subjective literacy? promoting and strengthening cross-curricular literacy within history, as an...

7/30/2019 Subjective Literacy? Promoting and strengthening cross-curricular literacy within History, as an aim to develop pup

1/124

2012

MA Learning and Teaching -

Professional Enquiry, Part 2Reflective Report and Findings

Dan Thomas BA (Hons)


2/124

2

Subjective Literacy? Promoting and strengthening cross-

curricular literacy within History, as an aim to develop pupils

overall attainments in both English and History lessons

Dan Thomas; University of Leicester, School of Education

Drawn from the theoretical underpinnings of Stenhouse (1975) and Elliots

(1988) educational research practice, this report explores the findings of a

three-week participatory action research project, in which a Leicestershire

middle-schools Year 8 History Scheme of Work was adapted to incorporate

greater and more explicit elements of literacy throughout its taught

structure. A growing body of educational research - as explored in this

report - suggests that increasing explicit cross-curricular literacy links may

help to support pupils overall access to learning within lessons, and

subsequently their articulation of understanding through writtenassessments; this report explores the application, understanding and

synthesis of such propositions. In doing so, qualitative data has been drawn

from staff and pupil reactions to the three-week intervention strategy, as a

means to explore perceptions and gain an insight into the projects relative

merits and drawbacks. Similarly, quantitative data has been taken from the

Scheme of Works end of unit assessment, in which pupils awarded English

and History grades for the assignment have been compared with their

previous awarded levels in both of these subject areas. The reports

subsequent discussion aims to synthesise these qualitative and quantitative

findings, drawing out tentative conclusions, firstly as a means to spearheadfuture cross-curricular developments within the Leicestershire school, and

secondly to feed into the growing body of action research surrounding cross-

curricular literacy strategies undertaken in the United Kingdom presently.


3/124

3

List of contents:

Part 1: Enquiry outline and statement of focus

i) The chameleon of literacy: An introduction.......................................................................................................5

ii) Defining literacy within the context of this study...........................................................................................6

iii) Exploring literacy: A literature review and rationale.................................................................................7

Part 2: Methodology, data collection and ethics

iv) School M: Contextualising the enquiry.............................................................................................................10

v) Methodological underpinnings.............................................................................................................................11

vi) Data collection and ethical considerations.....................................................................................................12

Part 3: Quantitative and qualitative findings discussion and conclusion

vii) Design and implementation.................................................................................................................................14

viii) Quantitative findings and analysis..................................................................................................................15

ix) Qualitative findings and analysis........................................................................................................................19

x) Limitations and conclusions...................................................................................................................................22

Part 4: List of appendices..........................................................................................................................................24

Part 5: List of references........................................................................................................................................END


4/124

4

List of figures:

Figure 1: The Action Research Spiral. Kremmis & McTaggart in Denzin & Lincoln 2005: 564......11

Figure 2: Subjective Literacy: Quantitative data collection structure. Thomas 2012.......................13

Figure 3: Levels and Qualifier comparison - History. Thomas 2012.........................................................15

Figure 4: Levels and Qualifier comparison - English. Thomas 2012.........................................................16

Figure 5: Whole level increase percentage comparison. Thomas 2012.....................................................17

Figure 6: Actual qualifier increase comparison. Thomas 2012.....................................................................17

Figure 7: Average qualifier increase comparison. Thomas 2012.................................................................18

Figure 8: Modal qualifier increase comparison. Thomas 2012.....................................................................18

Figure 9: No change in qualifier comparison. Thomas 2012.........................................................................18

Figure 10: Helped with topic understanding?Thomas 2012.......................................................................20

Figure 11: Helped to gain a higher mark?Thomas 2012..............................................................................20

Figure 12:More Lit Bits?Thomas 2012.............................................................................................................20

Figure 13: Open-question on Lit Bit strategies. Thomas 2012....................................................................21


5/124

5

Part 1: Enquiry outline and statement of focus

i) The chameleon of literacy: An introduction

One in six people in the UK struggle with literacy. This means their literacy is below the level

expected of an eleven-year-old (Jama & Dugdale 2010: 2).

The definition of literacy and its considered place within the curriculum has often been a

contentious and interchangeable one, moulded by contemporary research, transient governments,

and even the ethos and conditions of each individual school; what counts as school literacy at any

particular time is not a given but the result of a social process (Hannon in Grainger 2004: 24).

Literacy may be seen, paradoxically, as both a fundamental and a notoriously-contentious facet to

access and engagement within education today. Whilst Jama & Dugdales above concern may serve

to highlight the weight of importance currently placed on literacy ideals in this country, as Wray &

Medwell (2002: XV) argue, there can be few areas of educational endeavour which have been more

controversial than that of teaching literacy.

Indeed, there is certainly a contemporary body of evidence which helps support the above

assertions: the recent Schools White Paper claims that [learning to read] unlocks all the other

benefits of education (DfE 2010: 43); the new (2012) Ofsted criteria declares that in judging the

quality of teaching overall, we propose to include a judgement on... the teaching of literacy in

secondary schools (Ofsted 2011: 11); meanwhile, Ofqual (2012) have recently announced that 5% of

the total marks awarded for GCSE grades in English Literature, Geography, History and Religious

Studies from September 2012 will be for spelling, punctuation and the accurate use of grammar.

Nevertheless, despite the political and educational gravitas currently surrounding the teaching of

literacy, it is important to note that the ideals of access and engagement to all through core literacy

skills have not always been held up to such high regard. As Hannon (in Grainger 2004: 23), argues,

the problematic, even contentious, nature of current school literacy is often hidden and it is hard to

imagine alternative conceptions of it. Indeed, as recently as the late 18th

Century, Hannah More

significant within the establishment of Sunday Schools for working class children insisted that basic

literacy skills such as writing should not necessarily be part of every schools remit; I allow no

writing for the poor. My object is not to make them fanatics, but to train up the lower classes in

habits of industry and piety (Hannah More, circa 1790s, in Simon 1960: 133). Literacy, then, can at

once be seen to be an important, contentious and politically-charged concept of the educationalsystem, both from a contemporary and historical perspective.

However, aside from determining the importance of literacy or indeed, the most effective way to

teach it is the equally-complex issue of defining what, exactly, it means to be literate in the first

place. Attempts to classify literacy in deliberately limited and finite terms, such as the ability to

read, write and speak in English at a level necessary to function (Basic Skills Agency 1999: 3), for

instance, risk being labelled as utilitarian definition[s] by educationalists such as Bryan &

Westbrook (in Davidson & Moss 2000: 45) - overly simplistic and therefore potentially disposable.

Equally, broader definitions - exploring notions of several composite multiliteracies (Luke in Phal &

Rowsell 2005: XI), or as a cluster of attitudes towards oneself, texts and society (Smith 1990 inDavidson & Moss 2000: 42) - fall prey to potential misunderstanding and subsequent teacher


6/124

6

apathy, due in part to their inherent ambiguity. Hannon helps to encapsulate this key problem of

defining a chameleon-like notion:

Almost all pronouncements about literacy its nature, use development, and how it should be

taught have now to be considered provisional and temporary. Whatever we think or say about

literacy is bound to be a reflection of our particular historical period with its technology and uses forwritten language (Hannon in Grainger 2004: 30).

ii) Defining literacy within the context of this study

With the concept of literacy being so fundamentally illusive, then, is it possible - or even wise - to

seek out a finite conception of literacy at all? Certainly, whilst it is not within the scope of this report

to attempt to offer any kind of holistic assertions here, the issue of defining the nature of literacy

within the boundaries of this action research project is critical to its understanding.

As such, pupil literacy within this report may be defined as the ability for pupils to:

Access and engage with the content of each lesson; Understand the key vocabulary and concepts specific to the subject / unit being taught; Be able to re-articulate this understanding back into their written and oral work in order to

achieve their perceived potential within the given subject.

