Contents · Special Education Perspectives, Volume 17, Number 1, 2008 2 EDITORIAL Welcome to the...

1

SPECIAL EDUCATION PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 17, NUMBER 1, 2008

The Journal of the NSW Chapter of the Australian Association of Special Education Inc.

Patron: Her Excellency Professor Marie Bashir AC, Governor of New South Wales

Contents

Editorial 2

Using Ants in the Apple in Early Childhood Carolyn Galbraith 3intervention settings

MUSEC Briefings: Issue 5 10

Enhancing teachers' classroom strategies for Julie Yamanashi 11inclusive group work: a small-scale exploratorystudy

Revisiting issues in spelling instruction: a Peter Westwood 33literature review 1995-2007

Teaching mathematics to secondary students who Suet Voon Yu 49experience learning difficulties: a report on the Joe Murikinterventions used by ten teachers

Book review 67

SEP Contents Vol 17 No 1 as at 200308.indd 1 4/4/08 11:33:00 AM

Special Education Perspectives, Volume 17, Number 1, 2008

22

EDITORIAL

Welcome to the first edition of Special Education Perspectives for 2008.This is also the first edition of the journal for your new editorial team at the University of New England. It is a privilege to be taking on the editorial task for a journal that is held in such high regard by special educators in Australia and internationally. I wish to acknowledge authors for the consistently high standard of papers being submitted, the scholarly work of Jennifer Stephenson as Associate Editor and other members of the Editorial Committee and in particular the untiring work of the previous Editor, Michael Arthur-Kelly and Genevieve Farrell, his diligent Editorial Assistant.

It will be my aim, as Editor, to maintain and develop the high standards of papers that you have been reading in this journal and, by this means, to promote the goals of AASE in Australia and internationally.

This edition begins with our popular Practically Speaking section, in which Galbraith describes implementation of the ‘Ants in the Apple’ program in early intervention settings. This is followed by a MUSEC Briefing addressing the perceptual motor program BrainGym®. The first of the refereed papers is a report by Yamanashi of a small scale study of cooperative group work in primary school classes. In the second paper Westwood

reflects on developments in the instruction of spelling that have occurred since a 1994 review published in this journal. The final paper by Yu and Murik maintains the focus on classroom interventions, particularly in relation to mathematics instruction in secondary schools.

The journal concludes with a thoughtful review of the latest edition of Westwood’s highly successful book, Commonsense Methods for Children with Special Educational Needs.

I am confident that all readers will find in this edition something of particular relevance to aspects of their own professional practice. Your feedback to this edition is very welcome.

David Paterson, EditorMerran Pearson, Editorial AssistantSpecial Education Perspectives


3

Practically Speaking

USING ANTS IN THE APPLE IN EARLY CHILDHOOD INTERVENTION SETTINGS

Carolyn GalbraithLifestart Early Childhood Intervention

This paper describes how the Ants in the Apple program, often introduced to students in the early years of school, was used in an Early Childhood Intervention setting to promote early literacy, articulation development, and family participation. By combining song, picture, and cued articulation hand-signs, children with developmental disabilities from the age of eighteen months to five years were able to make specific sounds on cue, associate them with the written form, and participate in activities with other family members.

Background

Early Childhood Intervention settings provide individual programming and direct instruction to children with developmental disabilities. Depending on the individual needs of the child and family, this may include physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, development of play skills, social skills, and also pre-academic skills such as reading and numeracy. Early Childhood Intervention settings also aim to support and collaborate with families to assist their young children with skill development, empowerment, and encouragement. This support is achieved by advising, assisting, modelling, supporting families to talk with one another, and supporting family priorities. Literacy is an area in which children with developmental disabilities are likely to be at risk, and where families may feel unsure of their abilities to support their child. Because of this, it is appropriate that an Early Childhood Intervention setting, which aims to prevent or minimise at-risk behaviours, should focus on developing phonemic awareness and phonic strategies early.

The Ants in the Apple Program

The Ants in the Apple program (Vicki Easson & Lin Meeks, 1994) is an early literacy program, focusing on letter-sound relationships, which is widely used in Australian schools. While the program has many aspects to it, the initial stages involve showing the children a picture, in which a letter is surrounded by an image related to its sound – for example, the letter “a” is surrounded by an apple and

Special Education Perspectives, Volume 17, Number 1, pp.3-9, 2008


4

ants. At the same time as the picture is presented, a simple song is sung, which describes the picture; for example, “Ants in the Apple, A, A A.” The visual and auditory cues are intended to assist the children in recalling the sound which goes with the particular letter.

While Ants in the Apple was specifically designed for the purpose of teaching the letter-sound relationships, its use of specific sounds with pictures is similar to articulation programs such as the Nuffield Dyspraxia program (Connery, 1992) or the Downsed Picture Cards (Buckley & Le Prevost, 2002). Those programs use pictures to promote sound production, rather than alliterative pictures (for example, the h sound might be depicted by an open window). The Downsed picture cards also use hand-signs to accompany each picture.

The Ants in the Apple program was well-known to the Special Education teachers in our Early Childhood Intervention setting. The cards had previously been used in the School Preparation classes for the sole purpose of phonemic awareness training, while Nuffield and Downsed cards had been used with other children by the Speech Pathologists for the sole purpose of articulation activities. After discussion with the whole team of professionals, including special educators, teacher aides, speech, occupational and physiotherapists, the use of Ants in the Apple cards across all age-groups was agreed upon, in order to encourage both phonemic awareness and articulation work.

The decision was based on the following factors. Ants in the Apple is an Australian program, while the Nuffield and Downsed are British; it is used in many Australian schools, and it displays the actual letter in foundation script (the script used in NSW schools). There seemed no benefit to using different cards when the one form could be used effectively across age-groups.

Ants in the Apple was first introduced to children from the age of two and a half, and then to children from the age of eighteen months. It was introduced on a case by case basis, depending on the priorities which the families had set, and the individual needs of the child. The decision to introduce Ants in the Apple was not, however, based upon intellectual level or diagnosis.

Using Hand-Signs with the Program

The Ants in the Apple program does not include hand-signs; however, these had previously been added to the songs in our School Preparation program successfully, in order to keep the children’s hands busy during singing, and as an added prompt.

Cued articulation hand-signs, rather than the Downsed hand-signs or Auslan

C. Galbraith


5

fingerspelling, were chosen. The latter had been used previously to accompany Ants in the Apple songs, but the cued articulation signs are one-handed, making it easier for the younger children; and they were also new to the older signing children, who often used Auslan fingerspelling letters to indicate names (e.g. a sibling’s name). The cued articulation hand-signs were developed by Passey (1990) to remind the children the movement of the mouth and tongue in making the sound; for example, the “I” sound is shown by a flat hand beside the mouth, to indicate the flat tongue in the mouth.

How Ants in the Apple was Used to Introduce Phonemes

In our Early Childhood Intervention setting, Ants in the Apple was introduced into the existing small group sessions, where between three and six children attended. These sessions were held once a week, for around an hour and a half, and involved a range of activities to support the children and families. The phonics activities were added to the already existing singing and story time at the beginning of the group, which in total lasted around twenty to thirty minutes. The actual Ants in the Apple activities took between five and ten minutes of this time.

In most groups, apart from the school preparation class, a family member, typically the mother, also attended and sat behind the child for the group session. The children were seated on chairs or stools facing the teacher. The teacher was not always a special educator – occasionally the speech pathologist or physiotherapist, as part of our transdisciplinary philosophy, took on this role. There was always another professional (either the special educator, the speech pathologist, the teacher aide, the physiotherapist or occupational therapist) supporting the children as well.

The program began by introducing the first two sounds (a and m) with the pictures. The Ants in the Apple song would be sung while holding up the picture, and while using the cued articulation sign. Then the picture would be held up to each child who would be asked “What’s this?” If the child was unable to respond, the family member who was sitting behind the child, or the other professional, would assist the child in making the cued articulation sign with his or her hand. It was therefore possible for every child to participate.

The family members were also given copies of the pictures to take home, as well as ideas for using them during the week – such as making scrapbooks of pictures starting with the sound, pointing out the letters as they saw them in “real life” such as books, signs, magazines, number plates, and pointing out when a word starting with the target sound (e.g. “Let’s visit Miriam. Miriam! Miriam begins with a mmmm!”) A video was also made of the teacher singing the song, holding up the picture, and making the cued articulation sign. This was initially made for a child who was joining the group months after the others. After only a week of watching the video, she was able to participate in the group comfortably with a

Practically Speaking: Ants in the Apple


6

mix of sound and cued articulation signs. Other children were also given copies of the video, on a case by case basis.

The children showed their enjoyment of the song through their smiles, their attention towards the teacher during the group session, and their ability to stay seated. This enjoyment was also shown in anticipatory remarks or expressions when the visual of “Ants in the Apple” was placed on the visual timetable, or by the children spontaneously coming over to the pictures and pointing them out.

Family members reported that the Ants in the Apple songs were sung constantly during the week, and that the pictures which were often stuck up on the wall in the children’s room were pointed out frequently by the children, and often their siblings. One sibling, under a year old, heard someone say “Mmm!” in conversation and immediately made the cued articulation sign for “m”. Another sibling who attended kindergarten was able to involve herself in a verbal exchange with her two year old brother who had no speech, eventually being able to cue him with “Ants in the Apple . . .” and hearing him respond with “a a a” – his first verbal response. Family members showed their appreciation of the Ants in the Apple program by reporting how proud they were of their child’s progress, and by asking which new sound was likely to be introduced, or making suggestions of which sound to introduce next. While it was almost always the mother who attended the groups, it was noticed that when the fathers attended, they were able to participate in group time comfortably, knowing the songs and the cued articulation signs from use at home.

It was also reported that some children who did not participate during group time would sing the song and do the signs spontaneously at home. Many of these children would eventually participate in group time, but only after a number of months of simply watching during the session, and practising at home.

The sounds were not necessarily introduced one per week. Initially two sounds were introduced; after that, the rate of introduction would depend on the mastery of the previous sounds. As more and more sounds were introduced, not every sound was worked on in group each week; however, families were encouraged to ensure children continued with every sound at home. Children were tested regularly by the special educator on random sounds so that earlier sounds which had been forgotten could be reintroduced.

Apart from the songs, other activities were introduced to encourage phoneme recognition. Children were encouraged to match plain letters to the Ants in the Apple pictures, and then to select the plain letters accurately. An errorless learning strategy was used to encourage the children (physically assisting the child if he or she moved to the wrong letter). Children who had speech were also encouraged to blend the letters into three-letter words and some of the older children were able to do this, and showed their excitement in being able to manipulate the letters in this way by reporting their success to others around them. In this activity, if a sound was forgotten for a moment, usually the cued articulation hand sign was enough

C. Galbraith


7

of a prompt to assist the child.

How Ants in the Apple was used to Encourage Articulation Attempts

One of the purposes of introducing Ants in the Apple to the younger children was to assist with articulation development. Because of this the order that the sounds were introduced was altered to follow the developmental patterns of speech (introducing the sounds in the order that children normally develop them, i.e. d, b, t, m, etc), and certain sounds that young children are not able to make were not introduced to the very small children. The older children followed the Carnine order (Carnine, Silbert & Kameenui, 2003) with some alterations based on individual need – for example where a child particularly needed to work on the “b” sound, it was introduced early.

Even when the program was not followed accurately at home – for example, some families would just sing the songs without showing the pictures or hand-signs – there were informally reported benefits to articulation. The first sounds that some children began to make were the sounds which had been introduced using Ants in the Apple. Exposing the families to the rhyme and simple song had encouraged them to use repetitive sounds with their young children more frequently.

Introducing the sounds with the pictures, songs, and cued articulation hand-signs meant that the sound was practised both in isolation and at the beginning of words (e.g. Many Mice Munching, m m m) frequently, not only by the teacher but by the parents and often by other family members such as siblings. Children who had difficulty making the sounds were able to participate through the cued articulation hand signs; conversely, children who had difficulty making the sounds in ordinary speech were often able to be prompted by family members through use of the hand sign.

For the children unable to make the sounds, they were introduced to listening to the sounds in isolation in a way which they found enjoyable, showing this by their smiles and eye-contact, and their ability to stay seated during the songs.

How Ants in the Apple encouraged Family and Social Participation

Families in Early Childhood Intervention settings can often feel overwhelmed with a large number of goals and activities to achieve, and their subsequent feeling that they must be “therapists” as well as parents (Bridle & Mann, 2000). Using the Ants in the Apple program to work on both articulation and phonemic awareness condensed the amount of work the families were expected to do. Families reported that accessing a program which was used by typically-developing children, often their own other children, also made the activities seem less confronting and more relaxed. It was also an activity in which the entire family could participate regularly, singing the songs in the car, in the bath, and at playtime, and even when the child



8

was unable to sing the song or make the sound, they were able to attempt the hand-signs and show their enjoyment of the activity in their smiles and eye-contact.

Some families reported that they had passed on the activities to the preschool or child care setting which the child attended, and the songs were then introduced to all the children in the class, with their child able to participate fully in those activities. Families also reported feeling comfortable at seeing the Ants in the Apple pictures stuck up in the classrooms of the kindergartens to which their children were transitioning, knowing that there was an activity in which their child would be able to participate alongside the typically developing children without difficulty.

Conclusion

Using Ants in the Apple assisted individual children with their pre-reading and articulation skills; assisted families in working on particular skills with their children at home; enhanced children’s participation with others; and encouraged families in feeling comfortable about their child’s future school placements and their reading abilities.

Every child - from eighteen months to five years - who participated in the Ants in the Apple program was able to respond by either hand movement or sound when asked “What’s this?” and being shown an Ants in the Apple picture. Individual results varied, depending on family participation, the age of the child, and their diagnosis. By the end of one year, some children were able to blend sounds into short words without any prompting whatsoever. Other children were simply able to name the sounds on cue. Some children developed clearer speech; other children developed speech for the first time.

Every family whose child participated in the Ants in the Apple program also participated themselves. Every family reported anecdotally how pleased they were with the program. Again, individual results varied; some families were happy with their child’s ability to participate in “I spy” games with siblings; other families were happy with their child’s ability to sing a song with them; still other families were happy to know that their child was familiar with activities which they would access in their school setting.

All the professionals, no matter which discipline, became familiar with the program and the songs, and were comfortable in taking on the teacher role if necessary.

The Ants in the Apple, used in the way described above, was a simple, comfortable way for professionals to enhance children’s learning while supporting families; and as this is the role of Early Childhood Intervention, it is a more than appropriate program to be used within those settings. Further research, reporting empirical data, may support this informal study in the future.

C. Galbraith


9

ResourcesBridle, L. & Mann, G. (2000) Mixed feelings – A parental perspective on early intervention. In Supporting not controlling: Strategies for the new millennium: Proceedings of the Early Childhood Intervention Australia National Conference. (pp. 59-72). Brisbane: ECIA.

Buckley, S. and Le Provost, P. (2002) Speech and language therapy for children with Down syndrome. Down Syndrome News and Update 2(2), 70-76.

Carnine, D., Silbert, J., Kameenui, E., & Tarver, S. (2003) Direct instruction reading (4th Ed.) NJ: Prentice Hall.

Connery, V. (1992) The Nuffield Centre dyspraxia programme. London: The Nuffield Hearing and Speech Centre.

