted the teaching of writing skills needed to structure an article as well as

revision of grammar, spelling and punctuation techniques.

Main findings

The control group took time in searching current affair topic to base their article on. Revision

techniques were discussed for writing an article but responses were vague. Students were

disinterested. Group A self-initiated a ‘Have I got news for you’ style, linked to the popular

BBC TV programme. Each, within the first 15 minutes of the teaching episode, had provided

a cloze sentence to find the missing key word for the title of a headline for a key topic in the

news and used as a quiz within the group. They then decided on the same topic to write their

articles on- should horsemeat be allowed in the British Food chain? Responses were then

independently planned, discussed and compared before they wrote their article separately

with referral to me for support or sharing of expertise. A similar situation arose for Group B;

they planned and discussed using a key topic in the news- the extent of the snowfall in the

UK at the time. Each one took turns to write a section of the article: introduction, research,

disruption, future recommendations and conclusion. Again, my expertise was shared when

asked.

Teaching Episode 5 (student-led activity for the refinement of creative and imaginative

writing skills)

Aims

To promote the development of writing skills using student self-initiated resources

linked to a free writing activity of what’s my story?

To learn how to use sequence cues to structure creative responses and writing

(previously untaught).

To refine techniques, based on feedback received from the tutor.







To meet student requests for groups A and B in teaching episode 2, creativity was

introduced. Students in these groups self selected comical pictures sourced on-line and

chose to compose their story line using logical sequence clues e.g first, then, next and

finally. For the control group, students self-selected four images, linking altogether with an

appropriate story line using cues.

Main findings

Groups A and B were animated and highly motivated. They each tried to find a comical

situation and pictures were combined to form a PowerPoint. I set a challenge, could a story

be produced by linking all the pictures or events together?

Reflection

This activity promoted much enjoyment. In all groups, students were eager to see pictures

selected. However, a common factor in groups A and B, they desired to read out their stories

and peers offered recommendations independently on how their work could be improved

further as a story line. There was an eagerness to share thoughts and opinions and even

their own ‘expertise’ in writing.

Teaching Episode 6 (student-led activity (Peer teaching for exam revision)

Aims

To share exam topic techniques and strategies for the achievement of L2 writing

skills.

To complete the final questionnaire for comparison against teaching episode 1.

To share collectively, thoughts and opinions on the success of the teaching episodes

for research.




Sharing of peer strategies for revision and examination techniques.



This activity was selected to promote revision skills and to observe student responses on

typical exam topics. Research so far had demonstrated animated responses on topics of

interest. The completion of the questionnaire was in response to student requests for groups

A and B, following the ending of the teaching episodes.

Main findings

All groups were asked to share thoughts and opinions on how to prepare for the forthcoming

Functional Skills writing examination. The control group advised this could be achieved by

revising and by sitting further mock papers. In contrast, groups A and B independently asked

if they could research on-line past papers for the types of topic covered and offer exam

techniques and strategies based on independent research. All groups were also given to

revise key spellings from the Dolch list (Appendix 3). For the questionnaire, no real

differences in attitude for the control group, but for groups A and B, a positive shift towards

excellence in teaching and learning. Collectively, groups A and B felt the research showed

students learn better in an active environment with the teacher only sharing expertise. 13/15

felt they were inadequately prepared by secondary school for English language attainment

(Appendix 6, p.56).

Reflection

Groups A and B listed the full range of everyday exam type topics, from writing a letter of

complaint to writing an article on why people should visit where they live. For a letter, two

group members asked to use the Activ board so that could demonstrate best where

addresses and titles should be displayed in group A. For Group B, one member used the

active board to produce an impromptu spider gram showing initial thoughts to plan an

answer for an article. Again, such animated responses were not portrayed by the control

group who lacked motivation from direct teaching and exam practice questions, even though

this was at their request.

Results and analysis

4.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the outcome of my implementation, in relation to my aims, having

analysed and evaluated the data collected throughout my research.

4.2 General observation

Diverse research activities were purposely planned on untaught topics to segregate Groups

A and B from the normal provision for writing activities. This was deemed necessary to

ascertain response and see if there was value in the adoption of the key principles in Social

Constructivism. Adult-led and student-led initiated teaching episodes were utilised for

comparison of student responses. Real differences were observed when compared to the

responses and results of the control group. I discovered across the six episodes a central

trend emerged. The concept of value arose, in the promotion and acceptance of Social

Constructivism principles by practice.

4.3 Impact of intervention on practice

Standard lessons are normally lively in my class and I actively encourage student

participation in order to boost achievement levels. My workplace actively encourages

embedded vocational provision and I am currently on a working party to promote cross-

college provision. Despite this, the intervention had a considerable impact on my practice.

Students need to be allowed to think for themselves in a creative and active way. By giving

them ownership of their learning, they are actively involved and have a say in the delivery of

the curriculum. There was a common trend across all groups in that contrary to the findings

of the NRDC (2006), students did not wish to have their English curriculum within their

vocational course of study. Teaching episode 2 refers. Students in groups A and B felt it was

more relevant to learn actively from each other and for the role of the tutor to be more of an

educator/ facilitator by sharing opinion and expertise as shown in teaching episode 6.

Extracts from my journal entry, Appendix 6 page 62 refers.

4.4 Informing future practice

This research informs practice by adopting a series of recommendations as shown in

Appendix 9. The key principles of Social Constructivism promote teaching and learning. It

offers a potential, as a teaching strategy, for all other subjects. The research also reveals the

following:

a) Students consider their written skills to be of a higher standard than diagnostic

assessment levels.

b) Students have negative feelings towards Functional Skills and the relevance as a

qualification.

c) Motivation is apparent when the key principles of Social Constructivism are adopted.

d) 87% of the students felt they had been inadequately taught at secondary school for

the standard of L2 writing skills.

What worked well was the planning and discussion with the students. Ideas were shared and

students in groups A and B wanted to be involved too in preparing the resources (teaching

episode 5) and peer teaching (teaching episode 6). They willing shared how things could

even promote learning further in the following teaching episode. There was real value in the

proposed conceptual framework for teaching by Au (1997) and by Brooks (2002) as shown

in Appendices 4 and 9.

