The Beginning of my Inquiry 2021

This post marks the official beginning of my inquiry for 2021. The actual beginning was an exciting conversation two weeks ago, between myself and our Principal.

The conversation was a future-focused discussion to gain insights from staff voice about our current reality, as part of our school-wide self-review process. It was also an opportunity to discuss a possible direction for my CoL inquiry fitting with our school's strategic plan and Manaiakalani's patterns of student learning.

Our conversation was prompted by the question;

Moving forward, looking to the future, how might we be better? Or How might we strengthen our School/practice?

As my former 2-year inquiry had focused on creating an intensive oral language programme for junior students I already had seen the importance of oral language for building literacy across the curriculum. However, starting a new year with Year 1 students I had become acutely aware that oral language was just one facet of developmentally being 'ready' to learn to read and write. Students need gross and fine motor skills, emotional and social self-regulation skills, oral language, visual, hearing and good health.

My informal observations of students this year showed these were areas our students found challenging.

Thoughts I have taken from our discussion:

• If we are to accelerate students achievement in Reading, Writing and Maths our students have to first be developmentally ready to read and write.
• Many students are starting school displaying development age levels of two and a half years to three and a half years. I feel that we are expecting these students to jump over key developmental stages and start reading and writing at the 'expected level' and 'progress rate' by throwing them into 'formal' reading and writing programmes instead of creating programmes that meet their developmental needs.
• There is urgency. If students are already starting school two and a half years behind their peers we need to find the most effective way to accelerate the developmental progress within their first year of school so that they are then ready to learn to read and write. If not, how can we be expecting to accelerate learning to meet the level of their peers further along in their schooling when our students are leaving the 'ready for school' starting blocks two and a half years later than the peers.
• There are lots of programmes out there however, our students, community, school is unique and we need to find what works for our students. We need to create a localised curriculum to meet our student's diverse needs.
• We have an exciting opportunity to create a localised curriculum for our Year 1 classes that meet the needs of our students and accelerates their developmental progress.
• The development of a curriculum programme to meet the needs of our students and accelerate developmental progress will take time to create effectively and sustainably. We will learn about our students and their specific needs, research effective practice that is already out there, create a model that suits our students, whānau and community and share our findings throughout this process.

Therefore, my focus for my inquiry will be 'Creating of an effective learning programme to accelerate the developmental progress of Year 1 students to establish skills for school readiness.

Presenting At Manaiakalani Wānanga

Today we presented our projects at the Manaiakalani Wānanga.

Public speaking never gets any easier. But with the support of my wonderful MIT colleagues, I did it...we did it.

Listening to my fellow MIT team members sharing their journeys and projects I felt so blessed to have been a part of this journey. Not only have I learnt through my own project but I have all of theirs too. I know that every single member of the teams Mahi has made an impact on not only my practice now but will do into the future. 

With a few little presenting hitches and a discovery that I need glasses (reading of my phone was a little tricky), the nerves subsided and my project was shared.

A big thank you to Dorothy and Matt for making this all happen. You are both amazing.

MIT and TAI2020 Gaining a Greater Understanding of Māori and Pasifika Perspectives of Play

It is a common perception that play is a normal way for children to learn about themselves and their environment and that the learning and development that happens through play reflect the social and cultural contexts in which the child lives. Also, that play is important for the holistic development of the child. (Bruce, 2001; Leaupepe, 2011)

The ENGAGE Programme takes this further by showing the importance games can make as a catalyst for developing self-regulation skills needed to navigate successfully through life.

My proposed project outcome is to create an online platform to connect our Māori and Pasifika whanau with the Engage programme that our schools are incorporating into their daily curriculum.

However, Leaupepe (2011) indicates through her research into Pasifika Perceptions of Play that the above common viewpoint may not a Pasifika viewpoint. Her paper illustrates the perception of play can sometimes be seen as inappropriate and taking children's time away from more productive activities like helping around the house.  Contribution/ service is a hugely important value in Pasifika cultures. 

If this is the case then will whanau see the value in the ENGAGE programme, and be willing to learn more about it through the proposed website?


To gain further insight into a Māori and Pasifika view regarding play I meet with Maori and Pasifika teaching colleagues using the Pasifika method of Talanoa. 

My Colleague Talking From a Māori Perspective:

"Games are viewed as learning- you are learning as you play, through play learning is achieved. Maori believe should be enjoyable because through play learning is achieved.

What memories do you have of play as a child?


"Marbles, pūrerehua, ti rakau, poi, spinning top hit with a harakeke, pole with ropes like a swing, kōruru (cow knuckle bones), and calabashes,"

What games do you play as a family at home? Are they different from when you were a child?


