the journal of the irish learning support association€¦ · learn is the journal of the irish...

The Journal of the Irish Learning Support Association

Journal of the Irish Learning Support Association

Learn Volume 4

1 | 2020

Volume 4

1 2020

The Transformative Power of Child Voice for Learning and Teaching in Our Classrooms: Signposts for Practice from Research Findings in a Primary School in Ireland Sorcha Turner, Emer Ring and Lisha O

,Sullivan

Best Practice Guidelines for Multilingual Children: A Cross-Disciplinary Comparison Duana Quigley, Fıodhna Gardiner-Hyland, Deirdre Murphy and Ciara O

,Toole

Converting Plurilingual Skills into Educational Capital Deirdre Kirwan Engaging Multilingual Families in the US: Research and Practice for Educators Maria R. Coady and Raisa Ankeny Guided Repeated Reading: Supporting the Development of Reading Fluency for Pupils with Reading Difficulties in the Primary School Classroom Louise Barr and Aoife Brennan Primary Teachers, Conceptualisations of Exceptionally Able Pupils Eithne Uı Chonaill

Learn Cover 2020_Cover 2006.qxd 10/03/2020 16:18

LEARN

JOURNAL OF THE IRISH LEARNING SUPPORT ASSOCIATION

Learn Journal 2020_Learn Journal 2006.qxd 10/03/2020 16:21 Page 1

LEARN

JOURNAL OF THE IRISH LEARNING SUPPORT ASSOCIATION

VOLUME 41, 2020


LEARN is the journal of the Irish Learning Support Association. It is published annually.

LEARN 2020 Researchers, academics, ILSA members, post-graduate students and their lecturers/academic supervisors are invited to submit papers to be considered for inclusion in the 2021 issue of LEARN which is now a peer reviewed journal. The final copy of papers, accompanied by an abstract and a short biographical note about the writer(s) should be submitted as a Word document and emailed to [email protected] with Article for inclusion in LEARN 2021 in the subject line by April 30th 2020. Papers must conform to the guidelines detailed at the back of this journal. Guidelines are also available on www.ilsa.ie ILSA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2019-2020

Chairperson Theresa Woods

Vice-Chairperson Breda Coady

Secretary Jackie Whelan

Treasurer Noel Fox

Committee Members Dr. Pauline Cogan John Cullinane Dr. Michele Dunleavy Bernie Kemple Angela Martin Laoise Ní Chuinn

• Applications forms for membership of ILSA may be downloaded from our

website at www.ilsa.ie. • Use the Contact Section on our website to get in touch if you have any

queries.

• The ILSA National Executive Committee can be contacted by email at [email protected]

ILSA is concerned with sharing knowledge to support teachers. Its aims include promoting cooperation between those concerned with Special Education Teaching (SET) and enhancing the quality of service given by SET teachers. It does this through Spring and Annual Conferences, through LEARN Journal and resources on the ILSA website www.ilsa.ie

Layout and Printing by CRM Design + Print Ltd., Dublin 12 • Tel: 01-429 0007

LEARN EDITORIAL COMMITTEE 2020-2021 Editor – Dr. Pauline Cogan Breda Coady John Cullinane Dr. Michele Dunleavy


CONTENTS

A Note from the Editor ................................................................................................................ 6 The Transformative Power of Child Voice for Learning and Teaching .............. 7 in Our Classrooms: Signposts for Practice from Research Findings in a Primary School in Ireland – Sorcha Turner, Emer Ring and Lisha O’Sullivan Best Practice Guidelines for Multilingual Children: .................................................... 18 A Cross-Disciplinary Comparison – Duana Quigley, Fíodhna Gardiner-Hyland, Deirdre Murphy

and Ciara O’Toole Converting Plurilingual Skills into Educational Capital ............................................ 35 – Déirdre Kirwan Engaging Multilingual Families in the US: Research and Practice .................... 56 for Educators – Maria R. Coady and Raisa Ankeny Guided Repeated Reading: Supporting the Development of Reading ............ 70 Fluency for Pupils with Reading Difficulties in the Primary School Classroom – Louise Barr and Aoife Brennan Primary Teachers’ Conceptualisations of Exceptionally Able Pupils .................. 93 – Eithne Uí Chonaill Guidelines for submitting an article to LEARN journal ........................................ 111

The views expressed in the articles do not necessarily reflect those of ILSA.


A Note from the Editor Previous editions of LEARN Journal are now available on our website www.ilsa.ie There is no edition of LEARN for 2019. The current volume, Volume 41 (2020) is also available online. The Editorial Committee of LEARN is especially proud to announce that LEARN is lifted to the status of a peer reviewed journal. We warmly recommend it and proudly offer its contents to researchers, academics and professionals in the wider community.

Pauline M Cogan PhD Editor

6


The Transformative Power of Child Voice for Learning and Teaching in

Our Classrooms: Signposts for Practice from Research Findings in a

Primary School in Ireland

Sorcha Turner, Emer Ring and Lisha O’Sullivan Abstract An increasing emphasis is being placed nationally and internationally on the benefits of harnessing children’s voices in the education system both from a rights and a learning and teaching perspective. This article outlines a qualitative case-study research project carried out between 2016 and 2017, in partial fulfilment of a Master’s thesis undertaken at Mary Immaculate College, Limerick. The research investigated the extent to which child voice was included in learning and teaching in a single stream co-educational primary school located in rural Ireland. An extensive literature review was conducted, the principal and teachers were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews and children participated in focus-group discussions. In this article, the research findings detailing the attitudes and experiences of participation and shared autonomy for all children are presented. The research highlights the value of listening to the many voices that exist in our classrooms and the importance of understanding how children experience democracy in the learning and teaching process. The challenges in including children’s voices in schools today are interrogated and practical classroom-based strategies to support democratic classroom environments for all children, irrespective of age or ability are discussed. Introduction In the past two decades, the policy lens through which children are viewed in Ireland has changed radically. Following a series of incriminatory reports and court cases, the shortcomings of constitutional provision in protecting children’s rights were acknowledged, prompting the State to adopt a number of specific measures in order to begin to redress these inadequacies. The Ombudsman for Children’s Office (OCO) was established in 2002 under the Ombudsman for Children Act to promote the rights and welfare of children and provided for the appointment of an Ombudsman for Children under the Act (Ireland, 2002). Subsequently the Thirty-first Amendment to the Irish Constitution (Children) was signed into law in April 2012 (Ireland, 1937;

7


Department of Children and Youth Affairs (DCYA), 2018). This amendment reflects the assurance in Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (1989), ratified by Ireland in 1992, that children have the right to have their opinions taken into account and their views respected in decision-making affecting them (United Nations (UN) 1989). Policy documents continue to articulate these constitutional and legislative aspirations with Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures: The National Policy Framework for Children and Young People 2014-2020 expressly articulating a vision that the rights of all children and young people are respected, protected and fulfilled and that critically their voices are heard (DCYA, 2014). The translation of policy imperatives to practice in schools is not unproblematic and it is acknowledged that very often aspirational principles may not always translate into practice on the ground (Ring, 2018). While curricular developments clearly mirror recent policy imperatives, through highlighting the central role of children’s participation and engagement from early childhood to post-primary level in the context of Student Councils: A Voice for Students; Síolta: The National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education; Aistear: The Early Childhood Curriculum Framework; A Framework for Junior Cycle and the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment’s (NCCA) preparatory work in the re-development of the primary school curriculum, it remains less clear as to how these principles can be operationalised in classrooms (Department of Education and Skills (DES), 2002; Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education (CECDE), 2006; NCCA, 2009; DES, 2012; Flynn, 2017; Ring, O’Sullivan, Ryan and Burke, 2018). The National Strategy on Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision-Making 2015-2020 identifies specific targets in its action plan, which includes increasing the percentage of Student Councils at primary level from its current level of 14% and encouraging the Inspectorate to review its evaluation of student participation, however child:teacher ratio and curriculum overload emerge as potential deterrents to capturing child voice in increasingly busy and diverse classrooms (NCCA, 2010; DCYA, 2015; Ring et al., 2016;). Nonetheless, it remains critical that education systems respond to the current research on how children learn best, which suggests that it is imperative that children have access to motivating contexts, are engaged as active participants in their learning and are encouraged to become autonomous, innovative and creative thinkers in participative and democratic school environments (Lansdown, 2005; Mannion, 2007; Ring et al., 2018). As educators we must be convinced of both the research base for, and the value of adopting, what can be described as a pedagogy of voice and a pedagogy of listening (Giannakaki, Flynn, Hayes and Fitzsimons, 2018; Ring, O’Sullivan, Ryan and Burke, 2018). As teachers our pedagogy can be described as how we teach, which is influenced by a range of complex personal factors including, interalia, our theoretical perspectives on learning and teaching, and our beliefs about education (Jones and Shelton, 2011). Combining this pedagogy with

8 LEARN 2019


Lundy’s Model of Participation (DCYA, 2015) at Figure 1 below provides a model for us to begin to include children’s voices (Ring, 2019). Figure 1. A Model for a Pedagogy of Voice and a Pedagogy of Listening

(Ring, 2019 adapted from DCYA, 2015) Lundy (2007) advises that a commitment to Article 12 of the UNCRC alone is insufficient to ensure that children’s voices will be meaningfully included but rather that children need space, an audience, a voice and to know that their voice has influence. The authors suggest that these can be provided through adopting a pedagogy of voice and a pedagogy of listening. The research question underpinning this paper was focused on determining what contributing factors within the school context impact on the implementation of a pedagogy of voice and a pedagogy of listening from the children’s, principal’s and teachers’ perspectives. Methodology This research was focused on gaining further insight into the opinions and attitudes of teachers and children within an Irish primary school, therefore a qualitative case-study approach was selected (Yin, 2018). The site of the case study was an Educate Together Primary School in rural Ireland. Educate Together schools, first established in 1978, are underpinned by the principles of equality, child-centredness and democracy and are both multi-denominational and co-educational (Educate Together, 2005). In interpreting the findings

LEARN 2019 9


therefore, the fundamental legal concept of Educate Together’s patronage in operating schools focused on delivering equality of access and esteem and against which the Board of Management must judge its performance should be considered as a factor that may be specific to this research (Educate Together, 2005). The school comprised eight mainstream classes and the teachers of senior infants, second class, fourth class and sixth class along with the learning-support, resource teacher and principal were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. All twelve members of the Student Council and six children from each class were randomly selected and invited to particiate in child-conversations, which utilised a semi-strucutred format and the draw-and-tell approach (Clarke and Moss, 2011; Ring et al. 2016). This sample of participants was based on a concern to provide a fair representation of the teaching staff and children throughout the school and was thus a purposive one. Interview schedules were focused on eliciting participants’ personal experiences and attitudes towards suppporting children’s participation in learning; identifying curriculum areas and classroom strategies that promote child voice; understanding children’s involvement in assessment; exploring the values underpinning the school culture and the role of the Student Council and participants’ perceptions of the challenges associated with developing a shared autonomy between teachers and children. Child-conversations explored children’s personal experiences and attitudes towards school; classroom experiences and school culture; the role of the Student Council and challenges to participation and listening. Ethical clearance for this research was secured through the Mary Immaculate College Research Ethics Committee (MIREC) and ethics conceptualised as a process infusing the study from the formulation of the research question to the compilation of the findings. Data were analysed using an emergent approach based on three phases of coding with reference to the main ideas being expressed and the concepts surfaced in the literature review. Subsequently, codes were clustered to form broader themes (Mukherji and Albon, 2018). While a range of findings emerged, for the purpose of this article, a focus is maintained on The Value of a Pedagogy of Listening; The Complexity of Democracy and Capturing the Myriad of Voices in Classrooms through a Pedagogy of Voice. The Value of a Pedagogy of Listening Overall, reflecting Lundy (2007), the data suggested that teachers appreciated the value of adopting a pedagogy of listening for children’s learning and development through providing children with space, voice and an audience. All teachers reported that children’s ideas, opinions and feelings were considered and valued as much as possible throughout the school day, with two teachers indicating that children’s contributions directly influenced their planning and practice. The centrality of the child within the ethos of the school was also seen as a driving force behind this listening culture for four teachers who acknowledged how the school ethos influenced their preparation and

10 LEARN 2019


pedagogical style. Teachers variously described their relationships with children as positive, open and trusting. One of the teachers expressly referred to the impact of cultivating a listening culture on the teacher:child relationship: ‘Children come in bursting with news on a Monday and they want to tell you things you know- “Oh I saw a baby lamb being born”, or “I saw this or that”, you know? I think it is nice for them to feel like you want to hear their stories and I think it helps you bond with them big time’. The listening culture in the school was corroborated during the child-conversations as exemplified in Table 1 below.

Table 1 An Extract from Children’s Responses during the Child-Conversations

The Student Council, included a boy and girl in each class from first to sixth and its role in providing a valuable listening platform for children to express their concerns and ideas was affirmed by all teachers. It was clear also that there was a strong commitment from the principal to the process in terms of formal engagement and also in terms of leading a listening culture in the school: ‘The other way I as the principal like to value the voice of the child is that they are welcome to come and visit me in my office. They share with me the good news and the bad news and it’s not a relationship where I am a far distant person isolated in a block. I get the hugs and the tears, and everything else, creating a family culture’. The Student Council’s representatives considered that they constituted an effective communication link between their peers and the adults in the school. One of the representatives reported that her classmates sometimes came to her about bullying problems, which she was in a position to share with the class

LEARN 2019 11


teacher in order to seek a resolution. Highlighting the centrality of “influence” in Figure 1. above in promoting a culture of voice, the potential danger of the Student Council being tokenistic was referred to by two teachers and corroborated in one of the focus groups as encapsulated by a boy in Class B: ‘In first class, the principal came in and told us about the Student Council and she said that you could say what you wanted to change in the school but anyone who gets voted never changes anything, they just go with it, and they never change anything’. Lansdown (2005) observes that young children are instinctive communicators, while adults are not always instinctive listeners, suggesting that we need to continue to measure and reflect on the scope, quality and impact of children’s voices in our practice. The Complexity of Democracy The tension inherent in developing democratic practice stemming from the role of the teacher as the expert in pedagogy and the imperative of taking the voice of learners seriously was evident in the research findings (Ring, 2018; Pring, 2017). All teachers observed that children learned about democracy in the school through exposure to the language of democracy and by seeing democracy in action. In essence, children benefitted from the cultivation of a school environment where citizenship was both taught and experienced. However the complexity of democracy as a process was noted and the importance of both teachers and children understanding democracy as a shared communicative experience highlighted (Noddings, 2017). As observed by the principal: ‘Democracy is not a free for all, and children have to understand that and parents too; democracy doesn’t mean getting your own way- it means a balance of listening and speaking’. Three teachers noted that listening skills must be explicitly taught and one teacher observed that children sometimes found it difficult to accept that they were in the minority when a decision was being made. However, teachers unequivocally considered that engaging in the democratic process benefitted children as summarised by one teacher: ‘If you do give choices and somebody doesn’t get their choice, they can sometimes feel it is unfair or feel hard done by but if they don’t learn it now, when are they going to learn it, you know majority rules, you have to set in place how it works’. Democracy in action was discussed by both teachers and children. Five teachers described how children were regularly invited to vote, for example on how they would take part in a class reward system; the ancient civilisation they would learn about or which game to play during Physical Education. While children affirmed that their views were sought, they identified further scope for this to be extended as encapsulated by one of the children who noted that children had ‘a certain degree of say, but not a lot’. While two teachers expressly referred to seeking children’s opinions in displaying work and art in the classes, in all cases teachers retained control over seating arrangements and classroom management.

12 LEARN 2019


Younger children were less clear about the meaning of the term ‘democracy’ and age influenced children’s knowledge of their rights and agency. Two teachers noted how older children were more likely to be influential on the Student Council with one teacher suggesting that the children in her class were too young to fully understand the role of the Student Council. Children in the senior classes were also the most critical of the amount of agency and power they influenced within the school, thus mirroring the findings of previous research in Ireland (Devine, 2000). One of the older children’s focus groups referred to teachers listening but not acting. They mentioned how children had requested a designated quiet area in the yard where children could just talk or read. While this was promised to them, they indicated that it had not happened yet. The children’s maturity and understanding was further highlighted when they recognised that teachers were busy with their own classes and that any changes in school policy and practice would take time. The findings indicate a need for both children and teachers to develop an understanding of democracy based on the centrality of communication, which as Noddings (2017) observes ‘invites relation and caring relations help to maintain and enhance educative communication’ (p. 323). Developing the concept of schools as democratic spaces therefore has the potential to further strengthen the relational aspect of pedagogy, which research continues to highlight plays a central role in children’s motivation and achievement (Melhuish, 2016; Ring, O’Sullivan, Ryan and Burke, 2017; Melhuish and Gardiner, 2019) Capturing the Myriad of Voices in Classrooms through a Pedagogy of Voice Ensuring that a pedagogy of voice was at the heart of the learning and teaching process involved directing attention to capturing the myriad of voices in the classroom. The presence of ‘big voices’ was mentioned frequently by all participants and even the youngest participants recognised that there were some people who were very noisy, and others who were quiet. All of the focus groups discussed how ‘big voices’ can take over in class with a boy in Class C reporting that: ‘some people just don’t get to talk that much’ and a girl from the same class agreeing that: ‘some people take over and mess’. This was further corroborated by four teachers who referred to the presence of domineering or ‘big voices’, which is also reflected in the literature (Cook-Sather, 2006; Fuigel, 2016). Four teachers saw their role in helping all children to have a voice and were aware of their responsibility in balancing voices. Children also demonstrated an awareness of the challenges in capturing the complexity of all voices in the classroom. Three of the children’s focus-groups perceived that not all voices in their classes were listened to equally. The importance of fairness was mentioned in three focus groups while two groups presented what they viewed as unfair practices. A discussion in the Class B focus group raised issues of popularity, with one child describing how the teacher

LEARN 2019 13


would listen more regularly to children who he described as ‘popular’, or, ‘good’. A boy in this group described how those children would control the group during group work; for example in not allowing all children to write their opinion on the sheet of paper. It seems the word ‘popular’ here describes children who are more confident and experience success either academically or socially within the classroom. Children felt that this was very unfair and expressed a wish that everyone be treated equally. Differentiation was used by five teachers to include all children and ensure participation, as described by one teacher: ‘If you ask them a question that’s too hard, they are not going to answer any more because they didn’t get it. So you are pitching the question to the child’. The environment was also presented as a means to include all voices and all teachers confirmed that children’s work was prominently displayed. All children indicated that they raised their hands to talk, answer a question or contribute to a discussion and displayed awareness of having to wait, with one child noting that when the teacher was busy: ‘you have to keep it up for a long time or else put it down and then put it up again when she is looking’. An older child, however indicated her frustration, observing that: ‘I know that she is trying to get people more into, like asking other people who don’t have their hand up often but sometimes if you are constantly putting your hand up you feel like you are getting ignored. Like there is no point in putting your hand up’. Other listening tools such as a talking stick used during circle time and a name jar were felt by two teachers to be effective. The use of the name jar received mixed reactions from the children, with some acknowledging that it was a useful means to ensure participation, while others indicated that it they felt pressurised if they didn’t know the answer.

Conclusion There are inevitable limitations associated with the research findings in terms of the scale of the research and the limits of qualitative research in creating universal prescriptions for practice. While the researcher endeavoured to cultivate a participatory dominance-free dialogue with the research participants, the inevitable asymmetric power relation in research with children has to be considered as potentially impacting on the findings (Brinkman, 2018). This is a challenge that the authors suggest due attention will have to continue to be given to in harnessing child voice in classrooms. However the authors suggest that the findings are valuable in developing a better understanding of the possibilities inherent in capturing children’s voices and can therefore beneficially inform policy and practice. It was clear that school leadership, culture and ethos placed a value on child voice and understood the benefits of creating democratic school and classroom environments for children’s learning and development. The research findings confirm that a commitment to a pedagogy of voice and a pedagogy of listening located in policy imperatives, curricular developments and research is insufficient unless that pedagogy employs strategies to ensure children are provided with space and an audience to express their voice and that

14 LEARN 2019


critically they believe that their voice has influence. As demonstrated in research including children at pre-school level and children with autism, age or ability should not be viewed as barriers to including voice (Ring et al. 2016; O’Sullivan, Ring and Horgan, 2018). The importance of continuing to reflect on our pedagogy in order to ensure that in harnessing children’s voices, spontaneity and voluntary participation are not unduly compromised was evident in participants’ responses and experiences. Adopting pedagogical strategies that harness children’s voices; develop listening skills; offer choices; cultivate respectful relationships; employ differentiation and promote discussion offers an opportunity to create truly democratic classroom environments, schools and ultimately society, while simultaneously transforming learning and teaching in our schools.

REFERENCES Brinkmann, S. (2018). ‘The interview’ in Denzin, N.K. and Lincon, Y.S., eds., The sage

handbook of qualitative research, 5th ed., London: SAGE, 576-599.

Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education (2006). Síolta: The national quality framework for early childhood education, Dublin: Centre for Early Childhood

Development and Education, available: http://siolta.ie/media/pdfs/final_handbook.pdf

Clarke, A. and Moss, P. (2011). Listening to young children: The mosaic approach, 2nd ed., London: National Children’s Bureau.

Cook-Sather, A. (2006). ‘Sound, presence and power: “Student Voice” in educational research and reform’, Curriculum Inquiry, 4, 359-391.

Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2014). Better outcomes, brighter futures: The national policy framework for children and young people 2014-2020, Dublin: Department of Children and Youth Affairs, available: https://www.dcya.gov.ie/ documents/cypp_framework/BetterOutcomesBetterFutureReport.pdf

Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2015). National strategy on children and young people’s participation in decision-making (2015-2020), Dublin: Department of Children and Youth Affairs, available: https://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/ playandrec/20150617NatStratonChildrenandYoungPeoplesParticipationinDecisionMaking2015-2020.pdf

Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2018). The referendum relating to children, available: https://www.dcya.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/child_welfare_ protection/childrensreferendum.htm

Department of Education and Skills (2002). Student councils: A voice for students, Dublin: Department of Education and Skills, available: https://www.education.ie /en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Post-Primary-School-Policies/student_council _voice.pdf

Department of Education and Skills (2012). A framework for junior cycle, Dublin, Department of Education and Skills, available: https://www.education.ie/en/ Publications/Policy-Reports/A-Framework-for-Junior-Cycle-Full-Report.pdf

LEARN 2019 15


Devine, D. (2000). ‘Constructions of childhood in school: Power, policy and practice in Irish education’. International studies in Sociology of Education, 10(1), 23-41.

Educate Together (2005). What is an educate together national school?, Dublin: Educate Together, available: https://www.educatetogether.ie/sites/default/files/wiaetns_ reprint_may_2017_0.pdf

Flynn, P. (2017). The learner voice research study: Research report, Dublin: National Council for curriculum and Assessment, available: https://www.ncca.ie/media/ 3442/16539-ncca-the-learner-voice-research-study-v2.pdf

Fuigel, A. (2016). ‘Teaching peer conferencing to our youngest pupils’, The Reading Teacher, 69 (5), 531.

Giannakai, S., Flynn, P., Hayes, N. and Fitzsimons, S. (2018) Teacher’s beliefs about education and children’s voice practices in the island of Ireland, Belfast: Standing Conference on Teacher Education North and South (SC0TENS)

Ireland (1937). Bunreacht na h ireann (Constitution of Ireland), Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Ireland (2002). Ombudsman for Children Act 2002, Dublin: Government Publications Office, available: https://www.oco.ie/app/uploads/2017/09/OCOAct5June13.pdf

Jones, M. and Shelton, M. (2011). Developing your portfolio: Enhancing your learning and showing your stuff, 2nd ed., Abingdon: Routledge.

Lansdown, G. (2005). Can you hear me: The right of young children to participate in decisions affecting them, working papers in early childhood development (working paper 36), The Hague: Bernard Van Leer Foundation, available: http://www. bibalex.org/Search4Dev/Files/282624/114976.Pdf

Lundy, L. (2007). ‘Voice is not enough: Conceptualising article 12 of the UNCRC’, British Educational Research Journal, 33 (6), 927-42.

Mannion, G. (2007). ‘Going spatial, going relational: why “listening to children”and children’s participation needs reframing’, Discourse, 28, 405-420.

Melhuish (2016). ‘Global thoughts on early literacy’, Australian National Early Literacy Summit, 7-8 March 2019, Canberra: Hotel Realm, available: https:// www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/documents/Professor%20Edward%20Melhuish%20-%20Global%20thoughts%20on%20early%20literacy.pdf

Melhuish, E. and Gardiner, J. (2019) ‘Structural factors and policy change as related to the quality of early childhood education and care for 3-4 year olds in the UK, Frontiers in Education, 4 (36), 1-15.

Mukherji, P. and Albon, D. (2018). Research methods in early childhood: An introductory guide, London: Sage.

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2009). Aistear: The early childhood curriculum framework, Dublin: The Stationery Office.

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2010). Curriculum overload in primary schools: An overview of national and international experiences, Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Noddings, N. (2017). ‘Dewey, care ethics and education’ in Waks, L.J. and English, A.R., eds., John dewey’s democracy and education: A centennial handbook, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 314-324.

16 LEARN 2019


LEARN 2019 17

O’Sullivan, L., Ring, E. and Horgan, K. (2018). ‘Play and autism: the power of play to promote wellbeing’, Children’s Research Digest, 5 (2), 59-65.

Pring, R. (2017). ‘John dewey: Philosopher of education for our time’ in Waks, L.J. and English, A.R., eds., John dewey’s democracy and education: A centennial handbook, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 340-348.

Ring, E. (2018). ‘Unpacking student voice: What’s not to like?’, Teaching Council E-Zine, November 2018, available: https://emails.circulator.com/Content? ID=79763&q=2UJ891v8QOKKNWLuPhr5HtkvrTLvObqsfkWnG3ll1k/SrACLS6 ZVVg==&s=YghxxZJH75f7uefswyrEVDMeFWX6noahvhJk8YP/y1I/k7MBveJdlA ==&l=

Ring, E. (2019). ‘Including the voices of children with diverse abilities and younger children in education and learning through a pedagogy of voice and a pedagogy of listening’, Pedagogia 2019, Havana, Cuba, 4-8 February 2019, Havana: Palace of Conventions.

