Oldandnewliteracies

Removing Barriers to Learning Old and New Literacies.
Mohammed Mominur Rahman
(Word Count 4,503)
As teachers, we look at data such as reading age and National Curriculum
Key Stage Three Levels for English in planning lessons for our students.
We are required to embed ‘literacy’ opportunities within our hour of
computing to allow a whole school approach of lifting the literacy levels of
all students, especially those perceived by Ofsted as disadvantaged, such
as white working class boys, those on Free School Meals (FSM) and
looked after children as well as certain ethnic minorities who have been
underperforming for decades with little change, Ofsted (2011). While
doing all this to save our schools from being turned into Academies and
chasing increases in one media hyped score, Earl et al (2003), are we
missing the boat on a wider, more important understanding of what
literacy is, Lankshear & Knobel (2003). Is this what John Agard meant
in his poem ‘Checking out me history’? There are also ‘new literacies’
including digital literacy and ‘artefactual literacy’, Pahl & Rowsell
(2012) where things that you can touch tell stories and convey meaning
deeper than the words decoded through pronouncing phonemes and
assessed by the National Literacy learning targets.
Literacy and National Concerns
Just before the beginning of the new millennium, the Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority (QCA) identified some concerns with the level of
‘literacy’ in the UK and set out some recommendations to improve the
teaching of literacy and numeracy in schools, QCA (1999). Some
commentators such as Lankshear & Knobel (2003) have challenged these
concerns as hyped up or artificially induced by media and politicians.
Others, such as Freire & Macedo(1987) and Pahl & Rowsell (2012),
have challenged the governments definition of literacy as too simple or
narrow and offer a wider understanding of ‘literacy’ that includes learning
about society and culture and the creation of meaning through artefacts
or ‘things’ around people as well as the ability to read or ‘decode’ text.
Another definition of literacy more relevant to my own subject area is
called ‘new literacy’ or ‘digital literacy’ and includes skills beyond reading
and writing traditional texts to include design of web artefacts and film or
video (such as on YouTube) and the fusion of text and graphics to create
and share meaning in a globally connected ‘cyberspace’ (e.g. in
Instagram).

As a result of perceived increase in illiteracy driven by media editors,
politicians, Lankshear & Knobel (2003) and employers, the government
introduced a Literacy Strategy comprised of 36 learning targets for
primary pupils to achieve in order to boost literacy levels to 80%, QCA
(1999). Four years later an external assessment of this strategy showed
that improvements had been made although achievement fell short of the
government’s target of 80% literacy reaching 75%, Earl et al (2003).
Improvements in literacy continued until it flattened out at 80%,
National Literacy Trust (2006); this still left one fifth of UK citizens
illiterate and resulted in Ofsted (2011) recommending ‘good practice’ to
be shared that will lead to 100% literacy, highlighting 12 exemplar
schools who managed to get every child to reach level 4 by the end of key
stage 2 no matter what the background, Ofsted(2010) despite many
studies showing that socio-economic background was a stable indicator of
educational performance, Knapp & Wolverton (1995).
One of the key recommendations is the teaching of phonics to children in
early years, National Literacy Trust (2006) and continuation of teaching
literacy through phonics in secondary schools, Ofsted (2011) where
students are found to be behind. Another key recommendation is to
embed the teaching of literacy in every subject class systematically. While
welcoming these suggestions and working hard to implement them,
teachers, former teachers and authors have also pointed out that a key
activity which leads to improved literacy is ‘reading for pleasure’,
Powling et al (2003). One of the national concerns is that the practice
of ‘reading for pleasure’ is on the decline and the government is urged to
address this issue. In my own experience, reading for pleasure has been a
key driver in improving literacy and general educational attainment in
members of my extended family and the lack of this activity has held
back other members of the family. Recently, my five year old daughter
has shown enormous strides in reading ability (and knowledge of phonics
terminology surpassing my own) in line with government efforts to get
children reading by the age of six, Ofsted (2010).
Another concern set out by QCA (1999), National Literacy Trust (2006)
and Ofsted (2011) is the need to have Initial Teacher Training (ITT)
organisations to operate interactively with schools in ensuring that Newly
Qualified Teachers (NQTs) are trained well and in sufficient numbers to
deliver literacy embedded in all subject lessons and especially with
knowledge of phonics teaching methods in early years, National Literacy
Trust (2006) and recently emphasising phonics teaching in secondary
schools, Ofsted(2011).

