Critical Analysis of Teaching, Learning, and Assessment for Low Attainers in Both English and Math - Literature review Example

Critical Analysis of Teaching, Learning and Assessment for Low Attainers in Both English and Mathematics Addressing low academic performance is an imperative for schools and teachers primarily because of the standards set by the government. For example, the UK has favored the policy of performativity both in the cases of the schools and teaching professionals, typified by strict rules, accountability, assessment and inspection (Forde et al., 2006, p. 26). This paper explores the two critical aspects in this issue. The first is the implication of low performance on teaching, learning and assessment in English subject. Secondly, there is the role of mathematical models on the learners who are performing poorly in mathematics subject. Speaking and Listening in English Curriculum English is one of the core subjects in the UK primary and early years programmes. The National Curriculum underscores the importance of the subject in communication in school, public life and internationally and cites how learning in the area should focus on understanding how the language works through patterns, structures and origins (Department of Education 2013). Despite the fact that the 2013 curriculum for English has been discontinued in preparation for the 2014 version and schools and teacher are free to draft their own, it is expected, as in the case of the previous iterations of the curriculum, that the focus of instruction in the English subject will include speaking and listening, in addition to reading and writing. The previous two are the traditional components of English in the curriculum, whereas the reading and listening components were included as part of the expanded English curriculum designed to cope with the standard movements at both national and state levels (Goulden, 1998, p. 90). The policy that includes several learning areas in English is supported by research that indicates how communication and linguistic skill is composed of several traits and sub-skills (Sasaki 1996; Shin 2005). This variable argues for a multidimensional approach to learning English. Prior studies show that speaking and listening are closely related to each other and that they are linked to both reading and writing, at times overlapping with each other, further making the case for the integration of these four areas within the English subject (see Reves & Levine 1988; Bae & Bachman 1998). The UK National Curriculum for English is guided by the following objectives: read easily, fluently and with good understanding develop the habit of reading widely and often, for both pleasure and information acquire a wide vocabulary, an understanding of grammar and knowledge of linguistic conventions for reading, writing and spoken language appreciate our rich and varied literary heritage write clearly, accurately and coherently, adapting their language and style in and for a range of contexts, purposes and audiences use discussion in order to learn; they should be able to elaborate and explain clearly their understanding and ideas are competent in the arts of speaking and listening, making formal presentations, demonstrating to others and participating in debate. The above provides the framework for the current and future focus and standards that govern English education for primary and early learners. It has marked impact on teaching, learning and assessment, particularly for low performers. Approach to Teaching According to Goulden (1998), based on research, the focus on speaking and listening entailed changes to how teachers teach. The first and most fundamental of these involves the thorough understanding of what "speaking" and "listening" is all about. This is because teachers lacking information as to the nature and content of these areas could confuse them with other learning concepts and learner behaviors. For example, teachers may erroneously consider vocalizing as speaking or any silent and passive behavior as listening (Goulden, p. 90). Speaking is not considered simple or basic communication; rather, it includes thinking, knowledge and skills, requiring practice and training (ERIC). Le Malle (2012) addressed this specific issue when she designed a program that targets speaking and listening specifically as opposed to a program that merely seeks to improve these areas as learners skills. She called this “orality”. The outcome of her work reflected the same design orientation that the UK has recommended for teaching speaking and listening. The approach is typified by four aspects that are usually approached in sequence: speaking: being able to speak clearly and to develop and sustain ideas in talk; listening: developing active listening strategies and critical skills of analysis; group discussion and interaction: taking different roles in groups, making a range of contributions and working collaboratively; drama: improvising and working in role, scripting and performing and responding to performances (Department for Education and Skills, 2006, p.5). The body of literature on this subject also provides several evidences that cite the effective and long-term positive impact of a sound speaking and listening components to teaching young