Pahoia School, Te Puna School, and Whakamarama School (TLIF 5-012) - Readiness for learning curriculum Publications
Publication Details
Project Reference: Pahoia School, Te Puna School, and Whakamarama School (TLIF 5-012) - The development of student self-efficacy and an increase in confidence, risk taking, and perseverance have been a key factor in student progress. It is great to see students believe they are learners.
Author(s): (Inquiry Team) led by Louise Phipps (Te Puna School), along with Peggy Bradley (Pahoia School), and Brenda Williams (Whakamārama School).
Date Published: February 2019
Overview
Teachers at three Bay of Plenty schools were already confidently using play-based learning with children in their early years of schooling. They know that this approach is developmentally appropriate but were concerned that they didn’t know enough about the foundation skills needed learn within the New Zealand curriculum. They wanted to review their approach to school entry assessment to identify whether students were ‘curriculum ready’ and where, within they pre-curriculum sub-skills of listening, speaking, moving, seeing, print, and the key competencies, they needed further development.
The school’s TLIF inquiry team selected the Ready 4 Learning Foundation Skills assessment to find the information they needed. They then developed learning practices they could use within a play-based learning environment to develop the skills required for learners to effectively access the curriculum. In this way, they created a ‘ready for learning’ curriculum.
There were gaps in the foundation skills of all new entrants, but the size of these gaps differed a great deal. Knowing what they were and planning to address them made a big difference to the learning outcomes for these children. Not only did they develop the skills they needed to be curriculum ready, but they developed a sense of themselves as successful learners. The inquiry team argues that it is important that this experience be shared with whānau and with others involved in children’s learning. Knowing about when a child is curriculum ready is not about waiting for it to just happen. It is about respectfully and sensitively helping to make it happen.
The inquiry story
This inquiry involved three rural schools and focused on children transitioning into learning at school. It also included their whānau. The inquiry was initially planned for one year but, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, took 18 months.
What was the focus?
Teachers in a small rural community were aware of research into the skills that are necessary for students to make a good start in early literacy and to access the curriculum. They understood that these require the successful execution of sub-skills and related tasks, many of which are motor tasks. If these sub-skills are not automatic, the brain will concentrate on those rather than on the higher-level tasks.
Children who are at the same chronological age can be at very difference stages socially, emotionally, and developmentally. Knowing about a child’s ‘learning readiness’ involves knowing about their neurodevelopment and whether their sensory motor systems[1] are functioning well enough to support learning. If one or more of these areas is not functioning as it should, a child will find learning difficult and stressful, resulting in seemingly simple tasks causing tiredness, anxiety, distress, and learned helplessness. The impact of this can become cumulative, with children losing their sense of self-efficacy.
Play-based learning is known to be a developmentally appropriate response to the learning needs of children in the “early years” (aged three to seven years). This is what was being offered to children in the early years at Pahoia, Te Puna, and Whakamarama Schools. However, the children’s teachers recognised that they did not know how to identify children’s individual needs with enough specificity to enable all children to successfully access the curriculum. They were providing curriculum-based learning experiences, regardless of whether their students were developmentally ready or not. Consequently, they wanted to find out what they could do to develop a ‘ready for learning curriculum’ that would bridge the gap between the early childhood curriculum and New Zealand Curriculum.
This is the innovation statement they developed:
We would like to know whether teachers who ascertain their learner’s foundation skills needs and deliberately support learners to grow the appropriate key foundation skills will have an impact on learners to enable them to effectively access the curriculum and make accelerated progress and have positive self-efficacy for all students starting school and our priority learners up to year 2.
What did the teachers try?
The research included information gathering and sharing at other schools, local early learning centres, and whānau, along with desk-based research. Baseline data was collected using the Ready 4 Learning Foundation Skills assessment as part of school entry assessment. This tool was used with 25 learners across the three schools. The data was analysed to see what patterns could be seen and whether the tool really would be effective in helping them identify gaps in children’s foundational skills and plan next steps. In the next cycle, all learners were assessed with this tool.
The information from the Ready 4 Learning Foundation Skills assessment tool enabled the teachers to identify focus areas and develop strategies for addressing them. For example, initial data indicated there were whole class needs in the following foundation skills:
- Key competencies: Managing self for two of the classes and Thinking – especially curiosity for all three.
- Movement: gross and fine motor, balance, and core strength
- Phonological awareness: including phonemic awareness
- Oral language
- Memory: both auditory and visual.
These could be addressed through deliberate acts of teaching, including during reading and mathematics sessions and through games, and many of these games could also be played by children at home with their whānau. Teachers could address both group needs and individual needs in this way. For example, phonological and phonemic awareness and movement skills were common needs and addressed through whole class learning experiences, such as rhyming games and activities involving the manipulation of small objects. In one class, several children did not know the difference between a word and a letter, so the teacher addressed this in each day’s ‘reading’ session. Teaching strategies were differentiated to address individual needs, but this did not have to mean children were singled out. For example, in a class where three children couldn’t cross the midline, all the children enjoyed making huts for crawling.
