mteachjournal.files.wordpress.com · Web viewWord count: 10,979. This report/dissertation may be...

Master of Teaching (MTeach)University College London, Institute of

Education

Practice Based Enquiry (PBE)

Report

How can I encourage my Year 7 learners of Spanish to be

autonomous when presented with a range of texts to read?

Hannah SHARMA

Month and Year of Submission:September 2016

Word count: 10,979

This report/dissertation may be made available to the general public for borrowing, photocopying or

1

consultation without the prior consent of the author.Acknowledgements

This piece of research and report would not have been realised without the support of so many to whom I am eternally grateful.

Firstly, I would like to thank my pupils without whose eagerness to participate I would not have been able to complete, nor enjoy the process of research as much as I did.

To Ambrose Hogan and Rosalind Janssen for your continued support through what was a very difficult personal time for me whilst undertaking my MTeach qualification. The advice and help given ensured that I was able to complete the programme.

I would also like to extend a much heartfelt thank you to Caroline Conlon. I could not have asked for a more supportive, approachable and kind PBE supervisor. Your willingness to help and advise was invaluable, your conversation interesting, and your enthusiasm for consistent improvement is infectious.

To my dearest friend Jack McCabe who convinced me to undertake the MTeach. Thank you so much for your time and encouragement. I certainly would not have been able to complete this without your limitless availability to listen to me.

Finally, to my wonderful sister, Javita, and Mum, Angie. Without both of you I certainly would not be where I am today. Your consistent belief, love, and encouragement have been a constant source of support that I am so lucky to have. Dad would be proud of us.

2

How can I encourage my Year 7 learners of Spanish to be autonomous

when presented with a range of texts to read?

Abstract

This report is a piece of action research into developing Year 7 pupils’ capacity

to be autonomous learners in their Spanish lessons. I chose to focus on the skill

of reading as I wanted to improve my own practice of teaching this skill, having

never explored different ways of improving pupils’ reading in a foreign language.

The expected outcomes of my research were to have a comprehensive list of

strategies that pupils can employ when undertaking reading activities. In

addition, I wanted this list to improve pupils’ confidence and autonomy thus

reducing their reliance on me. Prior to the research, pupils immediately sought

help and support from me in an impulse reaction at being presented with a text

full of unfamiliar language.

The report uses a combination of questionnaires, observations, interviews and a

learning journal to chart the progress towards autonomy. The research uses

Harris (2000) and Carver (in Woore 2014) as a point of reference for strategy

instruction. The findings from my research concur with the presented literature;

as pupils become familiar in using a checklist of strategies, their confidence and

willingness to tackle written texts in Spanish grow, thus they become more

autonomous.

3

Table of Contents

Introduction 6

Review of literature 8

Hypothesis 16

Methodology and Methods 17

Results and Analysis 28

Conclusion 44

Bibliography 47

Appendix 1 56

Appendix 2 66

Appendix 3 67

Appendix 4 68

4

Appendix 5 73

Appendix 6 75

Appendix 7 76

Appendix 8 77

Appendix 9 78

5

Introduction

When referring to the skill of reading throughout this report I intend to refer to

comprehension rather than phonics.

The introduction of the new MFL curriculum for teaching in 2016 with initial

exams in 2018 (Ofqual 2016), reverts back to an equal weighting placed on

each skill at GCSE level. I feel there is a clear need to nurture the four language

skills evenly as a result. In previous years, I have tended to focus on the

productive skills in preparation for the controlled assessments that counted for

60% of the final GCSE grade (AQA 2012:5). That is not to say that I completely

neglected the practising of the receptive skills in lessons, however, I would not

necessarily teach them. Instead I assumed that pupils would make progress in

these skills by osmosis; by being immersed in the language they would ‘acquire’

these skills without the need for definitive strategy teaching.

It is from this reflection and with the new GCSE in mind that I turn to my Year 7

pupils. These pupils are at the beginning of their language-learning journey and

therefore my research could have maximum impact on this group. They are

taught in ability classes and I am going to concentrate on my classes with High

Achieving Pupils (HAPs) and Low Achieving Pupils (LAPs). Pupils have been

streamed in accordance with their Key Stage 2 data and their performance in

Spanish does not necessarily match this data. Currently, Key Stage 2 reported

data refers only to English and Mathematics. The LAP group has a below-

average reading age of 8 and they approach literacy tasks with difficulty. When

6

presented with different types of texts, usually from a textbook, some pupils

immediately panic and exclaim that it is impossible to understand the written

Spanish. This reaction is more common amongst LAPs – they are often afraid

to embrace the idea of challenge - however, it also appears amongst those

HAPs who are afraid of failure. I have noticed that these pupils spend little time

on a reading task independently before asking for my help. This is clearly not

unique to my classroom as Erler (in Macaro, Graham and Woore 2016:55)

noted that some of her pupils relied on ‘waiting for the teacher…’. This

dependence on teacher translation is not developing reading skills in any

language. Furthermore this is not teaching the crucial life skills of resilience and

independence. I would like to equip pupils with strategies that they can employ

when presented with authentic and ‘adapted literary texts’ (AQA 2016:12). I

further hope to contribute to the wider school literacy policy by equipping pupils

with reading strategies that are transferable to support progress across the

curriculum.

The context of the school is a mixed Free School in a socially deprived area of

southwest London. The borough is the ‘8th most deprived in London’ (Lambeth

2016:5) with ‘29% of children…living in poverty (ibid:41). There are currently

101 pupils on role. A third of the school population is considered EAL (English

as an Additional Language), and the predominant ethnic background is Black

Caribbean.

7

Review of literature

As Mitchell and Swarbrick (2015:49) state: “If pupils are to read successfully in

the foreign language, they need to be taught how to do so”. The literature

concerning language strategies did not, according to O’Malley and Chamont

(1990:2) exist pre-1981. Instead, descriptions of effective learners were

produced rather than suggested teaching for second language learners.

In order to explore the field concerning my own research, the focus of my

reading has been on strategy instruction; how to teach ‘linguistic autonomy…to

[develop] independent language use’ (Grenfell and Harris:1999:1).

I concur with the difficulties identified by Grabe and Stoller (2011) that the

presented research has been undertaken in a wide variety of contexts and it is

difficult to directly apply this to my classroom. As Pachler (2002:6) points out,

pupils in the British education system face ‘highly challenging systematic

pressures’. These are different to many of the presented research contexts, as

are the ages at which pupils begin to learn another language. I have been

conscious of the various contexts of research throughout my reading. In reading

research undertaken in different classroom contexts, I have simply looked to

investigate the strategy instruction to have a deeper understanding of what this

could entail.

I lead myself to define the skill of reading for my research. Carver (in Woore

2014:82) categorises the term in “gears”: “scan (fastest gear), skim and reading

8

for pleasure (middle gear), scrutinise for learning and for memorising (slowest

gear)”. There is clear scope for charting progression when using this model.

The arrival at the automatic use of the slowest gear is what I hope my pupils will

demonstrate at differing levels by “process[ing] the text in particular ways” ( ibid).

What is clear is that “fast and efficient processing is …essential for fluent

comprehension” (ibid: 83).

The term independent learner and autonomous learner, although related, are

very different. I had thought these were synonymous terms however, Lamb

(2016) helpfully differentiates between the two. He defines learner

independence as “situations in which the learner learns independently of the

teacher” with learner autonomy being described as a “capacity” to learn

independently (2016:11). It is from these definitions that I see that I want to

create autonomous learners, who are able to be independent. In order to bring

about learner autonomy I must generate a desire to want to read in Spanish and

simultaneously establish a classroom setting that fosters independence. I must

match interest in the content of my texts with an appropriate level of linguistic

challenge. The topics taught in the languages curriculum can be somewhat

unexciting for learners; they learn to describe the contents of their pencil case in

comparison with the potentially more stimulating composition of a Roman army

in History (Andon and Wingate 2012).

A variety of strategies must be presented in order for pupils to analyse what

works best for them. Pupils need to experience this so that they can best

“construct their internal language system” (CILT: 1989). Furthermore,

successful learners “adopt a multi-purpose approach, using strategies in

9

combination rather than in isolation” (Graham 1997: 46). “Good language

learning is about increasing autonomy” (Grenfell and Harris: 1999:35).

Therefore, the question must be raised: How can I bring about learner

autonomy in my classroom? As Harris (2000: 220) states, “learners have to

function independently” and I must facilitate this.

I need to be conscious of the context of my classroom throughout my research.

My LAP class may bring the difficulties and attitudes towards reading in English

to reading in Spanish (Woore 2014). Their knowledge of the world and ability to

contextualise texts is less developed and their experience of learning a

language in primary school is varied. Woore (2014:84) highlights these facts as

important in “knowing and responding to learners as individuals”. Similarly,

some pupils in my HAP class may already have their own strategies that they

employ in their first language and may not be receptive to my teaching. I will

need to take care to ethically ensure that these pupils are aware that I am not

deconstructing their tool set; I am simply aiming to broaden it. Each class will

need to have texts that are controlled by me to ensure they are appropriate in

terms of challenge. By observing my pupils I will be able to chart their progress

in confidence in applying strategies.

It is clear that pupils must be prepared for reading a text by having knowledge

of the vocabulary associated with the topic. For pupils to be able to understand

a text they should, according to various pieces of research, be familiar with 95%

of the lexicon (Laufer, 1989; Hu and Nation, 2000; Laufer and Ravenhorst-

Kalovski, 2010). Swan (2008: 267) states that “to ‘teach’ reading skills or

strategies is more or less a waste of time; [pupils should be given] the language

10

they need in order to read texts”. Whilst I appreciate that Swan alludes to the

research placing the emphasis on the teaching of vocabulary, I worry about the

effect this will have on my lessons. I can see that Swan’s idea sits with Carver’s

(in Woore 2014) fastest and middle gears of scanning and skimming however, I

want to chart progression towards scrutiny for learning. I understand that

elements of my lessons will need to have a vocabulary focus but I do not want

them to be solely vocabulary based. I feel that with Swan’s approach, pupils will

not be able to access texts that are interesting to them based upon this idea for

a very long time (Woore 2014: 87). I therefore disagree with Swan; pupils need

to be equipped with strategies to confront unfamiliar vocabulary in conjunction

with identifying familiar terms to gain comprehension. In short, I feel they need

explicit strategy instruction.