Likewise, it is evident that literacy within education is not a singular concept, but a multifaceted one:

a variety of divisive components exist to be explored, researched and discussed. This enquiry rests

on but one of these many controversial facets of literacy teaching today: the perceived merits anddrawbacks of cross-curricular literacy implementation and development; generally considered to

derive from the Bullock Reports A Language for Life (DES 1975); something Stevens (2011: 4)

regards as the first rigorous attempt to explore and define the nature of language in education,

across all phases.

In specific relation to this enquirys aims, the identification, development, and assessment of cross-

curricular links throughout a Year 8 History Scheme of Work are explored, through the exploration

and development of key literacy strategies within an existing Scheme of Work, entitled The Slave

Trade. In doing so, it is hoped that researchers and academics will be able to develop their

understanding of the practicalities, merits and pitfalls of implementing cross-curricular literacy

intervention strategies within the teaching of History; a subject Hoodless (1999: xiv) believes is an

ideal context in which the learning and reinforcement of language skills may take place . The

enquirys key aims may therefore be summarised as such:

An exploration into the literature surrounding cross-curricular literacy conceptions andstrategies, particularly in regard to literacy within History; what are current academic and

political judgements on such strategies? What factors may be considered fundamental in the

pursuit of improving pupil literacy levels?

A development for the understanding of how to raise pupils overall literacy levels; whatliteracy opportunities are available within the subject of History, or its composite unit at the


7/124

7

Leicestershire Secondary School (hereafter referred to as School M)? What literacy materials

may need to be designed or developed? How might these be implemented most effectively

within the school?

A quantitative analysis and assessment of the effects of the literacy strategies; can acorrelation (positive or negative) between implementing the literacy strategies, and pupil levelswithin History and or English be observed?

A qualitative consideration for the perceptions towards cross-curricular literacy strategies;how do pupils working within the project view the strategies and their perceived benefits or

drawbacks; how does the History teacher perceive them?

A springboard for further discussion and research within the field of cross-curricular literacy;do the findings from the enquiry allow for a greater insight into cross-curricular literacy

strategies and their implementation? To what extent are the findings generalisable?

iii) Exploring literacy: A literature review and rationale

In considering the implementation of cross-curricular literacy strategies, it may be evident that by

definition any subject could (or should) be feasibly targeted. However, whilst it would certainly be

insightful to assess the effects of such in subjects such as Maths or P.E., it can similarly be noted that

the literacy demands placed on pupils (especially within Key Stage 3 study) in these subjects are

simply not to the same degree as those placed within subjects such as History and English. This

argument is echoed within Youngs (2011: 2) Literacy: A Quick Guide:

It is clear that all teachers must share the responsibility for developing pupils literacy skills. The

responsibly is, however, not shared equally, as certain literacy skills are developed more readily than

others in the different subject areas (DfES 2004 in Young 2011: 2).

Based on this assumption of disaggregated responsibility and opportunity, selecting History as the

focus of the cross-curricular study was deemed to be both a practical and appropriate choice: not

only does the subject require an inherent degree of pupil literacy within each lesson (a natural

learning towards textbook materials and comprehension work; the intrinsic use of key historical

terms over the course of the academic year; a regular study of source materials) but likewise the

method in which pupils are routinely assessed (comprehension tasks; oral feedback; written

rationale; discursive essays) similarly allows for a relatively-straightforward and quantifiable means

of assessing core pupil literacy skills; something that would be much more difficult to attain within

P.E. or Maths, for example. Hamer helps to explain this apparent symbiotic relationship between

English, History and literacy:

History is pre-eminently a literary subject. The study of the past requires and fosters an extended

vocabulary; the development of listening, speaking and reading skills; the ability to write carefully,

coherently and, at least occasionally, at some length. High standards in History and high standards

in literacy are necessarily intertwined (Hamer in Hoodless 1998: XIII).

The importance of vocabulary implied here something that Hamer suggests is fundamental withinthe teaching of History should not be understated, since it reflects this reports own definition of a


8/124

8

literate pupil: to access and engage within each lesson, through the ability to understand key

vocabulary and concepts specific to the taught subject, or its composite unit. Indeed, the notion

that an extended vocabulary may serve as a kind of literacy lynchpin is reinforced within

McCallions Literacy across the curriculum (1998: IX), in which he states that all subjects have a

basic set of concepts and vocabulary... If these can be identified and taught explicitly, directly and

intensively then subject teaching will become easier. McCallion later develops this point, asserting

that:

A relatively small number of words (some place it as low as between 300 and 400) comprise three-

quarters of the words that are read in most normal texts...it follows that if the learner can master

these words, reading and understanding any text becomes easier. In addition, all subjects have their

own key vocabulary or jargon. Mastering that is critical to achievement in that subject (McCallion

1998: 19).

Similarly, the importance of mastering key vocabulary is something Hoodless (1998: 1)

acknowledges as a fundamental concern, particularly when considering Historys role (as a subject)in helping to foster pupils literacy skills. He argues that essential skills in literacy often depend

directly upon skill in the use of language, increasingly so as the learner moves on through the

education system... speaking, listening, reading, reference skills and writing frequently all play a part

in the process of historical enquiry.

Certainly, it is at least reasonable to assume that an increased vocabulary might allow pupils greater

access within lessons, since their understanding of the key terms used by the teacher, or within a

given text, are likely to improve as a result. Indeed, the use of DART (Directed Activities Related to

Texts), literacy starter activities and the addition of word walls , currently widely recommended

within practice of secondary schools (e.g. Young 2011; ST 2012) go some distance in suggesting thatthese are already accepted and, in some cases, established notions.

However, whilst the relationship between pupil literacy, an extended vocabulary and the

development of skills within History (or any subject) might appear reasonably apparent, it should be

acknowledged that this is still only one of many convergent factors associated with pupil literacy and

overall achievement. It could well be argued that if developing literacy skills was as seemingly-

straightforward as fostering pupil vocabulary, then there would not be a need for such ongoing

political or educational scrutiny within schools. Evidentially, this is not the case: Ofquals (2012) 5%

GCSE marking criteria related to pupil literacy skills, and Ofsteds (2012) renewed emphasis on

holistic school literacy help to emphasise this.

Indeed, in synthesising previous research within the area of literacy (Heath 1983; Meek 1991; Kress

& Van Leween 1996; Westbrook et al 1998) Bryan & Westbrook (in Davidson & Moss 2000: 46) cite

five major factors which may also contribute to the development of literacy, aside from the

significance already placed on pupil understanding of subject vocabulary and jargon. In summary,

these can be defined as:

The need for literacy to be rooted in social practices (essentially contextualising literacy); A need for a rich visual, linguistic and literary input throughout pupil development;

Developing pupils expertise so that they become fluent, autonomous readers-for-meaning;


9/124

9

An assertion that opportunities to talk about whole texts significantly aid pupilunderstanding;

Embracing the semiotic shift towards the audiovisual literacies of television, film, videoand computer-generated images.

Meanwhile, McCallion (1998: 52) catalogues a further range of factors which might similarly affect

the teaching of literacy and its cross-curricular implementation. These include: the influence of the

Senior Leadership Team and overall degree of whole-school commitment, a vision which is shared

by the whole staff and one in which everyone is actively involved to make it happen is much more

likely to be successful; issues relating to timing of the intervention strategies, if a school waits until

the time is right or they have no other problems to address then it will never happen, an argument

against a materials-focussed approach to literacy teaching in subject areas, and the potential issue

of teacher apathy and resistance when delivering such strategies:

There is often... an initial feeling of resentment from some subject teachers. This seems to come

from a combination of a natural defensiveness at the implied criticism at having to change currentpractice and the perception that literacy teaching is ajob for the specialist teacher (Ibid).

Indeed, the emphasis on teachers themselves, rather than the actual literacy materials per-se, is a

crucial component of this enquirys rationale, and one that is reinforced within Wray & Medwells

case study, What do effective teachers of literacy know, believe and do?(in Fisher et al 2002: 55 -

63). Here, the authors cite evidence (e.g. Barr 1984; Adams 1990) which suggest that variations in

childrens literacy performance may be related to the following three factors: who le school, teacher

and methods or materials, and that of these three, the consensus is that the effect of the teacher is

the most significant. Within their subsequent case study of what qualities effective teachers of

literacy might display, they observed that those identified as such:

Gave a greater emphasis to the purpose and function of writing; Taught language structures both implicitly and explicitly within their teaching, often

contextualisingwithin the individual subject being taught;

Placed a high value on pupil communication and composition, giving systematic attentionto these goals;

Examined pupils writing and reading diagnostically, recognising the underlying causesbehind mistakes;

Approached technical skills with an embedded approach making explicit connections andgiving consistent attention to word or sentence level aspects within a whole text.