"Video games, more electronic games. The Whakawhanaunga, the intimacy, wairua, the spiritual connection has been lost. It is missing, noho ngātahi (being together as one)"

What are the positives about helping your child learn at home?

"Whakawhanaungatanga , spiritual connection. We are very kanohi ki te kanohi."

Two Of My Colleagues Talking From a Pasifika Perspective

Some families are strict and children have to do what they are told to do. Others allow for time to do something and spending time together as a family and play. 
Traditionally games are competitive... egg and spoon races, sack races.

The conversation turned to opportunities and challenges of sharing the ENGAGE programme with families and expecting them to implement the games at home. 

It was mentioned that it can be difficult to have the drive, and daily routines and there is the distraction of social media e.g.facebook, this takes time away from spending time interacting with children. They said that there is the risk that they will say they will do things that the school recommends but in reality when they get home it probably won't happen. 

School is school, and home is home. It is polite to say the right things and families don't necessarily say what they think. When discussing ways of sharing... Culturally, if it is fun families will come especially if it is something simple ..... food and their children performing.... bring families in to share. 


My Reflection after meeting with colleagues:

• It is important to value Whakawhanaungatanga and embed this value throughout the process and within the prototype.
• Include Maori games such as ti rakau 
• Incorporate competitive games
• Students demonstrate games as an incentive for parents to connect.
• Launch an online platform through a celebration for our Pasifika community, sharing food and cultural performances.

References

Bruce, T. (2001). Learning through play: Babies, toddlers and the foundation years (pp. 112-124). London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Leaupepe, M. (2011). Pasifika perspectives of play: challenges and responsibilities. Peer-Reviewed Paper: Vol2, Num4-March 2011, The University of Auckland.

CoL: Evaluation Of My Intervention After The First Year

This Evaluation looks at the different parts of our inquiry into creating a culturally responsive intensive oral language programme across the Junior School. It reflects on the three hypotheses developed at the beginning of this inquiry. 

Utilising the student's strengths in their first language, working in bilingual and multilingual ways, creating Talanoa, and working in partnership with families will help build students English language and literacy.

Developing oral language through short high-interest topics and real-life experiences, with a focus on intensive oral language acquisition, will create an environment of language in abundance.

A collaborative inquiry across the junior school (Years 1-3) will grow professional capital across the school. The shared inquiry will allow all students across the junior school to benefit from the effectiveness of changed practice and allow teachers to learn from and with each other. It will hopefully also enable an effective changed practice to become sustainable.

Student Voice

Student voice shows that there has been a shift in students feeling comfortable using their first language at school and that the target students see their heritage language as a way to communicate effectively with their peers and family and value themselves as experts when it comes to teaching their teachers their first language. Whereas previously the target students said that they just spoke their first language at home and with friends. They also see changes in my teaching practice such as collaborative learning opportunities, turn taking when talking and using language acquisition activities as ways in which they learn best.

Comparison of student voice survey Term 1-4 

Pasifika Early Intervention Programme (PELP)

After one Term of the Pasifika Early Literacy Programme (PELP) our Target Students made significant progress in the number of words spoken during the PELP oral language assessment, with the exception of Student 3 who already had a higher English oral language level than the other students. Student 4 didn't speak their heritage language at home which accounts for there low level of heritage language pre and post intervention.

This data shows the increase of students confidence speaking their first language at school alongside the increased acquisition of English within that one term.

The above graph shows the average amount of words spoken during the Pasifika Early Literacy Programme language test pre PELP intervention and post intervention (one school term).

The graph indicates that on average Junior students increased their oral language after one term of PELP. During this time we changed our teaching practice to incorporate students first language into our teaching programmes, encouraged students to use their first language, used dual language books in class and at home, and connected with families about the importance of students using and learning their first language.

The graph also shows that those students who were also in the Target Group, participating in small group oral language acquisition activities  (Dr Jannie Van Hees) went from having a below average oral language level below level to an above average level. These students participated in all Dr Van Hees modelling sessions and classroom sessions lead by the teachers exploring hands on oral language activities, insisting on use of new oral language, picture talk and shared writing sessions using new vocabulary. This shift is far greater than those students not participating in the programme.

It is therefore my conclusion that although we would probably see shift in students oral language through the use of PELP alone we see a far greater shift when we combine this programme with the teaching strategies that make up the Oral Language Intervention Programme designed by Dr Jannie Van Hees.

Combilist Data

The Combilist was used to measure language development factors of all students within my class.
Factors important in language development are rated below using the scale Yes/Sometimes/No.

C1-2 indicates willingness to communicate
C3-4 indicates communication with teacher/adults
C5-9 indicates participation in discourse
C10-13 indicates contribution to the discussion or discourse
C14-16 indicates benefits from feedback

Areas that target students made the most gains where: 

C2 Keen to express meaningfully and well.