Relevant to my classroom is the need for “learners to see…texts as a challenge

to overcome rather than as something daunting and demotivating” (Woore

2014:88). It is essential that I build up their confidence by equipping them with

strategies to tackle a text. Macaro and Erler (in Woore 2014) found that pupils

who had specific instruction of reading strategies which focus on the “process of

reading - how they [go] about it and how to do so more effectively” rather than

their attainment in a text achieved significantly better than those who did not

have such instruction (ibid: 89). Findings also show that pupils who are

equipped with strategies are more likely to attempt a challenging text (97% of

control group versus 77% of non-control group) (ibid). Effective reported

autonomous strategies from this piece of research emerge as “scan for words

that look familiar and try to guess the meaning from them”; “look up many words

in the dictionary or glossary” (ibid). This is in comparison to strategies such as

11

“wait for the teacher to go through the text”; “wait and see if the teacher says

what it means” employed by those in the research, and my pupils, who are not

provided with strategies (ibid).

For teachers, it is difficult to develop teaching styles independent of a

prescriptive framework due to the pressures of exams. Harris (2000) identifies

that teachers can be led to stay within the comfort zone of texts that are

presented in a textbook, as these are similar to what will appear in an exam.

How can pupils be expected to take risks in their learning if teachers are too

afraid to do the same in their teaching? The establishment of the new GCSE

with the use of authentic texts being the focus will require teachers to use texts

in lessons from different sources. Furthermore, the fear that pupils will become

disengaged can lead to teachers relying on texts that they can guarantee pupils

will be able to understand. This goes against Andon and Wingate’s (2002)

findings that disengagement comes from non-stimulating content and lack of

challenge.

For pupils, the reluctance to become autonomous is due to a lack of awareness

of how to approach a task; “the autonomous language learner [must have] at

their disposal a range of strategies to facilitate their learning” (Harris 2000: 227).

This could further be linked to Lamb’s (2016) view that pupils have the capacity

to be autonomous but their lack of independence means that this capacity is not

being developed. The expectation should not be that a variety of strategies are

provided for pupils to immediately employ. Instead, a process should be

followed for effective strategy instruction (Harris 2000). Harris, much like

Carver’s (in Woore 2014) gears, suggests a six-stage process is needed:

12

“1. Awareness raising

2. Modelling

3. General practice

4. Action planning

5. Focussed practice and fading out of the reminders

6. Evaluating strategy acquisition and recommencing the cycle” (2000: 229).

In order for collaborative learning to take place, pupils must be aware of the

process and take an active part in the development of each strategy. This will

enable them to effectively evaluate each approach in order for effective future

employment. I will require my pupils to consciously learn the strategies with a

view to them eventually applying them automatically. This is a progression from

declarative knowledge to procedural knowledge as described by Johnson

(1996). He stated that, at the declarative stage pupils learn a set of rules and

store these in the long- term memory. These rules are then called upon, without

being aware, and applied appropriately in the procedural knowledge stage.

As my learners are at the beginning of their language learning journey, I am

interested in using Harris’ suggested stages in conjunction with Harris and

Snow’s “Checklist of reading strategies” (2004:25). By adhering to this idea I

feel that my pupils will be encouraged to take an active role in the development

and evaluation of the strategies. I need it to be an explicit process rather than

implicit for them to realise their approach to understanding written texts.

13

It is difficult to find advice on how to teach explicit strategies however, Harris

(2002:13) indicates that pupils should be given a task prior to any instruction,

then “brainstorm the strategies they used to complete it”. Additional strategies

could then be added to the checklist for my pupils. This will be relevant to my

classroom and pupils will be able to support each other and have a personal

investment in the process. At the action planning stage of the strategy

instruction process, Harris suggests that pupils devise their own action plan

(ibid). This will hopefully give my pupils a realisation that they can have

ownership in different areas of their language learning, therefore increasing

their level of autonomy. Furthermore, by sharing ownership of planning and

learning, ‘poorer learners’ can learn “how good learners arrive at their answers”

(Rubin 1990:282).

Conflicting views on the language of strategy instruction emerge and I find it

difficult to know which advice to follow. Harris and Snow (2004:25) write their

checklist in English, whereas Harris (2002:9) provides an example of a checklist

in French. Ofsted states in its criteria for an outstanding MFL lesson that pupils

should be able to use “language creatively and spontaneously to express what

they want to say” (2013:3). This would indicate that I should deliver my

instruction entirely in the target language, as is the norm for my lessons. I am

however, very aware of the time limitations of my research. In order for me to

ensure pupils understand and use the checklist, and that I fully understand

pupils’ points of view to monitor their progress in attitude, I am going to follow

Harris and Snow’s (2004) more recent example of using English as the main

language of teaching. I will adopt Macaro et al’s (2016:14) “optimal [teacher]

position” on oral interaction. In order for my pupils to make connections

14

between English and Spanish, “principled and controlled” use of English is

appropriate (ibid). These connections, I hope, will enable my pupils to transfer

their strategy knowledge to other subjects. Likewise, in order to encourage

participation from all pupils and reflection of their journey, I will allow for the use

of English; I do not want participants to be deterred (Harris and Snow 2004). I

feel that for the purpose of my research this is a satisfactory justification for

using English as the main language of delivery.

Taking into account all of this research, with particular attention given to Harris

and Snow (2004) and Harris (2000), I will design my research to focus on a

checklist of reading strategies, implemented through a six-stage process of

strategy instruction which will be delivered in English. I will follow the six-stage

process in the order as suggested by Harris (2000) with a view to implementing

this with other skills in the future, along with delivering my teaching in the target

language.

15

Hypothesis

The purpose of my research is to neither prove nor disprove a theory. It is

instead an investigation into how to improve the confidence of my pupils, the

results of which will impact on my own classroom practice. The aim of this piece

of research is to use a comprehensive set of strategies that will help my Year 7

beginner learners of Spanish approach written texts with confidence. By

adhering to the strategies, I should be able to comment on the progress of my

pupils in relation to their demonstration of being autonomous learners. In

essence, I hope that the outcome of my research will move pupils from an

“Entity View” of their own intelligence to an ‘Incremental View’ (Dweck 1999),

having a fearless attitude of risk-taking without worry of failure and to adopt a

growth mindset of learning from their mistakes.

Using Lamb’s (2016) definition of learner autonomy, I will involve my pupils in

the development of the checklist as suggested by Harris and Snow (2004 – see

Appendix 8) so that they are able to develop their own strategic knowledge. In

applying this internalisation, pupils will demonstrate successful learning. The

active role of my pupils in this process will enable them to become co-

researchers that will provide a platform for pedagogical conversations to take

place in English, rather than interviews. As previously mentioned, the use of

English does not adhere to my department policy of 100% target language use,

but for the purpose of my research I feel it appropriate to use. I will also take

steps to ethically ensure that pupils are aware that English is the chosen

16

language for delivery due to time constraints, not due to it being considered the

superior language in the classroom.

Methodology and Methods

As the principle focus of this piece of research is to explore, investigate and

inform, I shall undertake a piece of action research. I feel that it is the most

suitable for my project as it has a “particular niche [for those] who want to use

research to improve their practices” (Denscombe 2010:125). I want to use

Harris’ (2000) six-stage method to improve my practice. My aim is to encourage

learner autonomy and to change my current classroom situation when a reading

text is presented. I do not simply want to identify why this reluctance arises;

instead I want to develop my learners’ capacity to be autonomous (Lamb 2016).

The word limitations of this report will not allow me to delve into the pupils’

emotional experience of reading a text in a foreign language as the

phenomenological approach follows. For this project, I want to improve the

learning environment for pupils; to “alter things…as part and parcel of the

research process” (Denscombe 2010:125) and action research lends itself to

this.

The current research in this field alludes to including pupils in the process of

defining strategies (Harris, 2000), yet I was not able to find concrete

suggestions from pupils in any of the literature I read. It is interesting to note

that, despite promoting pupil voice, this does not emerge in published material. I

want to ensure that the suggested strategies are relevant to my pupils and I

want their ideas to be explored, rather than me only imposing ideas on them,

which could present a dichotomy in their learning. My commitment to pupil voice

17

stems from the findings of McIntyre, Pedder and Ruddock (2005:149) that pupil

input can have a “constructive focus on learning[; a] consensus about what

helps learning…”

I explored five different texts over five lessons in the second half of the Spring

Term. These texts included two from textbooks, a recipe and short stories. I

chose the texts taking into consideration prior learning and the interests of my

pupils. I focused on pupil response to each text to enable me to monitor the

progress towards learner autonomy. As Harris’ (2000) model suggests, the

process is a cycle to facilitate progression towards Carver’s slowest gear (in

Woore 2014). In addition, I chose to spread my research over five lessons, as I

could not spend entire lessons on one text; I was still committed to completing

my Schemes of Work.

I decided to undertake my research at this point in the year as pupils had a

sufficient command of Spanish; they had been exposed to a number of different

texts; and they had understood, but perhaps not realised, the importance of

autonomy to secondary school life. I used a lesson at the start to raise

awareness of my “rationale for strategy instruction” (Grenfell and Harris 1999:

73), by presenting pupils with a text ‘cold’ and asking them how they went about

securing understanding. It is key that I am transparent in my motivation,

particularly for my LAPs (O’Malley and Chamont 1990). I created a list of

strategies regarding how to approach texts with the ideas of pupils. In the case

where different ideas between the classes are presented, I looked to include all

on the final list for both groups to broaden their strategy toolkit.