The emboldened words (authors own) serve to highlight fundamental concepts outlined within

Wray & Medwells findings - again shifting the emphasis from material, to teacher-driven delivery;

something that has been a fundamental consideration in the design and rationale of this enquiry.

In considering the literature surrounding literacy and cross-curricular implementation, it is clear,

then, that a number of divergent factors should be acknowledged and measured, rather than a

singular aspect of it necessarily pursued to the potential detriment of the others; l iteracy as

decoding and encoding without consideration of context belies the complex nature of reading and

writing (Phal & Roswell 2005: 3). Indeed, a common theme running through the literature is that

the process of teaching and learning is neither a mechanical nor automated construct; rather it is an


10/124

10

organic one - a practice that is regularly (and to a certain extent, unquantifiably) influenced by a

significant and alternating set of variables throughout each school day.

Clearly, a vast canon of pedagogical research already exists within this field, and whilst the brevity of

this report does not allow for a detailed expanse of these points, notable factors - drawn from Jarvis

(2005) The psychology of effective learning and teaching may feasibly include: cognitive

development and learning theories (e.g. Vygostky 1978); intelligence and ability (e.g. Garner 1993) a

consideration of contrasting learning styles (e.g. Flemming & Baume 2006), as well other emotional

and motivational factors, both for pupils and teachers alike.

Indeed, it is recommended that in order to gain a more holistic understanding of the literature

reviewed, and the subsequent methodology of the enquiry, that Part 1 of this Professional Enquiry

(Thomas 2012; included inAppendix 5) is also (re) examined.

Part 2: Methodology, data collection and ethics

iv) School M: Contextualising the enquiry

Before expanding further on the methodological underpinnings and design of the enquiry, it is

important to highlight the distinctive qualities of the school from which the enquiry has been

designed and implemented; the uniqueness of each classroom (Stenhouse 1975: 151) for which any

enquiry or intervention strategy is ultimately accountable to. Any information which could lead to

safeguarding or issues of ethicality has understandably been omitted; it is within this context that

the following has been included:

School M is an 11-14 Leicestershire middle-school of a mixed social demographic, currently with

approximately 600 pupils on roll (School M 2012). Of this, 138 are listed as being Statemented,

School Action or School Action Plus. In addition, there are currently 22 EAL learners at the school.

Including all leaders, teachers, learning assistants and support staff, there are over 80 members of

staff in total; of this, there are five members of senior leadership, 17 middle-managers (either Heads

of Year or Departments) and 43 teachers (including the 17 middle-managers). Further to this, the

school itself has recently been awarded Academy status, and is convert ing to a functioning 11 16

school in September 2013.

Consequently, within the current context of School M, the intervention strategies undertaken may

be seen as being of particular value and interest; developing pupil literacy skills may not only impact

on KS3 learning throughout the school, but feasibly more directly (and perceivably) on KS4 also;

subjects which require relatively minimal literacy skills for pupil achievement at KS3 (for example,

P.E. and Art) will see these demands grow significantly at KS4. The accountability and scrutiny of

cross-curricular literacy within School M is thus a growing one: this enquiry may be considered in

part an active step towards addressing this core issue.


11/124

11

v) Methodological underpinnings

Given that these strategies are inherently concerned with the identification and improvement of a

schools educational methods, they may be considered to be a reflection related to diagnosis (Elliot

1988: 121), centring on the everyday practical problems experienced by teachers, rather than the

theoretical problems defined by pure researchers within a discipline ofknowledge (ibid). As such

- in defining its core methodological underpinnings - this enquiry may be seen to be a practical

interventionist (Stenhouse 1975) or prescriptive participatory (Elliot 1988) action research project,

in that its primary rationale lies in the research and development of educational practice through the

active implementation, observation and assessment of practical intervention strategies; a

systematic enquiry made public (Stenhouse 1981: 104). Indeed - since it is not intended to solely

allow for a greater insight into these problems, but moreover a direct influence on them - a case

study approach (for example, Pollard 2005) was deemed less suitable for attaining the enquirys key

objectives, and therefore disconsidered in favour of the action research approach.

As such, in considering the practicalities of implementing such research, Kremmis & McTaggarts

(2011) Action Research Spiral, was adopted, as means of clearly understanding the various steps in

which the process of action research could be undertaken. This is included below, in Figure 1.

It may be seen that each stage of the process involves a period of planning, implementation and

reflection; this is subsequently repeated until the necessary understanding has been gained,

something Koshy (2005: 5) considers as a fundamental component of action research; using this

model, one can understand a particular issue within an educational context and make informed

decisions through enhanced understanding. It is about empowerment.

Figure 1: The Action Research Spiral. Kremmis & McTaggart in Denzin & Lincoln 2011: 278

It should be emphasised, however, that the action research model adopted by this enquiry is

susceptible to considerable scrutiny and caution; Wray & Medwell (in Davidson & Moss 2000: 52)

consider intervention strategies to patchy, sticking plaster[s] limited in their success by the lack of


12/124

12

whole-school involvement; likewise and in commonality with Wray & Medwells view on a

teacher-lead foci Cochrane (2009: 3) argues that any intervention programs should be viewed only

as supplementary to the educational system, and that they should therefore [be] delivered in

conjunction and collaboration with the classroom teacher. Equally, Jarvis (2005: 218) advises strict

academic scrutiny and assessment when undertaking any such action research or intervention,

warning that bad research may be considerably more harmful than no research, because it can

produce misleading findings and lead to practitioners following unsound practices.

vi) Data collection and ethical considerations

By way of addressing the core concerns highlighted above, data was collected both quantitatively

and qualitatively, in order to allow for a methodological triangulation, a method of cross-checking

data from multiple sources to search for regularities in the research data (ODono ghue and Punch

2003: 78); giving a more detailed and balanced picture of the situation ( Altrichter et al. 2008: 147)

and potentially improved validity of research as a result.

It should be noted, however, that Elliot (1988: 122) considers the sole use of qualitative data for

action research purposes as entirely sufficient, stipulating that ...action-research looks at a situation

from the participants point of view... it is by virtue of this fact that the accounts of action -research

can be validated in dialogue with participants. However, whilst this may be well-argued judgment,

it can also be counter-argued that qualitative data alone may not, in fact, be deemed adequate or

valid within an educational setting such as School M (or indeed, any such institution), since by its

very nature of tracking and assessing pupil progress, inherently derives value from systematic

quantitative data assessments. Compiling quantitative data was therefore deemed fundamental

within this enquiry.

In order to implement the strategies, and through the collaboration with the History teacher

involved in the enquiry (hereafter referred to as LM), two Year 8 classes were chosen for the for the

action research: one in which the Slave Trade Scheme of Work (Appendix 3) was modified to

include the literacy strategies (the Control Group), and one in which the original, unaltered unit was

taught (the Validation Group); this control verses validation model being adopted primarily from

the work of Wray & Medwell (2002). It was felt that this would a practical means of quantitatively

assessing the impact of the strategies, as well as providing an increased element of validity towards

any findings.

The quantitative data itself was primarily gathered through the units key assessment: a discursive

essay exploring arguments relating to the slave trade and its abolition. Following the completion of

the adapted three-week unit (Monday 16th

April to Friday 4th

April inclusively) the assessments were

marked by LM using the History departments standard mark scheme; pupils in both the Control and

Validation Group were awarded a History grade from this. These were then marked by the author of

this enquiry and given a written literacy grade - based on the English Departments own APP grid

(Appendix 3). Pupils previous English and History grades were then compared, in order to

determine any correlations between the implementation of the strategies. For clarity of

understanding, the quantitative data structure has been outlined in diagrammatical form, overleaf.


