Learning Support Assistants in Improving Children Skills - Essay Example

Summary of the Journal Articles Learning Support Assistants can Deliver Effective Reading Interventions for 'At - Risk' Children: The UK governmentis in the process of making some changes in the education system. Increasing the role of the Learning Support Assistants (LSAs) is one of the proposals. The present paper is the report of the research carried out to find if the role of the LSAs is effective in helping children improve upon their basis skill of reading and spelling. These skills can be improved by helping the children analyze the speech sounds associated with the letters or the group of the letters in a word. The other purpose of the study is to find out which method of teaching can be more effective for the students. Whether it should be rhyme based or phoneme based or mix of the two methods. Earlier evidence, like that of Ehri et al (2001) have found that training children to adopt analytic phonologically word based words-level strategies in the early readings help in improving reading and spelling ability. The role of LSAs is to help the children with the poor reading abilities in small groups. They have good experience but only have the basic training. Despite their crucial role with the 'at-risk' students, their contribution has not been fully explored. There have been strong evidences, which show that these teaching assistants can provide crucial support in teaching methodology. Thus the main aim of the research is to find out the effectiveness of LSA based system in the education system where presently this is not typical. There are several ways to teach the phonological and decoding skills. In the rhyme based intervention programmes children are made to pronounce the whole word like 'cut', 'but' and so on. While in the phoneme based method the students are made to give importance to each and every letter of the word, pronounce it and then add them all together. Thus the second aim of the research is to find out which method of intervention will be more effective, rhyme based or phoneme based or the combination of the two. Methodology: The study of intervention was carried out in two parts. In the screening phase, from the cohort of the 'at-risk' students a target sample was identified. In the next phase these students were exposed to the interventions delivered by the LSAs. One morning LSAs met with the authors to get the feel of the training material. From first nine responding schools 498 selected students were screened by LSAs to find the poorest students. All the students had experienced three months of Year 1 National Curriculum classes. One LSA was deployed in each school. They were trained to screen the children on the measures of phonological awareness, word reading and spelling, non-word reading and letter-sound knowledge. Screening Materials: Students were made to recite the nursery rhymes if they knew them. If they did not know it then the adults would say a rhyme and check if the child could complete it. The purpose was to clarify if the child knew the word 'rhyme'. In the rhyme matching, the children were shown the picture of the animals. They were then asked to find the picture of an animal that rhymed with some particular picture of animal, say like 'dog'. There were two practice trials and 12 experimental trials in this test. In rhyme generation children were shown the picture of a particular animal and then made to name the other animals whose name matched with that animal. If there were no answers then children were given the examples. In the blending method of screening LSA would pretend to be a Robot and make the sound like /m/-/at/. The children were asked to blend together the sounds and make some word from it like 'mat'. The LSA would complete the work if children did not respond. In the Segmentation method it was opposite, the children were given a word like 'pat'. They were told to break it and sound it like the robot. They had to break the word in either two or three parts. All these phonological tasks were combined together from a single 'combined single phonological awareness' measure. In the Pre test-screening phase there were some more tests. In the Non- sense Word reading test children were made to read six nonsense words. There were more tests like word reading and spelling and Letter - sound knowledge. Intervention Phase: After the screening phase 108 children were selected, 54 boys and 54 girls who were the lowest performing children. These children were then allocated to one of four interventions: phoneme, rhyme, mixed or NLS control. Each of three LSA- delivered interventions took place in three schools. Four schools, which had students mainly from lower SES backgrounds, were each allocated to separate intervention group. For the other schools allocations were arbitrary. In all schools children were arbitrarily allocated to the intervention condition (nine children) or to control condition (3 children). As the allocation of children was not entirely arbitrary, test was carried to check that children of four groups did not differ to the extent that could effect the overall results of the test. It was