Easson, V. & Meeks, L. (1994) Ants in the apple teacher’s manual. Sydney: Ants in the Apple Pty Ltd.

Passey, J. (1990). Cued articulation. Melbourne: ACER.




10

© Jennifer Stephenson and Kevin Wheldall, 2005

MUSEC Briefings are offered in good faith as a service to the community by

Macquarie University Special Education Centre

This MUSEC Briefing may be copied or otherwise reproduced for not for profit purposes

by individuals or organisations on the understanding that it is reproduced in its entirety

and that Macquarie University Special Education Centre is clearly indicated as the source.

Statement of the Problem

Many young students experience difficulties in developing academic skills such as reading, writing, and spelling. Some of these students may also present as clumsy and uncoordinated.

Proposed Solution/

Intervention

BrainGym! (also known as educational kinesiology

or Edu-K) was originally developed by Dr Paul Dennison and his wife to help students with learning disabilities but it is now claimed to benefit anyone by improving concentration, memory, reading, writing, organizing, listening and motor co-ordination. It is also claimed to reduce stress and anxiety and to improve behaviour and emotional balance. There are 26 movements or exercises (such as standing on one leg with eyes shut while chanting) that are to be learned and practised.

The theoretical rationale –

how does it work?

BrainGym! is a variant of the perceptual motor

programs that have a long and controversial history in special education. Dennison claims that his movement activities work by integrating and improving connections within the brain and through integrating the brain, the senses and the body. The ability to coordinate the two sides of the brain, or laterality, is claimed to be particularly important for the development of reading and writing. It is claimed that the prescribed movements will remediate and develop the basic processes and functions within the brain required for learning.

BrainGym!

Jennifer Stephenson and Kevin Wheldall

MUSEC Briefings

What does the research say?

What is the evidence for its

efficacy?

The lack of evidence for the effect of perceptual motor programs like BrainGym! on academic

skills has been well documented since the 1980s. Many BrainGym! websites claim a research base

testifying to the efficacy of the activities, but most of the studies cited have been published in BrainGym!’s own non-refereed house journal.

There appear to be no experimental studies published in peer-reviewed research journals that support the claims made for the effectiveness of BrainGym! in improving academic performance.

Conclusions

Given the lack of credible supporting evidence for the efficacy of BrainGym! activities and other

perceptual motor programs in bringing about improvement in academic performance, there is little to recommend this approach.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Teacher time devoted to these activities would be better spent specifically targeting the academic skill deficits of low-progress students with appropriate instruction, using methods of proven efficacy.

The MUSEC Verdict:

Not proven.

Macquarie University Special Education Centre

Building X5A, Macquarie University Nsw 2109

Ph: 9850 8691 Fax: 9850 8254

Key references may be found at: www.aces.mq.edu.au/musec_co_brief.asp

Issue 5,

november 2005


Special Education Perspectives, Volume 17, Number 1, pp. 11-32, 2008

11

ENHANCING TEACHERS’ CLASSROOM STRATEGIES FOR INCLUSIVE GROUP WORK:

A SMALL-SCALE EXPLORATORY STUDY

Julie YamanashiSchool of Education, The University of Queensland

Refereed Papers

ABSTRACTTeachers need to work towards creating learning experiences and activities that meet the needs of all students in their classrooms. To this end, the study reported here investigated teachers’ approaches to group-work activities that focused on students’ participation, communication and contributions. A sample of 8 primary school teachers from 4 schools, together with 24 students with learning difficulties, participated in the study. Focus group interviews with the teachers were conducted prior to and upon completion of the 21 week study. These interviews revealed teachers’ existing beliefs about inclusion of students with learning difficulties in group activities. Eight x 30-minute classroom observations of teachers’ verbal interactions and students’ behavioural interactions were also completed. Teachers then participated in a 5-week cooperative group-work training program. Results indicated that, before training, teachers tended to take a deficit approach to including students in group work, treating them differently through, for

example, one-on-one support and modification of the curriculum. After completing the training program, teachers’ approaches drew more upon a social inclusion model that helped involve these students more, and at the same time reduce their off-task behaviour. Implications of the study suggest that when teachers are specifically trained in strategies for cooperative group work there is opportunity for a change in social structure within the classroom.

INTRODUCTIONThere are many approaches to teaching, ranging across a spectrum from whole-class instruction through to individualised tutoring. Different approaches tend to involve students in the learning process in quite different ways and to varying degrees (Westwood, 2006). In particular, some approaches to teaching deliberately involve children in cooperative group activities, and encourage them to help each other achieve the desired learning


12

J. Yamanashi

outcomes. Such approaches accord well with a social constructivist view of learning that places great importance on discussion with, and between, students (Vygotsky, 1978). Such cooperative methods are considered an essential component of inclusive classroom practice because they cater more effectively for a wide range of ability (Goddard, 1995) and at the same time help students with learning difficulties become more independent.

Whole-class instructionOne can contrast cooperative learning with whole-class instruction by indicating that communications and interactions among students are often minimal in whole-class teaching situations because the dominant figure is the teacher. The teacher gives information and interacts with children individually or as a group by asking or answering questions and by providing feedback as they work. The teacher, rather than peers, provides explanations, feedback and encouragement (Lou, Abrami & Spence, 2000).

Under traditional whole-class teaching it was believed that the teacher could address students’ instructional needs effectively as a group, keeping the majority of students studying at the same pace and rewarding those who accomplished the desired results (Lou, Abrami, Spence, Poulsen, Chambers & d’Apollonia, 1996). This was thought to

provide equity in learning experiences and opportunities (Cuban, 2006; Lou et al., 1996). That this situation still pertains in many of our classrooms today was confirmed during a previous pilot study where it was observed that the locus of control was still the teacher’s one-on-one interactions with students (Yamanashi, 2006).

While whole-class teaching may achieve some instructional goals (and therefore be appropriate at times) it is certainly not inclusive of a wide ability range. Those students who fail to learn, and therefore fall behind under this method, are often thought to have some form of cognitive deficit, and therefore to require special help and modified activities (Bailey, 1998a). This view often termed a deficit model or medical model (Bailey, 1998b; Mittler, 2000) often leads teachers to develop low expectations for students with difficulties, and to recommend special forms of intervention (Bailey, 1998b). Students labelled in this fashion are often viewed as incapable of productive achievement within the usual classroom curriculum; and at times they are withdrawn from activities to receive outside support (Bailey, 1998a; Gale & Densmore, 2000). In addition, even while these students are in the classroom they are often given a watered down curriculum and easier tasks, to avoid embarrassment and frustration. Far from being inclusive, such measures tend to


13

Refereed paper: Inclusive group work

segregate these children even more from the mainstream.

Social approachAs an alternative to whole-class teaching and remedial intervention, a social approach encourages cooperation, group work, and peer assistance in the classroom. Teachers can apply such pedagogy to cater for diverse needs (Gillies & Carrington, 2004; UNESCO, 1994, 2001). The social approach, when used effectively, creates learning environments that support diversity and foster independence in all students as peers take on teaching and learning roles in classroom activities (King, 2002; Mittler, 2000).

Cooperative and collaborative group activities are one way of facilitating the social approach. Cooperative group work provides active opportunities for greater participation and contributions from all members (Lou et al., 1996). When members of such groups are required to contribute to outcomes during activities it provides opportunities for greater communication by all, through inclusive peer interactions.

A cooperative learning environment that requires positive interdependence and individual accountability among members works best for heterogeneous groups of three to four members, as compared to larger whole-class groups (Johnson & Johnson, 2003; Lou et al.,

2000). In this environment students have been reported to experience greater achievement, more positive attitudes, and higher self-esteem (Johnson & Johnson, 2003; Lou et al., 1996). Students actively participate to construct knowledge together through social interactions (Vygotsky, 1978). By cognitively challenging each other, giving and receiving help, students are able to provide each other with learning experiences that extend upon current understanding (King, 2002; Vygotsky, 1978; Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003). Actively listening to each other, peers can mediate opportunities for structured questioning and explanations that require scaffolding and shared problem-solving (King, 2002). The classroom learning environment can change from one that is discriminatory (by favouring the majority) to one that includes all members of the group, where the emphasis is on diversity rather than uniformity, as in whole class teaching (Lou et al., 2000).

Using group work to facilitate inclusion and to help develop independence in learning also requires that teachers assume a rather different mode of verbal communication with students during the learning process. For example, the emphasis will shift from explicit instruction, demonstration, and explanation to a more supportive form involving scaffolding, enabling-type questions or suggestions, and


14

J. Yamanashi

requests for clarification. Teachers’ communications are likely to be very different between whole-class teaching and cooperative group situations.

Establishing group workSimply asking students to work together will not, however, provide the necessary support and structure for effective group work or inclusion (Lou et al., 1996). Goals need to be set, and groups need to be structured by ensuring that all members can play their parts and work together toward the desired outcomes. This can be achieved through assigning roles to individual members. Roles help define expectations of the appropriate behaviour toward others in the group and ensure that expected behaviours are positively interrelated (Johnson & Johnson, 2003). Cooperative learning then takes on the social aspects of an inclusive environment and requires a structure that holds each individual accountable for the overall outcome of the group.

Not only do students need guidance in how best to work effectively in groups, teachers too may require training in small group instruction. Applying group work strategies effectively, “…may require the teacher to adopt different teaching philosophies as well as to use different instructional strategies and employ different materials than when using the traditional whole-class approach” (Lou et al., 2000, p. 109). Therefore, training

is almost certainly an important factor in assisting teachers to take on the social approach to cooperative group work in classrooms. The study reported here aimed to explore whether such training could indeed influence experienced teachers’ classroom practice.

Research AimThis study investigated the way teachers created inclusive learning environments in their classrooms. It determined the relationship between inclusive classroom practices through cooperative group work, and teachers’ beliefs that underpin those practices. Further, the study investigated whether teachers’ beliefs and practices could be modified by an in-service training program. The research was designed to answer the following question:

Does specific training in cooperative group work strategies result in (a) observable changes in teachers’ classroom practices (b) observable changes in students’ participation patterns?

METHODSchoolsThe four primary schools involved in the study were located approximately 26 kilometres west of Brisbane. Families from the schools came from mainly the lower to middle income range (Logan City Council, 2006). These schools were chosen due to the teachers’ openness to


15


improving professional outcomes and classroom experiences.

Education Queensland rated the schools* using the Australian Bureau of Statistics Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (IRSED), (*pseudonyms have been used to preserve the identity of all participants). Westford State School was rated Low, Belleview State School was rated Low, Morris Road State School was rated Mid-High (due to the higher rates of established acreage homes and greater growth), and Yellow Park State School was rated Mid-Low. These categories were calculated according to the number of enrolments at each school and the location of the students’ addresses according in postcodes (Greenup, personal communication, March, 2005). Calculations used by Education Queensland are based on District Census Collection Data information relating to school families’ employment,

income, education, family structure, and housing, etc.

ParticipantsTeachers. This study involved 8 teachers from 4 primary schools. They were recommended by their principals as being competent and experienced teachers, and had worked with students with learning difficulties. The characteristics of these teachers are provided in Table 1.

Students. The researcher met with the teachers at their different schools prior to the commencement of the study to decide which students with learning difficulties would participate. Students were selected from those who had been appraised by the resident learning support teacher at each school as requiring Program 2 or 3 according to Education Queensland policy guidelines’ statement (Education Queensland, 2002).(For an explanation of the terms

Table 1School, Gender, Teaching Experience and Year Level Taught for 8 TeachersSchool Teacher Gender Experience Year(1) Westford Sate School 1 F 12yrs 4(1) Westford State School 2 F 38yrs 5(2) Belleview State School 3 F 4yrs 3(2) Belleview State School 4 F 12yrs 7(2) Belleview State School 5 F 20yrs 3(3) Morris Road State School 6 F 15yrs 3(3) Morris Road State School 7 F 4yrs 7(4) Yellow Park State School 8 F 19yrs 4


16

J. Yamanashi

Procedure Phase 1: Focus group interviews. Teachers’ ideas on inclusive classroom practices that assist students with learning difficulties were gained through participation in two focus group interviews. The first interview was prior to the commencement of the

Program 2 and Program 3 see Appendix 1). As a result, 24 students with learning difficulties, three from each teacher’s class, were selected. The characteristics of the 24 students are provided in Table 2.

Student School Teacher Age (yrs & mths) Year level Gender Program level

1 1 1 8yrs 8mths 4 F 2

2 1 1 9yrs 2mths 4 M 2

3 1 1 8yrs 4mths 4 M 2

4 1 2 9yrs 6mths 5 M 2

5 1 2 9yrs 11mths 5 F 3

6 1 2 10yrs 3mths 5 F 1

7 2 3 8yrs 3mths 3 F 2

8 2 3 8yrs 2mths 3 F 2

9 2 3 7yrs 5mths 3 M 2

10 2 4 12yrs 3mths 7 M 3

11 2 4 11yrs 11mths 7 F 3

12 2 4 11yrs 4mths 7 M 3

13 2 5 8yrs 4mths 3 M 2

14 2 5 8yrs 5mths 3 F 2

15 2 5 7yrs 4mths 3 M 2

16 3 6 8yrs 0mths 3 F 3

17 3 6 7yrs 10mths 3 M 3

18 3 6 7yrs 7mths 3 M 2

19 3 7 12yrs 2mths 7 F 3

20 3 7 12yrs 7mths 7 F 3

21 3 7 11yrs 11mths 7 F 3

22 4 8 8yrs 11mths 4 M 3

23 4 8 8yrs 11mths 4 F 2

24 4 8 8yrs 5mths 4 F 2

Table 2Age, Year Level, Gender, Program Level for 24 Students with Learning Difficulties


17


study and the other after the completion of the study. The same questions were used at both focus group interviews; but the questions were reordered for the second interview in order to reduce predictability. Questions from the interview related to how students with Program 2 or 3 learning difficulties were included in classroom activities (see below under ‘Instruments’). Each interview was audio-taped and later transcribed for analysis to determine emerging themes across question topics (Hunt, Hirose-Hatae, Doering, Karasoff, & Goetz, 2000).

The researcher met with the teachers prior to the commencement of the study to discuss expectations, identify which students would participate, and to determine the group work literacy activities. Teachers were asked to create groups of three to four students of mixed gender and ability. Literacy activities were taken from the usual classroom program and included reading comprehension with work sheets, guided reading with associated word activities, letter writing, story writing, and grammar activities, among others. Decisions were then made concerning which group work activities would be observed. Teachers were asked to use activities that would normally take place in the literacy program where students would work in groups. Each group included one or two students with learning difficulties and higher ability

student. The rest of the class worked in similar groupings on the same literacy activities. Prior to the intervention training program the teachers were not instructed on how to set up group work interactions, therefore the first activities observed and recorded drew upon teachers’ current practice, based on their knowledge of students’ interactions and behaviours.

Each teacher wore a hand-held audio-tape recorder throughout each observation while assisting groups of students to complete the literacy activities. They were audio-taped for 8 observations of approximately 30 minutes each over a period of 21 weeks (see Table 3). Teacher verbal interactions were coded at a later time.

The normal literacy program for each class ran for 1 hour each day, 4 days per week. The researcher completed 8 observations for each student with a learning difficulty for approximately 5 minutes over a 15 minute period throughout each observational visit of the study. The researcher was a non-participant observer and therefore only observed small group interactions (Gay & Airasian, 2003).