While my ITT organisation has involved my cohort of trainee teachers in
substantial sessions of phonics training, I have yet to see any phonics
teaching, embedded in other subjects or as part of English lessons in any
secondary classes I have observed in the first seven months of my
School-Based Initial Teacher Training (SCITT). This is similar to what has
been found by Ofsted (2011).
The Literacy policy of my second placement school also does not mention
phonics, but focuses on literacy programmes like Accelerated Reader. This
system contains targets linked to the National literacy Strategy mentioned
on QCA (1999) and also encourages reading for pleasure, Powling et al
(2003) but has been criticised as encouraging reading for recall at the
expense of reading for comprehension Turner & Paris (1995).
Placement School’s Concerns and Systems for Literacy
Development.
My second placement school’s literacy concerns are similar to Ofsted
(2011) and Ofsted (2010) concerns about progress made by
disadvantaged students such as those with Special educational Needs
(SEN), those on Free School Meals (FSM), looked after children and long
term low attaining groups such as white working class boys, and students
from Afro-Caribbean and Pakistani backgrounds (especially those who
arrive newly to the UK with English as an Additional Language (EAL). This
is not surprising as Ofsted is currently focusing especially on these issues
strictly, changing the way school league tables are measured to further
emphasise the progress made by all students rather than the absolute
attainment of the best students. Many schools around the country have
been assessed as ‘needs improvement’ from being ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’
because of low progress made by SEN and FSM or looked after students
despite high percentage of other students achieving 5 A* to C grades in
GCSE results, including my Base School.
What was surprising was that my second placement school did not have a
written literacy policy to tackle these concerns. A specific literacy policy
was not developed either, during my short placement period to tackle the
school’s specific concerns; I had to speak to teachers in the English
department and staff in the library and observe lessons and tutor time
activities to piece together the schools actions. I was also directed to a
brief joint literacy statement by a group of schools, Luton Futures
(2015).

The main action that my second placement school is taking to tackle the
literacy concerns is that key stage three students attend sessions in the
school library to read books targeted for their reading level as part of the
Accelerated Reader program. This is a very popular program that is
implemented in many schools in the UK and also in North America. As
well as colour coded books for different reading abilities, it includes online
tests and assessments to help teachers, students and parents keep track
of students’ progress in reading. Some choice within the colour codes
recommended for each student allows the students to read books they
enjoy. The program may be focused too narrowly on decoding letters to
improve reading ability and not sufficiently improving comprehension,
Turner & Paris (1995) and also not addressing other aspects of literacy
included in broader understandings of literacy such as socio-cultural,
Freire & Macedon (1987), artefactual and digital literacy, Pahl and Rowsell
(2012).
In addition to the Accelerated Reader program, there are four other
elements to improving literacy in my second placement school: literacy
activities during tutor time every morning, word of the week, embedded
literacy in subject classes and ‘Drop Everything And Read (DEAR)’
sessions for 30 minutes each week, Luton Futures (2015).
I have observed that most mornings at tutor time students are given
worksheets to complete that link to some of the 36 targets in the National
Literacy Strategy, QCA (1999). If they have an assembly, then some
literacy is included within the assembly such as reading a poem or other
material projected on a large screen. Teachers are encouraged to spend
extra time discussing and drawing out spelling, meaning and use in
sentences of keywords and new vocabulary in all subjects and to plan
opportunities for literacy in lessons. For example, in a computing lesson
to encourage students to type in sentences and paragraphs with correct
spelling and grammar. There are some conflicts here; sometimes you are
encouraged to have sentences pre-typed in spreadsheets and text files to
save time spent by students in typing in so as to progress learning on
subject curriculum aspects, while planning for students to type or think up
the sentences themselves would lead to progress in their literacy skills.
Each week the literacy co-ordinator picks a ‘word of the week’ and posters
are placed all over the school in corridors and classrooms letting everyone
know what this week’s word is. Students are encouraged to use this word
in their writing that week and to think of ‘wow sentences’ using this word.
Good practice is celebrated and displayed in the school reception area to