13/124

13

Qualitative data was drawn from two sources: firstly, from a series of weekly semi-structured

interviews with LM, exploring the perceived impact of the strategies over the three-week process,

allowing for a systematic and cyclical reflection and revision of the strategies, as well as providing

qualitative insight; a direct response to Kremmis & McTaggarts (2011) Action Research Spiral.

Secondly, three pupils - a lower (e.g. level 3-4), middle (4-5) and higher-ability (6+) from the Control

Group - were individually invited to participate in a semi-structured interview, following the units

conclusion. This was drawn from the theoretical underpinnings of Stenhouse (1975), Elliot (1988),

and Kremmis & McTaggart (2011). For example, Elliot stipulates the importance of maintaining an

unconstrained dialogue between researcher and participant throughout; Kremmis & McTaggart

highlight the importance of collaborative processes of communication and learning when

undertaking any such action research, whilst Stenhouse specifies the need for co-operative

research in an open classroom.

Further to this, all members of the Control Group were invited to complete an anonymous, six-point

likert-scale questionnaire (for example, see Goddard et al. 2000). Through the use of this

qualitative assessment, including the interviewing of the three pupils, it was felt that a greater

collaborative process between researcher and participant could be developed, as well as providing

insight into the perceptions of the Control Group themselves. It should be acknowledged that in

using this form of qualitative data towards a means of validation, that this enquiry therefore partly

adopted a hermeneutic epistemology, a subjective interpretation of narrative (Jarvis 2005: 208).

It is evident that there were a number of vital ethical and safeguarding considerations within the

scope of this enquiry; something that must be high priority of any research concerning children and

the range of potentially sensitive issues involved as a result. Therefore, in order to meet both ethical

requirements, as outlined in the University of Leicesters (2012) Research Ethics Booklet, and

similarly the practical considerations of the enquiry, a letter of Informed Consentwas issued to the

parents of both the Control and Validation groups during one of the pupils History lessons. This

explained the full scope and nature of the enquiry, and explicitly informed parents of the use and

analysis of their childs assessment data; this did not require a signature for approval, but offered a

contact name and telephone number for parents who desired more information. It should be noted

that no parents gave further correspondence to this. Similarly, the pupils of both groups were

explicitly informed of the projects nature and reasoning throughout the process; they were made

aware of the data collection of assessments, and pupils involved in the semi-structured interviews

were similarly informed of their part in the enquiry. Please refer to Appendix 3 for a copy of the

Informed Consentletters.

Figure 2:Subjective literacy: quantitative data collection model. Thomas 2012

Comparison

Validation


14/124

14

Part 3: Quantitative & qualitative findings and discussion

vii) Design and implementation

Whilst it is anticipated that this project will offer a degree of generalisabilty, it may be noted that the

development of any such literacy intervention strategy must, by definition, be a bespoke and

selective one: there are simply too many complex strands underlying the notion of literacy for all

components to be realistically, or effectively, included:

Schools and teachers must believe that the strategy they have is right for them...the final outcome

will be specific to the school (McCallion 1998: X).

As such, through the amalgamation of the reviewed literature above, five key literacy foci were

selected for the intervention strategys design and implementation:

The emphasis on pupils accessing key History vocabulary and jargon (McCallion 1998); aWord Wall with the units key terms (already present within the classroom) was explicitly

referred to throughout the unit by LM; pupils were given additional paired and grouped tasks

relating directly to the key units vocabulary; dictionaries were put on di splay in the classroom,

and pupils advised to use them to help with their written work.

The importance of teacher-lead, over material-lead, delivery (ibid) and explicit links beingconsistently made for pupils, towards literacy skills, key vocabulary and the project itself

(Wray & Medwell 2000); emphasis was placed on LM explicitly referring to literacy links

throughout the three-week process, contextualising and reinforcing understanding for pupils; a

short Powerpoint was created for each lesson to explicitly outline and reinforce the literacyelements and to ensure pupils were aware of the strategies throughout, fostering an open

dialogue (Elliot 1988) between teacher, participantand researcher; a Lit-Bit logo was designed

to make the intervention more explicit, and potentially more pupil-friendly.

The diagnostic teaching of, and systematic attention to, literacy skills (McCallion 1998;Wray & Medwell 2000); LM was advised to check for literacy errors when circulating the room;

six Power Punctuation laminates were designed and available for pupils to use throughout the

unit; an A3 TipTop (time, place, topic, person) paragraph laminate poster was created, affixed

to the wall and explicitly referred to throughout each lesson of the unit.

Increased opportunities for pupil discussion and written reflection (Bryan & Westbrook 2000);Pupils were given increased opportunities to consolidate their understanding through written

reflection; peer assessment opportunities (AfL), particularly for higher-level pupils, were

created (AfL); a Hot Seating role play was developed in included in one lesson, to allow for

increased oral reflection and consolidation of understanding.

In addition, it may be observed that all resources and strategies included sought to correspond with

Flemming & Baumes (2006) notions of VARK (visual, aural, reading-writing, kinaesthetic) learning

styles: this was a deliberate consideration in order to feasibly increase access and engagement

within a mixed-ability Year 8 class. All materials can be located withinAppendix 3 & 4 of this report.


15/124

15

viii) Quantitative findings and analysis

Figure 3, underneath, demonstrates the initial quantitative findings of the enquiry, in which the

Control Groups previous History level and qualifiers (taken from a Teacher Assessment by LM in

December 2011) and post-strategy awarded levels (following the assessment of their Slavery essay;

April 2012) were compared against the Validation Groups levels. For clarity of understanding, levels

were attributed a colour; where level 4c 4a = Red; 5c -5b = Amber; 5a+ = Green. Four levels have

been denoted as N: this is where no grade was recorded, due to the assignment not being received;

here the qualifier increase was automatically reset to zero. All pupil names have been replaced with

initials, in accordance with the safeguarding and ethical issues, outlined previously in this report.

Figure 3: Levels and Qualifier comparison - History. Thomas 2012

It may be noted that Control Groups (CG) total qualifier increase was just over double that of the

Validation Groups (VG) at 64 verses 29; an average of a 2.17 qualifier increase compared to the VGs

1.16. Attention should also be drawn to the total whole-level increase (three qualifiers or more)

comparison, which demonstrated 12 (CG) verses 3 (VG). Similarly, it should be noted that in terms

of significant pupil progress, LF improved by five qualifiers, and LN by six within the CG; JP was

the only pupil to be awarded more than three qualifiers in the VG. Caution and scrutiny should bedrawn here however; the Hawthorne effect - which may occur when participants realise they are

Qualifer increase

KB 4a 5c 1

EB 4c 5c 3

HB 5c 5a 2 Qualifer increase

MB 4b 5b 3 LB 5a 6c 1

DB 5b 6b 3 CG 4a n 0

RB 5c 6c 3 MGH 4a 5c 1

RC 5a 6a 3 KG 4c 4c 0

TC 4b 5c 2 SH 4a 4a 0

SC 5c 5b 1 KH 5c 5c 0

RD 4a 4a 0 AH 5c n 0

ED 5a 5a 0 WH 5c 5b 1

LF 5a 7b 5 HL 5c 5a 2

AF 4a 5c 1 KL 4a 4a 0

FP 4b 5a 4 JLS 4a 5a 3

CH 4a 4a 0 SP 4b n 0

CH 4b 5b 3 JP 5a 7c 4

CH 4b 5a 4 TM 4a 5b 2

XN 5c 6c 3 FP 5c 5b 1

ML 5c 6c 3 CP 5b 6c 2

BL 5c 5b 1 JR 4a 5c 1

BM 4b 5c 2 CS 4c 4b 1

LN 5c 7c 6 LS 4a 5c 1

BP 4b 4a 2 ES 5b 5a 1

CR 4a 5c 1 KS 5c 6c 3

HS 4b 5c 2 BS 5b 5a 1

HT 5c 5b 1 JW 4a 5c 1

AT 5b 5b 0 OW 5c 5b 1

NW 4a 5b 2 MY 5c 5a 2

64 TQI 29

Mean 2.178571429 Mean 1.16

Median 2 Median 1

Mode 3 Mode 1

No change 4 No change 3

Whole level 12 Whole level 3

Total qualifier increase

CONTROL GROUP

VALIDATION GROUP

Initials Pre Hist Post Hist



16/124

16

the subjects of the study and according perform better regardless of the efficacy of the procedure

(Jarvis 2005: 211) could be a factor in the positive correlations demonstrated here.