Phase 2: Cooperative group work training program for teachers. Each teacher participated in a 5-week intervention training program that introduced them to procedures for


18

J. Yamanashi

structuring cooperative small groups (see Table 4). The teachers also kept a brief journal of their experiences, reflecting on their own class observations of the group work activities.

Phase 3: A second round of classroom observations were completed, to enable any changes in teachers’ practices and students’ behaviour to be detected. Focus group interviews with teachers were again conducted.

InstrumentationInterview Schedule for focus group interviews. Questions in the interview related to how students with Program 2 or 3 learning difficulties were included in classroom activities. Questions included: identification of the learning needs of students with learning difficulties; meeting their needs on a day-to-day basis; academic and social outcomes for the students with learning difficulties; and the role of the teacher. Each interview was audio-taped and later transcribed.

Table 3Timeline for 21 Week StudySchools Focus group

interviewsObservations Intervention

programObservations Focus group

interviews

Sch/s 1 & 2 Week 1 Weeks 2-6 Weeks 7-11 Weeks 12-20 Week 21

Sch/s 3 & 4 Week 1 Weeks 3-11 Weeks 12-16 Weeks 17-21 Week 21

Table 4Cooperative Group Work Training ProgramWeek 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5

Understanding concepts - discussion of positive interdependence, individual accountability, and small group skills & providing classroom examples of each.

Reflection,Positive interdependence – “we instead of me”Activity: 4X4 PuzzleColour strips of a picture individually.Assemble as group. (Kagan, 1994)Joint lesson plan

Reflection,Individual accountability – “no hitchhiking on the work of others”Activity:Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning(King, 2002)

Joint lesson plan

Reflection, Understanding group social skills – listening, disagreeing politely & taking turns.Activity: Create chart of student behaviours & verbal skills (Jacobs, Power & Inn, 2002)Joint lesson plan

Reflection. Sharing of experiences: What were the benefits of CL? What were the disadvantages? How could the approach be sustained? What features were important to success?


19


Teacher observation schedule. Each teacher’s verbal interactions with students during each of the observations were audio-taped and analysed through critical event sampling. That is, all observed verbal interactions or critical events were coded by frequency of occurrence throughout the 30-minute observation period and tallies were made of each verbal interaction variable (Olson, 1929). Further comments were also recorded at the bottom of the coding sheets. Eight x 30-minute observations were made of each teacher in each classroom.

Teacher verbal interactions included:

1. Scaffolding: provided support that was gradually withdrawn as the learner becomes more capable, including giving prompts, cues, and feedback to students.

2. Modelling: provided an example of how the task was to be completed, including detailed explanations and sample solutions (Modification from Ashman & Elkins, 2002, pp. 542 & 547).

3. Shared Problem Solving: provided interactive opportunities to share in cognitive challenges at various levels, including asking and answering questions, and requests for peer explanations (King, 1991, p. 315).

4. Repe t i t ion wi th Expans ion : the teacher adds a new idea or

connecting link to the one he or she is repeating.

5. Directives: any comment that concerns procedures for the conduct of group processes (Shachar & Sharan, 1994, pp. 326 - 328).

Student observation schedule. Each classroom teacher chose three students who had been appraised as requiring Program 2 or 3 assistance. All three students in each class were observed during classroom literacy group work activities. Each student was observed using momentary time sampling during each observation (Harrop & Daniels, 1986; Olson, 1929). In total, 20 observational tallies were coded for each student at each observation (Gillies, 2004). There were 8 x 30-minute visits to each classroom.

Student behaviour interact ions (modification from Gillies & Ashman, 2000) included:

1. Cooperative Behaviour between Students: included all behaviour that was task-orientated, socially orientated, positive behaviour, active attention to others in the group, including listening to other group members discuss the task

2. Non-cooperative Behaviour: included all behaviour that was designed to exclude others or demonstrate resistance to the group, such as opposition and criticism, to attain


20

J. Yamanashi

one’s goals at the expense of others

3. Individual Task-orientated Behaviour: involved the individual working on the task but not with the group

4. Individual Non-task Behaviour: included all behaviour where the individual was not participating in the group activities and was not working individually

5. Teacher-dependent behaviour: included all behaviour that was task-orientated, socially orientated positive behaviours, involving active attention to the teacher, including listening to the teacher, discussing the task.

The Interaction with Teacher category above is a modification from pilot study outcomes (Yamanashi, 2006).

Trained Assistant. A male assistant with 16 years teaching experience, and the researcher, evaluated the audio recordings of teachers’ verbal interactions. He also attended classroom observations with the researcher and coded student behaviour interactions. The assistant had worked in primary and secondary schools and had experience with observing children’s behaviours.

Inter-scorer reliability. The research assistant was trained to code teachers’ verbal interactions and students’ behavioural interactions during the previous pilot study using audio and

video-taped recordings. Training was again initiated and continued until inter-observer reliability on teacher verbal interactions and student behaviour interactions was greater than 80%, which is a satisfactory level of inter-observer agreement (Gay & Airasian, 2003). The researcher and trained assistant coded a common 16% of teacher verbal interactions and student behaviour interactions for this study, 10% being consider sufficient for agreement purposes (Gay & Airasian, 2003). Inter-observer reliability was 100 % across teacher verbal interactions and 95-100 % across student behaviour states.

Inter-observer reliability was calculated using the formula (Madelaine & Wheldall, 2004, p.60):

% Agreement = agreements X 100

agreements + disagreements

1

RESULTSCommon themes and categories emerged from focus group interviews with the teachers. Teacher verbal interaction results are set out in Table 5 displaying the means and standard deviation of frequency of events. Student behavioural interaction results are set out in Table 7 displaying the means and standard deviation of frequency of events.

Pre-training Focus Group Interviews Audio-taped interviews commenced


21


with the teachers stating the grades they teach, and their years of service. This helped to establish rapport with the teachers prior to asking the main questions (Gay & Airasian, 2003). The teachers were then asked questions from the interview schedule regarding how they create inclusive classroom experiences that assist students with learning difficulties. Themes that emerged from pre-observation focus group interviews indicated that teachers’ main strategy to facilitate learning in the classroom was using one-on-one contact with a student with learning difficulty, and providing him or her with modified tasks.

Facilitation of learning through one-on-one contact. Teachers commented that students with Program 2 or 3 learning difficulties required one-on-one assistance during activities, and therefore, needed that individual attention. “They have to work one-on-one, they can’t work any other way.” In addition to this, the teachers stated that assistance from adults was most helpful. “They have either a teacher aide, support teacher or a partner, that is, if you can’t have an adult with them, which would be the best.” “They need someone there to keep them working - on track, to help them.” In short, providing assistance to help students focus on their work facilitated more acceptable outcomes. However, all teachers pointed out that the students with learning difficulties

also required modified activities.

Modification of tasks. Students with learning difficulties were not able to cope with the usual curriculum. “They are not going to catch up; they just don’t have the brains to think things out or if something doesn’t work for them.” The teachers stated that the students needed simplified activities. “These students can’t cope with independent activities; all tasks need to be broken down into smaller steps so that each step is very guided.” Furthermore, to help the students work at their own level, instructions were limited and given one-at-a- time, while the teachers also provided greater clarification of content.

Post-training Focus Group InterviewsThe second round of focus group interviews were completed in Week 21 of the study. Common themes that emerged were that teachers reported better student engagement through working in structured groups, the need to allocate group roles, evidence that children were listening and being heard.

Group work engages students. Teachers felt that group work easily fitted within the current curriculum and the students were able to support each other in producing work to which each had contributed. “Children are engaged, working and supporting each other in


22

J. Yamanashi

a supportive [group work] learning environment, they encourage each other to complete the task and move on to the next activity.” “In terms of keeping them engaged, group work is the best way, making sure that they are accountable for what they have produced.” Group work provided opportunities for inclusion of students from diverse backgrounds and, when structured appropriately, required contribution from all members. One way this individual accountability to group outcomes can be gained is through assigning group roles.

Group roles. Teachers felt strongly about contributions to learning through the use of group roles. The students took on specific responsibilities with each assigned role such as leading the group or summarising what has been said. “Clarifying, summarising, and so if you are flexible about these roles then that is really good because their expectations are that they are going to have to think about what it is going to be about.” “Each child does have a role and their role is relevant and important to the end outcome.” In this way they were supported by other students who took on complementary roles in order to help each other complete the activity.

School 4 mentioned difficulties with roles in groups, and thus, students’ contributions. “She is focusing so much on her little part of the role, it’s like

she’s got a part in the play and her line is coming up, it diminishes from her participation in the rest of it.” Although asked to rotate roles over time, as other teachers did, the teacher assigned the same roles to the same students during each observed activity. During this time the teacher also took on the job of mediating when the students would use their roles during activities. The students were not provided with the opportunity to experience the diversity of roles or the freedom of listening and speaking to each other in order to mediate each other’s interactions. Therefore, the shared responsibilities within the group setting fell to the teacher. Students’ contributions were then hindered through self-absorbed, individual contributions facilitated through a teacher directed approach to group work. That is, they came to work individually within the group, interacting with the teacher when prompted.

The teachers also mentioned that a change in the professional role of the teacher assisted in allowing the students the freedom to then take charge of their learning. “My role is to let the child have a role, to help them work together to find out what their fortes are so that each child can kind of work on their forte.” “My role is to just make sure that the kids understand the activity and they are in a group where they can work [and contribute to the outcomes].”


23


Hence, when group roles were allocated appropriately the environment became conducive to students helping each other and positive outcomes were achieved. Moreover, providing opportunities for students to interact with each other on a social level during group work facilitated members to construct shared understandings (Vygotsky, 1978).

Listening and being heard. Structuring group work to be cooperative ensured opportunities were provided for students to communicate through social interaction. “They are actually hearing what other people have to say, discussing and talking to each other, working in groups where all students

contribute.” “I find those kids that are appraised (i.e Program 2 or 3) one of the biggest things they are missing is a lot of oral language and discussion – that type of engagement.” Therefore, students’ contributions and participation were accommodated within group work by teachers facilitating a social environment that supported opportunity for equal participation by all in a diverse learning group.

Teacher ObservationsThe results of the teacher verbal interactions (interactions coded by frequencies) were observed and coded according to categories described earlier. Table 5 presents the means

Table 5Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Frequency of Events for Teacher Verbal Interactions for 4 Schools at Pre-intervention (Pre) and Post-intervention (Post)

Verbal interactions

Sch 1Pre

Sch 1Post

Sch 2Pre

Sch 2Post

Sch 3Pre

Sch 3Post

Sch 4Pre

Sch 4Post

TotalPre

TotalPost

Scaffolding5.67

(1.89)8.43

(0.25)6.67

(1.67)8.47

(2.02)7.67

(0.94)9.58

(1.53)8.00

-10.67

-6.83

(1.49)9.01

(1.49)

Modelling1.33

(0.47)1.90

(0.14)1.89

(0.69)1.87

(0.76)1.08

(0.82)1.50

(0.71)1.60

-2.33

-1.51

(0.62)1.84

(0.55)

Shared prob.

solving

3.33(1.89)

2.05(0.78)

4.11(0.51)

3.40(0.35)

4.29(1.47)

1.58(1.53)

6.40-

4.33-

4.25(1.34)

2.73(1.23)

Repetition &

expansion

0.33(0.00)

1.13(0.18)

1.89(1.07)

1.27(0.61)

1.96(0.41)

3.00(2.83)

1.60-

1.67-

1.48(0.93)

1.71(1.38)

Directives3.50

(0.24)8.13

(1.77)3.22

(2.87)7.40

(4.33)4.67

(1.89)11.83(0.24)

3.80-

6.00-

3.73(1.80)

8.51(3.16)


24

J. Yamanashi

and standard deviations of incidents reflecting teacher verbal interaction states for each school at pre- and post-intervention times.

Although the sample size was small, a split plot analysis of variance (SPANOVA) with 2 criteria (time & school) was performed on the data. A SPANOVA is a two-way mixed design analysis of variance (ANOVA). The advantage of using a split plot design is the ability to test the possible interactions among repeated measures (within individual participants) on one variable and independent groups on the other variable (Coakes, 2005). Non-parametric testing using the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test and Mixed Model Analysis were also performed on the

data revealing similar results to the SPANOVA on all occasions. Table 6 presents the split plot analysis of variance for teacher verbal interactions for time and school.

The results in Table 6 demonstrate that teacher verbal interactions have significant outcomes within subjects (teachers) at post-intervention. As can been seen from Table 5 and Table 6 scaffolding F(1, 4) = 12.77, p<.05, and directives F(1, 4) = 51.56, p<.01, have significantly increased, while shared problem solving F(1, 4) = 7.59, p<.05, has significantly decreased at post-intervention. Shared problem solving is an important tool used in education to help students develop effective cognitive strategies. The significant

Table 6Split Plot Analysis of Variance for Teacher Verbal Interactions for Time (within subjects)

Source df F p

Within subjects (teachers)

Scaffolding 1 12.77* .02

Modelling 1 05.76 .07

Shared prob. solving 1 07.59* .05

Repetition & expansion

1 00.44 .54

Directives 1 51.56** .00

*p<.05.**p<.01.


25


decrease here suggests that students have taken on more of this task in groups, rather than depending on the teacher for input. Through structured interdependence (‘we’ instead of ‘me’) and individual accountability (‘no hitchhiking on the work of others’) it is suggested that the students have come to be the ones asking and answering each other’s questions rather than such interactions occurring with the teacher. These changes at pre- and post-intervention are displayed graphically in Figure 1.

Student Observations The results of student behavioural interactions (interactions coded by momentary time sampling) were observed and coded according to categories described earlier. Table 7 presents the means and standard deviations of incidents reflecting student behaviour interaction states for each school at pre-intervention and post-intervention.

A SPANOVA with 2 criteria (time & school) was performed on the data. Non-parametric testing using the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test and Mixed Model

Table 7Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Frequency of Events for Student Behaviour Interactions for 4 Schools at Pre-intervention (Pre) and Post-intervention (Post)

Behaviour interactions

Sch 1Pre

Sch 1Post

Sch 2Pre

Sch 2Post

Sch 3Pre

Sch 3Post

Sch 4Pre

Sch 4Post

TotalPre

TotalPost

Cooperativebehaviour (students)

5.06(2.76)

11.97(2.96)

1.81(2.87)

8.03(4.74)

2.58(2.25)

11.42(5.00)

0.98(0.69)

3.44(1.50)

2.71(2.79)

9.29(4.85)

Non-cooperative behaviour

0.00(0.00)

0.00(0.00)

00.19(0.38)

0.26(0.29)

0.00(0.00)

0.08(0.20)

0.00(0.00)

0.00(0.00)

0.07(0.24)

0.12(0.23)

Individual task behaviour

2.67(1.30)

2.60(2.51)

1.59(2.10)

1.53(0.97)

4.42(3.22)

2.08(2.14)

4.52(0.67)

6.11(2.55)

2.93(2.41)

2.50(2.32)

Individual non-task behaviour

5.06(2.45)

0.90(0.76)

2.07(3.23)

0.93(1.39)

1.96(1.91)

0.72(0.95)

1.73(0.31)

0.89(0.19)

2.75(2.76)

0.87(1.00)

Teacher-dependent behaviour

7.22(2.32)

4.53(0.69)

14.33(7.07)

9.23(4.87)

10.21(4.85)

5.69(6.01)

12.57(0.40)

9.56(1.02)

11.30(5.67)

7.21(4.59)


26

J. Yamanashi

Analysis were also performed on this data revealing similar results to the SPANOVA on all occasions. Table 8 presents the split plot analysis of variance for student behavioural interactions for time and school.