C4 Expresses responses as clearly as he/she can.

C5 Takes the opportunity to speak.

C8 Gives elaborate responses to open-ended questions from the teacher/adult

C9 Reacts and responds spontaneously and on own initiative to teacher.

C12 Thinks before he/she speaks so as to express at a higher cognitive level.

C14 Continues his/her meaning and intentions, and picks up and uses teacher examples and models later.

Areas for continued development are:

C10 Sustains expression of his/her meaning, ideas and intentions.

C15 Meanings and ideas logically developed and expressed.

The rest of the class still struggle with giving elaborate responses and thinking before they speak to express at a higher cognitive level. The gains the target group made in this areas I feel is reflective of my change in practice, pushing students to use more words, new vocabulary, modelling responses and to think before they speak. The graphs show that those students that were 'No' in many categories all shifted to 'Sometimes'. This was not the case for many of the other students within the class that made comparatively little gain in these areas.

These results show that Dr Jannie Van Hees programme does have a substantial impact on oral language acquisition and using Dr Van Hees teaching strategies across the Junior school would benefit all students.

Transference Into Reading

The below graphs show the little progress students made within their first year at school (40 weeks). The graph also shows the progress that was made during the last 20 weeks of which these interventions took place. Although three of the students are working well below the expected level, all have made progress. However, it is hard to say whether this progress would have been made due to changed oral language programme or whether it is due to the normal classroom reading programme.  

Student 1

Student 2

Student 3

Student 4

Collaborative Inquiry Into Changed Practice Across The Junior School

The collaborative nature of this inquiry is harder to evaluate however a survey completed by the Junior teachers showed that they all had a clear understanding of the 'why' behind the change in practice and held a shared vision. As a team, we have undertaken a vast amount of PLD this year with DR Jannie Van Hees, the Pasifika Early Literacy Programme and ENGAGE, and shared our new learning with the rest of the school Staff meeting slide deck. 

We soon realised that creating changed practice across the Junior school would take longer than anticipated and extended the length of the inquiry from 1 year to 2 years, dedicating the first year to professional development and exploring changes in teaching practice. Teachers were at differing stages of uptake of this new learning due to two teachers being beginning teachers and experiencing all the new learning that comes with teaching your first class. What was important to me was the openness all teachers had to the PLD and that all teachers tried some of the teaching strategies learned.

We began collecting data on all junior students but then realised that it would be more significant to focus on a target group that would participate in all small group intensive oral language activities  (Dr Van Hees), PELP and ENGAGE taught by me. Next year as we all implement the new learning we will take data across the Junior School.

During the second year,  the aim is for all Junior teachers to fully implement the changes to practice, creating a Junior curriculum that focuses on a culturally responsive intensive oral language acquisition programme.

The Introduction Of ENGAGE

One of the factors that became apparent throughout the inquiry was the impact students low levels of regulation had on students ability to uptake new oral language. 

ENGAGE seemed to be the missing piece and when offered the opportunity to participate in the programme starting Term 4 we as a team jumped at the chance. 

It is hoped that through the games based programme students will develop self-regulation skills that will help them to uptake new learning. 

Data will be used from this programme to support our inquiry moving into its second year. 

ENGAGE

ENGAGE is a programme designed to teach self-regulation skills through games. After mastering the game of Simon Says we extended it by playing the game in Tongan. Students soon realised that watching and thinking was an important part of listening so they could understand the instruction. 'Simon' pointed to the parts of his body as he said the instruction in his first language so non-Tongan speakers could understand. This extension raised the cognitive level, the challenge and engagement.



ENGAGE has been the missing piece in our Inquiry into creating an intensive oral language programme for our Juniors.

We were struggling implementing changed practice due to many students low levels of self-regulation. Unable to slow their bodies and minds down and engage with what was being said by the teacher and peers it made uptake of new oral language difficult.

ENGAGE uses common language taught through games e.g. when playing 'Silence' where children complete a challenge in 'Silence' the teacher says "It is important that you listen carefully to the instructions so you know what to do." This phrase is then repeated by the teacher in other areas of the curriculum or parts of the day when students are needing to use the same skills in a different context.

Initially students find the games challenging, this was something we had not anticipated as they seem like simple games. However sticking with the same game over a few weeks the children do gain the skills needed and the game can then be extended to up the challenge and sharpen their self-regulation skills.

Being strategic about implementing the skills and common language across the curriculum has already shown itself to be working. It is giving student cues to use the needed skills and has helped them to get themselves ready for learning.

Next year we will be fully implementing this programme across the Junior school from day one of the Term and sharing the programme with parents at the start of the year.