Figure 5 below, evidences a total qualifier increase within the awarded English level, from the

Control (29) verses Validation Group (16); with the mean ranging from a 1.03 increase (CG), to a 0.64

increase (VG). Similarly, it may be seen that there were five whole level increases within the CG,

compared with one in the VG, with 4 pupils receiving the same mark both (no change) pre and post

strategy (CG), against 13 pupils in the VG:

Figure 4: Levels and Qualifier comparison - English. Thomas 2012

It is important to highlight, however, that in contrast to the History levels recorded, some levels

within English actually decreased by a qualifier or two (therefore given a -1 or -2 correspondingly);

indeed, here, the CG had more (7) in this area than the VG (2). This is evidently presents an

inconsistency. One explanation may be the potential lack of uniformity in the awarding of the

English pre-intervention levels; whilst both History levels were set by LM, the pre-interventionEnglish levels were specified by a range of English teachers (due to the use of ability-setting in Year 8

Qualifer increase

KB 5a 5a 0

EB 4c 5b 4

HB 5a 6c 1 Qualifer increase

MB 4b 5b 3 LB 6b 6b 0

DB 6c 6b 1 CG 5b N 0

RB 5a 6c 1 MGH 5c 5c 0

RC 6c 5a -1 KG 4c 4b -1

TC 5b 5b 0 SH 5a 5b -1

SC 5b 6c 2 KH 5c 5c 0

RD 4b 5c 2 AH 5b N 0

ED 5b 6c 2 WH 5c 5a 2

LF 6b 6a 1 HL 6c 6b 1

AF 5b 5c -1 KL 4b 5c 2

FP 5c 5a 2 JLS 4a 6c 4

CH 5c 4b -2 SP 4a 4a 0

CH 4a 5c 1 JP 6a 6a 0

CH 4c 5b 4 TM 4a 4a 0

XN 5b 5a 1 FP 5b 6c 2

ML 5c 6b 4 CP 5b 5a 2

BL 4a 5b 2 JR 5c 5c 0

BM 4a 5c 1 CS 4b 4a 1

LN 6c 7c 3 LS 5b 5b 0

BP 5a 5c -1 ES 5b 5b 0

CR 5a 5b -1 KS 5b 6c 2

HS 4a 4a 0 BS 5a 5a 0

HT 5a 5b -1 JW 4a 5c 1

AT 4a 5c 1 OW 5a 6c 1

NW 5c 5c 0 MY 5c 5c 0

29 TQI 16

Mean 1.035714286 Mean 0.64

Median 1 Median 0

Mode 1 Mode 0



Less 7 Less 2

CONTROL GROUP

Pre Eng Post Eng

Total qualifier increase

Initials Pre Eng Post Eng

LEVELS AND QUALIFIERS RESULTS - ENGLISH

VALIDATION GROUP

Initials


17/124

17

English at School M), with the post grades awarded solely by the researcher of this enquiry; the

inherent subjective nature of teacher-awarded English levelling may be one possible reason for this

discrepancy.

The following charts, below, have been included to aid understanding and clarity of pre versus post

strategy levels in History and English, as well as highlighting the overall comparison between the

subjects themselves. Please refer toAppendix 1 for the full range of quantitative figures:

Figure 5: Whole level increase percentage comparison. Thomas 2012

Figure 6: Actual qualifier increase comparison. Thomas 2012

The two figures above evidence a positive correlation between both the intervention strategies and

levels awarded, and between the History and English levels; although there is more of a significant

aggregate within the subject of History, in relation to English.

0

5

10

15

20

2530

35

40

45

Validation Control Validation Control

History English

History vs English comparison - Whole

level increase percentage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


History English

History vs English comparison Actual

qualifier increase


18/124

18

Figure 7: Average qualifier increase comparison. Thomas 2012

Figure 8: Modal qualifier increase comparison. Thomas 2012

Figure 9: No change in qualifier comparison. Thomas 2012

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.002.50


History English

History vs English -

Average Qualifier increase

01

1

2

2

3

3

4


History English


Modal increase

0

2

46

8

1012

14


History English


No change in qualifier


19/124

19

ix) Qualitative findings and analysis

Based on the above findings, it may be reasonable to acknowledge that, overall, a positive

intervention-to-increased qualifier relationship was uncovered within this enquirys quantitative

assessment. The semi-structured interviews, drawn from three lower, mid and higher ability pupils

within the Control Group also appear to support this. Whilst the brevity of this report does not

allow for an extensive covering of these interviews, they are included within theAppendices, both as

a transcript and as separate audio files; it is recommended the reader refers to these for a more

holistic overview of pupil perceptions. Nevertheless, four brief extracts are included below, in order

to demonstrate this apparent correlation between the quantitative and qualitative findings:

Do you think the Lit Bits helped with understanding the topic and the essay?

It just helped me, like, remember what to put...it helped me get a higher level, so I think Id be able

to do better with it (Pupil A, EB: 4c 5c History, 4c 5b English).

Do you feel the Lit Bits helped you during the topic?

With English and History, it was making it [the topic] easier to understand; and obviously on my

marks, Ive gone up higher by one level, so if the next subject that we do had a bit of English...then I

could probably get more progress (Pupil B, BL: 5c 5b History, 4a 5c English).

Why do you feel the Lit Bits helped you with your essay?

Because writing more things down means, like, having more information, and then in my head

because I remember writing it down it makes it easier for the actual test (Pupil B, BL: 5c 5b

History, 4a 5c English).

Would you like to see more Lit Bits in future History units?

I dont think it would be a problem; it certainly helps... I think we should have a few more of them...

because you never really go through anything like that; were always learning about the topic, but

were not really learning how to understand the topic, in tests and what to do, so its a bit more

what to do when you come to the important things (Pupil C, LN: 5c 7c History, 6c 7c English).

A metaphor may perhaps be drawn from Pupil Cs comment regarding the strategys aid in learning

how to understand the topic perhaps this may be likened to a give a man a fish... analogy, in

which, rather than simply offering individual merits per-se, moreover, the literacy strategies offer

holistic tools of access for wider pupil understanding.

Similarly, it may be noted that the comments above particularly appear to reinforce the notions

postulated by McCallion (the importance of vocabulary) and Wray & Medwell (emphasis on explicit

links and giving pupils increased opportunities for written and oral reflection) in the implementation

and subsequent benefits of literacy intervention strategies. However, caution should be made here,

in that it is feasible that the pupils interviewed may have felt under pressure in some way to give

positive answers to the questions made by the researcher.

Equally, it is important to emphasise that the whole-class anonymous questionnaire - completed by

the CG following the completion of the unit and upon receiving their awarded levels gave

decidedly more mixed or negative responses. The following four figures, overleaf, help to

demonstrate this:


20/124

20

Figure 10: Helped with topic understanding?Thomas 2012

Figure 11: Helped to gain a higher mark?Thomas 2012

Figure 12:More Lit Bits?Thomas 2012


21/124

21

Similarly, Figure 13, below, presents the qualitative findings Question 10 of the questionnaire; an

open question which again offers a relatively mixed portrait of perceptions in comparison with the

relatively positive-correlation findings found in the quantitative data, or from the three semi-

structured interviews also conducted:

Figure 13: Open-question on Lit Bit strategies. Thomas 2012


22/124

22

x) Limitations and conclusions

Before drawing conclusions, it is important to highlight the limitations of this enquiry, inferred to

throughout this report. Firstly, the generalisabilty of this enquiry is, by definition, a limited one: the

exact scope of the intervention strategies, the unique context of the school, and the fact that the

enquiry adopts a participatory action research model itself a subjective notion, due to the unique

researcher-participant relationships present means that researchers wishing to instigate a similar

literacy strategy should be advised to only take elements from this enquirys model; to adapt it to

the distinctive qualities of their own educational setting.