learners. The work of Spada and Lightbrown (2012, p. 567) conducted in Quebec is a case in point. It involved a long-term study comparing two learning environments: the traditional instruction and a local-government experimental program that entailed English immersion where young learners were subjected to intensive English language activities. Teaching approaches have strong communicative orientation wherein students engage in interaction, speaking and listening on daily basis and, in some cases, “the virtual exclusion” of reading and writing activities (p. 567). The outcome revealed marked difference in performance. Those in the experimental programme demonstrated extreme fluency after the study, displaying the ability to think and interpret concepts. This highlighted both the problem and the solution in the case of low achievers. If the average students find difficulty in navigating English learning that focuses on speaking and listening, low achievers have to struggle more. The previously cited approach to speaking and listening implemented in Quebec depicts the success of communicative and interactive solution that is both immersive and non-pedagogical. Moreover, it is also aligned with the strategy of early intervention, which banks on the position that children’s cognitive characteristics – given an effective learning strategy and head start – could learn faster (Shanahan et al., 1995; Berk 1996). An excellent example is the case of remedial classes. A strategic approach based on differentiated learning needs could address the learning needs of low achievers and could also make interaction and communication easier and more effective. A detailed programme based on communication, comprehension and collaboration was developed by Morrow et al. (p. 110), for young learners that include activities and assessment for learning goals such as establishing a topic, maintaining focus, terminating a topic and the achievement of the ability to recognize conversational breakdown, why it occurred and how to repair it. This theme is supported by LeMalle’s own framework that calls for a paradigm shift wherein instruction and learner engagement is approached through a process-product orientation. Here, teaching methodologies, resources, tools and assessments are all geared towards achieving oral competencies for learners that are not merely about producing oral language users. Rather, as LeMalle (p. 91) put it, the approach should aim for oral language competence, which is all about “knowing when to code-switch from dialect to standard form, answering a question quickly and concisely without writing the answer down first, telling a story to an audience and changing it as necessary to meet the needs and interest of the audience,” among others. To put it simply, the focus on speaking and listening in teaching English to early learners is beyond the attempt to inculcate a capability to make a conversation. Rather, there is the goal for the learners to be able to converse with the world. There are also many underlying variables that drive the efficacy and success of the attempt to adapt teaching content and approach to the components of speaking and listening. The most important of these is the case of the teachers vocabulary: Is it sufficient to effectively discuss and execute the concept of orality? This is crucial because - as Le Malle (p. 85) put it - orality is different from literacy. It is different from the spoken approach to knowledge transfer. Everyone has the ability to speak and listen but few can orate or speak rhetorically or in prose, much more teach learners about it. In four cases, where Le Malle (p. 86-89) observed lessons in the English subject, it was revealed that teachers struggled with the presentation of content, approach to its delivery as well as the strategy in engaging the learners. This circumstance is aggravated further when teaching low achievers among the pupils. There are other identified teaching practices that need to be changed. Some of these include how most lessons involving speaking and listening are in direct response to written language; and, how tasks that are presented orally still require written reports and activities. Clearly, work is cut out for teachers in the effective teaching of English that focuses on speaking and listening areas. They need to learn and implement new teaching approaches because the traditional pedagogical approach will not achieve optimum efficacy. This is highlighted in the case of low achievers. Methods such as remedial classes and early learning interventions – those that recognize differentiated learning needs could address this dilemma. Unfortunately, this entails a complex process, requiring the integration of tools and methods of instruction and assessment. This, however, should not eclipse the real issue here. The inclusion of speaking and listening components to the English subject for primary and early learners is within the wider drive to make the students more capable in the face of global trends and academic achievements. The policy position is very clear about this goal. It is imperative, hence, for teachers to learn and acquire the rudimentary skills because they are critical to achieving performance targets in the area of English subject. Images and Models: Learning