18

The first stage on the journey of progression towards learner autonomy was that

of the Modelling stage (Harris, 2000); an exposure to Carver’s (in Woore 2014)

fastest and middle gears was included in the first lesson to introduce strategies

that perhaps have not been suggested by the pupils. I did this through using

Grenfell and Harris (1999) suggested “Dutch poem” which enabled me to bring

about awareness for:

‘recognising the type of text;

going for gist;

using the title and pictures for clues;

identifying “chunk boundaries”;

using common sense of the world;

saying the text aloud’

(ibid:75-76)

This then enabled pupils to call upon a variety of strategies in subsequent

lessons, providing a springboard for them to add their own ideas in promotion of

McIntyre, Pedder and Ruddock’s (2005) pupil contribution.

It was unrealistic to expect my pupils to immediately employ all of the

techniques they were presented with. Therefore the rehearsal was of upmost

importance. Research suggests that for strategies to be internalised, regular

practice is required (Cohen 1998, Rubin 1990). It is here that I was able to

record what I saw in my learning journal, as they experimented with their

checklist. I expected to see a change in them as they tackled unfamiliar

19

language with growing confidence and a reduction in them resorting to me for

help.

Once pupils had practiced using the techniques I required them to become

consciously proactive in their learning; a progression of use from Jonhson’s

(1996) declarative to procedural knowledge. Using the idea of Donato and

McCormick’s (1994) action plan, I prompted pupils to compose their own

targets, asking them to state how they would monitor their progress for

themselves. Donato and McCormick discovered that:

“By providing opportunities for students to self-assess, set goals, plan courses

of actions to fulfil these goals, and identify themes in their own learning the

students entered into a critical dialogue with themselves, their actual

performance and their instructor” (1994: 459).

The action plans enabled pupils to be aware of the journey they wanted to take,

and engage in discussion that would give them a leading role in my research

(McIntyre, Pedder and Ruddock 2005). In their research, it is interesting to note

that McIntyre, Pedder and Ruddock suggest providing opportunities for greater

“autonomy in their learning” (2005:3) as a result of the input of pupil ideas.

I needed to make the pupils aware that certain strategies will not be appropriate

for some texts i.e. using pictures and the title for clues is not always relevant.

Rather than give them the reason why, I assumed a coaching role and

questioned them to elicit answers. This immediately helped to reduce reliance

on me and, improved pupils’ self-efficacy according to Paris and Winograd

(1990). This also aided “learners‘ perceptions of the relationship between the

20

learning strategies they employ and the learning outcomes” (Macaro, et al

2016:7). The pupils were conscious that certain strategies would not provide a

positive effect on the desired outcome. I was able to chart the progress of this

declarative knowledge (Johnson 1996).

As pupils practised, I withdrew the checklists and action plans for them to

naturally employ a range of techniques. It was at this point that I was able to

gauge whether they had “successfully internalised the strategies” (Grenfell and

Harris 1999: 80) and were able to cope with unfamiliar language. I was aware

that this reduction in teacher prompt would come at different stages for my

learners; I expected that my HAPs would arrive at this stage earlier than my

LAPs. In relation to my hypothesis, I thought this would be because my HAPs

were more confident in their language learning and therefore they would be

more confident in taking a risk. For those pupils who presented difficulties in

accessing the texts, I looked at their action plan with them and suggested

solutions. Whilst there remained some reliance on me, I feel it important that

these pupils were given direction to understand their choices.

The methodology of action research; “learning by doing” (O’Brien 1998) enabled

my pupils to become involved in the process to identify effective practice and

evaluate strategy. To ensure triangulation I used questionnaires, interviews,

observations and a learning journal. These different data collection methods

would, as Denscombe (2010:346) states, allow for “findings that can be

complemented by adding something new and different”. These different

perspectives could reveal different dimensions to research.

21

The “cold” text (see Appendix 1) from a textbook with some comprehension

questions formed a diagnostic phase. My observations of reactions contributed

to my questionnaire, based upon Grenfell and Harris’ (1999:134) example.

Despite my worries of the Hawthorne effect (French, 1953) with pupils’

behaviour being distorted due to the awareness of being observed, I felt it was

ethically right that they should know they were being observed.

Questionnaire

After bringing the activity to a close, I gave the pupils my questionnaire to

complete (see Appendix 5). For ethical reasons, I made it clear that pupils could

choose to omit questions they wish not to answer along with making my motives

clear. I required them to answer in full sentences, as is our literacy policy, giving

them as much time as they needed to complete this. As a school, we

consistently expect all answers, both verbal and written, to be in full sentences.

This is considered good practice so that pupils are constantly refining their

literacy skills. However, for me, the full sentence answers did not necessarily

contribute to a better understanding of pupil views; it simply prolonged the

amount of time it took to complete the questionnaire. These questionnaires,

despite being handwritten were anonymous. Implications lie around being able

to identify pupils from their answers but I was clear with the pupils that it was

their answers I was interested in rather than who provided the response. This

was considered in my submission of my Ethics Application Form for Student

Research in which I stated that pupils would be able to withdraw from my

research should they feel they wanted to at any stage (Sharma 2016:4). I made

it explicitly clear that there was no right or wrong answer and that honesty was

22

key. I worked closely with my EAL and low-literacy level pupils and found that

asking them the questions and me noting down the responses helped them.

The advantage of undertaking a questionnaire is that a large amount of

responses can be collected in a short period of time. On finishing, some pupils

asked me if their completed questionnaires were sufficient, thus revealing that

they were succumbing to the “Hawthorne Effect” (French 1953). This worried

me as it made me aware that perhaps some of their answers were written for

me, rather than with honesty (Mayall 1994). From scribing for some pupils I

found it difficult to not ask sub questions to probe them further, but I was aware

that this would have been unfair on those who were writing for themselves. I

saved these questions for my interviews.

Interviews

Pupil voice is key to my research and I wanted to give learners opportunities to

be heard. I have always believed in hearing pupil opinions and upon reading

McIntyre, Pedder and Ruddock’s (2005) research I realised that interviews

could inform my research by adding a different dimension. It was learnt that

pupils like to be “trusted to learn” (2005: 2) independently and I wanted to

understand how I could better develop their capacity to be autonomous (Lamb

2016). I decided to conduct group interviews rather than 1:1 interviews to

ensure that “a broader spectrum of people [was] covered” (Denscombe 2010:

176). To ensure honesty in pupil answers, I asked them to form groups of 3-4

participants for the purpose of interviews. I was aware that they would be more

honest and open in friendship groupings, offering true thought. As Denscombe

23

(2010:177) states: this type of grouping “uses the social and psychological

aspects of group behaviour to foster the ability of participants to get involved,

speak their minds and reflect on the views of others”. The element of trust

between all participants, I feel, leads to a more honest semi-structured interview

(Denscombe 2010: 175). As my pupils were familiar with me I was not worried

about my having to introduce myself nor my style of interviewing (Oakley 1981).

However, I was concerned that in a teacher-pupil relationship, the pupil often

looks to please the teacher with the correct answer. It was important therefore

to establish a clear agenda for the interview. I also adhered to Denscombe’s

(2010:183-4) recommendations of a “good interviewer”; one who is: “attentive;

sensitive to the feelings of the informant; able to tolerate silences; adept at

using prompts and probes…non judgemental”.

There was very much a boy/girl divide in these groupings, which I thought

interesting in a mixed class environment; gender defines groupings. This

perhaps could form a future piece of research: do pupils work best in mixed-

gender or single-sex groups? Pupil voice is key to my research and also my

learners needed to be aware of the value of their voice in my project. Article

12.2 of The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) states that: ‘the

child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard…’ I am

researching the responses of my pupils in order to better my understanding and

improve their learning and their right to be consulted needs to be

acknowledged.

I conducted the interviews during the school day. I was keen to do this in lesson

time so as not to monopolise the pupils’ free time which could have led to

24

speedy rather than contemplated responses. I used a classroom to do this to

ensure the environment was familiar. I recorded the interviews using my laptop

and noted down behavioural responses to aid any later analysis. Pupils were

clear of what I was doing and I shared my notes with them before they left the

room. The use of a recording device was taken into consideration in my ethics

form in which I declared that my laptop was password protected and that it

would be stored in a locked cabinet in my classroom when not in use by myself

(Sharma 2016).

Observations

I observed pupils in the classroom at all stages of my research to monitor their

response to reading activities. In addition, I asked the school Literacy Co-

ordinator and Special Educational Needs and Disability Co-ordinator (SENDCo)

to observe the pupils at the beginning and end of the process. This was so that I

could have an alternative perspective for my research. These observations

could also have identified an aspect I had not seen. Furthermore, my own

observations were interrupted by my teaching role within the lesson and having

a non-participant to purely observe enabled activity to be noted that I was not

able to record.

Observations provide a powerful tool of recording “live” action however, as

Denscombe (2010) identifies, there are particular disadvantages to using

observation as a data collection method. He comments that observations give

rise to “an element of interpretation” founded in the selecting of information

based upon: “Familiarity, Past experiences [and] Current state” (Denscombe

25

2010: 198-199). Therefore, the selection of data recorded is subjective. In order

to overcome this, I required my observers to use an “observation schedule”

(Denscombe 2010:199) in which I required them to focus only on comments

that are said by the pupils, pupil off-task behaviour, the amount of time it took

pupils to complete an exercise and the number of times the pupils sought help

from others. I also wanted my observers to comment on pupil body language in

relation to reading activities. Although this did bring an element of subjectivity to

this data, it gave me a more complete idea of the scene in my classroom. This

enabled me to monitor autonomy in relation to resilience and dependence.