Children were told what they were learning, and why. For example, teachers talked to them about what rhymes are and why they are important. They gradually shifted responsibility for the learning to the children. For example, at first, the teacher called the words for rhyming bingo, then the children did it, and then the children had to find the word that rhymes and give another one.
The inquiry team accessed a variety of resources to enable children to find activities that engaged them. The teachers then ensured that there were multiple opportunities to practise target learning throughout the day. They explicitly role modelled the target skills, including talking about the key competencies and how they were using them.
Whānau were asked what they knew about the activities children enjoyed doing at home, and these were interwoven into class programmes. Whānau were kept informed in multiple ways and invited to contribute. For example, one of the newsletters to parents explained the importance of correct pencil grip. It had pictures supporting an explanation of how whānau could support their children to get this right. The teachers also needed to know what support whānau could provide at home, using this information to guide decisions about the types of activities to send home (for example, whether to send independent activities or activities involving others).
What happened as a result of this innovation?
By the end of the first year, all learners who had started within the first term had a solid foundation of the key skills needed to access the curriculum. Phonological and phonemic skills had improved across all three classes and is now automatic. They were reading and writing and participating in mathematics effectively and talked positively about their learning. The children could use the language of the key competencies and talk to their parents about what they mean. They are more confident and willing to take risks and to persevere. They believe themselves to be successful learners.
As the schools became clearer about what they needed to know to inform teaching and learning and how best to capture and organise this data, they began to see how useful it might be further along in a student’s learning pathway. In all schools, data was shared with new teachers when students shifted classes. In one school, it was used to understand the needs of older children who were below expectation. This revealed similar gaps to some of the children transitioning to school, especially around moving and hearing.
The teachers report that they now have a sound working knowledge of what foundation skills students need to make it easier for them to successfully access the New Zealand curriculum. They know how to assess these foundation skills, analyse the data, and provide rich, varied, and engaging learning opportunities that effectively develop these skills. This is underpinned by a shared philosophy for developing a developmentally appropriate curriculum for young learners.
What did they learn?
The children’s needs were very different. Some transitioned to school ‘curriculum ready’ on the day they started, with only minor foundation skill gaps to work on, whilst others had many gaps in their core foundation skills. Access to clear data about these needs enabled teachers to plan and implement deliberate acts of teaching differentiated to individuals and groups. Constant monitoring and reflection meant that strategies could be adjusted when needed.
It was important to offer children a range of appealing resources that would ensure learners had plenty of opportunities to engage in the target learning. When they were engaged, their learning went deeper. Being explicit about the learning, offering multiple learning opportunities, and intentional and constant role modelling also had a big impact on the outcomes for learner.
Involving whānau was crucial and it was important to ensure it wasn’t just a one-way communication. Parents responded well to learning about the foundation skills and how they could support their child at home. Finding out what sort of involvement they could have made a big difference to whether follow-up activities at home were completed.
The data consistently showed that learners were transitioning to school with gaps in their foundation skills. Identifying and addressing these gaps can make a big difference to their ability to access the curriculum. This may be especially important when these are tracked over time and addressed when students are struggling. The schools believe that this is information that should be shared by all those involved in a learner’s journey, so all can share in providing the right support.
Inquiry team
The project was led by Louise Phipps (Te Puna School), along with Peggy Bradley (Pahoia School), and Brenda Williams (Whakamārama School).
The project’s critical friend was Andrea Ford (Clarity Education) and Carolynne Masson (Clarity Education) was its coach.
For further information
If you would like to learn more about this project, please contact the project leader, Peggy Bradley at peggy@pahoia.school.nz
Reference list
Adlam, F., (2018). Raise Your Child to Read & Write. Nelson, New Zealand.Potton & Burton.
Anthony, J.L. & Lonigan, C.J. (2004). The Nature of Phonological Sensitivity: Converging Evidence from Four Studies of Preschool and Early-grade School Children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 43-55
Anthony, J.L., Longian, C.J., Brugess, S.R., Driscoll, K., Phillips, B.M. & Cantor, B.G. (2002). Structure of Preschool Phonological Sensitivity: Overlapping Sensitivity to Rhyme, Words, Syllables and Phonemes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82, 65-92.
Bennett-Armistead, V.S., Duke, N., & Moses, A. (2005). Literacy and the Youngest Learner: Best Practices for Educators of Children from Birth to 5. New York: Scholastic.
Brown, S., (2010). Play: How it Shapes the Brain, Opens the Imagination, and Invigorates the Soul. Melbourne, Australia. Scribe.