Math for Children The National Curriculum of the UK gives the teacher a wide berth when it comes to teaching mathematics and numeracy. In Section 5, detailing the subject of Mathematics, it was stated that “teachers should use every relevant subject to develop pupils’ mathematical fluency.” The bulk of responsibility and decisions with regards to the approach to instruction of mathematical content, hence, rests on the hands of the educator. One of the most effective methods in teaching mathematics especially for low academic performers is the use of models and visual aids to explain mathematical concepts. This strategy has been in place for a long time and has been widely recognized for its efficacy as early as the 1970s. Dunlap and Brennan (1979, p. 89), for instance, explained this best when they cited how the body of literature and prior studies depict the positive role of images and models in the way children understand and develop mental images of mathematical principles and processes. Susan Riley, an educator, provided one of the most sensible and relevant position why models and images are crucial in teaching mathematics. To quote: [The] thing about math that is so clear to me now is that it is a visual form of communication. Numbers are visual representations of logical practices. Yet, we don’t teach math this way. Why not? 80% of our students are visual learners. Yet, we stubbornly refuse to teach math visually. We use tricks and abstract ideas, but we never allow our students to visualize math concepts and practices. This section explores this issue further, citing the theoretical and empirical evidences that support how models and images can help young students learn mathematics. Images, Models and Children’s Cognitive Development The position that models and visual aids help learners understand mathematics and numeracy better is underpinned by several psychological theories. The most of important of these is social cognitive theory developed by Albert Bandura. The theory established children learn or acquire knowledge and make sense of their surroundings through observation. This transpires when children see their parents and their activities as well as other sources of images and actions such as the media. According to Rathus (2013, p. 17), in this view, cognition and learning is thought to alter the children’s “mental representation of their environment and affects their belief in their ability to change the environment.” This is critical in the learning setting at school. The theory proposes the idea that children gravitate towards sources of knowledge that reinforce and engage their perceptions particularly in creating environments. The imitation that transpires in the child’s observations is considered cognitive rather than conditional. What this means is that the child processes an action, a model, an image or a concept before imitating or acting on an observed phenomenon. At school, for example, young learners have to pay attention, construct and remember mental representations that they have seen in form of images and verbal summaries, and then proceed on retrieving these representations from their memory afterwards (Sigelman & Rider, 2011, p.45). The theory explains a widely regarded position in mathematics instruction that states: Imagery is a powerful force for perception and understanding. Being able to “see” something mentally is a common metaphor for understanding it. An image may be of some geometrical shape, or of a graph or diagram, or it may be some set of symbols or some procedure (Open University 1988). Social cognitive theory is also aligned with Jean Piaget’s model that argues how children need to manipulate objects in order to understand them. Drews (2007, p. 19) direct us to Piaget’s “pre-operational” and “concrete operational” modes of thinking in children, the ages where this supposed manipulation of objects helps them in learning concepts. In the context of Piaget’s theory, Drews (p. 29) referred to models and images as “resources” and based on her study, they are extremely beneficial if used effectively, leading to the meaningful abstraction of mathematical ideas from the materials. An understanding of the theories such as social cognitive learning theory enables teachers to understand the reason why models and images are important tin teaching mathematical concepts. In this case, the instruction is not merely a process but it assumes a whole new meaning with the idea that the process is molding the developmental trajectory of child’s mind as opposed to a short-sighted focus on achieving specific mathematical learning outcomes. With this perspective, the teacher is also in the position to devise and design activities and instructions that reinforce the learning of concepts. This point addresses a dimension in social cognitive theory that explains that a child has the capability to let a concept learned lie dormant and that he or she will only act on it – that is, imitate or reject it – once an event forces out a reaction. For example, the teacher uses drawings and mosaics to teach the mathematical concept of ratio. The exercise should be effective as the models and images trigger and stimulate the learner’s cognitive capabilities. But there would be instances when the learning process hits a