Secondly, the brevity of this report has meant that a relatively limited amount of literature within

the literacy and action research canon has been reviewed; certainly the reader is advised that a

more holistic understanding of the inherently complex notions of literacy and action research can be

garnered from a wider reading of these fields. Equally, certain arguments relating to validity (for

instance, methodological reasoning for the choice of History teacher and Year group for the enquiry)

have had to be condensed or omitted: it is recommended that Professional Enquiry, Part 1(Thomas

2012) is read for a greater understanding of these key issues.

Thirdly, the nature of an intervention strategy means that caution (as outlined previously by Wray

& Medwell 2000) must be applied; such strategies may appear to improve pupils levels in the short

term, but should only be considered a success or failure in their ability to improve literacy levels over

an extended period of time; something LM, in considering the effect of the enquiry, was keen to

reinforce:

If its just seen as a flash in the pan yeah, youll get something really good perhaps at the end

piece of work...but then theyll forget about it. It essentially is constant reminder, almost; and if itsscaffolded in over time and sometimes explicitly, sometimes less so...If its done over time then they

will develop that over time, but if you do it just, bang, then... it will be good short term, but its no

long term [solution]. If you want a long term change... it takes a lot of time (LM 2012).

Indeed, this notion may be analogous to the perceived success or failure of a healthy eating school:

it can be considered that such a school may only foster truly health-conscious pupils if healthy eating

is promoted consistently and equally throughout the school; constantly reinforced and modelled by

members of staff over an extended period of time. Likewise, a school wishing to foster and maintain

a culture of literacy (Bryan & Westbrook 2000) and become a truly literate school may need to

model and support elements of literacy throughout their school, consistently and extensively, if it

aspires to achieve more than simply the sticking plaster of intervention and potentially limited

success.

By way of returning to this enquirys initial key objec tives, it is felt that these have, overall, been

pursued and at least partly accomplished over the course of the enquiry: key literature has been

reviewed and considered, including current and historical political perspectives; literacy intervention

materials and resources have been created and adapted; qualitative and quantitative findings have

been sought and assessed, and cross-curricular literacy strategies have, as a result, been promoted

within School M.

Indeed, the English and History Departments, including the Senior Leadership Team of School Mwere invited to a presentation of the findings in July 2012; as a consequence are keen to pursue the


23/124

23

development of further whole-school literacy strategies from the September of 2012; something

that may be seen through the lens of Kremmis and McTaggart (2011) as a secondary stage of the

action research spiral adopted by this enquiry. The recording of this presentation can be found in

Appendix 5 of this report.

Whilst the quantitative data findings (in particular) are certainly of interest, it would be imprudent to

assume that these are necessarily directly reproducible; a similar action research enquiry may obtain

markedly contrasting results. As such, continued research and assessment at School M is required

for improved validation here. Likewise, the qualitative data findings are also intriguing, but the

mixed nature of whole-class findings suggests that thoughtful care and attention must be given to

the needs of the pupils, if any further development of the strategies is to be implemented.

However, this report takes the view that just as literacy strategies may offer more than simply their

own individual merit, so too might the quantitative and qualitative data findings be considered: not

simply as set of impassive statistics, but - much more importantly, as a impassioned justification for

the continued pursuit and exploration of cross curricular literacy strategies, both within School M,

and potentially throughout other schools across the UK.

As such, it is hoped that through the research of this enquiry, other educationalists and researchers

concerned with cross curricular literacy intervention, development and assessment may be

encouraged to develop and implement their own literacy strategies and enquiries; it is only through

continued action research and assessment that the true potential of cross curricular literacy may be

uncovered:

Challenging assumptions and orthodoxies is another crucial aspect of research if our knowledge is

to grow and we are not to ossify into doing things in certain ways because we have always donethem in that way (Lewis in Fisher 2002: 100).

END

6912 WORDS


24/124

24

Part 4: List of appendices

The following appendices are included to highlight the scope of the enquiry; to support the

main body of the report; to offer further validation to the reports findings and discussion,

and in regards to Appendix 5 (including the reports Powerpoint and recording of thepresentation), to fulfil the requirements ofUniversity of Leicesters marking criteria.

Appendix 1: Quantitative Findings Appendix 2: Qualitative Findings Appendix 3: Literacy Strategy Materials and Ethics Appendix 4: Literacy Strategy Resources Appendix 5: Supporting DVD

It is hoped that academics and researchers within the field of literacy will find the materials

and resources included both useful and insightful.


