© NASEN 2004

50

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs

•

Volume 4

•

Number 1

•

2004 50–57doi: 10.1111/J.1471-3802.2004.00017.x

Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.

The National Literacy Strategy and pupils with special educational needs

John Lee and Richard Eke

University of the West of England

Key words

: SEN, Literacy Strategy, boys, classroom talk.

Introduction

The National Literacy Strategy was introduced in Englandin 1998 as a response to governmental concerns to raisestandards. The strategy can be described as radical in itsinsistence that all students may be able to benefit from aparticular approach regardless of their established needs orabilities. In this way it is presented as being an inclusivestrategy.

Teachers in schools who participated in the pilot stage ofthe National Literacy Project (OFSTED, 1998) reportthat, while it is having profound implications for boththe school and the classroom organisation, all studentsbenefited from its introduction, including those withspecial educational needs. Wearmouth and Soler (2001)have identified tensions and contradictions between thepedagogical prescriptions of the National Literacy Strategyand the principles of the National Curriculum’s generalstatement of inclusion. This article provides an analysis ofthe discourse of the Literacy Strategy, focusing on pupilswith special educational needs. It shows, as Wearmouthand Soler (2001) argue, that at the level of individualclassrooms the tensions and contradictions are evident.

Background to the study

The National Literacy Strategy is an example of whatPogrow (1998) has termed an exemplary programme. Acondition of such programmes is that they must address theneeds of all children, as in Slavin’s model for ‘Success forAll’ (Slavin, 1987). Such programmes must be seen to beinclusive, to suffer no tolerance of failure (zero tolerance),and the pedagogical approach must be clearly structuredand replicable in other similar environments, so that itcan be followed easily and exactly. In contrast to suchprogrammes, Slavin (1987) explains the failure of theindividualised instruction programmes of the 1970s bynoting that gains in appropriate levels of instruction wereoften cancelled out by losses in quality of instruction,motivation, and time on task.

The pedagogy of the National Literacy Strategy can bedescribed as ‘inclusive’ only when all students, regardlessof their needs, are expected to be actively involved in thefirst thirty minutes of the hour. It aims to be ‘visible’

(Bernstein, 1990) in that the teacher is expected to makeclear to the students what they will be learning, to assesstheir learning and to make clear to them what they havelearnt. The target of 80% of Year 6 pupils reaching Level 4or above suggests that policy makers accept the nationalconsensus that one in five students has special educationalneeds. Consideration of how classroom discourse operateswith respect to these pupils is important with respect toinclusion.

Research approach and data collection methods

Our key purpose in undertaking this research is toinvestigate and illuminate the nature of the teacher-pupildiscourse that characterises sessions devoted to the teachingof literacy in which significant numbers of pupils withspecial educational needs are included. The methods ofanalysis used in this study draw on a range of theoreticalperspectives. We have gone beyond Sinclair and Coulthard’s(1975) pioneering work while recognising the value of thegeneral structure they offer. While their work enables usto deal with whole texts, ‘the lesson’ and the exchangestructures that constitute it, we are concerned with howpupils and teachers experience the curriculum. Thecollection of classroom data was managed through useof video recording from a fixed point for the whole classsessions, as used by Stigler and Hiebert (1997). Analysis atthis stage focuses on the first 30 minutes.

The psychology of learning that we draw on highlightsissues of scaffolding and handover. A key issue here isthe manner in which images of pupil learning becomeillustrative evidence in support of general claims. The useof transcripts as evidence in this article draws on astructured analysis of all the utterances in a given session.Utterances are not fragmented for coding purposes buttreated as a whole. This generally socially constructivistline will not, however, resolve itself by simply attemptingto classify pupil and teacher behaviours. Rather an attemptis made to ground pedagogic claims in insights drawnfrom a comparison of transcribed classroom sessions. Thisstructured approach is open to replication. In consideringthe transcripts as evidence, and in their analysis, everyeffort is made to maintain an account, which can informpractitioners, and be open to interrogation from other

© NASEN 2004

51

perspectives. The development of a pedagogically drivenaccount of relationships between pupil learning and teacherintervention has the potential to provide insights into thenature of pupils’ literacy learning and to inform professionaljudgement and curriculum teaching and design.