Ring, E., Mhic Mhathúna, M., Moloney, M., Hayes, N., Breatnach, D., Stafford, P., Carswell, D., Keegan, S., Kelleher, C., McCafferty, D., O’Keeffe, A., Leavy, A., Madden, R. and Ozonyia, M. (2016). An examination of concepts of school-readiness among parents and educators in Ireland, Dublin: Department of Children and Youth Affairs, available: https://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/earlyyears/20170118An ExaminationOfConceptsOfSchoolReadinessAmongParentsEducatorsIreland.PDF

Ring, E., O’Sullivan, L., Ryan, M. and Burke, P. (2018). A melange or a mosaic of theories: How theoretical perspectives on children’s learning and development can inform a responsive pedagogy in a redeveloped primary school curriculum, Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, available: https://www.ncca.ie/media/ 3863/seminar_four_er_los_mr_pb_paper.pdf

United Nations (UN) (1989). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Geneva: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, available: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods, 6th ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

SORCHA TURNER Sorcha Turner is a primary teacher and conducted the research on which this article is based.

PROFESSOR EMER RING

Professor Emer Ring supervised the research project and is Dean of Education at Mary Immaculate College, Limerick.

DR. LISHA O’SULLIVAN

Dr. Lisha O’Sullivan is Acting Head of Department of Reflective Pedagogy and Early Childhood Studies at Mary Immaculate College.


Best Practice Guidelines for Multilingual Children:

A Cross-Disciplinary Comparison

Duana Quigley, Fíodhna Gardiner-Hyland, Deirdre Murphy and Ciara O’Toole

Abstract Multilingualism is increasingly prevalent in Irish primary school classrooms (CSO, 2017). For some multilingual children, limited ability in the language of the classroom can present barriers to learning and accessing the curriculum. In addition, it can be complex for practitioners to determine whether a pupil’s language competency will match their English-speaking peers with time, or whether the pupil has a true language disorder that requires specialist intervention (Bedore & Pena, 2008). This can result in both over- and under-referral of multilingual pupils to additional supports in the school and health services, specifically, special education teaching and speech and language therapy (Hall, 2001). Best practice guidelines have been produced by the professional bodies of teachers and speech and language therapists to try and optimise the supports provided to multilingual children (e.g., NCCA, 2006; DES, 2017; IASLT, 2016; RCSLT, 2018). However, the guidelines are typically written with only one discipline in mind and often lack a detailed focus on inter-professional practice. This chapter compares and contrasts contemporary guidelines for each professional group under key themes: terminology used; distinctions between language difference and language disorder; direction for policy makers and management; guidelines for practitioners; and advice in relation to use of interpreters. Consequently, a comprehensive cross-disciplinary map of how wrap-around supports may be designed and implemented to maximise the opportunities for all multilingual pupils to reach their full potential emerges. The chapter concludes by proposing seven collaborative principles for supporting linguistic diversity in the classroom, that both teachers and speech and language therapists can draw on in their daily practice. Introduction There is an ever-growing number of children who speak more than one language attending Irish primary schools, making multilingualism an important topic for professionals involved in education and child development. The 2016 Irish census revealed that 76,000 primary school children speak a language other than English or Irish at home and that 6% of these children (or two children in every classroom of 30) do not speak English well, or not at all (CS0,

18


2017). It is well known that children attending school need to have good oral language skills to successfully access the curriculum, to develop literacy skills, and to socialise with their peers (La Morgia, 2018). For example, oral language competence underpins the ability to contribute to class discussions, engage in verbal reasoning, comprehend texts, write stories, understand teacher talk, and develop academic vocabulary (Nagy & Townsend, 2012). Therefore, any child who struggles with the language of school may be disadvantaged from the start. The high prevalence of children in our primary schools who have difficulties expressing themselves and/or understanding the English language has, in some instances, resulted in both over- and under- referral to speech and language therapy and special educational supports (Hall, 2001). In some instances, children for whom English is not their first language can be erroneously classified as having special educational needs or needing specialist speech and language therapy input (Bedore & Pena, 2008). Conversely, bilingual students who actually have a language disorder are not receiving the assistance they need, as their difficulties are being explained away by their bilingualism. A lack of assessment tools and clinical markers of language disorder in languages other than English, combined with limited research on language development in bilingual and multilingual children, can make it very difficult to identify language difference (in the case of bilingual and multilingual children) from true language disorder. Professional organisations who support teachers and speech and language therapists (SLTs) have produced best-practice guidelines for supporting multilingual children, using clinical expertise and empirical research where available, to help professionals. However, these guidelines are typically targeted for use by a single discipline and are rarely written or designed collaboratively. This chapter compares the guidelines from the primary teaching and speech and language therapy professions. A central aim is to explore the perspectives of both disciplines and try to reach a consensus and joint understanding on how best to serve the linguistic and cultural needs of multilingual children, both with and without language disorder or special educational needs, thereby improving collaboration and inter-professional practice in schools. This review focused on terminology used with the guidelines and the importance placed on distinguishing between language difference and language disorder. In addition, following a comparison of each discipline’s recommendations for policy makers and managers, practitioners, and use of interpreters, we propose seven key principles for collaboratively supporting linguistic diversity in the classroom. For this exercise we have reviewed five guideline documents from an educational perspective (DES, 2012; DES, 2017a; DES, 2017c; NCCA, 2006; O’Laoire & O’Carroll, 2016) and two guideline documents from a speech and language therapy perspective (IASLT, 2016; RCSLT, 2018). Comparing and contrasting professional guidelines Following a thorough review of each profession’s guidelines, five key themes emerged: (i) terminology; (ii) distinction between bilingualism and language

LEARN 2019 19


disorder; (iii) recommendations for policy makers and management; (iv) guidelines for practitioners; and (v) advice for using interpreters. (i) Terminology One of the first issues that emerged when comparing the guideline documents are the different terms used when discussing bilingual and multilingual children. Diverse terms are encountered (i.e., English as an Additional Language (EAL), EAL needs, Second Language Acquisition (SLA), English Language Learners (ELL), bilingualism, multilingualism, plurilingualism and linguistic diversity. SLT guidelines define the term bilingualism as being wide ranging, relating to a broad range of skills in speaking, understanding, reading, and writing (IASLT, 2016). The educational guidelines from NCCA (2006) and O’Laoire and O’Carroll (2016) outline some features of early second language learning, including the role of the home language in the silent phase of language learning and the use of code-switching as a positive communicative device. However, a definitive definition of bilingualism is not apparent. The IASLT proposes the term ‘linguistic diversity’ to encompass multilingual and bilingual children. In contrast, many of the educational guidelines (NCCA, 2006; DES, 2012; DES, 2017c) use the term ‘EAL’. The Special Education Teaching Allocation Circular (DES, 2017a) and related guidelines from the DES (2017c) view EAL as a need, using the phrase ‘English Additional Language Needs’. The use of this phrase aligns multilingual children more closely with children with special educational needs or learning difficulties: “all schools will have a basic allocation to assist pupils who have learning and literacy difficulties, including those arising from English Additional Language (EAL) Needs” (p.12). The circular (DES, 2017a) also aligns EAL with literacy needs referring to “additional literacy needs such as English Additional Language Support” (p.21). It appears that the use of the term ‘EAL Needs’ has the effect of blurring the boundaries between those pupils in need of language support and those pupils in need of specific educational and learning support. The RCSLT caution SLTs against using the term EAL, as they maintain that it does not evaluate the child’s abilities in their home language, which must first be established to tailor supports appropriately. (ii) Distinction between multilingualism, language disorder, and special

educational needs A second theme prevalent in the guidelines is clarification needed when a pupil is speaking more than one language. Specifically, is the child: (a) following the expected trajectory of any child learning a new language and reaching the proficiency of their monolingual peers in the expected timeframe or (b) demonstrating explicit signs and indicators of an underlying language disorder or learning disability. The guidelines suggest this will help determine appropriate supports to provide. Teachers have a responsibility to teach all the students in their class, including those who are bilingual and those who have a developmental language disorder or learning disability, supporting all children to access the curriculum.

20 LEARN 2019


Conversely, SLTs do not have a role in second language-teaching, but rather provide therapeutic interventions for children with a range of communication disorders, including developmental language disorder and language disorder associated with learning disabilities. The RCSLT guidelines (2018) stress that if a child has acquired their first language with ease, then they have shown that they have all the mechanisms in place to acquire a second language. Such children, with adequate exposure, will have the capacity to acquire the additional language without SLT intervention. Therefore, referral for speech and language therapy would not be necessary for these children. Instead, it is expected that they will develop proficiency in the English language through a typical language-rich classroom environment. On the other hand, if it is identified that a bilingual pupil has academic, social, emotional or other learning needs, then the guidelines set out in the Continuum of Support Model (National Educational Psychological Service (NEPS), 2007) would be most appropriate to consult. This model has a number of stages to help identify and implement relevant supports. If concerns arise in relation to a child’s development and preventative whole class or smaller group response interventions have not adequately addressed these concerns, teachers then progress to ‘school support plus’ stage whereby external services such as psychologists or SLTs are called upon to assist with identifying the child’s needs in order to provide specialised support and inform more individualised teaching for the child. This stage can further assist in distinguishing between typical language learning needs and special needs in bilingual children and identifying who will need additional supports. Once such support may be speech and language therapy. (iii) Recommendations for Policy Makers and Management Three shared recommendations for management and policy makers are safeguarding additional time, developing a whole service/whole school approach, and creating specialist posts and ensuring staff professional development. Firstly, in relation to the guidance about additional time, educational documents point to the importance of prioritising time for developing policies on teaching bilingual and multilingual children (DES, 2012; 2017c). They advise that this time should be spent on plans to create an inclusive school environment, plans for assessment, practice, communication with parents, team teaching, and identification of responsibilities, as well as supporting and reviewing a range of support allocation. The RCSLT (2018) also focus on time, but more in terms of the additional time required for diagnosis. They recommend that at least double the time allocated to children with developmental difficulties from monolingual families should be provided to bilingual children and their families who are attending SLT appointments, to take account of the complexities of their language use and needs. Time to meet and work with interpreters is also discussed, although time to collaborate with teachers is not mentioned.

LEARN 2019 21


Secondly, the education and SLT guidelines both promote a whole-school or whole-service approach to supporting linguistic diversity. Within SLT, this stems from a belief that communication is a human right. The RCSLT (2018) go as far as suggesting that failure to provide supports to a child in all the languages they speak is a failure to meet all their health needs and may be considered discriminatory. Consequently, the IASLT (2016) maintain that SLT managers should ensure that access to services is equitable to all, regardless of the child’s language background, and that children and their families must be at the centre of decision making regarding the service they receive. Access to interpreters, and translation of written materials for all aspects of the SLT process (e.g., advice leaflets, assessment reports) are included in this perspective (RCSLT, 2018). Likewise, education guidelines stress the importance of a whole school approach that incorporates a focus on intercultural education, equality and language across the curriculum, and communicating with parents in their home languages (DES, 2012). The DES (2017a) places an emphasis on allocating additional teaching support for bilingual pupils. School management are encouraged to apply for additional allocations of support teachers in contexts where there are high concentrations of bilingual or multilingual children (DES, 2017a). In addition, the multi-disciplinary approach as recommended in the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act (EPSEN, 2004) is reflected in recent educational policy and guidelines encouraging whole school, home, and inter-disciplinary collaboration (DES, 2017). Moreover, there are recommendations that Boards of Management of schools ensure that the school’s mission statement reflects the view that cultural and linguistic diversity enriches learning and the lives of the school community and that parents are actively supported to participle in school life and support their children’s education. Suggestions to achieve this aim put forward by RCSLT (2018) range from visiting relevant community centres to including people from the local minority community/communities in promotional and advice materials. DES (2012) also advise that key whole-school policies and procedures are provided to parents in their home languages, where possible, and that curricular activities encourage pupils to maintain a link with their home language. The third recommendation in common for management refers to the creation of specialist posts and ensuring staff professional development in relation to linguistic diversity. This ranges from provision of professional development, to appointing an EAL coordinator or creating a specialist clinical post (DES, 2012; RCLST, 2018). Suggestions for professional development include formal training, local initiatives, and special interest groups (IASLT, 2016). The guidelines for special education teacher allocation (DES, 2017) echo the recommendation for special interest groups by highlighting the role that local professional networks of teachers can play in providing professional development through the sharing of practice. It is advised that school management regularly audit professional development needs to ensure an inclusive whole school approach. While the DES Inspectorate (2012) note that the NCCA guidelines in 2006 were administered to all primary schools, they

22 LEARN 2019


acknowledge that this was not followed up with a national in-service programme (DES, 2012). However, like IASLT, they recognise the importance of continuing professional development for teachers which has been provided over the years by the former Integrate Ireland Language and Training (IILT), local education centres, and the Professional Development Services for Teachers (PDST) to teachers who chose to avail of additional support. An additional recommendation for policy makers and management unique to SLT is the recommendation for management to continuously monitor the demographics of SLT service users so that policies, procedures, resources and materials that are suitable for children who speak more than one language constantly evolve (IASLT, 2016). This includes auditing attendance and engagement with SLT services and acting accordingly. (iv) Guidelines for Practitioners Reassuringly, detailed advice to ensure quality of pedagogy for teachers, and implementation of evidence-based practice for SLTs, is a central element of each profession’s guidance documents. It should be acknowledged however that much of the evidence base and knowledge in terms of supporting language development in bilingual children is still very much emerging and developing (La Morgia, 2018). The professional guidelines reviewed tend to follow the sequence of a child’s journey through the school or health system: from first encounter; to initial advice; to ongoing support and intervention. When a child is newly enrolled in a school or attends their first SLT appointment, there are shared guidelines in relation to gathering as much information as possible to establish a profile of the child’s abilities. For school management and teaching staff, the recommendations are to use formative and summative assessment to collect information about the pupil’s academic and language ability over time (NCCA, 2006; DES, 2017c). For example, the Primary School Assessment Kit (PSAK) provides criterion-referenced English language proficiency benchmark levels, as derived from the Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe, 2001), to help determine which children require additional language support. Teachers are also recommended to use formative checklists that monitor language, social development and build a profile of the child’s prior learning during the silent phase, interviews, teacher observations and anecdotal notes, teacher-designed tasks including assessment of Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALPs) and the European Language Portfolio (Council of Europe, 2001). Suggested resources for recording initial abilities and ongoing progress include using a language passport, language biography and language dossier (IILT, 2004), all of which can be shared with the child’s parents at parent-teacher meetings and emphasised as an important part of home-school links (NCCA, 2006; DES, 2012). The Primary Language Curriculum (2015; upcoming) uses progression continua which set out key milestones for children expected steps in acquiring a range of dispositions, skills and concepts in oral language and literacy domains.

LEARN 2019 23


As described earlier, the DES guidelines (2017c) propose engaging with Continuum of Support model (NEPS, 2007). It is advised that the identification process for educational support should include inputs from the child and the child’s home, in addition to school assessments and multi-disciplinary assessment reports (DES, 2017c). The education guidelines fall short in recommending examples of diagnostic language assessments that schools themselves could administer. The SLT assessment guidelines focus almost exclusively on assessing and analysing the language abilities of the child, and not their academic abilities. As one might expect, the guidelines have less focus on the child’s overall ability but delve into their oral language capacities in much more detail. SLT guidelines recommend seeking information about the child’s home language (e.g. pattern of development in their home language, current levels of language proficiency, opportunities to speak the home language, parents’ attitudes to the home language). In addition, the importance of assessing all the languages to which the child is exposed to is stressed, to determine if the child has a true developmental language disorder, or simply a language difference because English is not the child’s first language. As most standardised oral language assessments are not normed on a culturally and linguistically diverse sample, SLTs are advised to consider alternatives to the typically administered tests (e.g. informal assessment, dynamic assessment, analysing a language sample, parental and teacher reports of communicative abilities) (RCLST, 2018). Specialist assessments which have been deemed reliable in distinguishing indicators of developmental language disorder, regardless of the language spoken, are also recommended (e.g. Language Impairment Testing in Multilingual Settings (LITMUS) tools (Armon-Lotem, de Jong & Meir, 2015). Educational policy requests that schools submit a profile of bilingual and multilingual children’s standardised test scores along with other evidence of language proficiency from formative and summative assessments to confirm their eligibility for additional learning supports under the special education teacher allocation model (DES, 2017c). It should be noted that assessments are in the language of the school (mostly English with some Irish language assessments (but see O’Toole, Ní Shithigh, Mulamphy & Walsh, 2019) and may not be a reflection of the child’s mother tongue. Once assessments have been completed, provision of initial advice and support for families is a feature of both SLT and education guidelines. Advice from an educational perspective (i.e., NCCA, 2006; O’Duibhir & Cummins, 2012) is to focus on home practices such as ‘Children and Parents Enjoying Reading’ (CAPER), the use of vocabulary notebooks, dual language books, writing in the home language, promoting maintenance of literacy in the home language and the development of Content and Language Integrate Learning (CLIL), as recommended in the revised Primary Language Curriculum (2015). However, the DES (2017c) SEN guidelines for primary schools has no mention of such practices, nor specific guidelines for teaching multilingual pupils. In contract,

24 LEARN 2019


SLT guidelines centres on the child’s home language. If it is deemed that a true developmental language disorder is present, it is suggested that the SLT must encourage and support the use of the home language and not advise parents to give this home language up to focus on English (IASLT, 2016; RCSLT, 2018). It is recommended to advise others on linguistic diversity and the negative consequences of abandoning a home language, while at the same time considering the child’s English language needs for the educational environment. Within the documents we reviewed, children who are literate in their home language are encouraged to sustain the development of this literacy. Most of the remaining recommendations from an education and SLT perspective concentrate on what supports, interventions, programmes and strategies to implement to support children from linguistically diverse backgrounds. In relation to using specialised programmes or interventions, DES (2012) advocates for schools to adopt an evidence-based approach. The NCCA (2006) and DES (2012) places an emphasis on differentiation for pupils who speak more than one language. For example, integrating the teaching of cognitive, academic language and specific vocabulary into lessons in all subject areas and using cross-curricular strategies. The centrality of language and literacy learning across the curriculum and the value of creating a literacy-rich environment is emphasized by the NCCA (2006). They outline a wide range of approaches that teachers could use to develop all pupils’ language skills using multiple means of engagement, representation and action and expression, aligned with principles of Universal Design for Learning (Rose, 2014). Examples include visual cues, simplifying texts, engaging in shared and guided reading experiences, creating bilingual dictionaries, collaborative and dialogic jigsaw games, ‘do, talk, record’ activities, total physical response (TPR), and encouraging awareness of language through miscue analysis. Similarly, O’Laoire and O’Carroll (2016) discuss practical strategies such as speaking slowly/clearly, emphasising key vocabulary, thinking aloud, expanding utterances, using gestures, accepting when a pupil switches between languages (code-switching), and acknowledging the language of the home. Collaborative and team-teaching approaches are recommended (DES, 2017). The DES Inspectorate (2012) also highlight materials from IILT (1999 – 2008) including a resource book for English language support in primary schools (i.e., ‘Up and Away’) which incorporates a curriculum framework for language support corresponding to the English Language Proficiency Benchmarks. While SLT guidelines acknowledge that children will need to be proficient with the English language to access the curriculum and be successful in school, RCSLT (2018) state that “the myth that children should only receive input in the language of education for educational success must be robustly rejected by SLTs”. Instead, SLT guidelines emphasise that if a child is deemed suitable, then delivery of intervention should be in the child’s home language where possible (RCSLT, 2018). They explain that the advantage of this approach is that parent(s)/carers can use their home language to work with their child – a

25


language that is most likely to be the parent’s strongest language, with a higher level of proficiency than their additional language. Related to this assertion is the inclusion of guidelines for working with interpreters when supporting bilingual children and their families. (v) Advice for Using Interpreters Working with interpreters is a significant part of the guidelines for SLTs from initial assessment, through decision making, intervention and multidisciplinary meetings. Both the IASLT (2016) and RCSLT (2018) have additional documentation on how to work with interpreters, and strongly advise against using family members in this capacity. It is recommended that interpreters should undergo training on aspects such as translation, as well as confidentiality in information exchange. The DES Inspectorate (2012) mention inviting a member of the school community who speaks the home language of the pupil and his/her parents to attend a pre-enrolment meeting with the parents to act as an interpreter, but no other educational guidelines provide information on how to work with interpreters. Proposing a collaborative vision for wrap-around supports for linguistically diverse children: Policy to Pupil The review process of educational and SLT guidelines above provides an overview of each discipline’s recommendations to support linguistic diversity. Chuck Page once said that “a single leaf working alone provides no shade”. Hence, when these professional guidelines are considered together, a comprehensive inter-professional map of how wrap-around supports may be designed and implemented to support linguistic diversity emerges. This amalgamation may maximise the opportunities for all pupils in the class to reach their full potential. We therefore propose the following collaborative key principles for supporting linguistic diversity in the classroom: 1. Mind your language: The words you use matter The term ‘linguistic diversity’ appears to be an appropriate descriptor to capture the range of language abilities that may be prevalent within a classroom and promote a more all-encompassing neutral term that could be applied to a wider cohort of pupils. It is important not to include bilingualism within a definition of special educational need, as the needs of pupils are quite distinct: the former requiring support to acquire a second language, often temporarily, while the latter requiring specific educational and learning support. Replacing the term “special education” with “inclusive education” for bilingual children may facilitate them to be supported acquiring a new language, without being classified as having special educational needs or learning needs, creating a deficit view of language learning.

26 LEARN 2019


2. Top down: Promote a whole school/whole service approach to linguistic diversity

A whole school or whole service approach must allow time to create an environment of inclusivity, to take account of the complexity of linguistic diversity, to plan, to complete additional assessments, to allocate supports, to communicate with families, and to collaborate with peers and other professionals. Ensure mission statements and the ethos of schools and SLT services respect linguistic diversity and actively implement strategies to increase the participation of bilingual pupils and their families in all aspects of child development, education, and the local community (e.g. activities to maintain a link with the child’s home language such as student-composed dual language texts, audit demographics of the local community, provide access to interpreters when needed, and translated written materials such as advice leaflets, newsletters and policies). 3. Build capacity: Provide professional development for staff members It would appear that allocating extra staff to support linguistic diversity in a school or SLT service will only lead to benefits if the professionals are sufficiently competent to provide evidence-based supports and administer appropriate screenings and assessments. It is concerning that several research reports have identified challenges teachers face with choosing appropriate language learning and language enrichment strategies (e.g. Smyth et al. 2009; Murtagh and Francis, 2011; Gardiner-Hyland and Burke, 2018; O’Toole and Skinner, 2019), and anecdotal evidence would suggest that poor SLT practices in managing bilingual practices are plentiful (O’Toole & Hickey, 2013). Therefore, there is a need for various options to develop professionals’ knowledge and skills, such as formal training, professional networks and online communities of practice, multi-disciplinary communities of practice, and/or special interest groups. 4. Remain inquisitive: Gather information about the pupil’s language abilities It is crucial that the necessary facts are gathered through a range of informal, formal, formative and summative educational and language assessments to clarify whether a pupil who is speaking more than one language is: (a) following the expected trajectory of any child learning a new language or (b) demonstrating explicit signs and indicators of an underlying language disorder or learning disability. For example, administering some of the assessments referenced earlier (e.g. CALPs or European Language Portfolio (Council of Europe, 2001). In addition to teacher and SLT evaluations, information from the child’s family will be key to this assessment process. The recommended practice for teachers to use standardised tests to determine eligibility for supports for bilingual children should be abandoned, as these standardised tests typically do not include bilingual children in their standardisation sample, and therefore may ultimately lead to over-identification of bilingual children as having language or literacy difficulties (Garaffa, Vender, Sorace, & Guasti,

LEARN 2019 27


2019). If it is deemed necessary that a pupil requires a speech and language therapy assessment, then all the languages to which the child is exposed to must be evaluated, coupled with assessments that can help identify indicators of developmental language disorder, regardless of the language spoken. This comprehensive assessment process will help to determine the best supports to provide the individual pupil. 5. Use what works: Allocate the best evidence-based supports An evidence-based approach is central to the selection and implementation of any intervention, programme, or strategy to support children from linguistically diverse backgrounds. If there are no concerns about a bilingual child’s linguistic capacity or learning ability, it is expected that they will have the skills to acquire a second language within a rich language learning environment and adequate exposure, typically found in any classroom. A referral for SLT intervention would be appropriate if a bilingual pupil demonstrates difficulties with the mechanism of acquiring and speaking a second language. Teachers can consult with SLTs when deciding to make a referral and/or screen for language difficulties. Children who display signs of learning difficulties should be supported through the Continuum of Support Model (NEPS, 2007). SLT may be one element of this holistic educational support. Above all, it is important to stress that there is no ‘one size fits all’ model of support, as every school, service, and individual pupil will have unique factors to consider. 6. Together is better: Embrace collaboration between SLTs and teachers The potential benefits of teacher and SLT collaborative practice for supporting linguistic diversity are extensive. Teachers can share knowledge and expertise relating to literacy, curriculum, and pedagogy, and SLTs can share knowledge and expertise of language structures, language development, language disorders, and language enrichment practices (Glover et al., 2015; Squires et al., 2013). Sharing the teacher’s in depth knowledge of the individual child’s personality and learning styles, preferences and abilities, along with assessment information gathered can help build a more robust profile of the pupil’s abilities and areas for development, thereby helping to fine-tune the supports that are provided. Exchanging evidence-based programmes, approaches, and strategies may result in better outcomes for pupils, at both a universal/preventative level and a targeted input level. This would support national policy recommendations for greater inter-professional practice between teachers and SLT (e.g., National Policy Framework for Children and Young People 2014-2020: Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures (DCYA, 2014) and Delivering Equality of Opportunities in Schools (DES, 2017). In practice, this may be difficult to achieve as SLTs are rarely situated in a mainstream school setting, but instead based in healthcare settings, and opportunities for inter-professional practice are often subject to resources and local management decisions. However, recent initiatives such as the Therapy Demonstration Project (education.ie) have employed SLTs to work

28 LEARN 2019


collaboratively with teachers within school settings and may lead to a more supportive, creative, and holistic approach to supporting children’s needs, including bilingual children (as supported by Korth et al., 2010; Wright, Stackhouse, & Wood, 2008). Outside of this project the DES and HSE SLT services would need to enter into an agreement as to how to work collaboratively for the benefit of children with additional needs. 7. Never stop learning: Continue to develop guidelines and practices While the Irish SLT guidelines for working with linguistically diverse service users were updated relatively recently (IASLT, 2016), ongoing review is paramount to reflect contemporary research findings. Moreover, while the current educational guidelines are informative and substantive, more up-to-date pedagogical guidelines for teaching multilingual pupils, beyond the IILT resources that are signposted, are urgently needed with the advent of the SEN allocation model (DES, 2017) and forthcoming primary language curriculum for senior classes (2019). This will help to ensure that supporting linguistic diversity is prioritised and an integral component of an inclusive educational policy, instead of an ‘add-on’ to special education needs guidelines (Gardiner-Hyland & Burke, 2018). We are encouraged by the unprecedented emphasis that the primary language curriculum places on the need to acknowledge and affirm linguistic diversity in the primary school. It is our recommendation that professional guidelines continue to evolve and keep up to date with any new empirical evidence that emerges that demonstrates measurably and improves outcomes for bilingual and multilingual pupils. While further research of linguistic diversity in an Irish context is urgently needed and would help inform national policy and practice, it is imperative that we also explore models of good practice internationally for guidance (e.g. Many Roots, Many Voices published by the Ministry of Education, Ontario, Canada, 2008; O’ Duibhir and Cummins, 2012). The nation’s children deserve nothing less.