4.5 Qualitative data

To aid my constant interpretation of developing events, I utilised the systematic cycles for

Action Research as suggested by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) to encourage reflective

practice (Appendix 5). It involved use of situational, collaborative, self-evaluative,

participatory, therapeutic and diagnostic methodologies. It was a method that also allowed

me to discover new teaching approaches, through constant and relevant purpose. It further

offered the challenge of dealing with concrete problems in immediate situations, reflecting

the opinion of Cohen and Manion (1989).

As Hitchcock and Hughes (1995) recommend use of qualitative methods for educational

research, this study specifically incorporated use of proven methods such as triangulation.

This technique offered a three-way perspective during observations, providing a degree of

authenticity to each teaching episode. In placing students within specific research contexts,

rather than based on essential attributes, I also promoted the view of McNamee and Bridges

(2002) that postionality produces qualitative research.

The results show that:

One student in the control group achieved a pass at 70% for L2 writing. A 20% success rate

was therefore only achieved. In contrast, Group A and B showed an 80% success rate.

These are based on on-line exams taken on the same day, 14 January 2013, by the same

exam board (Appendix 8). The graph shows the striking impact the intervention made on

student achievement.

When analyses further: individual achievement rates were as follows:

There were no borderline passes in

achievement for groups A and B unlike

the control group.

Group: Number Average percentage

Control 1 70% Borderline pass

Group A 4 75% Average pass rate

Group B 4 78% Average pass rate

4.6 Summary

I had considered, at the start of this research that students may fail writing exams owing to

limited life experiences based on everyday exam topics e.g. writing a letter of complaint. The

same weaknesses in logical sequencing of ideas, constructing thoughts and opinions were

apparent in each teaching episode on previously untaught topics. Each of the students

within the three groups came from different secondary schools. This led me to question if the

GCSE English Language curriculum is adequately preparing students for life, further

education and employability. The skills were simply not there at the start of the research

amongst my students.

Discussion, conclusion and ongoing research

5.1 Discussion

Teaching episodes for groups A and B revealed that students were animated, engaged and

highly animated in their learning in contrast to the standard delivery of the Functional Skills

Curriculum as given to the control group. Students in groups A and B self-initiated their

responses and notably in teaching episode 4, group A even formed a quiz based on a BBC

programme ‘Have I got News for you?’ Donaldson (1978) considers all learners have the

ability to demonstrate their skills as thinkers and language users. There was a real flow of

passion, thus concurring with belief of Somekh (2003) that literacy progress can be made for

all when animated and engaged with a creative activity.

5.2 Meaning and value, the journey towards writing achievement

The outcome of teaching episodes 2 to 6 reveals that differing contexts and diverse activities

enhance the promotion of students writing skills. I discovered use of the key principles of

Social Constructivism offer an alternative literacy learning vehicle for students in promoting

use of their emotions, perceptions, thoughts, creativity and imagination. My findings, for all

six episodes, therefore concur with the view of Millard (1997) that the journey to literacy must

encompass diverse and experimental teaching approaches. Students want to actively

participate, share personal experiences and knowledge with peers. The role of a facilitator of

education is welcomed by sharing expertise and experience. For example, in teaching

episode 3 positive responses were received in sharing the different attainment levels for

sentence construction.

5.3 Reflection and potential benefits of acceptance by practice

Kellogg (1969) considers learning should be without oppressive guidance, as evident in

teaching episode 6, in preparation for exams. My research therefore proposes that there are

potential benefits in the acceptance of Social Constructivism principles by providing active

learning environments for students as a teaching strategy for literacy. The results (Appendix

8) show that significant improvements can be made in writing achievement. However, as

with any research, I realise that elements of subjectivity may arise during discussion of

findings, therefore further investigation would be necessary to ascertain the extent of such

potential benefits in order to validate the outcome of my work.

Practice should not dictate formulised delivery of the Functional Skills curriculum. It is not a

prescriptive process, as found with the control group. The findings of activities 2 to 6 for

Groups A and B convey positive student responses and motivation. The results show that

an increase in achievement can occur (Appendix 8). This therefore concurs with the opinion

of Kyriacou (1997) that teaching and learning activities should promote active learning time.

My findings have been discussed with both my Director of Centre and Head of School. As a

result, they have asked me to present to all staff within Functional Skills. There has already

been a sharing of ideas and discussion amongst my IFL peer study group (Appendix 10).

5.4 Limitations of research

Despite my research, I encountered limitations when conducting my study. The composition

of field notes, journal entries and transcripts proved time consuming. I found that these

required practice, to prevent any element of subjectivity arising. I also constantly had to

remain focused as any prospect of unreliability had to be addressed as the work of Cohen

and Manion (1986) suggests the reliability of data decreases validity. This research therefore

has all the elements of a personal enquiry without fulfilling the potential, thus a reflection of

the view of McNiff (1992) when conducting Action Research, as it reflected the outcome of

only a small scale study.

5.5 Conclusion

This research concludes that L2 writing achievement levels can be raised by promoting key

principles of Social Constructivism. Student involvement has a real value in their journey

towards literacy achievement. Recommendations for future practice are therefore as

follows:

1. For a national focus or initiative to be established for raising writing standards. 2. Increased timetabling/ amount of lessons for English. 3. For students to share prior experiences in Literacy. 4. For students to self-assess their Literacy skills, followed by a diagnostic assessment

to compare. 5. Model examples on how to raise levels, use sentence construction, grade it before

the class and model or invite collective responses on how to raise the standard to the next level?

6. Involve students in your planning. Use the theoretical framework by Brooks (2002)- Appendix 10.

7. Let students have ownership of learning; involve them actively in lessons including having a voice or spotlight in the lesson as part of a normal lesson structure. Adopt Social Constructivism principles as shown below.

8. Allocate topics to peer teach the class on a writing subject. 9. Learn key spelling/ Dolch list. 10. Allocate peer buddies- higher/ lower paired ability to work together. 11. Let students make their own resources.