Learning Journal

I saw my learning journal as a tool for reflection. This was a valuable resource

for me; it so often happens that teachers are unable to reflect upon activity due

to the busy nature of the job. To be able to question reactions and comments

provided me with the chance to track a change in learner autonomy. It also

enabled me to associate behaviours with specific lessons; afternoon lessons for

example brought about more reluctant independent learners. Like with other

questions that have arisen as a result of this research, the issue of morning

versus afternoon lessons in relation to pupil concentration is perhaps best

tackled in another piece of research.

I saw my learning journal as a platform for demonstrating the progress of my

research accompanied by reflective commentary. This was the tool that I used

to monitor my own personal professional development and I saw these as

intertwined (Harvey and Knight, 1996). I was however, conscious of the fact that

26

my thoughts were often a result of memorised events; I could not necessarily

interrupt my role as teacher to take notes. Furthermore, I did not want to

verbally record events as this would make the pupils very conscious to the

introduction of an alien practice to their lessons. My journal had a very simple

structure: “a recording of the features of the [lesson] with reflective commentary”

(Moon 2006: 4). These were my thoughts on my findings that I regularly

reviewed to drive my research forward.

Results and Analysis

27

Through using a variety of data collection methods, my pupils provided me with

an insight into their progress towards becoming an autonomous learner. All of

my data focused solely on the pupils and sought to develop a picture of their

journey. Pupil voice contributed to my findings both explicitly through dialogue

and implicitly through their participation in the activities.

As I chose to base my research upon Harris (2000) six-stage process, I shall

address my findings according to each stage. This will enable me to chart the

progression towards autonomy and confidence with clear reference to my

chosen basis of research. I will analyse what took place in my classroom in

relation to this. I chose the texts based upon interest and difficulty. The first text

was from a textbook (see Appendix 1); I chose this first, as it would have gone

through a form of standardisation to ensure it is age appropriate in terms of

challenge. Taking into consideration Harris’ (2000) view that teachers can be

drawn solely to use a textbook, the majority of my subsequent chosen texts are

from other sources that will challenge my pupils’ engagement, maintaining their

commitment to the texts (Andon and Wingate 2002). The texts increased in

length and difficulty.

Awareness raising

After completing the starter activity and consolidation work from the previous

lesson, I set the “cold” reading task (Harris 2002:8), which acted as a baseline

diagnostic activity. Throughout my research I was concerned that English was

used more than Spanish, however, I reminded myself that my explicit didactic

28

exploration of the declarative knowledge would not have a long term effect on

this becoming procedural (Johnson 1996). To ensure the text had unfamiliar

vocabulary I used a text from a more advanced textbook (see Appendix 1). That

is not to say that the language was completely inaccessible to the pupils; the

tenses and majority of vocabulary were familiar to them. I essentially wanted a

text that would challenge them but not deter them.

In my HAP group, the girls appeared to accept that it was an activity that they

needed to do and did not pre-judge the activity. The Literacy Co-ordinator

(2016) commented in her observation: “Girls seem somewhat comfortable with

this activity; boys appear panicked which manifests itself through declarations of

“I ain’t gonna understand nuffin” and “How am I meant to do dis?” (see

Appendix 2). I myself noted in my learning journal that the girls immediately

raised their hand upon receiving the task and asked if they could sit together. I

made a note at this point to ask them whether they wanted to sit together for a

source of support or to move away from the distraction of the boys (see

Appendix 4). Those who gravitated towards the ‘clever’ ones for what appeared

to be help, but emerged as an opportunity to copy the answers, were correct in

their identifications. The boys who provided the “help” were the high attainers in

the class and appeared to take the activity in their stride initially. Those who

became distracted by off-task discussion responded with comments such as

‘but I don’t understand Miss’, and ‘its too hard’ when I caught their eye to remind

them to get back on task (Sharma 2016, see Appendix 4). The boy who put his

head on the table had a reading age of 10 resulting in him instantly finding the

task more challenging. I did question my role at this point; was I being immoral

and neglecting my duty as a teacher in not offering any help? I was morally torn

29

between a need to help pupils and my stance in my research to adopt a role of

fostering an autonomous environment in my classroom. It was difficult to not

help those who asked me for it; I was shocked that I was approached 17 times

for help as recorded by my observer.

What did not emerge in this stage of my research is what Harris (2002)

describes of HAPs. My pupils did not appear to be “complacent” ( ibid: 9) in their

strategy employment as is suggested in some research (see also Grenfell and

Harris 1999) and some only needed “persuasion” (ibid) to complete the task,

rather direction. This serves to reinforce the fact that my research is unique to

my practice. Likewise, the need for some HAP pupils to copy and work together

to ensure the correct answer is a clear example of Dweck’s (1999) “Entity

View”. This is my baseline evidence and the starter point for our journey

towards holding a considered “Incremental View” (ibid) of intelligence.

In my LAP group, the SENDCo recorded 23 instances of pupils asking for my

help. I noted that pupils in this group were more concerned with completing the

activity rather than getting the answers correct. This is a group that is used to

scaffolding and modelling of answers. As with any other activity, we completed

the first answer together. Identifying Gerardo’s nationality, I thought, was going

to be fairly straightforward. The pupils were impulsive in their answers, shouting

out “Spanish, Italian and French” before even attempting to read the text. I later

internally questioned was this an eagerness to complete the task to move on so

that reading would not be the focus? In reference to the thinking that pupils

should know 95% of the vocabulary in order to complete an activity successfully

(Laufer, 1989; Hu and Nation, 2000; Laufer and Ravenhorst-Kalovski, 2010),

30

my pupils were familiar with terms however; this did not increase their ability to

undertake the exercise.

Once we had completed the first answer, I set the expectation that the pupils

would complete the task independently. My EAL pupils immediately set to

answering the questions together for support. The social construction of

learning together (Vygotsky 1978) in order to learn alone is evident here. They

have access to a personal iPad for translation purposes so they immediately

sought this resource to aid them in their work. Upon my circulation of the class it

emerged that 3 boys insisted on asking me whether they had the correct

answer after completing each question – Dweck’s (1999) “Entitiy View”. My

response that I was not going to confirm this did not deter them from asking

again (see Appendix 4). The boy with the lowest reading age in the class, a

reading age of 7, looked very uncomfortable and closed his eyes in the hope

that he would become “invisible” (SENDCo 2016, see Appendix 3). Other pupils

listened to what their peers were saying openly agreeing with their answers,

despite not having anything to base this assumption on.

It was very interesting to note from all observations that the pupils did not

appear to employ any specific strategies. The most obvious help on the page

were the pictures and cognates, yet no acknowledgements of these were heard.

My pupils did not demonstrate through this activity that they were naturally able

to resort to logic and that, unlike Swan (2008) feels, they needed to be taught

strategies.

31

I had to insist that all pupils completed the activity so that they were able to

contribute to the brainstorming activity. Once they saw that they could access

the text, the task became more manageable to them. After completion and

correction, I gave the pupils my questionnaire to complete (see Appendix 5).

The information below is a summary of the written answers:

Question 1: 26 positive 8 negative

Question 2: 21 positive 6 negative 7 unsure






Question 8: 28 positive 2 negative 4 ‘I left that answer’



There was clearly a negative perception of reading at this stage; 65% of my

pupils did not enjoy reading in class. Likewise, 91% of pupils relied on the

teacher as a resource. It is interesting to note that the majority of pupils claimed

to use the pictures as a source for help, yet this did not reflect the recordings

from observations. I clearly needed to establish using cognates for help as a

strategy as some pupils were unsure of how to interpret potentially familiar

language. Whilst cognates are useful in the written form I must bear in mind

when thinking of transferring strategies to other skills that pupils will not

recognise cognates in listening exercises. As Swarbrick (2016:16) writes: pupils

32

find “hearing words and phrases and linking them to those” they repeatedly see

difficult. The pupils generally appear to be confident in their reading skills; from

the interview it emerged that this is in terms of being able to decode the words

phonetically rather than reading for understanding.

The next stage, according to Harris (2000) was to ask my pupils to offer ideas

around completing the task. The brainstorming activity produced a number of

strategies to which I added some ideas (see Appendix 6). I ensured that both

classes had the same checklist of strategies to refer to. The HAP class allowed

me to follow the process of brainstorm followed by an explanation of the

importance of experimenting with new strategies. My LAP class however, who

found the text very challenging, were reluctant to offer ideas and I had to give

my rationale before sharing ideas. This need to convince them that their

experienced difficulties in Spanish were perhaps due to a “lack of strategies,

rather than lack of ability” (Harris and Snow 2004:17) certainly boosted the

pupils’ willingness to participate. Awareness raising therefore does not only lend

itself to an awareness of a variety of strategy, but an awareness that success is

not necessarily due to lack of ability, but lack of tools. Reminders of this

throughout my research re-focused my LAP group and boost their confidence.

When undertaking the task of understanding the Dutch poem (see Appendix 1),

some pupils “referred attentively to the brainstorm activity and went through

each strategy in the list” rather than “select the appropriate strategy to help

them” (Sharma 2016, Appendix 4). I found this interesting; I noted in my journal

that a discussion needed to take place on strategy selection. Pupils were not

aware of “their own approach to language learning…[nor of] their active role in

33

choosing for themselves” (Rubin 2001 in Harris and Snow 2004:6). The

SENDCo similarly noted that “the activity lasted longer than perhaps needed…

pupils need to be taught which strategy is most appropriate rather than try all

available” (2016).

From these comments and observations pupils indicated a clear readiness to

progress to the Modelling and Action Planning (Harris 2000) stages of the

process. This would enable them to choose the appropriate gear (Carver in

Woore 2014) and progress from a state of panic and impulse strategy

employment to carefully chosen strategies that will enable evaluation to take

place. I continue to follow the order as recommended by Harris (2000).

For homework, the pupils were set a reading activity (see Appendix 1). They

had to simply understand the text, taking note of which strategies they used.