REFERENCES

Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59(3), 249-306.

Armon-Lotem, S. de Jong, J. & Meir, N. (2015). Assessing multilingual children:

Disentangling bilingualism from language impairment. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Bedore, L.M., & Peña, E.D. (2008). Assessment of bilingual children for identification

of language impairment: Current findings and implications for practice. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11 (1), 1-23.

Bishop, D. V. M., Snowling, M. J., Thompson, P. A., Greenhalgh, T., CATALISE-2

consortium (2016). CATALISE: A Multinational and Multidisciplinary Delphi Consensus Study. Identifying Language Impairments in Children. PLoS ONE 11(7), e0158753–26. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158753

LEARN 2019 29


Central Statistics Office (CSO, 2017). Diversity. Retrieved 20/08/19 from https://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/population/2017/Chapter_5_Diversity.pdf

Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:

Learning Teaching, Assessment, Language Policy Unit: Strasbourg. Council of Europe (2001). European Language Portfolio, adapted by Integrate Ireland

language and Training (2004), Language Policy Unit: Strasbourg. Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2014). Better Outcomes Brighter Futures: The

national policy framework for children & young people: 2014 – 2020. Dublin: Department of Children and Youth Affairs.

Deary, I., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational

achievement. Intelligence, 35(1), 13-21. DES (Department of Education and Skills). (2011). Literacy and Numeracy for Learning

and Life: The National Strategy to Improve Literacy and Numeracy among Children and Young People: 2011-2020. Dublin: Department of Education and Skills.

DES (Department of Education and Skills) Inspectorate. (2012). English as an

Additional Language in Primary Schools in 2008: Inspectorate Evaluation Studies. Dublin: DES.

DES (Department of Education and Skills). (2015; upcoming). Primary Language

Curriculum. Dublin: NCCA. DES (Department of Education and Skills). (2017). DEIS Plan 2017: Delivering

Equality of Opportunities in Schools. Dublin: DES. DES (Department of Education and Skills). (2017a). DES Circular 0013/2017: Special

Education Teaching Allocation. Dublin: Department of Education and Skills. Retrieved from https://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0013_2017.pdf

Department of Education and Skills. (2017c). Guidelines for Primary Schools Supporting

Pupils with Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools. Dublin: Department of Education and Skills.

Education.ie (May, 2010). Government launch new project to bring specialised

therapists into schools and pre-schools https://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Press-Releases/2018-press-releases/PR18-05-14.html

Garaffa, M., Vender, M., Sorace, A. and Guasti, M. T. (2019). Is it possible to

differentiate multilingual children and children with Developmental Language Disorder? Languages, Society & Policy.

Gardiner-Hyland, F. and Burke, P. (2018). “It’s very hard to know how much is the EAL

and how much is the learning difficulty”: Challenges in organising support for EAL learners in Irish primary schools. Learn Journal, Vol. 40, Chapter 3, pp. 54-64: Dublin: Irish Learning Support Association.

30 LEARN 2019


LEARN 2019 31

Genesee, F., & Lindholm-Leary, K. (2012). The education of English language learners. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 499-526). Washington: APA Books.

Glover, A., McCormack, J., & Smith Tamaray, M. (2015). Collaboration between

teachers and speech and language therapists: Services for primary school children with speech, language and communication needs. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 31(3), 363-382.

Government of Ireland (2004). Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act.

Dublin: The Stationery Office. Hall, D. (2001). Assessing the needs of bilingual pupils (2nd edn). London: David Fulton. Han, W. (2010). Assessing school supports for ELL students using the ECLS-K. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(2), 445-462. Irish Association of Speech and Language Therapists (IASLT) (2016). Guidelines for

Speech and Language Therapists working with linguistically diverse service users. Dublin: IASLT.

Korth, B., Sharp, A., & Culatta, B. (2010). Classroom modeling of supplemental literacy

instruction. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 31(2), 113-127. La Morgia, F. (2018). Towards a better understanding bilingualism: Consideration for

teachers of children with speech, language and communication needs. REACH Journal of Special Needs Education in Ireland 31(1), 79-88.

Ministry of Education, Ontario (2008). Supporting English language Learners: A

Practical Guide for Ontario Educators (Grades 1-8). Ministry of Education, Ontario, Canada.

Murtagh, L. and Francis, T. (2011). Supporting pupils with EAL and their teachers in

Ireland: the need for a co-ordinated strategy. Language and Education, Routledge. Retrieved from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500782.2011.629052

Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as

language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91-108. National Educational Psychological Service (2007). Special Educational Needs: A

Continuum of Support. Dublin: DES. NCCA (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment) (2006). English as an

additional language in Irish primary schools: Guidelines for Teachers. Dublin: NCCA. Ó Laoire, M and O’Carroll, G. (2016). Primary Language Curriculum Support Material.

Developing Functional Language and Literacy Skills for the Child by Learning English as an Additional Language, Dublin: NCCA.

O’Duibhir, P. & Cummins, J. (2012). Towards an Integrated Language Curriculum in

Early Childhood and Primary Education (3-12 years, Research Report, No. 16, Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.


O’Toole, B. and Skinner, B. (2018). Minority Language Pupils and the Curriculum: Closing the Achievement Gap. Papers from a seminar on Teaching English as an Additional language in collaboration with Marino Institute of Education, The Standards Conference on Teacher Education, North and South (SCOTENS), Ulster University and Trinity College Dublin. https://www.mie.ie/en/Research/ Minority_language_students_and_the_curriculum_closing_the_achievement_gap/Minority_language_pupils_and_the_curriculum.pdf

O’Toole, C. and Hickey, T.M. (2013). Diagnosing language impairment in bilinguals:

Professional experience and perception. Child Language Teaching & Therapy, 29, 91-109. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0265659012459859

O’Toole, C., Ní Shithigh, D., Molamphy, A. and Walsh, E. (2019). Findings from the

first phase of developing a receptive vocabulary test for the Irish language. International Journal of Bilingualism (online first). https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1367006919848142

Rose, D.H., Gravel, J.W., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning. In L.

Florian (Ed.) SAGE handbook of special education, 2nd Ed (pp. 475-491). London: SAGE. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446282236.n30.

Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT). (2018). Bilingualism-

Guidance. Retrieved from: Retrieved on the 20/12/2018 from https:// www.rcslt.org/speech-and-language-therapy/clinical-information/bilingualism

Shiel, G., Cregan, A., Mc Gough & Archer, P. (2012). Oral Language in Early Childhood

and Primary Education (3-12). Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

Smyth, E., Darmody, M., McGinnity, F., and Byrne, D. (2009). Adapting to diversity:

Irish schools and newcomer students. Dublin: ESRI. Squires, K., Gillam, S., & Reutzel, D. (2013). Characteristics of children who struggle

with reading: Teachers and speech-language pathologists collaborate to support young learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(6), 401-411.

Wright, J., Stackhouse, J., & Wood, J. (2008). Promoting language and literacy skills in

the early years: Lessons from interdisciplinary teaching and learning. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 24(2), 155-171.

32 LEARN 2019


DUANA QUIGLEY Duana Quigley, B.Sc, M.Sc, PhD is a speech and language therapist, with extensive experience working therapeutically with infants, toddlers, children, young people with a range of communication disorders. Duana has worked across health, education, community, and family systems through the delivery and programme management of a large-scale change initiative to improve the learning and well-being outcomes of a community of Irish children growing up in area of low socio-economic status (youngballymun). Duana is also the Practice Education Coordinator for the undergraduate programme of Clinical Speech and Language Studies, Trinity College, supporting all aspects of the practice education curriculum. Duana’s main research interests are in the areas of language enrichment, both preventative and targeted, especially supporting the language development of children growing up in areas of low socio-economic status. She is particularly interested in exploring the benefits of, and overcoming the potential challenges of, inter-professional practice between speech and language therapists and teachers. Duana’s doctoral research was an action research inquiry into inter-professional practice to support effective language enrichment in mainstream primary school classrooms. A key component of this research was chosen by the Department of Education and Skills as support material for the Primary Language Curriculum. Contact: [email protected]

FÍODHNA GARDINER-HYLAND Dr. Fiodhna Gardiner-Hyland, B.Ed., M.A (Ed.), Ph.D is a lecturer in language and literacy education at Mary Immaculate College, at under-graduate and postgraduate levels. She has worked in Ireland and internationally as a primary school teacher; lecturer and education consultant with the World Learning Organization/SIT; Oxford University Press and British Council. With a PhD in Teacher Education Pedagogy for EFL Literacy Teaching, Fíodhna received the inaugural Sheikh Nahayan doctoral fellowship award in association with The International Research Foundation (TIRF), California, U.S.A. and was subsequently invited to chair TESOL Arabia’s Young Learner’s Special Interest Group of 2,000 members across the Middle East. Having returned to Ireland in 2011, her research interests, publications, curriculum development projects and grants continue to focus on second language literacy education for young EAL learners. In 2018 Fíodhna wrote materials for the ‘Starlight’ Online Interactive Primary English Programme with Folens publishers, to support the Primary Language Curriculum (2015) and for the year 2019-2020, Fíodhna is being seconded to the Curriculum Development Unit/Transforming Education through Dialogue Project, Mary Immaculate College, Limerick as Project Leader of TEAL across the ‘Oscailt’ schools network in Limerick city. Contact: [email protected]

DEIRDRE MURPHY (NÍ MHURCHÚ) Deirdre Murphy (Ní Mhurchú), B.A; H.Dip. Primary Ed; Dip. SEN; MSEN; H.Dip PSych; PhD (candidate) is a lecturer in the Inclusive Education Department of Marino Institute of Education, lecturing Inclusive Education and Curriculum and Assessment. Deirdre has long standing experience as a primary teacher, having taught nationally and internationally in Mainstream,

LEARN 2019 33


34 LEARN 2019

Special Education and Vice-Principal roles, she has taught in both English and Irish-medium school settings. Deirdre is an experienced policy maker for Language and Special Educational Needs. Prior to joining Marino Deirdre worked for the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA). Deirdre was the key developer of the model and expectations for learners for a new Primary School Curriculum (2015), for both English and Irish-medium school settings for Infants to Second Class. Deirdre was responsible for leading National policy developments for Special Educational Needs Primary (NCCA). This work resulted in the Special Educational Needs Pathways, earlier milestones and planning supports for a new Primary Curriculum, together these enabled children with more complex needs to access the new model of Primary Curricula for infants to second. Deirdre worked on Junior Cycle Level 1 programmes for communication and language for young people with special educational needs. Deirdre is currently undertaking her PhD on the area of appropriate assessment of Bilingual children attending Irish-medium schools, with a focus on the early identification of learning difficulties for this cohort in order to support appropriate early intervention. Contact: [email protected]

CIARA O’TOOLE. Ciara O’Toole, BSc, MSc, HDip, PhD is a Lecturer in Speech and Language Therapy in the Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences UCC. Her teaching and research interests are in the area of paediatric communication development and disorders. She has particular interest in bilingual language acquisition and children who are acquiring Irish as a first/second language. She is chair of the working group on language Impairment in the Irish Research Network in Childhood Bilingualism. Dr. O’Toole has adapted and created many Irish-language assessments for bilingual children including the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories. She has collaborated with national and international researchers on this work through her involvement in the European COST Action IS0804: Language Impairment in a Multilingual Society: Linguistic Patterns and the Road to Assessment. Contact: [email protected]


35

Converting Plurilingual Skills into Educational Capital

Déirdre Kirwan

Abstract Since the mid-1990s, schools in many parts of Ireland have experienced an unprecedented increase in the level of linguistic and cultural diversity among pupils. This paper describes how, in response to this phenomenon, an innovative approach to integrated language learning was developed in a primary school in West Dublin, in cooperation with teachers, pupils and parents. Two overarching goals to language teaching and learning inform the school’s language policy that seeks to:

• ensure that all pupils become proficient in the language of schooling • exploit the linguistic diversity of the school for the benefit of all pupils.

In this approach plurilingual repertoires of pupils are welcomed as an advantage in helping them to achieve their potential for learning. Classroom procedures that facilitate inclusion of home languages in curriculum delivery are described. The needs of pupils who are endeavouring to learn English as an additional language are addressed. Language awareness, learner autonomy and the enhancement of the Irish language in multilingual settings are discussed. How these assets to learning may be cultivated both within mainstream and language support small-group settings are also examined. Introduction The mid-1990s saw unprecedented levels of immigration to Ireland. This led to increased levels of linguistic and cultural diversity in primary and post-primary schools (Central Statistics Office 2017: 6; 46). The inclusion of learners who spoke languages other than English was a new phenomenon for pupils, teachers and parents. This led to many questions by school personnel as to how the needs of children who spoke English as an Additional Language (EAL)1 could be met. Linguistic and cultural diversity were not topics that were part of teachers’ pre-service or in-service education. Therefore, there were few readily available answers as to how benefits for pupils could be maximised in multilingual educational milieu.

1 English as an Additional Language (EAL) used as official term (Little and Kirwan, 2019: 11).


36 LEARN 2019

This paper describes the innovative approach developed by a primary school in west Dublin2 in response to this demographic change. It explores how recognition of language as the conduit for learning results in positive outcomes for all pupils, both native speakers of English and those who speak a home language other than the language of schooling. The National School (NS) Background In 1994 a child whose family was given refugee status was enrolled in the school. This girl, who spoke a language other than English, proved to be a great ambassador for all who would follow her. By the start of the following decade many more pupils with differing home languages had joined the school.3 During that time this author, then principal of NS, and the teachers were concerned with ensuring that these, and all pupils, gained full access to the curriculum. The fact that this was an English-medium school, meant that it was necessary for EAL pupils to become proficient in the English language in order to access the curriculum. They also learned Irish as a curricular language. The question was, however, did learning English mean that home languages would have to be forfeited? There was an awareness that pupils had in some instances been told to leave their home language at the school gate, while their parents were exhorted to speak the language of schooling, a language many of them did not know or were only in the process of learning (Sierens & Van Avermaet 2014). From the point of view of the importance of home language when communicating with their children, in addition to their cultural identity, the notion of telling parents to speak English rather than their home language was unacceptable to principal and staff in NS (Wong Fillmore 1991: 343). Familiarity with the historical trajectory of the Irish language also provided room for reflection. Repeating the mistakes of the past with the possibility of ensuing negative consequences for EAL learners was a situation to be avoided (Walsh 2011; Ó Ceallaigh and Ní Dhonnabháin 2015). These questions helped to clarify the position of pupils’ home languages and how they might be accommodated in NS. Along with issues of identity and inclusion, principal and staff were resolved that the potential advantages inherent in linguistic diversity should be utilised for the benefit of all pupils, both EAL and indigenous Irish alike. 2 A more detailed account of all these issues can be found in the recently published Little, D. and

Kirwan, D. (2019) Engaging with Linguistic Diversity: a Study of Educational Inclusion in an Irish Primary School. Bloomsbury Academic.

3 By 2015, when the author retired, 80% of the pupils came from immigrant families. Most of these pupils had little or no English on enrolment. Between them there were 51 home languages other than English and Irish: Afrikaans,Amharic, Arabic, Bangla, Benin, Bosnian, Cantonese, Cebuano, Dari, Estonian, Farsi, Foula, French, German, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Igbo, Ilonggo, Indonesian, Isoko, Itshekiri, Italian, Kannada, Kinyarwanda, Konkani, Kurdish, Latvian, Lingala, Lithuanian, Malay, Malayalam, Mandarin, Marathi, Moldovan, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Shona, Slovakian, Spanish, Swahili, Tagalog, Tamil, Ukrainian, Urdu, Vietnamese, Visayan, Xhosa, Yoruba.


The priority at that time was to help pupils with EAL to learn English, the language of schooling, as quickly as possible. In order to address this, the Department of Education and Skills (DES) provided a two year term of English language support for EAL pupils in the late 1990s in schools where deemed necessary. This was a welcome initiative. A major drawback was that there was little expertise among teachers as to the best ways in which to deliver the curriculum in schools with growing numbers of EAL learners in addition to indigenous Irish pupils. In 2000, the DES commissioned Integrate Ireland Language and Training (IILT) to provide support for the teaching of EAL learners in schools4. Approach in NS to integrated language learning The evolution of NS’s response to its culturally and linguistically diverse community of learners was informed by the work of IILT. It was also influenced by qualitative research undertaken by the principal in the school year 2005-06 when she explored the language acquisition, curriculum learning and general development of four groups of EAL pupils from Junior Infants to Fifth Class (Kirwan 2009). Ongoing consultation among staff, the Board of Management, parents, and pupils led to two overarching goals: (i) to ensure that all pupils in the school gain full access to education, which means helping them to become proficient in the language of schooling and (ii) to exploit linguistic diversity for the benefit of all pupils by implementing an integrated approach to language education that embraces the language of schooling, English, languages of the curriculum (Irish and French), and home languages. Development of NS’s language policy, necessary to ensure the realisation of these goals, was shaped by five factors: an inclusive ethos, an open language policy and an integrated approach to language education, a strong emphasis on the development of literacy skills in the language of schooling and home languages, the latter with parental support, teaching methods that strive to be as explicit as possible, and respect for teachers’ professional autonomy (Little & Kirwan 2019: 30-42). The policy is supported by the principles of the Primary School Curriculum (Government of Ireland 1999). It is also in accord with the human rights viewpoint of the Council of Europe’s language education policy, with particular reference to plurilingual education (Beacco & Byram 2007, Beacco et al. 2015). 4 This was a very welcome initiative that helped to answer many of the questions above and provide

assistance for Language Support teachers working with EAL pupils. At IILT seminars principals and teachers were introduced to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR; Council of Europe 2001), English Language Proficiency Benchmarks (IILT 2003); all the resources developed by IILT subsequently published in Up and Away (2006); Primary School Assessment Kit (2007). In 2008 IILT was terminated.

LEARN 2019 37


38 LEARN 2019

This innovative approach to language learning and the teaching supports needed to make this as effective and efficient as possible for all learners in NS are described in the following section of this paper. Using plurilingual skills as educational capital – Starting from pupils’ existing knowledge Understanding one of the basic principles of the Primary School Curriculum (PSC) (Government of Ireland 1999) that the child’s existing knowledge and experience form the basis for learning makes clear the crucial importance of the home language as:

the default medium of [pupils’] self-concept, their self-awareness, their consciousness, their discursive thinking, and their agency...[and] is thus the cognitive tool that [they] cannot help but apply to formal learning, which includes mastering the language of schooling (Little et al. 2017: 202).

In other words, learners build on what they already know and they need an educational milieu that provides a forum for them to demonstrate that knowledge. Douglas Barnes (1976: 81) refers to the experience and knowledge that children bring with them as ‘action knowledge’. Using learners’ ‘action knowledge’ (acquired through and accessed in the home language) as the starting point for new learning, allows access to ‘school knowledge’ (English language and curriculum content) which can then be converted and added to learners’ existing ‘action knowledge’ (home language, English, curriculum content). Where learners are confronted with a curriculum that is delivered through a language they do not know, or are in the early stages of learning, their access to ‘school knowledge’ is limited only by their lack of skill in the language of schooling and not necessarily because they have a cognitive deficit. As the principle described by Barnes applies equally to speakers of all languages, the EAL pupils’ home language which is ‘the core of her identity and the default medium of her action knowledge and discursive thinking’, plays a central role in her learning (Little & Kirwan, 2019: 39). In order to build on the contribution that each pupil could make to her own learning, her ‘action knowledge’, it was important to welcome the diversity of the pupil population, for to ignore the child’s language would be tantamount to ignoring the child herself. From this point of view, the linguistic and cultural diversity of the school population needed to be made visible on classroom and corridor walls (Figure 1). Furthermore, if each pupil in NS were to ‘… realise his/her full potential as a unique individual’ (Government of Ireland 1999: 7) it became increasingly obvious that her home language would somehow have to be included in curriculum delivery.


Figure 1: Welcome poster. A space is left on each poster where the language of a new pupil may be inscribed. From their first meeting with the principal and subsequently through their child’s time in school, the approach to language education in NS was explained to parents. In the early days a small number of parents expressed fears that their home language would interfere with their child’s learning of English. In the vast majority of cases, however, parents were relieved and happy that use of their home language was welcomed. A Ukrainian parent whose daughter was then in Fifth Class, having started in Junior Infants seven years earlier said that:

a weight was lifted off my shoulders when I heard that it was alright to speak my language at home (Little & Kirwan 2018a: 335).

Indian parents were very happy with:

...the school’s interest in our language. Before, my daughter was ashamed to hear us speaking Malayalam. Now she wants to read and write in it (Little & Kirwan 2018a: 335).

Views expressed by EAL and indigenous Irish pupils regarding home languages shed light on the school’s approach to learning languages in an integrated manner:

LEARN 2019 39


[It helps pupils to get] …personal into each other’s cultures and languages [and] is very useful for friendship, for knowledge, so in many ways we’re all expanding… it makes you feel closer because you have a perspective on that person’s point of view (Speaker of Kurdish) (Kirwan 2019: 43). Sometimes it’s, like, when we learn a language it’s easier to learn other ones; sometimes it’s not really about which language you’re learning it’s, like, how to learn a language (Speaker of English) (Kirwan 2019: 45). It’s like when two people speak the same language there’s a kind of a bond between both of them (Speaker of Yoruba)(Little & Kirwan 2018a: 335).

When asked how they might feel had home languages not been included in their education they said:

It’s so, so sad because it’s like blocking a huge doorway…it’s like taking away an advantage of exploring (Speaker of Kurdish) (Kirwan 2019: 42 ). …don’t hide away from your own language because it’s what makes you you and it’s special and it’s, you can’t, it’s like having an arm or a leg, you can’t take it away from you (Speaker of German) (Little & Kirwan 2019: 49). For me it would be like pretending that your language never existed. It would be like rejecting your own language…whenever I go visit my uncle I wouldn’t be able to speak or understand anything…it wouldn’t be fair (Speaker of Foula) (Little & Kirwan 2019: 45). A child without a language is a child without a soul (Speaker of Yoruba) (Little & Kirwan 2019: 152, 153).

Both language support and mainstream teachers expressed equally positive views when asked about the use of home languages and the integrated approach to language teaching that they themselves were instrumental in pioneering and developing:

Children are responding very positively to the open language policy – even their body language, demeanour within class; the speed and accuracy with which they answer questions when their own language is involved; regardless of subject, their interest increases if it is something to do with home or their own language or their own experience; therefore when they respond it is with much more developed thought… equally in writing (language support teacher) (Little & Kirwan 2019: 50). When you bring in the home language the lights come on (mainstream teacher) (Little & Kirwan 2019: 49).