wall because of the child’s cognitive ability to make knowledge and concepts stored in the mind dormant. This is where reinforcements exert their influence. The teaching strategy should be able to integrate several strategic components that would make the learning continuous, engaging and, hence, successful. This particular aspect is quite important for teachers. There are times wherein the learner appears to perform below expectation. This could very well qualify as the reason and what is required are further activities and would trigger the understanding of stored mathematical concepts. So, to reinforce the learning process, the teacher could institute a system of rewards: say, the correct articulation of learned concepts is given praise. This can also be in the form of further demonstration of the lesson in different visual setting. For instance, the teacher could use the color theory, which would entail experimenting with colors to further reinforce the knowledge on the concept of fraction. A Sample of Successful Model An excellent example of an actual model based on the visualization approach that is designed to help low academic performers close the achievement gap is the one developed by the University of Minnesota. It is called the Schema-based instruction (SBI). The system specifically aims to help young learners who have difficulty solving math word problems as well as those who suffer from mathematical learning disabilities (Jitendra, 2013). The schema achieved its objective through two important strategies. 1. it primes the mathematical structure using schematic diagrams. This depicted the mathematical model of the relevant elements and relations in the problem situation; 2. it selects the most appropriate solution strategy and solving problem; and, 3. it checks whether the answer makes sense (Jitendra). The model works because the visuals allowed children to better understand mathematical procedures. According to its designers, it is radically more effective than the conventional teaching approach, which for its part relies on textbooks to provide the problem and the activities to solve them. This is very important because there are instances when teachers resort to tricks and shortcuts in order to help learners solve mathematical problems (Riley). Students may advance in their knowledge level but there will come a time when mathematical problems would prove insurmountable because they will be based on actual practices and the “tricks” learned way back would just not apply. Empirical Evidence There are several studies that demonstrate how teaching mathematics with visual aids are effective for young learners and for low academic achievers. The studies that laid the groundwork that confirmed the validity of much of the theorizing behind this system include the early work of Behr et al (1983). This important research validated the issue in their investigation of teaching rational-number concepts. The study demonstrated how the effective teaching of the concept through visualization is effective, underpinning a rich arena wherein children can develop and expand mental structures (p. 91). A more updated and comprehensive study in this area was published in 2006 by Mishra and Koehler, which included an examination of the integration of technology in the representation of mathematical concepts in classroom setting. Another recent work includes Sedig and Liang’s (2006) investigation on the efficacy of computer-based mathematical cognitive tools. This covered the impact of new visualization tools available to mathematical educators, which are increasingly typified by a high degree of interactivity that stimulates and engages children’s mind at the same time. The study found a link between instruction and learning achievement. The trend in teaching mathematics along the lines of using images and models are getting more and more sophisticated. A case in point is the development of the interactive whiteboard (IWB) technology in the UK. Many investigations (Glover et al., 2005; Higgins, Beauchamp & Miller, 2007; Smith et al., 2007) documented how this tool was able to radically improve mathematical comprehension because of better presentation of visuals and concepts as well as the increase in student learning motivations. To wrap everything up, the case for visualization of mathematics instruction as an effective approach to bridging academic achievement gap is strong in several fronts. It is supported by social and psychological theories, which points to the dynamics of children’s psychology and learning capabilities. This is further augmented by the body of literature that documented previous studies that reveal strong empirical support for visualization. Finally, there are the actual models and systems based on visualization being implemented today and how the experiences of schools, teachers and young learners depict positive outcomes. Ultimately, the efficacy of approaches in teaching whether in English or in Mathematics are verifiable through assessments and evaluations. These mechanisms, based on standards and benchmarks established by the policy network, should be able to identify effective approaches according to a set of performance criteria. The body of literature should also inform this aspect, leading to the determination