Most reported that reading for gist and using the title and pictures aided them in

their understanding. Some relied upon the cognates only but this did not

emerge in an understanding of the text. It is clear that using a combination of

strategies is key rather than adhering to one only. At this very early stage of my

research, this resort to “basic level” reading strategies is unsurprising (Harris

2002:4). Research (ibid) suggests that this is common for LAPs however, I do

not find it strange that my HAPs made similar comments; they are aware of

strategies but have not yet had the opportunity to “develop the more complex

strategies” (ibid). Boy A felt very proud at his exclamation of a subject specific

word that: “I understood and underlined the cognates Miss”. This moment of

pride and a clear sense of achievement was a clear indication of progression in

confidence.

34

Interviews

The pupils responded, in what I felt, was an honest manner due to the interview

circumstances. All participants were interviewed over the course of three days.

Most pupils in the HAP group responded with a smile that they enjoy reading.

Those who did not respond in this way were boys with an average reading age

of 10, including Boy A. These boys are also the lowest attainers in both Spanish

and English in the class. In the LAP group, a minority of pupils stated that they

enjoyed reading. Clarification was needed for the EAL pupils; they initially

thought I was referring to reading in English, but once I stated that I meant

reading in general, including in their native language, they said that this was a

pastime they enjoyed.

It emerged that most pupils read only in school; the school has a daily DEAR

(Drop Everything and Read) session for thirty minutes. All pupils and staff stop

what they are doing and read for pleasure in this time. Many pupils commented

that they read at this time only because they have to and that they feel it is

‘boring’ and a ‘waste of time’. It was clear that some pupils identified themselves

with Dweck’s (1999) “Entity View”; they want others to consider them as

intelligent. I was able to come to this conclusion from their comments that they

are able to read what they perceive are difficult texts. When probed further their

definition of this was: books with lots of “hard words in them” rather than “big

text (font size) with easy words”. I liked this idea that they challenged

themselves but internally questioned how much they understood of the texts

they were reading? Perhaps our list of strategies would help them with this.

35

Pupils were generally confident that they were able to read a text in Spanish.

When I pushed them to define why, comments such as “because I can

pronounce the words” and “because I can recognise some words” emerged.

These answers both confused and comforted me. My confusion arose from the

fact that the pupils were clearly able to separate the skill of reading into phonics

and understanding. I was not brought up on a reading system of phonics and so

was not taught to be aware of this when learning to read in English. For me, it is

bizarre to declare that I am able to read a text without being able to understand

it. My comfort was found in the fact that they acknowledge their learning in

being able to understand texts and clearly value this.

Pupils felt confident in being able to guess the meaning of some words. Some

looked with delight at me when they mentioned the word cognate. With this

response I felt they were searching for approval and I questioned whether they

were giving me answers that I wanted to hear. In a PBE Face-to-Face session,

this topic came up, to which Ambrose Hogan (14/05/16) commented that as

researchers, we have to trust what the participants are saying and believe that

what they are saying is truth; despite our suspicions. Upon reflection I agree

with this; who am I to say that what I am being told about my pupils’ personal

experience is wrong? I therefore rejected my initial response to the pupils’

reactions and now believed that perhaps they were looking for my approval as

they were using subject specific terminology. That is not to say that I have

become naïve and I trust all that I am told as a teacher. However, for the

purpose of this research I am to take what the pupils say as truth.

36

Pupils revealed an over-reliance on adults as a source of knowledge and help.

An overwhelming majority of them stated that they simply ask a teacher for a

definition “because that is what they are there for” and “because it is easier to

ask a teacher than look in a dictionary”. This confirmed my reasons for wanting

to challenge the classroom norm and undertake an exploration of strategy

instruction (Grenfell and Harris 1999). Those with a low-reading age in my LAP

group responded that they simply give up if they confront difficulties. This

brought up a whole-school issue that needs to be addressed: this defeatist

attitude, a result of their literacy needs, must be gravely affecting their progress

in all subject areas. This was a discussion to be had with the Literacy Co-

ordinator for urgent intervention.

The majority of pupils (88%) from both classes were confident that they would

get to a stage where they were able to read and understand a text, but some

felt this would take years to achieve. They did not see that as texts increase in

difficulty by using the strategies, they would understand them. 70% of my LAP

pupils commented that they would be more confident in their reading skills when

they are able to understand “every single word” of a text. This answer worried

me; this was not the aim of my research. It was however, an answer that is

common to low attainers; rather than read for gist they “translate each word and

often rapidly become disheartened when they do not know its meaning” (Harris

and Snow 2004: 10).

From my interviews, my research was clearly at a stage where pupils were

ready to consciously practise the strategies. I needed them to become aware of

the fact that I was looking into how I could make them more autonomous, rather

37

than fluent. It was clear that I had to reassure them that, at no stage of my

research, was I looking for them to understand every single word they were

presented with. Instead, I needed to emphasise that I was looking to provide

them with strategies to deal with unfamiliar language.

Modelling, Action Planning and Practice

Pupils seemed more open to the idea of being presented with a reading text in

subsequent lessons. I questioned whether this was because they were

expecting to undertake a reading activity, or perhaps it was because they were

excited at the prospect of participating in my research (French 1953).

In Lesson Two it was clear that most pupils in my LAP class and some in my

HAP class needed strategy selection modelled. Some needed more support in

understanding “the value of a combination of strategies to tackle their specific

difficulties” (Grenfell and Harris 1999:140). Appropriate selection formed the

opening discussion of this lesson with both classes. The pupils benefitted from

sharing their ideas and thought process when choosing strategies and by

Lesson Four, comments such as “Miss I’m going to do this on my own today”

confirmed that a growth in confidence had occurred. This growth in confidence

reflected a move from a perceived need to be seen to be intelligent to a value

placed on the process of learning (Dweck 1999).

I provided pupils with a printed copy of our checklist along with three tick

columns (see Appendix 8) so that they could practise the strategies with three

different texts. Pupils were allowed to work together for the first text to prompt

38

discussion, but were required to work with the subsequent texts independently;

an opportunity for them to use the strategies in their own preferred manner.

From observations, the majority of pupils looked for cognates, read for gist, and

used their common sense and cultural knowledge to work out meaning. Here,

they used a combination of gears to complete the task (Carver in Woore 2014).

It appeared however, that these were still used in isolation; pupils generally

ticked one or two options for each text. Pupils needed to be made aware of the

ability to use a variety of techniques simultaneously. This “multi-purpose

approach” would lead to the creation of successful learners (Graham 1997:46).

The approach could be complex for young minds; however, when given the

example of saying a cognate aloud, this became clearer to them. I noted in my

journal that some pupils were in fact already doing this, but they were not aware

of it. To me, this is acceptable; I do not feel that they need to be explicitly aware

of what they are doing in order to arrive at comprehension. This is a result

instead of “habit-formation”; pupils have developed an internal process to multi-

task (Littlewood 1984: 16). With a more formal style of text, pupils did not tend

to use their cultural knowledge and they felt that reading for gist was beneficial.

It would appear that pupils acknowledged that reading for gist was helpful

initially in understanding an entire text before focusing on the intricacies. Pupils

demonstrated here an awareness of Carver’s (in Woore 2014) slowest and

fastest gears and an understanding that both would be needed for

comprehension.

Pupils set themselves an action plan and identified a strategy they would like to

practice and how they knew they would employ this strategy effectively

(example can be found in Appendix 9). This was a crucial stage of the project;

39

pupils “without metacognitive approaches are essentially learners without

direction or opportunity to review their progress” (O’Malley et al. in Skehan

1989: 560-1). This proactive role in their learning would enable pupils to

become more autonomous. Pupils’ main aim was to be able to understand a

text in authentic Spanish and they would know that they had achieved this by

not relying on others for help. I was happy for them to work with others for

sources of support but some were determined to track their improvement

according to independence. I was satisfied with this as this is a good exam

technique and a good example of learner autonomy. This action plan was

returned to in all lessons and progress reflected upon. From comments such as

“I used a dictionary only to help me” to “I asked for some help but less than I

would normally ask for” to “I still need some more practice” shows that pupils

were able to track their own practice and identify the next stages (Harris 2002).

There was clear progression from the starting point to this point; pupils

demonstrated that they had moved from placing value on getting the answer

right to the journey taken to arrive at the answer (Dweck 1999). This is evidence

of an increase in learner autonomy.

It was interesting to note that some pupils in my LAP group chose to base their

understanding upon key words. Whilst this is a useful technique and

identification of the key words is an indication of a comprehension of a text at a

certain level; these pupils failed to correctly translate the key word correctly.

They then proceeded to base their whole understanding of the text upon this

incorrect translation and therefore created a different, and wrong, meaning for

the text. I chose to create a small group within the class and work with these

pupils on more focussed strategy instruction. By asking them to verbalise their

40

thought processes, pupils were able to support each other and “share the

consciousness of their peers” (Grenfell and Harris 1999:105). This is a

progression from an overreliance on me as the teacher to an environment

where pupils learn from others (Donato and McCormick 1994). This adheres to

Vygotsky’s (1978) model of learning that implies that learning in a social

environment can be beneficial.

By Lesson Four, I did not give the pupils the checklist to refer to (Harris, 2000)

to see whether the pupils had adopted an automatic strategy employment.

Some pupils were confused and asked me for their checklist. I worried that they

needed a feeling of reliance to comfort them and that they had simply

transferred their reliance on me to the checklist. Upon reflection, I later adjusted

my thinking as, even this request for the checklist was an indication of a change

towards autonomy. Pupils did not want to seek my help; they wanted to do it for

themselves.

Evaluation

In the final lesson of the research, I gave pupils a story with comprehension

questions. This was given with the instruction that they should work alone. With

the return of my observers, a ‘noticeable difference’ in pupils’ ‘approach to this

activity’ was seen. Pupils ‘seemed confident in what to do’. Some LAP pupils

talked themselves through the various strategies and verbalised their activity.