encourage others to reach for high achievement. This is an excellent
activity and all form tutors and subject teachers can encourage and assist
development of literacy in all students in small steady steps in this way. It
would be better perhaps if the exemplar ‘wow sentences’ displayed at
reception were changed more often to allow more students’ work to be
celebrated, increasing motivation for students to make their sentences
‘wower’!
Finally, the ‘Drop Everything And Read’ (DEAR) programme is mentioned
in the Luton Futures literacy policy but I have not witnessed or heard talk
of it happening. In my base school, each week, emails inform all staff
which period all students from a particular year group are to drop
everything and read silently for thirty minutes; as I have not been
included in the school email system due to the shortness of my
placement, I may have been out of the loop to know about these
activities.
I would suggest some additional activities that could encourage, motivate
and inspire students to improve their literacy skills and practice reading
and writing (for pleasure) much more. Firstly, comics and graphic novels
could encourage reading in boys; this may be a way of improving the
literacy skills of white working class boys as well as boys from Afro
Caribbean and Pakistani backgrounds. The short bursts of reading within
each speech or thought bubble accompanied by pictures makes it less
daunting and more pleasurable to read graphic novels than to read a
Penguin classic such as ‘Wuthering Heights’ for example. The library at
my base school contains a large number of graphic novels, especially
Japanese origin ‘Manga’ comic books that are translated into English and
seem to be very popular with teenagers today. I have seen some of these
in the second placement library too. Some schools in Enfield give graphic
novels as ‘prizes’ to students as an attempt to encourage reading. This is
something that could be beneficial at this school also.
A second activity is to encourage students to publish poetry and short
stories that they write in class or enter them into competitions. E-
publishing is relatively simple and a school supervised WordPress blog
that celebrates good work by students at the second placement school or
something wider through Luton Futures could allow students to express
themselves more freely and motivate students to work on literacy skills.
This might also include a wider understanding of literacy that can include
socio-cultural aspects of literacy, Freire & Macedon (1987) that can allow
students to delve beyond the rigid scripted curriculum, Lankshear &

Knobel (2003) as very well explained by the Afro-Caribbean poet, John
Agard in his Poem ‘Checking out me history’. In addition ‘Poetry Rivals’
hold competitions for poetry and short stories regularly around the year
and students can be encouraged to submit their work online; if they do
not win they may get their work published in a poetry anthology, leading
to greater self esteem, confidence and motivation to read and write and
perhaps a better general attitude to learning.
The Mayor of Enfield holds a writing competition every year, where
schools in the Borough enter short stories by their best students.
Teachers could organise something similar through Luton Futures or
Luton Council to inspire, encourage and allow students to excel in writing,
which should be accompanied by reading for pleasure.
One large area that is often cited as a barrier to literacy is Special
Educational Needs (SEN), QCA (1999). The most prominent of these has
been dyslexia, Pollak (2009) which makes it difficult for students to read
as letters appear jumbled up and blurred, especially if the font size is
small, the handwriting is unclear and black ink is used on white paper.
Simple recommendations to remove these barriers for dyslexic students
include using buff coloured paper or yellowish background for PowerPoint
slides, using Verdana Font (said to be the best font for dyslexic people) at
least size 12. Recent budget pressures mean that buff coloured paper
cannot always be used for worksheets and handouts, but it is easy to
change the paper colour for electronic documents. This practice needs to
be encouraged more on a whole school basis as currently I have seen
some teachers use it but not the majority. Another problem encountered
by dyslexic people is in organising, sequencing and structuring stories,
reports et cetera when writing. Computer software is available that can
record the voice of students and help them sequence and organise
information to overcome this problem, Brindley (2000)
Other groups include autistic spectrum students, those with Attention
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and students with visual or auditory
impairments and those with speech and communication problems. The
second placement school has a system of ‘pupil passports’ that include
detailed information for students marked in the School Information
Management System (SIMS) as having ‘Special Educational Needs’.
Reading these ‘passports’ helps in planning lessons and applying specific
solutions to remove the barriers to literacy that may affect particular
students. My second placement school specialises in Hearing Impairment
and there is a specialist Hearing Impairment Unit (HIU) at this school