For the purposes of the analysis here a combination ofapproaches is used based on Tharp and Gallimore’s (1988)account supplemented by Mercer (1995). The value ofprioritising Tharp and Gallimore (1988) lies in thecategorisation of kinds of teacher talk. To clarify their usein the analysis of transcripts, the category descriptors theyprovide are discussed in greater detail below and the codingabbreviations are given. It should be noted that Tharp andGallimore (1988, p. 47) do not present their categories asdiscrete but suggest rather that: ‘The means of assistanceare necessarily intertwined, occurring in combinations andsometimes simultaneously.’

Modelling

Modelling is described as offering behaviour for imitationand takes two forms:

• assisting psycho-motor performance (demonstration);• assisting cognitive performance (for example, modelling

the scrutiny of a text for evidence).

It can be noted here from the examples given that theteacher does not ‘side’ with pupils, but rather assists pupilsto apply the model for themselves.

Contingency management (CONMAN)

Contingency management occurs when rewards andpunishment are arranged to follow on behaviour, althoughpunishments are minimised. Contingency management assistsperformance through restoring the co-operative engagementof children in the task, from which position pupils canattend and learn. Thus as well as preventing loss of ground,it creates the necessary conditions for the other means ofassisting pupil performance.

Feeding back (FB)

Feeding back takes a variety of forms. Feedback duringinteractive teaching recognises that a diversity of opinionis acceptable but that facts require accurate feedback.Some form of feeding back is involved in all assistedperformances.

Instructing (INST)

Instructing calls for specific action. To be effective it mustbe embedded in a context of other effective means, notablycontingency management, feeding back, and cognitivestructuring. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) argue that theinstructing voice of the teacher becomes the self-instructingvoice of the learner.

Questioning

Questioning calls for a specifically linguistic response. Itcan be noted that few questions are used in responsive in-flight discussion. Questioning assists the child by requiring

recall and categorisation. Questions and instructions are notinterchangeable: Questioning calls for an active linguisticand cognitive response and provokes creations by the pupil.Questioning takes two forms:

• In an assessment question (ASESQ), the teacher enquires to discover the level of the pupils’ ability to perform without assistance (for example, establishing memory of yesterday’s lesson) – recitation questions fall into this category.

• In an assisting question (ASSQ), the teacher enquires in order to produce a mental operation the pupil has not /cannot produce alone.

Cognitive structuring

Cognitive structuring provides a structure for organisingelements in relation to each other. It assists pupil performanceby providing explanatory and belief structures. Two typesof cognitive structuring are identified:

• Type 1 – structures of explanation (COGS1), whereby explanation serves to organise perception in new ways.

• Type 2 – structures of cognitive activity (COGS2), whereby the ‘stuff’ of the structure is mentation (for example, rules for accumulating evidence, for memory or for recall).

In these approaches, the teacher assists the pupil to organisethe raw stuff of experience. Simply making a generalstatement can often provide assistance. Cognitive structuresorganise contents and/or functions.

Common classroom knowledge and cultural knowledge

Mercer (1995) notes that a feature of certain kinds ofclassroom discourse is the development of a relationshipbetween classroom activities and other cultural referencepoints outside the classroom. It can be noted that the use ofsuch reference points by the teacher is usually intended toenhance pupil performance.

Tharp and Gallimore (1988) identify the significanceof particular sequences in assisting behaviours. They drawparticular attention to what they refer to as ‘experience-text-relationship’ (ETR) sequences. Their frameworkrecognises ‘providing feedback and questioning’ throughthe (ETR) method, where ‘experience’ involves the recallof experience; ‘text’ involves the checking, discussion andlinking of recalled material; and ‘relationship’ refers toexperience brought into relationship with text information.