Bulluss, J., and Coles, P., (2007). Smart Start with PMP: A Perceptual Motor Program Manual. Victoria, Smart Starters.
Cheatum, B.A., and Hammond, A. A., (2000). Physical Activities for Improving Children’s Learning and Behavior. Champaign IL, Human Kinetics.
Connell, G., and McCarthy, C., (2014). A Moving Child Is a Learning Child, Minneapolis, Free Spirit Publishing.
DeHaene, S., (2010). Reading in the Brain: The New Science of How we Read. New York: Penguin Books.
DeHaene, S., (2020). How We Learn. The New Science of Education and the Brain. Great Britain, Allen Lane.
Dickinson, D.K., & Tabors P.O., (Eds.) (2001). Beginning Literacy with Language. Young Children Learning at Home and School. Baltimore. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Ezell, H.K., & Justice, L.M., (2005). Shared Storybook Reading. Baltimore. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Franceschini, S., Gori, S., Ruffino, M., Pedrolli, K., & Facoetti, A., (2012). A Causal Link Between Visual Spatial Attention and Reading Acquisition. Current Biology 22, 814-819.
Gillon, G.T., (2017). Phonological Awareness from Research to Practice (2nd ed). New York, The Guildford Press.
Goddard Blythe, S., (2004). The Well Balanced Child: Movement and Early Learning. Gloucestershire UK, Hawthorn Press.
Greenberg, J., and Weitzman, E., (2014). I’m Ready. How to Prepare Your Child for Reading Success. Toronto, The Hanen Centre.
Hemphill, L., & Tivnan, T., (2008). The Importance of Early Vocabulary for Literacy Achievement in High-Poverty Schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 13 (4), 426-451.
Hindman, A.H., & Wasik, B., (2006). Bringing Words to Life: Optimizing Book Reading Experiences to Develop Vocabulary in Young Children. In A. van Kleeck (Ed.). Sharing Books and Stories to Promote Language and Literacy (231-268). San Diego. Plural Publishing.
House, R., Ed, (2011). Too Much Too Soon: Early Learning and the Erosion of Childhood. Stroud, UK. Hawthorn Press.
Jensen, E., (2005). Teaching with the Brain in Mind. Alexandria VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Justice, L.M., & Pullen, P.C., (2003). Enhancing Phonological Awareness, Print Awareness, and Oral Language Skills in Preschool Children. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39(20), 87-98.
Kilpatrick, D.A., (2016). Equipped for Reading Success. A Comprehensive, Step-by-Step Program for Developing Phonemic Awareness and Fluent Word Recognition. New York. Casey & Kirsch Publishers.
Leyva, D., Sparks, A., & Reese, E., (2012). The Link Between Preschoolers’ Phonological Awareness and Mothers’ Book-Reading and Reminiscing Practices in Low-Income Families. Journal of Literacy Research, 44 (4), 426-447.
Lonigan, C.J., (2006). Development, Assessment and Promotion of Preliteracy Skills. Early Education and Development, 17 (1), 91-114.
Lundberg, I. (2006). Early Language Development as Related to the Acquisition of Reading. European Review, 14 (1), 65-79.
McGee, L.M., (2007). Transforming Literacy Practices in Preschool. New York. Scholastic.
Ministry of Education – Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga. (2017). Te whāriki: He whāriki mātauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum.
Pufpaff, L.A., (2009). A Developmental Continuum for Phonological Sensitivity Skills. Psychology in the Schools, 46 (7), 679-691.
Sahlberg, P. D., (2020). Let the Children Play: For the learning, well -being, and life success of every child. U.K. Oxford University Press.
Senechal, M., LeFebre, J., Thomas, E.M., & Daley, K.E., (1998). Differential Effects of Home Literacy Experiences in the Development of Oral and Written Language. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 96-116.
Stadler, M.A., & Ward, G.C., (2005). Supporting the Narrative Development of Young Children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33 (2), 73-80.
Walker, K., (2011). Play Matters. Investigative Learning for Preschool to Grade 2. Camberwell.Acer Press.
Wasil, B.A., (2006). Building Vocabulary One Word at a Time. Young Children, 61(6), 70-78.
Weitzman, E., and Greenberg, J., (20002). Learning Language and Loving It. A Guide to Promoting Children’s Social, Language and Literacy Development in Early Childhood Settings. Toronto, The Hanen Centre.
Yopp, H.K., & Yopp, R.H., (2009). Phonological Awareness is Child’s Play! Young Children 64 (1), 12-21.
Footnote
- These include vision, hearing, touch, smell, balance, and a person’s sense of where their body is in space.
Navigation
Contact TLIF
If you have any questions about TLIF projects, please contact us at:
Email: TLIF Mailbox