which is used not only by students at this school but is accessed by
students from other schools in the borough. I have taken advantage of
contact with staff at the HIU to learn some signs in British Sign Language
(BSL) that may be useful within a classroom context and worked together
with specialist signers to create a set of videos which I have shared on
the internet for other teacher trainees/professionals to benefit from. This
may be viewed as part of the wider definition of literacy, Freire &
Macedon (1987) and Pahl & Rowsell (2012) beyond simply decoding
letters for meaning. McGlashon (2000) discusses several ICT based
solutions that can help each of these different SEN groups to overcome
their particular barriers to literacy. My Pupil Pursuit (see Appendix) looks
at a student with partial hearing impairment. The HIU at the second
placement school provides a specialist signer to help translate the key
phrases spoken by the Form Tutor at morning tutor times and in the
English teacher in English classes. Although my research did not show any
clear disadvantage in written output by the hearing impaired student
compared to the sound hearing student, it was not clear what the reason
is for the significant differences in verbal interaction between the two
students that were found. I cannot be sure if Teresa, the hearing impaired
student (not her real name) understood fully what the teacher and other
students are saying or just the gist of it. It may be that she is quiet in
class, not putting her hand up, not asking or answering questions or
contributing to class discussions because she does not understand the full
nuance of what is said but only the key words similar to an EAL student,
especially if the room is noisy, due to low level disruption. The fact that a
key worker is made available to her sometimes is an indication for this. If
she is similarly quiet at home than this may explain the discrepancy in the
confidence levels and verbal expression observed between Teresa and
Harriet, the sound hearing student observed in my Pupil Pursuit (see
Appendix). Ofsted (2011) found that encouraging parents to talk to and
sing to young children leads to better speaking and listening skills when
they start school and this is a foundation for them to learn to read
through phonics. A hearing impaired child may be among those children
who have speech development delays as identified by Ofsted (2011) and
therefore have lower confidence and ability in verbal communication and
interactions compared to a child with sound hearing who is confident in
speech and singing like Harriet in my Pupil Pursuit (see Appendix)
McGlashon (2000) talks about ICT solutions that have been around for at
least the last fifteen years, that could have been useful to Teresa, such as
software that can record speech and generate subtitles or BSL signs to
help hearing impaired students or software that can record sound and

feed it back to the student through a hearing loop or induction loop to
enhance the understanding of speech. A laptop could be issued by the
school to Teresa (some schools in Bedfordshire currently issue laptops to
all students) that contains similar software (except more up to date) that
can help her in all her lessons, McGlashon (2000), not just the ones
where the key worker from the Hearing Impairment Unit is present.
In order to burst through these barriers to literacy we need to solve two
major problems currently facing schools: one is the financial pressures
caused by the age of austerity and the second is the culture of suspicion,
confrontation and accusation that is preventing teachers (and students in
schools) from fully embracing the opportunities of social media, Web 2.0
and the forthcoming ‘Internet of Everything’.
How to Improve Literacy Learning in Computing Classes.
While politicians, parents and media editors hype up the crisis in literacy
with worries about children not being able to read, spell and write with
proper grammar and debate about which books should be studied in
GCSE English, a huge change is going on in the way young people use the
English language and in the way they communicate with each other on
the streets, in text messages, email, WhatsApp, Viber and online, posting
on the wall of a Facebook account or commenting on newspaper articles
and YouTube videos.
Pahl & Rowsell (2012) talk about ‘new literacies’ including ‘digital literacy’
as already included in the Computing curriculum by groups like
Computing At School (CAS). This is a broader understanding of what
literacy is than what was described in the National Literacy Strategy, QCA
(1999). While teachers in computing departments understand the
implications of this and many are ready to let their students grab this bull
by the horn, my seven months of mingling with teachers in the two
schools has sensed a cautionary fear of the newest possibilities of digital
media. While teachers are wise to be careful when handling social media,
not to take part in it is not a sustainable option. The opportunities in
sharing information, worksheets, tools and just being part of the
multimodal global connectivity phenomenon described by Pahl & Rowsell
(2012) are immense. Sites like the Times Educational Supplement (TES),
Quizlet, BBC BiteSize, YacaPaca, Memrise, The Khan Academy and
Brightstorm offer additional tools, resources and revision videos, quizzes
and games to help teachers plan lessons and students consolidate
classroom learning and prepare for assessments. Not to mention the
millions of educational videos on YouTube. Even FaceBook has many