Perhaps a weakness in the approach of Tharp andGallimore is the treatment of pupil response. Given that thisarticle is concerned with pupil language learning in literacyconversations, it is perhaps not surprising that the keymarker for pupil utterances is illocutionary take up. Weseek to link pupil utterance to teacher utterance. Theteacher’s scaffolding activity is prioritised by Tharp andGallimore as it is in Mercer. Mercer (1995) observes thatsome measure of the educational worth of the activity maybe informed by subsequent assessments of pupil learning.

52

© NASEN 2004

We are not concerned with assessment here; rather weidentify instances where scaffolding behaviour can be seento have immediate classroom consequences. A similar lineis taken by Young (1992) in his discussion of classroomdiscourse in that he seeks a mode of analysis that allowsteacher utterances to be linked to pupil utterances. Youngidentifies a series of discourse sequences, which arepresented below:

What do pupils know (WDPK)?

We use two WDPK codings:

• WDPK1 – teacher reminding and checking;• WDPK2 – pupils reproduce what has been taught.

Guess what teacher is thinking (GWTT)

We use two GWTT codings:

• GWTT1 – demonstrates teacher control and is illustrated by an emphasis on correct canonical forms; it is common in new work and development stages;

• GWTT2 – involves terminology guessing; the practice is embedded in other utterances and may involve clue giving.

Discursive (D)

We use two D codings:

• D1 – whereby discursive discourse is demonstrated by clarifying questions, collaboration at the level of analysis, paraphrasing and the confirmation/disconfirmation of statements;

• D2 – whereby discursive discourse inquires into what the pupils think.

A key question for Young is that of the level of delicacyand structural detail that at which analysis needs to beconducted. He presents a continuum of teacher activities,which are linked to pupil behaviours. In one, the pupilis positioned as learning object (practising, listening,reproducing) linked to the teacher as teller (telling, testing,task setting). This may be contrasted with an activity inwhich the pupil is positioned as subject of learning (doing,stating, theorising) linked to the teacher as guide (raisingquestions, facilitating).

Uptake

In addition to coding transcripts for the above issues, wealso employ the notion of ‘uptake’ identified by Nystrand,Gamoran, Kachur and Prendergast (1997). We take this tobe the teacher validating the pupils’ ideas by responding tothem and incorporating them into subsequent questions.

Nominating the speaker (NOMS)

Transcripts from primary classrooms indicate thatnominating the speaker is a key management strategy.In the case of our studies, it is not used as a form ofcontingency management. The teachers nominate speakersto include them and to ensure that they are developing anunderstanding of the content that is being presented.

Nomination also offers a clear demonstration of the wayin which the pedagogy is entirely teacher led. Teachersregularly ignored pupil nomination of others who ‘knowthe answer’.

Content coding is conducted by using a best fit to thecontent and objectives set out in the

National LiteracyStrategy: Framework for Teaching

(DfEE, 1997) document.A combination of the learning outcomes of the NationalLiteracy Strategy and reference to teaching objectivesallows for the identification of the teaching aspect of thepedagogy and its required behaviours. This enables us toconsider aspects of visibility in the Bernsteinian sense.

Data and analysis

From the data sets we have we offer here two detailedcases: one of a Key Stage 1 Year 2 class and the other of aKey Stage 2 Year 5/6 class. The Year 2 class has 34 pupilson roll, of whom 15 (44.1%) are on the special needsregister. The Year 5/6 class has 30 on roll of whom 14(46%) are on the register. Both of these classes have a veryhigh percentage of pupils on the special educational needsregister. Nationally around 26% of primary pupils areidentified as having special needs (Croll & Moses, 2000).

Analysis of the transcripts

Year 2 class

We turn now to the analysis of the data beginning with theYear 2 class, using frequency counts to highlight someof the main features of the lesson. Table 1 shows thatthe pupils’ contributions account for just over half of theutterances made. The contribution rate for pupils withspecial educational needs is similar. Given the proportion ofchildren in the class with special educational needs, thenumber of utterances involving them is rather surprising.

Table 2 indicates that a boy is specifically addressed by theteacher on fifty occasions and a girl on nineteen. Theproportion of girls and boys with special educational needsinvolved reflects the proportions of girls and boys withspecial educational needs reported in national studies (Croll& Moses, 2000).