The SENDCo (2016, see Appendix 3) noted that these pupils “immediately

settled down to the task and needed little prompts to remain on task”. In

addition, she noted that the EAL pupils did not “once use their iPad for

41

translation” (ibid). Both observers noted a reduction in the number of times

pupils asked me for help. Those who did seek me out asked for reassurance for

correct responses rather than translation. The Literacy Co-ordinator (2016, see

Appendix 2) noted a “transformation” in some pupils; confidence was identified

in pupils’ “eagerness to complete the task” in the HAP group. A sense of

competition was set up with the boys asking each other which question they

were on.

To conclude this activity, and therefore my research, I asked pupils to complete

a piece of reflective writing on their learning. Pupils all commented that they felt

more confident in tackling written texts and were aware of different strategies to

employ. Some commented that they ‘enjoyed’ the reading activities and that

they felt a sense of pride in being able to understand “long” texts in another

language. This is integral to motivation and pupils will feel equipped to approach

a variety of texts, as the new style of GCSE requires.

The outcomes of this research are unique to my pupils who indicated an

increase in confidence and understanding of a variety of texts. For my practice,

I see the value of explicit strategy instruction and will certainly do more checklist

creation activities with my classes. Those pupils who had initially been reluctant

to undertake activities were now content with knowing how to approach a

reading task. This is pertinent to Boy A, who was happy to undertake activities

and attempt them. He needed explicit instruction to facilitate his journey towards

autonomy. The explicit teaching of activities is identified as beneficial for boys

by Ofsted. The “Boys and English” report states:

42

“Boys’ performance improved when they had a clear understanding of the

progress they needed to make in order to achieve well” (HMSO 1993:3).

If this research were to be undertaken again, I would perhaps not focus my

research in consecutive lessons. To see whether the strategies become

securely embedded I would leave a number of weeks between each observed

activity. I was however, able to observe a flourishing of learner autonomy that I

hope will last. I will need to regularly provide practice for my pupils to ensure

that strategy employment is natural and automatic. Through sharing my findings

with those in my school community I can show successful transferable

strategies and also contribute to the wider school literacy policy (Harris and

Snow 2004).

43

Conclusion

The results of this research demonstrate that there has been a positive trend in

autonomy growth in relation to reading activities.

Having an explicit checklist for my pupils to use appears to have greatly helped

in increasing their autonomy. Despite initially transferring their reliance from me

to this checklist, with practice and a regular expectation for them to use it, it was

clear that employment of strategies became natural and somewhat

subconscious; a movement from declarative to procedural knowledge (Johnson

1996).

Strategy instruction serves to support linguistic autonomy and explicit teaching

will prompt a change in my role within the classroom. For my own practice, I will

introduce a reading checklist as early as possible to encourage pupils to

develop and identify their own preferred strategies to attempt tasks

independently. In independent activities, pupils will employ their techniques for

learner autonomy (Lamb: 2016) and my role will move from provider of

knowledge to facilitator of knowledge. This will enable me to experience

different sides of being a teacher more regularly; pupils will require me to adopt

a central role in the classroom when modelling language that will then transfer

to a background role in tasks. Pupils will look to me for reassurance rather than

linguistic support, as they are able to confront tasks with confidence. I advocate

the teaching of strategies; pupils need to have the necessary skills to cope with

a text (Garrigan, 1997).

44

Casting forward I will implement strategy instruction in all of my classes in the

target language. I will ensure that this is explicit in department Schemes of

Work so that all linguists are taught skill strategies (Macaro and Erler in Woore

2014). I understand that strategy instruction requires embedding over a longer

period of time than my research allowed and I will consistently provide

opportunities for practice (Cohen 1998, Rubin 1990). It is vital that pupils are

able to practice and evaluate their employment with a variety of texts and time

must be dedicated to exploring different and engaging texts.

As I continue with my practice I could explore texts that are more engaging for

boys as this group appeared to be the most reluctant to read, despite being able

to do so competently in their own language. Furthermore, I could look to adapt

this technique of strategy instruction to the other three language skills (such as

that by Turner 2005) to broaden learner autonomy. Furthermore, I could

consider grouping my pupils when teaching the strategies to chart how they

learn from each other to develop their skills of autonomy. This would be the

development of a “learner-directed environment” Lam (2011:41) which would

encourage autonomy.

In the wider school community I could share the concept of strategy instruction

with the EAL department as they work to improve English language acquisition.

This piece of research is the beginning of many other potential areas of

research to continually refine, interpret and evaluate strategy instruction of the

language skills for the benefit of my learners. What is undeniable about this

project is that it has had a clear impact on my learning and the learning of my

pupils. I have seen the benefits of explicit strategy instruction and methods for

45

achieving this, and my pupils have learnt how to approach different texts in

Spanish logically and independently.

It is evident that the different stages of the process help the pupils to become

autonomous. By including them as co-researchers they are aware of the

importance of trying various strategies with texts. Furthermore, by encouraging

them to become involved in their own target setting followed by reflection, they

are required to be independent and proactive in their learning. Explicit

instruction is key for learners; “focus on strategies [leads] us to learner

autonomy” (Little 1997), and I certainly concur with this. I will continue to

encourage pupil voice in strategy instruction to be able to learn from them and

adjust my practice where appropriate (McIntyre, Pedder and Ruddock 2005).

Whilst not proclaiming to be an expert in this field, I certainly now have a better

understanding of how to create autonomous learners in my classroom which I

hope, will help them throughout their academic life. I value that by undertaking

this piece of action-research, my practice has changed for the better. I see the

importance of teacher-led research in transforming unique microcosms in

schools, enabling research to be specific and relevant to individual classrooms

for the benefit of all in a school community.

46

Bibliography

Andon, N. and Wingate, U. (2012) “The contribution of textbooks to sustaining

motivation for second language learning", paper presented at Beyond the

Beginner: Sustaining Second Language Learning, 8th Annual Conference of the

British Association for Applied Linguists Language Learning and Teaching SIG,

Oxford University Department for Education, 4-5 July 2012.

AQA. (2015). GCSE Specification Spanish (4695)

http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-4695-W-SP-14.PDF. Last accessed 1st

April 2016.

AQA. (2015). GCSE Spanish Specification (8698)

http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/resources/spanish/specifications/AQA-8698-SP-2016-

V1-0.PDF. Last accessed 1st April 2016.

Becker, H. and Greer, B. (1957). “Participant observation and interviewing: a

comparison”, Human Organization, 16(3):28-35.

CILT (1989). Information Sheet No. 12 London, CILT.

Cohen, A. D. (ed) (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language.

Harlow: Longman.

47

Dam, L. (2011). “Developing Learner Autonomy with School Kids: Principles,

practices, results” in D. Gardner (ed) Fostering Autonomy in Language

Learning, Gaziantep: Zirve University pp 40-51.

Denscombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide: For small-scale social

research projects, Berkshire: Open University Press.

Department for Education. (1993). Boys and English, Report from the Office of

Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector for Schools, London: HMSO.

Department for Education. (2013). Languages programmes of study: key stage

2.

Donato, R. and McCormick, D. (1994). “A Sociocultural Perspective on

Language Learning Strategies: The Role of Mediation” in The Modern

Language Journal Volume 78, Issue 4 pp 453-464.

Dweck, C. (1999). Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and

Development, Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

French, J.R.P. (1953). “Experiments in field settings” in Festinger,L., & Katz,D.

Research methods in the behavioral sciences New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston, pp98-135.

Garrigan, P. (1997). “Some key factors in the promotion of learner autonomy in

higher education”, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 21 (2): 169-82.

48

Grabbe, W. and Stoller, F.L. (2011). Teaching and Researching Reading,

second edition, Longman: Harlow.

Graham, S. (1997). “Effective Language Learning: Positive Strategies for

Advanced Level Language Learning” in M Grenfell, (ed). Modern Languages in

Practice 6, Multilingual Matters Ltd, Clevedon.

Grenfell. M. and Harris. V. (1999). Modern Languages and Learning Strategies

In theory and practice, Routledge, London.

Harris, V. (2000). “Towards independence in language use and language

learning” in K Field (ed). Issues in modern foreign languages teaching Oxon:

Routledge Falmer.

Harris, V. (2002). “Learning to learn: Strategy Instruction in the Modern

Languages classroom” in A. Swarbrick (ed) Aspects of Teaching Secondary

Modern Foreign Languages London: Routledge Falmer.

Harris, V. and Snow, D. (2004). Doing it for themselves: focus on learning

strategies and vocabulary building London: CILT.

Harvey, L. and Knight, P.T. (1996). Transforming Higher Education London:

Society for Research into Higher Education Ltd.

49

Hogan, A. (2016). Discussion held as part of Optional face-to-face support

session: Writing up the report or dissertation, Institute of Education 14th May

2016.

Hu, H.M. and Nation, P. (2000). “Unknown vocabulary density and reading

comprehension”, Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1): 403-429.

Johnson, K. (1996). Language Teaching and Skill Development. Oxford:

Blackwell Publishers.

Lamb, T. (2016). “Learner Independence” Languages Today 22, Spring, pp11-

13.

Lambeth. (2016). Lambeth State of the Borough 2016

https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/State%20of%20Borough

%202016%20-%20v3.pdf. Last accessed 14th August 2016.

Laufer, B. (1989). “What percentage of text lexis is essential for

comprehension?” in C. Lauren and M. Nordman (eds) Special Language: From

humans thinking to thinking machines, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Laufer, B. and Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G.C. (2010). “Lexcial threshold revisited:

lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension”.

Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1): 15-30.

50

Lester, H. (1988). Tacky the Penguin New York: Houghton Mifflin translated by

Sharma, H. (2014). Chabacano el Pingüino.