25/124

Appendix 1: Quantitative Findings


26/124

KB 4a 5c 1

EB 4c 5c 3

HB 5c 5a 2

MB 4b 5b 3 LB 5a 6c 1

DB 5b 6b 3 CG 4a n 0

RB 5c 6c 3 MGH 4a 5c 1

RC 5a 6a 3 KG N 4c 0

TC 4b 5c 2 SH 4a 4a 0

SC 5c 5b 1 KH 5c 5c 0

RD 4a 4a 0 AH 5c n 0

ED 5a 5a 0 WH 5c 5b 1

LF 5a 7b 5 HL 5c 5a 2

AF 4a 5c 1 KL 4a 4a 0

FP 4b 5a 4 JLS 4a 5a 3

CH 4a 4a 0 SP 4b n 0

CH 4b 5b 3 JP 5a 7c 4

CH 4b 5a 4 TM 4a 5b 2

XN 5c 6c 3 FP 5c 5b 1

ML 5c 6c 3 CP 5b 6c 2

BL 5c 5b 1 JR 4a 5c 1

BM 4b 5c 2 CS 4c 4b 1

LN 5c 7c 6 LS 4a 5c 1

BP 4b 4a 2 ES 5b 5a 1

CR 4a 5c 1 KS 5c 6c 3

HS 4b 5c 2 BS 5b 5a 1

HT 5c 5b 1 JW 4a 5c 1

AT 5b 5b 0 OW 5c 5b 1

NW 4a 5b 2 MY 5c 5a 2

Total qualifier increase 64 TQI 29

Mean 2.178571 Mean 1.16Median 2 Median 1

Mode 3 Mode 1



CONTROL GROUP

VALIDATION GROUP



LEVELS AND QUALIFIERS RESULTS - HISTORY


27/124

KB 5a 5a 0

EB 4c 5b 4

HB 5a 6c 1

MB 4b 5b 3 LB 6b 6b 0

DB 6c 6b 1 CG 5b N 0

RB 5a 6c 1 MGH 5c 5c 0

RC 6c 5a -1 KG 4c 4b -1

TC 5b 5b 0 SH 5a 5b -1

SC 5b 6c 2 KH 5c 5c 0

RD 4b 5c 2 AH 5b N 0

ED 5b 6c 2 WH 5c 5a 2

LF 6b 6a 1 HL 6c 6b 1

AF 5b 5c -1 KL 4b 5c 2

FP 5c 5a 2 JLS 4a 6c 4

CH 5c 4b -2 SP 4a 4a 0

CH 4a 5c 1 JP 6a 6a 0

CH 4c 5b 4 TM 4a 4a 0

XN 5b 5a 1 FP 5b 6c 2

ML 5c 6b 4 CP 5b 5a 2

BL 4a 5b 2 JR 5c 5c 0

BM 4a 5c 1 CS 4b 4a 1

LN 6c 7c 3 LS 5b 5b 0

BP 5a 5c -1 ES 5b 5b 0

CR 5a 5b -1 KS 5b 6c 2

HS 4a 4a 0 BS 5a 5a 0

HT 5a 5b -1 JW 4a 5c 1

AT 4a 5c 1 OW 5a 6c 1

NW 5c 5c 0 MY 5c 5c 0

Total qualifier increase 29 TQI 16

Mean 1.035714 Mean 0.64Median 1 Median 0

Mode 1 Mode 0



Less 7 Less 2

Pre Eng Post Eng

Initials Pre Eng Post Eng

LEVELS AND QUALIFIERS RESULTS - ENGLISH

CONTROL GROUP

VALIDATION GROUP

Initials


28/124

0

5

10

15

20

Validation Control

Whole level increase 4 17.86

English - Whole level increase as a

percentage

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Validation Control

Av. Qualifier increase 0.64 1.00

AxisTitle

English - Average qualifier increase

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Validation Control

Qualifier increase 16 29

English - Total qualifier increase

comparison


29/124

0

0

0

1

1

1

Validation Control

Modal increase 0 1

English - Modal increase of qualifiers

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Validation Control

No change 13 4

AxisTitle

English - No qualifier change


30/124

0

10

20

30

40

50

Validation Control

Whole level increase 12 42.9

History - Whole level increase as a

percentage

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Validation Control

Av. Qualifier increase 1.16 2.18

History - Average qualifier increase

0

20

40

60

80

Validation Control

Qualifier increase 29 64

History - Total qualifier increase

comparison


31/124

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

Validation Control

Modal increase 1 3

History - Modal increase of qualifiers

0

0.51

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Validation Control

No change 3 4

History - No qualifier change


32/124

0

5

10

15

20

2530

35

40

45


History English

History vs English comparison -

Whole level increase percentage

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50


History English


Average Qualifier increase

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


History English

History vs English comparison -

Qualifier increase


33/124

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4


History English


Modal increase

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


History English

History vs English -No change in qualifier


34/124

Appendix 2: Qualitative Findings


35/1241 of 3

Lit Bits in History - Your opinions

1. I enjoy the subject of History

Strongly

Disagree 2 3 4 5Strongly

Agree

Rating

Average

Response

Count

Please select one 3.7% (1)14.8%

(4)

40.7%

(11)

29.6%

(8)

7.4%

(2)3.7% (1) 3.33 27

answered question 27

skipped question 0

2. I enjoy the subject of English

Strongly

Disagree2 3 4 5

Strongly

Agree

Rating

Average

Response

Count


(2)

33.3%

(9)

33.3%

(9)

14.8%

(4)3.7% (1) 3.52 27


skipped question 0

3. I feel that the Lit Bits helped me to understand the Slave Trade topic better

Strongly

Disagree2 3 4 5

Strongly

Agree

Rating

Average

Response

Count


(8)

33.3%

(9)

14.8%

(4)

0.0%

(0)3.7% (1) 2.59 27


skipped question 0


36/1242 of 3

4. I feel that the Lit Bits helped me to write the 'Abolition of Slave Trade' essay

Strongly

Disagree2 3 4 5

Strongly

Agree

Rating

Average

Response

Count


(8)

22.2%

(6)

11.1%

(3)

3.7%

(1)7.4% (2) 2.59 27


skipped question 0

5. I feel that the Lit Bits helped me to gain a higher mark in this History assessment

Strongly

Disagree

2 3 4 5Strongly

Agree

Rating

Average

Response

Count


(8)

22.2%

(6)

22.2%

(6)

0.0%

(0)3.7% (1) 2.59 27


skipped question 0

6. I enjoyed the Lit Bits in the six History lessons

Strongly

Disagree2 3 4 5

Strongly

Agree

Rating

Average

Response

Count


(11)

14.8%

(4)

11.1%

(3)

0.0%

(0)3.7% (1) 2.22 27


skipped question 0

7. I feel that the Lit Bits 'got in the way' of the History topic

Strongly

Disagree2 3 4 5

Strongly

Agree

Rating

Average

Response

Count


(4)

37.0%

(10)

18.5%

(5)

3.7%

(1)

14.8%

(4)3.33 27


skipped question 0


37/1243 of 3

8. I feel that the Lit Bits helped me to 'link' History and English subjects better

Strongly

Disagree2 3 4 5

Strongly

Agree

Rating

Average

Response

Count


(6)

48.1%

(13)

3.7%

(1)

7.4%

(2)3.7% (1) 2.78 27


skipped question 0

9. I would like to see the Lit Bits in more History lessons

Strongly

Disagree

2 3 4 5Strongly

Agree

Rating

Average

Response

Count


(10)

33.3%

(9)

7.4%

(2)

3.7%

(1)3.7% (1) 2.59 27


skipped question 0

10. Please write any of your thoughts, good or bad, about the Lit Bits and literacy focus

in History in the box below. Please try to explain your answers in as much detail as

possible.

Response

Count

24


skipped question 3


38/1241 of 4

Lit Bits in History - Your opinions

Please write any of your thoughts, good or bad, about the Lit Bits and literacy focus in

History in the box below. Please try to explain your answers in as much detail as

possible.

Response

Count

24


skipped question 3


39/1242 of 4


40/1243 of 4

Q10. Please write any of your thoughts, good or bad, about the Lit Bits and literacy focus in History in the boxbelow. Please try to explain your answers in as much detail as possible.

1 I thought that using lit was very good, it helped me quite a lot by using it toget a high and better level.

Jun 24, 2012 7:55 AM

2 It didn't really make any difference. Jun 24, 2012 7:54 AM

3 It didn't really make a difference. Jun 24, 2012 7:53 AM

4 There wasn't enough, there was one in the first lesson but from then on therewas nothing so how could it help us?

Jun 24, 2012 7:53 AM

5 I think they were pointless! Jun 24, 2012 7:52 AM

6 I thought that there wasn't enough lit bits in the six weeks (sic) a part from acouple of lessons. I think there could have been some more lit bits in thetopic.

Jun 24, 2012 7:50 AM

7 The it bits partly helped. Jun 24, 2012 7:49 AM

8 I think the lit bits were ok but it helped my level to go up. Jun 24, 2012 7:48 AM

9 Lit bits helped at times but sometimes made it more confusing. Jun 24, 2012 7:47 AM

10 It helped me in History a bit. Jun 24, 2012 7:46 AM

11 They didn't do anything. Jun 24, 2012 7:45 AM

12 I think it's more work to get another higher mark in History when we have tofocus on literacy as well.

Jun 24, 2012 7:45 AM

13 Thought it was a bit pointless as I didn't even remember to use it with mywork it just wasted time.

Jun 24, 2012 7:44 AM

14 too much work and there was too many sheets, books (etc) and didn't evenwork (improve my grade)!

Jun 24, 2012 7:43 AM

15 Lit bits helped a bit, because they helped me to understand how to linksources together.

Jun 24, 2012 7:42 AM

16 I don't really like the lit bits because it confuses me and I prefer learning thesame way in History.

Jun 24, 2012 7:41 AM

17 The literacy helped me in a way, but I don't really remember most of it. Jun 24, 2012 7:40 AM

18 I think that you need to include how to maybe do tests to high levels andthrough sources but overall it helped me quite well.

Jun 24, 2012 7:39 AM

19 I think the lit bits didn't do anything to help me. Jun 24, 2012 7:38 AM

20 Need a bit of drama. Less writing more talking. Jun 24, 2012 7:37 AM

21 Sometimes it got in the way of the topic. Jun 24, 2012 7:37 AM

22 I think thew lit bits were stupid and pointless and didn't help. Jun 24, 2012 7:36 AM

23 I don't think the lit bits made any difference to our English and History levels. Jun 24, 2012 7:35 AM

24 I liked the fact that we mixed two topics together but sometimes the lit bits Jun 24, 2012 7:33 AM


41/1244 of 4

Q10. Please write any of your thoughts, good or bad, about the Lit Bits and literacy focus in History in the boxbelow. Please try to explain your answers in as much detail as possible.

got in the way.


42/124


43/124


44/124


45/124

SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW WITH LM TEMPLATE SHEET

Semi-Structured Interview - Key Themes Venn

Semi-structured interview questions

Week 1

1) Please explain your involvement in the project and why you decided to participate in it.

2) Were you able to follow all of the literacy strategies over the first two adapted lessons? (Was

timing an issue? Could it be improved? How?)

3) Overall, do you feel the literacy strategies fed into, or detracted from, the unit of work? (Why?