also important to ensure that children did not differ in reading or related phonological skills before intervention. Immediate Post test: The above measures were re-administered in the same fashion. Initially the LSAs were trained about generic elements of LSA intervention. The authors for each of the intervention then convened separate groups. The LSAs got to know about the materials, clarify the interventions and trial them informally. The LSAs were later informed about other important issues of administration of intervention. In the three intervention conditions the LSAs worked with children for 20 minutes four times a week. For phoneme intervention Soundworks programme was used. It allows the children to develop beyond CVC structures. The rhyme intervention used Phonological awareness training (PAT) programme evaluated by Wilson and Federickson. Apart from core rhyme activities children were asked to write words, search simple and sort words. In the mixed programme, children were encouraged to say phonemes as well as rhymes in word building. Their phonological games included rhyme and phoneme analysis and synthesis elements. In the control intervention the students received normal word level work fixed for the second term of Year 1 in their normal fashion. Results and discussions: Data for 104 students were available at post test as one child per group was not available. The first aim of the test was to know if LSA training improves literacy. Following are the post test results: Intervention Group Post test Pre to Post-test gain Phonological awareness a) Intervention 34.13 18.09 b) Control 29.35 10.54 Letter - sound knowledge a) Intervention 22.04 10.00 b) Control 20.27 7.56 Decoding skills a) Intervention 9.87 8.72 b) Control 8.19 6.11 The results show significant improvement in the phonological awareness between pre and post test in both the groups of children. The data also suggests that intervention groups made additional progress over the control groups in phonological awareness, decoding and letter-sound knowledge over the course of intervention. The evidence suggests that LSAs can be an effective additional support for children 'at risk' of literacy difficulties. The second aim of the test was to find if there were any differences in effectiveness between phoneme- based, onset rhyme-based and mixed interventions. Intervention Group Post test Pre to Post-test gain Phonological awareness a) Soundworks 30.50 18.04 b) Rhyme 34.44 18.88 c) Mixed 37.42 17.44 Letter - sound knowledge a) Soundworks 22.27 12.54 b) Rhyme 21.28 9.76 c) Mixed 21.96 7.69 Decoding skills a) Soundworks 8.50 8.15 b) Rhyme 10.27 9.58 c) Mixed 10.85 8.43 Analysis considering the relative improvement for rhyme, phoneme and mixed showed that there were no differences in the degree to which the three sorts of programme facilitated the development of phonological awareness or decoding skills. The authors have carried out a lot of hard in coming to the conclusion to decide about the role of CSAs. They know, the UK government relies on such researches, hence it been done considering number of factors. Final discussions would probably help the government follow the proper strategy. Also the work has been presented in a simple manner easy to understand. Pupil's Voices on Achievement: An Alternative to the Standards Agenda: The issue of pupil under achievement has concerned not only Labour and Conservative governments in the UK but also media, policy makers, parents and others. In Scotland HM Inspectors documented a report, Achievement for all showing the extent and nature of under- achievement of pupils. It found that pupils at stages S1 and S2 were not making sufficient progress. Raising achievement has become a public issue and policy concern. The present paper reports on research conducted with groups of 13-14 year olds in Scottish schools. Pupils' strategies related to four inter-connected areas: 1) what is school about, 2) comparative monitoring, 3) relationships with peers, 4) relationship with teachers. In the report absence of discourse of learning from pupil's accounts is explored and encouraging a more active engagement with learning process has been considered. Methodology: In the first phase interviews of pupils of said age were conducted in 1996-97 with school management and teachers. This report found lack of evidence schools' widespread problem of 'under-achievement'. Pupil's voices were not represented. In the second phase of the research carried out in 1997-98, the researches explored pupil's perspectives on achievement. This aspect of research set out to elicit ideas from the young people. Interviews were carried out of four groups of four students each in three schools, totaling 48 students. Male and female pupils of wide range attainment were represented. Request for homogenous groups was made to schools so as to get the frank and opened view of the pupils. In each school there were four groups of pupils: Higher achieving boys (HB), higher achieving girls (HG), lower achieving boys (LB) and lower achieving girls (LG). Results: What is School about For all the students interviewed, personally succeeding in school was important and desirable, only