Attainment levels can be raised for L2 Writing- assumptions should not be made that it is just the ability of the student preventing achievement.

Proposed structure for future lessons:

Starter Adult-led activity (5-10 mins)

Student spotlight Student led initiated activity linked to

planning (10 mins)

Main Adult-led activities with student initiated

contributions. Including peer teaching.

(Time-dependent on length of session).

Plenary Student feedback- what went well?

Adult-led with student initiated

contributions. (5-10 mins)

Key principles for Social Constructivism teaching:

Learning is socially mediated.

The teacher has a limited role.

The curriculum is contextually relevant and problem based.

Differing forms of assessment are authentic and meaningful. Based on reality, knowledge and learning within active social contexts. Kukla (2000), Gredler (1997) and McMahon (1997).

As a result of collating student responses for Groups A and B, there also appears to be

insufficient preparation at GCSE English Language to prepare students for employability,

life skills and further study based on their diagnostic assessments and elicitation in teaching

episodes 1 and 2 and discussion in teaching episode 6 (Appendix 6, p.56). Standards for L2

writing were simply not there during my small scale research. There were apparent gaps in

knowledge to construct different forms of writing, especially using formal language. All

students came from different secondary schools. A choice purposely made to compare prior

student literacy experiences. Yet, the 2010 GCSE English speculations have functionality

embedded within them the teaching and learning of Functional Skills. It is therefore

recommended that a national focus is needed for the development of writing skills in

adolescents. My interview with a Head Examiner for Functional Skills English agreed with

such a proposal (Appendix 7). I would like to extend my own professional development by

being involved in such an extensive study, to inform policy at national level. Appendix 11

evidences that there is a firm answer to the posed research question with implications

for future practice.

5.6 Ongoing Research

To ensure that my control group did not miss out on the opportunity to benefit from Social

Constructivism approaches, my research was not only extended, after the pilot, to this group

of students but to all classes. This includes Functional Maths and ICT, as well as BTec

Vocational work Skills units. The full extent of such research will not be determined until the

end of the academic year.

Revised word limit: 6540

Bibliography

Au, K. (1998) Social Constructivism and the School Literacy Learning of students with

diverse backgrounds, Journal of Literacy Research, vol 30, 2, pp. 297- 319.

Bonwell, C and Eison, A. (1991) Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom, ERIC Digest, vol 9 (1), pp. 1-5 Brooks, M. (2002) Drawing to Learn, Canada, University of Alberta.

Casey, H., Cara, C., Eldred, J., Grief, S., Hodget, R., Ivanic, R., Jupp, T., Lopez, D. and

McNeil, Bethia. (2006), Research Development Centre Research Report, London: NRDC.

Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1989, 3rd edn.) Research Methods in Education, London:

Routledge.

Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1986) Research Methods in Education, London: Croam Helim

Ltd.

Craft (2001b) Creativity in Education and Learning, London: Kogan Page Ltd.

Chickering, Arthur W., and Zelda F. Gamson. March 1987. "Seven Principles for Good Practice." AAHE Bulletin 39: 3-7. ED 282 491. 6 pp. MF-01; PC-01.

Confederation of British Industry (2006) Working the three R’s, London: CBI

Cummins, J. (1986) Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention, Harvard

Educational Review, 56, 18-36.

Department for Education and Employment (2007), The Functional Skills Support

Programme, 14-19 Education and Skills, Managing delivery of Functional Skills, Sudbury:

DfES Publications.

Department for Education and Employment (2012) Study Programmes for 16-19 year olds, A

Government Response to Consultation and Plans for Implementation, Sudbury: DfES

Publications.

Donaldson, M. (1978) Children’s Minds, London: Croon Helm Ltd. Edexcel (2012) Chair of Examiner’s Report, London: Edexcel. Eldred, J. (2005), Developing embedded literacy, language and numeracy: Supporting achievement. Leicester: NIACE

Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (3rd ed). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hitchcock, G. and Hughes, D. (1995) Research and the Teacher: A qualitive introduction into

school-based research, London: Falmer Press Ltd.

Kellogg, O. (1969) Foundations of Potential Theory, New York, Dover Publishing.

Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1982, 3rd edn.) The Action Research Planner, Victoria:

Deakin University.

Kukla, A. (2000). Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Science. New York:

Routledge.

Kyriacou, C. (1997, 2nd edn.) Effective Teaching in Schools, Theory and Practice,

Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd.

Leitch, S. (2006) Prosperity for all in the global economy- world class skills, Norwich: HMSO.

McMahon, M. (1997) Social Constructivism and the World Wide Web - A Paradigm for

Learning, Perth: ASCILITE.

McNiff, J. (1992) Creating A Good Social Order Through Action Research, Poole: Hyde

Publications.

McNamee, N (2002) ‘Whose Ethics, Which Research?’ in McNamee, M. and Bridges, D.

(eds.) The Ethics of Educational Research, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Millard, E. (1997) Differently Literate, London: Falmer.

O’ Grady, A. and Frier, H. (1999) All our futures: Creativity, Culture and Education, London:

National Advisory Committee On Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE).

Somekh, B. (2003) Theory and passion in Action Research, Educational Action Research

Journal, Vol. 11, no.2, pp.247-264.

Thompson, D. (1996) The Oxford Compact English Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Thornton, R. (2006) Adult Learners Writing Guide, Edingburgh: Chambers Harrap Publishers

Ltd.

Further reading

Alderson, P. (1995) Listening to Children: Ethics and Social Research, Ilford: Barnardos.

Alexander, R. (1992) Policy and Practice in Primary Education, London: Routledge.

Anderson, L. (1991) Increasing Teacher Effectiveness, Paris: UNESCO.

Annarella, L. (1999) Encouraging Creativity and Imagination in the Classroom, Illinois:

Viewpoints.

Arnheim, R. (1967) Visual Thinking, London: Faber and Faber.

Ausubel, D. (1968) Educational Psychology. A Cognitive View, New York: Holt Rinehart and

Winston.

Barber, M. (1997) The Learning Game: Arguments for An Education Revolution, London:

Indigo.