Table 3 focuses on utterance length and indicates that allthe longest utterances are made by the teacher with only2% of pupil utterances exceeding ten words and 90% ofthem being no longer than five words. For children withspecial educational needs, nearly 90% of their utterancesare of one to three words. The contributions they make arenot only fewer than might be expected from their numbersin the class, they also tend to be of the shortest length.

Table 1: Utterance count – ‘all’ and ‘pupils with specialeducational needs (PSEN)’ compared

ALL ALL PSEN Only PSEN Only

Total 413 100% 47 100%

Pupil 222 53.8% 26 55.3%

Teacher 191 46.2% 21 44.7%

© NASEN 2004

53

Table 4 presents the frequency counts for the learningoutcomes visited in the session. It can be seen that nineteenlearning outcomes are visited during the session, withthe most frequently visited being: Word 3 (‘discriminationof each phoneme’); Text 19 (‘making simple notes,non-fiction, use of headings’); Sentence Other (‘turningstatements into questions’); and Word 2 (‘discriminatingsyllables; reinforcement of previous term’). Two outcomesare coded on ten occasions: Word 1 (‘secure phonemicspellings to date’) and Word 5 (‘reading on sight highfrequency words’). The proportion of visited outcomesaddressing word-level work is greater than any other area,followed by text-level work and then sentence-level work.Children with special educational needs visit a smallerrange of learning outcomes, with Word 3 being the mostfrequently visited.

A comparison of frequency counts for all utterances and forthose involving pupils with special educational needsrelated to the means of assistance is shown in Table 5. Itcan be noted that, when addressing the pupils, theteacher engages in a high degree of questioning, much ofit assessment related, and frequently provides feedback.Many of these utterances are accompanied by nominationof the speaker, and this would appear to be a tool forinclusion. It can be noted that pupil attempts to nominatethe speaker are resisted. The exchanges are accompanied bycontingency management and instructions to a degreeassociated with practical activities in comparable analyses(Eke, 1997). Pupils with special educational needs nevergive feedback and receive targeted feedback proportionallyless often, although it can be assumed that feedback givento the whole class is inclusive of them. They are askedmore proportionally assessment questions than the class asa whole and are frequently targeted by teacher nomination.Of the four occasions when a pupil with special educationalneeds does not respond, two are whole-class response andonly one is redirected, they make use of their commonknowledge when requested to do so in responding to otherquestions. They respond as individuals to questions askedfor all nine times suggesting a greater involvement in thesession than the targeted figures suggest. Although we cannote that of the 21 teacher utterances, seventeen involvenomination and of the 26 responses of the pupils with specialeducational needs half are in response to nomination. Inthis class, pupils with special educational needs arenot particularly targeted for instructions and contingencymanagement. Explanations of the coding abbreviations

Table 2: Gender by speaker ‘all’ and ‘pupils withspecial educational needs (PSEN)’ compared

ALL PSEN

Total Pupil Teacher Total Pupil Teacher

Total 413 222 191 47 26 21

Unison* 198 76 122

48% 34% 64%

BOY 151 101 50 34 19 15

37% 45% 26% 72% 73% 71%

GIRL 61 42 19 13 7 6

15% 19% 10% 28% 27% 29%

*Includes pupils with special educational needs.

Table 3: Utterance length by speaker – ‘all’ and ‘pupilswith special educational needs (PSEN)’ compared

ALL PSEN only

Total Pupil Teacher Total Pupil Teacher

Total 413 222 191 47 26 21

1–3 208 163 451–3 27 23 4

50% 73% 24% 57% 88% 19%

4–5 57 37 20 4 – 4

14% 17% 10% 9% – 19%

6–10 67 17 50 5 2 3

16% 8% 26% 11% 8% 14%

11–15 34 3 31 8 1 7

8% 1% 16% 17% 4% 33%

16–20 22 2 20 1 – 1

5% 1% 10% 2% – 5%

21–30 15 – 15 2 – 2

4% –% 8% 4% – 10%

31–40 5 – 5 – – –

1% 0% 3%

41+ 5 – 5 – – –

1% 0% 3%

Table 4: Learning outcomes visited – ‘all’ and ‘pupilswith special educational needs (PSEN)’ compared