How could it be improved?)

4) Overall, how would you say the pupils responded to the literacy tasks this week? (Positive,

negative, indifferent? Do you think they saw it as extra work?)

5) How did you find making explicit literacy links during these lessons? Did you feel this was a

natural or unnatural process for you?

6) Did you feel it met the SEN / G+T needs? (How could it be improved to do so?)

7) Can you discuss the teaching of the validation group and how it compared / contrasted with the

adapted lessons with the control group

8) Any final thoughts?

LiteracyStrategies -Teacher /

Pupil

Practical?

Accessible/

Realistic?

Effective?

Issues /Improve -

ments?


46/124

LM Interview quotes Friday 20th April 2012

Involvement in the project

(00.24) English and History are so close together...the skills that you use in English, you

readily transfer them into History, and vice-versa. The idea of interpretation, reading

the sources for analysis; much the same as perhaps you would interpret a play or a

poem.

(01.10) The school is looking for 11 16, and one of the issues in new GCSE curriculum

specifications is the importance of literacy; to get that embedded a little bit more at Key

Stage 3, with a more long-term view and strategy was one of the reasons why I would

like to have a go at it.

(01.58) Around about October time, we did realise that out literacy within the

department needed a little bit more; a refresh...Weve added into nearly all of our

classrooms now were looking at key words...within our lessons to try and make it a

little bit more overt. With doing that, we would then hope that they could start to see

the patterns of capital letters wheres needs be.

(02.50) Its fell at a nice time, so that we are able to build on what weve started to do

as a department already

(04.32) As a school, weve looked at the idea that each subject is not independent of

one another - that cross-curricular link; so if they can see the literacy work that theyve

done in English then being used again in History, and then Geography and RE and other

subjects as well, then thatll just reinforce and... hopefully over time they will pick it up a

bit more and some of the more common mistakes will be fewer than they are perhaps

currently

Able to follow literacy strategies? Week one.

06.45 The first task, it linked very nicely to some of the things wed already done

anyway, so that fitted in really well because it was History already and it was just a littlebit more overtly with a little bit of literacy.

07.15 That went well... it fitted nicely to what we were already doing, and it didnt

really detract too much away from the content of the lesson...The downside was

distraction, and how much you can fit on a table. If you think about it, youve got...six

spaces; grouped tables, six seats round it. When you start adding...dictionaries; more

stuff...It gives them less space in which to operate.

08.47 Within that lesson, there seemed to be a lot of paper on there, and for some that

was too much, perhaps; also the dictionaries they might just flick through them; just


47/124

distraction when the teaching comes about. When they have to listen, its just something

else to play with... Its a double-edged sword, essentially.

11.14 [Lesson 2] I found that was difficult, mainly because going back to your earlier

point of detracting away from the content; the History because at the end of the day

Literacy; yes its important, but they need to know the subject matter, particularly as its

building into a sequence of work with an end project... so the idea was sound enough,

but the time factor was too much.

14.59 Emphasising the idea of capitals where they should be, punctuation where it

should be. Also things like, to an extent, the spelling of countries.

15.54 Interestingly, once it starts to be extended writing, for some...as much [sic]

divergent tactics as possible. Also, some did mention the sheer weight of paper on the

desk again...at this point weve got a textbook to do questions from, weve got the A4

sheet... we introduced a piece of A5 paper; on the desks as well, weve got dictionaries

and the laminates... plus theyve got their pencil cases; its a closed environment...some

said I dont know what to do, Ive got too much stuff.

18.21. [TipTop Paragraphing sheet] Thats been on the board for the past two lessons;

weve not really done any extended writing [yet]... itll be interesting to see [if] that has

been looked at; theyve seen it, they know its there, [itll] be interesting to see if when it

comes to the paragraphing they take that on board. I will be explicit with them about it,

but it will be interesting to see, despite that Ill have said it and that its shown, will that

make a difference, or will it still be the same?

Fed into or detracted from?

19.11 I think the first one [lesson] went very well, it really did fit in pretty much

perfectly, erm, in terms of the time. Basically, it fitted in with the History... it was

something that was already there, just developed a little further... its something that

could work very well as a whole-scale department thing for another year.

21.06 [Amistad video] For some...they just saw it as ten minutes [of] I dont have to doany writing, as there is an element within this particular group that thats the case.

23.03 [Ideas in lesson 3] Its something that could go as the first part of the main

portion of the lesson. It could be placed on the back of that original sheet of paper, so

that it wouldnt be an additional piece, in terms of more paper, what should I do with

this?


48/124

Pupils reactions to literacy?

24.05 I mean, first lesson, I think in the most part...it wasnt negative at least. They saw

a reason, they saw behind it...it felt relatively positive. To an extent, during this lesson,

there was one person that did actually suggest, why are we doing this? and you know,

the idea that its English; breaking that barrier down is still there....it would probably be

that idea that its that little extra bit of writing, but were now looking at literacy why

have we got to look at full-stops and commas, and capital letters in History?...that was

there.

25.25 That individual can have issues elsewhere... is there a barrier on their attitude

towards why theyre at school; maybe is it a wider question... is that an issue that factors

in to some of the everyday things that were trying to do; the literacy across it; if theyve

got that perception from whatever reason... do they then have that perception?

26.22 [Barriers] I think that would depend on to an extent the teacher [and] h ow they

set it up... that then becomes more individual on the teacher rather than the pupil.

27.03 When it gets to option time, I do stress the English links to History, to try and

give that guidance to them, to say, look okay; forget about the topic here for a moment,

but just think about the actual skill that Im trying to get you to do. Forget the History

aspect of it look at the skill.

Explicit links natural?

28.17 Id like to think that I do try and suggest the ideas of literacy - remember

paragraphs, capital letters, full stops; that sort of thing already. Like I said, as a

Department, were looking at the key words; weve got them on the word wall.

29.36 This cant be just a chuck something at it [approach]. To do literacy properly; to

get them to really develop and to get their literacy up there, where it should be... its got

be gradual, over time; as you start of in Year 7, building further into Year 8 and Year 9,

and it needs to be something thats built into. Obviously, English to start off with... and

then, perhaps, adding its own little spin where it needs to, from other key areas that are

also linked to English...Humanities, essentially, plus one or two other areas.

30.33 Just like any subject done well is, its gradual over time...the different skills are

added upon layers.

31.01 If its just seen as a flash in the pan yeah, youll get something really good

perhaps at the end piece of work...but then theyll forget about it. It essentially is

constant reminder, almost; and if its scaffolded in over time and sometimes explicitly,

sometimes less so...If its done over time then they will develop that over time, but if you


49/124

do it just, bang, then... it will be good short term, but its no long term [solution]. If you

want a long term change... it takes a lot of time.

32.06 It will effect, I believe, something like 5%; the difference between a D and a C,

perhaps. If we can start thinking about it particularly with the Year 8s now; getting

ideas so that we can have it in the next year, then in Year 9 we can have things starting

to grow in thats better for them...so in the longer term, you get the GCSE results, you

hope that itd be good, then hopefully in the following yearitd be better.

33.12 It needs to be almost covert; explicitly covert, if you want... It cant just be, oh,

its another literacy lesson its got to be its your History lesson, its your Geography

lesson, its your RE, but literacy forms a natural component [of these lessons] as well.

34.11 Ultimately, [in] History lessons, theyve got to learn the History skills, because

Im assessing them on the History skills... so its got be in proportion for whats needed

for them to do well.

SEN / G+T CONSIDERATIONS

35.25 Youll often find that History and English levels are often very similar, because

ultimately theyre using their writing, which means that ultimately their literacy will

probably be very similar as well.

36.04 Undoubtedly, if you cannot have the basic literacy skills, you cannot necessarilyachieve; you have a seal on what you can achieve you can describe, but you cant really

explain the source...you could describe it, but then youre capping it at... Level 4...

36.35 I mean, thats an issue thats always been floated around our department, sort of

how do we best do it? SEN is an ongoing issue on how to best do it is it writi

subjective literacy? promoting and strengthening cross-curricular literacy within history, as an...

Documents