Beard, R. (1993) Teaching Literacy Balancing Perspectives, Bath: Hodder and Stoughton.

Bell, J. (1993, 2nd edn.) Doing your Research Project, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Besemer, S. and Treffinger, D. (1981) Analysis of Creative Products: Review and Synthesis,

The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 15, 3, pp.58-77.

Bottery, M. (1992) The Ethics of Educational Management, London: Cassell Educational Ltd.

British Educational Research Association (1992) Ethical Guidelines cited 24 April 04

http://www.bera.ac.uk/guidelines.html

Brown, S. and McIntyre, D. (1981) An Action Research approach to innovation in Centralised

Educational Systems, European Journal of Science Education, 3, 3, pp.243-258.

Bruner, J. (1966) Studies in Cognitive Growth, New York: Wiley.

Burgess, R. (1988, ed.) Strategies of Educational Research: Qualitive Methods, Lewes: The

Falmer Press.

Clay, M. (1998) Different paths to different outcomes, York, Maine: Stenhouse.

Craft, A. (2003) Creativity and learning, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Craft, A. (2004) Enabling Creativity, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Creemer, B. (1994) The Effective Classroom, London: Cassell.

Cropley. A. (2001) Creativity in Education and Learning, London: Kogan Page Ltd.

Cruickshank, D. (1990) Research that Informs Teachers and Teacher Education,

Bloomington (Ind): Phi Delta Kappa.

Department for Education and Employment (2005a)14-19 Education and Skills:

Implementation Plan, Sudbury: DfES Publications.

Dodds, M. (2003) Dissidence, difference and diversity in Action Research, Educational

Research Journal, Vol. 11, No.2, pp.265-282.

Edwards, S. (2004) Supporting Writing, London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd. Washington

DC.

Evans, K. (1984) Planning Small Scale Research, Windsor: The NFER Nelson Publishing

Company Ltd.

http://www.bera.ac.uk/guidelines.html

Evans, K. (1984, 3rd edn.) Planning Small Research, Windsor: The NFER-NELSON

Publishing Company.

Fisher, C. (1995, 2nd edn.) ‘Academic Learning Time’ in Anderson, L. (ed.) International

Encyclopaedia of Teaching and Teacher Education, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Fryer, M. (1996) Creative Teaching and Learning, London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.

Gagné, R. (1985, 4th edn.) The Conditions of Learning and the Theory of Instruction, New

York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Holdaway, D. (1979) The Foundations of Literacy, London: Ashton Scholastic.

Hopkins, D. (1993, 2nd, edn.) A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research, Buckingham: Open

University Press Ltd.

Kaplan, A. (1973) The Conduct of Inquiry, Aylesbury: Intertext Books.

King, C. (2001) The role of talk within the literate circle, Reading, Literacy and Language

Journal, 1, 25, pp.32-37.

Kitwood, T. (1977) Values in adolescent life: towards critical description, School of Research

in Education, Bradford: University of Bradford.

Kluckhohn, F. (1940) The participant observation technique in small communities, American

Journal of Sociology, 46, 3, pp.331-43.

Kress, G. (1997) Before Writing: Rethinking the Paths to Literacy, London: Routledge.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leach, J. (2001) ‘A hundred possibilities: creativity, community and new technologies’ in

Craft A., Jeffrey, B. and Leibling, M. Creativity in Education: current perspectives on policy

and practice, London: Continuum.

Littledyke, M. (1998) ‘Constructivist ideas about learning’ in Littledyke, M. and Huxford, L.

(ed.) Teaching the Primary Curriculum for Constructive Learning, Trowbridge: David Fulton

Publishers Ltd.

Littledyke, M. (1998 ‘Teaching for constructive learning’ in Littledyke, M. and Huxford, L.)ed.)

Teaching the Primary Curriculum for Constructive Learning, Trowbridge: David Fulton

Publishers.

Lowenfield, V. and Brittain, W. (1982, 7th edn.) Creative and Mental Growth, New York:

Macmillan.

MacNaughton, G. (2003) Shaping Early Childhood: Learners, Curriculum and Contexts,

Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Massialas, G. and Zevin, J. (1967) Creative encounters in the classroom, New York: John

Wiley and Sons Inc.

Mercer, N. (1995) The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk amongst Teachers and

Learners, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

McLaughlin, C. (2003) The feeling of findings out, the role of emotions in research,

Educational Research Journal, Vol. 11, No.2, pp.65-77.

Measor, L. (1988) Interviewing, a strategy in qualitative research in Burgess, G. (ed.)

Strategies for Educational Research, Thame: Imago Publishing Ltd.

Miles, M. and Huberman, M. (1984) Drawing meaning from Qualitive Data: toward the

shared craft, Educational Research, 13, 5, pp.20-30.

Millard, E. (1997) Differently Literate, London: Falmer.

Monteith, M. (2002) IT for Learning Enhancement, Bedford: Intellect Books.

Mooney, R. (1963) Explorations in Creativity, London: Harper and Row.

Pendlebury, S. and Enslin, P. (2002) ‘Representation and Trust: Towards and Ethics of

Educational Research’ in McNamee, M. and Bridges, D. (eds.) The Ethics of Educational

Research, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Piaget, J. (1959, 3rd edn.) The Language and Thought of the Child, New York: Basic Books.

Polanyi, M. (1958) Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy, London:

Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Pole, C. (1993) Assessing and Recording Achievement, Buckingham: Open University

Press.

Prosser, J. (1998, ed.) Image-based Research: A Sourcebook for Qualitive Researchers,

London: Purcell-Gates.

Reid, G. (1998, 2nd edn.) Dyslexia, A Practitioner’s Handbook, Chichester: John Wiley &

Sons Ltd.

Rogers, C. (1945) The non-directive method as a technique for social research, American

Journal of Sociology, 50, pp.279-83.

Rowland, K. (1976) Visual Education and Beyond, London: Looking & Seeing.

Scheerens, J. (1992) Effective Schooling, Research, Theory and Practice, London:

Dotsesios Ltd.