The results in Table 8 demonstrate that student behaviour interactions have significant results within subjects (students) at post-intervention. As can been seen from Table 7 and Table 8 cooperative behaviour (students) F(1, 20) = 64.99, p<.01, has significantly increased, while individual non-task behaviour F(1, 20) = 20.97, p<.01, and teacher-dependent behaviour F(1, 20) = 29.33, p<.01, have significantly decreased at post-intervention. Results

indicated that the increase of cooperative behaviour (students) and the decease of individual non-task behaviour and teacher-dependent behaviour are a result of the teachers allowing the students to take control of their learning situations during group work activities, thus decreasing off-task, disruptive behaviours. That is, students focused on helping each other and working together. The changes at post-intervention are presented in Figure 2.

DISCUSSIONTeachers changed their pedagogical approach upon completion of the intervention training program. Prior to training, they held a deficit view of their students and preferred a one-on-one

Table 8Split Plot Analysis of Variance for Student Behaviour Interactions for Time (within subjects)

Source df F p

Within subjects (students)

Cooperative behaviour (students)

1 64.99** .00

Non-cooperative behaviour 1 00.44 .52

Individual task behaviour 1 00.26 .62

Individual task behaviour

(Time X School)

3 03.24* .04

Individual non-task behaviour 1 20.97** .00

Individual non-task behaviour

(Time X School)

3 04.16* .02

Teacher-dependent behaviour 1 29.33** .00

*p<.05.**p<.01.


27


2002), this would have provided them with more challenging and productive learning experiences.

Social facilitationCooperative training reflected a different perspective on teaching and learning for teachers. They took up the challenge of allowing the control and responsibility for learning to pass on to students. They did this through scaffolding and encouraging students to work together rather than being the expert in the classroom, having all the answers (Lou et al., 2000). The teachers engaged all students in working together, thus enabling them to take on a new interest in and understanding of learning (Lou et al., 1996).

Te a c h e r s a s s i g n e d i n d i v i d u a l accountability to all students in group tasks which drew the students together in their work as they communicated and contributed to positive group outcomes. Students took on the roles of becoming experts and assisting each other in socially just and liberated learning environments (Young, 1990). They were given the freedom to work together and talk to each other within teacher-set boundaries to achieve these outcomes. Through a change in the social structure of the classroom the majority group, those more capable of independent work, came to share equality of participation with those with learning difficulties (Mittler, 2000;

approach using modified tasks. However, after the cooperative training program, they were able to assist their students to higher levels of inclusive participation, communication and contributions during group work. Drawing upon this social approach, participation in such tasks assisted students with learning difficulties to reduce off-task and disruptive behaviours.

Teacher assistancePrior to training, teachers chose to use more directive behaviours as they interacted with students with learning difficulties. This was because they were labelled as not capable of completing the normal curriculum and therefore required teacher assistance and modified activities (Gale & Densmore, 2000). Teachers tended to interact and direct students (as they were considered limited contributors to any type of group work), the students become more cooperative with the teacher rather than other students in their groups (Ainscow, 1993; Young, 1990). Evidence is reflected in the significant negative correlation of cooperation between teachers and students (r = -.735, p<.01). Consequently, it created a cycle of dependence upon the teacher, underachievement and off-task behaviours when the teacher was not present (Mittler, 2000). Students needed a structure to group work activities to ensure higher levels of interactions with other students in their groups (King,


28

J. Yamanashi

Young, 1990).

Cooperative behavioursEvidence suggested that a structured cooperative approach to group work provided a socially equitable and supportive classroom environment in which all students were invited to participate. Students were provided with the opportunities to listen and be heard in a more controlled group learning environment that did not require the teacher’s constant presence (King, 2002). That is, the locus of control for learning passed from the teacher to the students. This was not difficult as the teachers came to understand that students could participate in shared problem solving together without rigorous one-on-one direction. Supporting such a choice recognised differences in group membership rather than individual deficit and worked towards creating a more inclusive classroom (Campbell & Oliver, 1996) that values and accepts input by all members (Mittler, 2000).

CONCLUSIONIn conclusion, through training in cooperative group work practices teachers experienced the opportunity to change their perceptions of students with learning difficulties from a deficit view to that of a socially equitable view. It has been suggested that this experience worked towards a change in the philosophical point of view of the teachers (Lou et al., 1996). Thus,

classroom environments can encourage acceptance of difference and inclusion of all students. This, in turn, provided greater opportunities for participation in constructing shared understanding within group learning activities. These opportunities engaged the students with learning difficulties in the learning process and reduced the need for seeking and participating in disruptive, off-task activities.

Nevertheless, this study does have limitations. The research included only 8 teachers and 24 students with learning difficulties from 4 schools. One school had only one participant teacher and three students with learning difficulties. A greater number of teachers and students in more balanced school groupings would provide more substantiated results. The teachers who chose to participate in the study were identified by the principal as having experience with teaching students with learning difficulties. Therefore, varied results may be procured from less experienced teachers. Also, the study focused on students’ with learning difficulties participation in literacy activities. It is possible that teachers’ pedagogical approaches to different subjects provide varying levels of inclusion in group work activities. Further research is therefore needed into the researching


29


the differences in teaching approaches used for key learning areas in primary schools.

REFERENCESAinscow, M. (1993). Teacher education as a strategy for developing inclusive schools. In R. Slee (Ed.), Is there a desk with my name on it? The politics of integration (pp. 201 - 218). London: The Falmer Press.

Ashman, A., & Elkins, J. (2002). Educating children with diverse abilities. Sydney: Prentice Hall.

Bailey, J. (1998a). Australia: Inclusion through categorisation?. In T. Booth, & M. Ainscow (Eds.), From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education (pp.171 - 185). London: Routledge.

Bailey, J. (1998b). Medical and psychological models in special needs education. In C. Clark, A. Dyson and A Millward (Eds.), Theorising special education (pp. 44 – 60). London: Routledge.

Campbell, J., & Oliver, M. (1996). Disability politics: Understanding our past, changing our future. London: Routledge.

Coakes, S. (2005). SPSS version 12.0 for Windows: Analysis without anguish. Brisbane: Wiley.

Cuban, L. (2006). Getting past futile pedagogical wars. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 793-796.

Education Queensland. (2001) .

Appraisement intervention: Numeracy and literacy (2nd Ed). Retrieved January 3, 2007, from http://education.qld.gov.au/curriculum/advocacy/access/equity/students/inclusion/docs/intervention.doc

Education Queensland. (2002). Learning difficulties: Appraisement. Retrieved January 3, 2007, from http://education.qld.gov.au/curriculum/advocacy/access/equity/students/inclusion/learning/appraisment.html

Gale, T., & Densmore, K. (2000). Just schooling: Explorations in the cultural politics of teaching. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Gay, L., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (7th Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Gillies, R. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning & Instruction, 14(2), 197 – 213.

Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (2000). The effects of cooperative learning on students with learning difficulties in the lower elementary school. The Journal of Special Education, 34(1), 19 – 27.

Gillies, R., & Carrington, S. (2004). Inclusion: Culture, policy and practice: A Queensland perspective. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, 24(2), 117 – 128.

Goddard, A. (1995). From product to process in curriculum: A view from Britain. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(5), 258-263.


30

J. Yamanashi

Harrop, A., & Daniels, M. (1986). Methods of time sampling: A reappraisal of momentary time sampling and partial interval recording. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 19(1), 73 – 77.

Hunt, P., Hirose-Hatae, A., Doering, K., Karasoff, P., & Goetz, L. (2000). “Community” is what I think everyone is talking about. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 305 – 318.

Jacobs, G., Power, M., & Inn, L. (2002). The teacher’s sourcebook for cooperative learning: Practical techniques, basic principles and frequently asked questions. California: Corwin Press Inc.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, F. (2003). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (8th Ed.). New York: Bacon and Allyn.

Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. California: Kagan Publications.

King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning of children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307 - 317.

King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 33 – 40.

Logan City Council. (2006, March). Basic community profiles. Retrieved January 3, 2007, from http://www.logan.qld.gov.au/LCC/logan/profile/basic_comm_profiles.htm

Lou, Y., Abrami, P., & Spence, J. (2000). Effects of within-class grouping on student achievement: An exploratory model. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 101-113.

Lou, Y., Abrami, P., Spence, J., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 423-458.

Madelaine, A., & Wheldall, K. (2004). Teachers’ reactions to curriculum-based passage reading test data. Special Education Perspectives, 13(1), 55 – 65.

Mittler, P. (2000). Working towards inclusive education: Social contexts. London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd.

Olson, W. (1929). The measurement of nervous habits in normal children. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.

Shachar, H., & Sharan, S. (1994). Talking, relating and achieving: Effects of cooperative learning and whole-class instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 12(4) 313 – 353.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (ED-94/WS/18). Salamanca, Spain: Author.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (2001).


31


UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Adopted by the 31st session of the UNESCO General Conference (Paris, 2 November, 2001).

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. London: Harvard University Press.

Webb, N., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective behaviour in peer-directed groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1-2), 73 – 97.

Westwood, P. (2006). Teaching and learning difficulties. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Yamanashi, J. (2006). Facilitation of learning experiences through small group activities: A pilot study involving

to strategies, resources, classroom learning environment, to enable the student with learning difficulties to access the curriculum; the classroom teacher with the learning support teacher collaboratively plan and implement the program; people involved can include the classroom teacher, learning support teacher, speech-language pathologist, communication teacher, Reading Recovery teacher, key teacher (and high level support from relevant specialist personal), (Education Queensland, 2001).

Program 2 or 3 students’ access to the curriculum is limited through short-term or persistent problems in literacy, numeracy, or learning how to learn (Education Queensland, 2002). The students usually exhibited difficulties in reading and comprehension, understanding and following instructions, and, required constant direction from an adult, with Program 3 students requiring the most attention (Sheldon, personal communication, June, 2005). The characteristics for Program 2 and 3 include: major (extensive) modification

APPENDIX 1: Definition and description of Program 2 and Program 3 students

students who have learning difficulties. Special Education Perspectives, 15(2), 49-67.

Young, I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.


32

J. Yamanashi

Figure 1. Means of the frequency of significant teacher verbal interactions at pre-intervention and post-intervention.

Figure 2. Means of the frequency of significant student behaviour interactions at pre-intervention and post-intervention.

0123456789

10

Mean Frequency of Teacher

Verbal Interactions

Scaffolding Shared prob.Solving

Directives

PrePost

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Mean Frequency of

Student Behaviour

Interactions

Coop(students)

Ind non-task Coop(teachers)

PrePost



33

REVISITING ISSUES IN SPELLING INSTRUCTION: A LITERATURE REVIEW 1995-2007

Peter WestwoodEducation Consultant, Macau

Refereed Papers

In 1994, Special Education Perspectives v.3.n.1 carried an article ‘Issues in spelling instruction’. Much has happened in the field of literacy teaching since 1994 and it is appropriate now to revisit the topic of spelling instruction in the light of significant policy changes that have occurred in recent years. It is also time to examine findings from more recent classroom studies and experimental research that have yielded new or confirmatory information on how children learn to spell and on effective methods of instruction. This paper provides an overview of new ideas, policies, and practices emerging in the period from 1995 to 2007.

First, it is interesting to note that in July 2006 public interest in spelling was aroused again when The Australian carried a report indicating that “Singapore kids spell better than Aussies” (Ferrari, 2006). It had been found that in a

writing test conducted with large samples of students in both countries that about nine times more students in Singapore were able to spell less-common and irregular English words, compared to children in Australia. This is particularly impressive because about half the children in Singapore learn English as a second language. The conclusion was that Singaporean students’ success was due to the use of direct and explicit instruction in schools. In a follow-up article in the Weekend Australian Wheeldon (2006, p.21) remarked: “These results cannot be a surprise since we stopped serious teaching of spelling, grammar and sentence construction decades ago… if you want good spelling and grammar, find someone over 55”. She comments also that “a failure to teach spelling is a failure of duty of care”.

Have we stopped teaching spelling? Or

All correspondence should be addressed to: Peter Westwood, email: [email protected]


34

P. Westwood

is the situation actually improving?

A welcome return to respectabilityPerhaps the most significant change since the 1990s can be seen in the fact that it is now respectable again to speak of teaching spelling, as opposed to arguing against such teaching because children will discover spelling principles and strategies for themselves. In the 1980s and 1990s, under the influence of whole language philosophy, the guiding wisdom among many primary school teachers in Australia was that children would acquire spelling skills in a natural way, simply by engaging in regular writing activities and receiving feedback from teachers and peers. The occasional ‘mini lesson’ would fix any problems. Steve Graham (2000) has argued strongly that this so-called ‘natural approach’ used alone is inadequate; but in 1994 it was still an uphill battle in Australia to argue for any direct teaching of such an important skill as spelling. At that time, whole language enthusiasts relegated such an activity to a waste-bin labelled ‘obsolete methodology’. Fortunately, recent reports in US, Britain and Australia, calling for the use of research-based instructional methods for the teaching of basic academic skills have had a potentially beneficial spin off for strengthening instruction in spelling as well as reading (e.g. Ellis, 2005; House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, 2005; National Reading Panel, 2000; Rose, 2005).

They have reinforced the importance of explicit teaching, particularly in the early stages of literacy acquisition.

It would be folly, of course, to suppose that these documents have had any real impact yet on the thinking and practices of those teachers and teacher educators here who remain ardent believers in ‘whole language’ and ‘natural learning’. And unfortunately we cannot assume that teacher educators have suddenly started including coverage of direct teaching approaches or instructional methods for spelling in their language arts methodology courses; that would be too much to hope for (Meehan & Hammond, 2006). The situation is still much the same as the one Bryan (2003, p.14) remembers in the 1990s: “Spelling was an area almost untouched during my years at university. I had no idea how to go about ‘teaching’ students to learn to spell”. But at least the ‘official’ view is that basic literacy skills should be thoroughly taught, rather than discovered; and there is evidence that spelling standards in at least one Australian state, after a period of significant decline, are slightly better now than they were in 1993, but not yet back to the standard of the 1970s (Westwood & Bissaker, 2005).Putting literacy (and spelling) on the school agendaA direct and positive influence on classroom practice has been the


35

Refereed paper: Spelling insttruction issues

National Literacy Strategy in the UK and the similar National Literacy Plan in Australia (MCEETYA, 1997). In Britain, the importance of explicitly teaching spelling in schools is strongly reinforced in the renewed Primary Framework (Department of Education and Skills, 2006) where spelling is identified as one of the 12 key strands of learning. There is an emphasis now on daily ‘word study’ (vocabulary and spelling) within the ‘Literacy Hour’; and the teaching of phonic knowledge - which underpins basic spelling ability - has become respectable again. As Baker (2005) observes: “From a position of isolation 15 years ago, phonics is now back at the heart of the National Literacy Strategy.” Spelling skills and strategies to be included under ‘word study and spelling’ in the National Literacy Strategy may be found in the relevant publications summarised in the Sources and Resources section at the end of this paper.