the other people 'don't give the hoot'. Their goals were general like getting a decent job, going to the University and not coming back for study as the adults. French and Geography were singled out as irrelevant. Pupils were heavily dependent on formal or informal assessment to know how they were performing. Almost every group began by citing school reports and test marks with high achieving groups mentioning reports more prominently. For the HB working hard and answering correctly in class means working hard and doing well. The girls cited effort as evidence of success while for boys it was hard work. However both could not anticipate as to how their efforts would be judged by their teachers. Comparative Monitoring Comparing with others or their earlier self was the source of information as to how they did. Lower achievers reported conflicting messages leading to confusion and resentment. Some girls complained about teachers in the past that had told them that they were doing well but were awarded low grades. Pupils preferred getting the test reports individually from teachers, which they normally did. However, there was small number of teachers reading the marks aloud. Pupils were clear that they would tell only their personal friends about their grades and marks. There was resentment for extra help being given to the girls or to pupils of special needs. Some of the girls complained that 'posh' pupils were allowed to use best keyboards in the music rooms or excused for forgetting a book. Pupils were aware of difference of level of performance but connecting it merely to efforts was unsatisfactory and uncomfortable to them. Social Relationship with peers: Relationship with peers was the key aspect of pupil's life. Reading books or painting was considered to be secret personality. The trendsetters were those wearing clothes with latest fashion no matter how badly they perform in schools. For the boys along with being clever in studies, it was also important to dress fashionably. There were lesser pressures on the girls who do well. If one does not fits with the norms of peer group leaders, there are fears of social isolation. Both boys and girls indicated that girl's assertiveness was supported in school. Some boys claimed that girls were given better privileges. Both the boys as well the girls felt Peer group pressure for conformity. Relationship With Teachers: All the groups agreed that the best teachers could be cheerful, have a laugh with you - make it fly a bit' and combine fun with work. Low achievers claimed that they never experienced public praise from the teacher. For some low achiever boys 'just neat writing, good spelling and good behavior' meant 'good standards'. For the low achiever girls the obstacles to their success were 'talk too much - mess up your book - bad behavior'. Pupils felt that class control by the teacher was precondition of success. Teachers efforts to galvanize the under achiever were perceived as punitive. There were comments of lack of communication between the teacher and the lower achievers. There were complaints that teacher rushes towards high-grade students. If the lower grade student asked for help, he would get a row. Some of the teachers crack up saying that the pupil had not been listening. For pupils being a good pupil was privileged over the substance of learning. In this regard pupils choice was either unnoticed or accepted by the teacher. Discussion: Pupils seem to be operating on understanding that schoolwork consisted of a fixed content of information or techniques for which they had to learn right answers and correct performances. If one behaves obediently and made an effort then one succeeds; any shortfall could be overcome by intensified effort or concentration. The role of pupils' peer relationship is rather complex one. Giving importance to the low performing pupils with lower achievements and hiding own personal interests like reading and painting is a fact but difficult to understand. The absence of discourse of learning on part of pupils was common as the teachers also shared in it. By developing the dialogue between the teachers and pupils the sense the 'school is not inspirational' can be removed. Also teachers should help students disclose their secret identities without the fear of their fellows responding "I'm not hanging about him'. Teachers have a moral responsibility to promote active and independent learners who have a 'voice' in school. Pressures on schools from above to raise the standards are likely to transfer the pressures from the teachers to the students. Fostering dialogue at the classroom level, enabling pupil's voice to be heard and valued, has the potential of improving relationships, learning and achievements, which the policy makers seek. Authors comments on improving the performance of the students show their deep passion for the pupils. The authors have used a general style of doing a research paper but the research material has made it highly effective. Also doing research on subject to find the other side when one side is uniformly accepted is a no easy work. Personally, also I have received a lot of new information from this paper. Read More