Seltzer, K. and Bentley, T. (1999) The Creative Age, London: Demos.

Skidmore, D. ‘Having your own voice valued’ in Goodwin, P. (ed.) The Articulate Classroom,

London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd.

Smeyers, P. (2002) ‘Qualitive Versus Quantative Research Design: A Plea for Paradigmatic

Tolerance’ in McNamee, M. and Bridges, D. (eds.) The Ethics of Educational Research,

Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Torrance E.P. (1974c) Torrance tests of Creative Thinking, Lexington, MA: Ginn and

Company.

Vygotsky, L. (1987) The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky, New York: Plenum Press.

Walford, G. (1994, ed.) Researching The Powerful Education, London: UCL Press.

Walker, R. (1990) ‘Methods: issues and problems’ in Moon, B., Isaac, J. and Powney, J.

(ed.) Judging Standards and Effectiveness in Education, Sevenoaks: Hodder and Stoughton

Ltd.

Wearmouth, J., Soler, J. and Reid, G. (2002) Addressing Difficulties in Literacy

Development, London: RouteledgeFalmer.

Wellington, J. (2000) Educational Research Contemporary Issues and Practical Applications,

London: Continuum.

Winch, C. (2002) ‘Accountability and Relevance in Action Research’ in McNamee, M. and

Bridges, D. (eds.) The Ethics of Educational Research, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Wood, P. (2001) ‘Creative Literacy’ in Craft, A., Jeffrey, B. and Liebling, M. Creativity in

Education, London: Continuum.

Wray, D. and Lewis, M. (1997) Extending Literacy, London: Routledge.

Significant Websites

http://www.ncation.org.uk

http://www.creative-partnership.com

http://www.learningalive.co.uk and http://www.naht.org.uk

Appendices

Appendix 1

http://www.ncation.org.uk/

http://www.creative-partnership.com/

http://www.learningalive.co.uk/

http://www.naht.org.uk/

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=UMq9Xu0Nc0ty0M&tbnid=MgBVmV3kLBIXbM:&ved=0CAgQjRwwAA&url=http://handsonblog.org/2011/08/18/5-more-tips-for-writing-an-awesome-volunteer-position-description/&ei=odUXUdbAFKW80QX7koCwAw&psig=AFQjCNHS9RM2a0BPMkAKuykaHF3M5rZVtw&ust=1360602913382989

Source: Functional Skills Support Programme (2007, p.11)

Appendix 2

Source: Functional Skills Support Programme (2007, p. 93)

Activ-Board

Sentence construction comparison

Entry Level 3

It snowed in my road.

Horsemeat should not be

in beef-burgers.

Level 1

It snowed heavily in my

road which is very steep

and is on the side of a

hillside.

Beef-burgers should be

made with a 100% beef

because horses are not for

food.

Level 2

It snowed heavily during

the night, in my road which

is very steep on a hillside,

preventing access to the

lower road causing major

disruption.

Beef-burgers should be

made with a 100% beef,

because horses are

normally bred for equine

sport in the UK and not for

human consumption.

Appendix 3

accommodate

acknowledge

mischievous

misspell

Most common, miss- spelt

words and spelling

progression

Source: FS Support

Programme (2007)

acquire

all right

apparent

bachelor

beginning

benefited

budgeted

business

calendar

committee

competent

completely

concede

conscientious

definitely

discrete

embarrass

embarrassment

exaggerate

existence

focused

fulfil

gauge

government

grammar

grievance

harass

murmur

necessary

negotiate

noticeable

occasionally

occurred

occurrence

omitted

originally

parallel

parliament

pastime

permanent

perseverance

personal

personnel

precede

preceding

prejudice

preliminary

privilege

procedure

proceeds

professional

pronunciation

psychology

publicly

hierarchy

humorous

immediately

incur

incidentally

independent

indispensable

innovative

inoculate

intelligence

interrupt

irresistible

knowledge

liaise

livelihood

maintenance

medicine

Mediterranean

millennium

minuscule

questionnaire

received

recommended

referred

relieved

restaurant

rhythm

seize

separate

separately

sincerely

successfully

supersede

surprising

synonymous

tragedy

transferred

truly

Wednesday

weird

withhold

Spelling progression

Source: Functional Skills Support Programme (2007, p. 93)

Appendix 4

Source: Au (1997, p.307) See Appendix 10 for Brooks (2002)

Appendix 5

Adapted

Appendix 6

Teaching Episodes 1-6

Methodology for collation of data: Teaching Episodes 1-6

Method of

data

collection

1 2 3 4 5 6

Triangulation

(combined

level)

X X X X X X

Teaching

Episode 6-

Review of

research for all

three groups.

All engaged in

discussion

completing the

final

questionnaire.

Triangulation

(methodical

level)

X X X X X X

Audio- tape or

video

recording

X X X X X X

Discussion X X X X X X

Student work X X X X X

Field notes X X X X X X

Journal X X X X X X

Photographs X X X X X X

Survey X X X- At

request

of

students

Each teaching episode (one hour) will occur in the same teaching week for each group, but

at different times. This is for comparative purposes and to maintain anonymity. No

responses or outcomes will be shared between groups. For anonymity purposes, students

asked for recordings to remain within the workplace. All 15 students are aged 17 years of

age.

Teaching Episode 1:

Journal entry transcript extract:

The following questions were asked to each group.

1. How do you feel about Functional Skills?

2. How do you feel about your writing skills?

3. How do you think your writing skills can be improved to attain L2?

The key responses were as follows:

Control Group:

1. Functional Skills is a waste of time. We have GCSE- why can’t the

Government leave us alone. We have had already five years of English,

Maths and ICT. (line 5)

2. Functional Skills maybe the only way I get a grade C equivalent. Only got

Grade E at school. (line 7)

3. I’m ok about my writing skills. I can get by. I don’t need any improvement.

(line 12)

4. If I can’t spell, I use the computer. Why improve? (line 19)

5. Why do we need to write letters? I just mail. My skills are fine for me. (line

22).