In Australia in 1997, the Education Ministers in the various states and territories agreed that one basic goal for primary education must be ‘that every child leaving primary school should be numerate, and be able to read, write and spell at an appropriate level.’[Emphasis added]. In working toward this goal, the Benchmarks for Literacy were introduced in 2000, specifying clearly the standards to be expected of students in Year 3, Year 5, and Year 7 (Curriculum

Corporation, 2000). The introduction of the benchmarks saw spelling ability given the recognition it deserves, rather than being subsumed under a general category of ‘writing’. The benchmarks, although not popular with some educators, have given a sense of direction for spelling instruction that was rather lacking in previous curriculum guidelines, such as English: a curriculum profile for Australian schools (Curriculum Corporation, 1994).

Recent researchSpelling has remained a popular area for research, probably because written or typed words represent an output from students that is easily quantifiable, thus providing the researcher with reliable and objective data. Some recent studies have focused on developmental and strategic aspects of spelling ability while others have examined the effectiveness of various methods of teaching. Interestingly, some studies have explored spelling development in children whose first language is not English but whose written language code is alphabetic. Without pretending to provide a comprehensive summary of all available studies, I have selected here a few that are of interest. I have organized them under three main themes.


36

P. Westwood

Theme 1: Establishing key attitudes and understandingsSeveral studies have highlighted the importance of helping young children become intrinsically interested in words, and then providing them with the skills necessary for analysing the words as an aid to spelling. For example, Martins and Silva (2006), working with children aged 5 to 6 years, used activities to encourage children to think about words and how they may be segmented. They confirmed a reciprocal relationship between phonemic awareness and invented spelling, in which one process helps the other to advance. In particular, children’s invented spelling was found to be an important instrument for helping develop awareness of the oral and aural segmentation of words. The researchers suggest that the process by which children search for the best letters with which to match sounds in a word fosters an analytic attitude toward spoken words. The relationship between phonemic awareness and spelling is also accentuated by Santoro, Coyne and Simmons (2006). They suggest that the early stage of spelling acquisition is closely associated with the early stage of reading because it integrates key understandings of phonemic awareness and alphabetic knowledge.

Children’s use of invented spelling in the early stages of writing provides a useful window on their current awareness of letter-to-sound correspondences (Wilde,

2004). A study by Rieben, Ntamakiliro, Gonthier and Fayol (2005), again with children aged 5 years, reinforces the value of encouraging invented spelling; but it also indicates clearly that young children make most progress when they receive some degree of corrective feedback on their invented spelling - for example, being shown the correct spelling of the word they were attempting.

The work of Sipe (2001) stresses the fact that teachers must play an active role in helping children segment words, think actively about words, letter clusters, rhyme and analogy in order to foster optimum spelling development. Plaza and Cohen (2007) discovered that, among kindergarten children, syllable awareness was the most important predictor of later reading and spelling ability in Year 1. Similarly, Canado (2006) working with primary school students learning English as a foreign language, stressed the huge value of helping them notice key features of words. Canado refers to this as consciousness-raising, and states that, “Merely drawing the students’ conscious attention to certain orthographic rules and patterns, and a little time spent explicitly working with these spelling aspects (15 to 20 minutes, twice a week), clearly helped develop orthographic abilities” (page 35). Overall, this study found evidence of long-term gains from explicit instruction, and also reinforced


37


the notion that abundant practice is essential for spelling improvement. Students were learning essential habits for attending more closely to words, and at the same time gaining a deeper understanding of a system that would help spelling skills transfer and generalise. As Hammond (2004, p.11) suggests, an effective spelling program ensures that children really do, in her words, “construct their understanding of English orthography”.

Poulter (2000) builds on the notion of making children interested in, and aware of, word structure through what is called an ‘investigative approach’. Poulter explains the value of having children identify letter groups shared by different words, deducing any rules that may be operating in particular word families, and using this information to decode and spell unfamiliar words. Under this approach, spelling is seen as a problem-solving activity. Poulter (2002, p.11) explains the rationale in these terms:

An investigative and problem-solving approach helps pupils become more confident about unknown words. They realise that the English language has some rules that are useful and many that are broken. Perhaps more importantly, children become interested in words, more enthusiastic about the vocabulary they encounter in all areas of life, and more prepared to have a go at spelling them.

It has become increasingly clear that students in primary and secondary schools benefit greatly from being explicitly taught about word structure (Carreker, 1999; Meeks, 2003; Westwood, 2005). More will be said about ‘morphological knowledge’ in a moment; here it is important simply to indicate that the National Curriculum for English at Key Stages 3 and 4 in Britain states that pupils should be helped to increase their spelling ability through awareness of word families, roots of words and derivations, including stem, prefix, suffix, inflection. They must be actively encouraged to think about the ways in which words are constructed. A large-scale study involving 7,377 children in Years 5 and 6 in England found that teaching children to become more aware of morphemes had a positive effect on their vocabulary growth and increased their spelling ability. This finding held for both higher and lower ability groups (Teaching & Learning Research Project, 2006).

Even at adult level, guided word study can influence spelling development. Massengill (2006) describes an ‘Interactive Word Study’ approach, a method for helping students examine, compare, discriminate and make judgments about letter sequences needed to represent units of sound and meaning. Over time, the activities helped less-able spellers internalize


38

P. Westwood

and generalize key features of spelling patterns. This researcher also remarks that having been exposed to the word study approach these mature individuals reported gains in confidence in their own ability to spell difficult words.

Finally, under essential understandings, several studies have observed the close relationship between reading and spelling (e.g. Katzir, Kim, Wolf, Kennedy, Lovett & Morris, 2006; Santoro, Coyne & Simmons, 2006; Wanzek, Vaughn, Wexler, Swanson, Edmonds & Kim, 2006; Wilde, 2004). While it is true that one sometimes finds an individual who is a good reader but a poor speller, in general most studies suggest that engaging frequently in reading is the chief means by which children are exposed to words and thus become familiar with commonly occurring letter strings (orthographic units). Wilde (2004) remarks that reading is the single most important factor in spelling development because children need to engage with words in print, particularly those that are not phonetically regular. Research supports the notion that spelling ability will be enhanced by doing more reading - but reading alone is insufficient to ensure that children acquire functional spelling skills and an understanding of the principles underpinning spelling patterns. Direct teaching of spelling skills and strategies is also essential.

Theme 2: The importance of teaching effective strategies for spellingOver the past fifteen years, studies have indicated that in order to avoid the inefficient rote memorization method often adopted by students - particularly weaker spellers - it is important to teach them effective ways of approaching the task of spelling an unfamiliar word (e.g. Chandler, 2000; Dahl et al., 2003; Ralston & Robinson, 1997; Westwood, 2005; Wheatley, 2005). There can be no doubt that improvement in spelling can be achieved when students are taught more about how to learn words and how to check the spelling of the words they have attempted (Asselin, 2001; Loeffler, 2005; Maki, Vauras & Vainio, 2002; Wallace, 2006). According to Butyniec-Thomas and Woloshyn (1997) competent spellers possess a repertoire of effective spelling strategies and can apply them appropriately as needed.

O’Sullivan (2000) reported that the most effective teachers of spelling helped children develop a variety of spelling strategies - phonic and visual - and drew their attention to common spelling patterns through analogy with other known words. The Complete Spelling Programme (McMurray, 2006), designed to enhance phonological and visual awareness and efficient memory storage, embodies a strong emphasis on strategy training. Data provided by McMurray supports the effectiveness of the program.


39


Within the research literature the most frequently cited strategies for spelling include the following:

Look-say-cover-write-check (LSCWC) This strategy encourages accurate visual imagery and has been popular for many years. It is very effective for learning words that contain irregular letter-to-sound correspondences (e.g. choir). The strategy has been well researched (e.g. Bryan, 2003; Fulk, 1996; Van Hell, Bosman & Bartelings, 2003; Keller, 2002), with a study by Nies and Belfiore (2006) being the most recent. These writers conclude that the strategy is effective for improving recall of spelling patterns, and that the self-checking and self-correction aspects of the method strengthen students’ autonomy in spelling.

Spell it as it sounds This strategy is simply building on a child’s natural inclination to invent the spelling of a word based on the syllables and sounds he or she can hear within the spoken word. Dahl and her associates (2003) suggest that this is an important early strategy that helps students become more proficient within the ‘phonetic’ stage of spelling development. For older students, Jackson (1994) devised an approach called Fonetik Spelling, using children’s ability to detect sounds in words and to use their phonic knowledge. His approach is suitable for upper primary

and secondary students with learning difficulties. The aim of Fonetik Spelling is to help students produce better phonic approximations of the words they want to use, so that they can enter the words into an electronic dictionary or spell-checker and receive feedback in the form of the correct spelling. A paper by Jackson, Konza, Ben-Evans and Roodenrys (2003) provides data to support the method.

Spelling by analogyMost children making normal progress in reading and spelling soon realise that words they already know can help them decode or encode new words. For example, knowing the spelling of the word ‘east’ facilitates spelling of new words such as ‘least’, ‘yeast’ or ‘easterly’. A study by Kirkbride and Wright (2002) gives good support to the belief that children’s spelling ability can be enhanced if they are taught explicitly how to make use of analogy. It is certainly a strategy that should be covered thoroughly in any ‘word study’ sessions, as described above. The effective use of word families is one way of helping children notice and remember common elements contained within and across words.

Using knowledge of morphemesMorphological knowledge refers to the recognition of morphemes as the smallest units of language that can carry meaning (e.g. base words, prefixes,


40

P. Westwood

suffixes). Morphological knowledge helps spellers work out relationships between base words or roots (e.g., run, home, talk, prosper) and related inflected or derived words (e.g., running, homely, talkative, prosperity). Morphological knowledge is important within the English spelling system because many words share particular letter groups that signal a meaning (Kelman & Apel, 2004).

Although Deacon and Bryant (2006) suggest that many children in middle primary years do understand and intuitively use information about root words and the units of meaning we add to them, using morphological knowledge of this type seems to be a more advanced and cognitively-demanding type of strategy than the three described above. It requires the speller to have sufficient familiarity with words to recognize how an underlying meaning often results in a shared sequence of letters in all the words that are related to the root word. For example, knowing the word ‘heal’ it is more likely that the speller will correctly spell the word ‘healthy’ rather than ‘hellthy’; or knowing the word ‘claim’ will result in the correct spelling of ‘disclaimer’. Of course, at a simpler level, a knowledge of morphemes includes understanding of all common prefixes and suffixes, such as dis-, anti-, pre-, pro-, -ness, -ity, -al, -ious. Some experts argue that the most efficient way to store spelling

patterns in long-term memory may be by their morphemes rather than by their whole-word form because morphemic units can be generalized most easily to other spelling situations (Elbro & Arnbak, 1996; Teaching & Learning Research Project, 2006). Darch, Kim, Johnson and James (2000) suggest that many students with learning difficulties benefit greatly from explicit instruction that helps them understand morphemic principles. Unfortunately, the Teaching and Learning Research Project (2006) discovered that teachers themselves are rarely aware of the importance of teaching basic morphology, and often lack any depth of understanding in that domain.

A general purpose strategyThere is support for teaching all students some form of self-regulatory strategy to use when learning new words or when checking the accuracy of one’s spelling at the proofreading stage of writing (e.g. Lam & Westwood, 2006; Westwood, 2007). A typical self-help strategy involves a student in:

Saying the word.• Repeating the word slowly.• Counting the syllables.• Attempting to write the syllables in • sequence, matching letters and letter groups to sounds.Checking the result carefully, while • again saying the word slowly in segments.


41


Checking the visual appearance of • the word.Repeating the process if necessary • until satisfied.Checking with other sources if • still not satisfied (dictionary, spell-checker, another student or adult).

An Australian study of students in Year 5 identified nineteen possible strategies that spellers might use (Ralston & Robinson, 1997). These researchers concluded that spelling accuracy is enhanced when several strategies for generating and checking words are applied in combination, a view shared by Dahl et al. (2003). The study by Ralston and Robinson also indicated that students most frequently used only the strategies they had been specifically taught (i.e. mainly grapho-phonic cues and visual recall), but some had devised other strategies of their own. The writers comment that if students were to be taught explicitly to use a greater variety of spelling strategies they might use them more effectively and selectively when they write.

While most experts regard the acquisition of new spelling strategies to be developmental in nature - progressing fairly predictably from simple to more complex and flexible strategy use with age - a recent field of study has taken a different path. Rittle-Johnson and Siegler (1999) suggest that instead

of following a smooth development sequence, spelling improvement is better explained by an ‘overlapping waves model’ in which, from the start, even young children display a range of different strategies for spelling words, and may advance to a new approach or may regress to the use of much less effective methods when faced with certain words or situations. In particular, the overlapping waves model recognizes the marked variability in children’s use of strategies at any given age. Under this model, overall progress toward more accurate performance is considered to occur gradually rather than rapidly. This field of research is still active (e.g. Kwong & Varnhagen, 2005) and readers may wish to study the paper by Rittle-Johnson and Siegler. It is available online at <http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~siegler/rjohnsonsiegler99.pdf>. I do not find it easy to identify practical implications from their paper, particularly since the developmental stage model of spelling acquisition seems to be too readily dismissed by the writers, and the role of explicit teaching of effective strategies seems to be disregarded.

Theme 3: Intervention for students with spelling difficultiesSince 1993 three major reviews have synthesised the results of studies on the effectiveness of various interventions for students with poor spelling (Fulk &


42

P. Westwood

Stormont-Spurgin, 1995; McNaughton, Hughes & Clark, 1994; Wanzek, Vaughn, Wexler, Swanson, Edmonds & Kim, 2006). From the 1994 and 1995 reviews one can draw the tentative conclusions that (i) the look-say-cover-write-check strategy is reasonably effective, if explicitly taught and practised (ii) ‘error modelling’ in which the teacher imitates and then discusses a student’s error before presenting correct response, is helpful (iii) multisensory approach (including use of keyboard and computer) suits some students very well (iv) peer tutoring can be effective for raising achievement levels and as a means of providing necessary support and feedback (confirmed also by Burks, 2004); and (v) it is essential to limit the total number of words studied to about 3 per session.

The recent review by Wanzek et al. (2006) examined in detail 19 intervention studies published between 1995 and 2003. Where possible, ‘effect sizes’ (ES) were calculated to indicate the relative effectiveness of each approach. Their main conclusion was that:

Taking all of the studies into account, this synthesis revealed that spelling outcomes were consistently improved after spelling interventions that included explicit instruction with multiple practice opportunities and immediate corrective feedback after a word was misspelled (.p.540).

The most effective approach (ES = 1.76) involved a systematic program of instruction covering spelling rules, morphographic units, and phoneme analysis. This intervention produced significantly better results than an approach involving the teaching of words in context and using word families (see Darch et al., 2000 for details). Fulk’s (1996) study, in which children were taught a variation of ‘look-say-cover-write- check, also produced an impressive effect size (ES = 1.25), again giving much support to this simple self-help strategy. Studies using assistive technology (e.g. word processors and spell-checkers) also yielded moderate effects (Wanzek et al., 2006). For additional insights on use of word processors see Hetzoni and Shrieber (2004).