Little, D. (1997). “Strategies in language learning and teaching: some

introductory reflections”. Paper given at the CILT Research Forum ‘Strategies in

Language Learning’, 22 February.

Littlewood, W. (1984). Foreign and Second Language Learning: Language-

acquisition research and its implications for the classroom, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Macaro, E., Graham, S., and Woore, R. (2016). Improving Foreign Langauge

Teaching, Oxon: Routledge.

Mary Glasgow Magazines (2016). Ahora Sample Issue, Scholastic

http://classroommagazines.scholastic.com/issues/2016-01-06/book#/1. Last

accessed 6th February 2016.

Mary Glasgow Magazines (2016). ¿Qué tal? Sample Issue, Scholastic

http://classroommagazines.scholastic.com/issues/2016-01-05/book#/1. Last


Mayall, B. (1994). (ed) Children’s Childhoods: Observed and Experienced.

London: Falmer Press.

51

McIntyre, D., Pedder, D. and Rudduck, J. (2005). “Pupil voice: comfortable and

uncomfortable learnings for teachers” in Research Papers in Education Volume

20, Issue 2 Cambridge: Routledge pp149-168.

McLachlan, A. (2007). ¡Mira! Express 2 Harlow: Heinemann.

McLachlan, A. (2013). ¡Viva! Libro 1 Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Mitchell, I and Swarbrick A. (2005). “Developing Skills for independent reading”

in Turner K., Mitchell. I, and Swarbrick A., Learning by ear and by eye: focus on

listening and reading Classic Pathfinder 5 2005 London CILT, the National

Centre for Languages pp 47-81.

Moon, J. A (2006). Learning Journals: A handbook for reflective practice and

professional development, Oxon: Routledge Falmer.

Oakley, A. (1981). “Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms”, in H. Robers

(ed.) Doing Feminist Research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

O'Brien, R. (2001). Um exame da abordagem metodológica da pesquisa ação

[An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research]. In Roberto

Richardson (Ed.), Teoria e Prática da Pesquisa Ação [Theory and Practice of

Action Research]. João Pessoa, Brazil: Universidade Federal da Paraíba.

(English version) Available: http://www.web.ca/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html. Last


52

O’Malley, J. M. and Chamont, A U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second

Language Acquisition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ofqual (2016). Summary of changes to GCSEs from 2015

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gcse-changes-a-summary/

summary-of-changes-to-gcses-from-2015. Last accessed 25th July 2016.

Ofsted (2013). Modern languages survey visits: Generic grade descriptors and

supplementary subject-specific guidance for inspectors on making judgements

during visits to schools http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/19125/10/Supplementary

%20subject-specific%20guidance%20for%20ML.pdf. Last accessed 30thJuly

2016.

Pachler, N. (2002). “Foreign language learning in England in the 21st century”,

Language Learning Journal, 25(1):4-7.

Paris, S.G. and Winograd, P. (1990). “How metacognition can promote

academic learning and instruction”, in B.F. Jones and L. Idol (eds) Dimensions

of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp 15-51.

Richards, O., (2015). Spanish Short Stories For Beginners: 8 Unconventional

Short Stories to Grow Your Vocabulary and Learn Spanish the Fun Way!,

London: Olly Richards Publishing.

53

Rubin, J. (1990). “How learner strategies can inform language teaching” in V.

Bickley (ed) Language use, language teaching and the curriculum Hong Kong:

Institute of Language in Education.

Rubin, J. (2001). “Language learner self-management” Journal of Asian Pacific

Communications 11 (1): 25-37.

Sharma, H. (2016). Ethics Application Form: Student Research. Form

completed for undertaking of MTeach Research. Institute of Education, UCL.

Unpublished.

Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning,

London: Edwards Arnold.

Spanish Romance (2002). “Recipe: Chocolate caliente español”

http://www.spanishromance.com/spanish-culture/recipes/drink/chocolate-

calinete-espanol.asp. Last accessed 6th February 2016.

Swan, M. (2008). “Talking sense about learning strategies”, RELC Journal,

39(2):262-273.

Swarbrick (2016). “There’s no such thing as a cognate” in R. Littlejohns and L.

Parker (eds) Looking back – moving forward: the legacy of Brian Page ALL

Publication.

54

Turner, K. (2005). “Listening in a foreign language: A skill we take for granted?”

in Turner, K., Mitchell I, and Swarbrick A.,: Learning by ear and by eye: focus on

listening and reading Classic Pathfinder 5 2005 London CILT, the National

Centre for Languages pp 3-45.

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).

http://www.unicef.org.uk/Documents/Publication-pdfs/UNCRC_PRESS200910w

eb.pdf. Last accessed 16th May 2016.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher

psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Woore, R. (2014). “Developing reading and decoding in the modern foreign

languages classroom” in P Driscoll., E. Macaro., and ASwarbrick, A. Debates in

Modern Languages Education, Oxon: Routledge. 81-95.

55

Appendix 1: Available upon request

Appendix 2: Literacy Co-ordinator Observation

56

Appendix 3: SENDCo Observation

57

Appendix 4: Extracts from my Learning Journal – complete journal available on request

Awareness Raising - HAPs

The mood was not positive once the pupils were presented with the cold text and they were were reluctant. Is this because it was an afternoon lesson? Is this because pupils didn’t like reading? Is this because they didn’t know what to do? The girls’ response was to instantly put up their hands to ask if they could sit together. They are not as many girls in this class as there are boys and so they often do this with more creative tasks but not with a normal class activity. I must ask whether they wanted to sit together so they could help each other or whether the noise of the boys was too distracting.

….

I didn’t like the feeling in the room nor the scene witnessed. I decided I wouldn’t interfere and establish myself as they only source of knowledge for the answers. Had I have done this it would have gone against the point of my research and I wouldn’t be taking a step towards increasing learner autonomy. I could have predicted those pupils who got on with it. They were not bothered by the challenge presented. I worried that they wouldn’t get anything out of my research however, upon reflection I think that they appeared calm with the text but did not necessarily know how to complete the activity successfully. Many other pupils ask these pupils for help and for the answers. Having recently read about Dweck’s (1999) views of intelligence, these pupils are clearly obsessed with getting the right answer and are not interested in the process of arriving at this point. They therefore hold an ‘Entity View’ of themselves (Dweck 1999). I was frustrated, yet felt helpless at the sight of Boy A with his head on the table. He did this after quickly admitting to giving up. What was he going through? I was frustrated as I expected all pupils to attempt the task and did not necessarily predict this reaction. I knew pupils would ask me for help but I did not anticipate such a strong reaction. I felt helpless as I see my role as a teacher to not only provide knowledge but also be a source of resilience building for pupils. I wanted to immediately go over to him to encourage him and get him started but this will not serve my research in the long run. I had to leave him which I felt morally very uncomfortable with. Other pupils engaged in off-task discussion having immediately decided that they were not going to be able to complete the text. How can pupils have such a defeatist attitude towards activities? When I gave them the typical ‘teacher look’ to communicate that I was unimpressed with their chosen distraction they said ‘but I don’t understand Miss’ and ‘its too hard’. Why did they think that these were acceptable answers. I would usually have gone over to help them find ways to approach the activity at this point.

…

The brainstorming activity brought up some good ideas. Pupils were eager to participate and contribute with good strategies – a reference to Dweck’s (1999)

58

Entity View? Does their eagerness to participate relate to an eagerness to be seen to be clever?

…

Pupils seemed very excited and on board with my research idea. Slightly worried about the potential of the Hawthorne effect (French 1953) however, I have to trust that their responses and reactions to the journey we will take are genuine.

Pupils understood my reasons for doing my research and acknowledged that there are cross-curricular benefits. Hopefully they will see the benefits should the checklist be successful.

…

Awareness Raising - LAPs

I know that it is right for me to undertake my research with this group; their confidence and ability to undertake reading activities was very low. I was somewhat embarrassed to have the SENDCo in this lesson observing as pupils were so needy and things seemed chaotic. With the cold text, some pupils were more interested in finishing the activity and therefore wrote any answer rather than scrutinising the information and clues they had in front of them. This text was slightly longer and harder than what they are used to and perhaps they picked up on this despite my not saying anything. It was all very strange. As with other activities we completed the first answer together but yet the pupils offered any word that came to their mind in doing this. How would they cope in an exam? Did they want to zoom through the activity as they are used to completing activities with different skills in lessons and therefore knew that once this activity had finished the focus would shift from reading to another skill? I don’t think they like reading.

The EAL pupils immediately used their iPads. They are so used to doing this in all of their lessons that it has become second nature to them to do this. I must give them other strategies as they won’t have these in an exam. 3 boys kept asking me if they had the correct answer and I didn’t give them clarification of this. They kept asking me. Some pupils watched their peers and loudly agreed with what they were saying yet they hadn’t even attempted the answer themselves. They didn’t even use the pictures and cognates to help them with their understanding! Have they forgotten everything I have taught them since they began learning back in September?! They have a way to go to becoming autonomous, as they seem reliant on each other and me.

When undertaking the task with the Dutch Poem pupils referred attentively to the brainstorm activity and went through each activity in the list. Why didn’t they select the appropriate strategy to help them? I can’t believe that they applied this to doing the activity. I will definitely have to make them aware of appropriate strategy selection.

59

Interviews

Pupils were honest with this and seemed comfortable in the established and familiar environment I created. …

The poor EAL pupils looked worried when I asked them whether I asked them if they enjoyed reading? They didn’t know how to respond as I was asking them if they enjoyed reading in their native languages but they thought that I was asking them if they enjoyed reading in English. When I read in a different language I am aware of my understanding and following the text and information given. However, when I read in English I am able to purely focus on the text presented and therefore I can see how the experiences of these pupils when reading in their native language and English differ.