Group A:

1. I would not have joined my course it I thought we had more English

lessons. (line 5)

2. Why do we need to write? I’m going to join up for the forces. I don’t need

to write in the battle field. (line 9)

3. I have Dyslexia. I’ll never learn to spell or write properly. Who cares? I can

never improve. (line 13)

4. English is pointless. I am what I am and so is my standard for English. I

don’t need to be in class. (line 16)

5. Writing? I’m bad- who cares? (line 22)

Group B:

1. FS is a waste of time. I won’t pass so don’t care. (line 4)

2. Don’t need English- will work for my Dad. Don’t need any improvement.

(line 9)

3. Can’t stand the thought of having more English lessons and needing still

to improve when I have done 5 years in secondary school. (line 13)

4. I think I need help with putting ideas together. Struggle a bit, you

know…(line 17)

5. Improve- this is too much! (line 19)

Results from Functional Skills Questionnaire: Teaching Episode 1

Control Group

Questions Definitely

agree

Mostly

agree

Neither

agree or

Mostly

disagree

Definitely

disagree

disagree

1 The work I

do in class

is

interesting

X xxx x

2 The work I

do in class

is

challenging

xxxx x

3 The

worksheets

and

resources

used in

class help

me to learn

X xxxx

4 I am taught

well

X x xx x

5 I know

what I

have to do

to pass this

subject

X x xxx

6 The

feedback

on my

work helps

me to

improve

X xxx x

7 I am

satisfied

with my

progress

x x xx x

8. Student

comments

Student

comments

to improve

learning

x No

comments

No idea

Enabling

student to

start off

where

they were

before in

school

etc,

instead of

having to

start at

the

bottom

again- L1.

Nothing.

Group A


agree

Mostly

agree

Neither

agree or

disagree

Mostly

disagree

Definitely

disagree

1 The work I

do in class

is

interesting

xxx xx

2 The work I

do in class

is

challenging

xxxx x

3 The

worksheets

and

resources

used in

class help

me to learn

xxxx x

4 I am taught

well

xxx xx

5 I know

what I

have to do

to pass this

subject

xxx x x

6 The

feedback

on my

work helps

me to

improve

xxx xx

7 I am

satisfied

with my

progress

xxxx x

8 Student

comments

to improve

learning

X Make in

more

interesting.

Get us

involved.

Group B


agree

Mostly

agree

Neither

agree or

disagree

Mostly

disagree

Definitely

disagree

1 The work I

do in class

is

interesting

xxx xx

2 The work I

do in class

is

challenging

xxx x x

3 The

worksheets

and

resources

used in

class help

xxxxx

me to learn

4 I am taught

well

xx xxx

5 I know

what I

have to do

to pass this

subject

xxxxx

6 The

feedback

on my

work helps

me to

improve

xxxx x

7 I am

satisfied

with my

progress

xx xxx

8 Student

comments

to improve

learning

x No

comments

X 4

Just more

activities

This questionnaire was adapted from a standard in house Functional Skills questionnaire.

1. Question: The work I do in class is interesting? Group Definitely

agree Mostly agree

Neither agree or disagree

Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree

Control group 1 3 1

Group A 3 2

Group B 3 2

Totals 1 0 9 0 5

2. The work I do in class is challenging? Group Definitely

agree Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree

Control group 4 1

Group A 4 1

Group B 3 1 1

Totals 0 0 11 2 2

3. The worksheets and resources used in class help me to learn.

Group Definitely agree

Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree

Control group 1 4

Group A 4 1

Group B 5

Totals 1 0 13 1 0

4. I am taught well.


Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree

Control group 1 1 2 1

Group A 3 2

Group B 2 3

Totals 1 1 7 6 0

5. I know what I have to do to pass this subject.


Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree

Control group 1 1 3

Group A 3 1 1

Group B 5

Totals 1 1 11 1 1

6. The feedback on my work helps me to improve.


Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree

Control group 1 3 1

Group A 3 2

Group B 4 1

Totals 1 0 10 4 0

7. I am satisfied with my progress.


Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree


Group A 4 1

Group B 2 3

Totals 1 1 8 5 0

Summary results show that:

1. Question: The work I do in class is interesting? Group Definitely

agree Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree

Control group 1 3 1

Group A 3 2

Group B 3 2

Totals 1 0 9 0 5

2. The work I do in class is challenging? Group Definitely

agree Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree

Control group 4 1

Group A 4 1

Group B 3 1 1

Totals 0 0 11 2 2



Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree

Control group 1 4

Group A 4 1

Group B 5

Totals 1 0 13 1 0



Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree


Group A 3 2

Group B 2 3

Totals 1 1 7 6 0



Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree

Control group 1 1 3

Group A 3 1 1

Group B 5

Totals 1 1 11 1 1



Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree

Control group 1 3 1

Group A 3 2

Group B 4 1

Totals 1 0 10 4 0



Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree


Group A 4 1

Group B 2 3

Totals 1 1 8 5 0

Total 6 3 69 19 8

Percentage 5.71 2.86 65.71 18.10 0

Teaching episode 6 1. Question: The work I do in class is

interesting?


Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree


Group A 3 2

Group B 2 3

Totals 6 6 2 0 1

2. The work I do in class is challenging?


Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree

Control group 4 1

Group A 3 2

Group B 4 1

Totals 7 3 4 0 1



Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree

Control group 5

Group A 4 1

Group B 3 2

0 7 3 5 0 0



Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree

Control group 1 1 3

Group A 4 1

Group B 5

Totals 10 2 3 0 0



Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree

Control group 1 2 2

Group A 5

Group B 5

Totals 11 2 2 0 0



Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree

Control group 1 4

Group A 5

Group B 5

Totals 11 0 4 0 0



Mostly agree


Mostly disagree

Definitely disagree

Control group 2 3

Group A 4 1

Group B 5

Totals 9 3 3 0 0

Results from Functional Skills Questionnaire: Teaching Episode 2

Control Group Student assessment of current writing ability:

Question 1. How would

you rate your writing skills

for the following?