Practical implicationsThe research literature summarised in this paper appears to have the following implications for classroom practice:

To ensure that students’ spelling • development is accorded the attention it deserves, adequate time must be devoted to instruction, particularly in the primary school years.The starting point for enhancing • spelling skill development is the arousal of children’s genuine interest in words. This requires that teachers and tutors themselves display infectious enthusiasm for all forms


43


of word study and application.In the early years, children benefit • from guided experience in listening carefully to words, stretching words out, and segmenting words into pronounceable sub-units. The teaching of phonic knowledge is • essential for optimum spelling skill development.Children should engage in a great • deal of reading because reading reinforces awareness of letter patterns and orthographic sub-units.Effective instruction does not set • out to teach students how to spell every individual word they may need in their writing; rather it should teach students how to think about constructing words by drawing on the multiple linguistic factors that underlie spelling.Students make most progress in • spelling when they are explicitly taught strategies for working out how words are constructed. Effective instruction should help students understand the phonological and morphological principles that underpin English spelling. By implication, teachers need to have in-depth knowledge of phonology (which embraces much more than basic phonics) and morphology.In primary school, children need • guidance in using what they already know to help them predict the spelling of less familiar words (spelling by analogy). For students with difficulties all the •

above principles still apply; but in addition these students need more individualised attention, systematic error correction, more frequent practice, and the use of teaching methods that can involve some degree of multisensory input (such as tracing, writing and keyboarding). There is also a need to limit the number of words these students are required to study at any one time. Classroom organisational strategies, • such as peer tutoring and ‘partner spelling’, can significantly facilitate the delivery of a quality spelling program in the average classroom.

Finally, Hammond (2004) is absolutely correct when she argues strongly for a balanced approach to spelling that combines explicit instruction with the motivational aspects typical of child-centred teaching methods. Hopefully, in the coming years we may see the teaching of spelling receiving more attention in primary classrooms than it has received in the past two decades. But the change will not occur if teacher educators do not provide adequate practical advice on teaching spelling within their literacy and language arts methodology courses.

Additional sources and resourcesInformation for teachers on the aspects of spelling development that should be addressed under ‘word study’ is available online at: <http://www.geocities.com/


44

P. Westwood

Athens/Troy/7175/word2.htm> . See also <http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/tta/spelling/teaching.htm>.

Benchmarks for Literacy can be found on the Department of Education, Science and Training website at: <http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/policy_initiatives_reviews/key_issues/literacy_numeracy/national_literacy_and_numeracy_benchmarks.htm>

Useful word lists covering general writing needs and specific spelling vocabulary for different subjects within the school curriculum can be located online at: <http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/tta/spelling/ks3list.htm>. But don’t forget ─ lists should not be used simply to reinforce rote memorization of words; students still need to be taught effective strategies for learning, remembering and transferring the correct spelling of the words to their everyday writing.

Views, comments, and hints from teachers can be located in the British Council Teaching English site: <http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/talk/questions/spelling_rules.html>

THRASS (Teaching Handwriting, Reading and Spelling Skills) is a very useful program for developing a thorough understanding of phonic units in English language. Teachers can learn much from it, as well as their students.

For THRASS in Britain see <http://www.thrass.co.uk>. For THRASS in Australia see <http://www.thrass.com.au/research1.html>

A list of ten false assumptions about teaching spelling, compiled by Richard Gentry, provides an excellent discussion starter for school staff meetings and for teachers in the English Faculty. It can be found online at: <http://jrichardgentry.com/text/ten_false_assumptions.pdf>.

Some useful and relevant principles for teaching spelling are available at; <http://www.margaretkay.com/Spelling.htm>

For children with learning difficulties, practical advice is offered at: <http://www.csusm.edu/Quiocho/sp.students.htm>

A brief but excellent overview of spelling skill development and teaching are provided by Templeton and Morris, available in Reading Online, 5(3), available at: <http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/handbook/templeton/index.html>

A useful paper on systematic phonics instruction by Lennea Ehri can be located at <http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/publications/literacy/686807/nls_phonics0303lehri.pdf>


45


Two recent texts that are important for teachers are: Nunes, T. & Bryant, P. (2006) Improving literacy by teaching morphemes. London: Routledge.O’Sullivan, O. & Thomas, A. (2007). Understanding spelling. London: Routledge.

ReferencesAsselin, M. (2001). Supporting students spelling development. Teacher Librarian, 29, 2, 49-51.

Baker, M. (2005). Who could be right about reading? Available online at: <http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/Primary/stratevaluation.html#could>

Bryan, T. (2003). A kinaesthetic approach to spelling and handwriting. Primary & Middle Years Educator, 1, 3, 14-17.

Burks, M. (2004). Effects of classwide peer tutoring on the number of words spelled correctly by students with LD. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39, 5, 301-304.

Butyniec-Thomas, J. & Woloshyn, V.E. (1997). The effects of explicit strategy and whole-language instruction on students’ spelling ability. Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 4, 293-302.

Canado, M.L.P. (2006). The effects of explicit spelling instruction in the Spanish ESL classroom: Diagnosis, development and durability. Language Awareness 15, 1, 20-37.

Carreker, S. (1999). Teaching spelling. In J. R. Birsh (Ed.) Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (pp. 217-256). Baltimore: Brookes.

Chandler, K. (2000). What I wish I’d known about teaching spelling. English Journal: High School Edition, 89, 6, 87-95.

Curriculum Corporation (1994). English: A curriculum profile for Australian schools . Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.

Curriculum Corporation (2000). Benchmarks for Literacy and Numeracy. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.

Dahl, K. and Associates (2003). Connecting developmental word study with classroom writing: Children’s descriptions of spelling strategies. The Reading Teacher, 57, 4, 310-319.

Darch, C., Kim, S., Johnson, J.H. & James, J. (2000). The strategic spelling skills of students with learning disabilities: The results of two studies. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27, 1, 15-27.

Deacon, S.H. & Bryant, P. (2006). This turnip’s not for turning: Children’s morphological awareness and their use of root morphemes in spelling. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24, 567-575.

Department of Education and Skills, 2006. Primary Framework for literacy and mathematics. Online at: http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primaryframeworks/literacy/


46

P. Westwood

Elbro, C. & Arnbak, E. (1996). The role of morpheme recognition and morphological awareness in dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 209-240.

Ellis, L.A. (2005) Balancing approaches: Revisiting the educational psychology research on teaching students with learning difficulties. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Ferrari, J. (2006). Singapore kids spell better than Aussies. The Australian, 27 July, 2006, np.

Fulk, B.M. (1996). The effects of combined strategy and attribution training on LD adolescents’ spelling performance. Exceptionality 6, 13-27.

Fulk, B.M. & Stormont-Spurgin, M. (1995). Spelling interventions for students with disabilities: A review. Journal of Special Education, 28, 488-513.

Graham, S. (2000). Should the natural learning approach replace spelling instruction? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 2, 235-247.

Hammond, L. (2004). Getting the right balance: Effective classroom spelling instruction. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9, 3, 11-18.

Hetzroni,O.E. & Shrieber, B. (2004). Word processing as an assistive technology tool for enhancing academic outcomes for students with writing difficulties in the general classroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 2, 143-154.

House of Commons Education and Skills Committee (Britain) (2005) Teaching Children to Read, London: HMSO.

Jackson, C.C. (1994). The Fonetik Spelling Program. Wellington: New Zealand Special Education Service.

Jackson, C.C., Konza, D.M., Ben-Evans, J. & Roodenrys, S. (2003). Spelling accuracy for secondary students with spelling difficulties: Using phonetic codes and technology. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 1, 23-29.

Katzir, T., Kim, Y.S., Wolf, M., Kennedy, B., Lovett, M., & Morris, R. (2006). The relationship of spelling recognition, RAN, and phonological awareness to reading skills in older poor readers and younger reading-matched controls. Reading and Writing, 19, 8, 845-872.

Keller, C. (2002). A new twist on spelling instruction for elementary school teachers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 1, 3-8.Kelman, M.E & Apel, K. (2004). Effects of a multiple linguistic and prescriptive approach to spelling instruction: A case study, Communication Disorders Quarterly, 25, 2, 56-67.Kirkbride, S. & Wright, B.C. (2002). The role of analogy use in improving early spelling performance. Educational and Child Psychology, 19, 4, 91-102.

Kwong, T. & Varnhagen, C. (2005). Strategy development and learning to spell new words. Developmental Psychology, 41, 148-159.


47


Lam, B.F.Y. & Westwood, P. (2006). Spelling and ESL learners: A strategy training approach. Special Education Perspectives, 15, 1, 12-24.

Loeffler, K.A. (2005). No more Friday spelling tests. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37, 4, 24-27.

McMurray, S. (2006). Learning to spell: Raising standards in spelling and independent writing. Support for Learning, 21, 2, 100-107.

McNaughton, D., Hughes, C. & Clark, K. (1994). Spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: Implications for research and practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 169 – 185.

Maki, H.L., Vauras, M. & Vainio, S. (2002). Reflective spelling strategies for elementary school students with severe writing difficulties: A case study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 189-207.

Martins, M.A. & Silva, C. (2006). The impact of invented spelling on phonemic awareness. Learning and Instruction, 16, 1, 41-56.

Massengill , D. (2006). Mission accomplished, it’s learnable now: Voices of mature challenged spellers using a word study approach. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49, 5, 420-431.

Meehan, R. & Hammond, L. (2006). Walking the talk: Western Australian teachers’ beliefs about early reading and spelling instruction and their knowledge of metalinguistics. Australian Journal

of Learning Disabilities, 11, 1, 17-24.

Meeks, L. (2003). Spelling does matter. Special Education Perspectives, 12, 1, 47-60.

MCEETYA (Ministerial Council on Employment, Education and Youth Affairs) (1997) The National Literacy and Numeracy Plan . Canberra: MCEETYA.

Nat iona l Read ing Pane l (US) (2000) Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Nies, K.A. & Belfiore, P.J. (2006). Enhancing spelling performance in students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 15, 3, 162-169.

O’Sullivan, O. (2000). Understanding spelling. Reading, 34, 1, 9-16.

Plaza, M. & Cohen, H. (2007). The contribution of phonological awareness and visual attention in early reading and spelling. Dyslexia, 13, 1, 67-76.

Poulter, M. (2002). Focus on spelling. Literacy Today, 32, 10-11.

Ralston, M. & Robinson, G. (1997). Spelling strategies and metacognitive awareness in skilled and unskilled spellers. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2, 4, 12-23.


48

P. Westwood

Rieben, L., Ntamakiliro, L. Gonthier, B. & Fayol, M. (2005). Effects of various early writing practices on reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 2, 145-166.

Rittle-Johnson & Siegler, R.S. (1999). Learning to spell: Variability, choice and change in children’s strategy use. Child Development, 70, 2, 332-348.

Rose, J. (2005) Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading: Interim Report. London: Department for Education and Skills.

Santoro, L.E., Coyne, M.D. & Simmons, D.C. (2006). The reading-spelling connection: Developing and evaluating a beginning spelling intervention for children at risk of reading disability. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12, 2, 122-133.

Sipe, L.R. (2001). Invention, convention and intervention: Invented spelling and the teacher’s role. The Reading Teacher 53, 3, 264-273.

Teaching & Learning Research Project (2006). Are morphemes the key to spelling? Literacy Today, 47, 32.

Van Hell, J.G., Bosman, A.M. & Bartelings, M.C. (2003). Visual dictation improves the spelling performance of three groups of Dutch students with spelling disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 4, 239-256.

Wallace, R.R. (2006). Characteristics of effective spelling instruction. Reading Horizons, 46, 4, 267-278.

Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J.,

Swanson, E.A., Edmonds, M. & Kim, A.H. (2006). A synthesis of spelling and reading interventions and their effects on the spelling outcomes of students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 6, 528-543.

Westwood, P.S. (2005). Spelling: Approaches to teaching and assessment (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Westwood, P.S. (2007). Commonsense methods for children with special educational needs (5th ed.). London: Routledge.

Westwood, P.S. & Bissaker, K. (2005). Trends in spelling standards, 1978-2004: A South Australian study. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 22, 1, 65-76.

Wheatley, J.P. (2005). Strategic spelling: Moving beyond word memorization in the middle grades. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Wheeldon, J. (2006). Why teachers should be spellbound. Weekend Australian, 29 July, p.21

Wilde, S. (2004). Spelling today. School Talk. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.



49

Abstract

This paper reports on a set of interventions used by ten secondary mathematics teachers to cater to the learning needs of a total of 105 students who experienced serious difficulties in learning mathematics. The teachers were from the ACT private and public secondary schools which have Learning Support Units attached to them. Using in-depth interviews and documentary data, this paper provides an insight into the perceptions of the teachers regarding the learning difficulties in mathematics experienced by their students; the factors which exert the greatest impact on student outcomes related to mathematics learning, and the types of assessments and instructional interventions that teachers employ for the benefit of their students.

INTRODUCTION

Studies by Badian (1999) and Fuchs and Fuchs (2001) have found that approximately five to seven percent of school-age children have significant difficulties in learning mathematics. Hannell (2005) noted that in a class of thirty students two to three children are affected by dyscalculia or number blindness. These findings have resulted in a great deal of attention being focused on issues surrounding mathematics deficits, and at present, difficulties in learning mathematics ranks second only difficulties in the acquisition of literacy skills (Hallahan & Kauffman, 2003; Hunt & Marshall, 2005). With the current drive towards inclusion there has been a steady increase in the number of students with additional needs in the

TEACHING MATHEMATICS TO SECONDARY STUDENTS WHO EXPERIENCE LEARNING

DIFFICULTIES: A REPORT ON THE INTERVENTIONS USED bY

TEN TEACHERS

Suet Voon Yu and Joe MurikFaculty of Education, University of Canberra

Refereed Papers

Addreess for correspondence: Joe Murik, Faculty of Education, University of Canberra, ACT 2601. Phone (02) 6201 2497. Email [email protected],


50

S.V. Yu & J. Murik

regular classroom. Given that deficits in mathematics is a serious problem for many of these students there is an urgent need to examine the identification and assessment processes that educators adopt and the instructional strategies they use so that in-service training and professional development programs for mathematics teachers can be better targeted.

A REvIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Failure in understanding the basic concepts and in mastering the essential skills at the beginning of mathematics instruction in the early years of a child’s schooling may contribute profoundly to later learning problems. Due to their inability to acquire the skills needed for progressing to increasingly complex levels in the subject, many children become disillusioned with mathematics by the time they reach the secondary school. Common mathematics difficulties at this level can include problems with mastering such topics as multiplication and division of whole numbers, fractions, decimals and percentages, word problems, and the language and concepts of mathematics (Bryant, Bryant & Hammil, 2000).

Specific difficulties affect mathematics learning outcomes for a large number of students. These include problems related to attention, visual-spatial processing, auditory processing, and the encoding,

storage and retrieval of relevant information. For example, students who experience attention deficits have trouble sustaining their concentration on mathematics problems. On the other hand, some may have difficulties with activities requiring accurate visual-spatial perception. They have problems with seeing and differentiating objects in groups, determining volume from pictures or drawings of prisms, writing across the paper in a straight line, putting decimals in the correct place, and using a number line (Chávez, Reyes & Jones, 2005; Garderen, 2006; Venneri, Cornoldi & Garuti, 2003). Other students with auditory processing deficits they find it difficult to complete oral drills, oral word problems, counting on from within a sequence, and writing numbers or problems from dictation.