ALL PSEN only

Total 413 100% 46 100%

TXT 1 .2% – –

T1 1 .2% – –

T13 1 .2% – –

T15 6 1.5% – –

T16 2 .5% – –

T17 1 .2% – –

T19 62 15% 6 12.8%

TEXT OTHER 4 1% 1 2.1%

WRD – – – –

W1 10 2.4% 3 6.4%

W2 34 8.2% 7 14.9%

W3 64 15.5% 17 36.2%

W5 10 2.4% – –

W6 2 .5% – –

W9 5 1.2% – –

WOTHER .5% – –

SENT 1 .2% – –

S1 8 1.9% 2 4.3%

SENT OTHER 30 7.3% – –

54

© NASEN 2004

used in this table are given in the section on ‘Researchapproach and data collection methods’ above.

Table 6 reports the finding in relation to what we have calledthe discursive features of the lesson and shows that the teacherspent much time checking and revising pupil understanding(WDPK1) and confirming previous learning (WDPK2).The focus of the lesson is also maintained by the frequencyof ‘guess what teacher is thinking’ questions (GWTT1). Thereis little evidence of dialogue with a much lower frequencyof discursive talk, and only one example of uptake and ofa pupil thinking out loud in the lesson. It can be noted thatutterances targeted on pupils with special educational needsshow a high number of checks on knowledge questions andonly one on discursive question. Interestingly, no pupils withspecial educational needs are involved in contesting powerand, as can be noted from Table 5, they are subject to littlecontingency management. Pupils with special educationalneeds were involved in the unison reading activities but itprovided only one example of individual reading.

Year 5/6 class

The evidence from the Year 5/6 class complements the datafrom the Year 2 class in a number of interesting ways. As

Table 7 indicates, there are far fewer utterances made in thissession with a higher proportion involving pupils withspecial educational needs. Teacher utterances specificallyfocused on children with special educational needs accountfor over 16% of all teacher utterances in this transcript andnearly 11% in the Year 2 transcript. In the Year 5/6 transcript,individual utterances from pupils with special educationalneeds account for over 24% of the total pupil utteranceswhile in the Year 2 transcript these accounted for nearly12% of them. Thus the greater focus on pupils with special

Table 5: Speaker and assisted pupil performance – ‘all’and ‘pupils with special educational needs (PSEN)’compared

ALL PSEN only

Total Pupil Teacher Total Pupil Teacher

Total 413 222 191 47 26 21

COGMOD 1 1 – – – –

0% 0% –%

PHSYMOD 1 – 1 – – –

0% 0% –%

ASESQ 40 – 40 8 – 8

10% – 21% 17% –% 38%

ASSQ 66 1 65 7 – 7

16% 0% 34% 15% –% 33%

INST 30 2 28 3 1 2

7% 1% 15% 6% 4% 10%

FB 86 5 81 6 – 6

21% 2% 42% 13% − 29%

COGS1 28 1 27 1 – 1

COGS2 1 – 1 – – –

0% –% 1%

CONMAN 33 2 31 2 – 2

8% 1% 16% 4% –% 10%

RCACR 47 24 23 5 4 1

11% 11% 12% 11% 15% 5%

NOMS 62 3 59 17 – 17

15% 1% 31% 36% –% 81%

NMSR 42 42 – 13 13 –

10% 19% –% 28% 50% –%

Table 6: Discursive features by speaker – ‘all’ and‘pupils with special educational needs (PSEN)’compared

Table 7: Utterance count – ‘all’ and ‘pupils with specialeducational needs (PSEN)’ compared