educational sites that can be useful for the older careful user (FaceBook
has a minimum age of 13, as does YouTube).
There is a digital divide between those who do not know how to read in
this wider sense and those who do. This divide for some is because of lack
of connectivity, lack of electricity or lack of finance to get the latest
device, while others are keeping away from this because of lack of time
(overworked teachers),or narrow focus on one overall score for the league
tables, Earl et al(2003). Pahl & Rowsell (2012) include students playing
video games as a type of literacy. Others consider taking popular music
and bringing it into the classroom as a kind of literacy, Lankshear &
Knobel (2003); in my Pupil Pursuit (see Appendix) I had tallied Harriet
singing in class as ‘misbehaviour’ and indeed she was told off for it by the
PSHE and English class teachers! On the other hand in Film Studies and
ICT, students are encouraged to walk around the school filming and then
to listen to songs with headphones to select soundtrack samples for their
‘digital literacy’ coursework. Schools are still in two minds regarding the
use of headphones in class, computing or otherwise. Some teachers allow
it as they believe it calms the student who produces more work in
computing; some school policies blanketly ban it! In Primary schools
music is played to children while they write to improve creativity. In short
what I am trying to convey is that in the subject of computing, the idea of
literacy cannot be measured by reading age or CAT score, as there are
many ways of being computer literate. Graphical programming in ‘Kodu’ is
conducted by pointing and clicking, with very few words being involved.
The playing of ‘Minecraft’ is considered as preparation for learning to
program computers! Other games like Sid Meier’s ‘Civilisation’ series and
Microsoft’s ‘Age of Empires’ series can be considered an education in
world history, science, technology, military tactics, economics and politics.
Social media sites such as Twitter, FaceBook and Instagram can be
thought of as dangerous ground for cyber-bullying, radicalisation or a slip
of the tongue that leads to sacking; or it can be a tool for social change,
seeking justice, publishing poetry and prose or winning elections. What is
needed is for computing departments to create courses that can
teach students and teachers the new rules of etiquette and the
boundaries of internet rules, governance and security pitfalls as
well as tips and advice for producing content that will engage
interest and inspire global audiences.
This is the opportunity for computing departments to enhance skills in the
‘new literacy’ as well as providing the traditional software support for SEN

students to remove barriers to achieving well in the ‘old literacy’ that is
measured by league tables. Think about what Terry Deary, a former
teacher turned author and TV presenter has done for history lessons with
his ‘Horrible Histories’ graphic books, cartoons and now TV series! History
is no longer dreary, but children learn while laughing and retain facts for
far longer.

References:
Brindley, S. (2000) ICT and Literacy. in Gamble, N. & Easingwood, N.
[Eds] (2000) ICT and Literacy: Information and Communications
Technology, Media, Reading and Writing. London Continuum.
Earl, L., Watson, N., Levin, B., Leithwood, K. Fullan, M., Torrance,
N. Jantzi, D., Mascall. B. & Volant, L. (2003) Watching and Learning
3. Final Report of the External Evaluation of England’s National Literacy
and Numeracy Strategies. Nottingham. DfES.
Freire, P. & Macedo, D. (1987) Literacy: Reading the Word and the
World. South Hadley,MA. Bergin & Garvey cited in Lankshear, C. &
Knobel, M. (2003) New Literacies. Changing Knowledge and Classroom
Learning. Buckingham. Open University Press.
Knapp, M.S. & Woolverton, S. (1995) Social Class and Schooling.
[Online] http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED382725 [Accessed: 1 April 2015]
Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2003) New Literacies. Changing
Knowledge and Classroom Learning. Buckingham. Open University Press.
Luton Futures (2015) Literacy. [Online]
http://lutonfutures.co.uk/index.php/learning/literacy/ [Accessed: 1 April
2015]
McGlashon, A. (2000) Special Educational Needs and New Literacies. in
Gamble, N. & Easingwood, N. [Eds] (2000) ICT and Literacy: Information
and Communications Technology, Media, Reading and Writing. London
Continuum.
National Literacy Trust (2006) Rose Review, [Online]
www.literacytrust.org.uk/assets/0000/1175/Rose_Review.pdf.
[Accessed: 1 April 2015]
Ofsted (2010) Reading by six: how the best schools do it. [Online]
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da
ta/file/379097/Summary_20-_20Reading_20by_20six.pdf [Accessed: 1
April 2015]