40 LEARN 2019


Using plurilingual skills as educational capital – use of home languages Reflecting the presence of the diversity within NS, no restrictions were placed on pupils’ use of their home languages at school, whether inside or outside the classroom. While all languages are welcomed in NS, the only languages that are taught are English, Irish and French, the latter being taught in Fifth and Sixth Class. Teachers cannot teach, nor can they be expected to teach, all the home languages of the classroom. By encouraging use of pupils’ home languages from their first day in school, teachers support pupils’ identity and action knowledge. Enabling use of their primary cognitive tool, their home language, to engage with curriculum learning helps to develop EAL learners’ proficiency in English as well (Little et al. 2017). This approach to linguistic diversity helps to enhance the learning of all pupils, developing their awareness of language to a high level. Interactive use of English allows children to bring their action knowledge into play. Where a word or phrase is not known in the target language, its equivalent can be used in the home language. This allows for clarity and for learning to take place in the language of schooling. It also allows indigenous Irish children who speak English at home to discover that the same item may have many names while the content/concept remains unchanged, thus contributing to the development of language awareness of all learners. Using home languages in activities such as this helps to validate everyone’s identity, allows EAL learners to use their action knowledge, and creates a level playing field for all pupils when Irish is introduced. Initial concerns regarding how Irish would fare in the midst of the growing multilingual environment of NS were unfounded. Scaffolding pupils’ learning and use of Irish as a valued part of their plurilingual repertoires allowed the children to recognise and use it as a valid means of communication, just like all other languages in the school. Teachers were aware of the importance of letting pupils hear Irish being used in ways that were meaningful and interesting. A concerted effort by all staff to use Irish regularly among themselves and in front of the children led to greater levels of proficiency among both staff and pupils. A climate of affirmation for children’s efforts to use Irish supported this increased use, with a Polish pupil remarking that she felt as if Irish was her first language because we speak it all the time in our school and it’s very good, it’s nice and it’s interesting (Little & Kirwan, 2019: 44). Listening to their peers confidently using English and their home languages created an incentive for indigenous Irish children to begin using Irish for communication purposes, with many of them citing Irish as their second language. Their parents also became enthused when they saw their children undertaking dual language homework in Irish and English, using their children’s experience of learning Irish to refresh their own interest in the language. Language awareness From Junior Infants onwards, opportunities abound to develop language awareness by exploring the similarities and differences between languages. Starting with the use of ‘hello’ in a lesson on greetings the class progresses to

LEARN 2019 41


learning ‘Dia dhuit’. The teacher then asks if anyone knows another way to say either of these greetings. All offerings from different languages are welcomed and practised in various ways and children who have experience of only one language begin to realise that there are many ways to say the same thing. All topics of the PSC can be approached in this way. As children progress through the school their insights and questions regarding language demonstrate that their reflective skills are continually being honed (for further discussion see Kirwan 2014: 189-203). A pupil in Third Class who came from a bilingual home where Russian and Yoruba were spoken explained that having heard her classmate read a story in three languages about a hedgehog (English) gráinneog (Irish), she now knew the word in Tagalog. When she heard parkupino at the end of the Tagalog version, it reminded her of porcupine and she deduced its meaning (Little & Kirwan 2019: 69). A Sixth Class pupil asked her teacher why Irish was backwards in the sense that it places the adjective after the noun. Following her teacher’s suggestion that she question some of her classmates who spoke languages other than English, the girl reported that it was actually English that was backwards as the languages of her peers, like Irish, placed the adjective after the noun (Little & Kirwan 2018b: 190). Plurilingual literacy – emphasis on literacy skills The development of higher order thinking and problem-solving skills are a principle of the PSC, with the child as an active agent in his or her learning (Government of Ireland, 1999: 9, 8). Being supported in the use of their home languages gives pupils the opportunity and the means to undertake work on their own initiative. Classroom talk with English and /or Irish, is modelled by the teacher and then recorded on the whiteboard, using information that has been negotiated and agreed with the pupils. Working on texts in English, in school, supports pupils’ learning of English. The same text is then rewritten at home in the home language with the help of parents (Figure 2a). Where parents speak only their home language, the child uses that language to explain what the English text means. Depending on the child’s stage of development, writing the text in their home language may involve transcribing words, phrases, the entire content of what the parent has written or taking dictation, one letter at a time. English-speaking children are invited to do this work in Irish (Figure 2b). The following day children enjoy reading what they have written for the rest of the class. Where they have difficulty remembering a word or phrase they have an alternative language to which they can refer in their writing. In this way each language helps the other (Cummins 2000a) in providing support for the learner’s developing proficiency (Figures 4, 5, 6).

42 LEARN 2019


Figure 2a: Dual language text in Polish and English (Senior Infants) Figure 2b: Dual language text in Irish and English (Senior Infants)

LEARN 2019 43


With Irish as an alternative means of communication from Junior Infants onwards, it is important to include it in the print environment of the school in signage, dual language texts and in all school events, e.g., concerts, art exhibitions, official events, etc. (Figure 3). This is a prerequisite for the inclusion of EAL learners’ home languages as it is a matter of equality that the second languages of all pupils, including that of the indigenous Irish children, should be scaffolded and used to support the development of integrated plurilingual repertoires (Little & Kirwan 2019: 90). Figure 3: Days of the Week recorded in languages of the classroom Figure 4: Written by a speaker of Latvian and Russian who was learning English and Irish. This work was done unaided in school (First Class).

44 LEARN 2019


Figure 5: Dual language text in English and Polish (Second Class) Figure 6: Diary written in English and Irish by an indigenous Irish pupil (Second Class)

LEARN 2019 45


Dual-language writing develops in Third and Fourth Classes with some children writing in three languages. Figure 7 shows texts written in three languages by a native-speaker of Hungarian. Figure 7: Text written in Irish, English and Hungarian (Third Class) Opening the gateway to self-expression by using the written word promotes the development of critical thinking and the ability to learn autonomously (Little & Kirwan, 2019: 89, 90). Some children undertake autonomous writing simply because it is enjoyable (Figure 8). Figure 8: Extract from the diary of Oliver the dog. Autonomous writing in Irish by a speaker of Tagalog (Third Class) In Fourth Class, a teacher introduced a lesson in Irish on the sequence involved in making a sandwich (Figure 9). Having recorded this in Irish and translated it into English, many pupils then translated it into their home languages.

46 LEARN 2019


Figure 9: How to make a sandwich written in German (Fourth Class) In Fifth Class pupils begin to learn French, which is treated as another language in which to express curriculum content. Figure 10 shows how all the languages in a pupil’s plurilingual repertoire are incorporated into a description of her house. Figure 10: Description of a house in Irish, French, Malayalam and English (Fifth Class)

LEARN 2019 47


Figure 11 shows how Sixth Class pupils’ well-developed observational skills with regard to language allow them to construct a letter using French words embedded in an English text (Little & Kirwan 2019: 116). Figure 11: A letter written in English using as many French words as possible (Sixth Class) Gardner-Hyland and Burke (2018) report teachers’ concerns regarding their lack of expertise and knowledge of language acquisition when teaching EAL pupils. Support is needed to minimise confusion when trying to decide if a child has a learning need or is it that he has severe EAL needs because he’s speaking three languages at home… with all three languages in one sentence (Gardner-Hyland and Burke 2018: 10-11). The text below was written by a speaker of Tagalog who, along with many of her classmates, wrote an account of a visit to their prospective post-primary school. Each pupil wrote individual texts switching coherently between English, Irish, French and their respective home language (Little & Kirwan 2019: 117).

Cuairt ar an Meánscoil Chuaigh me agus mo chlann go dtí Pobal Scoil Mhín. Talagang yumao sa gabi. Nous avons vu beaucoup filles e garcons. Thosaigh an phríomhoide ag caint. The whole room started to quiet down. We were told that all the sixth class children were to make their way to the door. Ensuite, une fille a amenée nous dans la piece. Thosaigh said ag scoilt ar na páistí. Si Rabia, si Duska, at si Ana at ako nag paghati-hatiin sa isang grupo. We went into one of the English Classes and

48 LEARN 2019


LEARN 2019 49

we did a Volcano Quiz. Une femme a demandé une question difficile et facile apropos de volcan sur le tableau. We also saw a bit of Romeo and Juliet. Four of my neighbours were part of the play.

An end of term fashion show devised, performed and presented by pupils from Sixth Class was unique in that the clothes worn by each of the models was described in two or three languages (English, Irish or French and at least one home language). When the show was over each pupil invented her own model (Figure 12) and wrote about her in three or more languages (Little & Kirwan 2019: 118). Figure 12: “Marceline’ a fictitious mannequin described in four languages: English, Irish, French, Mandarin (Sixth Class) Pedagogical explicitness Teachers know that children bring different experiences to school in relation to what and how they have learned. Being aware of this, teachers also realise the importance of presenting new curriculum material in a variety of ways to appeal to pupils’ differing learning styles. Even in monolingual situations teachers understand that it is important to explain content and concepts in various ways. The situation in a linguistically diverse classroom requires teachers to recognise the need to vary their vocabulary, phraseology and questioning, using body language and visual cues to ensure that all pupils have an opportunity to understand. This kind of teaching is good for all pupils and helps them to develop a reflective approach to learning that leads to self-awareness and the ability to self-evaluate during the course of their years in primary school (Little & Kirwan 2019: 41). Language Support All pupils benefit from inclusion in Language Support classes. Children whose home language is English help their EAL peers by modelling the language for them. Pupils whose home language is other than English provide a rich resource for language awareness and developing plurilingual repertoires among themselves and their English-speaking peers. Developing skills in language awareness helps to enhance the confidence and analytical skills of all learners. For EAL learners, their exclusive knowledge of their home language is valued, thus contributing to their feeling of wellbeing. This supports their developing


50 LEARN 2019

self-confidence and level of interaction that in turn supports their learning of English, Irish and curricular content and contributes to autonomous learning. One of the most important aspects of language support is that it is a lively, engaging and enjoyable experience for both pupils and teacher with stimulating and interactive sessions leading to greater support for children’s learning. In a mixed language group, speakers of English have the opportunity to use their existing language skills in a reflective manner thus contributing to their own understanding of language. Exposure to a variety of languages being used for purposes of meaningful communication provides learners with the opportunity for learning languages they like from native speakers. They also begin to understand that while the way in which content is expressed may change, the content itself actually remains the same. Gardner-Hyland and Burke make the point that in the new allocation model of learner support (DES: Circular 0013/2017) little or no guidance is given as to how to deal with pupils who are described as having ‘additional literacy needs such as English Additional Language Support’ (Gardner-Hyland & Burke: 21). Special Education Teachers (SET) now have responsibility for supporting not only children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) but EAL learners as well. Both SEN and EAL learners are combined when it comes to directions concerning implementation of support. Guidance as to best practice is derived from a document (National Educational Psychological Service 2007) that makes no mention of EAL learners (Gardner-Hyland & Burke 2018: 2-3). Lack of understanding of the difference between SEN and EAL needs can lead to confusion and the perception of learning problems where there are none. EAL learners need support to help them develop proficiency in English and thus gain access to the curriculum (Cummins 2011; 2015). From this point of view, the new Primary Language Curriculum (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment 2019) is a welcome document. In NS, language support teachers found that the practice of withdrawing pupils for support was most successful with groups of five to six pupils. This allowed for the creation of an interactive atmosphere and was more productive than working in pairs. Pupils’ own experiences and the local environment were exploited for interactive purposes. Focus was always put on what the child knows rather than on what she does not know. Spontaneity and freedom to express what was of interest to the learner was encouraged. Grammar and usage were not corrected when children were interacting as this would restrict the flow of their contributions. Teaching of rules was only undertaken in formal settings and within a clear context. Additional time was given when switching from one language to another. It was vitally important that Language Support and mainstream teachers liaised closely. In this way language support classes could be used to assist classroom learning by helping to teach the vocabulary required in a particular area, e.g., Mathematics, History.


LEARN 2019 51

Teacher autonomy Teachers in NS observe the school’s inclusive ethos and support its language policy and the requirements of the PSC. Rather than adhering to rigid, uniform approaches within every year group, teachers bring their experience, preferred teaching styles and personality to bear in implementing the curriculum. It is important that children are exposed to different styles and ways of learning. By sharing pedagogical practices, identifying what has worked, and showing one another samples of pupils’ work, the school becomes a richer place for all, enhancing the learning of teachers and pupils alike (Little & Kirwan 2019: 41- 42). This flexibility is important for the nurturing of autonomous learning (Little 1991). A salient point regarding home languages was made by a Sixth Class teacher who said:

If the teacher creates an atmosphere where it is acceptable for a child to interrupt the plan of the lesson and say: ‘In my language we say such and such a thing...’ that makes a huge difference, and then the teacher can stand back and they learn from each other and the teacher learns as well (Little & Kirwan 2019: 132).

Once teachers have activated pupils’ implicit knowledge of their home languages, the children begin to analyse and contribute their insights but this must first be facilitated by the teacher (Cummins 2000b: 10). This type of reflection leads to the development of self-awareness, critical evaluation and self-assessment which is introduced in Fifth Class (Little & Kirwan 2019: 134 -137). Using the language tree and self-assessment leaves, pupils enjoy testing their skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing in the languages they know and are learning. As they reach proficiency at each skill level they are free to attach their leaf to the tree. Figure 13 shows an image of a language tree and completed self-assessment leaf.

Figure 13: Example of a language tree and self-assessment leaf completed in English, Irish, French and Mandarin


A pupil who is a native speaker of English expressed the view that … self-assessment is really good, you learn more in it and you can ask questions with your partner and test each other in what questions you can say and read, it’s really fun and it’s better than doing [workbook] (Little & Kirwan 2019: 139). A measure of the success of NS’s approach to integrated language education is shown in results of standardised tests in English and maths used annually to evaluate pupils’ learning. Results have consistently been at or above the national average with scores of individual immigrant pupils often in the upper quartiles. Results of the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) testing in 2016 where Ireland was the highest scoring country in Europe for reading skills at primary level puts these results in context (Little & Kirwan 2019: 42). After a Whole School Evaluation (WSE) in March 2014, NS was included as one of only 12 per cent of schools in the highest category for the teaching of Irish (Chief Inspector’s report DES 2018: 9). Conclusion A key issue that emerges from this research is appreciation for the child-centred approach to education advocated by the PSC. When children arrive in primary school they bring with them their experience of life, learning and their home language, the cognitive tool that has allowed them to understand, reflect, negotiate and interact with the world to date. The vast majority of EAL learners do not have a deficit with either their action knowledge or with their ability to learn. What they require is an educational milieu that allows them to express themselves confidently. As shown in the approach developed in NS, children respond far beyond expectations to an environment that encourages them to demonstrate who they are and what they can do. This, in turn, nurtures their innate ability to express themselves and become involved in directing their own learning. Seeing interested pupils, enthusiastically engaged in learning, producing more work than would ever be expected of them simply because they want to do it themselves, is rewarding for pupils themselves and for their teachers. Can the success experienced in NS be replicated? Given the nature of the PSC, the starting point is always the same, identifying the needs of the learner and responding appropriately. What teachers have expressed is the need for pre-service and in-service education that will give them the expertise to respond to the demands of a changed demographic among the pupil population that will never return to the way it was, even in the recent past. Whatever the context and pupil cohort of a school, it is possible and desirable to develop the plurilingual repertoires of all pupils. They need these skills if they are to reach their potential and contribute to the increasingly multilingual nature of society.

52 LEARN 2019


LEARN 2019 53

REFERENCES

Barnes, D. (1976). From Communication to Curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Beacco, J.-C., M. Byram, M. Cavalli, D. Coste, M. Egli Cuenat, F. Goullier and J.

Panthier (2015), Guide for the Development and Implementation of Curricula for Plurilingual and Intercultural Education, Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available online: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTM Content?documentId=09000016806ae621 (accessed 4 July 2018).

Beacco, J.-C. and M. Byram (2007), From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education:

Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe, Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available online: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommon SearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016802fc1c4 (accessed 4 July 2018).

Central Statistics Office (2017), 2016 Census Results, Part I, Dublin: Central

Statistics Office. Available online: http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/newsevents /documents/census2016summaryresultspart1/Census2016SummaryPart1.pdf (accessed 4 July 2018).

Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J., S. Huy, P. Markus and M. K. Montero (2015), ‘Identity Texts and

Academic Achievement: Connecting the Dots in Multilingual School Contexts’, TESOL Quarterly 49 (3): 555–81.

Cummins, J. and M. Early, eds (2011), Identity Texts: The Collaborative Creation of

Power in Multilingual Schools, Stoke on Trent (UK): Trentham Books. Cummins, J. (2000a) Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J (2000b) Second Language Teaching for Academic success: A Framework for

School Language Policy Development. https://www.andrasprak.su.se/polopoly_fs/ 1.83995.../2000_19_Cummins_Eng.pdf

Department of Education and Skills (2018) Chief Inspector’s Report January 2013-

2016, ‘Executive Summary’, Dublin: DES https://www.education.ie/en/ Publications/Inspection-Reports-Publications/Evaluation-Reports-Guidelines/

Department of Education and Skills (2017) DES Circular 0013/2017: Special

Education Teaching Allocation. Dublin: Department of Education and Skills. https://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0013_ 2017.pdf

Educational Research Centre (2017) Progress in International Reading Literacy Study

(PIRLS) www.erc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PIRLS-2016-Flyer.pdf Gardiner-Hyland, F. and p. Burke (2018) “It’s very hard to know how much is the EAL

and how much is the learning difficulty”: Challenges in organising support for EAL learners in Irish primary schools https://dspace.mic.ul.ie/.../Gardiner-Hyland%2C%20F.%2C%20Burke%2C...


54 LEARN 2019

Government of Ireland (1999) Introduction to the Primary Curriculum. Dublin: DES. Integrate Ireland Language and Training (2006) Up and away. Dublin: IILT. Integrate Ireland Language and Training (2003) English Language Proficiency

Benchmarks for Non-English-speaking Pupils at Primary Level. Dublin: IILT. Kirwan, D. (2019) Multilingual environments: benefits for early language learning.

TEANGA 10 pp. 38-57. journal.iraal.ie. Kirwan, D. (2014) From English language support to plurilingual awareness. In

D. Little, C. Leung & P. Van Avermaet (eds.), Managing diversity in education: Languages, policies, pedagogies, 189–203. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Kirwan, D. (2009). English language support for newcomer learners in Irish primary

schools: A review and a case study. PhD thesis, University of Dublin, Trinity College. Little, D. & D. Kirwan (2019) Engaging with Linguistic Diversity: A Study of

Educational Inclusion in an Irish Primary School. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Little, D. & D. Kirwan (2018a) Translanguaging as a key to educational success: The

experience of one Irish primary school. In K. Maryns, S. Slembrouck, S. Sierens, P. Van Avermaet & K. Van Gorp (eds). The multilingual edge of education, 313–339. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Little, D. & D. Kirwan (2018b) From plurilingual repertoires to language awareness:

Developing primary pupils’ proficiency in the language of schooling. In C. Frijns, K. Van Gorp, C. Hélot & S. Sierens (eds). Language awareness in multilingual classrooms in Europe, 169–205. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Little, D., Dam, L. and Legenhausen, L. (2017). Language Learner Autonomy: Theory.

Practice and Research. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Little, D., B. Lazenby Simpson and B. Finnegan atibuši (2007), Primary School

Assessment Kit, Dublin: Department of Education and Science. Little, D. (1991) Learner Autonomy: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik. National Educational Psychological Service (2007) Special Educational Needs: A

Continuum of Support, Guidelines for Teachers. Dublin: DES. Ó Ceallaigh, T. J. and Á. Ní Dhonnabháin (2015), ‘Reawaking the Irish Language

through the Irish Education System: Challenges and Priorities’, International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education 8 (2), 179–98. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1085869.pdf (accessed 17 July 2018).

Sierens, S. & P. Van Avermaet (2014) ‘Language Diversity in Education: Evolving from

Multilingual Education to Functional Multilingual Education’. In D. Little, C. Leung & P. Van Avermaet (eds.), Managing diversity in education: Languages, policies, pedagogies, 204-22. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Wong Fillmore, L. (1991) ‘When learning a second language means losing the first.’

Early Childhood research Quarterly, 6: 323-46.


LEARN 2019 55

Walsh, J. (2011) Contests and Contexts. The Irish Language and Ireland’s Socio-Economic Development. Series: Reimagining Ireland – Volume 15.

DÉIRDRE KIRWAN

Déirdre Kirwan has taught in both mainstream and special schools. From 1987 until 2015, she was principal of Scoil Bhríde (Cailíní) in West Dublin. In 2008, Déirdre was awarded European Ambassador for Languages (Léargas) for her active promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity within the school. In 2009, she received a PhD from Trinity College Dublin for her research in the area of language education. Her most recent publication co-authored with David Little (2019) is entitled Engaging with Linguistic Diversity: A Study of Educational Inclusion in an Irish Primary School. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Déirdre is currently working with the European Centre for Modern Languages on the topic of language learning (Inspiring Language Learning in the Early Years (ILLEY)) at pre-primary and primary level. Link: https://www.ecml.at/ECML-Programme/ Programme2016-2019/Earlylanguagelearning-teachertraining/tabid/3015 /Default.aspx


56

Engaging Multilingual Families in the US:

Research and Practice for Educators

Maria R. Coady and Raisa Ankeny

Abstract Few can deny the importance of the school-home connection in a child’s learning. Engaging families who are from international, migratory or refugee backgrounds is complex, due to differences in language and cultural practices between the home and school. This article provides educators with a conceptual framework for examining multilingual family engagement through a holistic lens, with specific strategies that educators can use and adapt to different settings. The framework includes five areas that involve both reflection and action, leading toward culturally and linguistically-differentiated practices for multilingual family engagement. The framework is adaptable to unique school environments and offers guidance to enhance engagement of multilingual families seeking to support their children’s education. The article also offers connections between the framework’s theory and practical applications for educators—which includes teachers and specialists—and school leaders. Introduction Families play an essential role in the education of children. In the United States (US), for instance, recent legislation under the federal law, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2019) requires schools to engage families (which includes both parents or caregivers) in ways that support child learning. This requires educators and school leaders to use the students’ home languages in all oral and written communication with multilingual families wherever possible. The aim of using students’ home languages across all school communication with families is to encourage family participation in student learning and to support language and literacy development. Yet engagement with multilingual families is particu-larly challenging when families are geographically distant, such as in rural schools; when they speak lesser-used languages; and when educators, leaders, and staff are un- or underprepared for linguistic diversity (Coady, Harper, & de Jong, 2016). This paper offers a conceptual model for multilingual family engagement based on research-informed practices and provides practical suggestions for educators to act in their specific school and community context. This research is based on US and international studies on family engagement (see Coady & Yilmaz, 2018).


LEARN 2019 57

What is the research base on multilingual family engagement? The research on family engagement has consistently demonstrated that the connection between the home and school is essential to support child learning and overall well- being. This research includes studies in the United States as well as studies from the European Union and, to a lesser degree, from other international settings. As Weiss (2014) notes, there is “a skyscraper of research that supports the fact that family engagement is one of, if not the strongest predictor, of what happens to children” (np). Specifically, the literature on family engagement highlights several effective practices that are common across varied geographic settings: (1) communication and interactions that take place between families and educators (Deslandes et al., 1997) and that respond to the cultural and linguistic repertoires of families; (2) varied types of participation in and outside of school, ranging from more traditional school events such as parent-teacher conferences to family culture fairs to home literacy events (Coady, Cruz-Davis, & Flores, 2008; Miedel & Reynolds, 1999); and (3) assistance for children in ways that support home learning and that strengthen family relationships (Shumow & Miller, 2001). Research demonstrates that families can support students’ learning at home across a wide array of activities. One example is engaging in home conversations about the importance and value of education. Other examples are specific to the cultural backgrounds of families. For example, among Latinos in the US, research has found that the concept of familismo – maintaining close bonds with family, family obligations, and maintaining familial support networks – influenced how parents or caregivers interacted with their child in school-related tasks and expectations (Niemeyer et al. 2009; Sabogal et al., 1987). Other significant reviews of literature on effective family engagement have been conducted in recent years. For example, Goodall & Vorhaus (2010) conducted an extensive review of more than 1200 international articles on parental engagement. Their review included studies using keyword search terms of parent, engagement, pupil or student, achievement, and community or family. The authors identified evidence-based literature on the types of activities that parents engaged in to support child learning. They found that the most effective practices to support the child’s learning based on student learning outcomes were home-literacy practices where parents helped or taught their child in the use of text. For linguistically-diverse families, home literacy practices often differ from those promoted in school and in the mainstream, regular classroom. This may be due to cultural differences in child-rearing practices and the role of literacy in the home. Culture frames families’ beliefs about what “good” child-rearing is, the role of the home in a child’s education, and what caregivers believe they can and should do. For instance, Jeynes (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of research related to effective parental involvement in the US. In his analysis of research on parental involvement, Jeynes reviewed and analyzed 77 research studies, including students and families from culturally and linguistically diverse


58 LEARN 2019

backgrounds. He found two main areas that appeared to significantly affect student learning. The first area was parental communication with the child, including conversations related to school experiences, home learning, and the importance of education. The second area that affected student learning was conveying high expectations of the child. Some of those high expectations involved supporting the student’s schoolwork and expectations for future education, such as attending college. Jeynes’s meta-analysis showed that parental involvement had a significant and positive effect on children across different race, ethnic, social class, and linguistic groups. More importantly, the study revealed that effective family engagement included non-physical participation in school settings and at presence at school events. In a well-cited study, Henderson and Mapp (2002) analyzed 51 studies related to family involvement in US public schools. The authors found that the kinds of family engagement that was most effective was that which built upon families’ strengths, recognized class and cultural differences, and addressed specific family needs. These findings are important for all educators of multilingual students, because findings reinforce the concept that parental engagement may not follow traditional practices used in schools. Epstein’s work over the past 25 years has identified a broad array of hands-on strategies and activities for schools to use. Epstein’s (2011) model consists of three overlapping spheres – home, school and community – and six types of involvement, which she refers to as ‘six types of caring’ (Epstein, 2011). Epstein’s classification of six types of involvement include the following: •Parenting – helping all families to establish home environments to

support children as students.

•Communicating – designing effective school-to-home and home-to-school communications about school programs and children’s progress.

•Volunteering – recruiting and organizing parent help.

•Learning at home – providing information and ideas to families about how to help students at home with homework and other school tasks.

•Decision making – including parents in school decisions and leadership.

•Community collaborating – identifying and integrating resources and services from the community to support schools and families.

Epstein offers multiple sample practices in each of the six areas of involvement. For example, communicating with parents includes activities such as setting up conferences with parents at least once each year. This is a good example of parental involvement; however, working with immigrant, refugee, or migratory families from linguistic and cultural backgrounds that differ from the school’s requires additional considerations and sensitivity to families.