ALL PSEN only

Total Pupil Teacher Total Pupil Teacher

Total 413 222 191 47 26 21

WDPK1 115 65 50 23 12 11

28% 29% 26% 49% 46% 52%

WDPK2 22 13 9 2 2 –

5% 6% 5% 4% 8% –%

GWTT1 59 31 28 5 3 2

14% 14% 15% 11% 12% 10%

GWTT2 9 6 3 1 1 –

2% 3% 2% 2% 4% –

DISC1 9 6 31 1 –

2% 3% 2% 2% 4% –

DISC2 – – – – – –

–% –% –%

UPTK 1 – 1 – –

0% – 1%

EVCG 1 1 – – – –

0% 0% –

PWR 5 4 1 – – –

1% 2% 1%

OTHER – – – – – –

–% –% –%

MODJUD – – – – – –

–% –% –%

UNRD 38 26 12 PSEN involved

9% 12% 6%

INDVRD 2 2 – 1 1 –

0% 1% –% 2% 4% –%

ALL PSEN only

Total 228 100% 46 100%

Pupil 111 48.7% 27 58.7%

Teacher 117 51.3% 19 41.3%

© NASEN 2004

55

educational needs in the first transcript can be attributed inpart to the increased teacher focus but more importantlyto the greater number of utterances from individual pupilswith special educational needs.

Table 8 indicates that a boy is specifically addressed by theteacher on 33 occasions and a girl on 34. This fairly evendivision of teacher focus is not reflected in the proportionof girls and boys with special educational needs involvedwhich again reflects the proportions of girls and boys withspecial educational needs reported in national studies (Croll& Moses, 2000).

Table 9 indicates that 68% of the teacher’s utterancescontain 11 words or more compared to 33% of the pupilutterances. Over half of the individual utterances of

children with special educational needs are of one to threewords. The total contributions made by children withspecial educational needs are not only fewer than might beexpected from their numbers in the class, they also tend tobe shorter in length, with no pupil with special educationalneeds making a contribution greater than twenty words.

Table 10 presents the frequency counts for the learningoutcomes visited in the session where fourteen learningoutcomes are visited with the most frequently visited being:previous Text 13 (‘comparing informative and persuasivewriting’); previous text-level work (TXT); previousword-level work (WRD); and Word 5 (‘spelling rules–wordendings’). The emphasis in this session is on text-levelwork, with some work on word-learning outcomes. Childrenwith special educational needs visit a smaller range oflearning outcomes, with Text 13 followed by Word 5 beingthe most frequently visited. It can be noted that utterancesinvolving pupils with special educational needs do notfocus unduly on the recall of previous text or word-levelwork.

Table 11 provides a comparison of frequency counts for allutterances related to the means of assistance between thewhole class and those involving pupils with specialeducational needs. It can be noted that the teacher asks lotsof questions, with just under half being assessmentquestions, and frequently provides feedback. Many of theseutterances, over half, are accompanied by nomination of thespeaker. It can be noted that attempts by pupils to nominatethe speaker were resisted. The exchanges are accompaniedby a greater proportion of instructions than in the Year 2transcript and less contingency management. Pupils withspecial educational needs never give feedback and receiveless targeted feedback than their numbers would merit.Again, it can be assumed that feedback given to the wholeclass is inclusive of them. They are asked proportionally

Table 8: Utterance by gender – ‘all’ and ‘pupils withspecial educational needs (PSEN)’ compared

Table 9: Utterance length by speaker – ‘all’ and ‘pupilswith special educational needs (PSEN)’ compared

ALL PSEN

Total Pupil Teacher Total Pupil Teacher

Total 228 111 117 46 27 19

Unison* 52 6 46

23% 5% 39%

BOY 91 58 33 37 22 15

40% 52% 28% 80% 81% 79%

GIRL 79 45 34 9 5 4

35% 41% 29% 20% 19% 21%

*Includes pupils with special educational needs.