Ofsted (2011) Removing Barriers to Literacy. Ofsted Jan 2011.[Online]
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/removing-barriers-to-
literacy. [Accessed: 1 April 2015]
Pahl, K. & Rowsell, J. (2012) Literacy and Education. Second Edition.
London. Sage.
Pollak, D. (2009) The Self Concept and Dyslexia. in Soler, J., Fletcher-
Campbell, F. & Reid, G. [Eds] (2009) Understanding Difficulties in Literacy
Development: Issues and Concepts. Milton Keynes. The Open University
Press.
Powling, C., Ashley, B., Pullman, P., Fine, A. & Gavin, J. (2003)
Meeting with the Minister. Five Children’s authors on the National Literacy
Strategy. Reading. National Centre for Language and Literacy.
Qualification & Curriculum Authority (1999) Target Setting and
Assessment in the National Literacy Strategy. London. QCA Publications.
Turner, J., & Paris, S. G. (1995). How literacy tasks influence children's
motivation for literacy. The Reading Teacher, 48(8), 662-673.

Bibliography:
Earl, L., Watson, N., Levin, B., Leithwood, K. Fullan, M., Torrance,
N. Jantzi, D., Mascall. B. & Volant, L. (2003) Watching and Learning
3. Final Report of the External Evaluation of England’s National Literacy
and Numeracy Strategies. Nottingham. DfES.
Gamble, N. & Easingwood, N. [Eds] (2000) ICT and Literacy:
Information and Communications Technology, Media, Reading and
Writing. London Continuum.
Knapp, M.S. & Woolverton, S. (1995) Social Class and Schooling.
[Online] http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED382725 [Accessed: 1 April 2015]
Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2003) New Literacies. Changing
Knowledge and Classroom Learning. Buckingham. Open University Press.
Luton Futures (2015) Literacy. [Online]
http://lutonfutures.co.uk/index.php/learning/literacy/ [Accessed: 1 April
2015]
National Literacy Trust (2006) Rose Review, [Online]
www.literacytrust.org.uk/assets/0000/1175/Rose_Review.pdf.
[Accessed: 1 April 2015]
Ofsted (2010) Reading by six: how the best schools do it. [Online]
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da
ta/file/379097/Summary_20-_20Reading_20by_20six.pdf [Accessed: 1
April 2015]
Pahl, K. & Rowsell, J. (2012) Literacy and Education. Second Edition.
London. Sage.
Powling, C., Ashley, B., Pullman, P., Fine, A. & Gavin, J. (2003)
Meeting with the Minister. Five Children’s authors on the National Literacy
Strategy. Reading. National Centre for Language and Literacy.

Soler, J., Fletcher-Campbell, F. & Reid, G. [Eds] (2009)
Understanding Difficulties in Literacy Development: Issues and Concepts.
Milton Keynes. The Open University Press.
Turner, J., & Paris, S. G. (1995). How literacy tasks influence children's
motivation for literacy. The Reading Teacher, 48(8), 662-673.

Appendix
Pupil Pursuit: Barriers to Literacy
Word Count (1,079)
Introduction
Looking at the literature on barriers to literacy, learning disabilities such
as dyslexia, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), speech
delays, visual and hearing impairment are listed among the causes that
prevent children from reaching the National target of Level 4 in literacy
skills at the end of Key Stage 2, QCA (1999) and McGlashon (2000). I
decided to observe one of the hearing impaired students, Teresa (not her
real name) and another student, Harriet (not her real name) matched by
gender, ethnicity and Cognitive Ability Test (CAT) scores at the end of Key
Stage 2, but with sound hearing.
Hypothesis
I would observe the two students in class to see how they interacted with
the teacher and other students, looking particularly at their attitude to
learning, contributions to class discussions including asking questions and
the amount of written work produced in class. My reasoning is that Teresa
would find it more difficult to understand what the teacher is saying or to
follow class discussions due to her partial hearing impairment and to the
likelihood of the class being noisy. As a result she would engage less in
class discussions, produce less written work and may also get told off by
the teacher more for being off task.
So my hypothesis was:
“Students with hearing impairment will find it more difficult to
understand what is being said in class and therefore:
1. contribute less verbally;
2. produce less written work;
3. and be off task more
than students with sound hearing.”
The Chosen Students
I chose to follow two students from year 10. Both of them were ‘Black-
African’ in ethnicity and both were girls. Neither of the girls were EAL (had
English as an Additional Language) or FSM (receiving Free School Meals).
They were both of similar abilities in literacy at the end of primary schools
with Verbal CAT Scores of 84(Teresa) and 85 (Harriet). Teresa had
partial hearing impairment and Harriet was with sound hearing. I
was fortunate to be able to find two students that were so similarly