1 2 3 4 5

Grammar x xx xx

Punctuation xxx xx

Spelling x x xxx

Planning ideas x xxxx

Sequencing ideas x xx xx

Proof reading x xxxx

Writing creatively x x xxx

Writing for a specific

audience: e.g. report/

article

x x xxx

Writing persuasively x xx xx

Writing a letter xx xxx

Writing an e-mail x x xxx

Use of informal language x x x xx

Use of formal language x x x xx

Key: (1 being the lowest and 5 the highest in value) Question 2. What strategies of assistance would help you improve your writing skills?

Comment Student answer

1. Practise

2. Writing different formal and informal styles of

writing.

3. None- I’m fine

4. Not sure. Getting us to write more creatively-

arguments and articles. The structure and

layout.

5. More interesting. Find it hard writing.

Question 3: Do you need extra lessons or support in class?


1. No

2. No

3. No

4. No

5. No

Question 4: What topics interest you?


1. Personal interests, sport, Facebook, hobbies

and practical things.

2. Sport, health and nutrition. Humour.

3. Motocross, Facebook, hobbies.

4. Personal interests or hobbies. Facebook.

5. Facebook, writing creatively, articles and

reports. Something funny.

Question 5: How would you feel if you were involved in the planning and delivery of your lessons?


1. Yes- more alive and interesting.

2. Feel happy that I could include my thoughts

within the planning of a lesson.

3. Would be better. Our personal English

experiences would be better known.

4. Yes- but not sure how. Can we plan with

you?

5. Yes- ask us and then challenge us or make

us laugh.

Group A Student assessment of current writing ability:



for the following?

1 2 3 4 5

Grammar x xxx x

Punctuation xx xxx

Spelling xx xxx


Sequencing ideas x xx xx

Proof reading xx xxx

Writing creatively xx xxx



article

x x xxx

Writing persuasively xxx xx

Writing a letter xxx xx

Writing an e-mail x x xxx

Use of informal language xx x xx

Use of formal language xx x xx



1. More interesting- too like school.

2. Not sure.

3. -

4. Make us practise more. Papers? Writing is

hard.

5. More interesting.



1. No

2. No

3. No

4. No

5. No



1. Hobbies. Facebook.

2. Facebook.

3. Interests, Facbook- being creative with

writing, reports etc.

4. Hobbies, all writing types and Facebook.

5. Facebook- being creative, arguments and

reports.



1. Yes. Let’s have some fun.

2. Yes- be better.

3. Yes.

4. Yes- but unsure. Would it make a real

difference?

5. Yes. We need to enjoy and have a laugh.

Group B Student assessment of current writing ability:



for the following?

1 2 3 4 5

Grammar xxxx x

Punctuation xxx xx

Spelling x xx xx


Sequencing ideas xxx xx

Proof reading x xx xx

Writing creatively xxx xx



article

xx xxx

Writing persuasively xxxx x

Writing a letter xx x xx

Writing an e-mail xx xxx

Use of informal language xxx xx

Use of formal language x xx xx



1. More interesting. Why do we have to do

Functional Skills? We had 5 years at school.

2. Not sure.

3. Fun? Have a laugh?

4. -

5. Don’t know.



1. No

2. No

3. No

4. No

5. No



1. Facebook.

2. Facebook/ sport.

3. Interests and Facbook.

4. Hobbies, writing creatively and Facebook.

5. Facebook/ gen interests.



1. Yes. Would be good.

2. Yes.

3. Yes. Would be doing something I would

enjoy.

4. Yes. I feel I would be able to do more.

5. Yes.

Teaching Episode 6:

Journal entry transcript extract:

The following questions were asked to groups A and B, following the cessation of

teaching episodes

1. How do you feel the teaching episodes and research went?

2. What did you observe or learn?

The key responses were as follows:

Control Group:

Just revision and how to pass the exam (line 34)

Need to learn the spelling to help me pass- still find English difficult (line 43)

Lessons are lively but I find writing difficult still.(line 45)

Unsure (line 49).

Still hard- I think I might do better. (line 53)

Group A

We had some fun. I like the way we were involved. (line 12)

We had a say- it made a difference. (line 16)

I hope I pass. Learning was very different. I enjoyed the lessons. (line 19)

The lessons went quickly. It was fun. (Line 23)

Really different to other tutors. Think I may have learned something without really knowing! (line 24)

Group B

What a difference to other Functional Skills lessons (line 15). Hope I get my English- we worked hard but somehow enjoyable? (line 16)

We need to learn like this in all Functional Skills lessons. I know how to structure arguments, reports and creative writing. Always found these hard. (lines 18/19)

Same really. Can’t believe I’m saying this but we had a laugh! (line 20)

Me too, you looked forward to the lessons. Even my parents can’t believe it as I hated English in secondary school. (lines 21/22)

I think I have more confidence. It was there but not really- don you know what I mean. I liked the lessons very much. (lines 24/25)

Closing research study question: (See Appendix 12). Do you consider secondary school equip you with the necessary skills for English Language attainment to obtain Grade C GCSE and above or L2 writing skills?

Group Yes No Key Comments

Control 2 3 Study too much

literature.

A 5 Things are rushed.

B 5 Too much reading.

Teaching Episode 3- sample Group A

Teaching Episode 4- Sample Group A & B combined

Images were sourced by students to create a purposeful resource.

Images were sourced by students to create a purposeful resource

Teaching Episode 6 Review- completed at the requests of students in Groups A and B

Results from Functional Skills Questionnaire:

Control Group


agree

Mostly

agree

Neither

agree or

disagree

Mostly

disagree

Definitely

disagree

1 The work I

do in class

is

interesting

xx xxx

2 The work I

do in class

is

challenging

xxx xx

3 The

worksheets

and

resources

used in

class help

me to learn

xxx xx

4 I am taught

well

xxx xx

5 I know

what I

have to do

to pass this

subject

xxxxx

6 The

feedback

on my

work helps

me to

improve

xx xxx

7 I am

satisfied

with my

xxxx x

progress

8. Student

comments

Student

comments

to improve

learning

No

comments

Group A


agree

Mostly

agree

Neither

agree or

disagree

Mostly

disagree

Definitely

disagree

1 The work I

do in class

is

interesting

xxxx x

2 The work I

do in class

is

challenging

xxxxx

3 The

worksheets

and

resources

used in

class help

me to learn

xxx xx

4 I am taught

well

xxxx x

5 I know

what I

have to do

to pass this

subject

xxxxx

6 The

feedback

on my

work helps

xxxxx

me to

improve

7 I am

satisfied

with my

progress

xx xxx

8 Student

comments

to improve

learning

x Wish we

could get

involved

in all

lessons.