A Conceptual Framework for Multilingual Family Engagement Multilingual families reflect and bring rich language and cultural knowledge into the communities in which they live. The way that families function, their unique oral and written communication patterns, their cultural and traditional family rituals and practices, and family member roles all influence the way children enter and orient themselves to the school environment. Multi-lingualism is a resource that is largely undervalued in the US (Ruíz, 1984) and under-investigated in the context of education. The linguistic and cultural resources of families are frequently left undetected and untapped by educators. Those resources reflect the ways in which multilingual families perceive, know, and interact in the world (Kisthardt, 2012; Saleebey, 2012). In the context of multilingual families, the concept of language-as-resource (Ruíz, 1984) can be applied to family characteristics, the way that the family interacts as a unit, and its functioning in broader social settings such as school. Some of the strengths of multilingual families include their varied histories; their traditional and cultural knowledge, skills, and habits; their language and literacy practices at home and in the community (Coady, Coady, & Nelson, 2015; Coady, Cruz-Davis, & Flores, 2009); their social network and survival skills (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992); and their contributions to the communities in which they live and participate. In this regard, the languages and cultures of the families are resources upon which educators draw for student learning, fostering learning environments that are caring and support the well-being of the students. Educators who subscribe to a strengths-based orientation of multilingual families view their students’ languages, experiences, and backgrounds as resources for teaching and learning—and bring those purposefully and directly into the classroom setting—rather than seeing these as deficits that should be ignored or eradicated under repressive language policies. A main challenge for educators in the context of 21st century education is how they can work with increasing linguistic diversity by building upon family strengths. In other words, to engage families from diverse backgrounds, educators must know not only how to engage families but must also understand their unique connection between schools and larger social, historical, and political influences that affect their relationship with schools. Villegas and Lucas (2002) refer to this as “sociocultural consciousness” in which teachers come to view their work as embedded in larger social structures. Palmer and Menard-Warwick (2012) describe that relationship as “a deepening union between social awareness and a moral commitment” to act (p. 17). Unfortunately, pejorative descriptors of multilingual students persist in education and continue to characterize both families and students. The follow list derives from literature in general literature on education and in the general media surrounding multilingual students:

LEARN 2019 59


•historically “at risk” for educational failure

•“limited [English] proficient”

•“disadvantaged”

•“underperforming”

•“confused”

•“non-non”

•“illiterate”

•“semiliterate” and

•“double non-literate” This terminology positions multilingual students as inferior in schools and in classrooms. Politicians, and ministries of education point to low student test scores (based on tests typically administered in only the dominant language of the country) and learning outcomes that use monolingual assessments to determine the learning of multilingual students. Scholars concur that family engagement in education is an essential component to student learning, academic achievement, and overall social emotional health. High performing schools where students appear to be doing well and achieving academically also appear to have engaged parents (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014). Yet much of the work in family engagement remains situated and centred on the school and not on the family. One challenge of traditional models of family engagement is that they advocate for the same practices for multilingual families as for monolingual, mainstream families. For example, in the US, financial aid workshops for students seeking to attend college are typically held for parents to receive information about how their child can apply to receive financial assistance. These events assume that multilingual parents have a high level of English language ability, know how higher education works and what it costs, are aware of immigration laws that affect students’ participation and admission to college (and financial aid), and have prior experiences in univer-sities. In Ireland, families from non-Irish backgrounds may require additional guidance on the application process for tertiary education. Without an approach that first seeks to know families and understand their socio-historical back-grounds, multilingual families are likely to feel disempowered and overwhelmed. Teacher and Educational Leader Preparation for Multilingual Family Engagement The figure below represents a conceptual model that demonstrates multilingual family engagement as a circular, ongoing, reflective process. The process begins with educators who examine their own beliefs and knowledge about families and who connect their beliefs to families in their schools. Family engagement aims to build relationships with multilingual families, learn about their socio-

60 LEARN 2019


historical and political experiences, and situate that knowledge in local communities. It also aims to support multilingual student learning through affirmation of their identities (Cummins, 2000). Five components frame the model and include: (a) listening to and learning about multilingual families’ cultures, languages, literacy practices, and needs; (b) reflecting on families’ strengths and seeking input from community leaders and key informants; (c) communicating with and building relationships with families in culturally and linguistically responsive and effective ways; (d) using knowledge of families’ strengths and backgrounds to support student learning in the classroom; and (e) advocating for equity and change in and outside of school. Each is described in detail below. Figure 1: A Conceptual Model for Multilingual Family Engagement Educators listen to and learn from and about families The first component of the multilingual family engagement model is to learn about families, their home languages and literacy practices, and cultural backgrounds and needs, with the goal of establishing relational trust (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). The work of educators as listeners and learners seems anathema to traditional models of teachers as “knowers” of information (Freire, 2000). Three subcomponents frame this concept: educator self-reflection; personal engagement with families; and building trust and care.

LEARN 2019 61


Educator self-reflection refers to educators who have a personal commitment to their communities and understand how they function. Teachers’ views of families influence their work. For example, Baquedando-López, Alexander, and Hernandez (2013) reviewed literature on parental involvement. They found that “parental participation in schools is strongly shaped by [teachers’] perceptions of parents’ background, the roles expected of them by school administrators and teachers, and by the organizations that fund… parental involvement programs” (p. 150). In other words, the authors found that what educators think about and expect from parents has a strong impact on actual parental participation. Questioning assumptions about multilingual families and reshaping educator beliefs from deficit and negative ideologies and stereotypes to actual knowing families is a first step toward building trust, care, and engagement. Importantly, trust for multilingual families includes a sense of connecting with someone whom they can rely on to listen to their needs, understand what they are saying and why, and advocating for them when required. Byrk and Schneider (2002) note that trust between people includes respect, integrity, and competence. This component involves listening to and learning about families in order to build trust and demonstrate care for their specific needs. In terms of action, this first component offers the opportunity for educators to begin gathering knowledge. One way is beginning the school year by learning who their students’ caregivers are, their names, countries of origin, and how long they have been in the US. This information could be gathered through the school’s administrative documents, or by inviting parents to meet in formal or informal gatherings. This concept can be tangible and shareable by creating a “student portrait” or a “student portfolio” document that can be edited throughout the school year. A document or portfolio can be transferred across teachers and school years. Educators reflect on families’ strengths and seek input A second component is the task of educators to reflect on families’ strengths and seek input from community members in order to learn more about families’ languages, strengths and ways of knowing. Educators learn about families through their students, through home visits, learning about immigrant families’ home countries via self-study, and by taking stock of local industries, labour markets, commerce, and medical agencies. Educators can also learn about family and local migration patterns, and the history of the community and local politics that build a positive ‘context of reception’ for immigrants (Stepick & Stepick, 2009). For example, in a study of rural family engagement (Coady, Cruz-Davis, & Flores, 2008) noted that immigrant Latino families were so invested in their child’s learning and educational success, they attended parent-teacher nights and school meetings but sat at the back of the room because they did not understand the language spoken. Important to the parents was that their

62 LEARN 2019


children saw their attendance at the events and their investment in the child’s education. The value of education was a family strength, yet this remained unknown and unacknowledged by schools. Parents continued to attend school functions, despite the social distance that they maintained and a sense of humility, not wanting to ask for communication assistance. This second component challenges educators to add another layer to their knowledge by gathering outside resources. The local context of reception is key to unpacking the complex layers of immigrant family histories. Educators can seek input by communicating with affiliated agencies that may be already at work with the families. For instance, after Hurricane María swept through the island of Puerto Rico, displaced families sought refuge in the mainland US. By doing so, many families utilized community efforts to re-establish their lives. In some cases, this meant that parents accepted work outside of their professional fields and relied on extended networks for childcare. By learning about parents’ work schedules and reasons for relocating, educators could be more sensitive to the home situation when it expecting academic homework and evening events. Educators communicate with and build relationships with families in culturally and linguistically responsive ways One way that educators act with and on behalf of families is to communicate with families in languages that they understand. Despite the fact that federal legislation in the US, for examples, requires schools to use home languages in communication with families wherever possible, too many examples demonstrate that English-only policies continue to characterize home-school interactions. For example, in a prior study with a local school district, we interviewed teachers, school leaders, and parents regarding the use of multiple languages for home-school communication. We found that despite 20 years of mandates teachers were unfamiliar with federal policies on the use of home languages and that district level administrators did not make accessible important translation services and software that would allow teachers to translate school materials for parents. Linguistically and culturally responsive communication practices may include inviting families to the school site or identifying spaces in the rural community where families feel safe to attend. Churches or community centres may be more friendly, welcoming, and nurturing spaces to communicate with multilingual families than schools (Coady, Coady, & Nelson, 2015). This component is also characterized by ongoing, regular, and systematic approaches to communicating with families. Educators can learn the languages that families use and understand the pragmatics features of a language, such as physical distance between speakers and various social status or gender roles when communicating. Continuous teacher reflection and assessment of this component is essential, because new, multilingual families may move frequently in and out of a community. Updating communication methods, phone numbers, and contact information is part of the work required in order to

63


remain connected to families. For non-literate families, , access to oral interpreters and community members who speak their families’ languages can be kept near families’ information. Educators use knowledge of families’ strengths and backgrounds to support student learning In today’s multilingual, global environment, it is increasingly common to hear multiple languages on television, the Internet, and even in rural settings where migrants and refugees may settle. Multilingualism is increasingly the norm, even in rural settings (Coady, 2019). In order for multilingual students to succeed academically, educators must first ensure that students’ and families’ identities are reflected in school curricula, activities, and events. Educator practices that affirm students’ languages and literacy include using multiple languages of students in the curriculum, across students’ multiple linguistic repertoires (García & Kleyn, 2016), building ‘active bilingualism’ (Cummins, 2018), and teaching for cross-language transfer (Cummins, 2000). This component offers educators the most opportunity for creativity and differentiation based on their unique learners. With the insight gathered through components one and two, educators can infuse academic lessons and classroom projects with specific cultural relevance that represents learners’ heritage and allows the home knowledge to inform the work of students and teachers in the classroom. For example, a teacher can modify literary biographies in history courses to include a known figure that honours the child’s background and that facilitates home conversation. It can also aide in sharing home oral histories. In the same vein, literacy activities can be modified to include bilingual books and prioritize digital skills that support both languages. Educators advocate for equity and change in and outside of school Finally, the fifth component of a comprehensive model of multilingual family engagement builds upon the concept of critical consciousness or conscientização (Freire, 2000; Freire & Macedo, 2001) and the local and global contexts in which families live and in which schools function. In “contested” spaces of social, economic, and political inequity, engaging with families means that educators are open to listening to and responding to families’ experiences and their stated needs. This is where advocacy takes place, both inside the classroom and outside of the school. For example, access to dental care and services is not only expensive in the US but it can be difficult to find pediatric dentists who also speak the languages of multilingual families. Over the years, community advocates identified local dentists who work pro bono for rural, multilingual families. They have driven children and parents to low-income dental clinics 40-50 kilometers from their homes and identified school-based funding to provide financial support to children and families who were in need of dental care. Each family’s need was different, and each family’s situation warranted a differentiated response to advocating for the children both in and outside of school. Advocating involves listening to families and helping to

64 LEARN 2019


identify solutions that support children’s learning and overall well-being. We have found that immigrant families in the US often feel disinclined to ask for help, reflecting their value of humility and gratitude, strengths that families bring to the community and school settings. This may be similar with families new to Ireland. Family engagement in this context reflects the reality of families’ lived experiences, and knowledge of and response to the negative discourses and stereotypes of multilingual families. In classrooms, teachers can ensure that federal and state mandated accommodations for multilingual students are met, such as providing first language dictionaries and additional time for students to take standardized tests. Further, educators can involve family concerns in administrative meetings at the school, district or regional levels by either inviting them personally or serving as a communicator of their voices. This can be particularly important when it concerns school policies that affect the families negatively. Finally, educators can advocate for families by sharing the work they achieve yearly with others in the community and highlighting the importance of working with all local families. This conceptual model of differentiated family engagement for multilingual families entails both reflection and action. Listening, learning, and reflecting on family strengths and needs encompass the first part of the model. Acting with and on behalf of families involves communicating, using information to support learning, and advocating for change. For each of the five areas of the conceptual framework, we offer below practical steps that educators can implement (Table 1). Table 1. Strategies for Educators and Leaders (Adapted from Coady,

2019)

LEARN 2019 65

Conceptual Framework Area Strategies

Educators listen to and learn from and about families

School principal invites a community expert to a professional development (PD) meeting before the school year begins. Teachers and staff learn about how and why families relocate to the area.

and seek input

Educators examine how immigrant families contribute to the local economy, the languages they speak, and cultural practices.

Educators communicate with and build relationships with families in culturally and linguistically responsive ways

Educators ensure that all print materials are in reduced text (at a level families can read) in the home language.

strengths and backgrounds to support student learning

Teachers provide various forms of home-literacy building, including audio or digital recordings of storybooks for young children and a translation dictionary for ongoing use in the home.

Educators advocate for equity and change in and outside of school

Educators host a local community meeting where immigrant parents are invited to describe their migration process. An interpreter is available to translate.


Conclusion The goal of this article was to both enlighten and extend the conversation regarding family engagement to (a) include multilingual families who have been historically overlooked in the research base in education in general, and (b) associate multilingual family engagement with teacher and educator practices. This model advocates that educators differentiate family engagement policies and practices within their local school settings. The research on family engage-ment emphasizes the need to connect the home to school. Although we currently know little about multilingual family engagement internationally, we have a strong base of strategies that build home-school partnerships (Epstein, 1995; Henderson & Mapp, 2002). The conceptual model described above is aligned with actions to implement home-school partnerships. The model has two key aims: first, it aims to discuss how multilingual family engagement requires multiple layers of learning about families and subsequently understanding and responding to their needs; and second it provides guidance for educators to communicate with diverse families in an effort to build trusting relationships.

REFERENCES

Arias, M. B., & Morillo-Campbell, M. (2008). Promoting ELL parental involvement:

Challenges in contested times. Boulder, CO: Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/documents/EPSL-0801-250-EPRU.pdf

Arnold, M. L., Newman, J. H., Gaddy, D. D., & Dean, C. B. (2005). A look at the condition of rural education research: Setting a direction for future research. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20(6), 1-25.

Baquedano-López, P., Alexander, R. A. & Hernandez, S. J. (2013). Equity issues in parental and community involvement in schools: What teacher educators need to know. Review of Research in Education, 37, 149-182.

Byrk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A score resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Coady, M. R. (2019). Connecting school and the multilingual home: Theory and practice for rural educators. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Coady, M. R., Coady, T. J., & Nelson, A. (2015). Assessing the needs of immigrant, Latino families and teachers in rural settings: Building home-school partnerships. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 6. Retrieved from https://www2. nau.edu/nabej-p/ojs/index.php/njrp/article/view/42

Coady, M. R., Cruz-Davis, J., & Flores, C. (2008). Personalmente: Home-school com-munication practices with (im)migrant families in north Florida. Special Topics Issue of the Bilingual Research Journal, 31 (251-270). Retrieved from https://www. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15235880802640714

Coady, M. R., Harper, C. A., & de Jong, E. J. (2016). Aiming for equity: Preparing mainstream teachers for inclusion or inclusive classrooms? TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 340-368. DOI: 10.1002/tesq.223

66 LEARN 2019


Coady, M. R., & Yilmaz, T. (2018). Home-school partnerships. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. Hoboken, NJ: TESOL International Association & Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0837

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (2018). Multilingualism in education: Intersections of research, theory, policy, and practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Deslandes, R., Royer, E., Turcotte, D. & Bertrand, R. (1997). School achievement at the secondary level: Influence of parenting style and parent involvement in schooling. McGill Journal of Education, 32, 191-207.

Despagne, C. (2013). Indigenous Education in Mexico: Indigenous Students’ Voices. Journal of Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 7(2), 114-129. DOI: 10.1080/15595692.2013.763789

Dondero, M., & Muller, C. (2012). A scientific medium of social study and interpretation. Social Forces, 9(2), 477-502. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3724212/#SOS127C45

Edgell, P., & Docka, D. (2007). Beyond the nuclear family? Familism and gender ideology in diverse religious communities. Sociological Forum, 22(1). Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2006.00003.x

Epstein, J. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 701-712.

Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing Educators and Improving Schools (2nd ed). Philadelphia, PA: Westview Press.

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). (2019). Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/essa

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Kindle version, loc. 512.

Freire, A. M. A. & Macedo, D. (2001). The Paulo Freire reader. New York: Continuum.

García, O., & Kleyn, T. (Eds.). (2016). Translanguaging with multilingual students: learning from classroom moments. New York: Routledge.

Glover, T. A., Nugent, G. C., Chumney, F. L., Ihlo, T., Shapiro, E. S., Guard, K., Koziol, N., & Bovaird, J. (2016). Investigating rural teachers’ professional development, instructional knowledge, and classroom practice. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 31(3), 1-16.

Goodall, J., & Montgomery, C. (2014). Parental involvement to parental engagement: A continuum. Educational Review, 66(4), 399-410.

Goodall, J., & Vorhaus, J. (2010). Review of best practice in parental engagement. Department for Education, UK.

Greene, J. P. (1997). A meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of bilingual education research. Bilingual Research Journal, 21(2/3), 103–122.

Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3-15.

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved from www.sedl.org/connections/ resources/evidence.pdf

LEARN 2019 67


Howley, A., & Howley, C. B. (2004, December). High quality teaching: Proiding for rural teachers’ professional development. An AEL Policy Brief. Charleston, WV: AEL.

Kim, S. W, Brown, K, Kim, E. J., & Fong, V. L. (2017). “Poorer children study better”: How urban Chinese young adults perceive relationships between wealth and academic achievement. Comparative Education Review, 62(1), 84-102.

Kisthardt, W. E. (2012). Integrating the Core Competencies in Strengths-Based, Person-Centered Practice: Clarifying Purpose and Reflecting Principles. In D. Saleebey (Ed.). The strengths perspective in social work practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202-218.

Li, S., & Luo, W. (2017). Creating a translanguaging space for high school emergent bilinguals. CATESOL Journal, 29(2), 139-162.

Lucas, T. (2011). Preparing teachers for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M., 2008. Linguistically responsive teacher education: preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361–373.

Makalela, L. (2015). Bilingualism in South Africa: reconnecting with Ubuntu trans-languaging. In O. García and A. Lin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education. New York: Springer.

Miedel, W. T. & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Parent involvement in early intervention for disadvantaged children: Does it matter? Journal of School Psychology, 37, 379-402.

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31, 132-141.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2016). Fast facts on English language learners. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96

National Rural Education Association (NREA). Ten research priorities. Retrieved from http://www.nrea.net/Research_and_Publications

Niemeyer, A. E., Wong, M. M., & Westerhaus, K. J. (2009). Parental involvement, familismo, and academic performance in Hispanic and Caucasian adolescents. North American Journal of Psychology, 11(3), 613-631.

Palmer, D. K., & Menard-Warwick, J. (2012). Short-term study abroad for Texas preservice teachers: On the road from empathy to critical awareness. Multicultural Education, 17-26.

Panferov, S. (2010). Increasing ELL parental involvement in our schools: Learning from the parents. Theory Into Practice, 49(2), 106-112.

Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in Language Planning: Problem, Right, or Resource. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15-34.

Sabogal, F., Marín, G., Otero-Sabogal, R., Marín, B., & Perez-Stable, E. J. (1987). Hispanic familism and acculturation: What changes and what doesn’t? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 397-412.

Saleeby, D. (2012). The strengths perspective in social work practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

68 LEARN 2019


Semke, C. A., & Sheridan, S. M. (2012). Family-school connections in rural educational settings: A systematic review of the empirical literature. School Community Journal, 22(1), 21-48.

Shannon, S. (1995). The hegemony of English: A case study of one bilingual classroom as a site of resistance. Linguistics and Education, 7, 175-200.

Shumow, L. & Miller, J. D. (2001). Parents’ at-home and at-school academic involvement with young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 68-91.

Stepick, A., & Dutton Stepick, C. (2009). Contexts of reception and feelings of belonging. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(3), Art 15. Retrieved http:// www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1366/2863

Suro R., & Singer, A. 2002. Latino Growth in Metropolitan America: Changing Patterns, New Locations. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Terrazas, A. (2011). Immigrants in new-destination states. Migration Information Source. Migration Policy Institute: Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www. migrationpolicy.org/article/immigrants-new-destination-states#1

Terrazas A., & Fix, M. (2009). The Binational Option: Meeting the Instructional Needs of Limited English Proficient Students. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz: University of California, Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence.

US Department of Education. (2016). Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32.

Weiss, H. (2014). Transatlantic forum on inclusive early years. 3rd Meeting. Lisbon, Portugal. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv7VgChSg8s& feature=share&list=PL17gcPJzCrQWAyCa5Lt5mOCKbDFTb4QN7

Witte A. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2011). Family Engagement in Rural Schools (R2Ed Working Paper No. 2011-2). Retrieved from the National Center for Research on Rural Education website: http://r2ed.unl.edu

MARIA COADY, PhD Maria Coady is an Associate Professor of Education at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. Dr. Coady examines multilingual family engagement, rural schools, and teacher education for linguistic diversity. Dr. Coady is Director and Principal Investigator of Project STELLAR (Supporting Teachers and English Learners Across Rural Settings), a $2.4 million US Department of Education National Professional Development grant.

RAISA ANKENY, PhD Raisa Ankeny received her PhD from New Mexico State University. Originally from Puerto Rico, Dr. Ankeny has been a bilingual teacher and educator. She is a Program Coordinator on Project STELLAR (Supporting Teachers and English Learners Across Rural Settings).

LEARN 2019 69


https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigrants-new-destination-states#1

Guided Repeated Reading: Supporting the Development of Reading Fluency for Pupils with

Reading Difficulties in the Primary School Classroom

Louise Barr and Aoife Brennan

Abstract Fluent readers can “read effortlessly with good expression” (Zimmerman, Rasinski and Melewski 2013, p.137). For many children effortless reading is a struggle and beyond the early stages of reading development some children continue to manifest difficulties in some or all components of reading fluency: automaticity, accuracy and prosody. This article presents findings from a small-scale mixed methods action research study which investigated the impact of a co-taught guided repeated reading instructional routine on reading fluency outcomes for third class pupils, in a mainstream primary school in Ireland. The effectiveness of the lesson methodology, based on the fluency development lesson (Rasinski, Padak, Linek and Sturtevant 1994), incorporating elements from the evidence-based fluency instruction routine (Reutzel 2012), will be discussed. The findings demonstrated that repeatedly reading short texts of 50-250 words improved pupils’ reading accuracy, oral reading prosody and their comprehension of text. Equally important was the evidence of the inextricable nature of the progression of reading accuracy, comprehension and prosody resulting from authentic literary experiences (Rasinski 2017). This study recommends that teachers situate oral reading fluency instruction, across subject areas, within evidence-based instructional frameworks.

Introduction Once considered to be a neglected aspect of reading instruction (Allington 1983), attention to reading fluency has grown rapidly in recent years (Zimmerman, Rasinski and Melewski 2013). Reading fluency is an overall indicator of reading proficiency (Rasinski and Hoffman 2003). The ability to read effortlessly, expressively and smoothly, contributes greatly to experiencing reading success (Zimmerman et al 2013). Chall’s (1983) model of reading development identifies reading fluency as a competency to be mastered at the beginning stages of reading development. However, beyond the early stages of reading development many children continue to manifest difficulties in acquiring fluent reading (Rasinski, Rikli and Johnston 2009).

70


LEARN 2019 71

Reading Fluency in the Irish Context In Ireland, a revision of the 1999 Primary School English Curriculum (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) 1999) was an objective of the National Strategy to Improve Literacy and Numeracy among Children and Young People (Department of Education and Skills (DES) 2011). The DES (2011) advised that the new curriculum should incorporate explicit attention to reading fluency, a fundamental literacy skill (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) 2000). In the former Primary School English Curriculum (NCCA 1999) few objectives pertained directly to reading fluency. Arguably, this resulted in less emphasis on instruction in this area. In the development stages of the Primary Language Curriculum (NCCA 2015), Kennedy et al (2012) advised that reading fluency and teaching methodologies to facilitate its development be fully explicated in the new curriculum. This has been addressed in the New Primary Language Curriculum (NCCA 2015) which includes specific learning outcomes relating to fluency (NCCA 2015, p.70). In addition, the inclusion of progression milestones aids the identification of the next steps to support pupil learning. This curriculum change behoves teachers to implement evidence-based methodologies to support fluency development in the classroom. This article offers a model of how such approaches can be incorporated into practice.

What is Reading Fluency? Reading fluency is underpinned by two theories: automaticity and prosody. (Rasinski and Padak 1998). The theory of automaticity by LaBerge and Samuels (1974) purports that readers become fluent when they recognise words in the text immediately, without expending cognitive energy on employing the graphophonic, syntactic, or semantic systems to decode text. The technique, repeated reading, was based on the theory of automaticity (Samuels 1979). Repeated reading involves rereading a short passage of text several times until a specified level of fluency is achieved, as measured by words correct per minute (WCPM) (Samuels 1979) (Appendix A). The repeated reading technique was approved by the National Reading Panel (NRP) (NICHD 2000) as a suitable methodology to improve reading fluency and underpins several reading fluency instructional approaches (Kuhn, Rasinski and Zimmerman 2014, Rasinski et al 1994, Reutzel 2012). Prosody is the second component of the reading fluency construct (Rasinski and Hoffman 2003). Defined as “appropriate expression or intonation coupled with phrasing that allows for the maintenance of meaning” (Kuhn, Schwanenflugel and Meisinger 2010, p.233), properties of prosody include pitch, stress, duration and pausing (Kuhn et al 2010). Automaticity in accurate word decoding and recognition, supports prosody development (Rasinski and Hoffman 2003, Rasinski et al 2009). The following definition of reading fluency encompasses the multiplicity of variables which impact on achieving reading proficiency: “Fluency combines


accuracy, automaticity, and oral reading prosody, which, taken together, facilitate the reader’s construction of meaning…demonstrated during oral reading through ease of word recognition, appropriate pacing, phrasing, and intonation…a factor in both oral and silent reading that can limit or support comprehension” (Kuhn et al 2010, p.240). In order to support pupil learning for reading fluency, teachers need to be cognisant of these multiple elements (Guerin and Murphy 2015).