…

Modelling, Action Planning and Practice – HAPs

Pupils were happy to do reading activities but is this because they are aware of my research and therefore expected this? I love the checklist and pupils seem to do so too! Pupils were aware of my presence in the room and looked to me for approval rather than for help. Wow! Even Boy A did the tasks!…

Looking for cognates, reading for gist and awareness of the wider world were popular strategies used to complete tasks… Pupils use these separately however.

…

A much calmer and more productive atmosphere in the classroom.

…

Pupils loved the idea of setting themselves their own action plans. They were very honest with the strategies that they wanted to explore and pupils seemed to make these personal rather than go with what their friends are doing. This is a really good class for doing this and they generally have a mature approach to this. Pupils were engaged in the practising process and were happy to have a go. It was so nice to see this.

…

Pupils were happy for me to withhold the checklist by lesson 4. They saw it as a challenge. Do they now hold an ‘Incremental view’ (Dweck 1999)? They tackled what was a somewhat challenging text with ease. They were happy not to understand every single word and were not deterred by unfamiliar language. They read for gist initially and then focussed in on specific items of vocabulary and therefore demonstrated a clear movement through Carver’s (in Woore 2014) gears. Such a transformation!

60

Modelling, Action Planning and Practice – LAPs

From the previous lesson pupils needed some form of explicit strategy instruction in terms of appropriate strategy selection. I wanted to do this to avoid a repeat instance of pupils trying every single strategy when completing a task rather than choose those which would best suit a text.

…

Pupils needed support in action planning and I had to get them to consider carefully the strategy they wanted to practise. Some copied what the person next to them was doing and when I questioned them on why they chose this strategy they weren’t able to tell me why. I then had to coach these pupils by asking them questions on how they approach a reading task and which strategy they were unsure of. They still had a reliance on me but my role has moved towards a coaching role rather than a mentor who gives the answers. I wanted the action plans to be unique and therefore I couldn’t tell them what to practise; it had to be their choice.

Some have chosen to identify key words. When they were practising this some did not correctly translate the key words which led to a complete mis-interpretation of the text. What can I do to avoid this? They need to be aware of using a combination of strategies.

…

Some pupils verbalised their thought process which allowed for others to interrupt and support them. What a brilliant thing to encourage! I could not have predicted this. I was able to become a facilitator for this activity rather than a director for which path to take (Macaro, Graham and Woore 2016). I am happy to assume this role. I am happy to teach strategy and then facilitate pupils developing their own approach to dealing with texts. I must explore a similar approach for other skills. I must also ensure that, particularly for this class, they are aware of how to use these strategies in their lessons across the school. This needs to become to norm for them for texts no matter the language and therefore I must discuss this with them and also provide many opportunities for them to practise long after my research has finished.

…

Pupils asked me where their checklist was. I internally thought that I would have a fight on my hands to convince them that they wouldn’t need it. I must not pre-judge the reactions of these pupils. When I explained that it was part of the research that they shouldn’t have their checklist at this stage, they were happy and accepted the situation. They had been so used to having the checklist that they were able to apply strategies to understand the text.

…

61

Evaluation – HAPs

…

Such a sense of achievement from this lesson both for the pupils and me. I feel that they employed effective strategies, and a variety of them. For me to observe them attempt the large text and see them get on with it was a milestone. I can see their learning from my research implemented with success. Did they get all answers correct? No. At this stage am I concerned? No. The aim of my research was to equip them with strategies and see them grow in confidence which I have witnessed. I could now look to see how effective strategy instruction and subsequently employment of these strategies affects attainment.

…

Pupils, in their reflections, state that they feel more confident. This reassures me on my research. If the pupils feel more confident then their attitude towards language learning has changed. I read in some pieces that pupils are happy to be presented with longer texts in Spanish and that they enjoyed undertaking reading activities. This leads me to feel that I can further challenge these pupils and explore lots of different texts with them. This will really equip them for their GCSEs and calm them when presented with unfamiliar texts.

Evaluation – LAPs

Pupils again, were happy not to have their checklist. They were happy to work alone although they did not work in silence. I did not mind this. Once given the text the pupils immediately settled down to reading it. This demonstration shows that their knowledge has moved from being declarative to procedural (Johnson 1996). Incredible! There was a substantial amount of text for these pupils to get through however, they persevered and accepted that they would not understand all of it. Pupils did struggle but they didn’t give up which made me very proud of them. Impulsive translations were not heard; instead genuine, focussed conversations on the meaning of the texts were heard. Pupils appeared to enjoy the text. The EAL pupils did not use their iPads! Some did ask if they were getting the answers correct as a form of reassurance.

Going through the answers pupils are happy to offer their ideas and share how they obtained their answers. I couldn’t help but smile in listening to them use the language of the checklist so naturally.

…

62

Appendix 5: Questionnaire

1. Do you think you knew a lot of the words in the text already?2. Did you skip over words you did not know, and understand the general

meaning of the sentences anyway?3. Did you guess some new words, because they looked like English

words?4. Did you use the pictures beside the text to help you understand what was

happening in the text?5. Do you think the type of text gave you a clue about what the text was

about?6. Did you use the word-list at the end of the text, or a dictionary to find out

the meanings of some words?7. Did you ask a teacher to explain the meaning of some words or

sentences to you?8. If you found a part of the text which you could not understand, did you

continue to read it to the end? If so, did the meaning of the difficult part become clear to you later?

9. Are you fairly confident about your reading skills in English? Why/why not?

10.Do you enjoy reading in lessons or for pleasure or both? How much time do you usually spend reading?

BOY A Answers

1. Do you think you knew a lot of the words in the text already?

No I didn’t know many of the words.

2. Did you skip over words you did not know, and understand the general meaning of the sentences anyway?

Yes I skipped a lot of words.

3. Did you guess some new words, because they looked like English words?

Yes I looked for cognates to help me.

4. Did you use the pictures beside the text to help you understand what was happening in the text?

Yes I used the pictures to help me.

5. Do you think the type of text gave you a clue about what the text was about?

No, I don’t know what type of text it is.

6. Did you use the word-list at the end of the text, or a dictionary to find out the meanings of some words?

63

Yes I used a dictionary to help me.

7. Did you ask a teacher to explain the meaning of some words or sentences to you?

No I didn’t ask for help.

8. If you found a part of the text which you could not understand, did you continue to read it to the end?

I continued to the end then the second and third time I would try to figure it out.

If so, did the meaning of the difficult part become clear to you later? Yes it became clear later.

9. Are you fairly confident about your reading skills in English? Why/why not?

No. I get confused between sentences.

10.Do you enjoy reading in lessons or for pleasure or both? How much time do you usually spend reading?

Sometimes. I only read during DEAR or when I want to go to sleep.

64

Appendix 6: Brainstorms of reading strategies produced by LAP and HAP classes

*Vocabulary book: Pupils are issued with a department-created vocabulary book which includes key vocabulary from the topic areas covered across the year.

Reading Strategies

Look for cognates

Try to work out what a word means from the context

Ask somebody for help

Look in vocabulary book*

Look for punctuation clues

Look in a dictionary

Identify familiar words

Guess

65

Appendix 7: Interview questions

Do you enjoy reading?

When do you read?

Do you like to do reading activities in Spanish lessons?

How do you know that you can read a text in Spanish?

How do you feel when you do not understand part of a text?

Are you able to guess the meanings of some words? How confident do you feel in doing this?

How do you feel when you have to do a reading exam?

What do you do when you do not understand a word or sentence in an English text you are reading?

What do you do when you do not understand?

Why do you ask a teacher for help?

Do you think you will get to a stage where you are able to read a text and confidently understand it?

How will you know that you are more confident in your reading skills?

66

Appendix 8: Checklist with tick columns

Before reading ✓ ✓ ✓I check that I understand the task I have to doI look carefully at the title and any pictures to see if I can guess what it will be aboutI try to remember as many words as I can to do with this topicWhile reading ✓ ✓ ✓I read the whole text through, trying to get an idea of what it is about and ignoring unfamiliar wordsI don’t panic when there is something I don’t understand, but carry on readingI use my common sense to make sensible guessesI pick out cognates and words that look familiarI say unfamiliar words out loud, since a word may not look like a cognate, but it may sound like oneI pick out what I think are the key wordsI look for the names of people or placesI use the punctuation for clues, e.g. question marks, capital letters, etcI read bits of the text I find hard to understand out loud and try to identify how the sentence breaks downI substitute words in English for those I do not know, e.g. ‘he somethinged his head on the table’I break down unfamiliar words and try to associate parts of them with familiar wordsI decide which words I will look up in a dictionary or my vocabulary bookI try to spot word categories, e.g. what is a verb, a noun, an adjectiveI pay attention to grammatical clues like tenses or pronounsAfter reading ✓ ✓ ✓I check back to see if my first guesses were right and made sense or I need to think againI think about why some of the strategies I used did not work and which ones could help me more next time


Source: adapted from Harris and Snow (2004:24)

67

Appendix 9: Action Plan example

Pupils identified their areas of difficulty and used the checklist for the ‘Try’ column. The evaluation and knowledge of improvement was thought up by themselves.

My difficulty TryI focus on words I don’t understand

Underlining cognates and familiar words

I have to look up every word in a dictionary or my vocabulary book*

Read the entire text through first for context

I don’t use clues in the text to help my understanding

Look at the title, look at pictures and use the style of text

Evaluation I will know I have improved because

When I underlined the words I knew I realised I knew more than I thought.When I read through the whole text first I am not worried by the words I don’t know and I am able to guess at what the text is aboutI understand that the pictures and titles are there to help my understanding

I will finish the activity quicker I won’t use a dictionary or my

vocabulary book as much I will be able to recognise the

type of text quickly


Source: template adapted from Harris and Snow (2004:27)

68

mteachjournal.files.wordpress.com · Web viewWord count: 10,979. This report/dissertation may be...

Documents

Transcript of mteachjournal.files.wordpress.com · Web viewWord count: 10,979. This report/dissertation may be...