Been fun.

Great

ideas

shared.

Feel

confident

to pass.

Hope we

have the

same

tutor next

year.

Group B


agree

Mostly

agree

Neither

agree or

disagree

Mostly

disagree

Definitely

disagree

1 The work I

do in class

is

interesting

xxxxx

2 The work I

do in class

is

challenging

xxx xx

3 The

worksheets

and

xxxx x

resources

used in

class help

me to learn

4 I am taught

well

xxxxx

5 I know

what I

have to do

to pass this

subject

xxxxx

6 The

feedback

on my

work helps

me to

improve

xxxxx

7 I am

satisfied

with my

progress

xxxxx

8 Student

comments

to improve

learning

Have

enjoyed

lessons.

Fun

activities

involving

us do

improve

skills

without

knowing!

Key comment: Teacher needs to have a lesser role. Educator not teacher. Facilitator.

This questionnaire was adapted from a standard in house Functional Skills questionnaire.

Appendix 7

Head Examiner feedback summary following interview on 28 January 2013. The

examiner was asked to grade writing skills based on national findings to date for L2

writing papers.

1. What do you consider are the main areas of apparent weakness in candidates for

writing?

The main areas for weakness are; Spelling, punctuation, sequencing ideas and writing

sentences that are coherent and meaningful.

2. How would you generally rate candidates’ writing skills for the following? (1 being the

lowest, 5 the highest):

Rating

Grammar 3

Punctuation 2

Spelling 2

Planning ideas 3

Sequencing ideas 3

Proof reading 2

Writing creatively 2

Writing for a specific audience e.g. report, argument and article 3

Writing persuasively 2

Writing a letter 3

Writing an e-mail 3

Use of informal language 4

Use of formal language 3

3. What strategies or skills, do you think, are generally needed to improve writing

attainment levels? More of a focus on spelling, grammar and punctuation, if time

allows for this. I think that the main problem is the time allocated to teaching

writing skills in the curriculum. One hour a week for problems of this

magnitude is woefully insufficient. A good emphasis on teaching to pass a

specific test is essential, so teaching letter writing skills, related spellings,

punctuation and some elements of grammar such as verb/ subject agreement

and conjunctions.

4. Should there be a national focus on raising L2 writing skills in Secondary and

Further/ Higher education? Yes, definitely. Will you be involved in this?

5. I agree with you that a national focus needs to happen to raise literacy

achievement, especially writing in adolescents. The skills are not there at

GCSE English Language, only approx 45% achieve still.

Appendix 8

L2 Writing Results (January Exams 2013)

Group Student

1

Student 2 Student

3

Student 4 Student 5 Teaching

Delivery

Control Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Standard

A Pass Pass Pass Fail ( by 2

marks)

Previously

achieved

grade F

GCSE at

Secondary

School

Pass Social

Constructivism

B Pass Fail (by 3

marks)

Previously

achieved

grade F

GCSE at

Secondary

school

Pass Pass Pass Social

Constructivism

Appendix 9

Framework for the delivery of Social Constructivism: Theory of principles.

Key theory element Social Constructivism

Knowledge Changing body of knowledge, mutually

constructed with others.

Learning Socially and culturally constructed

opportunities through collaboration in social

settings.

Teaching Co-construct knowledge, share expertise

and knowledge with students.

Motivation Collective and individual development

through collaboration.

Role of the Teacher Mediator and mentor.

Actions Constructing ideas and interactive

opportunities with students.

Role of peers Responsibility for constructing knowledge

and define opportunities for learning.

Role of student Active participator and thinker.

Student view of self Collective problem solver.

Evidence of learning Process of inquiry and socially competent

participation.

Purpose of education Creation of new knowledge and learning

strategies Expanding social capabilities and

preparing for social interaction.

Brooks (2002, p.4) adapted

Appendix 10

Evidence of discussion with IFL group members

Appendix 11

Research Article

Can action research reveal how to raise attainment levels in L2 English Functional

Skills writing?

Answer:

LW Comments- Key Skills is not Functional

Skills but students need to be motivated-

key point.

LW comments- Included in conclusion-

GCSE English insufficient based on small

scale research. Gap of knowledge in

teaching provision.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=UMq9Xu0Nc0ty0M&tbnid=MgBVmV3kLBIXbM:&ved=0CAgQjRwwAA&url=http://handsonblog.org/2011/08/18/5-more-tips-for-writing-an-awesome-volunteer-position-description/&ei=odUXUdbAFKW80QX7koCwAw&psig=AFQjCNHS9RM2a0BPMkAKuykaHF3M5rZVtw&ust=1360602913382989

Small scale research for 15 students (all aged 17 years of age) shows: yes, it can. General observations of student ability during teaching episodes 1-6 revealed lack of theoretical knowledge from secondary school. When questioned, at the end of the research study (Appendix 6, p.56), 13/15 students felt secondary school insufficiently prepared them to gain standards at L2 writing (grade GCSE C and above) based on their learning throughout the six teaching episodes. They felt there was more focus with the curriculum towards studying literature. Implications for practice: Adoption of Social Constructivism key principles and a national GCSE focus on raising writing standards.

Lisa Williamson

I currently work in FE as a NEETs and Functional Skills Lecturer and have been teaching for

almost 6 years. I teach BTec work skills units as well as Functional Skills, Maths, English

and ICT from Entry Level to Level 2 vocational students and work based apprentices, within

mixed ability classes. I have a passion for excellence in teaching and learning.

can action research reveal how to raise attainment levels in l2

Documents