Instructional Approaches to Improve Reading Fluency Instructional routines which propose to improve reading fluency are supported by strong research bases (Kuhn et al 2014, NICHD 2000, Reutzel 2012, Topping 2014). The fluency development lesson (Rasinski, Padak, Linek and Sturtevant 1994) and evidence-based fluency instruction routine (Reutzel 2012) are two evidence-based approaches used in this study. The Fluency Development Lesson The fluency development lesson (FDL) was developed by Rasinski et al (1994). The overarching intent of the FDL is to increase reading progress (Kuhn et al 2014) through daily engagement with text focusing on fluency, comprehension and word recognition (Zimmerman et al 2013). Reading connected text of 50 to 250 words fluently is the lesson goal (Zimmerman et al 2013) (Table 1). Table 1. The FDL Routine (Zimmerman et al 2013)

72 LEARN 2019

Stage Description

Teacher reads te

ogetT thher, the te

Whole class cho

Teacher think alreading.

vof Each Stage of the Fluency Deveelopment Lesson

ntext flue tlly to pupils.

eacher and pupils read text.

iaoral readinng.

xloud regarding comprehension strategies and exppressive

the text two or three times while their partner listens andfrtive feeedback.

fthe text foor the class.

wwords from the text whhich are ainteresting, ch lllenging orwvities such as woord sorts, word maps and word ladders

ed.

famie text home and practice reading it with their ily.

s read the text in school for their teacher or a peer.

iA pupill reads thprovides suppor

Pupils perform

Pupils choose wfun to say. Activare recommende

Pupils bring the

Next day, puuppils


The Evidence-based Fluency Instruction Routine The EFIR was designed to replicate the gradual release of responsibility instructional model: modelling, sharing, guiding and independent practice (Pearson and Gallagher 1983). As fluency and comprehension are inextricably linked (Chard, Pikulski and McDonagh 2012), proponents of the EFIR believe that the gradual release strategies associated with teaching reading compre-hension are suitable for teaching reading fluency (Reutzel 2012) (Table 2). Ostensibly, pupils read dysfluently because they have neither been taught what reading fluency is, nor are they aware that fluent reading is a goal (Rasinski and Padak 2013). The EFIR emphasises the development of metafluency: the metalanguage of fluency. Teaching the vocabulary of reading fluency, for example reading accuracy, rate and expression enables pupils to examine and discuss their own reading fluency (Reutzel 2012). This is requisite to become a self-regulating fluent reader (Reutzel 2012). Table 2. The EFIR (Reutzel 2012)

Additional Approaches to Teaching Reading In the instructional approaches presented, a notable aspect of each is the departure from a round robin approach, where each pupil in a group waits for their turn to read (Rasinski and Hoffman 2003) to instructional approaches which increase time spent reading and is guided by a peer. This is a significant step towards accelerating pupils’ reading progress (NICHD 2000). The frequently used practice of asking pupils to read a text silently, does not create an instructional environment which supports struggling readers (NICHD 2000, Topping 2006). An overt focus on silent reading means that struggling readers

LEARN 2019 73

StageptDescri tion of Ea

Teacher models orameaning of the wor

aGroup orall reading

atuses thhink alloud strdysfluent reading.

ach Stage of the Evidence-based Fluency Instruction Routine

xal fluent reading and expplicit metafluency instruction e.g.,xrds accuracy, rate, exppression.

using choral reading strategies. Teacher records his/her-monitoring rubric. Teacher

rategies to teach the group how to monitor and repair

artner, in role as the reader and listener. tPupils use thhetoring rubric the teacher used in the sharing phase of thes their reading. Discuss fflluency fix-up strategies e.g.,if a word is tricky.

aaftext foor nn uudience.

y g

Pupils read with pasame fluency-monitframework to assessaddjjust reading rate i

Pupils perform the


continue to make reading accuracy errors, which without correction become embedded in their reading (Topping 2006). Despite research demonstrating that these approaches do not support reading development for struggling readers, they are more frequently observed in classroom practice than is desired (Kuhn, Ash and Gregory 2012, Reutzel 2012). Teaching children to use the three-cueing system, semantic, syntactic and orthographic-phonetic cues to support their reading of unfamiliar words has also been criticised (Hempenstall 2017, Shanahan 2019a). Struggling readers rely on using contextual cues to decode unknown words because their graphophonic skills are inadequate (Hempenstall 2017). Direct instruction in phonics improves pupils’ reading (NICHD 2000). Therefore, building their decoding skills by teaching them to look closely at words – their sounds and structures (Rasinski and Zutell 2010) is preferable. A successful reading programme will include approaches that have been proven to advance children’s reading (Shanahan 2019b). Shanahan (2019b) refers to this as the science of reading. Instructional programmes should include oral reading fluency instruction, vocabulary development, phonics instruction, sight word recognition, increasing the time spent reading, providing clear lesson goals and explicit teaching (Shanahan 2019b).

Research Design This study aimed to improve reading fluency outcomes for pupils by utilising a guided repeated oral reading instructional routine to provide targeted and systematic instruction to pupils who experience reading fluency difficulties in a collaborative teaching context (DES 2017). This aim was reflected in the research question guiding the study: To what extent does a guided repeated oral reading intervention impact on reading fluency outcomes for pupils with reading difficulties? The study took place in one classroom setting, with twenty-six third class pupils, the class teacher and the researcher who was the special education teacher providing in-class literacy support for this class. This study was designed using an action research model (McNiff 2010) which included quantitative and qualitative data collection methods as described in Table 3 and Table 4. The Intervention The New Group Reading Test (NGRT) (GL Assessment 2010) was administered to all twenty-six pupils participating in the study pre and post-intervention (Gorard, Siddiqui and See 2016). Age based standard scores on the NGRT (GL Assessment 2010) allowed for the identification of five target pupils who were performing below the expected level for their age. Tests of silent reading fluency should coincide with oral reading tests of fluency to facilitate a more comprehensive view of reading fluency abilities (Guerin and Murphy 2015, Topping 2006). A diagnostic oral reading test, the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability (NARA) (Neale 1997) was administered, assessing

74 LEARN 2019


Table 3. Quantitative Data Collection Methods Table 4. Qualitative Data Collection Methods

oral reading rate, accuracy and comprehension1. Standard scores and reading ages were calculated for each. Two further assessments were administered while pupils were reading, a fluency rubric called the Multi-dimensional Fluency Scale

1 It should be noted that more recently normed assessments would be more useful (e.g.

Diagnostic Reading Analysis, York Assessment of Reading Comprehension) but these were

not available in the research context.

LEARN 2019 75

Quantitaatti

uPuppils

New Grouupp Reading Te(GL Assessment 2010)

tintervention)New Grouupp Reading Te(GL Assessment 2010)

tintervention)

i i

ive Data Collection Methods

est 2A (Pre-

silent reading comprehension.

est 2B(Post-

To note changes in readsilent diing ipatartftcomprehension resultiing frrom p tiic tio

tin interventiion.

d d d

on

ders.

.

estQQuu tiionnaires

ANeale Annalysis of ReadinilitAb tyy (Neale 1997)

Words Correct Per Minua(Hasbrouck and Tindall

tuMullti- imeddi ensional Fluena(Zutell and Rasinski 199

To uunnderstand --concept as read

ngTo readostdolc lllect diiagn tiic diing atinffoorm tiion

ute2006)

e aduTo calcullate reading rat annd accuracy.

ncy Scale91)

To assess prosody.

1)

ons

attiive

he

m.

ollecve Data C ttion Methods

itaQual attivData C ll

Collector

Semi- ructst tuured observatutarget puppils

Field notes

itfR fll ti di

ttion ofduring a readdin2006).

To record lessodmethods duuring

why.infTo record feer

xexpperience (Clark 2011ng tinterventiion (Topping

n proceedings, changes to tg the interventiion and reaso

tences, questions, and tenta

ivectefR fll tivee diary

Post- tinterventiion semi-ervructst tuured int viiew with

upuppils

Pre and Post- tinterventiioervint viiew with class teach

emerging them

h targettinterventiion.

onher

regarding litera

T

T

, q ,es.

opinions on th

ormatinfTo gather fo tiiontacy practiices in the classroo

To collect data on the


Table 5. Target Pupils’ Reading Fluency Strengths and Needs

Table 6. Lesson Objectives Shared with Pupils (Barr 2018)

76 LEARN 2019

Pupil Reading Fluency Strengths Reading Fluency Needs

Eva

Volume Attempting to use

graphophonic information to decode

Sometimes pauses at full stops

Word recognition and decoding skills

Increase her reading rate All aspects of prosody Confidence

Lisa

Volume Word recognition and

accuracy Pauses at full stops

Comprehension Expression and phrasing Confidence

Luke Volume Sometimes pauses at full

stops

To use context and graphophonic knowledge to decode, many refusals evident

Word recognition All aspects of prosody Confidence

aTo pauuse for 3 seconds at a fuT f 1 d

ctivLesson Obje vees

lulll stop To reai

dad loudlly and softly as the ti t i i

text

without

tteext

without

text

readding cy, and

readding cy, and

To

ToendqueToexc

apauuse for 1 second at a com

raise (intonate) your voiced of a sentence when there esttion markread with feeling when the

clamattiion mark

mma urequiir

e at the is a

ere is an

To reapausinTo mausing

To rea

res, atinton tiing your voice

sevad veeral words together wngark p ouhrase b unndaries in a an arc

sevad veeral words together w

Toare

Toeac

iksouunnd l kee the character wotatspeech marks/qu tiion m

aemphasise the importannt wch sentence

when there marks

pausinTo mausing

words inTo adfluencphrasi

To ad

gngark phrase boundaries in a an arc or a slash line

dhere to all components of rexcy: xppression, rate, accurac

ing

dhere to all components of r

aTo emphasise the importannt words ineach sentence

To adhere to all components of rexfluency: xppression, rate, accurac

phrasing


Table 7: Lesson A Methodology (Barr 2018) (Lesson A format was used for lessons 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19)

LEARN 2019 77

Gradual Release of

Responsibility

Teacher 1: Role in Lesson

Teacher 2: Role in Lesson

Text 1

Modelling

Vocabulary preview Model fluent reading Explicit metafluency instruction Rate reading on self-monitoring rubric (Appendix D) Use think aloud to demonstrate fluency fix-up strategies

Observation of target pupils (Are they participating?)

Follow text silently while teacher models fluent reading

Sharing

Whole Class Choral Reading: Count 3, 2, 1 to signal a clear beginning Teacher stands while reading Decrease reading volume when appropriate Adjust reading rate to accommodate readers with reading difficulties Note and revisit difficult words or phrases (Paige, 2012) Divide class into two groups, teachers choral read with each group

Observation of target pupils (Are they choral reading?) Choral reading with half of the class

Whole Class Choral Reading (WCCR) e.g., echo, seesaw, cumulative, antiphonal reading (Doherty, 2017; Paige, 2012)

Rate reading on whole class self-monitoring rubric (Appendix D) Two mixed ability groups of pupils choral read with each teacher

Repeat above modelling and sharing for Text 2

Guiding

Teachers monitor pupils to ensure they follow the paired reading routine: Preview, Pause, Prompt, Praise (Doherty 2017)

Teachers discuss with pupils their reading fluency targets arising from the pre-intervention assessments

Partner Repeated Reading: 1. Target pupil chooses text 2. Pupils read together 3. More proficient reader

models the text twice and self-assess reading in reobjectives (Appendix D)

4. Target pupil reads text twice. Target pupil self-assesses reading

5. Pupils set fluency goals (Appendix D)

6. Choose vocabulary from texts for word study bag

Independent See Figure 1.


Figure 1. Lesson B Methodology: Independent stage of the gradual release of responsibility (Barr 2018) (Lesson B format was used for lessons 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20)

(MDFS) (Zutell and Rasinski 1991) (Appendix B) and WCPM (Hasbrouck and Tindal 2006). A profile of each target pupil’s reading fluency strengths and needs was collated (Table 5). For the purposes of this article, findings pertaining to three of the five target pupils Eva, Lisa and Luke are presented. The Lesson Methodology Twenty reading fluency development lessons were taught between January and March 2018. The lesson methodology unified elements of the FDL and the EFIR. The FDL approach was given prominence as it is supported by a strong empirical research base (Kuhn et al 2014, Rasinski 2017, Rasinski et al 1994, Zimmerman et al 2013). Aspects of the EFIR, namely the gradual release of responsibility model, guided the lesson delivery. Explicit attention to meta-fluency instruction and self-assessment strengthened the FDL. Lesson objectives were designed to support all pupils and in particular the target pupils (Table 6). Lesson objectives aligned with the definition of reading fluency shared with pupils: to read accurately, smoothly and with expression; understanding what you read is an important aspect of reading fluency. Lesson objectives were taught for two days as the FDL can be implemented over multiple days (Zimmerman and Rasinski 2012). Due to the varying levels of reading ability amongst the target pupils, two texts of differing levels were provided. Target pupils were paired with others of

78 LEARN 2019

Station 1 (Teacher)

Repeated reading of Text 1Word Wise Whizz

(McLachlan and Elks 2012)Reading performance

Station 2

Independent workWord study activities

(See Rasinski and Zutell 2010)

Station 3 (Teacher)

Repeated reading of Text 2Word Wise Whizz

(McLachlan and Elks 2012)Reading performance

Station 4

Independent workComprehension activities(See Government of Western

Australia 2013)


slightly higher reading ability (Topping 2006). Target pupils chose the text that was at an appropriate level for them using the five-finger test of readability (Topping 2014). Text length was under 250 words and included fiction, non-fiction and poetry texts (Rasinski and Padak 2013, Zutell, Donelson, Mangelson and Todt 2012). Two lesson formats, Lesson A (Table 7) and Lesson B (Figure 1) structured the organisation of the lessons and provided a framework upon which the lesson methodology, repeated reading could be based (Appendix C).

Findings & Discussion Quantitative Findings A broad view of the quantitative results indicate that improvements accrued by repeatedly reading texts transfers to the first reading of a new text (GL Assessment 2010, Neale 1997). This was evidenced by the improvements in some, not all, variables of reading fluency for each target pupil. Silent reading comprehension, diagnostic oral reading and prosodic reading findings pertaining to Eva, Lisa and Luke will be presented and discussed next. Silent Reading Comprehension Assessment: NGRT (GL Assessment 2010) There are significant correlations between silent reading comprehension abilities and fluent reading (Rasinski et al 2009). Table 8 outlines the results of the silent reading comprehension test. Table 8. Pre and Post-Intervention NGRT (GL Assessment 2010)

Results Increases in standard scores indicated that Lisa and Luke improved their silent reading comprehension. Eva, who had English as an additional language, maintained the same standard score as her pre-intervention assessment (SS=83). Standardised tests “yield only global estimates of students’ reading abilities” (Rasinski and Padak 1998, p.187). To determine if there was an improvement in one specific variable or several variables which led to gains in Lisa’s and Luke’s silent reading comprehension, the NARA (Neale 1997) was administered. It was equally important to determine which factor, or factors, had hindered the progression of Eva’s silent reading comprehension.

LEARN 2019 79

New Group Reading Test (NGRT)

Name Date of

Test Test Form

Standard Score Band Reading Age

Eva 18/01/18 2A 83 Below Average 7:01 20/03/18 2B 83 Below Average 7:05

Lisa 18/01/18 2A 93 Average 8:08 20/03/18 2B 102 Average 11:00

Luke 18/01/18 2A 88 Below Average 7:09 20/03/18 2B 94 Average 9:00


Oral Reading Diagnostic Assessment: NARA (Neale 1997) The NARA (Neale 1997) assessed pupils’ accuracy, rate and oral reading comprehension. Pupils were required to read six passages increasing in level of difficulty, progressing to the next passage provided they made less than the permissible number of miscues on the previous passage. Miscues were marked as mispronunciations, substitutions, refusals, additions, omissions, or reversals and were coded as accuracy errors (Neale 1997). Table 9. Pre and Post-Intervention NARA (Neale 1997) Results Eva made significant improvements in her reading rate (SS=92) (Table 9). An improvement in one variable of reading fluency, rate, was detrimental to another variable, comprehension, which decreased significantly. Increasing the pace of her reading did not leave Eva with sufficient time to comprehend the text. Reading rate may have been the variable which impacted on her silent reading comprehension result. Additions to the text on the pre and post-intervention oral reading assessments indicated that Eva’s difficulties were not necessarily with the words she was reading, rather the syntactical structure of the sentence which was unfamiliar to her (Lems 2012, Martens 1997). Hearing text modelled is essential for Eva to learn the syntactic structures of the English language (Lems 2012). On the pre-intervention NARA (Neale 1997) reading rate (SS=87) was an area noted for improvement for Luke. Factors contributing to an overall poor rate of reading were refusals, hesitations and mispronunciations. On the post-inter-vention NARA (Neale 1997) Luke’s reading rate improved (SS=93). However, Luke made the same number of accuracy errors on the pre-intervention and post-intervention diagnostic reading assessment (n=40). Pre-intervention,

80 LEARN 2019

Neale Analysis of Reading Ability

(NARA) Accuracy Comprehension Rate

Name Test Test Form

Standard Score

Reading Age

Standard Score

Reading Age

Standard Score

Reading Age

Eva

25/1/18

1 81 6:10 89 8:01 88 7:05

16/3/18

2 80 7:01 76 6:08 92 8:02

Lisa

25/1/18

1 111 11:05 100 9:04 104 10:04

16/3/18

2 113 11:05 103 9:10 103 10:02

Luke

25/1/18

1 102 9:08 100 9:04 87 7:04

16/3/18

2 101 9:09 103 10:01 93 8:07


fifteen accuracy errors across text levels one to four were recorded. Post-intervention, there were ten errors across text levels one to four. Analysing improvements in reading rate, coupled with the changes in Luke’s prosodic reading (Table 10) and gains as reflected in the error totals across text levels one to four, a more detailed analysis of Luke’s progress could be collated. An improvement in Lisa’s reading comprehension (SS=103) was noteworthy. Lisa was chosen as a target participant because of a poor score for silent reading comprehension (SS=93) on the NGRT (GL Assessment 2010) and evidence from her class teacher indicating reading comprehension difficulties. Her reading rate decreased slightly (SS=103) which may have contributed to improvements in comprehension. Explicitly teaching her to pause at full stops and commas (Table 6) may have given her time to monitor the details of the text and check for meaning as she was reading (Guerin and Murphy 2015). This demonstrates that instructional approaches to improve reading fluency can have an impact on oral reading comprehension (Rasinski et al 2009). Prosody Assessment: MDFS (Zutell and Rasinski 1991) The MDFS (Zutell and Rasinski 1991) measures the elements of prosody: expression and volume, phrasing, smoothness of reading and pace. The MDFS was scored during the first reading of unseen passages of text during the NARA (Neale 1997) assessment. Pupils were scored between four and sixteen (Table 10). Table 10. Pre and Post-Intervention MDFS Results

Eva’s post-intervention assessment showed she could read with an increased level of prosody. Eva paused at full stops and commas. There was evidence of chunking a thirteen-word sentence into two distinct phrases. There was no

LEARN 2019 81

Multi-dimensional Fluency Scale (MDFS)

Name Date of

Test

Expression and

Volume Phrasing Smoothness Pace

Total Score

Eva

18/01/18

1 1 1 1 4

20/03/18

2 2 1 2 7

Lisa

18/01/18

2 2 2 2 8

20/03/18

3 4 3 4 14

Luke

18/01/18

1 2 2 2 7

20/03/18

3 4 3 3 13


evidence of stressing words to communicate meaning. Repeatedly reading text allowed Eva to first decode the text and then on successive readings, interpret the text (Samuels 1979). Comprehending the text enabled her emphasise words to communicate meaning. This was not possible for her during the first reading of a text. Lisa’s post-intervention assessment showed that she obeyed prosodic markers, read three and four-word phrases smoothly, and intonated her voice to com-municate meaning. Improvements in comprehension (GL Assessment 2010, Neale 1997) may have enabled her to express the meaning of the text more easily (Rasinski et al 2009). Post-intervention, Luke intonated his voice, placed stresses on words, and read in phrases. Improvements in expressive reading had an impact on his com-prehension (Rasinski et al 2009) as evidenced in the NGRT (GL Assessment 2010) and NARA (Neale 1997) comprehension results. Increases in silent and oral reading comprehension standard scores for Lisa and Luke, coupled with improvements in accuracy reading ages and prosody scores demonstrate the “complementary roles” of automaticity and prosodic reading (Rasinski and Hoffman 2003, p.513).

Qualitative Findings A thematic approach was taken to analyse the qualitative data (Braun and Clarke 2006) (Table 4). This involved searching and coding the data by labelling pertinent features of it; looking for patterns across codes and grouping similar codes under main themes (Braun and Clarke 2006). Three themes are presented: automaticity is essential to improve reading fluency, developing metafluency and opportunities for successful reading experiences. Theme 1: Automaticity is Essential to Improve Reading Fluency To be a competent fluent reader, automaticity of word decoding skills and immediate word recognition are essential (Topping 2006). Fluent reading is largely dependent on a reader’s vocabulary, their ability to connect the image of a word with the meaning of the word (Pikulski 2006). Oftentimes this is a neglected aspect of reading fluency interventions and as a corollary, hampers the development of deep fluency (Pikulski 2006). An explicit approach was taken to address word recognition difficulties and to develop automaticity skills for readers through word study (Rasinski and Zutell 2010). Pupils chose three unfamiliar or interesting words from the text they were reading, wrote the words onto flashcards and stored them in their word study bag. These words were later used at the word study station and during Word Wise Whizz (McLachlan and Elks 2012) (Appendix E) discussions with teachers. Lisa spoke about the repeated exposure to the words in the word study bag at each station: “…whenever you go to the comprehension station or the word study station, you…take them out and you’re looking through all of them…it…gets into your

82 LEARN 2019


head…how to spell them” (Interview). Pupils were asked if they thought that their reading had improved and if yes, how. Lisa answered: I learned new words so now I can read and not have to stop at lots of words to get help to read the words (Questionnaire). For dysfluent readers, decoding difficulties disrupts their reading and is frustrating (Pikulski 2006). Therefore, instructional programmes aiming to develop fluency for struggling readers must include opportunities to practice reading unknown words as a requisite (Torgesen and Hudson 2006). This is explained by Pikulski (2006) who posits that students who achieved a satisfactory level of fluency in the early school years can encounter fluency difficulties from third grade onwards if their vocabulary has not developed. Including reading material from across the curriculum in a reading fluency programme to build pupils’ content knowledge is advised (Zutell et al 2012). Theme 2: Developing Metafluency The opportunity to develop metafluency was significant during the self-assessment and goal setting (Appendix D) portion of the lesson. As noted by the class teacher: “…to hear them use words like reading rate and accuracy when they were writing their reading fluency goals…an opportunity to use language specifically related to reading fluency further reinforced the teaching…” (Inter-view). Metafluency was evident during the post-intervention questionnaire when pupils were asked how they would explain reading fluency. Lisa wrote: Read [sic] fluency is reading with expression accuracy and understanding what you read (Questionnaire). Developing metafluency and metacognitive growth were attributable to involvement in the self-assessment process: “Before…we didn’t start reading fluency, I…didn’t stop much at my full stops or my commas” (Lisa, Interview). Becoming self-regulating readers by developing metafluency (Reutzel 2012), sharing lesson objectives with pupils and engaging in self-assessment, ensured that pupils knew what they were aiming to improve and the steps they could take to achieve it. These approaches contributed to their reading fluency progress and growth in their confidence as capable readers. Theme 3: Opportunities for Successful Reading Experiences Reading aloud is a more demanding process than reading silently as one must balance several factors such as text difficulty and the performance element (Topping 2006). It is important that teachers acknowledge those demands and ameliorate them by putting measures like whole class choral reading and paired reading in place. In this intervention, paired reading lowered the target pupils’ affective filter: their anxiety diminished, and their efficacy rose (Lems 2012). They were imbued with a newfound sense of confidence as good readers. Lisa admitted that she had previously felt shy reading aloud: “I wasn’t really shy but just…a bit shy reading…I’ve gotten more confident…” (Interview). When asked if she liked reading with a partner Lisa wrote: It was helpful because you hear the story twice before you read…. (Questionnaire). For pupils who lack confidence in reading aloud, this could be countered by being very familiar with a text prior to reading it aloud independently. Topping (2006) advocates the need to elaborate on repeated reading to be certain that the transfer to a deeper

LEARN 2019 83


understanding of the text is planned. Providing struggling readers with multiple experiences of a text in the modelling, sharing, and guiding phases of a reading fluency lesson by hearing the text modelled, working with the vocabulary and themes within the text prior to reading the text independently, scaffolds their learning and fosters successful, deep reading experiences (Zimmerman et al 2013).

Limitations of the Research One limitation of this study is that it describes one cycle of action research over an eight-week time period. Secondly, a small-scale study with a purposive sample of five target participants, does not allow the findings to be generalised to other settings. However, the findings could inform future research practice and inform the context where it was undertaken.

Recommendations When planning a guided repeated reading intervention, it is recommended that teachers incorporate the following steps:

84 LEARN 2019

Choose target students who are struggling to achieve fluent reading (refer to

classroom assessments e.g., silent and oral reading tests).

Assess prosody using the MDFS (Zutell and Rasinski 1991). In which aspect do pupils need the greatest amount of guidance: expression and volume, smoothness, pace, and/or phrasing?

Build a profile of fluency strengths and needs for each pupil (see Table 5).

Refer to the following learning outcomes and their progression steps in the Primary Language Curriculum (NCCA 2015) to decide the next steps in

Learning Outcome 5: Phonics, word recognition and word study

Learning Outcome 10: Fluency and self-correction

Choose a text of less than 250 words within the instructional reading range for the target pupils.

Choose a learning goal for the lesson and share this with pupils (see Table 6).

Follow the modelling, sharing, guiding and independent phases of the lesson (see Table 7).

Encourage pupils to use fluency vocabulary such as reading rate, accuracy, expression when discussing what went well during the lesson and their reading fluency goals for future lessons.

Comprehension and word study activities based on the text will enhance rstanding of the text and their immediate recognition of new

words.

Pupils perform the text for their teacher, friends and family.


Conclusion This study substantiated the effectiveness and applicability of a guided repeated oral reading instructional routine, to improve reading fluency outcomes for pupils with reading fluency difficulties in a mainstream primary school context. Sharing learning outcomes with pupils, modelling fluent reading and think aloud, paired repeated reading and a focus on vocabulary development, were eminently suitable pedagogical approaches and provided a context in which pupils’ reading accuracy, prosody and comprehension could advance. The methodologies presented in this article can support teachers to shape instructional practices in their classroom to enable their pupils to achieve the skills and competences as stated by the Primary Language Curriculum (NCCA 2015). It provides a practical model for teachers in terms of implementing an evidence-based approach to develop oral reading fluency for all pupils as is recommended in the literature which advocates research-based literacy teaching (Kennedy et al 2012).

REFERENCES

Allington, R. L. (1983) ‘Fluency: The neglected goal’, The Reading Teacher, 36, 556–561.

Barr, L. (2018) Examining the impact of a guided repeated oral reading instructional routine on reading fluency outcomes for third class pupils with reading difficulties in a co-teaching context, unpublished thesis (Masters), Institute of Education, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Chall, J. S. (1983) Stages of reading development, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chard, J., Pikulski, J. and McDonagh, S. (2012) ‘Fluency. The link between decoding and comprehension for struggling readers’ in Rasinski, T., Blachowicz, C. and Lems, K., eds., Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices, New York: The Guilford Press, 90-113.