of what works and what does not. The role of the regulatory institutions as well as schools is prominent in this area. The information is going to be crucial because it will serve as a resource for teachers in their teaching strategies. Also, Furlong and Phillips (2002) explained that a learners performance will always be influenced and affected by several factors that are personal and social in nature, including the "understanding of what is required in terms of performance; the motivation to excel; emotions and confidence to a given academic activity; their gender and even their well-being and psychological state at given moment (Filer 2000). This position is boosted by the theoretical literature both in the context of English and Mathematics instructions. The above variables underscore the role of the teacher in the effective knowledge transfer in English and Mathematics subjects. Together with the school, the teacher has the power to address and improve the learners low academic performance. Adequate knowledge both on the academic content and the learners enable these stakeholders to develop effective strategies to address challenges in the classroom setting. The differentiation in learning levels on the part of the learners does entail additional challenges for educators. But one must remember that there are many resources and tools available to the teacher that can contribute in addressing the problem. Visual models, images and, now, computer based, interactive technologies are just cases in point. References Bae, J and Bachman, L 1998, ‘A latent variable approach to listening and reading: Testing factorial invariance across two groups of children in the Korean/English two-way immersion program’, Language Testing, vol. 15, pp. 380-414. Berk, L., 1996. Infants, children, and adolescents. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Department of Education and Skills, 2006. Primary: National Strategy, Excellence and Enjoyment: learning and teaching for bilingual children in the primary years. Department of Education. Available from: . [12 February 2014]. Department for Education 2013. The National Curriculum in England. Government of the United Kingdom. Department of Education, 2013. English: En1 Speaking. The School Curriculum: English. Government of the United Kingdom. Available from: http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum/primary/b00198874/english/ks1/en1. [12 February 2014]. Drews, D., 2007. ‘Do resources matter in primary mathematics teaching and learning?’ In D. Drews and A. Hansen (Eds.), Using Resources to Support Mathematical Thinking, Primary and Early Years. Learning Matters. ERIC Digest, (not dated). Oral language development across the curriculum K-12. ERIC Institute of Education Sciences. Available from: . [11 February 2014]. Filer, A, 2000. Assessment, social practice and social product. London: Falmer. Forde, C, McMahon, M, McPhee, A and Patrick, F 2006, Professional Development, Reflection and Enquiry. London: SAGE. Furlong, J and Phillips, R 2002, Education, Reform and the State: Twenty Five Years of Politics, Policy and Practice. London: Routledge. Glover, D, Miller, D, Averis, D and Door, V 2005, The interactive whiteboard: A literature survey. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, vol. 14, no. 2, pp.155-170. Goulden, N 1998, Implementing Speaking and Listening Standards: Information for English Teachers. The English Journal, vol. 88, September 1, pp. 90-96. Higgins, S, Beauchamp, G and Miller, D 2007, Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 213-225. Jitendra, A 2013, Math Success and the Power of Visualization. University of Minnesota. Available from . [12 February 2014]. LeMalle, K 2012, Orality and oral composition in the 21st century classroom. Delta Journal of Education, vol. 2, no. 2, November 2012, pp. 83-97. Mishra, P and Koehler, M 2006, ‘Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge’, Teachers College Record, vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 1017-1054. Rathus, S 2013, Childhood and Adolescence: Voyages in Development. New York: Cengage Learning. Reves, T and Levine, A 1988, ‘The FL receptive skills: Same or different?’, System, vol. 16, pp. 327-336. Riley, S 2014, Visualizing Math. Education Closet. Available from: . [12 February 2014]. Sedig, K and Liang, H 2006, ‘Interactivity of Visual Mathematical Representations: Factors Affecting Learning and Cognitive Processes’, Journal of Interactive Learning Research, vol. 17, no. 2, pp.179-212. Shanahan, T and Barr, R 1995, ‘Reading recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of an early interventinstructional intervention for at-risk learners’, Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 30, pp. 958-996. Sigelman, C and Rider, E 2011, Life-Span Human Development. New York: Cengage Learning. Smith, H J, Higgins, S, Wall, K and Miller, J 2005, ‘Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 21, pp. 91-101. Spada, N and Lightbrown, P 2012, ‘An innovative program for Primary ESL students in Quebec’ TESOL Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 563-579. The Open University, 1988. ME234 Using Mathematical Thinking, Block 1 Investigating Mathematics, Unit 2 Working Mathematically, Milton Keynes. The Open University. Read More