The ability to encode, store and retrieve information is important for the efficient learning of mathematics. A number of researchers (e.g., Bryant, Bryant & Hammil, 2000; Bryant, Hartman & Kim, 2003; Swanson & Sachse-Lee, 2001; Wilson & Swanson, 2001) have pointed out that students with memory deficits have difficulty remembering and retrieving mathematical facts or information quickly, solving multi-step word problems, telling time and retaining the concepts associated with mathematical symbols. Motor problems can also be an issue for some students with deficits in mathematics


51

Refereed paper: Secondary mathematics students & learning difficulties

as they encounter difficulties in writing legibly and accurately (Wood, 1998). For example, they may have trouble copying neatly and lining up numbers accurately to work out arithmetic problems. Research findings by Son and Meisels (2006) have also highlighted the importance of motor skills in relation to young children’s later reading and mathematics achievement.

Language and reading skills are essential for learning mathematics. When a student is unable to read or understand the underlying language structure of the mathematics problems, he will not be able to carry out the task required and provide a solution for the problem. For example, students with deficits in expressive and receptive language processing may experience difficulties in following explanations, verbalizing how and why a problem is solved in a certain manner, completing oral drills, understanding the usage of vocabulary and mathematical terms, following directions and solving word problems. Some students may possess the mathematical skills necessary to solve problems, but may not have the language skills to decode and understand adequately what the question requires them to do. This limitation in language acquisition then becomes a stumbling block in their learning of mathematics (Chiappe, 2005; García, Jiménez & Hess, 2006; Gersten, Jordan & Flojo, 2005; Jordan

& Hanich, 2000). Researchers like Haskell, (2000) and Munro (2003) have reported that among other factors that may have an adverse impact on students’ mastery of arithmetic are: inappropriate early teaching, teachers’ erroneous perceptions of students with learning difficulties and the resultant negative interactions with them, inadequacies in curriculum design, unfavorable attitudes on the part of students towards learning mathematics, low self-efficacy resulting from high anxiety and repeated failure in the subject, developmental delays, and sporadic school attendance.

A variety of standardized tests are available for assessing and comparing any student’s performance in mathematics with the performance of his/her age-group. Among the most commonly used tests are the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement to assess students’ calculation, mathematics fluency and problem-solving skills (Woodcock, McGrew & Mather, 2001). The Brigance Diagnostic Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills-Revised is a useful tool for assessing skills in numbers, number facts, computation of whole numbers, fractions, mixed numbers, decimals, percents, time, money, measurement, geometry and metrics (Brigance, 1999). The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement II is used for assessing concepts, applications, numerical reasoning and computation (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). The Comprehensive


52

S.V. Yu & J. Murik

Mathematical Abilities Test is a useful tool for assessing calculations, mathematical reasoning and practical applications (Hresko, Schlieve, Herron, Swain & Sherbenou, 2002). The Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised is handy for assessing skills ranging from matching and recognizing numbers to solving geometry and trigonometry problems (Markwardt, 1998). Munro (2003) advocates the use of general ability measures and tasks to assess number comprehension, production and calculation. The author suggests that teachers should make use of the patterns of performance by individual students on general ability scales - like the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children III - for identifying specific learning difficulties.

Similarly, informal tests offer an alternative approach for obtaining information regarding students’ mathematics performance and abilities. Informal mathematics assessments can include interacting with students, asking them appropriate questions and analyzing their answers, setting them tests prepared by the teacher, examining students’ work, checking the pattern of common errors, and using mathematics interviews with selected students (Bryant & Rivera, 1997).

The research literature has much to offer the mathematics teacher who is prepared to implement effective

instructional strategies for the benefit of her students. Following an extensive study, Mastropieri, Scruggs and Shiah (1991), suggested implementing demonstration, modeling, and feedback procedures; providing reinforcement for fluency building; using a concrete-to-semi-concrete-to-abstract teaching sequence; setting goals; and verbalizing aloud while solving problems. They also advocated teaching students strategies for computation and problem solving, and using peers, computers, and videodiscs as alternative ways to support learning. Fuchs and Fuchs (2001) identified interventions for preventing mathematics difficulties that included teaching self-verbalization methods and showing physical and visual representation of number concepts and problem-solving situations. Bird (2003) also suggested such modes of teaching as providing auditory, written and pictorial examples, preparing uncluttered worksheets to avoid ‘visual pollution’, eliminating time constraints, providing equipment such as charts, calculators, whiteboard, etc. to jot down instructions, using computer programs to aid learning, and providing consistent positive reinforcement for student effort. According to Baker, Gersten and Lee (2002), and Gersten, Jordan and Flojo (2005), direct or explicit instruction can be used as an effective strategy for teaching mathematics to students with learning problems. Maccini and Gagnon


53


(2000) point out that to be effective direct instruction should include the following five elements: 1) the explicit modeling of the strategy used; 2) providing feedback or error corrections; 3) mastery learning involving teaching students skills to a level of automaticity; 4) teaching generalization whereby students are able to transfer skills learned to other situations; and 5) cumulative and on-going review of previously learned concepts and skills. This review of the literature has examined a) the current research findings regarding the common factors that affect the mathematics performance of students who experience difficulties with the subject; b) the formal and informal methods used for assessing the difficulties encountered by such students; and, c) the common instructional interventions used by teachers to help these students. The context of this study is the increasing numbers of students with learning difficulties being included in the regular classes and the responsibility of the mathematics teacher to ensure that these students are supported in their efforts to learn the subject to the best of their ability. This study, therefore, aimed at exploring, understanding and analysing the approaches used by teachers in assisting students who encounter difficulties in learning mathematics. The study focused on the following questions: How do teachers identify students

who experience serious difficulties in learning mathematics? What are the common hurdles that students encounter in learning mathematics? What are the factors which affect their success in acquiring the essential arithmetic skills? What instructional strategies did the teachers use in assisting their students? And, finally, how did the teachers assess the effectiveness of the strategies they adopted? The interview questions follow the research questions very closely, as can be seen by comparing the research questions with the following interview questions:

Do you have any students with • special needs/learning difficulties in your class? How many such students do you have?How do you identify students who • present with serious difficulties in learning mathematics?What are the common difficulties • that your students experience in learning mathematics?What do you think are the reasons/• factors which contribute to your students’ difficulties with learning mathematics?What do you usually do to assist your • students who experience difficulties in mathematics?Can you mention some specific • interventions that have been successful and effective?How do you assess the effectiveness • of your in te rvent ions? ( see Appendix.)


54

S.V. Yu & J. Murik

interview, the participants were briefed regarding the aims and objectives of the study. Before the formal interview was conducted, they were given a copy of an interview guide comprising a list of questions. The interview questions were developed by the principal author and checked by the second author in order to ensure that each question was specifically formulated for probing and addressing the research questions. The interview was used as a method of data collection following Best and Kahn (2006) who note that the interview is often superior to other data gathering methods because people are usually much more willing to voice their opinions and insights to an

Table 1: Information regarding the participants

Participant Gender Private/Public School

Teaching experience

Position No. of students with serious difficulties in

learning Maths

Teacher A Male Private 7 years Maths Teacher 9 Students

Teacher B Female Private 5 years Maths Teacher 12 Students

Teacher C Female Public 5 years Maths Teacher 11 Students

Teacher D Female Public 34 yearsMaths Teacher and

Head of Department15 Students

Teacher E Male Public 23 yearsMaths Teacher and

Head of Department9 Students

Teacher F Male Public 29 years Maths Teacher 6 Students

Teacher GMale Public 9 years

Maths Teacher andHead of Department

16 Students

Teacher H Female Private 12 years Maths Teacher 5 Students

Teacher IMale Private 25 years

Maths Teacher andHead of Department

13 Students

Teacher J Female Public 16 years Maths Teacher 9 Students

METHOD

Mathematics teachers who taught in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) secondary schools which had a Learning Support Unit attached to them were invited to participate in the study. A condition for eligibility was that in their classes they have students who experienced serious difficulties in the learning of mathematics. Ten teachers volunteered to participate. Table 1 provides details regarding the participants:

Structured interviews were conducted using a tape recorder and a microphone in a quiet classroom setting with each of the ten participants. Prior to the


55


interviewer than to write them down on a survey form. In order to further assess, identify and examine the learning difficulties that students experience and the specific mathematical problems that they encounter, the following documents were also analysed: students’ workbooks, assessment items such as projects, test results, individual report cards, records of students’ behaviour, participation and school attendance, and communication received from previous schools and/or previous teachers.

Data AnalysisThe analysis of the data focused on finding answers to the research questions described above. The whole process involved in data analysis was completed by the principal author. The themes from the interviews were coded by tagging them from the transcripts of the taped interviews. When coding the transcripts was completed, the ideas and findings around the most common and relevant themes regarding the participants’ knowledge, perceptions and interactions with students experiencing mathematics difficulties were clustered following the guidelines suggested by Bogdan and Biklen, (2003), and Silverman, (2000). The common themes that were identified during this process related to a) the assessment techniques used to identify students experiencing serious problems with the learning of mathematics, b) the teachers’ perception of the most common difficulties experienced

by these students, c) the types of interventions used by the teachers to assist the students, and d) the methods the teachers used for assessing the effectiveness of their interventions. After the interview data were analysed, the documentary data were analysed to see how far they corroborated the interview data. Finally, a further check was made of the results of the data analysis against the findings from the literature review.

RESULTS

1. Assessment techniquesOf the 10 participants, nine used informal assessment techniques while one (teacher D) used both formal and informal forms of assessment. This teacher used the results from standardised literacy and numeracy tests and supplemented them with informal assessment. The informal methods mentioned by the teachers could be clustered under three headings: a) collecting information from reports and journals provided by previous teachers and school counselors regarding the strengths and capabilities of the student and the specific difficulties they experienced; b) observation of students by the teacher to assess their current learning behaviour, especially their ability to persist with learning tasks, the level of confidence with which they approached activities involving mathematics learning, and the pace


56

S.V. Yu & J. Murik

at which they achieved specific unit objectives and completed class work, written tests, practical work, quizzes, etc. and c) monitoring of student progress/achievement by a careful examination of their workbook and home work to identify any recurring patterns of error in their computing and problem-solving approaches.

2. Common Difficulties Experienced by the Students

Inadequate computational skills:• These included an inadequate understanding of numbers, having trouble mastering mathematical o p e r a t i o n s , p r o b l e m s w i t h multiplication and division, trouble with decimals, fractions, percentage, and with basic algebra.Information processing difficulties:• The teachers identified attention problems (“especially for students with ADHD and those who were frustrated with the subject”), difficulties with visual-spatial processing (such as the “inability to handle problems with lots of complex numbers and information” and “difficulties reading multi-digit numbers and putting decimals in the right place”), problems with memory and retrieval (including “difficulties in remembering mathematical facts, formulae, new concepts and the steps involved in problem solving.”), difficulties with motor skills (experienced by students with “illegible hand writing, or students

experiencing problems holding a pen/pencil because it interfered with their ability to write precisely”). Language and reading difficulties: • These included the trouble some students experienced in processing the words on the page and comprehending the mathematical problems. Many of the teachers found that the slow and laborious pace at which some students read a mathematics problem seriously impeded their comprehension of that problem and gave rise to frustration, and occasionally, misbehaviour. Every teacher found that helping students to overcome language and reading difficulties would be crucial if they were to succeed in improving their learning of mathematics. Cognitive and metacognitive • difficulties: As one of the teachers remarked, “Students have difficulties selecting and predicting the correct mathematical operations to solve computation and word problems.” In the words of another teacher, “Some students have serious problems with maths questions when they have to move from the concrete to the abstract level”.

3. Factors Affecting Students’ Success in Acquiring Essential Arithmetic Skills The teachers listed a number of factors that, according to them, affected student achievement in mathematics. These factors included a history of academic


57


failure leading to low self-efficacy, distractions (such as “family problems, peer pressure, and socio-economic reasons”), health problems and physical disabilities (such as chronic asthma, vision and hearing impairment), the lack of adequate resources and support for the teacher (such as the lack teachers’ aides), and a mathematics curriculum that, according to the students, was not interesting or relevant to their needs. Teachers quoted frustrated students as complaining “We don’t need maths. We are not going to use it. So, what’s the point learning it?”

4. Interventions Used for Assisting the Students. The data identified the following:

a) Reinforcement for Motivation The Teachers report that they found the careful use of reinforcement important for “providing students with motivation and promoting a positive attitude to learning maths”. Others used reinforcement in the form of praise or as part of a token economy “to boost students’ confidence by acknowledging the effort they have made to improve in the subject”.

b) Demonstrations with Examples Several teachers reported that they provide students with “many examples” as models for solving particular maths problems. These

teachers believe that examples worked out on the board are important “to enable students to be able to discriminate between different problem types”. Another teacher believed that such demonstrations enabled the students “to get a handle on the processes involved in solving particular maths problems”.

c) Goal Setting Several participants encouraged students to learn by “setting goals that challenge them in class”. For example, one teacher reported “challenging students to beat the last score of their own test result”, and another teacher motivated students “by setting for them a time limit to complete their task or to see how many problems they could solve within a ten-minute period”.

d) Use of Manipulatives, Diagrams and Games Some teachers reported using “concrete materials to demonstrate and develop the spatial concepts of the students”. Others used “games, graphics, scaffolding worksheets and interactive educational software to enhance student memory and make learning more exciting and interesting”. One participant made the mastering of an essential arithmetic skill more interesting for her students by having them sing a rap version of the times table.

e) Providing Direct Instruction Many of the teachers provided students


58

S.V. Yu & J. Murik

with “step-by-step instructions for solving a problem” and, when it is necessary, they insisted on “going back to basics by revising the key concepts and rules”. These teachers find that the students learn better when the explanations are clear and simple. They note that this approach can be effective for explaining “concepts and terminology in a new chapter” as some students have problems with unfamiliar mathematical vocabulary.

f) Teaching Specific Multi-Step Cognitive Strategies Some of the participants reported teaching their students specific computational and problem solving skills to mastery. They stressed that it is important to teach a “certain strategy to tackle a certain problem,” especially when “dealing with problem-solving questions or computational problems”.

g) Providing Ongoing Revision and Practical Application The teachers report that they program on-going revision and that they make a consistent effort to show the relevance of what the students are learning in their daily lives. One participant, for example, organized a shopping trip for her class in collaboration with a colleague who taught Home Science. The whole experience involved making a shopping list, taking public transport to the shopping centre,

reading labels, making purchases, handling money, and dealing with the mathematics involved in shopping as well as with issues related to interaction and communication.

h) Discussion with Students and Parents The teachers note that it is a great help if they can enlist the support of the parents in their effort to assist the students. They also emphasized the importance of “notifying parents about their children’s progress in class” and of “trying to get parents to provide the children with an environment that helps them to study and complete their home work”.

i) Computer Assisted Instruction Most of the teachers report using “interactive educational software” as an alternative mode of delivery and they suggest that this method can be beneficial especially when teaching students with ADHD and those who are easily distracted. Some of the participants program activities to enhance speed and skills; others use the computer to provide drill in mental computation. They report that students enjoy these learning activities because they can be challenging as well as fun.

j) Providing Assistance One-on-one or in Small Groups Some teachers reported providing students with help or further explanations individually or in small groups both in class and


59


during recess or lunch time. Some of the teachers also organized for further support to be provided to individuals and small groups by staff from the Learning Support Unit in the school.

k) Cooperative Learning and Peer Tutoring Several of the participants encouraged the l ea rn ing o f mathematics by allowing students to “work in pairs or team up with their friends and correct each other’s work”. There was also effort on the part of some teachers to make sure that cooperative learning was used systematically to get every student involved in the learning of mathematics.