Clark, C. D. (2011) In a younger voice: Doing child-centred qualitative research, New York: Oxford University Press.

Department of Education and Skills (DES) (2011) Literacy and numeracy for learning and life: The national strategy to improve literacy and numeracy among children and young people 2011-2020, Dublin: DES, available: https://www.education.ie/en/ Publications/Policy-Reports/lit_num_strategy_full.pdf [accessed 02 May 2018].

Department of Education and Skills (DES) (2017) Special education circular 13/2017: Allocation resources for pupils with special educational needs in primary schools, Dublin: DES, available: https://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/ActiveCirculars /cl0013_2017.pdf [accessed 27 August 2017].

Doherty, U. (2017) Focus on fluency: Practical strategies for teaching reading to struggling readers in senior primary and junior cycle post-primary classes, 2nd ed. Limerick: Curriculum Development Unit, Mary Immaculate College.

LEARN 2019 85


GL Assessment (2010) New Group Reading Test, 3rd ed. London, UK: GL Assessment.

Gorard, S., Siddiqui, N. and See, B. H. (2016) ‘An evaluation of fresh start as a catch-up intervention: A trial conducted by teachers’, Educational Studies, 42(1), 98-113.

Government of Western Australia (2013) First steps: Reading resource book (3rd ed.) Western Australia: Author, available: http://det.wa.edu.au/stepsresources/detcms/ navigation/first-steps-literacy/ [accessed 17 February 2018].

Guerin, A. and Murphy, B. (2015) ‘Repeated reading as a method to improve reading fluency for struggling adolescent readers’, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(7), 551-560.

Hasbrouck, J. and Tindal, G. A. (2006) ‘Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers’, The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636-644.

Hempenstall, K. (2017) The three-cueing system in reading: Will it ever go away? National Institution for Direct Instruction Blog, 29 October 2017, available: https://www.nifdi.org/news-latest-2/blog-hempenstall/402-the-three-cueing-system-in-reading-will-it-ever-go-away [accessed 03 November 2019].

Kennedy, E., Dunphy, E., Dwyer, B., Hayes, G., McPhillips, T., Marsh, J., O’Connor, M. and Shiel, G. (2012) Literacy in early childhood and primary education (3-8 years). (NCCA Research Report No. 15). Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, available, http://www.ncca.ie/en/Publications/Reports/Literacy_in_ Early_Childhood_and_Primary_Education_3-8_years.pdf [accessed 21 August 2017].

Kuhn, M. R., Ash, G. E. and Gregory, M. (2012) ‘Battling on Two Fronts: Creating Effective Oral Reading Instruction’, in Rasinski, T., Blachowicz, C. and Lems, K., eds., Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices, New York: The Guilford Press, 141-155.

Kuhn, M., Rasinski, T. and Zimmerman, B. (2014) ‘Integrated fluency instruction: Three approaches for working with struggling readers’, International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(1), 71-82.

Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J. and Meisinger, E. B. (2010) ‘Review of research: Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency’, Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230-251.

LaBerge, D. and Samuels, S. J. (1974) ‘Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading’, Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293-323.

Lems, K. (2012) ‘Reading Fluency and Comprehension in English Language Learners’ in Rasinski, T., Blachowicz, C. and Lems, K., eds., Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices, New York: The Guilford Press, 243-254.

Martens, P. (1997) ‘What miscue analysis reveals about word recognition and repeated reading: A view through the “miscue window”’, Language Arts, 74(8), 600-609.

McLachlan, H. and Elks, L. (2012) Language builders: Advice and activities to encourage children’s communication skills, Cornwall: Elklan.

McNiff, J. (2010) Action research for professional development: Concise advice for new (and experienced) action researchers, (New rev. ed.), Poole: September Books.

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) (1999) Primary school curriculum: English teacher guidelines, Dublin: NCCA.

86 LEARN 2019


National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) (2015) Primary language curriculum, Dublin: NCCA.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (2000) Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the Subgroups. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, available: https://www1.nichd.nih.gov/publications /pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf [accessed 02 May 2018].

Neale, M. D. (1997) Neale analysis of reading ability, 2nd ed., UK: gl-assessment.

Paige, D. D. (2012) ‘The importance of adolescent fluency’ in Rasinski, T., Blachowicz, C. and Lems, K., eds., Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices, New York: The Guilford Press, 55-71.

Pearson, P. D. and Gallagher, M. C. (1983) ‘The instruction of reading comprehension’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344.

Pikulski, J. J. (2006) ‘Fluency: A developmental language perspective’, in Samuels, S. J. and Farstrup, A. E., eds., What research has to say about fluency instruction, Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 70-93.

Rasinski, T. V. (2012) ‘Why reading fluency should be hot’, The Reading Teacher, 65(8), 516-522.

Rasinski, T. V. (2017) ‘Readers who struggle: Why many struggle and a modest proposal for improving their reading’, The Reading Teacher, 70(5), 519-524.

Rasinski, T. V. and Hoffman, J. V. (2003) ‘Oral reading in the school literacy curriculum’, Reading Research Quarterly, 38(4), 510-522.

Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N., Linek, W. and Sturtevant, E. (1994) ‘Effects of fluency development on urban second-grade readers’, The Journal of Educational Research, 87(3), 158-165.

Rasinski, T. V. and Padak, N. D. (1998) ‘How elementary students referred for compensatory reading instruction perform on school based measures of word recognition, fluency, and comprehension’, Reading Psychology, 19(2), 185-216.

Rasinski, T. V. and Padak, N. (2013) From phonics to fluency: Effective teaching of decoding and reading fluency in the elementary school, Boston, MA: Pearson.

Rasinski, T., Rikli, A. and Johnston, S. (2009) ‘Reading fluency: More than automaticity? More than a concern for the primary grades?’, Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(4), 350-361.

Rasinski, T. and Zutell, J. (2010) Essential strategies for word study: Effective methods for improving decoding, spelling, and vocabulary, New York: Scholastic.

Reutzel, D. R. (2012) ‘‘Hey teacher, when you say ‘fluency’, what do you mean?’’: Developing fluency in elementary classes’ in Rasinski, T., Blachowicz, C. and Lems, K., eds., Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices, New York: The Guilford Press, 114-138.

Samuels, S. J. (1979) ‘The method of repeated readings’, The Reading Teacher, 32(4), 403-408.

LEARN 2019 87


Shanahan, T. (2019a) Is it a good idea to teach the three cueing systems in reading? Blog About Reading, Shanahan on Literacy, 01 April 2019, available: https://www. readingrockets.org/blogs/shanahan-literacy/it-good-idea-teach-three-cueing-systems- reading [accessed 03 November 2019].

Shanahan, T. (2019b) What is the science of reading? Blog: Shanahan on Literacy, 25 May 2019, available: https://shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/what-is-the-science-of-reading [accessed 03 November 2019].

Topping, K. J. (2006) ‘Building reading fluency: Cognitive, behavioural, and socioemotional factors and the role of peer-mediated learning’, in Samuels, S. J. and Farstrup, A. E., eds., What research has to say about fluency instruction, Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 106-129.

Topping, K. J. (2014) ‘Paired reading and related methods for improving fluency’, International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(1), 57-70.

Torgesen, J. K. and Hudson, R. F. (2006) ‘Reading Fluency: Critical Issues for Struggling Readers’ in Samuels, S. J. and Farstrup, A. E., eds., What research has to say about fluency instruction, Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 130-158.

Zimmerman, B. and Rasinski, T. (2012) ‘The fluency development lesson: A model of authentic and effective fluency instruction’, in Rasinski, T., Blachowicz, C. and Lems, K., eds., Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices, New York: The Guilford Press, 172-184.

Zimmerman, B., Rasinski, T. and Melewski, M. (2013) ‘When kids can’t read, what a focus on fluency can do: The reading clinic experience at Kent state university’, in Ortlieb, E. and Cheek, E. H., eds., Advanced literacy practices: From the clinic to the classroom, New York: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 137-160

Zutell, D., Donelson, R., Mangelson, J. and Todt, P. (2012) ‘Building a focus on oral reading fluency into individual instruction for struggling readers’, in Rasinski, T., Blachowicz, C. and Lems, K., eds., Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices, New York: The Guilford Press, 310-323.

Zutell, J. and Rasinski, T. V. (1991) ‘Training teachers to attend to their students’ oral reading fluency’, Theory into Practice, 30(3), 211-217.

Appendix A

Calculating Words Correct Per Minute (WCPM)

An additional indicator of oral reading rate and accuracy is the WCPM assessment. Pupils are timed for one minute while reading a text. WCPM are calculated by counting the number of words the pupil reads in one minute and subtracting the number of words read incorrectly (Guerin and Murphy 2015). The WCPM score can be compared to Hasbrouck and Tindal’s (2006) oral reading fluency norms to support teachers to set reading fluency goals for their pupils.

88 LEARN 2019


Appendix B

Multi-dimensional Fluency Scale (MDFS) (Zutell and Rasinski 1991)

LEARN 2019 89


Appendix C

An Example of Lesson A and Lesson B

90 LEARN 2019

Lesson 13 (Lesson A) 27/2/18 Texts

Good things to do [Non-fiction] A Dragon in the Classroom by Charles

Thomson [Poetry]

Topic: Phrasing Read several words together without

pausing. Group words into meaningful phrases.

Lesson Objectives

To read several words together without pausing.

To mark phrase boundaries in a text using an arc.

Lesson Structure Pre-lesson self-assessment WCCR: Read 2 Impress (Follow the

Reader). Partner reading Reading fluency goal

Lesson 14 (Lesson B) 1/3/18 Station 1 Teacher

Repeated reading of Text 1. Word Wise Whizz Check fluency goals Performance

Station 4 Comprehension Activities

o I wonder o Sensory chart o Crystal ball o Just like...

Station 2 Word Study Activities

o Word shapes o Word map o Word storm o Words without vowels

Station 3 Teacher

Repeated reading of Text 2. Word Wise Whizz Check fluency goals Performance


Appendix D

Fluency Monitoring Rubric The fluency monitoring rubric was the same monitoring rubric used for the teacher, class and partner reading. Therefore, the teacher modelled and shared this rubric prior to pupils using this in the guided phase of the lesson. Reading was rated in relation to that lesson’s objectives. The fluency monitoring rubric below, was adapted from Doherty (2017, p.64).

Self-assessment and Goal setting

LEARN 2019 91


Appendix E

Word Wise Whizz (McLachlan and Elks 2012)

LOUISE BARR Louise Barr is a Special Education Teacher in a mainstream primary school. She completed the Masters in Special Educational Needs programme in DCU Institute of Education in 2018. This article is based on her thesis research which she has presented at conferences including the Irish Postgraduate Research Conference 2018, the Literacy Association of Ireland 42nd Annual Conference and the ILSA Annual Conference 2019. In August 2019, Louise completed postgraduate studies in Language and Com-munication Impairment in Children in the University of Sheffield.

DR AOIFE BRENNAN Aoife Brennan is an assistant professor in the School of Inclusive and Special Education. She previously worked as a mainstream and learning support/ resource primary teacher. Teaching across seven undergraduate and post-graduate teacher education programmes up to and including doctoral level, Aoife’s areas of interest include; inclusive pedagogy and differentiation, teacher professional learning and leadership for inclusive schools. She is the Chair of the Professional Diploma in Special and Inclusive Education.

92 LEARN 2019


Primary Teachers’ Conceptualisations of

Exceptionally Able Pupils

Eithne Uí Chonaill Abstract In Ireland, exceptionally able pupils are included under the category of pupils with special educational needs in the 1998 Education Act. However, the scarcity of research in Ireland regarding these pupils means that little information is available on how, or even whether, their needs are being met in Irish schools. The aim of the study reported in this article was to explore what is currently happening in primary schools with regard to exceptionally able pupils. The views of primary school teachers in one geographical area were gathered via a questionnaire and focus group interviews. This article focuses on one of the main themes identified in the data – that of teachers’ definitions and conceptualisations of exceptionally able pupils. Teachers were confused about what constitutes an exceptionally able pupil. In general they would like to do more to support this cohort but face many barriers.

INTRODUCTION

In Ireland, the picture regarding the education of exceptionally able pupils is quite complex. They are categorised as having special educational needs under the Education Act (Government of Ireland, 1998) and they are specifically mentioned in many subsequent policy documents (e.g., Department of Education and Science/Skills [DES] 1999; 2011; 2017a). In 2007, in order to help teachers to deal with this particular cohort of pupils, all schools in the country were issued with guidelines, Exceptionally Able Students – Draft Guidelines for Teachers (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment [NCCA], 2007). However, the guidelines remain in draft form and their implementation has not been evaluated. Gifted education, which refers to curriculum and pedagogy appropriate to meeting the learning needs of exceptionally able pupils, is an area that has received considerable attention internationally, but is one that has been largely neglected in Ireland. The limited research base here means that teachers’ perspectives and practices in relation to these pupils are largely unknown. This study attempted to fill that void by exploring how primary teachers in one

93


geographical area view their exceptionally able pupils, and how they identify and make provision for them. The most common terms used internationally to refer to high ability learners are gifted, and gifted and talented, but the term exceptionally able is the one commonly used in the Irish context and this is the term generally used in this article. This article first briefly outlines the current Irish context with regard to exceptionally able pupils, before providing a summary of the research that has been carried out in the area of gifted education. This is followed by an outline of the current international context. Next, the design and data collection methods of the study are briefly described. The findings regarding the teachers’ definitions and conceptualisations of exceptionally able pupils are then presented. Finally, some issues to consider are provided, along with recommendations for action by the DES and suggestions for future research. Current Irish Context The definition of giftedness or exceptional ability available to teachers in Ireland draws on contemporary ideas about broadened conceptions of giftedness and intelligence, as well as on traditional ideas and has a double focus: (a) pupils must demonstrate very high levels of ability or very high levels of attainment in one or more domains; and (b) they need more challenging opportunities than are generally available in the regular classroom (NCCA, 2007). This definition is consistent with the approach that sees gifted education, similar to special education, as a mismatch between a pupil’s ability level and the curriculum offered to his/her age and grade. According to the NCCA (2007), it is expected that in every school there will be a group of pupils (approximately 5-10%) who may be exceptionally able and who require extended educational opportunities, regardless of how they compare to exceptionally able pupils in other schools. These pupils will show very high levels of ability or attainment in one or more of seven areas. In addition to intellectual and academic ability, these areas include visual and performing arts and sports, leadership, creative thinking, mechanical ingenuity, and empathy, understanding and negotiation (NCCA, 2007, p. 8). The results of national and international assessments indicate that Ireland’s higher-ability pupils are not making progress commensurate with their abilities as their lower-achieving peers are, and their achievements do not match those of their international counterparts. The improved performance of Irish primary pupils at all proficiency levels in the most recent National Assessment in English reading and maths in 2014 is to be welcomed. However, unpacking the results reveals that, while there were increases in performance at each key percentile marker, increases were greater for lower proficiency levels than for higher levels. This indicates that there is further scope for improved performance among the higher-achieving pupils (Kavanagh et al., 2015). Similarly, higher-proficiency pupils are not making the same gains as their lower-proficiency peers in international assessments, particularly in Maths. For example, in the Trends in

94 LEARN 2019


Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (2015), Ireland’s higher-achieving pupils are underperforming when compared to countries that performed at a similar level to Ireland overall (Clerkin, Perkins, and Chubb, 2017). This is consistent with previous findings suggesting that Ireland’s above-average performance in international assessments is often driven by the strong performance of lower-performing pupils “rather than a strong performance across all ability levels” (Perkins and Shiel, 2016, p. 9). Findings from research over the past 15 years indicate that Irish teachers are vague in their knowledge about the concept of exceptional ability and do not know how they would identify such pupils (Flynn, 2005; Daly, 2015), and familiarity with the NCCA (2007) guidelines is very limited with few teachers having seen or used them (Ní Chéilleachair, 2013). Almost half of the classroom teachers in a more extensive study believed that they had insufficient knowledge about how to teach exceptionally able pupils and did not have adequate time to differentiate instruction, and many did not feel they had adequate access to specialists who could identify and work with them (Cross, J. R., Cross, T. L., O’Reilly, C., and Mammadov, S. (2014). Looking at these studies overall, questions can be asked as to whether teachers are adequately addressing the needs of their exceptionally able pupils in view of the apparent lack of knowledge regarding the concept of exceptional ability and lack of information and/or confidence on how to identify them. These results are unsurprising given that, currently, there is little input regarding exceptionally able pupils in initial teacher training, and professional development in the area of gifted education in Ireland is rare. The DES is aware that there is a need for an enhanced focus on higher-achieving pupils within the Irish educational system (DES, 2016), and a need to develop awareness of them among teachers and to “improve upward differentiation” (DES, 2015, p. 6). In November 2017, the Minister for Education announced the School Excellence Fund under which clusters of schools explore new, innovative solutions to tackling disadvantage and learning outcomes for pupils; one cluster in Limerick city is trialling interventions to ensure “the attainment of higher-ability pupils” (DES, 2017b, p. 1). Additionally, the revised targets in the National Strategy: Literacy and Numeracy for Learning and Life 2011 – 2020. New Targets 2017 – 2020, published in March 2017, emphasise the need for additional focus on pupils with exceptional ability: “their needs are a key priority up to 2020 and beyond” (DES, 2017a, p. 43). Targets aimed at this group of pupils include enhancing their performance in literacy and numeracy, increasing expectations in relation to their achievements, and providing targeted teacher professional development opportunities and national guidelines to support the needs of exceptionally able pupils. Although these targets are ‘subject to resources’, it is hoped that these initiatives will enable high achievers to reach their full potential (DES, 2017a; 2017b).

LEARN 2019 95


International Context No agreed definition of exceptional ability or giftedness exists, but contemporary models and theories have broadened the concept; a consensus is emerging that exceptional ability/giftedness is the result of the interaction between genetic predispositions, personal characteristics, and environmental forces (Cross and Coleman, 2005; Matthews and Dai, 2014). Personal factors such as the psychosocial skills of effort, motivation, and persistence are often regarded as the key ingredients that enable high ability pupils to successfully demonstrate their ability through gifted achievement (Cross and Coleman, 2005; Gagné, 2005). Environmental factors strongly influence the extent to which pupils are able to utilise and develop whatever inherited potential they have, and good teaching is a vital part of that environment (Cross and Cross, 2017). However, there seems to be a “substantive disjuncture” (Mazzoli Smith and Campbell, 2016, p. 258) between newer developmental theories and the more traditional model that dominates the views of many teachers (Freeman, Raffan and Waraick, 2010; Koshy, Pinheiro-Torres and Casey, 2010). One of the most prevalent beliefs among teachers is that high ability learners will be successful and do not require any special support or intervention due to their advanced abilities (Berman, Schultz, and Weber, 2012; Taylor, 2016). In general, it appears that both pre-service (Almulla and Fateel, 2017; Berman et al., 2012) and inservice (Sears, 2016) teachers believe that exceptionally able pupils can make it on their own without teachers’ direction, and that they are easy to identify in the classroom. There are a number of education-based models and approaches that could help teachers to clarify and expand their ideas of exceptional ability and high achievement. Several of these emphasise the dynamic nature of ability. A number of newer approaches focus on a pupil’s advanced learning needs at a particular point in time and recommend matching the exceptional learning needs with suitable educational provision (Balchin, 2009; Matthews and Dai, 2014). Thus, the teacher needs to recognise when there is a mismatch between a pupil’s ability and the current instruction on offer, and provide more challenging material (Peters, 2016). One theoretical model, Response to Intervention (RtI), has a number of similarities to the Irish system of special education in mainstream schools. The RtI model was originally used to assess the learning needs of pupils who were experiencing difficulties in learning, and is based on the understanding that pupils learn at different rates and at varying levels of complexity (Brown, 2012). This model, when applied to gifted education, considers exceptionally able pupils’ learning needs based on their strengths and areas of mastery. Another approach is that of Dweck (2006, 2017) whose idea of a growth mindset views ability as malleable and as developing over time through effort, persistence and opportunity (Dweck, 2006). There is a need to support teachers to view ability as malleable and to view hard work as necessary for high attainment. In Cross and Coleman’s (2005) school-based model,

96 LEARN 2019


ability is seen as developmental in that it is dynamic and malleable, and the expression of exceptional ability depends on the context and on a pupil’s personal characteristics. A responsive context includes the opportunities that are available in schools and classrooms, as well as teacher expertise. This also means that exceptional ability/giftedness emerges and wanes at various times depending on the environmental factors at play (Worrell, Olszewski-Kubilius and Subotnik, 2012). Teachers are expected to accommodate considerable diversity in their classrooms, and, as high ability can manifest in a variety of ways, exceptionally able pupils are not always easily identifiable. Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs have an impact on whether or not pupils are regarded as exceptionally able, and this, in turn, influences whether or not appropriate provision is made for these pupils (Fraser-Seeto, 2013). Due to the scarcity of research, little is known about how teachers in Ireland define and conceptualise exceptional ability and whether or not they draw on the newer multidimensional perspectives. Aim of Study The study is set in the context of special education, as exceptionally able pupils are classified in Ireland as pupils with special educational needs. This study aimed to address the gap in research by exploring the perspectives of key stakeholders in one sector - that of mainstream primary teachers – by exploring their views and practices in relation to exceptionally able pupils.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study used a two-phased, mixed methods design to explore primary teachers’ perspectives and practices with regard to exceptionally able pupils. In the first phase, a questionnaire was sent to all 347 primary schools in one geographical area (Cork city and county). The schools reflect a range of relevant school factors including: size, rural/urban location, socioeconomic status, single sex/co-educational and Irish-medium/English-medium. In all, 209 valid, completed questionnaires were returned. This is a response rate of 60%. The second phase, which consisted of seven focus-group interviews with 27 teachers who volunteered to participate, gained a deeper insight into teachers’ perspectives and day-to-day experiences at school and class level. A code was assigned to each questionnaire respondent, from R001 to R209, and the quantitative data were entered into SPSS. A number was assigned to each participant and each focus group (e.g. P2F4 referred to participant two in the fourth focus group), and thematic analysis was carried out on all qualitative data. The process of qualitative analysis consisted of preparing the data for analysis, identifying themes or perspectives, representing the data, and making an interpretation of the broader meaning of the data. Following transcription of the qualitative data, and using the process recommended by Miles and

LEARN 2019 97


Huberman (1994), initial thoughts and ideas were recorded by writing short memos on the margins of the transcripts – an important first step in forming broader categories of information such as codes or themes (Cresswell, 2009). First-level coding involved breaking the transcripts, notes, and open question responses into units of information (such as phrases, sentences, or paragraphs), and assigning a label to each unit. Units of information were then grouped together into themes on the basis of common features. This process represents Miles and Huberman’s second-level coding, and is in line with Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) idea of the data being sufficiently rich and saturated to allow for the emergence of general themes and patterns. The researcher sought to identify and describe patterns and themes from the perspective of the participants, and then attempted to understand and explain those patterns and themes. She was aware that while quotes from the focus group interviews present the participants’ voices directly to the reader, this requires careful selecting, editing and interpreting of participants’ words by the researcher (Eisenhart, 2006). For the purposes of this article, the main focus will be on the very rich findings from the qualitative data from the focus groups and the open questions in the questionnaire, and will report mainly on the teachers’ conceptualisations and definitions of exceptionally able pupils.

FINDINGS

One of the key findings from the study was the existence of widespread confusion among the participating teachers regarding the definition of exceptional ability and conflicting ideas regarding what constitutes an exceptionally able pupil. This reflects the idea, common in the literature, of giftedness or exceptional ability as a contested concept (Mazzoli Smith and Campbell, 2016; Sternberg, 1990). The idea that exceptional ability is multifaceted seemed to underline, for these teachers, the complexity in arriving at an appropriate definition. Their difficulties arose from a number of factors, including the terminology involved, diverse manifestations of exceptional ability, over-identification of positive characteristics, holding unrealistic mental models of an exceptionally able pupil, and lack of confidence in their own ability to identify these pupils. Terminology Teachers were unclear about the different terms that refer to more able pupils, and were uncertain if the different terms denote differing levels of ability. For example, they were unsure if there is a difference between a very bright, a gifted, a high-achieving, or an exceptionally able pupil. One focus group participant summed up uncertainty by asking, “How exceptional does a child have to be to be exceptional?” (P2F4), a sentiment echoed by one of the questionnaire respondents: “I remain confused as to how the exceptionally able pupil is defined. When does the high achiever become exceptionally able?” (R205).

98 LEARN 2019


Another asked if there’s a “difference there between well able and exceptionally well able” (P1F1), an idea supported by the teacher who claimed that “people would say some are in the grey area between being in that category [exceptionally able] or just being, you know, very good” (P3F3). These comments reflect Warwick’s (2001, p. 30) “semantic minefield” used to refer to the difficulty in agreeing on a common language with which to define exceptionally able pupils. Some teachers recognised that a lack of clarity around what constitutes exceptional ability has negative consequences for pupils at this level of ability. One commented: “I’d love to know, what is exceptionally able, so I can justify then taking them and working with them” (P6F4). The literature makes it clear that the definition used has significant implications for teacher practices in the classroom in the areas of identification and differentiated provision (Matthews and Dai, 2014; Mazzoli Smith and Campbell, 2016). Uneven Profiles The second issue that led to confusion among the participants was the uneven profiles among some exceptionally able pupils. Considering a pupil who displays high ability across all areas and a pupil who shows significant strengths in one area only, the participants were unsure if both could be regarded as exceptionally able. The teachers asked, “Should we consider the exceptionally able pupil to be exceptionally able in one, more than one, or lots of areas?” (R205). Some felt that exceptionally able pupils were those “who possess high general intellectual ability across all domains” (R131), but others believed that “you can be exceptionally able in a specific thing as opposed to in everything” (P1F2). This idea arose especially in relation to pupils with dual exceptionality. Dual Exceptionality The idea that a pupil could have both exceptional ability and a disability was something that caused considerable confusion for teachers. A very large majority of respondents (85%, n = 177) agreed that exceptional ability and disability can co-exist. In particular, teachers felt that pupils with autism/Aspergers, could be “exceptionally able in certain areas” (R005). A number of respondents commented on how such pupils may “restrict the focus of their interest on very few areas, showing deep knowledge as a result; they may be exceptionally able in these narrow areas” (R131). One respondent tried to clarify his/her ideas on this:

A child may, e.g. have Aspergers Syndrome and have a specific interest in one area – may even be an expert in one area. However, he may be weaker in other academic areas and may have social/emotional needs. I don’t consider this child to be exceptionally able. My notion is that to be termed ‘exceptionally able’ he should excel in all/lots of areas. (I am now wondering about this!!!). (R205)

LEARN 2019 99


The focus group participants tried to tease out the issue further, but reached no consensus about the matter as the following extract shows:

P4F5: We have one child, profoundly autistic, but he has a retention ability when it comes to scientific facts that is unbelievable … he can remember scientific formulas … he’d bamboozle you once he gets on to it. Like if he wasn’t autistic, and had that ability, I’d say he was exceptionally able. So, I’m just challenging myself here now, is he exceptionally able and just happens to be autistic, am I underselling his abilities because there’s a tag? … I suppose it’s something I’ll have to go away now and think about. P3F5: Is he exceptionally able, or exceptionally able in science? P4F5: Yes, that’s it. P6F5: But do you have to label it then? P4F5: Yea, do you have to narrow it down? P3F5: Would you give him a general, He’s exceptionally able. Is he?