ALL PSEN only

Total Pupil Teacher Total Pupil Teacher

Total 228 111 117 46 27 19

1–3 63 48 151 4 14 –

28% 43% 13% 30% 52% –

4–5 14 10 4 4 4 –

6% 9% 3% 9% 15% –

6–10 33 14 19 6 4 2

14% 13% 16% 13% 15% 11%

11–15 30 13 17 8 3 5

13% 12% 15% 17% 11% 26%

16–20 19 6 13 2 1 1

8% 5% 11% 4% 4% 5%

21–30 17 5 12 4 – 4

7% 5% 10% 9% – 21%

31–40 14 4 10 4 – 4

6% 4% 9% 9% – 21%

41+ 29 2 27 3 – 3

13% 2% 23% 7% – 16%

Table 10: Learning outcomes visited – ‘all’ and ‘pupilswith special educational needs (PSEN)’ compared

ALL PSEN only

Total 228 100% 46 100%

TXT 52 22.8% 8 17.4%

T11 2 0.9% – –

T12 1 .4% – –

T13 60 26.3% 10 21.7%

T15 2 .9% 2 4.3%

T16 8 3.5% – –

T17 4 1.8% – –

T19 4 1.8% – –

TEXT OTHER – – – –

WRD 32 14% 6 13%

W5 22 9.6% 9 19.6%

W11 8 3.5% 3 6.5%

W13 6 2.6% 2 4.3%

WOTHER – – – –

56

© NASEN 2004

more assessment questions than the class as a whole and allutterances directed by the teacher involve nomination ofthe speaker. Pupils with special educational needs in thisclass always respond to teacher nomination. They respondas individuals to questions asked on all eight occasions,suggesting a greater involvement in the session than thetargeted figures indicate. Like the Year 2 class, these pupilswith special educational needs are not particularly targetedfor instructions and contingency management.

Table 12 reports the findings in relation to the discursivefeatures of the lesson and shows that the teacher spentmuch time checking and revising pupil understanding(WDPK 1) and confirming previous learning (WDPK2).There is considerable evidence of dialogue, with the teacherencouraging discussion and clarification of meaning, andthe pupils engage in more discursive talk than the teacher.There is only one example of uptake and two of a pupilthinking out loud in the lesson. It can be noted thatutterances targeted on pupils with special educational needsshow a high number of checks of knowledge questions andthree discursive questions. There are no power issues in

this lesson and pupils with special educational needs aresubject to little contingency management. Pupils with specialeducational needs were involved in the unison readingactivities but it provided only one example of individualreading.

Discussion

Two lesson transcripts of the first part of the LiteracyHour made in classrooms where there are high numbersof children with special educational needs suggest somediscernible features which merit further investigation. Thesedata allow us to speculate in a more informed manner onthe experience of children in classrooms where there arehigh numbers of children with special educational needs.The common features from the analysis of the transcriptsshow that:

• Given the numbers of children in the classes with special educational needs, they are an under-represented

Table 11: Speaker and assisted pupil performance –‘all’ and ‘pupils with special educational needs (PSEN)’compared

ALL PSEN only

Total Pupil Teacher Total Pupil Teacher

Total 228 111 117 46 27 19

COGMOD 14 – 14 2 – 2

6% – 12% 4% – 11%

PHSYMOD 1 – 1 – – –

0% –% 1%

ASESQ 44 1 43 10 – 10

19% 1% 37% 22% –% 53%

ASSQ 47 2 45 8 – 8

21% 2% 38% 17% –% 42%

INST 23 – 23 3 – 3

10% –% 20% 7% –% 16%

FB 75 – 75 11 – 11

33% –% 64% 24% –% 58%

COGS1 13 1 12 2 – 2

6% 1% 10% 4% –% 11%

COGS2 1 – 1 – – –

0% –% 1%

CONMAN 7 – 7 1 – 1

3% –% 6% 2% –% 5%

RCACR 23 12 118 6 2 4

10% 11% 9% 17% 22% 11%

NOMS 68 1 67 19 – 19

30% 1% 57% 41% –% 100%

NMSR 59 59 – 19 19 –

26% 53% –% 41% 70% –%

Table 12: Discursive features by speaker – ‘all’ and‘pupils with special educational needs (PSEN)’ compared

