2 - Hypothesising and Reflecting

 Looking at the two main areas of concern - maths and writing, I feel the area I should focus on this year is writing. Maths has a whole new set of pedagogy with Numicon coming into our school that we've been advised to "trust the process" with and that would be better to reflect on once we really get going.

The new curriculum for writing has been released and boy, is it a busy one! It covers:

• Speech and language using any method of communication a student uses (including AAC)
• Phonemic awareness
• Systematic synthetic phonics (decoding and spelling skills)
• Handwriting
• Vocabulary
• Morphology
• Syntax
• Fluency
• Text structure

Each of these areas a huge all by themselves. 

So why are the tamariki not doing so well in writing? Their reading is ok, but the ability to put things down on paper or on their devices is letting them down overall. Writing is the other side of the reading 'coin' and being able to express yourself clearly is one of the most exciting things people do in this world. 

The tamariki in my class were 5 and 6 years old when Covid hit. There was disruption in schooling with lock downs and failure for whatever reason to engage in learning at home. This also affected their social skills. Since then there has been a societal change in attitude to school attendance, and more kids staying home longer when they are ill. Did this affect their ongoing schooling? 

I also have a cohort of tamariki that have intellectual disabilities which seems to affect writing the most. They have an inability to write clearly (motor skills) and short working memories. They also tend to get distracted by things; one for example, won't write a word down until they know they have spelled it correctly so barely gets anything written down. All of these tamariki require constant supervision and help to write. 

One child is at the very start of his journey potentially using AAC. This is something separate I am learning about.

My question is:  

How can I strengthen writing outcomes for all learners by adapting my programme to meet a wide range of needs and align with the refreshed Literacy framework?

I need to make sure I am differentiating appropriately, that I know the new curriculum and plan accordingly. When I look at the students individually, there are a few things that have not been taught explicitly by myself or previous teachers on a regular or ongoing basis - we haven't needed to. What I have been covering daily is vocabulary, morphology, handwriting and text structures as we cover them. 

What do I need to do to differentiate well, cover the curriculum, and to daily complete more explicit teaching on syntax and text structure? 

When I reflect on writing, I have to be honest and say, it is not my favourite thing to teach. I have always found it easy and so struggle sometimes as to why the kids just can't do it well! I have focused previously on maths and reading, but writing has always taken somewhat of a back seat in comparison to my own education about the matter. I do PLD on it, then struggle to implement. This new curriculum has definitely given me the impetus to do better. How? That is the question. The curriculum is NOT that explicit!!!!

PGC 2023 - Noticing and Investigating

Within a few weeks of starting the year, it was noticed by the senior syndicate team that we all had the same issue. A lot more tamariki that were well below in their reading. We had a stark separation between year 6 and year 5 students, far greater than previous years.

We also noticed that the new akonga were unable to do things for themselves. They lacked the ability to get themselves a chair, didn't seem to be able to figure out how to use an exercise book to write in or how to follow simple instructions.

This required a massive rethink of the organisation of our classrooms. Cognitive load had to be reduced, daily routines unpacked and simplified and repeated constantly and even then I found I was still struggling. 

These akonga were behind primarily in reading, some had an inability to decode, but the biggest issue for my classroom was comprehension. As a student of te reo Māori, I have spoken the language since I was young, however I am unable to understand a majority of it. So in effect, I can decode and say a word in te reo, however, I can't understand everything I read. These tamariki are like this too but with their first language.

A few do have difficulties with decoding, these were put into a special reading programme developed by the RTLit for one student, and copied for 3 others in my classroom. But how to tackle comprehension?

The current route is to teach comprehension strategies in isolation, for example, how to infer, how to find the main idea etc. We choose books that make it easy to use that strategy and teach it regardless of the topic. 

Unlike the "reading wars," there has not been the same focus on comprehension as there has been in decoding. However, there is plenty of research about it and most points to the way we teach comprehension as individual strategies is not best practice. It will be interesting to see the way this research develops further. 

In my opinion, this research makes sense. Readers who have relevant knowledge about a topic prior to reading a piece about the topic, or have a good vocabulary before reading about a topic, understand what they are reading more. 

One example given was a reading comprehension assessment which was about baseball. Those kids who played baseball or were involved in the sport in some way did far better than the readers who knew nothing about the sport before reading the text. Even poorer readers (as assessed prior) scored well if they were in baseball teams in comparison to their "normal" reading level. Knowing a bit about something first (especially vocabulary) meant the children could comprehend better the article or story they were reading.

According to research, understanding word meaning accounts for as much as 80% of reading comprehension (Davis, 1972; Nagy & Scott, 2000). So why are we spending so much time on teaching strategies when we would be better off increasing their word knowledge base instead? If the strategies may only account for 20% or LESS of a child's reading comprehension, why would we waste so much time teaching them how to find the main idea in a story? Which they may indeed miss because they don't understand what they are reading in the first place?

Good general knowledge or "topic" knowledge means better comprehension. Being able to find the main idea in a text won't happen unless they understand what they are reading in the first place. They need the vocabulary involved at a basic level to be able to make inferences from the text that the author is making. You can teach them what an inference is, but if they can't understand a few key words, it won't be apparent to the reader. 

Building Knowledge. The Case for Bringing Content into the Language Arts Block and for a Knowledge-Rich Curriculum Core for all Children By E. D. Hirsch, Jr.

Reading comprehension is not a “skill” Robert Pondiscio

How Knowledge Helps It Speeds and Strengthens Reading Comprehension, Learning—and Thinking By Daniel T. Willingham

Dramatic New Evidence That Building Knowledge Can Boost Comprehension And Close Gaps Natalie Wexler

Vocabulary Instruction: Essential for Proficient Reading Timothy Rasinski, Ph.D.

A Kindergarten Lottery Evaluation of Core Knowledge Charter Schools: Should Building General Knowledge Have a Central Role in Educational and Social Science Research and Policy? 

So, practically, what should I be doing in the classroom?