It was clear from the focus group discussions that participants felt this is a complex issue, and it seemed, perhaps, that many teachers continue to hold a stereotypical view of exceptionally able pupils as those who display exceptional ability across all areas. Participants were aware that one exceptionality may mask the other, making it difficult to identify either. Some teachers saw that “the ‘need’ might be masking the ‘talent’” (R065), while others looked at it the other way round, with one teacher asking: “Is their intelligence covering up something else that could be a very basic need, from a dyslexia point of view or dyscalculia, because they’re bright enough, they figure out the system?” (P4F5). The study participants were also uncertain regarding where the instructional level for such pupils should be pitched. Several teachers noted that “the focus is usually on the learning difficulty” (R098) and that teachers “tend to focus on these children’s needs and plan work for them accordingly” (R015). However, other teachers maintained that the pupils’ “exceptional interest and knowledge in specific areas … has to be nurtured as well as dealing with the difficulties they may have” (R059). Amend and Peters (2012) point out that frustration and low self-esteem are likely to follow if interventions are not targeted at a pupil’s areas of strengths as well as weakness. Positive and Negative Characteristics The NCCA (2007) guidelines note that the typical picture of an exceptionally able pupil as a hard-working pupil who completes work diligently and is seen by peers as the best in the class, does not reflect the reality, which is much more complex. But paradoxically, the checklists for teachers in the guidelines consistently present the characteristics of exceptionally able pupils in a positive light. Thus, as this is the only real guidance available to teachers in the Irish system at present, the guidelines may contribute further to teachers not

100 LEARN 2019


considering disengaged, disruptive, or very retiring pupils whose exceptional ability may not be as evident. The participants in this study certainly tended to attribute positive characteristics to exceptionally able pupils, and were inclined to identify pupils who could be regarded as compliant “teacher pleasers” (Radnor, Koshy and Taylor, 2007, p. 288). One participant commented that “they can teach themselves … you don’t have to do much with them” (P2F1), while another noted that “they would be just across the board, way above the others” (P2F6). Overall, the questionnaire respondents seemed to suggest that exceptionally able pupils are ideal pupils – they have a “great quest for knowledge and they enjoy … being exposed to a wide variety of learning experiences” (R159), and “they’re just excellent really, excellent all round in all aspects of their learning in school” (P1F1). This finding is in line with international trends whereby teachers tend to more often identify conforming pupils who are neat workers, and rarely identify non-compliant pupils although these might be more able (Laine, Kuusisto and Tirri, 2016; Szymanski and Shaff, 2013). The belief among the responding teachers that exceptionally able pupils “do not have behavioural issues generally” (R012) suggests that teachers may not be aware that some of these pupils experience boredom and frustration leading to, for example, disruptive behaviour, if their advanced learning needs are not met (Lubinski, 2004). This is not to imply that all pupils who display negative behaviour are exceptionally able, but to be aware that occasionally the poor behaviour may be the result of a pupil who is under-challenged and disinterested in the curriculum offered (NCCA, 2007; Radnor et al., 2007). As the focus group participants teased out this issue, it became evident that a small number of them recognised that sometimes the negative characteristics of some exceptionally able pupils were manifestations of frustration with inadequate provision rather than poor behaviour per se. In fact, two teachers reported being alerted to a pupil’s exceptional ability through disruptive behaviour. Another teacher went further and speculated that perhaps a particular pupil’s attention disorder may have come about as a result of an exceptionally able pupil not being stimulated enough. Of course, that pupil’s behaviour and poor attention may be a sign of a pathological condition, but they may also be explained perhaps by an educational mismatch. This may not be an uncommon situation. Amend and Peters (2012) note that an exceptionally able pupil, who is inattentive in class because s/he is not being challenged, may respond better to curriculum differentiation rather than to a behavioural programme or medication. Some participants also reported on the difficulty in identifying quiet, well-behaved pupils, those whom McCafferty (2011, p. 94) refers to as “underground students”. These pupils show little outward signs of exceptional ability and stay “under the radar” (P2F6). The literature suggests that some

LEARN 2019 101


exceptionally able pupils, particularly girls, may hide their abilities as a way of fitting in with peers in order to avoid social stigma, and are thus not easily identified (Cross, 2011; Cross et al., 2015; Swiatek, 2012). These findings point to a need for further training as it seems that many teachers do not realise that exceptional ability can be manifested in varying ways, and that all pupils, including those who are exceptionally able, need to be offered opportunities to display their ability and achievements. Definitions of Exceptional Ability In the questionnaire, teachers were asked for their schools’ or their own definitions of exceptionally able pupils. In all, 85% (n = 177) of respondents completed this item. The definitions were many and varied but the most common elements were: (i) pupils achieving a certain cut-off score in standardised achievement tests and/or ability/IQ tests; (ii) pupils achieving well above their peers according to teacher observation; and (iii) pupils who need extra challenge and enrichment opportunities beyond the regular curriculum. In this study, a tension was noted between participants’ responses on the questionnaire and the views expressed in person at the focus group interviews. In defining exceptionally able pupils, many questionnaire respondents mentioned those who regularly achieve Stens of 9 or 10 on standardised tests of achievement. The focus group discussions, however, made it clear that, in practice, this did not apply the other way round – when pupils achieved Stens of 9 or 10, teachers did not necessarily consider them to be exceptionally able; they thought these pupils were ‘bright’ and working well, and as a result, teachers did not see a need for further provision beyond the regular curriculum. There is growing recognition, however, that exceptionally able pupils may not achieve at their capability levels if denied an appropriately challenging education (Assouline and Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2012; Cross and Coleman, 2005). Research has found that teachers expect pupils of high ability to automatically perform well in the regular classroom and achieve highly in standardised tests regardless of the curriculum being offered to them (Taylor, 2016). The participating teachers in this study regularly spoke about “the underachieving child” (P2F2) when referring to pupils who were experiencing difficulties in learning. There was little awareness, however, that pupils who achieve highly on standardised achievement tests may actually be underachieving. Even high-achieving pupils who are performing well at school may not be meeting their full potential, as they sometimes realise that they can meet teachers’ expectations with little investment of effort (Betts & Neihart, 2010). Using pupil achievement to identify exceptionally able pupils may thus be unreliable if teachers are not aware that the possible underachievement of these pupils in standardised tests may be due to a curriculum and activities that are unresponsive to their advanced learning needs (Persson, 2010; Seedorf, 2014).

102 LEARN 2019


Need for External Personnel One of the more surprising findings from this study is the very large majority of responding teachers (91%, n = 190) who felt that personnel from outside the school are needed to help them identify pupils who may be exceptionally able. Ní Chéilleachair (2013) also found that primary teachers largely relied on personnel other than teachers to identify exceptionally able pupils, and these included parents, psychologists and the Centre for Talented Youth Ireland (CTYI). Taken together, these findings suggest that Irish primary teachers are not confident in their own ability to identify the exceptionally able pupils in their schools, a view summed up by one respondent who said that s/he was “not sure if any one of us is qualified to do so” (R019). Teachers’ lack of confidence has implications for exceptionally able pupils, as research has found that teachers with higher levels of confidence are more likely to identify pupils as exceptionally able and to use more instructional strategies suited to their needs (Sears, 2016; Siegle et al., 2010). Furthermore, if teachers have to wait for outside personnel to help them, identification is unlikely to take place on an on-going basis as recommended in the NCCA (2007) guidelines. It is interesting to note that although the participants called for external personnel to help in the identification process, they did not always accept identification from outside. Even when pupils were identified as ‘gifted’ by an outside agency such as the CTYI, they were not always accepted in school as exceptionally able, as teachers noted that these pupils did not always achieve high scores on their standardised tests or were not observed to produce work of a high enough standard in class. But teachers may be unaware that pupils cannot display exceptional achievement if opportunities for advanced development are not provided by the teacher and school (Cross and Coleman, 2005). ‘Truly Gifted’ Teachers seemed to find it easy to identify pupils who were what one participant called “off the scale completely” (P2F6), such as a child coming into school able to read fluently or already able to calculate well in maths. Some of the primary teachers in Szymanski and Shaff’s (2013) study relied on similar personal beliefs, and they spoke about the ‘truly gifted’ pupil. This mental model seems to imply that exceptionally able pupils perform at a far higher level than even the highest-achieving pupils in the regular class. Teachers holding such an unrealistic image of exception-ally able pupils are likely to identify only the very rare pupil who conforms to their personal beliefs. As a result, it is probable that they will not see that exceptionally able pupils in their classes are not achieving in accordance with their capabilities. Indeed, the idea of the ‘truly gifted’ or ‘off the scale’ pupil seems to be the basis for the comments of some teachers in this study who, despite teaching for many years, claimed that they had rarely, if ever, encountered an exceptionally able pupil. These two comments typify those sentiments:

I have never come across a gifted child in 25 years teaching. I have taught children who came close to giftedness. I referred these children to classes

LEARN 2019 103


in UCC [University College Cork] but I don’t feel I could adequately teach a gifted child. (R179) In my 35½ years (!) teaching experience (27 years in a city school – a well-off area) and 8½ years in a well-to-do rural farming community I’ve come across one child who may be considered exceptionally able. (R201)

The participants’ responses showed little recognition of contemporary theories of exceptional ability/giftedness. Cross and Coleman’s (2005) school-based model incorporates many of the newer ideas, including the importance of context, personal factors, and developmental trajectories. This is a very different conceptualisation of exceptional ability to that which the participants seemed to hold, and points to a need for professional development for teachers. A few participants in this study suggested that perhaps some pupils’ advanced achievement may not necessarily be the result of exceptional ability, and instead attributed it to “pure hard slog” (P4F4). This suggests that the participants felt that somehow innate exceptional ability was missing, and they clearly did not recognise that hard work and effort are now identified as necessary components in most contemporary models (Renzulli, 1978; Plucker and Callahan, 2014). A ‘special education’ approach to the needs of exceptionally able pupils would provide a workable framework that teachers could use. In a special-education approach, exceptionally able learners are regarded as having advanced educational needs which require special educational provisions if these pupils are to continue learning (Balchin, 2009; Borland, 2012). Peters (2016) argues that instead of trying to define giftedness, teachers should focus on pupils who are in some way mismatched with the curriculum or instruction they are receiving, and move straight from the observation of an unmet need to providing more challenging material. This idea of a mismatch is one that would fit well within the Irish education system, as exceptionally able pupils belong on a continuum of pupils with special educational needs (NCCA, 2007). A model that focuses on pupils’ learning needs may be more acceptable to teachers, and teachers are well placed to assess pupils’ learning needs, whichever end of the ability spectrum those pupils occupy. Ongoing curriculum-based measurement, which is often used to identify areas of weakness in pupils who have academic difficulties and need support, could also be used to assess the performance of pupils whose advanced learning needs require more challenging provision. This model ties in well with Borland’s (2005) call for a shift in gifted education so that rather than labelling pupils as gifted or not gifted, the focus would be on providing pupils with a responsive differentiated curriculum that is guided by their educational needs. It can also be argued that dual-exceptional pupils can be well supported in this system as it allows for focused instruction targeting both areas of challenge and areas of strength (Brown, 2012; Robertson and Pfeiffer, 2016).

104


CONCLUSION

In every primary school classroom throughout Ireland, it is likely that there are exceptionally able pupils who need opportunities to maximise their potential. As a prelude to identification, it is essential that teachers have a clear conceptualisation of what exceptional ability is and some ideas about the various ways in which it can be manifested. This is not easy when a confusing array of definitions exists, but in practical terms, the definition will often dictate which pupils require differentiated instruction. It was striking how some participants assumed that they have pupils of all ability levels, including those of exceptional ability, in their class, while others felt that they have no exceptionally able pupils – this really comes down to how teachers and schools conceptualise exceptional ability. One of the strengths of this study was the methodology which provided a platform for primary teachers to have their voices heard. Many teachers commented on how participating in the study proved to be personally valuable for them. They acknowledged that participation in this study raised their awareness of the probability of having exceptionally able pupils in their classrooms, and they noted a deepening of their understanding of the nature and the diversity of ability. This interest could be harnessed, and teachers’ voices, such as heard in this study, could inform the design of suitable programmes and contribute to the identification of the teaching competencies necessary to increase the achievements of exceptionally able pupils in primary classes. Research on how teachers perceive and work with exceptionally able pupils in Irish primary schools is limited, hence the findings from this study add substantially to the current knowledge-base. However, here are other perspectives worthy of investigation and future research could, for example, explore the views of parents and pupils. Most teachers have come through an education system in which there has traditionally been very little focus on the needs of high-ability learners. The DES needs to be more forthcoming with guidance for practising teachers, and there is a need for greater input in initial teacher training. The participants in this study expressed a strong interest in learning more to enable them to provide more appropriate educational opportunities for exceptionally able pupils in their classrooms. For this to happen, there needs to be updated guidelines with a clear definition so that schools could share a common understanding of what constitutes exceptional ability.

LEARN 2019 105


REFERENCES

Almulla, E.K. and Fateel, M.J. (2017) ‘Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of gifted students’, Journal of Teaching and Education, 06(2), pp. 53-70.

Amend, E.R. and Peters, D.B. (2012) ‘Misdiagnosis and missed diagnosis of gifted children: the importance of accurate assessment’, in Cross, T.L. and Cross, J.R. (eds.) Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents, Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, pp. 585-596.

Assouline, S.G. and Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2012) ‘The Talent Search model of gifted identification’, Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), pp. 45-59.

Balchin, T. (2009) ‘The future of the English definition of giftedness’, in Balchin, T., Hymer, B. and Matthews, D.J. (eds.) The Routledge international companion to gifted education, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 50-55.

Berman, K.M., Schultz, R.A., and Weber, C.L. (2012) ‘A lack of awareness and emphasis in preservice teacher training: preconceived beliefs about the gifted and talented’, Gifted Child Today, 35(1), pp. 19-26.

Betts, G.T. & Neihart, M. (2010). Revised Profiles of the Gifted and Talented. Retrieved http://ingeniosus.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/PROFILES-BEST-REVISED- MATRIX-2010.pdf

Borland, J.H. (2005) ‘Gifted education without gifted children: the case for no conception of giftedness’, in Sternberg, R.J. and Davidson, J.E. (eds.) Conceptions of giftedness. 2nd edn. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-19.

Borland, J. H. (2012) A landmark monograph in gifted education and why I disagree with its major conclusion. Available at http://www.creativitypost.com/education/ a_landmark_monograph_in_gifted_education_and_why_i_disagree_with_its_major.

Brown, E.F. (2012) ‘Is Response to Intervention and gifted assessment compatible?’ Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), pp. 103-116.

Creswell, J. (2009) Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.), London: Sage.

Cross, J.R., Cross, T.L., O’Reilly, C., and Mammadov, S. (2014) Gifted education in Ireland: educators’ beliefs and practices, Dublin: Dublin City University/Centre for Talented Youth – Ireland.

Cross, J.R., O’Reilly, C., Kim, M., Mammadov, S., and Cross, T.L. (2015) ‘Social coping and self-concept among young gifted students in Ireland and the United States: a cross-cultural study’, High Ability Studies, 26, pp. 39-61.

Cross, T.L. (2011) On the social and emotional lives of gifted children: understanding and guiding their development, 4th edn. Waco, TX: Prufrock.

Cross, T.L. and Coleman, L.J. (2005) ‘School-based conception of giftedness’, in Sternberg, R.J. and Davidson, J.E. (eds.) Conceptions of giftedness. 2nd edn. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 52-63.

Cross, T.L. & Cross, J.R. (2017) ‘Challenging an idea whose time has gone’, Roeper Review, 39(3), pp. 191-194.

Daly, T. (2015) ‘Supporting provision for exceptionally able and dual exceptional children: The Equality of Challenge initiative’, LEARN, Journal of the Irish Learning Support Association (ILSA), 37, pp. 9-25.

106 LEARN 2019


Department of Education and Science (1999) The Primary School Curriculum: introduction, Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Department of Education and Skills (2011) Literacy and numeracy for learning and life: the national strategy to improve literacy and numeracy among children and young people 2011-2020, Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Department of Education and Skills (2015) General information note: launch of major international study of Irish students’ performance in Mathematics and Science in TIMSS 2015. Available at http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Statistics/ International-Statistical-Reports/Launch-of-major-international-study-of-Irish-Students%E2%80%99-Performance-in-Mathematics-and-Science-in-TIMSS-2015.pdf

Department of Education and Skills (DES) (2016) Review of national and international reports on literacy and numeracy. Available at www.education.ie/

Department of Education and Skills (2017a) National strategy: literacy and numeracy for learning and life 2011 – 2020, Interim review 2011 – 2016, New targets 2017 – 2020. Available at www.education.ie/en/Publications/Education-Reports/pub_ed_ interim_review_literacy-Numeracy_2011_2020.PDF

Department of Education and Skills (2017b) 13 November, 2017 - €1.8m funding for Innovative Programmes in DEIS schools as Minister Bruton launches School Excellence Fund. Available at www.education.ie

Dweck, C.S. (2006) Mindset, New York: Random House.

Dweck, C.S. (2017) Mindset: changing the way you think to fulfil your potential, Updated edn. London: Robinson.

Eisenhart, M. (2006) ‘Representing qualitative data’, In Green, J., Camilli, G., & Elmore, P. (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 567-582), Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, and Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Flynn, M. (2005) An assessment of gifted and talented education in disadvantaged schools, M. Ed. Thesis, St. Patrick’s College, Dublin.

Fraser-Seeto, K. (2013) ‘Pre-service teacher training in gifted and talented education: an Australian perspective’, Journal of Student Engagement: Education Matters, 3(1), pp. 29-38.

Freeman, J., Raffan, J., and Warwick, I. (2010) Worldwide provision to develop gifts and talents: an international survey, Reading: CfBT Education Trust.

Gagné, F. (2005) ‘From gifts to talents: the DMGT as a developmental model’, in Sternberg, R.J. and Davidson, J.E. (eds.) Conceptions of giftedness 2nd edn. NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 98-119.

Government of Ireland (1998) Education Act, Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Kavanagh, L, Shiel, S., and Gilleece, L. with Keniry, J. (2015) The 2014 National Assessments of English reading and mathematics, volume II: context report, Dublin: Educational Research Centre.

Koshy, V., Pinheiro-Torres, C., and Casey, R. (2010) ‘Teachers’ responses to the gifted and talented policy in the UK: a review of the landscape’, Gifted Education International, 27(2), pp. 206-218.

Laine, S., Kuusisto, E., and Tirri, K. (2016) ‘Finnish teachers’ conceptions of giftedness’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(2), pp. 151-167.

LEARN 2019 107


Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lubinski, D. (2004) ‘Long-term effects of educational acceleration’, in Colangelo, N., Assouline, S.G. and Gross M.U.M. (eds.) A nation deceived: how schools hold back America’s brightest students, Iowa: University of Iowa, pp. 23-38, The Templeton National Report on Acceleration, Volume 2. Available at www.accelerationinstitute.org/nation_deceived/

McCafferty, K. (2011) ‘Bright Sparks’: developing potentials of gifted and talented children in a community of socio-economic disadvantage, M. Ed. Thesis, St. Patrick’s College, Dublin.

Matthews, D.J. and Dai, D.Y. (2014) ‘Gifted education: changing conceptions, emphases and practice’, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 24(4), pp. 335-353.

Mazzoli Smith, L.M. and Campbell, R.J. (2016) ‘So-called giftedness and teacher education: issues of equity and inclusion’, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22(2), pp. 255-267.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment [NCCA] (2007) Exceptionally able students: draft guidelines for teachers, Dublin: NCCA.

Ní Chéilleachair, A. (2013) Exceptionally able students in primary schools: implementation of draft guidelines and Irish teachers’ attitudes towards exceptional ability, MA thesis, Dublin: Hibernia College.

Perkins, R. and Shiel, G. (2016) PISA in classrooms: implications for the teaching and learning of mathematics in Ireland, Dublin: Educational Research Centre.

Persson, R.S. (2010) ‘Experiences of intellectually gifted students in an egalitarian and inclusive educational system: a survey study’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(4), pp. 536-565.

Peters, S.J. (2016) ‘The bright versus gifted comparison’, Gifted Child Today, 39(2), pp. 125-127.

Plucker, J.A. and Callahan, C.M. (2014) ‘Research on giftedness and gifted education: status of the field and considerations for the future’, Exceptional Children, 80(4), pp. 390-406.

Radnor, H., Koshy, V., and Taylor, A. (2007) ‘Gifts, talents and meritocracy’, Journal of Education Policy, 22(3), pp. 283-299.

Renzulli, J.S. (1978) ‘What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition’, Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), pp. 180-184, p. 261.

Robertson, S. and Pfeiffer, S. (2016) ‘Development of a procedural guide to implement Response to Intervention (RtI) with high-ability learners’, Roeper Review, 38(1), pp. 9-23.

Robinson, A. (2009) ‘Myth 10: examining the ostrich: gifted services do not cure a sick regular program’, Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), pp. 259-261.

Seedorf, S. (2014) ‘Response to Intervention: teachers’ needs for implementation in gifted and talented programs’, Gifted Child Today, 37(4), pp. 248-257.

108 LEARN 2019


Sears, M.J. (2016) Experiences of elementary teachers using inclusion models to serve gifted student, EdD thesis, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA.

Siegle, D., Moore, M., Mann, R.L. and Wilson, H.E. (2010) ‘Factors that influence in-service and preservice teachers’ nominations of students for gifted and talented programs’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(3), pp. 337–360.

Sternberg, R.J. (1990) Metaphors of the mind: conceptions of the nature of intelligence, Canada: Cambridge University Press.

Swiatek, M.A. (2012) ‘Social coping’, in Cross, T.L. and Cross, J.R. (eds.) Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents, Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, pp. 665-679.

Szymanski, T. and Shaff, T. (2013) ‘Teacher perspectives regarding gifted diverse students’, Gifted Children, 6(1), pp. 1-27.

Taylor, T. (2016) Gifted Students: perceptions and practices of regular class teachers. PhD thesis, Western Australia: Edith Cowen University.

Warwick, I. (2001) ‘Providing for under-achieving students using Renzulli’s Type III enrichment activities: gifted and talented video projects at Holland Park comprehensive school’, Gifted Education International, 16(1), pp. 29-42.

Worrell, F.C., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., and Subotnik, R.F. (2012) ‘Important issues, some rhetoric, and a few straw men: a response to comments on “Rethinking Giftedness and Gifted Education”, Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(4), pp. 224-231.

EITHNE UÍ CHONAILL Eithne Uí Chonaill, PhD worked for many years as a primary classroom teacher in Cork city and has taught all classes from junior infants to sixth. She also worked as a learning support teacher for a number of years. However, from early in her teaching career she has been particularly interested in pupils who require a more challenging curriculum. Eithne trained as an educational psychologist and continues to work in that capacity. She graduated with a doctorate in education from DCU; her research focused on primary teachers’ perspectives and practices with regard to exceptionally able pupils.

LEARN 2019 109


110 LEARN 2019


LEARN 2019 111

Guidelines for submitting an article to LEARN journal

Word limit 3,000-5,000 excluding references

Short Abstract (300-500 words)

Author(s) biographical note

Please note that Tables and Figures are printed in black and white (at present)

Two anonymised versions of each article (these will go to external reviewers)

One copy with author(s) full contact details including email address and mobile phone number

Use Harvard referencing style.

See latest edition of Cite it Right (essential) Be sparing in the use of bullet points

Proof read for spelling, punctuation, table-layout and grammatical errors

Check that the final proof-read version is submitted An article can be published in one journal only

All articles should add to existing knowledge on a subject or indicate a different perspective on a topic

Self-reference to avoid self-plagiarism

Articles can include topics such as general education, leadership etc. but have a special education focus

When using acronyms use full title in the first instance with acronym in brackets; acronym can be used thereafter – for example, special

educational needs (SEN)

References, definitions, and quotes from electronic sources must include the date of access

Suggested general guidelines for writing a journal article Know your audience for example, primary, post primary teachers, student teachers, researchers etc.

Think about how the article will add to existing body of knowledge within research and practice

What are you writing about?

Summary of research/dissertation

Writing to accompany a conference presentation

Reflection on own practice

Report on action research

Review of literature

Read previous articles written in the journal

Avoid cutting and pasting, especially from the internet, and always acknowledge authors that have influenced your thought when writing your article

Minimise the risk of plagiarism by keeping track of where your quotes come from, reference as you go

It is a good idea to have a ‘critical friend’ to read and check for spelling/typos/ grammatical errors

Check the recommended referencing conventions stipulated by the relevant journal

Present a balanced argument and avoid bias

Ensure writing is clear and academic in style

Think about how the article will benefit practicing teachers, researchers etc?

Think about how the article will add to the existing body of knowledge within academia, research and practice

How does it add to existing academic knowledge?

The final copy of papers must be accompanied by an abstract and a short biographical note about the writer(s) and should be submitted as a Word document. This should be emailed to [email protected] with Article for Inclusion in LEARN 2021 in the subject line by April 30th 2020 at the latest.


112 LEARN 2019