ALL PSEN only

Total Pupil Teacher Total Pupil Teacher

Total 228 111 117 46 27 19

WDPK1 53 24 29 13 7 6

23% 22% 25% 28% 26% 32%

WDPK2 31 15 16 8 4 4

14% 14% 14% 17% 15% 21%

GWTT1 8 4 4 4 2 2

4% 4% 3% 9% 7% 11%

GWTT2 – – – – – –

–% –% –%

DISC1 21 13 8 – – –

9% 12% 7%

DISC2 23 13 10 5 2 3

10% 12% 9% 11% 7% 16%

UPTK 1 – 1

0% –% 1%

EVCG 2 2 –

1% 2% –

PWR – – –

–% –% –%

OTHER – – –

–% –% –%

MODJUD – – –

–% –% –%

UNRD – – –

–% –% –%

INDVRD 7 6 1 1 1 –

3% 5% 1% 2% 4% –%

Views expressed by the contributors to this journal are their own and do not necessarily reflect the policies and opinions either of the authorities by whom they are employed or of NASEN.

© NASEN 2004

57

group in terms of the number and length of the utterances in which they are involved. Given the imperatives of the pedagogy this would be expected.

• Pupils with special educational needs demonstrate a restricted range of learning outcomes in contrast to the whole class.

• These teachers used a restricted range of assisted performance and scaffolding on pupils with special educational needs. Most teacher utterances that involve them are questions and many of these are checks on pupil knowledge. These utterances involve less feedback than might be expected and are less likely to involve cognitive or discursive features.

• Pupils with special educational needs are less likely to be subject to contingency management or involved in issues of power than the rest of the class. In these classes, the groups of pupils with special educational needs were better behaved than the class as a whole.

• These teachers regularly nominated a speaker and used nomination as means of including pupils with special educational needs.

• Pupils with special educational needs answer questions that are not targeted at them. This would suggest that, in these classes, they were involved in the lesson and were willing to volunteer individual responses to questions where there was no nominated speaker.

Wearmouth and Soler (2001) argue that ‘there are manyeffective primary teachers in England who have developedtheir own expertise in pedagogical approaches to literacydevelopment ... which have the potential for reconciling theneed to teach all pupils while at the same time recognisingthe need to cater for diversity’. What these two very skilledteachers have done is to adapt the pedagogy in an attemptto meet the needs of pupils. It will be important to identifywhether these adaptations are used by teachers in classes withvery small proportions of pupils with special educational needs.

Acknowledgement

More detail about Slavin’s ideas and the ‘Success for All’

model can be located at http://www.successforall.com

Address for correspondence

John Lee, Faculty of Education, University of the West of England, S Block, Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QY, UK. Email: richard2.eke@uwe.ac.uk

References

Bernstein, B. (1990)

Class Codes and Social Control (Volume IV).

London: Routledge.Croll, P. & Moses, D. (2000)

Special Needs in the Primary School: one in five?

London: Cassell.DfEE (1997)

National Literacy Strategy – Framework for Teaching

. London: DfEE.Eke, R. (1997) ‘Supporting media learning in primary

classrooms: Some outcomes of a case study.’

Journal of Educational Media

, 23 (2/3), pp. 189–202.

Mercer, N. (1995)

The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk amongst Teachers and Learners.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Nystrand, M. Gamoran, A. Kachur, R. & Prendergast, C. (1997)

Opening Dialogues.

New York: Teachers College Press.

OFSTED (1998)

The National Literacy Project – an HMI Evaluation.

London: OFSTED.Pogrow, S. (1998) ‘What is an exemplary program, and

why should anyone care? A reaction to Slavin and Klein.’

Educational Researcher

, 27 (7), pp. 22–9.Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, R. M. (1975)

Towards and Analysis of Discourse: the English Used by Teachers and Pupils.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.Slavin, R. E. (1987) ‘A theory of school and classroom

organization.’

Educational Psychologist

, 22, pp. 89–108.Stigler, J. W. & Hiebert, J. (1997) ‘Understanding and

improving classroom mathematics instruction – an overview of the TIMMS video study.’

Phi Delta Kappan

, September 14–21.Tharp, R. & Gallimore, R. (1988)

Rousing Minds To Life: Teaching, Learning and Schooling in Social Contexts.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wearmouth, J. & Soler, J. (2001) ‘How inclusive is the Literacy Hour?’

British Journal of Special Education

, 28 (3), pp. 113–19.

Young, R. (1992)

Critical Theory and Classroom Talk.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.