Raising Literacy Levels With Collaborative On-Site Professional Development in an

Kennedy and Shiel (2010) conducted a study over a two year period in a disadvantaged school in Dublin, Ireland. The teachers sought to equip themselves ‘with a repertoire of strategies, tools, and methodologies from which they could choose and which would enable them to make critical decisions on what was appropriate for their particular context and for the particular stages of development of their students’ (Kennedy and Shiel, 2010, p. 373). A multifaceted collaborative professional development programme, that was sensitive to the specific needs of the school, was implemented in the school during this time. Following consultation with the staff, it was decided to begin the change process with the four first-grade classes (56 students: 25 boys, 31 girls), their class and support teachers, and their parents, and continue with these classes into second grade. A ‘key element of the change process was the nature of the relationship between the facilitator (a teacher educator) and the participants’ (Kennedy and Shiel, 2010, p. 374). It involved a collaborative partnership whereby the teachers and the facilitator worked cooperatively to discover what could work in the school context. A range of data was gathered, pupils’ strengths and weaknesses were identified and the facilitator and teachers ‘negotiated and prioritized the first steps in the change process’ (2010, p. 374). It was decided to introduce a daily 30-minute writing workshop with ‘the goals of supporting students to articulate their ideas further, motivating students to view writing as purposeful, and moving those writing at a semi-phonetic level to a phonetic level’ (2010, p. 374). There was sustained, intensive on-site professional development over the two school years. This included professional development in which a new aspect of literacy was explored, debate around the professional readings that teachers had engaged in, examination of pupils’ work and test results, planning for implementation of changes and reaction to new methods already tried. The professional readings were provided to ‘enhance teachers’ content knowledge in alphabetics, comprehension, vocabulary, fluency, and writing and supporting teachers in combining these elements into a balanced literacy framework suitable for their context’ (2010, p. 376). Another

element of the programme, at the request of teachers, was demonstration of lessons by the facilitator. At three points in the intervention, observation of classroom practices was conducted. The professional dialogue that occurred following demonstrations and observations served to ‘strengthen the collaborative nature of the intervention’ (2010, p. 378). There was an ongoing focus on assessment during the intervention.

On the whole the intervention was very successful. There was increased expertise and stronger self-efficacy on the part of the teachers. The school had developed as a professional learning community; the teachers reported having higher expectations and were teaching a cognitively challenging curriculum. In relation to the students there were improvements in motivation and engagement in relation to literacy activities. There was also evidence that students were using more strategic approaches to reading and writing and performance in standardized reading tests had also improved. Kennedy and Shiel (2010) conclude that there were many crucial factors involved in this intervention to ‘create the conditions that contributed to the observed gains in achievement, motivation, and engagement of the students and facilitated the changes observed in teachers and in the instructional programme for literacy’ (2010, p. 381). Without a doubt the nature of the collaboration between the facilitator and the teachers and the phased introduction of the balanced literacy framework were of critical importance. ‘The sustained, on-site, multifaceted professional development enhanced teacher expertise and opened up new ways of working with students’ (2010, p. 381). The professional readings, the planned meetings, the demonstrations all gave teachers the confidence to experiment with their teaching. The balanced literacy framework allowed for the development of students’ creativity and offered choice and control over activities and this balanced literacy framework is recommended by Kennedy et al. (2012) in their report for the NCCA. In this intervention teachers adopted a facilitative role, scaffolding and coaching students in applying word-identification and comprehension strategies. Reading and writing were promoted at home. Kennedy and Shiel

(2010) maintain that the success of the intervention ‘created a school dynamic and sense that there was much that could be done to enhance achievement and contributed to a school vision in which all staff focused on the goal of not only enhancing achievement but also developing students as readers and writers who could use literacy as a tool for personal goals’ (2010, p. 381). This statement aligns with the National Literacy Strategy’s (DES, 2011) aspirations that students develop their literacy skills that they will need to ‘participate fully in the education system, to live satisfying and rewarding lives, and to participate as active and informed citizens in our society’ (DES, 2011, p. 7).

The sustained support led by the University was a major factor in the success of this collaboration, as one teacher reported ‘our knowledge has gone up one million percent’ (Mary, classroom teacher, 2010, p. 376). Mary (2010, p. 372) also commented that the most important resource at all times during the intervention in the classroom was the teacher and that the University had invested so much in the teachers – in up-skilling them and that even if they moved to another school they were trained so well that they could implement any of the strategies. The study also shows that there is no quick fix to the problem of underachievement in literacy but that a multifaceted approach to raising achievement, such as this intervention, is a possibility for the Department of Education to consider implementing (Kennedy and Shiel, 2010, pp. 381-382).

In the next section I discuss findings from the Growing Up in Ireland study in relation to literacy experiences of young children.