matched in order to have a fair test of the outcomes I intended to
measure in class (see above). Teresa had the help of a BSL specialist in
the English lesson (the last lesson of the week). There was no additional
support in any of the other lessons.
Method of Observation
Each of the girls were observed on a separate Friday, in order to meet
both objectives of making the observations as similar as possible so that
extraneous variables affect the results as little as possible as well as
organising the observations so the teaching timetables for the department
are not disrupted. I would seek the permission of the teacher of each
class to ‘observe a couple of students in your class...’ and then find
somewhere to sit at the back of the class. I would not talk or interact with
anyone during the lesson and I would not let either the teacher, student
being observed or anyone else in the school know who I was observing
other than myself and my mentor in order to avoid behaviour being
changed as a result of me observing the class. I had a check-list prepared
in advance with expected relevant behaviours listed and I tallied how
many times each behaviour was displayed by the target student, taking
care that no one noticed who I was observing.
Ethical Issues
Ethical issues I had to consider were the balancing and outweighing of the
moral rights of the student being observed to know and consent to the
observation, Barnard (1998) and the chance that if the student knows
than she might behave differently to how she normally behaves.
Similarly, I sought permission from the teachers to observe and have
access to their classroom, telling them that I wanted to observe some
students but did not tell them which student and why. Barnard (1998)
argues that this is unethical and the teacher has a right to know the
correct purpose of observing her class; on the other hand if the teacher
was given this information before the observation, this might have
affected the teacher’s behaviour towards that student and therefore give
a false idea of what normally happens. In outweighing and balancing
these conflicting considerations, it was decided to not give any
information to the student being observed or ask consent from the
student and to ask consent from the teacher, informing her/him that I
was observing students in the class without to specify which student(s) or
why beforehand, with a resolve to provide this information after the
observation has been completed if the teacher asks, but not otherwise. I
believe this was justified in the interests of achieving as naturalistic an
observation as possible.

Results
The results of the observation have been collated and are shown in the
table below:
Behaviour Hearing Impaired Sound Hearing
Off task 2 16
Talking to partner 27 94
Contribution to class
discussion
7 15
Asked Question 3 19
Other Misbehaviour 5 14
Told off by teacher 0 14
Written work produced Above average Above average
Conclusion
As can be seen from the table above, the sound hearing student was off
task more, talked more, contributed to class discussion more, asked more
questions and even misbehaved more. The written output quantity was
above average for the class for both girls.
Evaluation
Based on the results my hypothesis was wrong on two points and correct
on one of the points. It was found that the student with sound hearing did
contribute more to class discussions and generally was more confident
talking in class, whether it was asking relevant questions or misbehaving
(e.g. singing or talking out of turn/ having side conversations). The
observation study was not suitable for judging the quality of written
output only the quantity of written output compared to other members of
the class was possible to be judged without unmasking the nature of the
observation. It was found that there was no difference in the written
output of the two girls.
Although more research and thought is required to understand these
results, the sound hearing student being more confident and or skilled in
verbal communication is consistent with findings by Ofsted (2011)
perhaps as a result of parents talking and singing to their children from a
young age resulting in these children’s skills and confidence in these
areas being more developed. Other issues such as personality, differences
in parenting and discipline may have also affected the results.
References:
Barnard, R. (1998) Classroom observation: Some ethical implications.
Modern English Teacher, 7(4), 49-55.

McGlashon, A. (2000) Special Educational Needs and New Literacies. in
Gamble, N. & Easingwood, N. [Eds] (2000) ICT and Literacy: Information
and Communications Technology, Media, Reading and Writing. London.
Continuum.
Bibliography:
Barnard, R. (1998) Classroom observation: Some ethical implications.
Modern English Teacher, 7(4), 49-55.
Gamble, N. & Easingwood, N. [Eds] (2000) ICT and Literacy:
Information and Communications Technology, Media, Reading and
Writing. London. Continuum.
Ofsted (2011) Removing Barriers to Literacy. Ofsted Jan 2011. [Online]

Oldandnewliteracies

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Oldandnewliteracies

Similar to Oldandnewliteracies (20)

Oldandnewliteracies