5. Strategies to Assess the Effectiveness of the Interventions The methods used by the teachers to gauge the effectiveness of their interventions included analysing students’ test results and assessment items, using the Australian Capital Territory Assessment Program (ACTAP) results as an indicator of students’ progress, monitoring changes in the pattern of students’ attendance, participation and behaviour, noting changes in students’ attitude to mathematics classes and their ability to understand and solve maths problems, and finally, using the feedback received from the students and their parents.

DISCUSSION

Right from the beginning it should be noted that nine out of the ten participating teachers chose to use informal methods for identifying the students who experienced difficulties with the learning of mathematics. There is no doubt that supplementing the informal methods with one of the many readily available formal diagnostic tools would facilitate a more accurate identification of the students needing extra help with mathematics.

A majority of the assessment methods mentioned by the participants for identifying students experiencing serious difficulties with mathematics were also the ones figuring in the literature (e.g., Bryant & Rivera, 1997). However, observation of students was not specifically mentioned in the literature but this method can be beneficial for teachers as it enables them to observe students’ gestures, social cues and body language as well as their interactions with their peers. Teachers can use class observations as a means of identifying the students who are experiencing major problems, for example, those who are diffident about asking for help, those who take a long time to get started and seldom complete their work, those who have difficulties paying attention, and those who misbehave because of frustration or as a means of evading the mathematics learning task at hand. This form of


60

S.V. Yu & J. Murik

observation can also serve to remind teachers of the need to modify their teaching approaches to particular students. The formal method suggested by one of the participants, namely the standardised test which may include tests in reading, writing, spelling, and mathematics, can be useful for assessing students’ mathematics skills as well as their literacy skills.

As noted in the literature review, the current drive towards inclusion has also increased the prevalence of mathematics difficulties in the mainstream classroom. It is true that every one of the schools employing the participating teachers had a policy of streaming students for mathematics classes. But even with a policy of streaming, inclusion tends to result in a higher number of students with maths learning problems being placed in the classes for low ability students. The participants reported a wide range of common difficulties experienced by these students in learning mathematics in the inclusive classroom. The difficulties have also been identified in the research literature (e.g., Wilson & Swanson, 2001) as posing major hurdles for students with learning problems. The participants commented that peer pressure, parental perceptions, health issues and other socio-economic factors may affect learning in the case of particular students. This is also borne out by Jordan, Kaplan, Oláh and Locuniak (2006), who found

that the children from low-income backgrounds performed in mathematics-related tasks significantly worse than the children from middle-income backgrounds. The negative impact of socio-economic disadvantage on the educational outcomes of children have been highlighted in a number of other studies, such as those of McLoughlin and Nagoreka (2000); Taylor and Fraser (2003), and Weatherburn and Lind (2001).

As all teachers are aware, there is no single ‘fail-proof strategy’ which will benefit all learners. However, the interventions reported by the participants can be used as a guide in assisting students experiencing problems with the learning of mathematics and they can also be applied to the other members of the mainstream class. Reinforcement and motivation techniques can be particularly effective as students respond well to rewards and to praise that focuses on specific feedback on their performance. The use of manipulatives and diagrams is beneficial especially in aiding students to move from concrete to semi-concrete to abstract levels of thinking and vice versa. As Carnellor (2004) has found, using concrete objects or diagrams or models for representing processes and figures can be highly effective in guiding students as they work to solve problems. The teachers also suggested that demonstrations and examples are


61


important in enabling students to be able to distinguish between different problem types. Goal setting can be a vital part of students’ learning because it serves to develop self-regulation and a sense of purpose for their learning activities (Senko & Harackiewicz, 2005; Zimmerman, 2002).

Direct instruction has been reported by a number of researches as an effective strategy in teaching mathematics to students with learning difficulties (e.g. Baker, Gersten & Lee, 2002; Maccini & Gagnon, 2000). Key aspects of this approach as used by the participants included taking care to elicit and hold the interest and attention of the students on the lesson at hand; making explanations clear and simple; providing variety in the learning tasks; and careful questioning that stimulated and maintained student interest and learning.

The participants also commented on the benefits of teaching students specific multi-step cognitive strategies for developing their problem-solving and computational skills. These cognitive strategies were based on the principle that students who are “learning something new bring to that experience all of their previous knowledge and present mental patterns. Each new fact or experience is assimilated into a living web of understanding” (Killen, 2003, p. 28) In keeping with this principle, the

regular revision of key concepts and the practice of the related mathematical processes should be an integral part of the teaching program. The aim should be to make these activities as relevant as possible to the students’ interests and needs.

Discussion with students/parents can also be beneficial to students’ learning. The participating teachers pointed out that they notify parents regularly about their child’s progress in school and try to enlist their support for their child’s effort at learning mathematics more effectively. Parent-teacher partnerships can indeed result in positive student outcomes. Research findings report that the level of parent involvement in a child’s education is strongly correlated to the degree of success in school (Henderson & Berla, 1994; Nichols, 2000).

As every teacher is aware, computer technology can play an important role in enhancing student learning. Through the judicious use of educational programs teachers can ensure that students have greater control over their learning as they work at their own pace and benefit from a variety of internet-based resources which suit their needs. The participants used computers in a variety of ways to program individually for the students experiencing difficulties learning mathematics.


62

S.V. Yu & J. Murik

One intervention for helping students suggested by 50% of the participants was the provision of one-on-one tuition to students. This intervention enables both the teacher and the student to focus on the specific area that is causing difficulties for the student. Moreover, it provides the student with the opportunity to ask questions directly and privately without the embarrassment or fear of having to raise them in class in front of his/her peers. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that this strategy is time-consuming and sometimes impractical because of the number of students needing individual attention. Some of the teachers overcame this problem by catering to the leaning needs of small groups of students. Like most teachers who are prepared to do everything possible to help their students, the participants confirmed that their students are able to confer with them during lunch time, recess time or even after classes to get the help they needed.

Peer-assisted tutoring was used regularly by two of the participants and this can be an alternative option instead of using one-on-one or small group tutoring. The findings of Fuchs, Fuchs and Karns (2001) and Fuchs, Fuchs, Yazdian and Powell (2002) support this approach. These authors point out that peer-assisted tutoring is an important strategy for assisting struggling students. Furthermore,

current research by Fuchs, Compton, Fuchs, Paulsen, Bryant and Hamlett (2005) has highlighted peer tutoring as an important means for reducing the prevalence of arithmetic deficits and for improving student performance in computation, in the application of recently acquired problem-solving skills and in tackling story problems. When it is organised and managed carefully, peer tutoring, is a clear ‘win-win strategy’ where both the tutor and tutee are able to benefit from this teaching and learning experience.

It must be kept in mind that the results collected from this study were derived from 10 secondary mathematics teachers who had responsibility for a total of 105 adolescents identified as experiencing difficulties with learning mathematics. It is possible that the data represents the views of teachers who felt so strongly about the issues related to the mathematics education of such students that they were prepared to volunteer for the study. Despite the limitations, however, the data collected in this study do contain information that could serve to illuminate several factors which affect the learning of students who struggle with mathematics, and the views expressed by the participants may be indicative of the thoughts, approaches and practices of a large number of their colleagues. It must also be said that the findings of the study were fairly consistent with the research literature.


63


CONCLUSION

This study has investigated the approaches used by 10 ACT secondary mathematics teachers in their effort to respond to the mathematics learning needs of their students who were experiencing serious difficulties with the subject. It was evident from the findings of this study that most teachers used a variety of informal measures for identifying students who needed special help with the subject. These students were experiencing a range of difficulties in quantitative learning; and the teachers tended to use a wide repertoire of interventions for assisting them. Substantial and ongoing research that informs the development of educational policy is crucial in enabling teachers to use increasingly more effective instructional interventions for the benefit of their students who are struggling with the learning of mathematics.

REFERENCESBadian, N. (1999). Persistent arithmetic, reading or arithmetic and reading disability. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 45-70

Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103,51–73.

Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (2006). Research in education. 10th Ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

Bird, I. (2003). Dyscalculia: making the connection: teaching children with number blindness. Education Horizons, 7(6), 32-36.

Bogdan, R. C., & Bilken, S. K. (2003) Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. 4th Ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

Brigance, A. H. (1999). Brigance Diagnostic Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills- Revised. North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.

Bryant, B., & Rivera, D. (1997). Educational assessment of mathematics skills and abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 57-68.

Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B., & Hammil, D. (2000). Characteristic behaviours of students with LD who have teacher-identified Math weakness. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 168-177.

Bryant, D. P., Hartman, P., & Kim, S. A. (2003). Using explicit and systematic Instruction to teach division skills to students with learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 11(3), 151-164.

Carnellor, Y. (2004) Encouraging mathematical success for children with learning difficulties. Sydney: Social Science Press.

Chárez, Ó., Reys, R., & Jones, D. (2005). Spatial visualization: What happens when you turn it? Mathematics Teachings in the Middle School, 11(4), 190-196.

Chiappe, P. (2005) How reading research can inform mathematics difficulties: the


64

S.V. Yu & J. Murik

search for the core deficit. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 313-318.

Foreman, P. (1998). Integration and inclusion in action. Australia: Harcourt Brace.

Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J. D., & Hamlett, C. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 493-513.

Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Principles for the prevention and intervention of mathematic difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6(2), 85-95.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Karns, K. (2001). Enhancing kindergarteners’ mathematical development: Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 495–511.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Yazdian, L., & Powell, S. R. (2002). Enhancing first-grade children’s mathematical development with peer-assisted learning strategies. School Psychology Review, 31, 569–583.

García, A. I., Jiménez, J. E., & Hess, S. (2006) Solving arithmetic word problems: An analysis of classification as a function of difficulty in children with and without arithmetic LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(3), 270-281.

Garderen, D. V. (2006) Spatial visualization, visual imagery, and mathematical problem solving of students with varying abilities. Journal

of Learning Disabilities, 39(6), 496-506.

Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C., & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 293-304.

Hallahan, D. P., & Kaufman, J. K. (2003). Exceptional Children: Introduction to special education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hannell, G. (2005). Dyscalculia action plans for successful learning in mathematics. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Haskell, S. H. (2000). The determinants of arithmetic skills in young children: Some observations. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 9, 1177-1187.

Henderson, A. T., & Berla, N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to student achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee for Citizens in Education.

Hresko, W. P., Schlieve, P. L.., Herron, S. R., Swain, C., & Sherbenou, R. J. (2002). Comprehensive Mathematical Abilities Test. Austin, TX: PRO.ED.

Hunt, N., & Marshall, K. (2005). Exceptional children and youth. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Jordan, N.C., & Hanich, L. B. (2000). Mathematical thinking in Second Grade children with different forms of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 567-578.


65


Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Oláh, L. N., & Locuniak., M. N. (2006). Number sense growth in kindergarten: A longitudinal investigation of children at risk for mathematics difficulties. Child Development, 77(1), 153-175.

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement II. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Killen, R. (2003). Effective teaching strategies: Lessons from research and practice.Melbourne: Thomson.

Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J. C. (2000). Best practices for teaching mathematics to secondary students with special needs: Implications from teacher perceptions and a review of the literature. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(5), 1-22.

Markwardt, F. C. (1998). Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Shiah, S. (1991). Mathematics instruction for Learning-disabled students: A review of research. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 89-98.

McLoughlin, J., & Nagoreka, J. (2000). Sooner not later: An international review of literature and program review of early childhood initiatives for disadvantaged families. Melbourne: Brotherhood of St Laurence.

Munro, J. (2003). Dyscalculia: A unifying concept in understanding mathematics

learning disabilities. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8(4), 25-32.

Nichols, S. (2000) Parental involvement in supporting children with learning difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 5, 23-33.

Senko, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2005). Regulation of achievement goals: The role of competence feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 320-336.

Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

Son, S., & Meisels, S. J. (2006) The relationship of young children’s motor skills to later reading and math achievement. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52(4), 755-779.

Swanson, H. L., & Sachse-Lee, C. (2001). Mathematical problem solving and working memory in children with learning disabilities: Both executive and phonological processes are important. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79, 294-321.

Taylor, J., & Fraser, A. (2003). Eleven plus: Life chances and family income. Melbourne: Brotherhood of St Laurence.

Venneri, A., Cornoldi, C., & Garuti, M. (2003). Arithmetic difficulties in children with Visuo-spatial learning disability (VLD), Child Neuropsychology, 9(3), 175-182.


66

S.V. Yu & J. Murik

APPENDIX

Interview Questions:How long have you been teaching • mathematics?Were you trained specifically to • teach mathematics?Do you have any students with • special needs/learning difficulties in your class? How many such students do you have?How do you identify students who • present with serious difficulties in learning mathematics?What are the common difficulties • that your students experience in learning mathematics?What do you think are the reasons/• factors which contribute to your students’ difficulties with learning mathematics?What do you usually do to assist your • students who experience difficulties in mathematics?Can you mention some specific • interventions that have been successful and effective?How do you assess the effectiveness • of your interventions?

Weatherburn, D., & Lind, B. (2001). Del iquen t -prone communi t i e s . Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, K., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). Are mathematics disabilities due to a domain-general or a domain-specific working memory deficit? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(3), 237-248.

Wood, J. (1998). Adapting instruction to accommodate students in inclusive settings. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itaca, IL: Riverside.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41, 64-70.



67

Book Review

Westwood, P. (2007). Commonsense Methods for Children with Special Educational Needs. New York: Routledge.

This fully revised and updated fifth edition is both comprehensive and informative, with chapters on a range of topics relevant to teaching children with special educational needs. The early chapters outline special educational needs, learning difficulties, intellectual and physical disabilities, autism and sensory impairments and include suggested teaching approaches and general strategies to better facilitate the teaching and learning process in the classroom.

Subsequent chapters address self-regulation, behaviour management and social skill development along with the teaching of literacy and numeracy skills.These chapters are particularly interesting and are relevant for teachers of students with special educational needs and general mainstream teachers. Westwood covers the development of early literacy skills, strategies for maximising the effectiveness of instruction and the process of conducting assessments. This section is practical, accessible and invaluable as a resource in guiding effective instruction and intervention.

The final chapters cover adapting curriculum and instruction and an overview of teaching methods. The chapter on adapting curriculum looks at differentiation and outlines practical, simple strategies for establishing more inclusive classroom practice that caters for individual needs. The final chapter provides an excellent overview of a range of teaching approaches, from expository teaching to cognitive apprenticeship, and also briefly looks at the use of computers to assist learning.

The beauty of this book is the way in which each section begins with the theory and research presented in a clear and concise manner without confusing academic jargon or irrelevant information. Westwood then presents a range of practical strategies and approaches, each with a commentary on their effectiveness and application in teaching children with special educational needs. Each chapter concludes with a list of further reading references, and Westwood continually includes references within each chapter that he recommends for obtaining further information on the subject area.

The result is a highly readable guide to implementing effective teaching practices solidly grounded in a current and sound research base.

Catherine Leane, M.SpEd.



68

Notes


Contents · Special Education Perspectives, Volume 17, Number 1, 2008 2 EDITORIAL Welcome to the...

Documents

Transcript of Contents · Special Education Perspectives, Volume 17, Number 1, 2008 2 EDITORIAL Welcome to the...